How Not to Fix Soccer | Freedom to Tinker:

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at How Not to Fix Soccer. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at “We would like to thank Nabby for the time he has spent in San Jose. Nabby has been a big part of…. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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)

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at …. but because they beat Detroit ….. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Who didn’t make the cut, 2nd round edition.. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at 2009-2010 playoff predictions (round 2 edition). This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at who didn’t make the cut. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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!

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at 2009-2010 playoff predictions….. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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?

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at The fun of Ottawa and San Jose. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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 is a craftsman. So are John Scalzi and Terry Goodkind and John Le Carre. Gene Wolfe and Michael Swanwick are artists. Joe McNally is a craftsman. Art Wolfe is an artist. One s not superior to the other, they are different (and many times highly subjective) paths down the same road — and I tend to believe that the louder someone declares themselves an artist, the less likely they really are.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at You don’t take pictures for a living…. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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…

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Thoughts on the Second Career. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Should the Sharks break up the top line of Thornton and Heatley?. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Looking at the Dany Heatley trade. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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….

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Where are they now? Ed Courtenay. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at A quick comment on the Sharks/Capitals game (and Sharks hall of fame ramblings). This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

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?

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Remember a few weeks ago when I said….. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

My initial reaction was — and it somewhat surprised me — that since Marleau wasn’t part of the trade, that maybe it was okay. Heatley still has to prove to me he’s bringing the right attitude, but honestly, Doug Wilson’s a much better judge of that than I am, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. And honestly? It fits in line with something I said back in 2008, which Puck Daddy was nice enough to dredge up for me and point to.

My bottom line is that I’m happier because the trade didn’t involve Marleau, but I still need to see Heatley bring the right attitude and the right game, and if he does, then  this is a great trade. if he doesn’t — Wilson will have to deal with it.

I’m not unhappy at seeing Michalek and Cheechoo go. Well, I’ll miss them because I enjoyed watching them play, especially Cheechoo, but I always felt Michalek had a “next step” he never figured out how to use consistently, and I think we saw the best of Cheechoo and he had no real upside. With any luck, new teams and fresh starts will help them, but they weren’t going to get better in San jose.

One question brought up to me, since I’d mentioned Larionov and his demanding his way off the team — why do I give Larionov a pass on that and not Heatley?

I had to think about that one a bit, and here’s why: Larionov had a strong track record as a player for his ethics and his committment. he was also a winner with multiple organizations. Because of that when he speaks up about something taht’s wrong — and time really proved him right in San Jose — you listen.

Heatley doesn’t have that. Heatley’s proven that in the NHL, he can score lots of goals, but he’s never proven himself as a winner. he’s also indicated through his actions in Ottawa that when he doesn’t get his way, he pouts and quits. He now has to prove himself NOT to be a quitter — and only time will tell about that. Right now, though, he doesn’t have that track record to stand on, and his actiosn the last few months put him in a negative light to many of us. He has to prove that wrong. And I’m willing to let him, but he doesn’t get a free ride, because he hasn’t earned one yet.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Some thoughts on the Heatley trade.. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

via Nabokov, Marleau snubbed in promo letter; Sharks respond – Puck Daddy – NHL – Yahoo! Sports.

Many years ago, the Sharks put Igor Larionov on the cover of the in-game magazine, just as Igor and Kevin Constantine got into a fight that led to Larionov demanding a trade and ending up a Red Wing (and winning a stanley cup….). The Sharks were left handing out magazines for a number of games that  featured a player that was no longer on the team, and had left rather loudly and unhappy. It rankled the fans, and it rankled the Sharks.

And since then they’ve been careful to not put players on long-term promotional items (like tickets) unless they were sure that they were going to be sharks (barring unexpected things). So while I normally recommend not reading too much into things like ticket pictures, in this case, the Sharks have a track record of being careful — if Marleau and Nabokov aren’t on the tickets, then someone must think these players have a chance of not being here by the trade deadline. Current “three way marleau to the kings” rumor notwithstanding, one shouldn’t read into this as a short-term probability as much as a long-term possibility. Doug Wilson is clearly looking to make sure the team is fixed for the playoffs (if it already isn’t), not opening day…

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Nabokov, Marleau snubbed in promo letter; Sharks respond. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

And now, here we are, almost at the start of training camp, and what’s been going on?

• The Dany Heatley “I want out” whine-fest.
• The Coyotes saga
• Jim Balsillie
• The Versus/DirecTV pissing match
• The NHLPA firing of their leader

And last — and perhaps least –

• The Sharks playoff collapse and off-season moves…

That is, unfortunately, more than enough grief for one league in one year, and we haven’t even touched on the economic downturn the league faces this year.

What’s all this mean for the league? Some thoughts:

Dany Heatley: Just what I really want to hear about; another spoiled athlete who demanded lots of money and a no-trade clause bailing on his team as soon as someone doesn’t wipe his nose when he sneezes. Gee, that sucks. Dear Dany: Please shut up and play hockey. One reason I love hockey is that athletes like you are really rare in the game. I hope that never changes.

Dany Heatley Part 2: Dear Doug Wilson. Without asking whether or not the rumors of the Sharks trying to get Heatley are true or not, an earnest question: ARE YOU CRAZY? He can score goals, but he hasn’t shown his ability to be a winner (as opposed to a whiner, which he’s proven quite nicely). He’s a chemistry problem waiting to happen, and bringing him to San Jose will be the worst mistake the Sharks could make since, um, Ray Sheppard and Craig Janney. Please don’t.

The Coyotes Saga: What a mess. It is, of course, easy to blame Bettman, but in reality, Bettman was working the ownership into an agreement to sell, and Moyes decided to slip the knife in from behind and jump to bankruptcy court with Balsillie. Why? Because Balsillie structured a deal that got money back to Moyes and cut his losses, even if that deal (as we’re showing) fraks over the Coyotes, the city of Glendale, the League, Coyotes fans, hockey fans in general, the players, especially the Coyotes players, and other creditors of the Coyotes. This is standard procedure for both guys — don’t worry about anyone else, just take what you want and let the court sort it out.

And once it hits bankruptcy court, it’s a crapshoot for everyone. Moyes and Balsillie may have thought they had this scoped out, but the bankruptcy judge has an amazing amount of leeway and isn’t necessarily interested in playing the fool. I’ve been quite impressed with how the judge his handling this case — including a very careful and obvious intention to not end up in legal casebooks as the person setting any kind of significant precedent here. He’s handled this like the live grenade it is in the legal world, and I give him a lot of credit for moving carefully and conservatively.

What can be presumed about the outcome? About the only thing I can guarantee is that at this point, anything coming out of the bankruptcy court will head right to appeals court. Every time I see a media person or a blogger say “we’ll have some answers at the hearing today!” I chuckle, because this is just the beginning.  Sit back and pop popcorn. We’re still in Act I. Moyes showed that the legal agreements he had with the league only mattered while he benefitted from them, and then he did what he wanted — and the league will ultimately clean up the mess, while the fans will blame Bettman. Wanna know what a “bad owner” is in a league? Here’s one.

Jim Balsillie: When you look at it that way, it should become obvious why the league isn’t interested in having him as an owner. Too many fans only see the possibility of a team in southern ontario or that he has lots of money and declare him to be a good owner — and forget that one part of being a good owner is a willingness to work within the rules of the league and work with the other owners to make the game better. Balsillie’s failed miserably at those aspects, multiple times, and again here with the Coyotes. So why are people surprised the other owners see him as a problem?

Let’s not forget that Mark Cuban wanted to buy the Cubs. Given his — attitude — as an owner of the Mavericks, whether you appreciate his candor or not (I generally do…), was I surprised that major league baseball made damn sure his bid wasn’t ever seriously in the running? You can complain that the owners group is a “club” — but there are reasons for that, including a need to cooperate for the good of the game. Has Balsillie ever shown any hint he’s willing or interested in diong that?

I think Balsillie owning an NHL team would be a huge problem for the league over time, for the same reason Moyes owning the Coyotes did: ultimately, they are similar types of owners, ones that have no problem screwing over the league (and fans, and players, and everyone associated with it) to get what they want. How is that good for hockey?

And before my friends in Canada come raining down scorn for trashing the guy — I’m fully in favor of a team in Southern Ontario. Just not owned by Balsillie. And preferably not in Hamilton (I’m far from convinced the $100 million upgrade will turn that arena into a real NHL building, any more than $100 million would have turned the Cow Palace into anything other than an ugly old barn with lipstick), but perhaps more in the Kingston area. Not gonna happen, probably, but I’d like to see it. My worry about Hamilton is that a team there would affect the Sabres, and that’s a bad thing. A team in Kingston might draw more from Leaf territory, and the best thing you can do to make the Leafs more competitive is to make them less fat and happy and complacent… Of course, the Leafs owners wouldn’t agree to that easily…

The Versus/DirecTV pissing match: my short answer: pay zero attention until the season starts. Negotiations like this, and labor negotiations, never get settled until the very last minute (or some time after it…). Everything until then is posturing by both sides. I’ll take “one week into the season” in the pool for when this gets solved. Personal opinion — I think Versus is being somewhat too greedy in their demands, so my sympathies are somewhat with DirecTV here. And frankly, I’d probably be a lot more annoyed at not having Versus if they paid a little attention to the West Coast once in a while. Here in Sharks territory, Versus is pretty useless with the eastern conference lineups and games that are mostly over when you get home from work… So I don’t see it as a great loss, personally.

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?

No. Which implies that whoever orchestrated this knew that if this information was distributed to the membership and evaluated, it would be rejected. So this was an orchestrated coup by a group that knew it could manipulate the team reps and knew the membership at large wouldn’t buy in, so they made sure the membership didn’t get a voice.

If the general membership lets them get away with this, they get what they deserve. It’s clear there are serious factions within the union, and at least one faction is willing to destroy the union rather than let some other group run it. And they may well be succeeding. Given that so many players in the union really don’t care as long as the paychecks keep coming, if the NHLPA thinks it is going to succeed with a hard-ass attitude, then the owners have to be thrilled at this. Kelly knew that, and had a plan I really liked for moving things forward — but he got taken out back and shot in the middle of the night (literally).

And I think the union will get what it deserves out of this, and is going to be royally unhappy when it happens.

And finally –

The Sharks playoff collapse and off-season moves…

I’m pretty satisfied with what Wilson has done in the off-season. I’m happy we do NOT have Heatley. I’m willing to bet that Wilson tried just hard enough to land “the Monster” to come in second, which is a nice way to put pressure on Nabokov without actually having to commit the money. Stripping Marleau (and everyone) of the “C” and “A” is an interesting tactic, also.

Fans (and media) complaining about the lack of the “blockbuster” move to shake up the team are being impatient. Wilson has until the start of the playoffs, not the start of the season, to fix this team. What he’s done instead is spend the summer doing things that cause the players to stew on the failure rather than write it off — and I’m sure he’s waiting to see if the players respond by showing up ready and angry and committed. Any player that doesn’t will likely get purged. San Jose is a franchise where leaks simply don’t happen. this summer there have been leaks and statements — aimed at two key guys, Marleau and Nabokov — that seem clearly designed to put the pressure on them to respond, and respond on the ice. It’s now up to them to respond. If they do, the Sharks get better without disrupting the roster. If they don’t — Wilson has his answer, and changes will be made. The fact is, Wilson is still evaluating those players, and evaluating them the only way that really matters: by waiting to see how they respond on the ice.

Fans (and media) have also complained that “all” Wilson’s done is make changes on the third and fourth lines. That’s correct. The fans (and media) also forget that the playoff failure was in large part because the third and fourth lines fell apart and played really, really badly; that failure has been addressed. I’m sorry to see Grier go, Goc go, and Roenick retire — but all three are clearly the right moves.

Also the right move: trading Erhoff. I’ve generally been a strong supporter of his, and early last season he was playing amazing hockey, but over the season, he went from playing amazing hockey to playing inconsistent, enigmatic hockey. I have no idea why, but some nights, he was most notable for what he didn’t do — it’s one thing to be Mike Rathje and play 22 minutes a night and never be noticed, because Rat was always a shutdown guy. It’s another to be Erhoff and play 20 minutes and be noticed for a lack of expected offense and for those really visible mistakes. His ultimate failure in San Jose was a lack of consistency, and all of his good play kept getting sidetracked by those really bad shifts every game or two. I’m ready to see if a fresh start on a new team lets him grow past that. So, evidnetly, was Doug Wilson…

So I’ll give the Sharks off-season a B for now. Ask me again ten games into the regular season.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at The Summer of Hockey’s Discontent. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

I wanted to make  a couple of comments on the Sharks off-season so far. Back in may I made my proposals for “fixing” the Sharks. Since then, Huskins, Clowe and Blake are signed. Semenov, Lemieux, Goc, Plihal and Grier are moving on. Of those, I had Goc and Plihal on my roster, but both of them no higher than Black Aces — so for the most part Doug Wilson and I are on the same page. Well, I’m on the same page with Wilson, let’s be real here…

Where he and I disagree slightly: I called for the trade of Thornton and defended Nabokov; Wilson made Thornton and Boyle untouchable, and Marleau and Nabokov visibly in the “tradeable” pile. Craig Button was on NHL Home Ice after the Sharks went out of the playoffs and more or less mirrored Wilson’s idea here on Thornton; it’s the support crew around Thornton that needs to help him get the job done because he’s being mobbed.

Intellectually, I can agree with that; emotionally, I still feel like both Thornton and Marleau (and Nabokov, for that matter) look to me like they aren’t taking it up that one final notch in the playoffs. That’s probably because that notch is in use much of the season as well, not because they aren’t using it.

All in all, I’m happy with the off-season so far. Wilson didn’t do anything dramatic at the draft — but didn’t make any stupid grandstanding moves, either. Ditto free agent day; he focussed on keeping the players he wanted here in San Jose, and got Huskins and Clowe signed, and worked out a deal with Rob Blake. All great signings for the team. Wilson’s made it clear that July 1 is the day GMs will definitely overpay because of the way the market is structured, and he’s right. Unlike some fans, I’m not interested in watching GM’s “make a splash”, I want a better hockey team. Patience is a good thing many times.

The Sharks pursuit of Gustavsson (“the monster”) is fascinating. I don’t think they’ll get him, but it’s clearly a shot over the bow at Nabokov. Greiss is probably the backup in San Jose this fall (Boucher was a real trooper, but solid backups are fairly easy to find, and it’s time to let a kid step up) — but Laurie and I aren’t convinced about him. We’ll see.

Free agent day in general? I was fascinated by how many players moved around and how they shifted. There was a real levelling of talent across the league, as players moved to “less good” teams to clear cap space or to keep their salaries at par, while top tier teams worked the cap and ended up with “not quite as good, but cheaper” talent. Parity kicks in hard core; unless you are a fan of a dynasty (and more specifically, a dynasty that involves your team — yes, talking about you, Red Wings fans) this is good for the league. Lots of solid, competitive hockey, and teams in the chase most of the season. It only sucks if you somehow believe your team should be awarded the Cup on opening night adn the rest of the season is a formality.

Detroit has some serious challenges; they lost a lot of talent in free agency. OTOH, they have a lot of talent in the minors, for all some pundits are pointing and declaring it’s over, come next April, we’ll likely be talking about 2-3 Red Wings who ahve stepped in from the AHL and are surprising the crap out of everyone. Except, of course, the Detroit organization.

Big winners? I really like what Burke is doing in Toronto. And Dean Lombardi has the Kings moving in the right direction.

Losers? I don’t understand the Brashear contract. I do understand the Hossa contract in Chicago, but I think they’ll regret it down the road. These decade-long contracts get scary and limit your options, and you just have to hope you guess right. Gaborik is another one: I wouldn’t have gone beyond two years in the deal, not because he’s not good, but because he’s never healthy.

The biggest loser this off-season is Dany Heatley, though. More on that in another post.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at The Sharks off-season so far. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

Tomorrow the hockey season ends.

Part of me is looking forward to this with glee. Part of me, like most season-endings, wonders how I’ll fill the void of not having hockey to watch for a while. Part of me is really, really ready for a break.

Some of that latter is driven by “the media” — as we go further into the playoffs, more and more writers chase less and less news and still need to fill those stories and columns, and it all gets so unbelievably over-analyzed and silly. Or sad. Writers burn out on the season  as well, and they take on a “can’t we just get this the hell over with?” tone that makes them sound like they don’t really like the sport. They do, they’re just worn down. Too bad they don’t see in their own attitude the players, who have to fight through a much harder, longer, more physical season and aren’t allowed the same grumpy mood.

Of course, then there are the writers who have that “this all sucks” mood year-round. Why do you folks out there read them, anyway? But that’s for later. Maybe.

Tomorrow, either Detroit or Pittsburgh takes the Cup, and the season is over. Will Detroit do the almost-impossible and win back to back? Will Pittsburgh do the even more almost-impossible and come back from 0-2 to beat the champs? You can’t script stuff like this; yet it’s real.

I no longer care who wins. Both teams deserve it. The playoffs have been some of the best damn hockey I’ve seen since I started watching hockey again after San Jose got a team. Period. I”m going to do what I’ve done most of these playoffs, and just sit back and enjoy the show. (do me a favor, those writers who hate everything about the NHL? Don’t tell them what they’re missing…)

So just sit back, relax, and enjoy the hockey. It’s been great. I expect the game tomorrow will be at least pretty good; my gut tells me no blowouts. I’d love overtime, just to give it that final edge.

And — I admit — I chose the Penguins, but I’m quietly rooting a bit for Detroit, just to see Osgood get the Conn Smythe, because he’ll deserve it, and to listen to everyone try to justify how he’s not REALLY a hall of fame goalie. I used to think that; I’m convinced. Flamboyant? No. Dramatic? no. Had rough spots? Hell, yes. But he’s running out of fingers, folks.

There’s so much that I could probably write about: the ongoing (and misplaced) whining about Bettman, the ongoing (and mostly misplaced) whining about the refs, the Phoenix problem, the Balsillie “cure”, the TV deals.

But so much of that is driven by people who seem to not actually care about the game, but only want to complain about it. There’s plenty of time during the summer to consider the challenges in the game. To me, playoffs are about the game on the ice, and that’s one reason I haven’t written much  about it this year; I wanted to step back, sit down, relax in front of the TV and just watch hockey.

You know what? it was pretty damn good hockey. Too bad the people so busy talking about anything but hockey missed it.

So drop the puck, and may the best team win, and may their best players lead them to victory.

That’s what matters. And that’s why I’m a hockey fan. Tomorrow’s game sums it all up in one neat 60 minute (or more) package.

I can’t wait.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Game 7. Tomorrow the season ends.. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

Picked both conference finals, which puts me over .500 (6-4) for the playoffs, and guarantees I’m over .500. that and $5 will keep you happy at Starbucks for a bit…

Now, I’ve been pushing the western conference as the dominant conference all year, since before the season started. I still think so. And that’s why I’m picking the Penguins to win the cup in six.

Make sense? No, not really. But…

I think Fleury is playing very well right now.

Detroit’s got some injuries, adn they seem weak on depth on defense. Look at how they’re playing Chelios (very sparingly) — not sure if it’s dinged up or at the end of the road, but this is a relative weaknesss.

I think the Hossa factor, while blown way out of proportion by the media (as usual), benefits Pittsburgh. Except Hossa to try to elevate his game to prove his going to the Wings was correct. But if ten of the Penguins all elevate their game a bit for the opportunity to say “nyah!” in the handshake line, that can be a benefit for penguins. On balance, this benefits Pittsburgh.

It should be a close, fun, interesting to watch series. And then it’ll be the offseason, and everyone will start complaining about no hockey….

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Stanley Cup Final Predictons. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

But with Jim Balsillie at the door, Bettman has used the unfettered radio access to talk over the heads of conventional media to fans. Bettman plays the reasonable fixer, the man who only wants solutions, not conflict in Phoenix.

via sports.theglobeandmail.com: Bettman uses radio show to make his case.

Horrors! That evil nasty Gary Bettman is taking his message to the fans, rather than doing what he should do, which is allow the media people like Bruce Dowbiggin take the message and reshape and filter it so that it promotes the opinion wants us to hear. The scum, that Bettman.

He had me at “bully pulpit”, folks. Dowbiggin’s primary gripe here seems to be that Bettman’s bully pulpit is making it harder for people like Dowbiggin to use theirs.

Oh, and hint to other sports commissioners: any of you can do what Bettman did. Point it, Bettman did it. And, of course, the people who don’t want the fans to hear Bettman’s message directly and want to be able to spin it and alter it before you hear it hate this idea… Evidently in the mind of some, the only people allowed to talk directly to the fans are people like, well, Dowbiggin. Who, I guess is trying to convince us he would never, well, spin an opinion at his fans. He’s purely objective. Just like in this article.

(phhhttt. yeah, right).

(hat tip: Kukla)

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Bettman uses radio show to make his case (Bruce Dowbiggin). This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

The hockey, however, has been awesome.

For the conference finals?

In the west, I’m doing with detroit in 6. Chicago is up and coming, but I’m just not convinced it’s their year. Great run, but Detroit just keeps impressing me.

In the east — pittsburgh, also in 6. Too much firepower for the Canes to overcome.

Mostly, though, I’m going to sit back and enjoy watching it…

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Conference finals predictions. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

Right now, the Ducks/Detroit series has (at least to me) some interesting similarities to the Sharks/Ducks series; Detroit outshooting Anaheim but behind in the series, and Babcock saying things that sound a lot like what McClellan said.

If — and I’m not saying this will happen — the Wings go on to lose in a way that looks similar to the way the Sharks lost, does that reduce the “these guys are losers” feeling I hear among some parts of sharks fandom? If they take out the Wings as well, doesn’t that make this more about what the Ducks CAN do and not what the Sharks didn’t?

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Quick Sharks question. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.

I have to toss in that I think Nabby needs to go too — it’s not that he’s the “problem” per say, but I just don’t see him ever playing consistant enough for a 2 month stretch to win a cup.

I said upfront that Nabby wasn’t the problem. I still think Nabby isn’t the problem. It’s easy to say “he has to go” — it’s not so easy to improve the team. So, we do away with Nabokov, how do we replace him with a goalie that makes the team better? As opposed to just being a different team… In the system? Greiss isn’t the answer. Nobody in the system is ready — not remotely, as far as I can tell — to step into the NHL and be a potential Vezina candidate? Nabby didn’t make the finals, but to be honest, he wasn’t far from it.

Take a step back for a second and look at the first round:

• Anaheim 2-0
• Anaheim 3-2
• San Jose 4-3
• Anaheim 4-0
• San Jose 3-2
• Anaheim 4-1

two shut-outs, 1 one-goal game, two two-goal games. In reality, what Nabby did DIDN’T MATTER. no goalie can win a game where your offense scores zero. The Sharks only scored 1.5 goals a game. Even if Nabby had a 2.00 GAA, they’d have lost that series. The number of goalies in the playoffs right now that would have a chance of winning a series when the offense is only scoring 1.5 goals a game is — two: Thomas and Varlamov. Put Hiller (1.83) or Luongo (2.06) backstopping the Sharks in the first round, and this team goes down.

So let’s forget about “fixing” this team by swapping out goalies. Nabby wasn’t the problem.

This article was posted on Chuqui 3.0 at Nabby has to go?. This article is copyright 2010 by Chuq Von Rospach under a Creative Commons license. See the web site for usage policies. Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed so you don't miss a single one of my carefully crafted, emotionally satisfying and Pulitzer-quality words.