Hello! Here are a few short (yeah, right) comments on recent Avalanche-related articles and blogs.
In this blog entry, Dater keeps it short, saying that the Avs had a "bag skate" on Monday. Dater included video of this skate... which to me didn't look all that punishing, but unlike just about everybody else who seems to follow this team, I'm not a hockey coach, so if that's the way Sacco runs his practices, fine by me. As I've said before, I like little videos like this included in the blog, I think it's a great use for the All Things Avs blog and I would like to see even more of these behind-the-scenes vids.
Showing posts with label goaltending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goaltending. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Various Preseason Stuff - Hockey Coming Soon!!!
The Avs' preseason schedule is complete, and the Red Wings (and the rest of the NHL) await. Few things are as useless and tell the fan as little as a pro sport's preseason schedule, so I must admit haven't been paying a lot of attention to either the Avs or the coverage they receive... but here are a couple tidbits to carry us through to the start of the regular season, just a few short days away!
In this recap of an Avs loss to the LA Kings, Dater goes out of his way to rehash the deal that brought Varlamov to the team before bothering to write that neither Varlamov or the Avs played very well in what he admits is a "meaningless" game. Pointing out that Varlamov didn't play well is fine, and there's no problem recalling the fact that the Avs gave up a couple high draft picks to get him. However, Dater has a history of placing way too much blame on the goalies he doesn't like, while turning a blind eye when "his guys" don't play well, and I hope this isn't an early sign that he's gearing up for that again.
Dater made no secret this offseason that he thought the Avs should get Vokoun, but instead they traded for Varlamov... and so while there's nothing in particular wrong with this article, the fact that AD took so much time talking about the goalie situation makes me worry that he's just priming the pump for a year's worth of throwing Varlamov under the bus. If the Avs are struggling after a few weeks and Dater is repeatedly pointing out how well Anderson and/or Vokoun is doing, we will have our answer.
C
Kings rip Avs, new goalie Varlamov, 6-0 in preseason
 |
| Quick glove but slow feet, poor lateral movement. |
Dater made no secret this offseason that he thought the Avs should get Vokoun, but instead they traded for Varlamov... and so while there's nothing in particular wrong with this article, the fact that AD took so much time talking about the goalie situation makes me worry that he's just priming the pump for a year's worth of throwing Varlamov under the bus. If the Avs are struggling after a few weeks and Dater is repeatedly pointing out how well Anderson and/or Vokoun is doing, we will have our answer.
C
Monday, July 4, 2011
OFFSEASON STUFF: Free Agency
There has been a lot of activity on the Denver Post's Avalanche web page recently. After the NHL Entry draft, the free agency signing period began, and as expected, the Avalanche made some noise there, too... but not the noise that Dater expected. This will be short reviews of a number of articles and blog entries, so it will be fairly long... if you read to the end you get a gold star.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/06/29/why-tomas-vokoun-is-likely-to-become-an-av/7504/
First up is an All Things Avs blog entry about the Avalanche goalie situation. The Avalanche entered the free agency period with no NHL goalies signed to their roster. In many opinions, the Avs had no NHL goalies signed to their roster in 2010-2011, either, so just about everybody believed the team needed to make a big splashy goalie signing on July 1.
In this blog entry, Dater predicts about as emphatically as one can that the Avalanche would sign Florida goalie Tomas Vokoun to a large, multi-year deal:
Regular readers of Dater's blog will recognize this as a sign to bet heavily the other way: Dater has an absolutely awful track record on predictions like these. For Dater's sake, I hope he realizes he should never walk into a Vegas sportsbook... but a person could do pretty well betting against Dater's lock-of-the-century predictions.
I'm not sure why Dater sees the need to make predictions like this in the first place. Just report what is happening... guessing what might happen is not really a reporter's job, is it? In fairness to Dater, he's hardly the only reporter that falls into the "I'm a fortune teller" trap, but he may be one of the worst at it. Yet, he continues to put what is left of his reputation on the line with bold predictions like this, and not surprisingly to anybody who follows his blog, he was dead wrong.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/06/29/why-tomas-vokoun-is-likely-to-become-an-av/7504/
First up is an All Things Avs blog entry about the Avalanche goalie situation. The Avalanche entered the free agency period with no NHL goalies signed to their roster. In many opinions, the Avs had no NHL goalies signed to their roster in 2010-2011, either, so just about everybody believed the team needed to make a big splashy goalie signing on July 1.
In this blog entry, Dater predicts about as emphatically as one can that the Avalanche would sign Florida goalie Tomas Vokoun to a large, multi-year deal:
If I were walking into a Vegas sports book right now and they had a list of NHL free agents and their likelihood to sign with certain teams, I would probably empty out whatever meager amount was in my wallet and put most or all of it on “Tomas Vokoun to the Avalanche.”
Regular readers of Dater's blog will recognize this as a sign to bet heavily the other way: Dater has an absolutely awful track record on predictions like these. For Dater's sake, I hope he realizes he should never walk into a Vegas sportsbook... but a person could do pretty well betting against Dater's lock-of-the-century predictions.
 |
| Tomas Vokoun plays dead to avoid the gaze of Avalanche GM Greg Sherman. |
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
All Things Avs blog: trade for a goalie?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/29/should-the-avs-trade-their-coming-1-2-3-pick-for-a-goalie/6800/
In this blog entry, Adrian Dater floats the idea that the Avalanche should trade their upcoming draft pick for a goalie. One could argue, I suppose, that Dater is only "asking questions," but it's just a phenomenally stupid question to begin with.
Any time Dater starts talking about goaltending is a good time to ignore him entirely and go do something productive with your day. Because of his often-and proudly-stated biases involving Avalanche goaltending, his opinion is about as unobjective as it gets... and because those biases are the product of him not really understanding what makes a good (or a bad) goalie, his opinions on the matter are pretty much useless.
Dater starts by writing,
By beginning with "we all know..." Dater tries to present his opinion as the prevailing one. This is a common tactic used by high school debaters to convince the audience that everybody actually already agrees with the speaker. The problem is, however, that this supposed universal agreement Dater refers to simply does not exist. I'd argue that there are very, very few Avalanche observers who would say that goaltending is the primary concern for this team. Arguing that the Avs will never win the Cup with Budaj and Elliot in net is akin to arguing that I will never win the Indy 500 with the tires currently on my 4runner. Accurate, yes... but more than a bit off the point.
The "glaring area of need" for this team is: talent, health, and experience at pretty much every spot in the roster. Dater's assertion right of the bat that A) the team really needs a goalie, and B) that everybody already agrees with (A), is wrong on both counts.
Of course, Dater manages to work his tired opinion about Craig Anderson into this piece, as well as remarking that Budaj and Elliot have terrible numbers. Well, the reason they have terrible numbers could very well be that they play for the Avalanche... so again, the argument that they need a better goalie is kind of moot. They need a better team. A better goalie would be a band-aid on a head wound.
Dater then asks if the Avs should trade their upcoming pick - almost certain to be a top-three pick - for a goalie or goalie prospect. I suppose that just about any question is worth asking... but does that mean that any question is worth asking when you are the one print journalist assigned to the team?
If these Avs were contenders and they had the same mediocre goaltending they do now, then sure... trading a high pick for a goalie who could help them get over the hump might not be a bad idea. But the Avs are not contenders: they're rebuilding, they need serious help both defensively (not necessarily at defense, but with defensive-minded players, both D and forwards) and on offense, where their high-scoring team has ground to a halt. They've had a lot of injuries, and have had to fill spots with AHL-level talent, because there is not a lot of NHL-ready talent in the Avs system just waiting in the wings for their chance. They can address any number of these issues through this draft: the top three pick will get them a big, fast defenseman; a quick, high-scoring center; or a big, hard-hitting wing... all three areas in which the need is far more obvious and immediate than goaltender.
In short, not only is goaltender not the Avs' "most glaring area of need," but trading away their first-round pick in a draft with some nearly-NHL-ready talent to get a goalie would be one of the worst things the team could do for its future. One might expect some 13-year-old fan on the internet to suggest such a move, but to see the Avs' beat writer suggest it is just baffling, frankly.
Dater ends this experiment in stupidity by stating that the "best of all worlds" would be to sign Tomas Vokoun to a contract and let him come in here and suck while this team gets better. The problem with that, though, is that Vokoun is likely to be one of the most coveted free agents this offseason... why would he come to the dreadful Avalanche, and why would the Avs want to pay what it will take to sign him just to rise from "dreadful" to "average" for a couple years?
This blog is just a waste: a dumb suggestion based on a bad assumption that Dater treats as if it were gospel simply because it's his idea.
D-
In this blog entry, Adrian Dater floats the idea that the Avalanche should trade their upcoming draft pick for a goalie. One could argue, I suppose, that Dater is only "asking questions," but it's just a phenomenally stupid question to begin with.
Any time Dater starts talking about goaltending is a good time to ignore him entirely and go do something productive with your day. Because of his often-and proudly-stated biases involving Avalanche goaltending, his opinion is about as unobjective as it gets... and because those biases are the product of him not really understanding what makes a good (or a bad) goalie, his opinions on the matter are pretty much useless.
Dater starts by writing,
OK, we all know the most glaring area of need going forward for the Burgundy and Blue is in net. Craig Anderson isn’t here to kick around anymore, and Peter Budaj and Brian Elliott have two of the highest goals-against averages in the entire NHL.
By beginning with "we all know..." Dater tries to present his opinion as the prevailing one. This is a common tactic used by high school debaters to convince the audience that everybody actually already agrees with the speaker. The problem is, however, that this supposed universal agreement Dater refers to simply does not exist. I'd argue that there are very, very few Avalanche observers who would say that goaltending is the primary concern for this team. Arguing that the Avs will never win the Cup with Budaj and Elliot in net is akin to arguing that I will never win the Indy 500 with the tires currently on my 4runner. Accurate, yes... but more than a bit off the point.
The "glaring area of need" for this team is: talent, health, and experience at pretty much every spot in the roster. Dater's assertion right of the bat that A) the team really needs a goalie, and B) that everybody already agrees with (A), is wrong on both counts.
Of course, Dater manages to work his tired opinion about Craig Anderson into this piece, as well as remarking that Budaj and Elliot have terrible numbers. Well, the reason they have terrible numbers could very well be that they play for the Avalanche... so again, the argument that they need a better goalie is kind of moot. They need a better team. A better goalie would be a band-aid on a head wound.
Dater then asks if the Avs should trade their upcoming pick - almost certain to be a top-three pick - for a goalie or goalie prospect. I suppose that just about any question is worth asking... but does that mean that any question is worth asking when you are the one print journalist assigned to the team?
If these Avs were contenders and they had the same mediocre goaltending they do now, then sure... trading a high pick for a goalie who could help them get over the hump might not be a bad idea. But the Avs are not contenders: they're rebuilding, they need serious help both defensively (not necessarily at defense, but with defensive-minded players, both D and forwards) and on offense, where their high-scoring team has ground to a halt. They've had a lot of injuries, and have had to fill spots with AHL-level talent, because there is not a lot of NHL-ready talent in the Avs system just waiting in the wings for their chance. They can address any number of these issues through this draft: the top three pick will get them a big, fast defenseman; a quick, high-scoring center; or a big, hard-hitting wing... all three areas in which the need is far more obvious and immediate than goaltender.
In short, not only is goaltender not the Avs' "most glaring area of need," but trading away their first-round pick in a draft with some nearly-NHL-ready talent to get a goalie would be one of the worst things the team could do for its future. One might expect some 13-year-old fan on the internet to suggest such a move, but to see the Avs' beat writer suggest it is just baffling, frankly.
Dater ends this experiment in stupidity by stating that the "best of all worlds" would be to sign Tomas Vokoun to a contract and let him come in here and suck while this team gets better. The problem with that, though, is that Vokoun is likely to be one of the most coveted free agents this offseason... why would he come to the dreadful Avalanche, and why would the Avs want to pay what it will take to sign him just to rise from "dreadful" to "average" for a couple years?
This blog is just a waste: a dumb suggestion based on a bad assumption that Dater treats as if it were gospel simply because it's his idea.
D-
Friday, March 25, 2011
Disposing of indispensable goalies.
http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche/ci_17654103
This is an article by Adrian Dater that starts off badly if you're a fan of the English language. Right in the title is the non-word "indisposable." It looks like it ought to be a real word, but it isn't. "Disposable" refers to something meant to be used and then thrown away, such as a plastic razor, a tissue, or a (non-cloth) baby diaper. The antonym of this word is "non-disposable." So even if Dater meant to write that goalies are unlike Huggies -- cheaply-made, single-use items which stink more often than not -- the word he'd want there is non-disposable, not indisposable.
Based on the context of the article, however, I assume Dater meant indispensable rather than non-disposable, as that word describes something that is absolutely necessary, that cannot be done without (such as oxygen, or beer). So not only does he use the wrong word, he's used a wrong word that doesn't even exist. But, headlines are not often written by the authors themselves, so we can't necessarily pin the blame on Dater here... but somebody at the Post (either Dater, his headline writer, or his editor) gets a big fat "F" right off the bat for grammar and spelling. It's one of the fifty largest newspapers in North America... there's got to be a dictionary lying around there somewhere.
This article deals with goaltending, so to be honest, before I even start reading, I'm skeptical. Dater, as do many novice hockey fans, spends a lot of time talking about goaltending without really knowing what he is talking about. It's like overhearing middle school kids talk about sex... they've heard most of the terms, and have a general idea on what's taking place, but as far as the details that matter are concerned they have no clue, so they just keep repeating loudly the few things they do know in an attempt to sound like experts, to the amusement of those who are actually getting some.
Dater then points out that the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup with a goalie who wasn't their starter last year, and whom they did not bring back this year. This leads to the central theme of the piece: that goaltenders are not as vital to a team as many fans believe.
This is an article by Adrian Dater that starts off badly if you're a fan of the English language. Right in the title is the non-word "indisposable." It looks like it ought to be a real word, but it isn't. "Disposable" refers to something meant to be used and then thrown away, such as a plastic razor, a tissue, or a (non-cloth) baby diaper. The antonym of this word is "non-disposable." So even if Dater meant to write that goalies are unlike Huggies -- cheaply-made, single-use items which stink more often than not -- the word he'd want there is non-disposable, not indisposable.
Based on the context of the article, however, I assume Dater meant indispensable rather than non-disposable, as that word describes something that is absolutely necessary, that cannot be done without (such as oxygen, or beer). So not only does he use the wrong word, he's used a wrong word that doesn't even exist. But, headlines are not often written by the authors themselves, so we can't necessarily pin the blame on Dater here... but somebody at the Post (either Dater, his headline writer, or his editor) gets a big fat "F" right off the bat for grammar and spelling. It's one of the fifty largest newspapers in North America... there's got to be a dictionary lying around there somewhere.
This article deals with goaltending, so to be honest, before I even start reading, I'm skeptical. Dater, as do many novice hockey fans, spends a lot of time talking about goaltending without really knowing what he is talking about. It's like overhearing middle school kids talk about sex... they've heard most of the terms, and have a general idea on what's taking place, but as far as the details that matter are concerned they have no clue, so they just keep repeating loudly the few things they do know in an attempt to sound like experts, to the amusement of those who are actually getting some.
However, Dater avoids the nuts and bolts of the subject of goaltending here, which is both appropriate and wise. Instead, he starts off using the voice of Joe Fan, wondering about the Avalanche's goaltending situation:
What are the Avs going to do about their goaltending? After all, it's the most important position in hockey, right? It's the one position you have to spend the most money on and devote the most attention to if you're a general manager, right?
All Things Avs blog: get ready for a surprise: Multiple Craig Anderson blogs. Hope you were sitting down for that.
In this trio of blogs, posted one after another, Dater revisits his favorite water-under-the-bridge topic of late, the Craig Anderson trade. Well, perhaps "revisits" is the wrong word to use, as some would argue he's never left this topic.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/thoughts-on-craig-andersons-new-four-year-contract-with-ottawa/6703/
The first blog is an entry dealing with Anderson's four-year, $12.75 million contract with Ottawa. Predictably, Dater starts off with a dig at the Avs' GM for not making a similar offer to Anderson after last year:
It really irritates me when people give goalies this much credit. Carry them on his back? Puhlease.Was he a big part of the Avs' season? Certainly, he was... but the Avs' high-scoring offense was a big part of that season, too. At times, Anderson was very, very good last season... but at other times, he was decidedly mediocre. He had the sort of season last year that showed a lot of promise, but not the sort of season that makes a team instantly salivate over him as their Goalie Of The Future (nor one that gives a guy leverage towards a huge, multi-year contract as said G.O.T.F.).
I can only assume that the Avalanche did not want to stick themselves with another long-term contract for a goalie who had yet to prove he could be consistently excellent (such as was the case for Dater's last goalie-mancrush, Jose Theodore), and therefore made a two-year offer. Can't really blame them for that... Anderson didn't really prove as much last season as so many -- including Dater and, apparently, Anderson himself -- seem to think.
To Dater's credit, although he still positions himself as a "the Avs screwed this one up" guy, he does mention that the Avs actually offered Anderson more money per year than he got with Ottawa, and that only time will tell if the Avs, Sens, or Anderson himself made the best move. Overall, this ends up being a fairly balanced look at Anderson's deal with Ottawa and how it compares to what Colorado offered. Dater still loses points, though, for placing his opinion so prominently within what should have been a fact-based post.
B-
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/anderson-takes-thinly-veiled-shot-at-avalanche/6711/
The second entry is extremely brief. It is simply relaying a quote given by Anderson which can easily be construed as a dig against the Avs: “It’s about having a good fit and finding a place where I’m going to be happy, where players are treated with respect and the organization communicates with their players.”
Clearly, Anderson is saying-without-saying that the Avs do not communicate with their players, nor do they treat them with respect. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think Anderson's comment is a revealing peek into his attitude towards the Avalanche. This attitude -- which many fans (including myself) questioned at times, especially this year -- goes a long way to explain his poor, uninspired play in Colorado this season and his resurgence in Ottawa. Said attitude can also explain the Avs' reluctance to sign him to a long-term contract.
In other words, those of us who thought they were seeing signs that Anderson had "quit" on the Avalanche (which Dater has strongly disagreed with) now have what amounts to proof that they were very likely right all along. The Avalanche are lucky to be rid of this guy.
Dater used his blog perfectly here: he brings a quick, relevant bit of information to his readers with a modicum of personal opinion and insight. Although he speculates on how this quote will be received, for the most part he allows his readers to draw their own conclusions.
A
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/anderson-should-have-stayed-classy/6714/
The final blog in the Anderson hat trick is Dater's opinion in reaction to Anderson's comments regarding the Avalanche. Dater says that Anderson "should have stayed classy." Here, Dater pretty much does an about-face on his opinion of Anderson, and starts listing the things that many others have already mentioned in questioning Anderson's attitude and dedication to the Avalanche.
One humorous aspect of this blog is the notion that Dater has any idea at all what "classy" might look like. Dater has told fans of opposing teams to "get the pacifiers out of your mouths." He has called Marian Gaborik "ugly but good," "a guy with a girl's name" (good one, Adrian), and said he had "the face and hair of a drowned rat." He has recently insinuated that Steve Ott is a crybaby for expecting that a blatant elbow to the head be considered for a suspension. He has called Cal Clutterbuck a "cowardly hockey player" whom his teammates hate. He broke any number of unwritten journalism rules tweeting about a closed-door shouting match involving Dion Phaneuf, and then (briefly) closed his twitter account because of it. And then, of course, there was his classic ESPN rant, where he calls out specific ESPN personalities by name, refers to them as "schmucks," and tells the network, in so many words, to shove it up their ass.
Classy.
Back to the blog at hand. The thing that puzzles me about Dater's opinion here is not that he appears to have waffled somewhat on Anderson... I don't care for the way Dater covers the NHL, but I'm not going to rag on him for having one opinion and then changing his mind. Everybody does that. The odd thing is that Dater implies that Anderson, right up to the day he signed with the Senators, had been "classy" the entire time, and should have "stayed" that way. I believe there is another possibility here.
It seems much more likely to me that he's never been classy, and that this comment simply illustrates what Anderson had been all along: a pouty prima donna who thinks that half a good season is all he needs to be considered an elite goalie, and if his team doesn't agree then he's just going to mail it in until his contract is up and go find Big Money elsewhere. My guess is that the Avs knew long before Dater did what kind of person Anderson was, and were therefore not at all reluctant to trade him away for what amounts to a bag of pucks (sorry, Elliot. Prove me wrong).
In short, Dater appears to come around on Anderson without admitting he could have been wrong all along. Baby steps, I suppose. I'm not a fan of opinion so prominent in journalism (even when that opinion agrees with mine), so I'm not thrilled with this blog... but at least in this case, this entry is opinion through-and-through, rather than an attempt to include his opinion as part of the story.
C
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/thoughts-on-craig-andersons-new-four-year-contract-with-ottawa/6703/
The first blog is an entry dealing with Anderson's four-year, $12.75 million contract with Ottawa. Predictably, Dater starts off with a dig at the Avs' GM for not making a similar offer to Anderson after last year:
Fifteen games is all it took for Ottawa GM Bryan Murray to offer the kind of long-term contract that Colorado GM Greg Sherman did not want to offer despite seeing him play 71 games last year and carry the team on his back to the playoffs.
 |
| Posing for Hall of Fame portrait, Oct. 2009. |
I can only assume that the Avalanche did not want to stick themselves with another long-term contract for a goalie who had yet to prove he could be consistently excellent (such as was the case for Dater's last goalie-mancrush, Jose Theodore), and therefore made a two-year offer. Can't really blame them for that... Anderson didn't really prove as much last season as so many -- including Dater and, apparently, Anderson himself -- seem to think.
To Dater's credit, although he still positions himself as a "the Avs screwed this one up" guy, he does mention that the Avs actually offered Anderson more money per year than he got with Ottawa, and that only time will tell if the Avs, Sens, or Anderson himself made the best move. Overall, this ends up being a fairly balanced look at Anderson's deal with Ottawa and how it compares to what Colorado offered. Dater still loses points, though, for placing his opinion so prominently within what should have been a fact-based post.
B-
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/anderson-takes-thinly-veiled-shot-at-avalanche/6711/
The second entry is extremely brief. It is simply relaying a quote given by Anderson which can easily be construed as a dig against the Avs: “It’s about having a good fit and finding a place where I’m going to be happy, where players are treated with respect and the organization communicates with their players.”
Clearly, Anderson is saying-without-saying that the Avs do not communicate with their players, nor do they treat them with respect. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think Anderson's comment is a revealing peek into his attitude towards the Avalanche. This attitude -- which many fans (including myself) questioned at times, especially this year -- goes a long way to explain his poor, uninspired play in Colorado this season and his resurgence in Ottawa. Said attitude can also explain the Avs' reluctance to sign him to a long-term contract.
In other words, those of us who thought they were seeing signs that Anderson had "quit" on the Avalanche (which Dater has strongly disagreed with) now have what amounts to proof that they were very likely right all along. The Avalanche are lucky to be rid of this guy.
Dater used his blog perfectly here: he brings a quick, relevant bit of information to his readers with a modicum of personal opinion and insight. Although he speculates on how this quote will be received, for the most part he allows his readers to draw their own conclusions.
A
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/21/anderson-should-have-stayed-classy/6714/
The final blog in the Anderson hat trick is Dater's opinion in reaction to Anderson's comments regarding the Avalanche. Dater says that Anderson "should have stayed classy." Here, Dater pretty much does an about-face on his opinion of Anderson, and starts listing the things that many others have already mentioned in questioning Anderson's attitude and dedication to the Avalanche.
One humorous aspect of this blog is the notion that Dater has any idea at all what "classy" might look like. Dater has told fans of opposing teams to "get the pacifiers out of your mouths." He has called Marian Gaborik "ugly but good," "a guy with a girl's name" (good one, Adrian), and said he had "the face and hair of a drowned rat." He has recently insinuated that Steve Ott is a crybaby for expecting that a blatant elbow to the head be considered for a suspension. He has called Cal Clutterbuck a "cowardly hockey player" whom his teammates hate. He broke any number of unwritten journalism rules tweeting about a closed-door shouting match involving Dion Phaneuf, and then (briefly) closed his twitter account because of it. And then, of course, there was his classic ESPN rant, where he calls out specific ESPN personalities by name, refers to them as "schmucks," and tells the network, in so many words, to shove it up their ass.
Classy.
Back to the blog at hand. The thing that puzzles me about Dater's opinion here is not that he appears to have waffled somewhat on Anderson... I don't care for the way Dater covers the NHL, but I'm not going to rag on him for having one opinion and then changing his mind. Everybody does that. The odd thing is that Dater implies that Anderson, right up to the day he signed with the Senators, had been "classy" the entire time, and should have "stayed" that way. I believe there is another possibility here.
It seems much more likely to me that he's never been classy, and that this comment simply illustrates what Anderson had been all along: a pouty prima donna who thinks that half a good season is all he needs to be considered an elite goalie, and if his team doesn't agree then he's just going to mail it in until his contract is up and go find Big Money elsewhere. My guess is that the Avs knew long before Dater did what kind of person Anderson was, and were therefore not at all reluctant to trade him away for what amounts to a bag of pucks (sorry, Elliot. Prove me wrong).
In short, Dater appears to come around on Anderson without admitting he could have been wrong all along. Baby steps, I suppose. I'm not a fan of opinion so prominent in journalism (even when that opinion agrees with mine), so I'm not thrilled with this blog... but at least in this case, this entry is opinion through-and-through, rather than an attempt to include his opinion as part of the story.
C
Friday, March 18, 2011
Avs Mailbag: Draft questions and more!
http://www.denverpost.com/avsmailbag/ci_17622457
Dater's workload seems to be light this week... other than this Mailbag, an Adam Foote retirement article, and a couple blogs, most of the game writeups have been from outside sources... which has been a refreshing change. So without much actually coming from the Denver Post (and with a car needing a new transmission put in this week), I've allowed myself to get a bit behind. Hope to play catchup today on both the blog and the transmission, and I will start with this Mailbag.
The first question deals with the upcoming NHL Entry Draft. The Avs' freefall makes it more and more likely that they will be in line for a very high pick, and this question asks about the players who might be selected with one of those high picks. Dater offers two names, both Swedes (and both, coincidentally, the same two he discussed in an All Things Avs blog entry): Landeskog and Larsson, and gives a very small bit of information for both of them.
I'd like to have seen a more thorough answer here... first of all, while Larsson is pretty much universally ranked #1 or #2, and Landeskog appears to be a top-five pick, there are a couple others whom Dater fails to mention, but should have. Sean Courtier and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins are both ranked ahead of Landeskog by the Hockey News, and Nugent-Hopkins us currently ranked first overall by ISS. Dater could have done a bit more research and provided a much better answer, but he didn't. He does, however, admit that he doesn't really know anything about the players in the draft to begin with, and even teases himself about it... saving me the trouble.
C
The second question concerns the draft itself. I've been critical of Dater's apparent lack of understanding of how the draft works in previous entries... not that I figure he's responding directly to me, but I think he included this question to make sure people know he understands the process.
After reading the answer, though, I'm still not sure. He acknowledges that, rather than teams picking in reverse order of their regular season finish, there is a draft lottery, but when he writes "here are the odds of teams getting the top pick," he's 100% wrong. The odds he lists are the odds that each team will win the lottery, but only the top (or bottom) five teams can actually move up enough to claim the top pick... the 14th ranked team does NOT have a 0.5% chance of getting the top pick, they have a 0.5% chance of moving up to pick 10th, in the first round only.
So nice try on this one, Dater, but you're still offering incorrect information to your readers on this subject. Either do your homework, or stay silent on subjects you don't understand.
D
The third question is a kind of fun question, asking if a team made up of ex-Avs could beat the team made up of current Avs. Frankly, I think a more balanced question is whether a team made up of retired Avs could beat the current squad, because a team of ex-Avs-but-current-NHLers would wipe the floor with them, as pretty much every NHL team has done the last two months.
This question does link up to one of Dater's common complaints: how often players the Avalanche have gotten rid of have scored against them. And of course, it gives Dater yet another opportunity to repeat his opinion of the Craig Anderson trade, which at this point is starting to resemble nails on a chalkboard.
Dater doesn't really give an answer to this question, but because it was one of those "sitting at the bar making up hypothetical stuff to argue about" questions, I suppose his lack of answer doesn't really matter, so I won't knock him down for it.
B-
The next question addresses the Avalanche penalty kill, and why players like Duchene are not on the PK unit. Asking Dater an Xs and Os hockey question is always an iffy idea. I think Dater knows that a detailed answer to this question is beyond his depth, so he keeps his answer very basic here. Dater basically explains that most coaches don't often have their best players kill penalties because it's tiring, and that McClement may be a decent PKer next season once he gets used to the Avs system. This is a pretty good -- although brief -- answer to this question.
A
The penultimate question here is about Craig Anderson's play in Ottawa since he was traded from the Avalanche. Does anybody else get the feeling that if somebody didn't write in with this question, Dater would have created a fake name and just asked it himself, so he could answer it? AD is completely hung up on the Anderson trade... he has clearly lost the perspective of a reporter (if he ever had it to begin with) and is just ranting like a fan.
I'm not sure why Dater dwells so much on goaltending, which is the position in hockey he obviously understands the least. His mancrush on Anderson, running concurrent with his hatred of Peter Budaj, despite the fact that they had essentially the same stats playing for the same team, is proof that Dater judges goalies emotionally rather than empirically, and that's kind of the opposite of what a reporter is asked to do.
Dater's answer to this question isn't really that important, because he's just using this question as an excuse to once again say "Anderson was great last year, I don't think he gave up on the Avs, blah blah blah." Enough already!
F
The final question today deals with Sheldon Souray, and whether AD would have liked to see the Avs pick him up. Dater answers that last year he would have liked to see them get Souray, but he did not think that this year, and leaves it at that. That answer alone raises some questions: what changed between last year and this year? Why did you change your opinion? Why would he have helped last season, but not this season? ...but Dater doesn't go there. So while he did, in fact, answer the question, it still seems very rushed and incomplete.
C
Dater's workload seems to be light this week... other than this Mailbag, an Adam Foote retirement article, and a couple blogs, most of the game writeups have been from outside sources... which has been a refreshing change. So without much actually coming from the Denver Post (and with a car needing a new transmission put in this week), I've allowed myself to get a bit behind. Hope to play catchup today on both the blog and the transmission, and I will start with this Mailbag.
 |
| Larsson sports my high school hairstyle. |
I'd like to have seen a more thorough answer here... first of all, while Larsson is pretty much universally ranked #1 or #2, and Landeskog appears to be a top-five pick, there are a couple others whom Dater fails to mention, but should have. Sean Courtier and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins are both ranked ahead of Landeskog by the Hockey News, and Nugent-Hopkins us currently ranked first overall by ISS. Dater could have done a bit more research and provided a much better answer, but he didn't. He does, however, admit that he doesn't really know anything about the players in the draft to begin with, and even teases himself about it... saving me the trouble.
C
The second question concerns the draft itself. I've been critical of Dater's apparent lack of understanding of how the draft works in previous entries... not that I figure he's responding directly to me, but I think he included this question to make sure people know he understands the process.
After reading the answer, though, I'm still not sure. He acknowledges that, rather than teams picking in reverse order of their regular season finish, there is a draft lottery, but when he writes "here are the odds of teams getting the top pick," he's 100% wrong. The odds he lists are the odds that each team will win the lottery, but only the top (or bottom) five teams can actually move up enough to claim the top pick... the 14th ranked team does NOT have a 0.5% chance of getting the top pick, they have a 0.5% chance of moving up to pick 10th, in the first round only.
So nice try on this one, Dater, but you're still offering incorrect information to your readers on this subject. Either do your homework, or stay silent on subjects you don't understand.
D
The third question is a kind of fun question, asking if a team made up of ex-Avs could beat the team made up of current Avs. Frankly, I think a more balanced question is whether a team made up of retired Avs could beat the current squad, because a team of ex-Avs-but-current-NHLers would wipe the floor with them, as pretty much every NHL team has done the last two months.
This question does link up to one of Dater's common complaints: how often players the Avalanche have gotten rid of have scored against them. And of course, it gives Dater yet another opportunity to repeat his opinion of the Craig Anderson trade, which at this point is starting to resemble nails on a chalkboard.
Dater doesn't really give an answer to this question, but because it was one of those "sitting at the bar making up hypothetical stuff to argue about" questions, I suppose his lack of answer doesn't really matter, so I won't knock him down for it.
B-
The next question addresses the Avalanche penalty kill, and why players like Duchene are not on the PK unit. Asking Dater an Xs and Os hockey question is always an iffy idea. I think Dater knows that a detailed answer to this question is beyond his depth, so he keeps his answer very basic here. Dater basically explains that most coaches don't often have their best players kill penalties because it's tiring, and that McClement may be a decent PKer next season once he gets used to the Avs system. This is a pretty good -- although brief -- answer to this question.
A
The penultimate question here is about Craig Anderson's play in Ottawa since he was traded from the Avalanche. Does anybody else get the feeling that if somebody didn't write in with this question, Dater would have created a fake name and just asked it himself, so he could answer it? AD is completely hung up on the Anderson trade... he has clearly lost the perspective of a reporter (if he ever had it to begin with) and is just ranting like a fan.
I'm not sure why Dater dwells so much on goaltending, which is the position in hockey he obviously understands the least. His mancrush on Anderson, running concurrent with his hatred of Peter Budaj, despite the fact that they had essentially the same stats playing for the same team, is proof that Dater judges goalies emotionally rather than empirically, and that's kind of the opposite of what a reporter is asked to do.
Dater's answer to this question isn't really that important, because he's just using this question as an excuse to once again say "Anderson was great last year, I don't think he gave up on the Avs, blah blah blah." Enough already!
F
The final question today deals with Sheldon Souray, and whether AD would have liked to see the Avs pick him up. Dater answers that last year he would have liked to see them get Souray, but he did not think that this year, and leaves it at that. That answer alone raises some questions: what changed between last year and this year? Why did you change your opinion? Why would he have helped last season, but not this season? ...but Dater doesn't go there. So while he did, in fact, answer the question, it still seems very rushed and incomplete.
C
Sunday, March 6, 2011
All Things Avs blog: tree falls in forest. film at eleven
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/06/postgame-avs-oilers-15-out-of-16/6632/
In this blog entry we are treated to Dater's thoughts about the game featuring the Western Conference's two worst teams, the Oilers and the Avalanche. It would seem that the team with the worst record is not the worst team, as the Oilers had a disturbingly easy time with the Avalanche, winning 5-1.
Dater makes an attempt at an interesting introduction, and fares better than usual... if you can call a combination of Dater's late-night habits, Vince Lombardi, the Colorado Avalanche, and Charlie Sheen "better than usual." Unfortunately for his readers, we can.
Dater follows with some basic thoughts about the team having no confidence, being young, etc. Pretty standard, boring comments without any real insight, but that's S.O.P. for this blog. Dater picks on Erik Johnson a bit... apparently, Dater thinks that a 22-year-old kid in his first couple weeks with his new team should be a "leader type" and help turn the team around immediately, and so he plans to make a note of every time he fails to do so. I think Johnson will be just fine, but since Dater has already stated he is 'against' the trade that brought him here, he's apparently going to go out of his way to point out every time Johnson fails to excel (and, of course, every time Shatty and Stewart have great games). That's just the way Dater is... some people would call it a grotesque lack of objectivity, but around All Things Avs, it's par for the hole.
He also kind of throws Elliot under the bus, when really I can only remember one goal that was remotely his fault. As ignorant as Dater is of the finer points of hockey, he is especially ignorant about goaltending. It's not like the Oilers, even missing their best players, are the Colorado Eagles or something... they wouldn't be in the league, Dater, if they couldn't score. Also absent is any mention of Peter Budaj, who stepped in after the Oilers' fourth goal and played fairly well, giving up only a single goal on a shorthanded odd-man rush. This is notable not because Dater failed to say something positive about Budaj, but because Dater usually finds a way to blame Budaj for goals scored on shorthanded odd-man rushes.
He closes by explaining that "people's job security" will be in doubt if the Avs don't start winning. Well, yeah... Hannan, Stewart, Anderson, & Shattenkirk have already lost their jobs, and there will be more to come, I'm sure. But he quickly moves on to let us know he's talking specifically about Sacco here. As usual, Adrian hedges his bets... he says that "Sacco is definitely coming back" next season, but then he immediately says that if they keep losing, he may be fired. Dater really sticks his neck out with those predictions, doesn't he?
Nothing terribly interesting or informative in this blog entry, but other than Dater's typical lack of objectivity mixed with his lack of extensive hockey knowledge, there's nothing really notable worth complaining about, either.
C+
 |
| The Avs-Oilers game, as seen from space. |
Dater makes an attempt at an interesting introduction, and fares better than usual... if you can call a combination of Dater's late-night habits, Vince Lombardi, the Colorado Avalanche, and Charlie Sheen "better than usual." Unfortunately for his readers, we can.
Dater follows with some basic thoughts about the team having no confidence, being young, etc. Pretty standard, boring comments without any real insight, but that's S.O.P. for this blog. Dater picks on Erik Johnson a bit... apparently, Dater thinks that a 22-year-old kid in his first couple weeks with his new team should be a "leader type" and help turn the team around immediately, and so he plans to make a note of every time he fails to do so. I think Johnson will be just fine, but since Dater has already stated he is 'against' the trade that brought him here, he's apparently going to go out of his way to point out every time Johnson fails to excel (and, of course, every time Shatty and Stewart have great games). That's just the way Dater is... some people would call it a grotesque lack of objectivity, but around All Things Avs, it's par for the hole.
He also kind of throws Elliot under the bus, when really I can only remember one goal that was remotely his fault. As ignorant as Dater is of the finer points of hockey, he is especially ignorant about goaltending. It's not like the Oilers, even missing their best players, are the Colorado Eagles or something... they wouldn't be in the league, Dater, if they couldn't score. Also absent is any mention of Peter Budaj, who stepped in after the Oilers' fourth goal and played fairly well, giving up only a single goal on a shorthanded odd-man rush. This is notable not because Dater failed to say something positive about Budaj, but because Dater usually finds a way to blame Budaj for goals scored on shorthanded odd-man rushes.
He closes by explaining that "people's job security" will be in doubt if the Avs don't start winning. Well, yeah... Hannan, Stewart, Anderson, & Shattenkirk have already lost their jobs, and there will be more to come, I'm sure. But he quickly moves on to let us know he's talking specifically about Sacco here. As usual, Adrian hedges his bets... he says that "Sacco is definitely coming back" next season, but then he immediately says that if they keep losing, he may be fired. Dater really sticks his neck out with those predictions, doesn't he?
Nothing terribly interesting or informative in this blog entry, but other than Dater's typical lack of objectivity mixed with his lack of extensive hockey knowledge, there's nothing really notable worth complaining about, either.
C+
All Things Avs blog: Avs lose moral victory in moral shootout
This blog entry contains some comments on the Avs' 2-1 shootout loss to the Sharks, one of the hottest teams in the league.
Dater opens by griping about his hotel not having wireless internet access. When AD writes about something personal in his blog, you're likely to get one of two extremes: griping, or maudlin. Here, we get gripey... and if I'm given the choice, I guess that's the lesser of two evils. While I don't think it's alarm-bell emergency that there are hotels out there without wifi -- even in Silicon Valley -- I do think it odd that the Post would put him up somewhere without it. On the other hand, the hotel does have internet access, and Dater does have a laptop... so why not simply plug his phone into his laptop with a cable and go that route? Oh, I know... because that wouldn't give him anything to complain about.
As he did in his real-news article, Dater calls Joe Thornton's game-tying goal a "lucky tip." As I explained in my comments for that article, when a beer-league guy tips one in like that, we can call it luck, but when a player of Joe Thornton's calibre does it, it's not luck. Describing it subjectively is not only an example of his bias as a reporter/fan, but it also it robs Thornton of the credit he deserves for a nice, clutch goal.
Dater then moves on to write about Elliot for a moment. As he said, Elliot looked very good in this game... thanks, in no small part, to the Avs looking good defensively (or, if you want to be more pessimistic, the Sharks looking a bit flat). As you knew he would, however, Dater manages to get a shot in at Budaj, despite the fact that he didn't appear in this game at all:
I liked how fundamentally sound he looked. He doesn’t flop all over the place like Peter Budaj does, and was good and square to the puck.
 |
| Adrian Dater (l), Peter Budaj |
Dater's assessment of Budaj's play isn't even accurate. Budaj is anything but a "flopper." He is, ironically, exactly what Dater claims to admire in a goalie... fundamentally sound and square to the puck. Budaj's problem is that he's not a super-quick, reaction goalie... he relies on that positioning, but the team in front of him doesn't cover anybody, making it very difficult to anticipate the next shot. Budaj also still has the occasional night where he kicks more rebounds right out to opposing shooters than you'd like to see... but again, a lot of that could be remediated if there was an Avs player covering said shooter, which there hardly ever is. In extra bonus irony, if Budaj were a "flopper," he'd probably look a bit better on this particular team... but Dater doesn't get that, because he doesn't really understand the position.
Dater then moves on to compliment Johnson's game, but not without throwing in another gripe about the trade that brought him here. He then compliments a guy he's had nothing good to say about this season, Matt Hunwick. It's good to see Dater finally come around to what savvy Avs fans have known for a while, namely, that Hunwick has been playing pretty good hockey over the last couple months (relatively speaking, of course). Yes, he had trouble adjusting to the Avs defensive "system" (such as it is) his first dozen games or so, but he's been a good player since then... but that hasn't stopped Dater (among others) from continuing to harp on him unfairly. Better late than never, AD.
Dater finishes with some random comments about Stoa, Jones, and the goaltending situation for next year, suggesting the Avs take a run at Vokoun. I think that's a terrible idea... while I believe that Vokoun is one of the NHL's elite goalies, he is a terrible fit for this Avalanche team. He is a very, very good positional goalie... but this defensive team requires a goalie to be in two or three positions at once (see above comments on Budaj). Voukoun would definitely be an upgrade, no doubt about it... but to assume that goaltending is what needs fixing on this team is to not understand this team.
Dater does indicate in his closing sentence that Voukoun will likely have many offers from better teams than the Avs, and why would he come here? That is a great question... I don't think he will, and neither does AD, apparently.
A decent blog entry tainted by some lack of objectivity on Thornton's goal and yet another example of Dater's inability to treat Budaj fairly, or even to just leave him alone when he had nothing to do with the game in question.
C+
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Avs/Preds recap
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17374501
Here we have Dater's recap of the Avs/Predators game on February 12, which the Predators won 5-3. It opens with a music reference -- a Dater favorite -- and then moves on to a very odd bit where he tries way, way too hard to combine Shaquille O'Neal and Disneyland into some sort of metaphor for the Avs' playoff chances. Rather weird, actually. Eventually, Dater does get around to talking about the game itself.
That part of the article is a fairly depressing rehash of the game, in which the Avs were outshot and outhustled significantly through the first two periods, but still managed to lead 3-2 not three minutes into the third period on a goal by Matt Duchene. However, since these are the Avs and there is no defense allowed, they gave that lead right back moments later, and then lost the game with 2:30 remaining when Winnik's weak clearing attempt was stopped at the blue line and subsequently shot through Budaj's legs.
Overall, the recap of the game is OK. Dater's full into his Debbie Downer mode, but frankly the Avs are playing like crap and there isn't a lot of good stuff to report about them. Dater really misses the mark (as he usually does), however, when he mentions Budaj. These two sentences were the only mentions the Avs' backup goalie (starting his second consecutive game due to Anderson's abscence) received:
It was a soft goal, yes, one that Budaj should have stopped.
Here we have Dater's recap of the Avs/Predators game on February 12, which the Predators won 5-3. It opens with a music reference -- a Dater favorite -- and then moves on to a very odd bit where he tries way, way too hard to combine Shaquille O'Neal and Disneyland into some sort of metaphor for the Avs' playoff chances. Rather weird, actually. Eventually, Dater does get around to talking about the game itself.
That part of the article is a fairly depressing rehash of the game, in which the Avs were outshot and outhustled significantly through the first two periods, but still managed to lead 3-2 not three minutes into the third period on a goal by Matt Duchene. However, since these are the Avs and there is no defense allowed, they gave that lead right back moments later, and then lost the game with 2:30 remaining when Winnik's weak clearing attempt was stopped at the blue line and subsequently shot through Budaj's legs.
Overall, the recap of the game is OK. Dater's full into his Debbie Downer mode, but frankly the Avs are playing like crap and there isn't a lot of good stuff to report about them. Dater really misses the mark (as he usually does), however, when he mentions Budaj. These two sentences were the only mentions the Avs' backup goalie (starting his second consecutive game due to Anderson's abscence) received:
It was a soft goal, yes, one that Budaj should have stopped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)