All Things Avs post: The word "Bombshell" gets a new, stupider meaning

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/22/peter-stastny-bombshell-avs-blues-trade-destroyed-the-team/6586/

This is just a much-ado-about-nothing post about Peter Stastny's opinion on the state of the Avalanche. Basically, it boils down to the notion that a guy's opinion on the team is actually a "bombshell" if his son happens to play on that team. The opinions of retired old men are now "bombshells" ...that explains why the Elks Club is such a hotbed of controversy.

Keep in mind that Peter Stastny has absolutely no connection with the current Avalanche, other than that his kid plays for them. Yes, he's a Hall of Famer and yes, he's kind of a big deal... but it's still just one guy's opinion. He's basically just one of about a million hockey fans who has something to say, but since his last name is "Stastny," people listen. Fair enough... if Kyle Orton's dad said that the Broncos sucked, I guess I'd be interested to hear him out, too. But, "bombshell?" Seriously?

When Stastny (the elder) says that the Avs were "ready to challenge for a Stanley Cup," it really kind of derails his argument right off the bat. So why make a big deal out of this story? Because it's sensational, in the true meaning of the word. "Bombshell." "Explosive." "Ripping to shreds..." sorry, but I hardly think those comments qualify for these adjectives simply because the one who said them is somebody's dad.

The biggest issue I have with this blog post (and the "real news" story that mimics it) is Dater's attempt to connect Paul Stastny with his father's comments... as if the Avs are going to shun the guy because his dad thinks they made a bad trade. That's quite a stretch. I really don't think that somebody's dad is going to have a great effect on how teammates view one another. I feel pretty confident stating that the Avalanche players had already made up their minds one way or another about these trades and the players involved, and that Paul's dad's opinion didn't have any effect on the locker room at all.

And calling Stastny (either of them, really, but I'm referring to Peter here) a "franchise icon" is a bit of a stretch, too. If Peter were an icon, you'd think his name and number would be hanging up in the Avs' arena, wouldn't you? It is abundantly clear that the Avs don't consider the Nordiques a part of their history, so I don't see the point of trying to make a connection that doesn't really exist, simply to notch up the sensationalism.

I think it's a damn shame that Stastny and Michel Goulet don't have their numbers retired at a single NHL arena, but for some reason Raymond Bourque has his retired in two. That Bourque sure is a franchise icon, all right... when I think of the Avalanche/Nordiques franchise, the first thing I think of is Raymond Bourque, and vice versa. But  to be fair, that's a gripe for the Avalanche, not for Dater. Sorry for getting you involved in that little aside AD.

Anyway, Stastny's comments probably did deserve some media coverage, but it's certainly not the huge deal Dater makes it out to be. Everybody's dad says something stupid every once in a while, but that doesn't make them all "bombshells." Dater closes by saying that it might not be a big deal, after all... but then why present it like it will be? He does that a lot: Dater presents something meant to be provocative, throws out all these possibilities, and then at the very end, backs off completely, and does the "It's probably not a big deal/I'm just asking questions" thing. It's a cowardly way to write, quite frankly. I'd say that this is Yellow Journalism at its finest, except that makes it sound as if there's something positive here. So I will call it garden-variety Yellow Journalism, and give this a
D+.