« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
Whole lot of shakin’ going on - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:
But, no worries. Joe Thornton did not pick up the phone, call his agent/brother and demand to be traded someplace where the ground does not do things like that. Nor did anyone else, though Craig Rivet’s wife apparently was ready to pull up newly planted stakes until he talked her out of another franchise change.
james mirtle: 30 games, 30 nights - A hockey journalist's blog:
This man is our hero.
I wish this poor sucker all the luck. It's a laudible, if rather insane, goal.
Laurie and I once did a major roadtrip into minor league baseball -- 13 games in 10 cities in 21 days driving from Cupertino to Edmonton and back. And while overall we loved the journey and saw some really neat stuff (and lousy baseball), there were also moments. Like sitting in a Motel 6 in Helena watching the thunderstorm coming in while waiting for the laundry to finish, eating bad chinese food and wondering why the hell we were there.
But they were eclipsed by the really great nights and really great people. but man, this kind of thing is a grind, and not having off days (when do you DO LAUNDRY?) isn't going to help, even if you're flying parts of it.
(That was not the worst chinese of the trip... that was somewhere in, I think, Idaho, where when Laurie ordered the veggie plate, it came deep fried...).
If they finish this, and thrive, and still remotely like hockey after -- well, we salute you. Well, we'll salute them anyway, but if they survive, they deserve a beer or four. If 30 days of hockey doesn't kill the taste for beer.
james mirtle: Reebok responds - A hockey journalist's blog:
Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of a single instance where a player has said he preferred the new jersey.
True but.... One has to remember (or only look at hockey bloggers to be reminded) that positives are rarely stated, but complaints are legion. Good news is more likely kept to oneself or transmitted privately -- complaints are posted to every blog in the universe, and amplified until they drown out all of the positives.
So you can't take the lack of affirmations by players -- especially in the press, which amplifies the bad when it's not creating controversy out of nothing -- as meaningful here. In fact, if players WERE coming out to support the new uniforms, if the press bothered to report those facts, bloggers would simply step and and deny it as being something coerced out of the players by Reebok, the league and their teams. Except for those special bloggers who would blame Bettman for forcing them to do it personally.
And in fact, they might even be right that some folks in the hierarchy would feel some measure of support might be necessary. So if the players do start coming out to support the uniforms, it's wise to not believe them too much at this point. Although I doubt it's as bad as some of the "all life is controversy" journalists and bloggers want to make it.
It's clear there are problems with the uniforms and some people are seriously unhappy with them, and I think it's clear that the league and Rebook screwed up by not field-testing these more by using the AHL or ECHL for a season or two before rolling them out. I don't think any of that is in question. Whether it's as bad as some of the usual anti-league anti-bettman, anti-everything crew wants it to be and moans that it is, I doubt it, but that won't stop them, will it?
Tom Benjamin's NHL Weblog: Never the Fan's Fault:
Bunk. Whatever the Leaf problems - and I don't think they are as bad as the Toronto media makes out - none of them can be laid at the feet of the fan. The fan can't do anything about the fact that corporations will buy all the tickets win or lose, and the fan can't force the league to put another team in southern Ontario.
Furthermore, while the Leafs may make a ton of money with a mediocre team, they would make much more with a Stanley Cup Champion. Even if that was not the case, the hockey people hired want to win just as much as the hockey people in every other city. Perhaps more, simply because the pressure in that market is so unrelenting. Finally, I don't think anyone can accuse the Leafs of being unwilling to invest. If anything they have been too willing to spend money over the years. They haven't necessarily spent wisely, but they have spent.
I almost want to agree with Tom here, but there are a couple of problems with his assumptions here.
First problem: corporations may well buy most of the seats, but someone inside that corporation is making the decision to buy them and is allocating the money to pay for them. And that person is very likely a FAN, or they would be spending the money somewhere else. Corporate spending starts with a fan who decides to do the spending, because it's a lot more fun to get their company to pay for the tickets than paying for them directly.
Second problem: there have been studies in baseball (I'll try to find references, I don't have them handy) that show that the MOST PROFITABLE teams tend to be teams with really strong fan bases who play .500ish baseball but never spend the money to go out and Win The Big One. Two words: Chicago Cubs.
And the Chicago Cubs are a great analogy for the Leafs, because of the real core of the second problem with what Tom says: it's true that the hockey people hired want desperately to win -- but the people that hire them want to make money. In Chicago, it's the Tribune, in Toronto, it's the Teacher's Pension plan. And if you look at both organizations, the "Hockey people" and "baseball people" in management tend to turn over fairly frequently, because they come in thinking they can fix the organization, and they quickly learn that their bosses don't really want them to, because it'd cost money....
I think you're seeing similar problems with Sather in Edmonton -- After years of buying in expensive free agents who didn't perform well enough, he finally started to restructure the team towards home-built youth and good drafting, and you saw that team really improve. And this year? Way overpaid for some free agents and they're struggling again. Back to the Good Old (or Bad Old) Rangers. Not because Sather went senile again, but, I think, because his uber-bosses told him they wanted "names" to market around, and that was more important than actually winning hockey games. New York is, after all, a Marquee city, and when you have a Marquee, you need Marquee names.
So I wouldn't be suprised if Sather left New York fairly soon. He tried to fix the team, and then something made him go off and start buying expensive free agents again. I don't think that was Sather's idea, either, although he won't say so.
Players Need to Take Responsibility:
“There’s always talk about a lack of respect [among NHL players],” Ference added, “but the biggest question is if guys understand how much trust is involved in playing hockey – trust between you and your opponent.
If you ask me, the "Players Need to Take Responsibility" mantra is bogus. The history of the league is full of players who's career was based on not having respect for other players. Stop to think that of the old-timers who talk about "respect" and the "good old days" you have Bobby Clarke, the guy who once broke an opponent's ankle on purpose, and Phil Esposito, who when he's not talking about players needing to respect each other on XM radio, is telling stories of fondly remembered players from the old days who's specialties included enthusiastic stickwork (especially to opponent's groin area or head) and guys who used their elbows as weapons of mass destruction.
Now, having said that, respect between players is an important aspect of the game, but the reality is, there have always been a subset of players who's job is was to "stir it up", or disrupt the game -- or simply didn't care what happened to someone on the other team.
After all, esposito loves to talk about the Good Old Days when players on different teams didn't talk to each other -- and some who carry the grudge forward to today. And teams that has to take turns in the dining cars on the trains to avoid the inevitable fights.
When was the last time you heard about two NHL players fighting outside of a game environment, anyway? Yet for some reason, the old days had a higher level of respect than today does. Hmm. Selective memory, perhaps? Perhaps.
the problem isn't respect, although that's the word people are using. The problem is that there are (and always have been) players who's job depended on them being willing to stretch (or ignore) the rules -- and beyond that, we have to remember that the teams are judged based on winning, and players are giving jobs based on their willingness and ability to make teams win, and frankly a player that isn't willing to do "whatever is necessary" to win is a player looking for a job. A player that puts "respect" above helping his team win is likely an ex-player.
That's why the league gives out the Lady Byng with an embarassed smile every year. Because Sportsmanship is a nice concept, but winning games is what counts. And Sportsmanship often gets in the way of winning.
Now, I'm all for the NHLPA getting involved with teaching players to be more respectful (or more correctly, more AWARE) of the implications of the kinds of dirty hits going on -- but until that kind of play hurts a team's ability to win, this is all nudge-wink land. Players will talk the talk, teams will talk the talk, the league will talk the talk, and when the whistle blows and the game starts, players of marginal talent will go out and push the envelope (and yes, I'm talking about you, Jordin Tootoo) and if someone gets hurt, well, that's someone else's problem, because the alternative is Tootoo not having a job in the NHL (and an NHL paycheck).
So you can talk about players learning to respect each other -- maybe Bobby Clarke can give a few lectures here -- but until the league structures the rules and penalties so that it's in the team's best interest to "encourage" it's players to cut it out, it's simple: they won't.
For the record: the Downie suspension is a great start. The league needs to keep it up. I'd also like to see the league suspend that roster spot, too. That would DEFINITELY get the team's interest in a way simply suspending the player won't. Once you do that, you can bet Coaches will get involved in "teaching respect" and GMs will be more careful to sign "respectful" players. Until then -- it's all talk, because if it helps your team win, then that's what REALLY matters.
(and that's frankly how it SHOULD be; which is why the rules and enforcement need to be structured so that the best way to win is to win with respect. If it's not within the rules, it ain't gonna happen)
TSN : NHL - Canada's Sports Leader:
Davison, who is sidelined with a finger injury, has no points in five games this season.
Clowe, who left Saturday's game in Columbus with a right ankle injury, has picked up three goals, six points and 20 penalty minutes in 11 games.
The Sharks recalled forwards Devin Setoguchi and Lukas Kaspar from Worcester of the American Hockey League to take the available roster spots.
I've been waiting to see Setoguchi play since the season started. It's good he's getting a chance, it's not so good it's because of injuries. But something's got to happen to shake this team out of it's funk -- it's playing .500 hockey, which is better than falling into a the black abyss -- but this team clearly isn't clicking. I'm not entirely sure what's missing, except that it's (a) not coaching, (b) not the defense, and (c) not the goaltending.
Which leaves, I guess, the forwards. And given that Wilson's been playing Davison at forward when he's in reality a defenseman, that gives you a little hint that the coach isn't exactly happy with the forwards, either. Especially Marcel Goc. Cheechoo is normally a slow starter, but he's not impressing me at all. Right now, he looks more like Jeff Odgers.
Clowe, Davison out; Setoguchi, Kaspar in - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:
that means two Sharks rookies who had strong training camps will be making their NHL debut Monday night in Dallas.
Forwards Devin Setoguchi and Lukas Kaspar joined the team from Worcester in time for a noon practice at a suburban Dallas rink today. Setoguchi skated on a line with Torrey Mitchell and Patrick Rissmiller, while Kaspar was out on the ice with Patrick Marleau and Steve Bernier.
The other lines? Michalek-Thornton-Roenick and Pavelski-Goc-Cheechoo.
Jeremy Roenick with Thornton surprises the hell out of me, but can you name a player on the Sharks this season that more deserves it from his play? I have my hat. I have my salt shaker. And if Roenick is interested, given I know he's a huge wine geek, if he drops me a note, I have a little something from British Columbia he might like. He's earned it, too.
God, going into this season I never thought I'd say I was happy the Sharks were playing .500 hockey -- not because it's great, but because it could be so much worse, and it's not. At least the team is giving itself time to solve itself. But my guess is time is running out before Doug Wilson starts seriously tinkering and working to fix it FOR them.
Tom Benjamin's NHL Weblog: No, No, It's not a Fiasco:
Update: I agree with Matt Fenwick's assertion in this post about the subject. This kind of fiasco would not happen if decision making was decentralized. I also agree that centralizing kills innovation. This train, however, left the station a long time ago. Reebok is prepared to pay a premium for exclusivity. Centralizing may not make for the best equipment, but it makes for the most money.
Even centralized, this did not have to be a fiasco.
This argument is specious. Decentralized decisions is what gave Chicago their fabulous home TV coverage, and is what's allowing some canadian teams to move games to pay per view. It also brought us those famous third jersey designs by Anaheim and Boston.
The reality is, jersey specifications and vendors have been centralized decisions for decades. Teams at best might have had a choice of one of two vendors, but generally, there was only one vendor for jerseys, and a limited/approved number of vendors for pants, socks, helmets, pads, gloves, skates and etc.
The Reebok situation isn't new, other than it's a new vendor making some significant changes, and it's not working as well as it could have. Oh, and it's a great excuse for Tom to once again blame Bettman for something, since we all know Bettman is at fault for everything bad in the unverse including preventing release of the cure for the common cold.
Now, having said that, the league did screw up big time here; these jerseys should have spent a year in the AHL or ECHL being field tested. The testing they did clearly wasn't sufficient for such a radical change.
But that's a failure of process -- not a league vs. team issue. Except in Tom's mind, where everything bad is the league's fault, because by definition the league is Bettman and Bettman isn't qualified to dress himself in Tom's mind. Or maybe qualified isn't the word. As far as I can tell, Tom doesn't seem to think Bettman's capable of dressing himself.
Which is too bad, because Bettman DOES have his faults, but Tom, and the people like him, go so far into la-la land ot blame bettman for everything including global warming that it's hard to take them seriously -- even when they have a point.
Kris Draper Set to Sign Extension - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog:
Good news for Wings fans, then, that Draper appears to be set to sign an extension that ensures he will never wear another team's uniform.
Well earned, well deserved. Well done.
The Sharks won the game against Nashville, but to be frank about it, they really didn't deserve it. First period was beyond flat, the only saving grace being Nabokov, who kept the game close. They improved as the game went on, but we'll chalk this one up to a steal for Nabokov. Can't complain, the sharks need a few of those, too.
Roenick continues to impress me, and was playing on the Thornton line much of the night. Cheechoo is working hard but accomplishing little right now. He'll get there, but he's visiting the fourth line a lot right now.
Three stars in the building: Nabokov, Roenick, Torrey Mitchell, who continues to look nice. My three stars were Nabokov, Roenick and Grier, who was the only shark that seemed to be accomplishing much at times.
Goc was a healthy scratch. Rob Davison dressed as a 7th D, played some D, played some forward. Both teams were fairly grumpy, almost as if they carried a grudge or something. Wonder why?
Tonight was also weird bounce night, with lots of pucks going off stanchions in random directions. For once, most of he weird bounces seemed to benefit the sharks. It was also a two pane of glass evening, with one cracked pane going out during the 2nd period, and a 2nd pane changed out before the third period started.
two points; I'll take it, even if it wasn't pretty. and it wasn't pretty.
KuklasKorner : Canucks and Beyond : Must NHL Players Be Puppets?:
In short, when a hockey player expresses a personal opinion that offends anybody at all, there’s an attitude that it should be kept behind closed doors; that he’s undermining the team somehow.
That's because -- well -- it does. Or at least, can.
This subject really deserves a longer, deeper discussion, but I tend to think that people who don't "get" this sort of thing didn't spend much time in a locker room in a competitive league.
For a team to function to its potential, the members of that team have to buy into the idea of "what's best for the team". Think about some of the catch phrases you hear out of athletes and coaches all of the time: "I have my role", "we have to follow the system", "do what's best for the team" etc.
That's not just cliche (but it IS cliche, as well!) -- it's what makes a team work. Players have to commit to the best interests of the team OVER their own personal best interest. As a simple example, do you honestly think any sane player PREFERs laying down and blocking shots when they could be scoring goals? You really think fighters prefer playing six minutes a night and fighting?
So when a player then "breaks rank" (notice the military symbolism here -- the dynamics of a sporting team and a military organization are quite similar here; both are structured so encourage individuals to bond with their team and work to the team's ultimate benefit over personal benefit, on the assumption that the individuals gain benefit from the success of the team, for some larger good), what message is that sending? That this player isn't part of the team, is above the team, hasn't committed to the team.
Well, heck, that does kinda sound like Kovalev his entire career, no? Oh, never mind.
But speaking out can cause problems. If you think about it, even a noted loose cannon like Brett Hull tended to include himself is in commentary on the team ("we suck! Oh god, do we suck!"), but more so, he tended to speak at league issues and maintain the players vs. teams dynamic. And yes, Hull did get himself in deep, too, and not all of the teams he was on functioned well as a team. the question that would need to be asked was whether his public outbursts were because the team wasn't committed to itself, or whether it caused that, and what might have been said privately before he chose to take it public.
When a player joins a team, he gives up part of his individual by committing it to the team. this is no different than what we do when we join a company and go to work for them, or share a life with a partner and family. There are things that you do within that group that you don't splash over the pages of a newspaper or a blog. Ditto a hockey team. Or a football team. Or any team.
Kovalev shot his lip here, and screwed up. What he really did, and why he's being criticized by his team, is show he's not really committed to the team. This IS the kind of thing that gets hashed out in the locker room, not blabbed to a reporter -- unless it's one of the "spokesman" members doing so for a purpose, and Kovalev is definitely not someone the team has defined as "speaking for the team".
But then, is anyone surprised that Kovalev isn't on the same page as his teammates? Has he ever been?
But this isn't about being a "puppet to the man" and toeing the league's happy-happy line. It's about committing to the team and your teammates. A functioning team is in many ways its own individual with its own personality, and members OF that team have to give up some of their own individuality to make the team function. And when they don't, you have a room of individuals, not a team, and it's a rare team that succeeds without that commitment.
Recent Comments