Archive for the ‘Hockey and Other Sports’ Category
How Not to Fix Soccer
Best explanation I’ve seen on why soccer is soccer and why Americans should stop trying to fix it (e.g. make it more american). Soccer is about playing, not watching. America is about watching, which is something I think we as a society should fix, actually. I’m not a huge soccer fan, but I’ve been watching the World Cup, and I think the biggest “flaw” about soccer for most americans is that to enjoy it, you have to actually pay atttention to it. You can’t, as we are wont to do, make it background noise and turn to look at the game when the announcer indicates something interesting is going on… Fortunately, the rest of the world is really unlikely to listen to us as we make suggestions about how to fix their sport…
How Not to Fix Soccer | Freedom to Tinker:
ith the World Cup comes the quadrennial ritual in which Americans try to redesign and improve the rules of soccer. As usual, it’s a bad idea to redesign something you don’t understand—and indeed, most of the proposed changes would be harmful. What has surprised me, though, is how rarely anyone explains the rationale behind soccer’s rules. Once you understand the rationale, the rules will make a lot more sense.
So here’s the logic underlying soccer’s rules
“We would like to thank Nabby for the time he has spent in San Jose. Nabby has been a big part of…
“We would like to thank Nabby for the time he has spent in San Jose. Nabby has been a big part of this team for the past 10 seasons and played an important role is our successes. This decision boils down to a dedication of dollars in a salary cap system and under this system, teams can’t keep everyone.”
Agreed completely. I was bit surprised that they let Nabby go, because I don’t see that improving goaltending is going to be easy here. But clearly Wilson has a plan, and to be honest, as big a supporter as I’ve been of Nabokov, he’s getting on in years, and he perhaps someone like Leighton could be successful in this system at a cheaper pricetag. If you think of cap limits being the reason and if you could only keep Marleau or Nabokov but not both — then Wilson made the right decision.
I’m not, however, comfortable going into next season with Greiss as starter. I can’t see Wilson is, either, so I’ll be curious what his plan is to fill the void.
…. but because they beat Detroit ….
Via Genuinely Sarcastic:
In the end though, the Wings just didn’t want it badly enough. They weren’t as hungry, weren’t as fast, weren’t as good. I was as disgusted as all of you were with some of the calls that happened during the series, but in the end, sometimes you just have to overcome. The missed headshot on Franzen, as bad as it was – Rafalski blindly passing behind his back right onto the stick of Joe Thornton, setting up the season-ending goal by Patrick Marleau was worse. Losing a 3-1 lead in the 3rd period of Game 3 when they had to win was worse. Sometimes destiny – we like to call them the Hockey Gods – is not on your side. They were on the Red Wings’ side once before, and will be again. It just wasn’t our year.
Allow me for a minute to defend the Red Wings.
I have no voice this morning. My ears are still ringing. I was up at 5:30 this morning because I”m still wired from the game and couldn’t sleep. This wasn’t just a game. It wasn’t just a series. It may have been some of the best hockey I have ever seen played, by both teams. This was Ali-Frazier, a historic heavyweight battle.
As we were in the stands watching game five play out, it seemed to me that once the Sharks scored that Detroit knew it was over. The tone of the play changed just a bit. It wasn’t — not remotely — that the Wings didn’t want it badly enough. They did.
But the tank was empty. The sharks OUT RED-WINGED the Wings, and the Wings simply had given everything they had. The legs were dead, the energy was expended, they were simply finished. The Sharks had the energy, the Wings simply had hit the wall.
That Sharks have some strong rivalries around the league: Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Dallas. But this franchise made it clear, and it’s strived for this for years: it wanted to be like Detroit when it grew up. That’s an extreme compliment to the Wings — that teams feel the way to succeed is emulate them. And that process isn’t fully complete until you can challenge your mentor and win.
That has happened. Finally. When Detroit pulled Howard for the last push,what struck me was how — clinical — the Sharks defense was. Boyle took that penalty, but even so, the Sharks seemed in control and kept Detroit contained. What I’ve noticed this series is that that the Wings tended to be strong early in games, but the Sharks conditioning and youth meant that as the games went on, they got stronger, and Detroit faded a bit. It’s not a surprise to me the Sharks came won games late. Detroit was playing on fumes.
Detroit was in a situation this year it’s seen from the other side many times; had to really push to make the playoffs, they couldn’t rest players and gear up for the playoffs. For the Sharks, this was the second round, for Detroit, the third. Those extra games catch up to you, and here, they did. By the time we hit the last few minutes of the game, it just seemed to me that the Wings understood; even if they somehow came back and tied the game, it wasn’t going to go on much longer.
But they tried. But the arms were tired, the legs were tired. The student learned the skills of the master, and finally beat him. Great conditioning, cerebral, physical (and mostly clean) hockey. Patience — both teams had an almost zen-like patient concentration about them. There’s a huge amount of respect by each team for the other. This series was one of respectful hate, and now everyone gets to head out and buy each other beers…. I doubt many Sharks and Ducks buy each other beers afterwards…
So I deny that the wings didn’t want it badly enough. You couldn’t be in the arena last night and not see it. They ran their bodies to the very end of their capabilities, and somewhat past that. They had nothing left. There are a whole lot of sort, exhausted hockey players wearing ice bags this morning, pondering what else they could have done.
My answer: nothing. Detroit did not lose. They were beaten. And they showed honor and grace in defeat, and deserve a lot of recognition for what they did accomplish.
So from me: congrats to Detroit. This series is why I’m a hockey fan. And there’s no dishonor in losing to a team that honors you by becoming you. The Sharks learned the lessons very well.
And it’s pretty clear that starting next year, they’ll have to prove it again. I don’t see any sign that “The road to the Cup goes through Detroit” is going to change any time soon….
(via Kukla)
Who didn’t make the cut, 2nd round edition.
A quick look at officials who got dropped from the rotation between the first and second round.
Referees
Steve Kozari
Dennis Larue
Mike Leggo
Wes McCauley
Brad Meier
Brian Pochmara
Chris Rooney
Ian Walsh
Surprises? I’m evidently a bigger fan of McCauley as a ref than the league is, if they let Furlatt ref and sent McCauley home. Furlatt has seniority, so maybe that’s why. There are some moderately senior people here not reffing the second round, like Dennis Larue (who I won’t miss). Other referees I won’t miss: Mike Leggo and Chris Rooney (laurie: “he’s a train wreck”). Honestly, I’d rather have McCauley over Furlatt and Joannette, but otherwise, I can’t complain about the choices. And to be fair, Furlatt called a pretty good game tonight in game one of SJ/Detroit, and it was NOT an easy game to referee (and it won’t get easier as the series goes on).
Linesmen
Steve Barton
Dave Brisebois
Mike Cvik
Shane Heyer
Brad Kovachik
Derek Nansen
Tim Nowak
Tony Sericolo
Mark Shewchyk
Count me surprised that Cvik isn’t here; always been one of my favorite linesmen, and not just because he’s huge and can throw players around like rag dolls as needed. Shane Heyer’s a senior guy, I’m also somewhat surprised he’s not in the rotation. But there aren’t any names in the second round that make me go “please god, send this one to Pittsburgh”, so I think the league made good decisions overall.
2009-2010 playoff predictions (round 2 edition)
But first a look back at round 1. How’d I do?
In the west, I picked San jose in 6, Vancouver in 6, Chicago in 6, Detroit in 6. I picked all four series, and three of them finished in six, and the one I missed went seven.
Not bad. not bad at all.
In the east, I didn’t pick series specifically, but I did pick Washington, Pittsburgh and Buffalo as the three teams I thought would come out of the east and said that New Jersey was in trouble. And in fact, Montreal took out the Capitals, Pittsburgh did in fact beat the sens, Boston beat Buffalo, and Philly took out the Devils, so I ended up 2-2 but didn’t guess # of games.
So I come out of the first round 6-2. To put that in perspective, I’ve had playoff years where I didn’t guess six rounds for the entire playoffs, so I’m happy. And since I watch primarily the west these days, guessing them all that well feels good.
That and $5 gets me a latte. Onward to the second round.
I didn’t get this in before the first Sharks/Wings game, but I did announce in front of witnesses at the game before game time that I was picking San Jose in six, and I stick with that. I mostly want Vancouver and Chicago to go seven games and for the two teams to beat the crap out of each other, but if I don’t pick Chicago I’ll be sleeping on the couch again, so I’ll pick Chicago in six. It would not suprise me greatly if Luongo and the Sedins carry Vancouver through this round, but I really like the Hawks as well. It really has proven out that all eight teams in the playoffs in the west were exceptionally talented and very evenly matched — if not purely in talent, teams like Colorado and Phoenix road great goaltending and amazing work ethics into serious battles.
In the east, it gets tougher; no easy series now. I’m amazed the Capitals are out, but the team had some fatal flaws that Montreal exposed: you simply can’t be a one-line scoring team, and your goaltending can’t falter at all, or you die. The Caps need to figure out secondary scoring depth, and it shows.
But I can’t see Montreal doing it a second time against the Penguins. The Penguins should get through this fairly easily (well, easy as playoff hockey is defined), but watch out for Halak. He’s capable of a “mission from god” run that could make things crazy. But: Pittsburg in 5, and they’re now my pick to come out of the east.
Boston/Philly: six games, I’ll choose Philly, but I’m not sure whoever wins this series will be in much shape to compete the rest of the playoffs. Should be physical and intense, but the Bruins just don’t do much for me…
So:
San Jose in 6
Chicago in 6
Philly in 6
Pittsburgh in 5
and onward to the next round.
who didn’t make the cut
The NHLOA releases the names of the officials who are in this year’s playoffs. Congrats to them all.
Of course, the truly curious then want to know who didn’t make the cut.
For referees:
I know this is a reach, but.. given the ref playoffs, may I kindly request the Sharks get Walkom and McCreary for deciding games? Please? (and devorski and mcCauley would be my second pair, and o’Halloran and Sutherland my third). For linesmen, I’ll take Cvik and Sharrers, and then Devorski and Lazarowich, and then nelson and Heyer.
2009-2010 playoff predictions….
The so-called “second season” starts tomorrow, so it’s time for the annual playoff predictions.
But first, a digression.
It was nice not writing about hockey this year. It was nice just going to games as a fan, watching them as a fan, reconnecting to hockey as a fan and not a critique or commentator. I think one of the issues of the so-called talking heads is that since they have deadlines whether or not they have material, little things end up getting blown out of proportion because you have to talk about something, and after a while, the little things take on a life of their own and it can all become a bit obsessive. Everyone loses perspective, including the writer and the fans who read them.
The reality? At the end of the season, the Sharks ended up right where they were supposed to: first in the West, Pacific Division champs, and geared for the playoffs. Did the universe become less interesting because nobody obsessed about a soft goal (or was it?) that Nabokov let in sometime in January in a game the Sharks lost in Overtime. I watch the pundits on NHL network and they are still harping on Nabokov as a potential weak link (well, they’re saying that about Luongo, too, in Vancouver) and I sit back and think “man, that’s the best you can come up with?”
And the answer is — well, yeah. That’s all they got. The “weak link” of the Sharks was 2nd in wins, 10th in GAA, 6th in save percentage, with ONLY four shutouts. The piker. Yeah, Russia sucked in the Olympics, but that was a group project and it seemed to me the Russian skaters were doing everything but holding Nabokov down and helping the other teams score. So whatever. It’s an axiom of being a talking head that you have to find things to criticize because good news is boring, adn you can never be boring.
That, in a microcosm, is why I was happy to shut up and not prove I had nothing to say this season. The Sharks just went and did what they needed to do. There were no controversies, nobody died, no season ending injuries, no extended slumps, no real MINOR slumps, the team just kind of motored, but at the same time, it never looked too easy and they never seemed to get bored or take it for granted like they did last year. That, of course, makes for boring journalism, which is why you see the pundits running around looking for something to point at as a weak spot. And you can’t blame the ice girls, I guess. Oh, wait. San Jose doesn’t have ice girls (thank you, Greg Jamison!)
Of course, they still have to do it in the playoffs, that much is true. Will they?
Damn good question. We’ll see. I think, however, that if they don’t, it won’t be because of things the Sharks didn’t do, but because of something some other team did better. And there are legitimate worries that as well as this team is put together and as good as it’s been playing — it still might not be good enough. Because ultimately, only one team can win it all, and 29 teams, no matter how good they are, lose.
In the west, to me it’s one of three teams: San Jose, Chicago and Detroit (sorry, vancouver fans. I await your letters…) — and honestly, I can’t choose one as a favorite over the other two. Each has strong points, each has weak spots that can be exploited. It’s going to come down to who stays healthy and who plays their best hockey when they need to. I expect some pretty damn good hockey out here in the west, and nobody’s going to get out of this conference without a fight.
That’s because I think any of the other five teams can take on their opponent and beat them. ANY of the eight could easily take the first round, and yes, while I think San Jose should take Colorado, I don’t think it’s a walk by any means. it might be the match I find easiest to call in the first round, but there are no teams in the west that don’t deserve to be there and won’t put up a fight.
So my western predictions: San Jose (in 6), Chicago (in 6), Vancouver (in 6) and Detroit (in 6).
San Jose’s weak spot: secondary scoring, Joe thornton’s tendency to falter in the playoffs, and Nabokov so far not proving himself in the playoffs. Their strengths: That first line looks killer (on paper), Nabokov looks like he’s in a good groove right now, Patrick Marleau, and Malhotra and Nicholl on the third line bolstering what was always the flawed part of the roster in previous years.
Chicago’s weak spot: unproven goaltending and youth. Their strength? Some really nice key veterans bolstering the kids. These guys scare me.
Detroit’s weak spot: age and jimmy howard being unproven. Their strength? It’s the freaking red wings. This team has a tradition of finding a groove in the playoffs, and their last 20 games? talk about hiding in the weeds and showing up for prime time. They REALLY scare me.
It would not surprise me a bit for Vancouver to go deep, and if they get on a run, they could take everyone else out and exit the west. If the Sharks, Wings and Hawks are my first tier in the west, Vancouver is a 1A. The difference is very narrow here, Canucks fans, but to me, there’s still a difference. But I’ll buy the first round if they prove me wrong and celebrate with yo.
Phoenix and LA? Beware the “mission from god” teams. They get on a run, watch out. they could easily take teams out in the first round, but I’m not convinced they’re ready to get out of the West with the talent in this conference. But they won’t be easy opponents.
Neither will Colorado or Nashville — but I think they’re a bit below the other six teams here.
Coming out of the west? Okay, hold my feet to the fire. I’ll pick — San Jose. Because I must. But any of the top three won’t surprise me and won’t be an upset. I’ll root for any of these teams (except against the Sharks), and if any of these eight make it out to the cup final, I’ll be satisfied.
In the east? Quality isn’t that deep.
I’m picking Washington out of the East, with Pittsburgh as a distant second choice. Buffalo is my dark horse, and ottawa is my choice as most likely to upset the higher seed in the first round. New Jersey has to prove it’s not going to have another playoff fade — sorry, Devils fans, but Brodeur simply hasn’t had it in the gas tank, and that team simply isn’t convincing me it can go deep. First round for New Jersey? yes. But that’s probably it.Me?
So my pick for the cup final? San Jose and Washington, which would be some amazing hockey. But honestly, there’s a good chance that the Sharks will get beat along the way, and a good chance it won’t be any failure by the Sharks, although you can bet the pundits will play it up. It’s what they do. (then again, it’s also possible the sharks DO blow up in the playoffs. if they do, we’ll be sure to talk about it… but I see it as unlikely with this team…)
So to all of the teams in the playoffs, good luck and drop the puck. And we’ll see you at the arena!
The fun of Ottawa and San Jose
Tonight was the Ottawa vs San Jose game, Dany Heatley playing his old chums (and half of Canada’s sports journalists in town to cover it), with Michalek and Cheechoo coming back for their first visit since the trade.
Cheechoo had a really solid chance early on a wrap around that I still don’t understand how he didn’t score, and then was more or less invisible the rest of the game. That kinda sums up why Cheechoo is now a Senator (and on the 3rd/4th line there) and not a Shark. Great hustle, great guy, fading talent on the depth chart.
Michalek had a hell of a game. Heatley had a hell of a game. It was a lot of fun. The Sharks won pretty handily, but both teams made it interesting.Tonight’s three stars: Heatley, Michalek and Marleau.
But here’s what really made it fun tonight…
An old friend and Apple cohort is from Ottawa, and boring the hell out of everyone around us talking hockey was a time-honored tradition back at meetings we were at together. He was at the game tonight, so before it started, I texted him and set a bet — loser buys lunch.
Then I spotted him a goal.
THEN I found out Thomas Greiss was starting in goal instead of Nabokov.
So I spotted him TWO goals, just to poke at him a bit.
And I won the bet.
A good time was had by all, I get to have lunch with an old friend — and he’s paying….
How much fun is that?
You don’t take pictures for a living…
Many years ago, when I was doing book reviews for Amazing Science Fiction (at that time owned by TSR. I did say “many years ago!”) a common question I got was ‘How can I get paid to read books?’
It may sound like I’m picking nits, but this is an important semantical detail: I didn’t get paid to read books. I got paid to help readers decide whether to read (and buy) books.
Typing is a skill. Writing is a craft. You don’t get paid for writing. You get paid for selling what you wrote. What you wrote is an asset, and your income depends on how others value that asset and what they’re willing to pay for it.
Ditto photography. The act of taking a photograph is a skill. The act of making a photograph is a craft. You don’t get paid to make a photo; that photo is an asset; it has to be valued and bought to generate income. (or more wonderful thoughts on making vs. taking, see Scott Bourne and Chase Jarvis)
Nowhere in here have I mentioned the word “art” or “artist”. To a good degree, it’s an irrelevant concept in the discussion (except it’s not). In my way of seeing things, to be a craftsman, you have to master the skills. To be an artist, you have to master the craft AND have a specific inner spark or vision that drives your work beyond the typical. Few are true artists, but in some fields, defining yourself as an “artist” is a marketing tactic used to increase your value and and improve sales. That’s not a crticism — it worked wonderfully for Andy Warhol (but is what he did art?)
Stephen King
This is a somewhat round-about way of pointing out that business of selling your work has very little to do with the act of creating it. If you don’t understand this, I can’t believe you can succeed as a business — but you may still be a great writer or photographer.
Which is a round-about way of bringing forward the idea that there’s going to be very little discussion about making great photos. It’s a given that you can do that; you can probably market yourself to some level of success if you’re craft is technically mediocre, but you’ll be constantly shooting yourself in the foot.
So this conversation is really about what to sell. It’s about how to market it so people know you’re selling it. It’s about making sure that someone who wants to buy it can. It’s about maximizing the value of your assets, and making sure that what you sell it for makes you more than it cost you to make it.
It’s also about when to give it away, because many times, the best sales tool you have is the free sample.
But the trick there is how to give it away, without, well, giving it away. Because if it’s free, why should someone pay for it?
And that issue is core to success in the internet-enabled universe, and is both a massive challenge — and a bigger opportunity.
Thoughts on the Second Career
As I noted the other day, I expect posting frequency on the blog to go up soon. About this time last year I started serious planning on my “what’s next?” project — that being my long-term look at how I want to make the shift into the second career. I see a time where I’m not going to want to work in Silicon Valley and hack high tech 24×7 (gasp), but I certainly have no plans on retiring.
The elevator speech: I want to earn a respectable income from my home office in Astoria, Oregon without telecommuting.
Yes, you could potentially contract and consult from there (although if I were going to do that game, I’d do it from Ashland or Medford — like, it sometimes seems, half the population of those towns) but that’s not the point. At some point, I know I want to get out of the Silicon Valley rat race and do something else. The question is — what?
I want to emphasize something: this is a long term (3-5 years) thing; in fact for about the last 15 years I’ve been keeping (with more or less intensity) a 3-5 year plan. That’s the first lesson in something like this: planning is good, because it helps you map a path, but it should also be flexible because as you do the planning, you’ll change your mind, new situations come up, the unexpected happens. For me, the planning on the second career wasn’t so much about implementation, but on understanding where I wanted to end up and to influence decisions now that will make it happen someday. And occasionally, after a really bad day at the office, as a way to keep my sense of humor and sanity. Well, okay. My sense of humor.
Now, the day for that second career is closer. I’ve known for a few years roughly what I wanted to aim at here. Various decisions I’ve made over the last couple of years have been driven by this long-term planning. My move of the blog from Typepad back here to chuqui.com was because I knew I wanted total control over my online environment, and I wanted it under my own domain name for branding purposes. I chose WordPress because I really like that tool as a platform for it’s flexibility and the community ecosystem that exists around it (my second choice, even thought I’ve occasionally described it as sportfishing off of an aircraft carrier, is Drupal, and the drupal community has done a really nice job of cleaning up issues that bothered me back when they couldn’t even run the Drupal site on the Drupal 6 release).
Another decision I made was shutting down the “Two for Elbowing” blog on hockey and de-emphasizing my hockey writing. I did that for a few reasons; originally, that blog was supposed to be for both myself and Laurie to write about hockey (“two for… get it? heh. heh.). Laurie’s life took her in other directions and it turned into a solo gig (although the hockey world is missing out on a damn good hockey geek, and I’m not talking about me); as a solo, I much preferred putting all of my writing into one place (the branding thing) again. Also, think about my long-term goal: moving to Astoria. Building an income around writing about hockey and the Sharks and moving to Astoria conflict. Just a bit. Besides, there are plenty of good hockey writers out there now, and if I was 25 (instead of 50+), I might take a run at doing something like what Rich Hammond is doing with the Kings. Instead, I made a decision to enjoy hockey, not sweat about what to write about it — and I only write when I want to. This is a feature, not a bug.
I’m firmly convinced that what Hammond and the Kings are doing is the future model for journalism in pro sports as the newspaper business continues to evolve and implode. NHL teams that haven’t figured this out yet should take a close look and find a good beat guy to bring on board and nurture. The Sharks could do a lot worse than hiring Dave Pollak and bringing him in-house, for instance. Having been writing about hockey online since before the Sharks existed, I do sometimes wish that the online environment that exists today had existed 15 years ago, but it didn’t. Sometimes timing is everything, and understanding that is a key aspect of designing success into your plans.
To succeed in ANY career path, not just a second career, it’s important to know what NOT to do, what not to sidetrack yourself on, what not to invest time and money in. That may be even more important than knowing what to do, in fact, because that’s how you stay focused and moving in the direction you want to end up.
In any event, this is the first in a series of articles on the idea of a second career and my thoughts and plans. I’m hoping this becomes a conversation, not a lecture; I’m doing this in public both because I hope you find it interesting and learn from it to help refine your own plans and ideas — and because I hope you will help me improve my own ideas and fix the flaws in my thinking and make my own second career success happen as well. I hope you find this interesting and useful; I know I’ll learn from your feedback and comments and end up the better for it. Together, everyone wins — and how can that be bad?
So, onward. The future starts today.
Chuq
Footnote on Astoria: For those not familiar with Astoria, it’s about 2 hours from Portland on the coast, and it’s a very nice, small, homey town, but has some really nice places like the restaurant Baked Alaska and Cellar on 10th that make it more than a small rural town — and it’s well located to a lot of great photographic opportunities). It might not be Astoria (I’m really falling more and more in like with Morro Bay, for instance, and I love the northern Oregon Coast so it could be anywhere from Astoria to Newport…), but that’s a nice placeholder for what I’d like to do.
Small, inviting, not urban, on the coast, lower cost of living but with some nice amenties and close to civilization when I want it. The kind of place most Silicon Valley Geeks seem to wish they lived, unless they’re the hard core urban type. I’m not, but Vancouver tempts me to convert…
Should the Sharks break up the top line of Thornton and Heatley?
That’s the question I’ve asked myself after watching the past few SJ Sharks games.
via Should the Sharks break up the top line of Thornton and Heatley? | The Hockey Writers.
That’s the question Chelsea is asking.
The question I’m asking is why you’re asking this question with a team that’s 8-0-2 in their last ten, gaining 18 out of a possible 20 points? Given their success (they have not lost in regulation two games in a row yet this season), whatever McLellan is putting out on the ice is working. So why are we trying to fix it?
Now, sometimes — to try to answer my own question seriously — a team can be winning but clearly not playing good hockey. The Sharks, however, are a team that is starting to get on a roll to my eyes. They just got Pavelski back, and he really makes the 2nd line dangerously good, and it looks like the chemstry is coming together and the team is starting to play its game.
So my short answer is — it ain’t broken. In fact, it looks good. I’d leave it alone. And with a team playing this well and winning this consistently, I’d ask myself why I’m looking for things to kvetch about.
But that’s just me.
Looking at the Dany Heatley trade
Now that we’re in November, I wanted to take a look at the Dany Heatley trade and the Sharks in general. Given I wasn’t a huge fan of the trade before it was made (look here), what do I think now?
I like it. Heatley is doing pretty much everything I could ask to convince me that Doug Wilson knew better than I did about this trade. Gee, that’s a surprise — the GM knows more than I do (but it’s surprising how few fans are willing to admit that. Hi, Tom!).
Michalek is — well, he’s Michalek. What you see is what you get. Cheechoo is just floundering, and I feel bad for the kid, but… well, am I surprised? Not really. So what we gave up I don’t miss. And what I see I like.
Heatley has kept his mouth shut, he’s worked his butt off on the ice, he’s produced, and he’s fit in well with the team. Exactly what he needed to do. Even better, he’s shown himself to me to be a grittier player than I expected — he’s no brett hull, he actually gets his nose dirty around the crease. And the Sharks have had him playing penalty kill, which I didn’t expect, and he’s okay at it (his defensive coverage is sometimes a bit — lax — but he’s decent and he tries. He also has a nice edge to him, which I also didn’t expect.
So what can I say? He’s the player I hoped we’d get, and more. I have no real complaints here. And what we gave up? expendable..
And the Sharks? took a bit to get the chemistry going. right now? they’re looking somewhat unstoppable. I was all for some adversity early in the season, given that last year it was easy early and they put it into coast mode and couldn’t get out.
This year? I’m not seeing that. The big difference is on the third and fourth line. No offense to Mike Grier or Marcel Goc or the third liners last year, but they were good defensive players, but weren’t able to impact or change momentum. Bringing in Nichol and Ortmeyer has made a huge difference, and changed the mix witwh the younger role players, too, and now we’re seeing that the third and fourth lines are really changing the flow of the game.
Most notable change from last year? These two lines still do a lot of cycling on the shifts, but this year, they’re doing it in the offensive zone and creating problems for the other team, rather than last year, where we saw these lines mostly in the defensive zones preventing goals. Over a season, this is huge.
I give this team an A- so far. And they’re fun to watch, too.
Where are they now? Ed Courtenay
For all you really old Sharks fans out there, a quick where are they now — Ed Courtenay.
Ed’s still playing hockey, and playing in Britain.
Courtenay is teh subject of one of my favorite all time radio “moments” in Sharks history:
Dan Rusanowsky: It’s a breakaway!
Dennis Hull: No, it’s Courtenay.
Dennis Hull was right. Never the fleetist of feet in the NHL, Courtenay still was one of those guys who brought the effort every night in the early (really sucky!) days of San Jose Sharks history….
A quick comment on the Sharks/Capitals game (and Sharks hall of fame ramblings)
I can only think of one thing to say about tonight’s game against the Capitals:
LOOK! A PUPPY!
(seriously, Sharks didn’t look terrible; a step slow, and they couldn’t handle Ovechkin tonight. Well done game by the Caps, the two quick goals took the fight out of team teal tonight)
So instead, some quick ramblings about the Sharks Hall of Fame. They were talking about team hall of fames on XM this morning, which got me thinking: if I were running the Sharks Hall of Fame, who would be in it? My list. Feel free to add your own, or complain about mine:
Players:
- Kelly Kisio: Kisio is one player that gets forgotten in the early years of the Sharks — perhaps he wants to forget the pain, I dunno. But the reality is, while Doug Wilson was the first captain and the goal was for him to lead the sharks out of expansion hell, injuries prevented his being much of an impact on the ice, and it was Kisio that really held the early years of the team together. Some nights, he was the only player that seemed to be fighting the good fight, and if there was a real “first captain” that set the tone of what the Sharks wanted to be, it was Kelly Kisio. He’d be the first player I induct into the the Sharks hall of fame.
- Arturs Irbe: was the player that kept the Sharks competitive night after night. He was nevera “pretty” goalie, more of the squeal-and-lunge school of goaltending, but it worked. He made the Sharks a lot better than they were, and deserves to be one of the initial inductees into the Hall of Fame.
- Jeff Odgers: Odgers more than any other players defined the lunchpail ethic of the Sharks and was the guy who brought his heart and work ethic to the game every night. Not the most talented guy in the game — but his stint as captain really helped create the shark’s team identity.
- Igor Larionov, Sergei Makarov, Johan Garpenlov: I don’t know that these three players are Sharks hall of famers individually (even though Larionov and Makarov are hall of famers for their contributions to hockey overall) — but this was the first true “identity line” that played together for a significant time and really showed magic on the ice to the fans. So they go in as a line, as they played on the team.
- Owen Nolan: Another player who defined “what it takes to be a Shark” and the Sharks first true All Star.
- Brian Marchment: Okay, okay. Just kidding.
Honorable mentions:
- Mike Rathje: who doesn’t get the credit he deserves for what he did, because the fans could only see what they thought he ought to be.
- Tony Granato: for taking what Jeff Odgers started and helping it mature.
- Jeff Friesen: who had a better career as a Shark as many (including myself) gave him credit for, because he never quite lived up to his draft position.
- Mike Vernon: just isn’t quite enough of a Shark in my eyes.
- Mike Ricci: ditto, but it came down to Odgers or Ricci (but not both) in my eyes, and Odgers won.
- Jamie Baker: most dramatic goal in franchise history, great player for the Sharks — but not quite the team hall of fame to me.
Future inductees: Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Evgeny Nabokov. (maybe Dan Boyle, depending on how long he stays…)
Builders:
- George Gund: let’s not forget how much time and energy (and money) he put into making this team successful
- Dan Rusanowsky: The voice of the Sharks. Always will be.
- Frank Albin: who really has defined how the Sharks look on TV and made them very entertaining and accessible.
- Dean Lombardi: for how far he took this team, even if it wasn’t the final prize. Don’t underestimate how much of the team’s recent success is built on his shoulders.
- Tricia Sullivan: because I know who really keeps this franchise functioning.
- Joe Will and Tim Burke: the two people who make the draft work and understand which players in the system are expendable (and which aren’t). They’re the core of the foundation of the young players that the Sharks keep bringing into the team, and you simply can’t succeed unless you develop your own stars.
- Doug Wilson? — probably as a builder, but he still has some unfinished business before he gets nominated.
Honorable mentions: Roy Sommer, Mike Aldritch, Ken Arnold, Tom “Woody” Woodcock, Bob Friedlander, Dieter Ruehle, Warren Strelow.
Remember a few weeks ago when I said….
the NHLPA firing Jim Kelly: If you needed evidence that the PA was in trouble, you have it. My take on this is simple: the firing was done by a very small group of people without consulting the larger membership. Effectively, it was the thirty team reps — and it looks to me like a small group manipulated them with carefully crafted and biased information that wasn’t distributed ahead of the meeting and where the team reps weren’t given time to think it through or consult with the rest of the players they represented.Was it really so urgent that the NHLPA COULD NOT wait two weeks for camps to open, when all of the players would be in town and the team reps could discuss the information with them and make them all part of the process?
via The summer of hockey’s discontent.
well, the membership seems to be figuring out they got gamed:
It’s possible, according to player sources, that one or more NHLPA members will insist on an immediate, thorough, and independent investigation of not only the process that led to Kelly’s dismissal but also of those who perpetrated it. Clearly, some players are finally waking up to smell the reality that, as one veteran told me last week, “Paul got sewered.’’
The stench has reached the membership, and it is leading them to do something about it.
via Firing generates heat – The Boston Globe.
And something tells me this is both going to get really ugly before it gets better, and it’s going to totally screw over the effectiveness of the player’s association for a good period of time — at a time when they desperately need to have their act together before the start of the next CBA negotiation. And hopefully, the membership will realize that it’s because a few people were willing to destroy the union rather than let it be run in a way they didn’t like — and deal with those people appropriately. I can name one obvious name right from the top… But do I really need to?
About
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
To contact me, send email to chuqvr --at-- gmail.com.
Where to find me
Photo licensing and prints
For information on buying prints or licensing my images please see my Photography section. Many of my images are available for non-commercial use for no charge. I am also making some of them available free as mobile and desktop wallpapers.
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Google Buzz
- Mongoliad is live: Neal Stephenson, Greg Bear and friends create participatory, epic fantasy for the web
- Is this a picture of the Discovery gunman today? We don't know.
- QUOTE: If you ask an artist why, the greatest artists…
- Photo of the Month–September
- Message to a Younger Photographer
- Wil Shipley: "we tried to do too much" for Delicious Library 2
- At The Queen’s Command
- At The Queen’s Command
Looking for Something?
Here are a couple of companies that I purchase from and can recommend to you.
In some places on this site I use links that take you to a page where you can buy a product I talk about. If you use that link and make a purchase, I'll earn a small commission and you'll earn my thanks for doing so. You don't pay more when you do this and I get a few dollars to help pay for this site's fees or to put away for that 800mm lens I'd love to buy. If you choose to use these affiliate links, thank you. If you would rather not, that's fine as well.
Copyright 2010 Chuq Von Rospach. This site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
