Words Will Never Hurt Me, Maybe

September 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The very first post on this blog was of a youtube clip of a classic game where the players on the bench were yelling at a guy from the opposing as he lined up for a face off. The language they were using was… salty. It was an entire salt lick worth of salty. It’s was kind of hacky to start that way, but this was five years ago, and I had no idea what hockey blogging looked like (still don’t). In fact, here is the long version of it (NSFW language, so there):

Yep, those were the days. Maybe it’s better to say that these are the days, since there is video of Wayne Simmonds yelling a slur at Sean Avery that rhymes with maggot and is a homophobic slur. Alright, he is alleged to have called Avery a ‘faggot.’ If you want to hear it what that word sounds like, it’s about 5 seconds into the video above. And at 52 seconds. And a bunch of other stuff.

And the Simmonds video? Sure looks like he called someone (Sean Avery, supposedly) a ‘faggot.’ (oh no, I typed it again)

That’s right, looks like. Because while you can see Simmonds say something that looks like ‘faggot,’ you can’t hear what he says. Right now, it’s he said, he said, and I doubt it will be much more than that. The league could make a stink about it, but unless someone else (like the linesman that was right there) corroborates Sean Avery’s story, the league will probably let this go, with maybe a phone call to say, off the record, watch the language.

Am I giving Simmonds a pass? Obviously not. “Faggot” is one of those words that still gives people fits about its usage. For a smart conversation about the word, listen to this conversation with Louis CK about using it in his comedy on Fresh Air. Go to the 11:35 mark for the talk.

Here is Louis CK using the word in his comedy, and talking about what it means to him. NSFW language, but if you didn’t know that by now, you probably don’t know what NSFW means.

My question is whether this would be getting as much attention if not for this past week’s banana throwing incident at a Flyers preseason game. If Wayne Simmonds hadn’t been the target of a racist act, would he be as scrutinized as he is here? With as much as the denizens of the internet love irony and bringing people down a peg, I’m guessing not. While Simmonds did a mature thing in turning the other cheek at a stupid act in London, Ont, it’s foolish of us to expect him to be a saint for it. He is just a man, and one who plays hockey at that.

I think I summed up my feelings last night rather succinctly:

It's hard to get really upset about Simmonds using a word on the ice I've heard fans use in the stands over and over. Just saying.
September 26, 2011 10:24 pm via Twitter for MacReplyRetweetFavorite
@Tapeleg
Tapeleg
Filed Under: Hockey Tagged With: , , ,
Leave a Comment

Using Twitter this Hockey Season

September 26, 2011 By 2 Comments

I’ve been talking on twitter lately about some of the ways I feel people are misusing twitter when talking about hockey games, and ways to correct it.  I don’t believe there are any real Social Media Guru’s out there, just like there aren’t that many real SEO “Experts.” It’s mostly just trial and error, and eventually, you figure out what works for you and your followers.

But there are some things that don’t work, that are worth talking about. As every, most of this is my opinion, but it’s worth taking into consideration.

The Problem with Twitter -

Twitter shares some of the same problems that make email a pain.  It’s easy, fast and free.  It’s easy to type anything in to twitter, it’s so fast you can speak your mind right away, and it’s free so it costs nothing to use.  These same three qualities hinder the medium as well.  It’s easy to type anything, so people type nothing of real value.  It’s fast, so you can just keep sending and sending more and more messages, filling someone’s timeline with garbage.  And it’s free, so anyone has access to it, including spammers (and idiots).

The Reading Experience -

It’s easy to think that everyone reads your twitter feed just like you write it, but that isn’t the case.  Just like websites often are used in the way a user thinks they should be used, twitter feeds aren’t read in the context of the person who wrote the tweets, it’s in the context of the reader.  So when a player roofs a one-timer after your favorite team’s blown coverage, and you type:

“Saw that coming a mile away.”

your readers have no idea what you are talking about.  Even if they are watching the same game you are, some twitter clients don’t update very often, so the context of your tweet is lost.  For people not watching the same game you are, there was never any context in the first place.

It isn’t just about adding context to your tweets, but also having a reason for tweeting it. Having something to say to your followers is more important that saying nothing just for the sake of tweeting.  Take the time to do it right.

Stop the Play By Play -

This will be my gospel this season: Please, stop giving play by play on your twitter stream.  You can see the section above for why, but I also would say that it’s just way too much tweeting about one game.  Play by play just becomes noise in your follower’s regular twitter feed.  We know, you have opinions and thoughts, but on every play?  All the time?  Even coaches and GMs aren’t as microscopic as some of the twitter users I’ve read.  Come on, folks.

If you really want to do massive amounts of in-game tweets, get a separate account.  I have one (@tapegame) that I rarely use, but I don’t do a lot of in-game tweets.

This doesn’t mean don’t tweet from your seat at the game.  But it does mean tweet something that is interesting outside the environment of the specific game you are at, or a small moment that only you are going to understand.  If it doesn’t make sense to someone not watching the game at the same time as you, then it doesn’t need to be said.

You may notice that you don’t get as many followers to your new in-game account.  Rather than take that as a blow to your ego, think about it like free Google Analytics.  It’s tells you exactly how many people are interested in what.  Would you rather get the tweets people want to the right people, or annoy and minimize your voice to the rest of your followers?
I’m the Mayor of Not Giving a Damn -

I have hated foursquare for as long as it’s been invading my twitter timeline.  It’s nothing but noise for people who aren’t playing the same game you are.  And it is nothing more than a game, like a scavenger hunt of a massive multiplayer version of tag.

We don’t care what TV show you are watching.  We don’t care that you are shopping at Wal-Mart.  We aren’t interested that you used DeliSquare to check-in at Frank’s Meat Market while buying the special sausage of the day, and now you earned the Salami Commander badge.  Sure, it’s fun for you, but please, untie these silly games from your twitter feed.  We get it, you like fresh meat.  That doesn’t mean you have to share it all the time.

I will point out that I tend to take pictures of the beers I drink in various places around the country.  You could make the argument that I am doing exactly what I am complaining about.  The difference is, I wind up having conversations with the people who follow me about the beer I (and they) drink.  That’s social.  Talking with people is social.  “I’m watching Dr. Who with 1,258 other people” is not social.  You aren’t watching the show with them.  You are home alone, with your scarf and signed photo of Tom Baker.  We all know it.  We don’t need to be reminded all the time.

Lowering the Noise -

I don’t follow that many people.  Right now, I’m following under 100 twitter accounts.  Two of those may be dogs.  No, really, dogs.  The reason I follow that few accounts is because I read almost every tweet in my feed.  Rather than live the lie that I follow hundreds or thousands of twitter feeds, I keep my main feed shortened to things that I will find interesting all the time, and put other accounts in to lists.

This actually works well, as I can live in my main twitter timeline, but when I want something that I may be more interested in at specific times, I can go to my lists.  I have lots of lists, and will probably make more soon.  I have a list for the Avs fans, professional hockey writers, public radio people, NPR specific accounts, and will probably add a few for other interests I have.  I know that it isn’t all that social, but what it really does is keep the expectation of how much of your twitter feed I read.  If I follow you, I read every tweet, and keep that number manageable so I can read them all.  If I don’t follow you, I may still be reading your tweets, but not every one all the time.

I also tend to unfollow fairly quickly when a twitter feed becomes a negative experience.  I’ve unfollowed friends, bloggers I respect, people I like, and plenty of media people.  If I still find them interesting, they go into a list.  But if they are bringing my twitter experience down, off they go.  It isn’t mean.  There are plenty of people whom I like, but don’t care for their twitter streams.  That’s just how it works.  If I were to do anything else, I’d be lying to the people I follow, and I’m not interested in doing that.

Twitter Fights -

I hate them.  I’ve been in a few, and didn’t care for it at all.  Every so often, I still get roped into them (it’s hard to see a twitter fight until you are 2/3 of the way through it).  These days, I tend to end the fights quickly and walk away from them.  I’ve found that some people don’t like that.  To them I say, whatever.

It’s hard to get the intended tone across in 140 character chunks, much less a point about something we feel passionately about.  That’s fairly obvious, but it’s also hard to get across that we have heard the other person, or really understood what they are saying.  Worse, we may not have really heard what they are saying at all.  Twitter fights aren’t for rational discussion.

If someone wants to drop out of a twitter fight, let them.  If you want to drop out of a twitter fight, and the other person doesn’t want to leave you be, block them.  You can always unblock them later.

On Blocking -

I don’t like to do it, but when it’s time, it’s time.  I tend to take the two-blocks-you’re-out tactic.  If I need to block someone, I will do it when necessary.  If I wonder if they have said anything interesting, after a while, I will unblock them.  If I block them a second time, that’s it, I’m done with them.  I don’t unblock that often.  If someone has pissed you off or messed with you twice, they aren’t likely to change, so there is no reason to go back.

Blocking someone is the only tool we have.  There isn’t another way to get someone to either leave us alone, or at least take them out of our perception.  You get to choose who you hang out with in the physical world, and you should get to do so online.  Facebook at least allows for a mutual relationship.  You and I can’t be Facebook friends without both of us agreeing.  Twitter is different.

Set a personal policy, and stick to it.  Don’t tell someone you are going to unfollow or block them.  That is meaningless.  It’s like the bad guy saying something stupid to his victim before killing them.  It doesn’t change the outcome, the guy is still dead.  It’s nothing more than bad dialogue.  Do the deed, and move on with your life.

For more reading about blocking, I always recommend this post from Derek Powazek on pushing the magic button.

We Are ALL in This Together -

Social media is not about just us.  It’s about everyone who participates.  I don’t get to write all the rules, and neither do you.  Individuals who participate write the rules for what works for them.  It’s like improv comedy.  There is no wrong way to do it, but there are ways that work.

Whenever you do something online that you want to put in front of other people, be it blogging, podcasting, selling art, tweeting or anything else, you have to take your readers and active participants into some consideration.  That doesn’t mean pandering, but it does mean you acknowledge that they are there, and they have wants and needs that may not be completely in line with yours.

Is this a list of rules? Sure, we could call it that.  I could just be old man Tapeleg, yelling at you to get off his lawn.  What do I know?  I know what works for me, and I don’t think I’m alone.

The comments are open.  Add anything you want.  Tell me I’m wrong (without being a jerk about it), or whatever you think about this stuff.  We need to have the conversation, to make it better for everyone.

Filed Under: Blogging Tagged With:
2 Comments

The Message was Lost in Translation

September 19, 2011 By 3 Comments

You should really go read Ryan Lambert’s ‘What We Learned” post for this week on Puck Daddy.  No, really, you should.  At least, the first part about the Drew Doughty contract negotiations, because it’s really good. I mean, it’s one of the more well thought out posts I’ve read about what the Kings are doing with this contract that is becoming more drama than business.

Like this:

What does he hope to accomplish by making these very public declarations? Is Doughty going to all of a sudden jump up and say, “Well heck Don Meehan, I really wanted that 25 grand!” and immediately fly to Los Angeles and, like Bobby Ryan before him, negotiate his own cap-friendly deal?

Short answer: No. This isn’t An Offer He Can’t Refuse. As of this writing Doughty’s missed two days of camp, so he’s currently looking at a paltry salary of $6.75 million a year. How horrible.

The only thing Doughty will likely care about at the end of the day is that Lombardi didn’t demur and say, “We’re not going to discuss the details of ongoing negotiations at this time.” By throwing out scraps here and there — what the team has already offered, what the player is looking for, how much each missed day of work will cost him, etc. — the only thing Lombardi can do is piss off his best player, not muscle him into finding a deal he or his representatives find unacceptable.

There’s more to read, and it’s worth your time.  But skip the headline:

What We Learned: Dean Lombardi’s lucky sports fans are idiots

I’m not a regular reader of Lambert, and it’s because of stuff like this.  It’s frustrating to read something like his take on the Doughty contract and see it underscored with name-calling and vitriol.  As smart as his take is, it’s undercut by the confrontational headline (and more in the post itself).

If you were to go to your boss, or your co-workers and tell them that you have a great idea, one that would make the company millions, and they would be pure morons if they didn’t listen and take your advice, you would be considered a fool.  You would have cut your own throat, and I can almost guarantee that you would be ignored.  You could take your idea and do what you wanted with it, but you would do it alone, because you turned off the people you were trying to communicate with, and ultimately influence.

Which is what Lambert does over and over.  And perhaps it’s in the name of style, and it’s a style that he likes.  But what it does is hurt his message.  What is the point of writing a well-considered post like this, only to shoot it dead before it is put on display?

I had an interesting chat with Ryan on twitter (@twolinepass), and he said a few things that I found interesting:

@ i think a thing that's very important is for fans to assess their childish behavior with regard to their favorite teams.
September 19, 2011 8:07 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@twolinepass
ryan lambert

Unfortunately, if that’s the goal, it’s presented poorly.  It’s going to be ignored from the get go, as the lead is buried behind a confrontational headline.

@ people have irrational reactions to whatever i write anyway so who cares.
September 19, 2011 8:10 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@twolinepass
ryan lambert

I don’t know what’s so irrational about being upset at being called names.  I do think it’s irrational to stop reading Puck Daddy over one writer two tries to get people’s goat (and I don’t completely buy every fan that says they don’t read it).  If you don’t like something, skip that post and move on.  Sure, it’s an editorial decision to have Lambert write for the site, but having several voices on a site generally strengthens a site.  But to blame the readers for reacting poorly to a confrontational style is putting the blame in the wrong place.

So I responded:

@ Well, hell. In all honesty, I care. And you care. And it isn't irrational to shut down when you're put on the defensive.
September 19, 2011 8:11 am via Twitter for MacReplyRetweetFavorite
@Tapeleg
Tapeleg
@ yeah except i really don't care. sports fans, in general, are idiots. their opinions mean nothing to me
September 19, 2011 8:13 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@twolinepass
ryan lambert

And there lies the rub.  I don’t believe for a moment that Lambert doesn’t care.  As the Shakespeare quote goes, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  (And no, I’m not calling Lambert a lady)  If he didn’t care, he wouldn’t write his posts, he wouldn’t try to spread his opinion, and he wouldn’t engage with hockey fans.  He would simply shake his head at we, the fans – the idiots – and keep to himself.

None of this is to tear Ryan Lambert a new one.  He has his style.  It’s his voice that informs his writing, and as caustic as that voice can be at times, it also makes him an interesting hockey writer.  Unfortunately, that style can be a huge barrier to entry.  This is more a plea, or a request for consideration – from both sides – that it isn’t necessarily the message that’s the issue, but the way it’s presented.

 

Filed Under: Hockey Tagged With: , ,
3 Comments

Hockey Podcast Poll

September 9, 2011 By 1 Comment

The hockey podcasting season is getting underway, and the field, just like the field of hockey blogging, podcasts are seeing some changes, like the end of Puck Daddy Radio, or the start of Smashville 24/7.  But podcasting, much like pimpin’, ain’t easy.  It’s hard to get good feedback about your show, since there isn’t an easy way to quickly comment on a podcast from an mp3 player, or your car.

Over at The Rink Podcast (making its return this season), I put up a poll for people who listen to hockey podcasts.  Ten questions designed to give hockey podcasters a better understanding of how their audience listens to their shows, and what they like and don’t like about the podcasts they listen to.

The poll is anonymous, and I plan on sharing a the data with any hockey podcaster who wants it.  Taking the poll will only help to improve hockey podcasting as a whole.

You can find the post with the poll at The Rink Podcast, or just go directly to the poll after the jump.  Thanks for helping.

(As I mentioned, the Rink Podcast returns this season after a way too long break.  I have a few guests lined up from hockey blogs around the NHL, and hopefully one co-host, but I’m still looking for another co-host to come on every third week or so to discuss the NHL, as well as other guests.  If you’re interested, hit me up in the comments, or send me a message here.)

 

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Blogging Tagged With:
1 Comment

Another Tragedy

September 7, 2011 By 1 Comment

I have nothing but sadness over today’s plane crash that claimed the lives of the Yaroslavl Lokomotiv team.  Two former Avalanche players were on that plane, along with other former NHL players.  There is much better coverage of this tragedy elsewhere.

I was wearing the last practice jersey Karlis Skrastins wore with the Avalanche yesterday.  It’s an honor to have it.

 

Skrastins Jersey

Filed Under: Hockey Tagged With: ,
1 Comment

The Battle

September 1, 2011 By 6 Comments

When we look at the death of a celebrity, of someone we don’t know but know of, we don’t look at their life so much as we look at ourselves. We measure the choices they made and the small sliver of their lives we know about in comparison to ours. We take the few things we guess about what it must be like to be them, and toss out the hard choices and experiences they had to endure to get to that place.

Derek Boogaard was the one that hit me the most. I didn’t know much about Rick Rypien, other than what I had read. But Boogaard was a guy I loved to watch, the few minutes he was on the ice. There was something about him that seemed so fun, but at the same time so real. He didn’t look or act like a character on the ice. He looked like someone who was having fun, even if it meant dominating someone in a fight.

And then, Wade Belak. At first, it was just another weird circumstance. But then, I saw this tweet (which I hope isn’t true):

The Toronto Sun is reporting Wade Belak's death as a suicide. According to our news department, he hung himself.
August 31, 2011 4:14 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@simmonssteve
steve simmons

We see in the stars, the celebrities, the people we cheer for and boo at, something about ourselves. We see a grander reflection when we watch the shining stars, or we see how we want to be. We condemn the villains, and ask how they could ever behave the way they do, because we would never do that.

And in the tragedy, in the people we see fall too soon, the ones who cause their own demise, we see ourselves as well. Perhaps even more clearly.

Depression is difficult. It’s difficult because you don’t see a way out of it when you are in it. You don’t feel like there is any solution. You feel like you should be able to take care of it on your own. Those times when you look around at your peers, your friends, and you wonder why you can’t pull it together. Even if you recognize it for what it is, depression never seems that unbeatable, until you can’t take it anymore. That is the most insidious part of depression, the part that makes you think it shouldn’t be that big of a deal, at the same time that it has it’s claws in you.

I’ve dealt with it. I still deal with it from time to time. I wonder what is wrong with me, why I’m so mad, or sad, or disconnected from the world. Those times you don’t see a way out, and you don’t know what to do next. When you see the happy people around you and wonder why you can’t connect with that same feeling. Or you don’t know why you’re here. At all.

I remember sitting on the corner of my bed when I was a teenager, with a knife in my hand. I was crying, because I didn’t know if I could take another day of the loneliness, or the anger, or the pain. I didn’t know if I could keep going. No one knew, and until now, no one ever knew. I sat there with that knife more than once. I looked at my wrists and said to myself, ‘do it.’ For some reason, I didn’t do it. Somehow, I went on another day, and then another. I don’t know why, but I did. And somehow, I made it this far.

Imagine how it is for an adult. You want to do things with your life, have a relationship, be with friends, do good work. Show your weakness, and you will never be looked at the same. Everyone will wonder when you will break. Some people will try to make it happen sooner. Some people are just like that. People with depression don’t want to be treated different, they want the tools to deal with how they feel. They don’t want sympathy, they want a solution.

Depression is easy to hide, but it’s also easy to ignore. It looks like a lot of things. Anger, loneliness, fear, even happiness. Yeah, we put a smile on our face to show that we aren’t weak, that we aren’t sad. People who are depressed hide it all the time. I hid mine for years, and I still do. I keep it from my co-workers, my friends and my family. I keep it locked away, and wait for the tool to surface that will some day make it all seem like it was worth it, that will let me walk away from it. I keep it away from the people closest to me. I try to keep it away from everyone. I’ve become an expert at hiding it.

I remember how people used to say – and maybe they still do – that suicide is the coward’s way out. There is no cowardice in those people. It took unbelievable strength to make it as far as they did. It’s more cowardly to turn your back on someone who is hurting. But first, you have to recognize it. And the person who is hurting has to let you know that they hurt that much. I wish it were easier than that, but it isn’t.

Where does that leave us today? With people saying you should hug a friend? With little tribute icons and status updates? What would it take to really fix the problem? What would it take to end the pain for someone?

Rypien, Belak, Boogaard. Those were some incredibly powerful people. They weren’t taken from us. We let them slip away. We’re all just slipping away.

UPDATE: I feel like, from the comments I’ve gotten, I should clarify something.

I’m more than 20 years removed from that teenager who didn’t know if he could go on.  Sometimes it feels like that was someone else.  I still have depression, but it isn’t all the time.  I feel good, and I feel bad.  I am functional, and can manage it sometimes.  Sometimes, I have a really hard time managing it.  But I don’t feel like doing myself in.  Somewhere out there, there is a solution.  That I know.  Until I find it, it’s still a struggle sometimes.  Not all the time, but often enough.

Filed Under: Hockey
6 Comments

What I Learned: The Dead Blog Challenge Wrap

July 7, 2011 By

The Dead Blog Challenge, designed to kick my ass into writing again, ended on June 30th, even though I kept going for a few days into free agency.  Of course, that was part of the point, to get a writing habit started and to keep writing (which is going to lead to the next challenge).  But I learned a few things along the way, and wanted to get them out in the world, and see what you thought.

Daily Writing vs. Daily Posting -

I believe in being consistent with putting content out there, but at the same time, I don’t believe in posting just to have something to post.  A few times through the challenge, I didn’t feel like writing about hockey, and I’m sure it showed.  It was mostly when there wasn’t much happening, and I didn’t really have much to say, but still had to put out a post, because that’s what I said I would do.  Hey, it’s called a challenge for a reason.

Unless you are paid to do it, I can’t say I believe in posting every day just to have something out there.  Phoning it in publicly when you don’t have something to say is no way to use your voice.  That doesn’t mean you can’t just share a photo or video or something simple, but to really dig into something you care nothing about is no way to go.  That’s a recipe for burnout.  And what’s the point of that, if you want to keep your blog going?  Why look at your blog staring you in the face, and hating it, all so you did that one post you didn’t really care about?

That said, I do believe in writing every day, or at least every day that you possibly can.  Hey, some of us have to work for a living, and can’t do everything we want.  It feels a little counter-intuitive, to write something and not post it, but not everything you write is going to be gold.  Sometimes, it’s best to leave even good ideas on the shelf to make way for the great ones.

Editing –

When I first started blogging, I rarely went back and edited before posting.  That was probably the stupidest thing I could have done.  I bought into the hype, and was just happy to be posting.  Now, looking back at some of those posts, the writing is absolutely embarrassing.  There are posts that should have never made it to the blog, and others that should have sat in the draft folder until I had a better head for editing.

Going back and rewriting is a great thing, so long as you believe in the process.  And if you rewrite, your proof should be right there.  You should be showing yourself exactly why you rewrite and edit, because your work gets better.

I wish there were a universal editing service, where you could submit your post to someone who could act as editor, and they would give your post a once-over for you.  Having that kind of outside perspective would be greatly educational.  I would love to submit a weeks worth of posts to Wyshynski or Eric McErlain to go over with a red marker, and show me what they would do differently.  And believe me, we all have plenty to learn about writing.

Comments –

I turned off comments for a while during the challenge, and truth be told, I missed them a little bit, even though most posts don’t get commented on.  I felt bad about turning them off, but at the same time, I tried to bask in the freedom of not needing to think about what other people thought.  That’s harder to do than it is to say, but still, I wanted to try it.

I got an email from a drive-by reader – they came from another blog I had talked about and linked to – who said that turning off comments was just my way of preaching from my pulpit.  Which is what blogs are anyways.  He thought that without comments, people couldn’t challenge my ideas or thoughts.  As though that were what comments usually are.

Take a look at the comments at highly trafficked blogs.  Look at Deadspin, or Puck Daddy.  Get outside the genre of hockey and read some of the comments you see elsewhere on the more popular blogs.  How much thoughtful commentary is there?  How much challenging of ideas do you see?  I’d say 70% of my comments are either conformation or spam.  Drive-bys make up for another 20%, with 10% actually having something challenging to say, or even discussing what was posted.

People don’t leave that many comments.  I know I don’t do it as much as I used to, but the way I have read hockey blogs, as well as the amount I read, have changed over the years.

When I started this blog, I wanted to jump into the discussion, but blogs are rarely about discussion, within the confines of the site they occupy.  Discussion happens between blogs, and in places like forums (when they are run well), or on twitter or facebook.  This isn’t to say that it never happens – I’ve had some really good conversations in the comment sections  of this blog a few times – but it’s rare.  Comments are a broken system for having conversations.  It’s part of why I started a podcast.  The conversation you have when using your voice and ears is very different from the conversation you have when stopping by the comments of a blog post you may never get back to.

By the way, I wrote back to the person who emailed me, and never heard back.  To their credit, they did poke around my blog a bit before emailing me.  Still, I guess it’s hard to send emails from way up high on my pulpit.  Either that, or they just didn’t really care.  I’m going to guess it was the second one.

Those who took up the challenge –

Several other people took up the challenge with me, which made it easier for me to complete it.  I don’t know if I could have done it with out them.  Most of the people made it through the 15 day challenge, with one person making it through the entire month long challenge with me.  A few people didn’t make it, but hey, that’s why the call it a challenge.  It’s supposed to be hard.  I hope that those who tried and didn’t make it start their own challenge at some point.  When they are ready, they will do it themselves, and be better off for it.

A few people said thanks for doing the challenge, but the truth is, I didn’t do anything.  They did the hard work, which was sitting down and writing the posts.  They kept their commitments, and they hopefully reaped the rewards.  Putting the challenge out there for others gave me more motivation when I saw how well other people were doing with the challenge, and gave me some more fun stuff to read.  I will say, in the most humble and undeserving way I know how, you are welcome.  But really, if you did the challenge, don’t pat me on the back, pat yourself on the back.  You did the work, and you deserve the credit.  I really should be thanking you.

 

So, challenges.  I need to figure out a podcasting challenge for myself.  Because I need to kick that thing back into service again for the season.  More on that later.

But the offseason is in full effect, and there won’t be enough to write about for a few months.  At least, not for me, and not for plenty of other bloggers out there.   So the challenge has to change a little bit.  I do have something in mind, so stop back in a day or two, and see what the next one is.  I think you’re going to like it.

Filed Under: NHL Tagged With:

Long Shadows

July 2, 2011 By

There are three banners hanging beside the center ice scoreboard in the Pepsi Center that cast long shadows on the ice.  The shadows reach from end to end, and are particularly dark near the goal crease.

The one with the number 77 on it has the shortest shadow of the three.  Some people who aren’t fans of the Colorado Avalanche don’t think it should be there, and I’m sure there are some fans who agree.  Ray Bourque was with Colorado for a moment, but his presence was as necessary to the Stanley Cup winning team as any other person on the ice.

The shadow cast by the banner with the number 19 is pretty long.  It also has the captain’s C on it, and that is the part that makes this shadow particularly insidious.  The Avalanche had a great captain in Joe Sakic.  He was a leader on the ice, and in the locker room.  But the key word is ‘was.’  He retired as a player and moved to the front office when it was time to do so, but it is as if the rest of the organization and the fans don’t want to move on.  Moving on doesn’t have to mean forgetting the past, but it’s time to put the past where it belongs.  There is a reason the NHL keeps going back to nostalgia when it comes time to sell something.

The number 33 banner is the hardest to overcome.  The shadow is a back breaker, because it is held so highly in the minds and hearts of the fans.  Patrick Roy was an unbelievably good goaltender, the kind that doesn’t come along very often.  He helped change and refine the position.  And he left the crease for good when it was time.  He moved on, but the fans don’t want to move on.  They still want Roy back.  They want him as a coach, a GM, and falling short of that, they want his reincarnation.

The Avalanche needed three things desperately coming off the bust of last season: goaltending, a bigger defense, and goaltending.

The Avs gave up two draft picks to sign Semyon Varlamov, and wound up bringing in JS Giguere, both for two years.  Eerily similar to Craig Anderson, the Avs are taking a chance on Varlamov, and if it pans out, they will look like geniuses.  It looks like a huge price to pay, until you start looking at how many top draft picks have worked out for the team, and how many goaltenders that were drafted by the Avs ever played for the Avs.  HockeyDB provides the Avalanche draft history, and when you take it all in, it’s an interesting picture.

Here’s the goalies drafted by the Avalanche to play in the NHL through their history, starting with the most recent:

Tyler Weiman – Drafted 2002 –  Played 1 game (16 minutes in relief) for the Avs

Peter Budaj – Drafted 2001 – Played 242 games for the Avs

Philippe Sauve – Drafted 1998 – Played 17 games for the Avs

David Aebischer – Drafted 1997 – Played 174 games for the Avs

Marc Denis – Drafted 1995 – Played 27 games for the Avs

Brent Johnson – Drafted 1995 – Played 0 games for the Avs

This is only a list of goalies the Avalanche drafted.  It doesn’t include draftees of the Quebec Nordiques, such as Tim Thomas, who never played a game for the Nords.  You may have heard of him?

The thing with that list is, the most successful goalie, in terms of games played and longevity in the league, never played for the Avalanche (and you can include Tim Thomas in that as well).  The ones who did play for the Avs did so in the shadow of Roy.  How does your guy feel when you read their names?  Most of them are disappointing, but I don’t feel like it was entirely deserved.  The Avs haven’t developed a goalie that could steal games like Roy could, or like Craig Anderson could in his first season with the Avalanche.  Taken in that context, to me, a first rounder and a second (that is made up for with the trade of John-Michael Liles to Toronto for a second round pick) seems like a small price to pay for a good goalie.  He doesn’t have to be Roy, and hopefully he won’t be held to the fire to be Roy.

The defense got bigger starting with Eric Johnson coming to the Avs for Stewart and Shattenkirk (who I think will be the one who got away), and the Liles trade made way for Jan Hejda, a free agent signing by way of the Columbus Blue Jackets.  Ever since Scott Hannan was traded to the Washington Capitals, the need for shutdown defensemen was obvious.  If the Avs have their men, then that need was addressed, even if it isn’t completely solved.

The final shadow belongs to the captain.  The Avalanche are only one person removed from the captaincy, and that was a fairly obvious choice at the time.  There wasn’t another person who had the respect of the team, or the fans, to wear the C.  But by continuing to hold out and make the C a bigger deal, it becomes heavier and heavier.  The Avs are going to have to announce a captain at some point, and the longer they hold out, the worse it is going to be for the person who has to wear it.  The obvious choice to me is Paul Stastny, and if it doesn’t work out or someone else steps up in a few years, give it to them.  It’s sacrilege to the faithful, but you shouldn’t even try.  Joe Sakic was the original captain, and after that, it’s someone else’s turn.  Let them do it their way.

Those shadows, they loom large, but they aren’t helping.  Living in the past doesn’t work anymore.  By continually looking back and wishing things were like the old days, there is no room for the new.  There isn’t room for success, or possibility.  It’s time to let the boys be boys.  Let them play, without having to live up to the standards of 2001, and come out from the shadows.  It’s time for the new Avalanche to emerge.

Filed Under: NHL Tagged With: ,

Free Agency Afternoon Thoughts

July 1, 2011 By

Just some general thoughts on day one of free agency:

Florida Panthers – Dale Talon has a lot of people scratching their heads today, but I’m not one of them.  Talon knows how to build a team, and the team he’s building looks a lot like the 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks.  They don’t have the younger draftees, and they don’t seem to have a rookie goalie in the wings to scoop the team up, but he looks like he could be a few years away from just that.  I don’t doubt the man, so long as he stays comforably away from the upper limit of the salary cap.  And considering he is in Florida, that shouldn’t be an issue.  Jose Theodore is the new Christibol Huet, Scotty Upshall is the new Dustin Byfuglien, and Brian Campbell is still Brian Campbell.  I don’t know where Jovanovski fits in yet.  The big difference here is that Florida got better.  That’s been a long time coming.

Vokoun – I don’t think we will hear much from Vokoun until later, but his options are waining.  It’s been suggested that the Panthers should have given him one more year, but I couldn’t imagine how that would help Vokoun.  His market value is as high as it’s going to get, even as his options for locations are shrinking.

Jagr – AH HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! But seriously, it’s probably Jagr’s last year in the NHL ever.  He needed to follow the money.  Heart has never been his strongest suit, but it was kind of a dick move for Ray Shero to try and tug at those heartstrings.  Manipulative? Maybe.  But Jagr made them pay.  Hockey hate in Pittsburgh is going to be at an all time high.

Christian Ehrhoff – What a joke of a contract.  Two signing bonuses? A signing bonus 4 times the amount of the salary for the year it’s handed out? Just a freaking joke.  Contracts like this give the owners more ammo for the next CBA.  This is the bastard child contract of Brian Campbell and Ilya Kovalchuk.

Colorado Avalanche – I’ll do more on the Avalanche later, but for now, the best I can say is that they got better.  They worked towards filling holes on the club with the available market.  I’ll go deeper later.

Carcillo to the Blackhawks – AH HAHAHAHAAH!!!!! Oh, how the Canucks are going to hate the Hawks twice as much next year.

Erik Cole – I would have liked to have seen him in an Avs jersey.  He’s quietly good, the kind of player the fans like here in Colorado.

 

Overall, lots of teams got better today.  I think the overall sentiment online has been, “why can’t I be a GM?”  In this market, there are more role players than difference makers.  If you had a hole to fill, this is the market to do it in.  If you need big stud, you have few options, and you will pay for them.

More later….

Filed Under: NHL Tagged With: , , , ,

Varlamov to the Avs: Why I’m Not Worried

July 1, 2011 By

Semyon Varlamov is now an Av.  After making a lot of noise about going to the KHL, the Avs traded a first and second round pick for Varlamov, and the Capitals got out of a bind.

To Caps fans, the general sentiment on Varlamov is, don’t let the door hit you.  It reminds me of how fast the Avalanche faithful turned on Budaj after his stellar season that almost shoehorned the Avs back into the playoffs in 2006-07, after Jose Theodore (who signed a two year deal with Florida) tanked.  Then again, Budaj and his agent weren’t talking smack about the Avalanche either.

The knee-jerk reaction on twitter (which is where I go for my calm and well thought out analysis) is that the Avalanche overspent by a country mile on this deal.  A first and a second is a lot to give up for what was essentially negotiating rights, and word is the 2012 draft is kind of deep.  And the Avs faithful don’t think they will do much better next season than they did this season.

But then again, the Avalanche seem to be addressing some of their needs, regardless of the ‘rebuilding’ tag.  They have a much bigger defense (Liles and Shattenkirk out, Johnson, O’Byrne, and Hejda in), and from the goaltending tandem of Budaj and Elliot, we have Varlamov and (insert someone here).  It’s not like the Avalanche have been good at developing goalies anyways.  Look at the time spent on Tyler Weiman, and he was shipped off.  Vitaly Kolesnik didn’t get a legitimate shot,.  And the Avalanche system was stocked with third and fourth goalie talent last season, and doesn’t look much more promising this season.  At this point, if you were going to stick with Varlamov, and not go after Vokoun (which I am not convinced that the Avs are out of the Vokoun race yet), you might as well bring back Budaj (too late, 2 years with Montreal).  If there isn’t anything worth using in the system, why not give up a pick for a guy who at least has NHL talent?  If you can’t develop ‘em, buy ‘em.

It’s way to early to pass judgement on this deal.  People think Varlamov is washed up, but what do the fans know?  I’ll refer you to the fans in Boston who thought Tim Thomas was washed up a year after winning the Vezina.  He had lost the starting job (and justifiably so) to Tukka Rask.  One off-season hip surgery later, and he won the Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe, and his second Vezina.  I don’t think Varlamov is going to do the same thing, but there is a lot of unknowns for those of us who are sitting behind our keyboards.

In the end, it’s going to be up to Varlamov as to how good this deal is for the Avalanche.  If he plays his ass off, he will make those two draft picks less and less valuable for the Capitals.  Since he signed a 2 year, $5.5 million contract, he’s with the Avs for the foreseeable future.  I’m happy to sit back and see how it goes.

Besides, if the Avs can get this kind of thing from Varlamov, why not?  Maybe the Avs can capture lightning in a bottle again.

Filed Under: Hockey Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »