All Things Avs post: Dater squelches rumors that nobody else has spread

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/27/scratch-those-adam-foote-trade-rumors/6597/

Here, Dater chimes in to let us know that the rumors of Adam Foote and Paul Stastny being traded are unfounded. The funny thing is that the rumors that either might be traded wouldn't be spreading in the first place, if not for AD himself. As soon as 'Denver Post's Avalanche Beat Writer Adrian Dater" blogs about a rumor, it gains a credibility it doesn't necessarily deserve. Dater should realize this, and be a bit more selective with the trade rumors he spits out.

Who would trade for Foote right now? He's been flat-out awful, and hurt on top of that. He has next to nothing to add to a contending team. Any team for whom Adam Foote would actually help at D would be nowhere near the playoffs... why would the Flyers trade for a 39-year old, 7th defenseman? This rumor just never added up from the get-go, but that didn't stop Dater from passing it on.

And Dater was clearly the one stirring the pot with the Stastny rumors. He says he hears things "around the water cooler," but really all he does is follow Eklund and parrot anything he hears. This is the hockey-rumor equivalent of somebody at the NY Times repeating what he read in the Weekly World News about Obama coming to an agreement with the Aliens.

This just occurred to me, honestly, for the first time... what if Dater IS Eklund? The M.O. fits... He exists not to be an actual source of information, but solely to drive traffic to a web site. He just throws out a bunch of second-hand information and 1500 absolutely retarded ideas; starts rumors sending practically every player in the league to every team, and the dozen or so that, mathematically speaking, are bound to come true, he points to with confidence and and says "See? I was right." Hmmmm... the pieces all seem to fit, don't they.....?

After thinking about it for a minute, I don't think that Dater is Eklund. I am not sure Dater's sly enough to write this well-done article about his own secret identity just to throw people off the trail. But, Eklund may very well be Dater's Spirit Animal.

Grade: B-

Avs/Kings recap

http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche/ci_17493203

In this article, Adrian Dater recaps the LA Kings' 4-3 win over the reeling Avalanche, now losers of 12 of their last 13 games. As usual, his "real" coverage is a few notches better than his blog entries, but there are a couple things in this article that I will use to demonstrate how the conflict of interest between his highly-opinionated and much-less-highly-educated blog negatively affects his regular coverage.

The intro to this article, in stark contrast to a lot of Dater's work, is really not bad. Flowery language such as  "swirling, snow-driven puck" and "Quick's guarded twine" is a bit too Dickie Dunn for my taste, but he does a good job setting the stage here. As I've said before, his intros are very often awkward at best, so when he comes close to pulling one off, I feel I should give him props for it.

He accurately notes that while the score was close, the game was not, as the Avs pretty much got manhandled in the first 40 minutes, and only a bad shift from the Kings where Jones scored twice, and a misplayed puck by Quick in the final minute which led to a fluky Stastny goal, made this one appear to be a close game. Dater also includes a quote from Liles, which is good. It's always a sign of good journalism when the subjects, rather than the author, tell the story.

A problem -- or the seeds of one, anyway -- crops up when he describes the play of newly acquired goalie Brian Elliot:

New goalie Brian Elliott wasn't to blame for this one. The recently acquired netminder made many good saves among his 38. Yeah, he might want one back, scored by L.A.'s Drew Doughty with 1.1 seconds left in the second period that made it a 3-0 game. But otherwise, Elliott was the only Av who looked like he cared in the first two periods.

Is there a problem with that description? No, not at all... but Dater's well-documented bias against Peter Budaj makes this stand out a bit. Had Budaj allowed those four goals, I am confident in saying that Dater would have described at least two, if not three of them as "soft." Any shot that makes its way in through the five-hole or from the point is "soft" in Dater's book, as long as it's Budaj who lets it in. Elliot gets a far different treatment than Budaj would likely have received in the same situation.

Here is what Dater had to say about Peter Budaj in the team's only win in the last month, a 4-3 win over the Blues in which Budaj made 42 saves:

"                                                                                                                                                                "

Budaj, who was very solid all through that game and made two or three huge saves in the frantic final minute to seal the win, got nary a mention in that writeup... but Dater not only mentions Elliot's play in this loss, but he's wearing the kid gloves, even giving Elliot a pat on the back.

Now, to be clear, I'm not down on Elliot after this game -- I've said for quite a while that no goalie is going to look good playing for a team this defensively irresponsible -- I'm only using this as an example of how Dater demonstrates his bias, and how it seeps into his "real" coverage of the team.

Why is it a problem? Here's why: because those who did not watch the game are counting on Dater's article to tell them how it went down... that's the entire point of newspaper coverage, when you get right down to it. The people who read the article now have an idea about Elliot's play... but is it accurate, or is Dater boosting Elliot's play (just as he often did Anderson's) so he can continue to have a contrast to hold Budaj up to? Right there is the problem we get when we allow a journalist to exploit his bias... the reader cannot trust Dater's descriptions in this regard because he has already emphatically stated his preferences. The reader cannot trust that Elliot really wasn't too bad in this loss, any more than he can trust that Budaj was not a factor in that win... bias such as Dater's poisons the journalism, and it should not be allowed, period.

Overall, a good article on a bad game, but the article includes hints at the possibility that Dater has already started allowing his pro-Anderson/ anti-Budaj bias to seep into his coverage of Elliot.

B

All Things Avs post: Eeyore returns, time to start tankin'

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/26/postgame-avs-kings-was-today-really-a-win-for-avalanche/6594/

Do you ever get the impression that Dater just LOVES to throw dirt on the Avalanche? I'm not suggesting that he actually enjoys it, because he's a fan like the rest of us no matter what he says. But, he's one of those types of fans that thinks if a team can't make the playoffs that there's just absolutely nothing worth watching about them at all. He gets so mopey about it... he's basically a fan who can't stand to see them lose, and so when they lose he flips around and attacks as a defense mechanism.

Remember Randy Quaid's character in Major League 2? No, of course you don't, nobody actually saw Major League 2... this guy starts out a huge Indians fan, but sours on the team quickly as they fail to meet expectations. However, instead of just going home, he keeps coming to games just to gripe about them and generally annoy everybody in his section, until they actually win the pennant and all of a sudden, he's a huge fan again. That's Dater.

This blog is basically Dater throwing in the towel on the season for probably the dozenth time. According to Dater, we're at the point where losses are better than wins because it gets them closer to the top pick in the draft... which Dater admits he has no earthly idea who that might be (Adam Larsson -- look him up AD). But really, why does anybody want to read a guy whining about the Avs and suggesting they just start losing on purpose?

Dater throws in some of his standard, no-insight analysis on the loss to the Kings: "No passion, no spirit, no toughness, no nothin’" It's pablum, yet another in a long line of blog entries that leave the reader not one iota more informed than before it was read. If I ever get my wish and Dater's blog was a personal Avalanche blog and it/he were totally unaffiliated with the Denver Post, would anybody read it? What exactly does it offer?

I will admit that every once in a while he will do something useful such as post practice video or Q&A in the locker room, stuff that we can't really get elsewhere... but beyond that, his blog is the biggest collection of nothing I could imagine for an Avs fan. I was watching the NHL Network last night and they talked about the game, and the guy behind the desk broke down three or four plays and explained exactly what the Avs were doing right, at exactly the point where one (or more) Avs made the wrong decision, and how the Kings took advantage of it. It was pretty darn good for a 90-second breakdown... but not once did I see this guy pause the video and say, "Right here, the Avs could have used a bit more passion, a bit more spirit." If the guy who's job is to give a cursory glance to every game in the league every night and find something to talk about can offer some insight and analysis, why can't the guy who's job it is to cover one team at least match that, if not exceed it?

Dater then says something that kind of baffles me:

The Kings got two 5-on-3s and the Avs killed them both – and still lost. That almost never happens

 
I'm pretty sure that happens a lot, actually.  My guess is that teams that get multiple 5-on-3s against them during a game usually DO end up losing most of those games, whether they kill the 5-on-3s or not. A team that gets more than one 5-on-3 against them in a single game is probably playing frantic, undisciplined, stupid hockey, which is not a description that is usually applied to the winning team. Odd statement there by Dater.


Dater moves on to a question he asked of Sacco about the players tuning out to his (Sacco's, that is) message. He doesn't seem to think that's likely, and I agree, but he asked the question anyway, and apparently Sacco either didn't understand the question or refused to answer it. He uses this to lead into one of his Glenn Beck moments about whether Sacco and Sherman will return next season.
.
Dater closes by pointing out yet again that Craig Anderson is playing well for the Sens. He and I seem to be coming at this from entirely different angles... to him, Anderson's good play in Ottawa is proof that the Avs should never have traded him in the first place, while to me it's proof that the little signs I thought I picked up on during games that told me he wasn't giving his best effort were probably accurate. The man had clearly mailed it in for the better part of the year in Denver; his light-switch resurgence in Ottawa supports that belief, and the Avs are better off without a guy like that.

D+ Not terrible, but the relentless negativity that Dater believes gives him credibility is, in reality, simply annoying. Another display of non-analytical game analysis leaves the reader wondering why they clicked on his blog in the first place.

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+.

All Things Avs posts: Sharks/Avs recap

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/20/postgame-avs-sharks-the-grim-march-continues/6552/

After a few blog entries that simply reviewed the recent trades the team has made without offering a great deal of insight, Dater had this entry after the Avs got shut out against San Jose.

Up to this point, Dater had done a reasonably good job with his assessments of the two big trades over the weekend: he seemed to understand the reasoning behind the Anderson trade (they were not going to re-sign him anyway, might as well flip him for somebody they might be able to hold on to and develop) and kept his remarks largely in the "boy, things sure happen fast!" neighborhood. And his comments on the Stewart/Shattenkirk-Johnson trade were equally balanced: Dater worries that giving up Stewart is a mistake, but he also knows that Johnson is exactly the sort of player he's been saying the Avs need all along, and you've got to give up talent to get talent. Again, up to this point, he'd been OK, and those blog entries together receive a C+ grade.

But all it took was one game to end all that. This blog entry is a return to the mopey, pessimistic, sky-is-falling attitude that pervades Dater's work... if it had stopped there, then it would have been merely bad. However, this blog entry also offers an example of one of the prime reasons Adrian Dater should be removed from the Avalanche beat: his clearly-stated bias towards certain players and against others.

Dater starts with a variation of his "I'm not one to (blank), but...," this time saying, "I'm not going to start second-guessing the Stewart-Johnson deal tonight, after one game." I have my doubts, but let's take him at his word on that, and move on...

Next, he digs into the Anderson trade. Remember, he was pretty shruggy about this one up to this point, but that was before Anderson stood on his head for Ottawa that night and sent him all into a tizzy.

But I still want to second-guess the Craig Anderson deal some. I still can’t believe Anderson is gone. He was so great last year, and now he’s gone, traded for a guy who has been terrible all year in Ottawa. Can’t believe that’s all that came of Anderson, after a first year in which he literally carried the team into the playoffs, playing 71 games.

So, you can't believe it. OK. Rub your eyes, take a deep breath, and get back to work. Guess what? Anderson was terrible all year in Denver, too... so what's your point? One good game in Ottawa and he's a Vezina candidate?

Oh, and do you have any idea what the word "literally" means, Dater? This is one thing I can't stand for, is when a person who is PAID TO USE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE treats it like this. "Literally" is a word, it has a meaning. Learn it.

So many fans seem to think he “quit” on the team this year. Does anybody have any evidence of that? I sure can’t find any. 

Well, there were all those times he half-assed a save attempt, where he played like he didn't really care. He didn't look like the same goalie he did in the first half of last season, and even his biggest fans would admit it. Ironically, the Ottawa game Dater is talking about that convinces him that Anderson should have been the Avs Goalie Of The Future is all the proof some of us need to show that Anderson's play this season was the result of giving up on the team... in his first game in Ottawa (a team with pretty bad defense, themselves) he performed like he hadn't for Colorado all year. Looks like pretty convincing evidence to me that he might have been holding something back with the Avs. Good riddance to him.

Sorry, but I’m an Anderson guy. I think this: I think Anderson DID feel less wanted this year, after the Avs didn’t give the time of day to his agent toward talks on a new contract.

Two problems with this one. First, it came to light right after this that the Avs DID, in fact, offer Anderson a very nice contract and a substantial raise, and he turned them down. Glaring mistakes like this are why real reporters routinely include something called "fact gathering" as part of their work.

The big problem here, though, is:  "I'm an Anderson guy." How often do we see a professional journalist proclaim the guys he likes and doesn't like the way Dater does? It's just ridiculous... journalism is all about being free from bias on the subject you are covering, and what bias you cannot rid yourself, you do your best to mask and keep out of your stories. Not only does Dater fail to make an attempt to keep his personal bias about the Avalanche out of his writing, he pretty much flaunts it. Frankly, I can't believe he hasn't been fired for this sort of thing. He should be.

Then he had a couple of bad games, and suddenly he was in a rotation basis with Peter Budaj. That’s where I split with the coaching decisions from there on the goaltending. I still think Anderson needed another bunch of games to play by himself before he started to be in a platoon position with a guy who has NEVER proven himself as a No. 1.

 
AD, he had more than "a couple of bad games." He was under .500, and his backup had better stats than he did. This is the problem with bias in reporting... it makes you unable to discern (and thereby report) report the truth. Bias is poison to journalism.

Now, if you're one of those who will dismiss it by saying "But it's only a blog!" consider this: yes, a blog writer is different than a journalist and is subject to different ethical boundaries (if any)... but when a blog writer IS a journalist, it creates a major problem, and this is a perfect example of it. It is a conflict of interest to get paid as a journalist to cover the Avalanche, and then spew out ill-informed and completely personal opinions on the same subject, ESPECIALLY on the same website.

And why take a dig at Budaj here? Budaj did his job as the Avalanche backup this season. Anderson failed, spectacularly, in his job as the starter... but what does Dater do? Defends Anderson, attacks Budaj. Recall just a bit ago when I said that bias poisons journalism? There's the evidence of it, right there... no hockey mind or journalist would ever suggest that the problem with a team is its backup goaltender.

After bitching about this for another few paragraphs, Dater then returns, as you knew he would, to second-guess the Johnson-Stewart deal for a while. Big surprise, right?

Dater does get one thing right in this blog entry, and this is it:

I was wrong.

He's wrong about a lot of stuff, folks, but that hasn't stopped him yet.

Grade: F

Postscript: The comments section produced an interesting exchange. 

Vamjl: 

Why are you so quick to cut Andy all the slack in the world and just as quick to throw Budaj under the bus and back over him? 

Jimbo (me):

I agree... Dater goes out of his way here to make excuses for Anderson, but when it comes time to discuss Budaj Dater dismisses him with one sentence.

Whether Budaj hs proved he can be a #1 goalie or not, he DID prove to the coaches and the Avs that he gave them a better chance to win than Anderson this season, and that says it all... if Budaj's as bad as Dater says and the Avs STILL went with him, then we've just learned everything we need to know about what Andy brought to the team... if Dater put his massive bias aside for a bit he might be able to give a better analysis on the goaltending situation, but he'd rather be the writer with an edge than the writer with the insightful commentary and analysis. 

"Adrian:" 

Jimbo,
Congrats on the most idiotic post of the 100 comments so far. Bravo!
How many games has Budaj won lately, I wonder? Oh, and Anderson won 13 games this year, and Budaj 12 so far. So there goes your statement about giving them the best chance to win.

Jimbo (me): 

How is my comment idiotic? I said that the coaches and the Avs had pretty clearly stated that Budaj gave them the best chance to win, as evidenced by his increased workload as the season went along. Prove me wrong... go ahead. Show everybody what an idiot I am, or admit what a petty, unprofessional writer YOU are. 

I thought I made a pretty good point, don't you? After being given a very heavy workload to start the season, and then again after he returned from his knee injury, Anderson eventually fell into a platoon situation with Budaj, and then near the end it seemed he might actually be headed towards a backup role. They ultimately traded Anderson away, of course, and on top of all that, Sacco actually said at one point "Right now [Budaj] gives us a chance to win"... the clear implication being that Anderson did not.

That sure seems like a lot of compelling evidence to back up my statement that the Avs' decisions (and statements) about the goaltending told us a lot about what they really thought of Anderson as the season went on. Dater apparently doesn't like reasoning that follows a linear path, however, as it clogs up his frothy-bias machine and he has to spend the rest of the night getting it running again. So instead of responding to the argument, Dater throws out some facts that don't really support his point (or damage mine), and lashes out, calling my post "idiotic." Classy.

Now, it was pointed out that it might not have been Dater himself posting as "Adrian," and I responded that if this was the case I apologized to the real Dater... but frankly, I have little doubt it was Dater who wrote that comment. All it does is show how thin both his knowledge of the game AND his skin really are.

Dater Submits "Mailbag" from Exile on Mars

http://www.denverpost.com/avsmailbag/ci_17393522

Ever since Forsberg shocked the hockey world by retiring three years after everybody outside Denver assumed he already had, Adrian Dater has been in hiding. I realize it's only been like two days, and some may claim that these were going to be his days off anyway, but I think we know better... he's sitting around in his underpants listening to sad songs, thinking back to the way things were. We've all done it, AD... no need to be ashamed. I truly hope that someday soon he can throw Peter Forsberg's picture into some sort of bumfire in a barrel and bravely make the choice to move on, but let's give him some time.

At any rate, Mike Chambers has been filling nicely with succinct coverage and well-written blogs, with Dater's only recent contribution being the latest "Avs Mailbag" entry. So let's dig into that! In this Mailbag entry, Dater tackles eight questions, with varying degrees of success.

The first question asks of Dater, "how would you... decide to build the Avs' defense for next season?"

I suppose I could make a crack such as "thank goodness Dater is not in charge of building the Avs defense for next season," but that could be read as to imply that he could do worse than has been done this season, and to be fair, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that monkeys could fling their feces at a marked-up wall as a form of rudimentary decision-making process, and reach a better result, roster-wise, than this year's Avs have done. Have I just implied that Dater could build an NHL team better than a group of monkeys flinging poo? Yes, I have. I leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether I have insulted Dater or monkeys to the greater degree.

However, I do think that the Avs GM (either Pierre LaCroix, or the guy they currently have pretending to the be GM instead of LaCroix) has done a better job building this defense than Dater has done answering this question. Dater COMPLETELY dodges the primary question the person asked here, and instead answers the supplementary question, "Did you think this slump was going to happen?" This allows him to go to his " I told you so" voice and to throw in vague cliches like "hunger," rather than risking an answer that would require him to look forwards rather than backwards and to offer some actual insight and/or analysis. Answer #1: D--. Yep, that's two minuses. The F is reserved for the monkeys.
 

Question #2 asks whether Calvin Pickard (I'd love to see his helmet artwork) could come up to the Avs and play some goal. As opposed to his answer to the first question, Dater answers this question so directly and with such authority ("No, he can't") that I am nearly convinced he's not mistaken. Answer #2: A

Question #3 is a fairly stupid question: "Is (Anderson) really available for trade?" Dater resists the urge to answer a stupid question with a stupid answer, explaining that the only player that the Avalanche would not trade if they had an offer is Duchene, but that no serious contender would trade for Anderson right now, anyway. He's right... if ever a player laid a big, stinky egg right when he had the opportunity to cash in BIG TIME as a free agent, it's Anderson. I don't know if the Avs' list of untouchables really starts and ends with Duchene, but it's a good enough answer to get a B.

Question #4 reads: "Could please ask Adam Foote why he has yet to play in Columbus since he left? He divided the lockerroom and sandbagged it here his last year and has yet to show his face on the ice in an Avs uniform."---Tadd, Columbus, Ohio

Dater's answer: "Well, actually Foote has played two games in Columbus since leaving there for the Avs. They were Dec. 5 and Jan. 2 of last season. Those must have skipped your mind, Tadd."

This is one of those cases where Dater's answer is actually 100% correct, but since he only included the question to give himself the opportunity to make himself appear smarter than the person who asked the question, he gets a poor grade. Not only does Dater love the low-hanging fruit, but he frequently makes a big deal out of it when it gets it... and luckily for him, his readers seem to give him plenty of opportunities. A responsible reporter would have given this question the ignoring it deserves, but Dater pounced on it. His snotty pettiness leads to a D+ grade here.

Question #5 is from a Hejduk fan in some part of the other side of the world where, I'm guessing, the sun never rises and they poop in a trench cut down the middle of the street. This guy is practically begging Dater to tell him that the Avs will get better in much the same way some doe-eyed kid begs his mother to tell him that mommy and daddy still love each other. Dater, demonstrating no compassion at all, tells the truth and essentially says, "Probably not, but hang in there anyway." Answer #5: C-... accurate, but in a useless manner (The grade here is higher than for #4 only because he's much less of a dick about it this time, but still below average because of the inclusion of the phrase "burnin' watchin' Hedjie"). Again, as in the last question, he's probably correct, but he's now addressed two stupid questions just to make himself appear smarter... essentially what I'm doing with this blog, except I'm not getting a paycheck for it.

Next is an Altitude/Haynes and McNab question. I always find it interesting to read how Dater views the ethics of other journalists. He correctly points out that Haynes and McNab are employed to "promote the brand" of the Avalanche, rather than as objective reporters, and then goes off on a tangent about how he would do it if it were up to him... not really the question that was asked, but OK. His comments there are pretty close to my thoughts -- Altitude is a bit of a joke as far as "coverage" of the Avs is concerned (although I seem to have noticed a distinct improvement over the last couple seasons) -- but then again, Dater's coverage in the Post leaves a lot to be desired, too. An example of that is in this question: in the process of answering it, Dater uses the words "I," "My," or "Me" thirteen times. The question was not about you, Dater, it was about Altitude. B-, and I feel that I am being generous with my grade here (six "I/me/mys," BTW, and that's with me throwing in three at the end... oops, make that four).


The next question was a quickie about Altitude switching from the game to the Nuggets game. Not really an "Avalanche" question much as it is a "television" question, but at least Dater answers it quickly and succinctly, and doesn't waste much time on it... but he could just as easily have chosen to not include it at all. That's three questions in this mailbag that aren't really worthy of being published or answered... it sure seems like Dater is padding this thing with creampuff questions. Is he not getting enough questions sent to him for this feature, or is it that the easy ones are the only ones he feels comfortable answering? Creampuff answers get creampuff grades: C-.

Right after I get done bitching about lame questions, the final question rolls up, about the Avs' ownership, and whether their focus on the Nuggets and the Carmello Anthony issue have hurt the Avs' chances at making the playoffs this season. A decent question, and a good one for Dater to close with... how does he handle it?

Well to be honest, he puts the barrel of the bat on this one, and gives a great answer. I pretty much agree; as many problems as this Avalanche team has, I really don't think they can be laid at the feet of the owners. Much like the Rockies, this team has decided to go with a "grow from within" philosophy, and they're sticking with it. Kroenke has never failed to sign the checks, and as many issues as they've had this season, I don't think changing philosophies halfway through will make things any better in the long run.

Kudos to Dater for resisting the rather easy mob mentality answer, and basically responding that the Avs are following a formula that has created a number of successful NHL teams recently (Chicago, Pittsburgh), and that the ownership has had little bearing here one way or the other. I give Dater an A- on this answer.

All Things Avs blog: The Rending of Garments

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/14/valentines-day-2011-darkest-day-in-avalanche-history/6492/

In this blog entry, Dater presents his recap of the day's events. Only two things really happened today: Peter Forsberg did not show up to play hockey, and the Colorado Avalanche did not show up to play hockey. So really, it was a pretty uneventful day when you think about it.

Dater starts with another "Look, I don't usually (blank), but..." intro, and considering that this entry is gloomily subtitled "The Darkest Day in Avalanche History," it looks like it's going to be a solid "F" from the get-go. The second paragraph begins with Dater describing the day as a "disaster in Colorado Avalanche history." I know he's feeling the pain today, but a disaster would be the team plane hitting the side of a mountain (presumably, one that does not resemble a hockey goal). An aging player who can't skate announcing his retirement is NOT a disaster, and a 9-1 butt-kicking is just that, a butt-kicking. So I would have backed off a bit on the "disaster" description, and maybe just have said that the day did not go exactly as planned.

Dater moves on to question whether Sacco will keep his job, and to wonder what other changes might take place before the Feb. 28 trading deadline. I know it's just a quick thing here, but this is a big part of what bothers me about Dater's blog: once again, he's thinking (and writing) like a fan, and not a reporter. He's treading very close to a conflict of interest here... as soon as he says "Sacco should be fired," he pretty much loses his ability (if not the right) to cover Sacco or the team objectively. Of course, many fans are wondering themselves if Sacco will/should keep his job, and they are wondering what the Avs will do to address their losing streak... but Dater's personal musings on the matter should remain personal. At least, though, he doesn't try to answer these questions here, he simply asks them.

He does include some insight from Peter McNab about the team's current struggles, and McNab's assessment is a good one. He says, essentially, that a team needs to lose like this to learn how to win, and I couldn't agree more. To this point in the season, I think the Avs have skated hard and are trying their best, for the most part, and that's a good sign. This losing streak hasn't been a product of any lack of effort, but rather a dearth of talent and experience. I'm going to go ahead and write off the Calgary game as the result of the month-long Forsberg distraction coming to its inevitable conclusion, and hopefully they continue to play hard, even if the wins remain difficult to come by.

Dater closes with a teary good-bye to Forsberg, saying he was honored to cover him and to shake his hand, and telling him he was the best player he ever saw. It's pretty clear that's not really an objective statement by any stretch of the imagination, but I suppose it's probably OK for a reporter to say something like that after a guy's already retired. I'm going to have to think about that for a bit.

Grade: C-  It starts off just awful, really, with Dater not even remotely interested in acting like anything other than an Avalanche fan, throwing in some impressive hyperbole and some truly high-end Feeling Sorry For Ourselves. Adding the insight from McNab, and a good-bye to Forsberg that comes close to being authentically touching, pulls it up from a low D.