The topic that has really inflamed #rangerstwitter the past day or so was the scratching of Pavel Buchnevich on Sunday against the Golden Knights. Buch’s demotion from the first to fourth line Saturday against the Coyotes was viewed by many as a portend if things to come. That prophesy proved accurate when the 22-year old Russian winger sat for Vinni Lettieri with Mats Zuccarello, scratched with an illness Saturday, was back in the lineup.
Sitting Buch in and of itself angered the fan base. But what really set them off was the lack of a real explanation for the move and the failure of the team’s beat writers to push for a true answer. Instead, we got what was at best a bad answer and maybe even a dismissive one.
AV on why Buchnevich & Smith was scratched, "I just felt that for the tonight it was the right thing to do and I wanted to get Kampf in here for some time. On back to back nights, I just wanted to get him back in the lineup."
Follow up must be asked on why Buchnevich, "analyzing our different lines, I wasn't sure if Zuccy was going to play so I felt that for tonight it was the right thing to do."
As I wrote yesterday, the follow up to the original follow up should have been very simple, why? Get a real reason as to why he was scratched. What AV provided is nothing and beat writers or someone should have pressed further, they got nothing worthwhile.
We got no answer and that’s what annoys us. The rhetoric of AV hating young players or foreigners was raised again. I am not a believer in either but AV does take a while to warm to and trust the kids. What we have seen in Kreider and Miller and Hayes is that each was benched in situations that maybe didn’t call for sitting but each handled it well and proved they deserved more time. Maybe that is the case here.
What AV gave us as answer told us nothing. It would be mildly easier to deal with if a real response was provided and that also doesn’t mean saying Buch didn’t play a 200-foot game. Indicate why he was scratched. Maybe he is not in the right place on the ice and the same mistakes have been made repeatedly. It’s possible that he failed in a slot or neutral zone coverage. However, none of those reasons were provided, instead we got a non-answer.
Buch’s production is down from the start of the season. But that has been the case throughout the lineup, so why single out one player. He has the best or one of the best offensive instincts in the whole squad. His advanced metrics - for those that believe or at least mildly subscribe to them - show a player still generating high-danger scoring chances. However, I will also say that from the eye test, at times it looks like the effort is lacking, though that may be his style. Buch just make everything look easier than it really is. So his lack of perceived effort is more effort than others expend but others may look like they are giving more, which sounds a lot like the relationship between Alexei Kovalev and the Rangers. But when Brett Cyrgalis in the Post (https://t.co/MHG0xM848h) tells us “there is very little reason to lose composure” over Buchnevich’s scratch Sunday night but also doesn’t tell us why we shouldn’t be, it solidifies and provided credence to AV not giving us any answer. (Addendum: I like Cyrgalis and Zipay and Tasch and Brooks all do a fine job, so do not take the below as a blanket criticism of their work, just an explanation as to the difficulties of it).
Beat writers do not have an easy job. Part of their livelihood is dependent on access. That access and to a certain extent openness can be restricted if the organization or coach believes that the writer has it in for the team as a whole. The power of the print organization, be it the News, Post, Newsday etc. and the league will help keep those restrictions to a minimum. But to think that access could not be restricted or scaled back is just fooling ourself. Notwithstanding the above, the beat writers have a responsibility to impart the news. That transmission will always have a personal take, which as we have in the case of Brooks can either be pro-team, viewed as a writer getting the organization’s message out there, or, as we saw in the case of Torts, expressing his own agenda.
As a “basement writer,” tongue firmly in cheek, there is a to a sense a certain amount of anonymity and especially detachment. I and my brethren don’t need to face and see the coach or player daily where what we write is remembered and impacts those relationships. But the beat writer should not pander to the team or minimize/water down his opinion to maintain that access. Easier said than done and maybe just a lofty goal, because agendas usually have a tendency of getting in the way and creating additional difficulties. I am not saying that’s the case here. If you compare how Torts was to the media to the way AV interacts with them, it’s easier not to push with AV because he is more disarming by being friendly while Torts was argumentative and dismissive. That manner of interaction could allow the writer to psychologically not further question a move when additional follow up is required.
This argument - both of Buch and the beat writer versus the blogger -isn’t going away anytime soon. What’s the right answer? I am not 100% sure but transparency, especially on the former by the latter sure would help.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»