Since June of 2009, Greg Sherman has been the GM of the Colorado Avalanche.  Also, since June 2009, Sherman has been appearing to do his best Matt Millen impersonation. (For those of you who don't know, Matt Millen is the former GM of the Detroit Lions who, by sheer incompetence, managed to drain even more hope out of a team that didn't appear to have any left to begin with).  Prior to this point for the Avalanche, the team was certainly on a downward slope.  However, at that time, it appeared that they had financial support of a deep-pocketed owner, a team president well past his glory years as a crafty GM but still caring enough to make every effort to get his team back to the top (as evidenced by his effort to make a splash and name his former client/goalie/hockey icon the coach and GM) and a fan base that was disappointed in the fall from grace, but largely excited by the prospect of some dynamic young talent in the offing (with the 3rd pick in the draft coming up).  The fault did not lie with the organization as a whole, but mostly with the accountant posing as a GM and his in-over-his-head coach.  In short, despite the setbacks, the organization seemed to be bound and determined to erase the mistakes of the post-lockout years and return to the glory of the pre-lockout years.

Fast forward 25 months.  Now, the deep-pocketed owner doesn't know he has a hockey team (or doesn't care), the team president evidently spends most of his time in Nevada watching Judge Judy, the fan base is dwindling down to just the hard core fans and the team still has an accountant posing as a GM and an in-over-his-head coach.  An accountant who has does an uncanny Matt Millen impersonation.

Now, listen.  I know we're just fans.  If we really were so smart, why aren't we scouts, coaches and GMs?  Of course, they're the professionals.  They know what they're doing.  But, in case it hadn't occurred to the marketing-challenged Avalanche powers that be, appearances count for quite a lot in the entertainment business.  And that's something that they need to get through their thick skulls:  they are in the entertainment business.  Yes, it's sports entertainment, but it's entertainment nevertheless.  And when an entertainment business appears to be run by closeted Red Wing fans imbeciles, people don't spend their money on it.  Not to mention the fact that other GMs are further emboldened by the idea that they can fleece the Avs in trade after trade because of perceived mismanagement.  Not to mention the fact that evidence continues to pile up that this team is going to be run on the cheap indefinitely, spending only to the cap floor but overpaying average talent in order to do so.  And right now, I can't find a single hockey person who thinks the Avalanche made a smart deal when they traded a potential lottery pick for another "if" player.

Look, there's certainly good evidence to suggest that Semyon Varlamov can be a number 1 goalie.  But until it is actually proven, he's just another project on a team rife with them.  And a lottery pick plus a potentially high second rounder is a lot to pay for another project.

What's the sad truth?  The last two years of trades (and other moves) actually told us that these moves would be the rule, not the exception.  Even the moves that were met with fan approval turned out to be short-lived.  We should have seen it coming:

July 3, 2009:  Avalanche trades Ryan Smyth to Los Angeles Kings for Kyle Quincey, Tom Preissing and a 5th round pick in 2010 (Luke Walker).  Pure salary dump for a slightly better-than-average defenceman, an overpaid, washed up defenceman (bought out a year later to help get to the cap floor without wasting a roster spot) and a depth forward.  It may not have been all that bad of a hockey deal, but it reeked of cheapness and still does.

November 29, 2010:  Avalanche trades Colby Cohen to Boston Bruins for Matt Hunwick.  Because we needed to give up a tough, physical young d-man with a hard point shot for another small, marginal-at-best puck mover (except when we decide to do a 180 and start trading the established puck movers way and signing/acquiring only 6'5, 230 lb blueliners only a few short months later).

November 30, 2010:  Avalanche trades Scott Hannan to Washington Capitals for Tomas Fleischmann.  Short term, it was a good deal.  But they may as well have kept Hannan if they were going to let him walk anyway.  Even if they were scared off by Flash's blood problems, at least let your fan base know your reasoning.  Remember that whole thing about appearances?

February 18, 2011:  Avalanche trades Craig Anderson to Ottawa Senators for Brian Elliott.  Yes, Andy had fallen way off his MVP performance of the previous season.  But Anderson's subsequent good play for Ottawa, Elliott's subsequent poor play for Colorado (bad defense notwithstanding) and the subsequent decision not to qualify him and let him walk make it pretty hard for the Avs to look good on this deal.  Even if Anderson stinks it up for the next two seasons and is then bought out by the Senators, the Avs will still look foolish on this trade.  If Bryan Murray was so quick to give Anderson a 4-year, $12.75 million deal after a few weeks of good play, couldn't you have squeezed a 3rd or 4th round pick out of him as well?

February 19, 2011:  Avalanche trades Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and a 2nd round pick in 2011 (Ty Rattie) to St. Louis Blues for Erik Johnson, Jay McClement and a 1st round pick in 2011 (Duncan Siemens).  Granted, this trade will take more time to judge because of the youth involved, but clearly the most established player of the deal is Stewart.  Drafted the same year as Johnson, Stewart has proven himself to be a top-six NHL power forward, exactly what he was projected to be.  Johnson has not yet proven himself to be a franchise defenceman, nevermind that he hasn't lived up to the hype of a first overall pick.  Shattenkirk still has work to do, but he is already looking like he'll develop faster than Johnson has.  At this point, Johnson is still a project.  McClement certainly does not stand out in a team already loaded with centers and Siemens is likely years away from making his impact on this trade.  Time may tell a different story, but this trade still reeks of both panic and Greg Sherman trying to divest himself of as many components of the Francois Giguere reign as possible.

June 24, 2011:  Avalanche trades John-Michael Liles to Toronto Maple Leafs for a 2nd round pick in 2012.  Again, why is it so easy to convince Greg Sherman to except a low-ball offer?  Isn't this what they were offering at the trade deadline?  Why didn't you just take it then?  Or better yet, couldn't you have received this at next year's trade deadline?  If you were trying to rid your self of smallish puck moving defencemen, why not spend your cap floor money on a proven veteran instead of two never-will-be's in Hunwick and Cumiskey?

When all is said and done, the best player from 2009-10 (Anderson) and arguably the best player from 2010-11 (Liles) are now gone and all they have to show for it is a 2nd round pick in 2012 (one that becomes even more important as it's likely going to be the first pick they get in that draft, even if it's going to be a late second rounder).

Even the moves that we might praise the current front office for are probably more credited to the scouting staff than the GM (Barrie, Stefan Elliott, Hishon, Pickard) or just a product of a high draft position and a player falling into your lap (Duchene, O'Reilly, Landeskog).  Or, they have a relatively minor impact, such as the Winnik or O'Byrne trades.  Or, as said before, they are short term.  In July of 2009, the Anderson signing looked like a solid if not frugal move to shore up the goaltending.  The next summer, it looked like a solid gold steal.  Less than a year later, it's another 180.

And that brings us to Varlamov.  Again, this could turn out to be a great move.  But judging by even Sherman's best trades, the likelihood of that happening seems remote.

So, we are back to the appearance of a poorly managed team being run by Matt Millen, er, Greg Sherman and likely 3-5 more years of rebuilding (probably 5 with the forfeiture of a potential lottery pick).

Yes, appearances can be deceiving.  But it certainly doesn't appear so right now.

P.S.  I do remind you that Pierre McGuire really trashed the Avs for the Varlamov trade, so if he's against it, it may not be a bad move after all.

The third period of Game 6 against the San Jose Sharks was a microcosm of the Avs season.  They started out well, got a lead but faded toward the end and couldn't hold on.  We saw that scenario play out over and over again this season.  And there was no more important example than Joe Pavelski's goal.  Not in Game 6 to take the lead for good, but to tie Game 2 with 30 seconds to go.  Most certainly, that was the turning point in the series.  Pavelski, who was by far the best player for the Sharks in the series and probably only rivaled by Craig Anderson overall, showed the clutch that many of the young Avs are going to have to display if their future is going to be as bright as everyone thinks it will be.

They are a young team that has vastly exceeded expectations but still have to learn that killer instinct.  Even the season as a whole followed that path when they nearly faded out of a playoff spot when they could very well have won their division.  They managed to step up and get into the post-season, but you could tell in this series that they had used everything they had to do it.

And now, we have the mixed bag of recognizing the amazing young talent and awesome potential of this team (166 points by rookies) but also the idea that there maybe could have been more hockey this year if not for the usual what ifs.  Officiating.  Injuries.  Bounces.  A pylon named Joe Thornton and his two sidekicks Marleau and Heatley.  The Sharks were ripe for the taking and may have fallen if not for their so-called second line led by Pavelski.  (By the way, if the Sharks win the Stanley Cup this year, remind me to wear my big pants so the monkeys can fly out of my ass!)  But it wasn't to be and all the potential in the world doesn't make it sting.

This playoff appearance separates them from the Kings and Coyotes, who had endless potential for years but only now have realized it.  It certainly separates them from the Panthers and Maple Leafs. Now, they have to separate themselves from the Blues, Blue Jackets and Thrashers as teams who made the playoffs with young potential only to falter the next season.

Ultimately, though, that sting can be a good thing because that bitter taste can drive them even harder next year.  But for now, it just plain sucks.

In a few days, we'll decompress and realize what an unbelievable season it was for the Avs.  We'll turn our eyes to a future so bright, we've got to wear shades.  Myself, I plan to write an evaluation of each player and look at the future as well, if for no other reason than to get it out of my head.  But for now, it's time to shave my playoff beard.

Well, the Olympics are over.  We got to see a lot of great hockey and hopefully showed the casual fans and first-timers how truly awesome this sport is.

What I also hope is that both American fans and, more importantly, players earned the respect of our hockey brethren north of the border.  I don't want this to sound like I'm a sore loser, so let me start off by congratulating Team Canada for withstanding the incredible pressure to win and coming out on top in their national pastime on their soil.  Because of the saturation of sports here in the United States, there isn't any international event that we would host where there would be that kind of pressure on our team.  Not baseball.  Not basketball.  Not football.  There are countless sporting events that are the crown jewels of their respective sports and everyone of them has a big following:  the World Series; the NBA finals; the Masters; the Daytona 500; the NCAA Basketball championship; the BCS National Championship; the Super Bowl.  (Coincidentally, the US-Canada matchup beat all of these in ratings except for the latter two).  Of those sports, only baseball, basketball and golf are played in any kind of international tournament like the Olympics (golf is slated to be part of the 2016 Rio Games).  Despite the great pride Americans take in some of these sports, it's nowhere near the pride Canadians take in hockey.  It's a pride and a passion I admire and try hard to match.  I'm not Canadian, so it probably never can compare, therefore I have to envy it. 

It's a birthright to them, but despite that, it's not an entitlement, as many of the fans seemed to think.  A birthright is something you are born to do.  You still have to do it to earn it.  It's akin to a rite of passage.  An entitlement is something that you're given for free.  Team Canada was not given this gold medal.  They earned it.  So to think of it as an entitlement diminishes its meaning.  I would think that those 34 million Canadians think this is all the sweeter because their players had to earn it.

That's where the respect factor comes in.  There is not a lot of respect when it comes to the way Canadian fans (and players) think of hockey in the United States.  In certain ways, I can understand that.  The NHL's struggles to expand the fan base have sometimes come at the expense of the Canadian hockey fan.  (Here I am, a fan of a team that used to be a religion in Quebec City.)  But there are millions of hardcore hockey fans here in the US.  Not casual fans.  Hardcore fans.  USA Hockey's enormous success in developing more and more NHL stars is evidence that the game has grown by leaps and bounds on a grassroots level.  Just the other night, a AAA game went into double overtime, delaying the start of my league game that night.  The talent of these kids is amazing and their passion and excitement for the game is easily as visible as it is in any Canadian junior game.  Just like their Canadian counterparts, their parents get up at ungodly hours to drive their kids to tournaments all over the region.  They pay the league fees and the equipment costs because their kids love the game (and if we didn't have 300 days of sunshine in Denver, there would be a lot more backyard rinks).  These fans aren't trying to steal the game from Canada.  We want to love it as you do.

I'm not saying they have to like each other.  They are rivals.  Rivals aren't supposed to like each other.  They're supposed to hate each other.  Respect has nothing to do with that.  But it's not a rivalry if one side doesn't respect the abilities of the other side.

Team USA made Team Canada fight for every inch.  That doesn't deserve love, but it does deserve respect.  It also reaffirms the beliefs of all Canadians and probably most American fans that the North American style of play is the way to go.  These two teams easily played the two best games of the tournament.

While the growth of the game beyond Canadian borders (and North American borders) may sometimes seem like a threat to a national passion, one needs to remember that better competition makes victory sweeter.  As long as Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and now Switzerland develop their talent and try to knock off the teams on the pedestal, it will make staying on top more difficult and much more satisfying when it is accomplished.  I can't imagine that Paul Henderson's goal in 1972 or Mario Lemieux's goal in 1987 would be near as iconic in Canada if the USSR's Red Machine was instead a B league team.  The same can be said for Crosby's OT winner.

Victories are going to be harder to come by for every team in international play.  I'm sure Canada is still going to be the superpower, but their standing will be all the more prestigious when they have to play formidable opponents to earn it.

I greatly respect the Canadian game and the development of its stars.  I hope that street is now going two ways.

Congratulations and party hard.

P.S.  Pretty good rating for the game in Denver despite the fact that the game had to go up against the Nuggets/Lakers game on ABC.  We finished 9th in metered markets but considering that the 8 cities that finished ahead of us didn't have a local team playing at the same time, the ratings were still very good.

***Addendum:  It looks like the powers that be have flexed their muscle and moved the Russia quarterfinal to 4:30 PM Pacific as the schedule linked below now states.  I've struck out the text referencing it.  I guess anybody that reads this will probably click on that link and think I'm nuts, but it previously said 9:00 PM Pacific and it was mentioned by Bob McKenzie on one of those hockey shows (I conveniently don't remember which one).  Interesting to note, though, that the Wikipedia page for the men's tournament showed the 3D (Russia) vs. E2 game at 4:30 PM the whole time.  Wikipedia got something right.  Glad to see someone at NBC got something right, too.

Some random thoughts on the first week of Olympic hockey:

• The dream matchup that most hockey pundits wanted to see is going to happen, barring a German-led upset of Canada on Tuesday.  On the international stage (meaning outside of the United States), the historic rivalry is Canada-Russia.  There have been countless meetings between the two hockey superpowers including (but not limited to) the classic '72 Summit Series, the Canada Cup tournaments, the World Championships, the World Junior Championships and the 2007 U-20 Summit Series.  The U-20 Summit Series was a low point for Russian hockey but it hasn't taken them long to regain their status as a superpower.  Most pundits predicted a gold medal matchup between the Canadians and Russians in this years Olympics.  They were almost right.  But they likely got caught up in the wishful thinking of how a gold medal game between the two teams would help explode the game globally, particularly with the matchup of Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin.  Well, the matchup will likely still take place and will still have a do-or-die background, but it won't be for all the marbles, probably taking a little of the luster off of it.  It doesn't matter, though, because it is a matchup all hockey fans wanted to see.  For us Americans, it has many benefits.  One, of course, is that one of the two superpowers will be eliminated, meaning if Team USA is successful in it's quarterfinal matchup against Switzerland or Belarus, only one of Canada or Russia may be waiting down the road.  (Of course, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and defending champion Sweden are not exactly walkovers either).  Two, we get to see a great game without having a stake in the outcome, meaning we can enjoy it that much more.
• Gary Bettman won't admit it publicly.  Neither will 24 of the 30 owners in the NHL.  But they desperately want the United States to medal in this tournament, preferably matching up in the gold medal game against Russia or Canada (and preferably winning the gold).  A Team USA upset of Canada in the gold medal game would be huge for the growth of hockey in the United States.  Likewise, a victory over Russia would bring back memories of 1980 and expose the great game to a new generation.  None of this has anything to do with national pride.  It has to do with the bottom line.
• Speaking of national pride, it seems Canadian fans and media are already calling for the ouster of Martin Brodeur in favor of Roberto Luongo.  I half-agree.  Brodeur's Olympic glory days appear to be behind him.  Sure, he could possibly come back in this tournament, but it doesn't seem like he'll get another start.  But Marc-Andre Fleury is a better choice than Roberto Luongo.  Consider this:  since the games in Turin in 2006, Fleury has played 49 playoff games.  Luongo and Brodeur combined have played 54, just 5 more.  And Fleury has won 31 playoff games.  Brodeur and Luongo combined have won 25.  Fleury has won 7 of the 9 playoff series he has played in.  Brodeur has won 2 of 6 and Luongo has won 2 of 4.  Combined, they have won 4 of 10.  Most importantly, Fleury has played in 13 Stanley Cup Finals games including a Game 7 (which he of course won).  Brodeur and Luongo:  zero.  In fact, of the two, only Brodeur has played in a game 7 in the finals (he's played 2 and has gone 1-1, the most recent of which came against Anaheim in 2003).  Granted, Brodeur and Luongo have more international experience, but it's also been a while since either had a lot of success at that level.  You have to go back to 2004 when Luongo backstopped Canada to a gold medal at the World Championships and Brodeur backstopped Canada to the World Cup.  And Fleury has to be itching to prove his mettle on the international stage after back-to-back gold medal game losses at the World Juniors in 2003 and 2004 to Russia and the United States respectively.  But it appears that now would be too late to give Fleury his first action of the tournament.  If I had been Mike Babcock, I would have split the 3 preliminary round games among my goalies, giving Luongo the start against Norway, Fleury against Switzerland and Brodeur against the USA.
• Anybody else think that Canada is relying way too much on the San Jose Sharks players who have been known for their playoff disappearing acts the last five years?
• If the Vancouver Canucks think they can stay successful by only signing the Sedin twins and Luongo to long-term deals but not Ryan Kesler, they are sorely mistaken.  Mike Gillis would do himself well to sign Kesler to one of those ridiculous 14-year contracts.  They do not have a more complete player or more tenacious.
• Could we stop comparing the US upset of Canada to the Miracle on Ice?  Apples and oranges.  I seriously hope the American players are listening to none of this because this is exactly the kind of Kool-Aid they don't need to be drinking.  It was a great game and yes it was a great moment in USA Hockey history.  But they haven't won anything yet.  It's single elimination now and it doesn't figure to get any easier.
• Finally, it was a great game last night.  Unfortunately, I feel that it's impact for growing the game was stunted by the retards at NBC (uh-oh, I think I just got on Sarah Palin's shit list.  Just kidding).  Whoever the host of the post-game show was, he commented how the game probably attracted new fans.  Well, it might have if it were on the big network in HD instead of on the Democratic National Committee Network, uh, I mean MSNBC (now I'm probably on Keith Olbermann's Worst Persons in the World list.  Just kidding).  I realize that I'm biased, but there is no fucking way that last night's ice dancing competition was near as exciting as the Canada-USA game.  I don't care what Larry Brooks says, it is disrespecting hockey.  What I don't understand is that NBC is in a revenue sharing agreement with the NHL.  That means that they don't pay any exorbitant fees like the other networks do for the NFL, NBA and MLB.  They split the revenues from their telecasts with the NHL.  How can promoting the best players in your game be bad for revenue?  Now comes the news that (at least according to their own schedule), the marquee matchup of Canada-Russia in the quarterfinals (assuming Canada beats Germany) will be played at 12 AM Eastern on Wednesday (10 PM here in Denver).  Hmmm, do I watch Ovechkin vs. Crosby or late-night skin flicks on Cinemax.  I'm sorry, but as much as the game should grow globally, it needs to grow in the USA first.  Doesn't the whole Leno-O'Brien fiasco seem much less surprising now?  Does the C in NBC stand for Congress to remind us of the uselessness of the people running the show?

But I digress.

While the 2009-10 edition of the Avalanche is more consistent than the 08-09 version, the recent three game losing streak confirmed what many already knew:  the young team lacks a consistent killer instinct.  Among other things.  Don't get me wrong, this team has far exceeded expectations and is by no means out of contention.  Too many pundits have constantly pronounced the Avs DOA after every rough patch there has been this year.  While I don't qualify as a pundit, I'm certainly not here to conduct an autopsy.  The pundits will certainly point to the more experienced teams in Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago and San Jose, who are finding ways to win every game.  The Avs, not so much.  Granted, it may be a dubious comparison given the talent levels of the aforementioned teams, but if they are what the Avs aspire to be then that is the standard by which they must be measured.  I will also once again concede the fact that this team was not expected to do this much to begin with.  But as long as they lack the killer instinct, there will always be pundits standing in line to deliver their eulogy.

With the Olympic break and trade deadline looming, it is clear that the Avs brass have some very tough decisions ahead, none of which are easy.  The next two weeks will go a long way in determining if those decisions get easier or tougher.  One thing that is clear is that if the current edition of the Avs hope to make any splash in the post-season, they will have to attain that consistent killer instinct and quickly.  It is also clear that the cost of acquiring said killer instinct may not be worth the long shot hopes of significant playoff success.  The surprising success of this season aside, it may be time for them to come back down to Earth.

Continue reading this post »

[EDIT: Derek here. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about in my rant last night about the attendance of the game being just over 11,700. Great article!]

Lately, I've been reading a lot of comments left on certain blog postings that indicate that Denver doesn't deserve the Avalanche and should be moved to a town that appreciates them.  I'd like to take the opportunity to tell these pricks to shove it!

Attendance for Avs games has struggled this year and apparently, a year of this disqualifies Denver from having an NHL team.  While I hate to be the one to make excuses, any individual with a quarter of a brain could see the many circumstances that have led to this.  Denver is not hockey stupid and anyone who doesn't agree has obviously never been here and doesn't know their ass from Kirk Douglas's chin.

As someone who plays hockey regularly in the Denver area, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not a niche sport or a cult following here.  Ice time is extremely hard to come by and there are often too many teams in our divisions and never not enough.  I am always to trying to rent ice for team practice and it's frequently hard to get it during normal hours.  If we want to practice at 1 am, sometimes we can get that.  There are boatloads of youth hockey programs that also compete for ice as kids are very passionate about the game.

Continue reading this post »

I'll admit, it seemed weird when Patrick Roy retired.  It was unsettling not to see Peter Forsberg or Adam Foote on the roster in 2005.  It took some getting used to.

This is radically different.

When 33 was raised to the rafters, we were certainly reminded that the Avs had a significant gap between the pipes.  Maybe that's just become so commonplace, it doesn't seem weird anymore.

When Peter Forsberg made his only visit to the Pepsi Center in an opposing uniform while with the Nashville Predators, it didn't look right, but by that time, he'd been gone for two years and we'd somewhat adjusted.

Admittedly, Foote never looked right in a Blue Jackets jersey, but we all have to admit that the post-lockout Foote is a shadow of the pre-lockout Foote.

But for #19, it's different.

Since he was re-signed after the 2001 Stanley Cup, it was never a consideration to see Joe Sakic in another NHL jersey.  It wasn't something to worry about.  He would be an Av forever.

After the lockout, he was retained instead of Forsberg.  Tough decision, but the right one.  He would still be an Av forever.

When he flirted with retirement last summer but eventually returned, a collective sigh of relief was audible.  He would be an Av forever.

Despite a herniated disc and an evil snowblower, he would be an Av forever.  Right?

Certainly, Joe would relish the opportunity to mentor a dynamic young talent in Matt Duchene, who idolized him as a youngster.  Worst season in Denver be damned!  He's an Av forever.

Remember how your hopes skyrocketed when it was rumored that Sakic told Duchene in a post-draft phone call that he would see him soon.  Told ya, he's an Av forever.

No matter how much we tried to convince ourselves that it would never end, reality has a way of crashing the party.  It really is stupid to think it could last forever, but I still cannot imagine an Avalanche squad without Joe Sakic.  It's just plain wrong.

Unlike the departures of Peter, Patrick and Adam, this one doesn't seem real.  I didn't like the idea of an Avs team without those guys, but I could fathom it.  Sure, there was an idea of losing great players, but this time it just seems like losing.  It doesn't just seem like the end of an era.  It seems like the end.  Period.

The future of Stastny, Duchene, Shattenkirk and O'Reilly doesn't seem to matter at this moment.  Sure, it will matter.  It just doesn't seem like it.  Maybe it it's because of all the other bad news Avs fans have had to endure over the last six months.  Maybe if Sakic was going out on a winning team, it would be easier to take.  But maybe not.  You have to admit that the franchise is in disarray.  We may look back on the draft classes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the foundation of a future Avs juggernaut, but right now that seems a long way off.

So now, we begin the unthinkable.  The post-Joe Avalanche.

But as much as this has seemed like a eulogy, I must correct myself.  This may be the end of a career and it may also be the beginning of a long downhill slide for a franchise.  But that doesn't matter.  Regardless of whether he's on the ice or not, whether he's on the roster or not, Joe Sakic will be an Av.  Forever.

Now for some Random thoughts.

• Do you get the feeling that Matt Duchene absolutely must make the team next year?  Without Joe and without a prayer to be competitve, watching this kid grow into a superstar is the only reason I can think of to watch games next season.  With Shattenkirk, Cohen and other prospects unlikely to be on the roster, he is the only glimpse of the future.  I'm not counting Paul Stastny because he's already the present.
• What was the point of all the drama in the Gustavsson sweepstakes?  Did anyone really believe he was going anywhere other than Toronto?  You know, there already is place where you make superstars out of players who haven't suited up for a pro game.  It's called the NFL (hello there, Matthew Stafford).
• If Joe Sakic really wanted his announcement to be surprise, he should have done it today when 99% of the world was only paying attention to Pope Michael's funeral.  Nobody would have noticed and then they would all be shocked when Super Joe wasn't on the training camp roster.  I still haven't seen the white smoke to declare the new Pope.  That was what all the hub-bub was about, wasn't it?

by Ray Warner

This is long-winded, so take deep breath.

A clean slate? Maybe.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? Maybe.

We don't get fooled again? Don't bet on it.

The Colorado Avalanche appear to have cleaned house. Six members of their hockey staff were "relieved of their duties" on June 3 including head coach Tony Granato and his assistants. The new management team of Greg Sherman (GM) and Craig Billington (Assistant GM) were named.  Both men were promoted from within.

One could say that the (expletive deleted) hath hitteth the fan. Let's face it, a few of these people, Jacques Cloutier and Michel Goulet chief among them, have been with the organization for a long time.

Continue reading this post »