Joe Sakic & Co - Record with Colorado Avalanche

[Foppa2118]

What was the Rob Blake fiasco? I only got my news from the DP for many years so I have a lot of holes in info and things that weren't explicitly put out by the Avs.

I know they never stripped it bare, and probably never will, it's just crazy they didn't really try to get more draft picks and even traded some away.

If I remember correctly, Sakic's/Blake's previous 2001 contracts had $3M bonuses in them, that were never really made public until after the lockout. The amounts were cut by the universal 24%, but the Avs were still on the hook for $2.3M each. At the time, it seemed to surprise them.

There was actually a clause in both their contracts that kicked in the $3M bonus ($2.3M after rollback) if the Avs declined to exercise their final option year. Basically PL thought they wouldn't count against the cap, or that he could talk the league into not including them.

He screwed up basically, and it led to having to trade Tanguay who wanted a reasonable raise. Funny thing was, PL's rationale to fans for not signing Forsberg after the lockout was because they were up against the cap, and he didn't think fans would be happy if he had to trade Tanguay and Hejduk to keep him.

The year before, PL offered Foote $12M over four years ($3M AAV) and Peter Forsberg $13.5M over four years ($3.375M AAV). Both were structured to receive only $1.5M their first year of the deal. That was the beginning of the end for the Avs golden era. They brought in Turgeon and Brisebois as replacements, and that kind of stop gap move was their calling card for a long time.

Footer didn't even hear a peep from PL after his season heading into UFA, until like the last week, when he gave him just one take it or leave it offer basically.

PL did lots of good things that built two Stanley Cup teams, but he did not plan well for the cap era at all. Possibly among the worst in the league.

 

[tucker3434]

There was actually a clause in both their contracts that kicked in the $3M bonus ($2.3M after rollback) if the Avs declined to exercise their final option year. Basically PL thought they wouldn't count against the cap, or that he could talk the league into not including them.

He screwed up basically, and it led to having to trade Tanguay who wanted a reasonable raise. Funny thing was, PL's rationale to fans for not signing Forsberg after the lockout was because they were up against the cap, and he didn't think fans would be happy if he had to trade Tanguay and Hejduk to keep him.

The year before, PL offered Foote $12M over four years ($3M AAV) and Peter Forsberg $13.5M over four years ($3.375M AAV). Both were structured to receive only $1.5M their first year of the deal. That was the beginning of the end for the Avs golden era. They brought in Turgeon and Brisebois as replacements, and that kind of stop gap move was their calling card for a long time.

Footer didn't even hear a peep from PL after his season heading into UFA, until like the last week, when he gave him just one take it or leave it offer basically.

PL did lots of good things that built two Stanley Cup teams, but he did not plan well for the cap era at all. Possibly among the worst in the league.

No, Lacroix is a hockey guy. The salary cap ushered in an era of the bean counters in accounting becoming a crucial part of the organization. The Avs didn't really pick up on that for about 5 years.

And for all the hell Greg from accounting gets, he managed the cap pretty incredibly. He didn't saddle us with a bunch of expensive vets. It wasn't a good hockey team, but it was a lean team, and if/when guys developed, it would have had the flexibility to add necessary pieces.

 

[shadow1]

And for all the hell Greg from accounting gets, he managed the cap pretty incredibly. He didn't saddle us with a bunch of expensive vets. It wasn't a good hockey team, but it was a lean team, and if/when guys developed, it would have had the flexibility to add necessary pieces.

He kept Colorado somewhat competitive with a small cap number, but had a literally crippling 2013 off-season, in which he issues the following contracts:

David Jones ($4.00 million x 4)
Shane O'Brien ($2.00 million x 3)
PA Parenteau ($4.00 million x 4)
Ryan Wilson ($2.25 million x 3)
Greg Zanon ($2.25 million x 2)

Hard to blame him for the Parenteau thing, but spending almost $15.00 million on that collection of players is the direct reason for Nathan MacKinnon. Sakic traded or bought out every one of those players, aside from Wilson, who only played 43 games over the three years.

 

[tigervixxxen]

For me it's impossible to tell what exactly Sherman was responsible for when Lacroix was still around and then what he was responsible for under Sakic. While I don't buy into any truth to the joke that he was just the coffee boy, it's impossible to make an evaluation.

I agree that this org has been good at avoiding those moronic long term contracts. They can be called cheap and archaic but they did manage to get us 5 core players signed to reasonable deals because of it.

Yeah that summer of 2012 was bad. Throw Hunwick in there too but I guess he didn't cost as much.

 

[Pokecheque]

For me it's impossible to tell what exactly Sherman was responsible for when Lacroix was still around and then what he was responsible for under Sakic. While I don't buy into any truth to the joke that he was just the coffee boy, it's impossible to make an evaluation.

I agree that this org has been good at avoiding those moronic long term contracts. They can be called cheap and archaic but they did manage to get us 5 core players signed to reasonable deals because of it.

Yeah that summer of 2012 was bad. Throw Hunwick in there too but I guess he didn't cost as much.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I don't think Sherman was just a bean counter, but no one knows just how much input Eric Lacroix had. IMO it was definitely Lacroix spearheading the O'Reilly debacle, but I've nothing to go on but speculation.

There were a LOT of things that Pierre Lacroix did even before his eventual decline and retirement that were positively maddening, but I'll save that for another forum on another day.

As for those signings...gah. I didn't realize those had all been done in the same offseason. Horrid. Three of those contracts were bought out and only one is still currently in the NHL (I'm guessing Jonesy will either be a late signing or PTO somewhere).

 

[tigervixxxen]

When I came to this board I did a lot of reading back (sometimes still do) and all the threads for all those signings were still on one page, it was a horrifying visual. Maybe it's for the best they are all gone now.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Roy is gone? Please be true!

 

[thehockeywatchinger]

Confirmè.... Roy quitte the Avalanches!

 

[Pokecheque]

Guess it's time for a new thread.

 

[Sea Eagles]

Roy is gone? Please be true!

I didn't have a problem with him to be honest. We'll now have had:
+ Quenneville (Experienced)
+ Granato (Second Shot)
+ Sacco (Farm Coach)
+ Roy (Club Legend)
+ XXXXXXX

Since 2008 (8 years) - 5 coaches

Maybe, just maybe it's not the coaches, but the culture and players we have. We've tried every angle here with the coaching staff, and nothing inspires this group.

 

[Pokecheque]

I don't think there's any argument whatsoever that the players aren't good enough, and haven't been for quite some time. The question is whether the organization as a whole is headed in the right direction...I suppose we will see soon enough.

 

[Avs44]

I didn't have a problem with him to be honest. We'll now have had:
+ Quenneville (Experienced)
+ Granato (Second Shot)
+ Sacco (Farm Coach)
+ Roy (Club Legend)
+ XXXXXXX

Since 2008 (8 years) - 5 coaches

Maybe, just maybe it's not the coaches, but the culture and players we have. We've tried every angle here with the coaching staff, and nothing inspires this group.

If you're going to go back and start eight years ago with the argument "nothing has worked, it might be the players," you might want to realize there is no player on this team today, aside from Cody McLeod, that was here eight years ago under Granato / Quenneville, so going that far back to try to prove a continuity in that the players are the problem, not the coaches, falls flat on its face. The core players on this team were only really here for two of the coaches you just mentioned, so wipe Quenneville and Granato right off that list. Duchene, Landy, MacK, EJ, Varly, Beauch, Barrie, Soderberg, etc., have only been here for Sacco and Roy, and some of them only Roy.


Considering neither Sacco or Roy were very good coaches, Sacco was a disaster and Roy only decent, at best, I don't buy that line of argument right now, and I don't think you have a strong case for it.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

I didn't have a problem with him to be honest. We'll now have had:
+ Quenneville (Experienced)
+ Granato (Second Shot)
+ Sacco (Farm Coach)
+ Roy (Club Legend)
+ XXXXXXX

Since 2008 (8 years) - 5 coaches

Maybe, just maybe it's not the coaches, but the culture and players we have. We've tried every angle here with the coaching staff, and nothing inspires this group.

Couple of things, name one coach that Q coached that's on this roster? You're talking about different teams and different players.

Granato where's he coaching again?

How about Sacco?

Of those coaches, only one is fit to actually call themselves an NHL coach. He unfortunately, didn't get a chance to coach this group.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Culture is passed from player to player.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Culture is passed from player to player.

Culture comes from the top down.

The more old pieces are gone the less I worry about that.

 

[tucker3434]

I didn't have a problem with him to be honest. We'll now have had:
+ Quenneville (Experienced)
+ Granato (Second Shot)
+ Sacco (Farm Coach)
+ Roy (Club Legend)
+ XXXXXXX

Since 2008 (8 years) - 5 coaches

Maybe, just maybe it's not the coaches, but the culture and players we have. We've tried every angle here with the coaching staff, and nothing inspires this group.

Sacco and Roy are the only two coaches this core has played for. Neither will ever be a NHL head coach again. So, you know, try again.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Culture comes from the top down.

The more old pieces are gone the less I worry about that.

The players play a big part too.

 

[Foppa2118]

Guess it's time for a new thread.

The early impression is that it's been mostly Sakic's vision anyway. Maybe just a re-title.

 

[Sea Eagles]

So wait, is everyone here saying it IS Roy's fault for the teams poor performances? Are people suggesting that's wrong because those players 8 years ago weren't under Roy? That's right, they were under Quenneville. What was the excuse then? Surely Quenneville was and is a good coach isn't he?

Or is Quenneville bound by the qualities of his rosters? Interesting then, isn't it?

I don't buy that Roy is at fault here, and I always stated my loyalty, and want for him to remain. There is a severe cultural problem at this club. Part of it comes down to accountability - from the coach, but also between each other.

I also feel we need a captain that leads from the front. Can walk the walk rather than just talk the talk (see Joe Sakic / Adam Foote).

 

[Avs44]

So wait, is everyone here saying it IS Roy's fault for the teams poor performances? Are people suggesting that's wrong because those players 8 years ago weren't under Roy? That's right, they were under Quenneville. What was the excuse then? Surely Quenneville was and is a good coach isn't he?

Or is Quenneville bound by the qualities of his rosters? Interesting then, isn't it?

I don't buy that Roy is at fault here, and I always stated my loyalty, and want for him to remain. There is a severe cultural problem at this club. Part of it comes down to accountability - from the coach, but also between each other.

I also feel we need a captain that leads from the front. Can walk the walk rather than just talk the talk (see Joe Sakic / Adam Foote).

You don't seem to get it. You said the players might be the problem, and now have pointed to Quenneville twice as evidence that it's not the coaching, because Quenneville is clearly a good coach. However, none of these players were here under Quenneville, so therefore that argument is entirely irrelevant. Or your argument is that the different roster under Quenneville was the problem, and we didn't / shouldn't blame coaching then, so we shouldn't blame Roy now, but again, two different teams, two different situations, so saying "the problem then was the team, not coach," so the problem now must be the team, not coach, isn't a relevant argument. This is a new team that never played under that coach, so bringing him up is simply a distraction.


The only two coaches who have ever coached this current roster are Roy and Sacco, so if we're evaluating the performance of this current group, then those are the only two relevant coaches. Make sense now?

 

[McMetal]

So wait, is everyone here saying it IS Roy's fault for the teams poor performances? Are people suggesting that's wrong because those players 8 years ago weren't under Roy? That's right, they were under Quenneville. What was the excuse then? Surely Quenneville was and is a good coach isn't he?

Or is Quenneville bound by the qualities of his rosters? Interesting then, isn't it?

I don't buy that Roy is at fault here, and I always stated my loyalty, and want for him to remain. There is a severe cultural problem at this club. Part of it comes down to accountability - from the coach, but also between each other.

I also feel we need a captain that leads from the front. Can walk the walk rather than just talk the talk (see Joe Sakic / Adam Foote).

I think there are a lot of other factors going on here and nothing can be attributed to any one thing. The dark years were dogged by bad drafting and development as well. Yes, the roster has been less than optimal under Roy, but IMO, it's also been underperforming, and Roy's coaching was a big part of that problem.

 

[Sea Eagles]

You don't seem to get it. You said the players might be the problem, and now have pointed to Quenneville twice as evidence that it's not the coaching, because Quenneville is clearly a good coach. However, none of these players were here under Quenneville, so therefore that argument is entirely irrelevant. Or your argument is that the different roster under Quenneville was the problem, and we didn't / shouldn't blame coaching then, so we shouldn't blame Roy now, but again, two different teams, two different situations, so saying "the problem then was the team, not coach," so the problem now must be the team, not coach, isn't a relevant argument. This is a new team that never played under that coach, so bringing him up is simply a distraction.


The only two coaches who have ever coached this current roster are Roy and Sacco, so if we're evaluating the performance of this current group, then those are the only two relevant coaches. Make sense now?

I'm sorry, you're the one not getting it here. Take out all the coaches, their tenure, where they are now, the players named to simplify it for you.

I'm suggesting that the problems here are deeper than the coach that has been behind our bench. I think it has been pretty unfair how some have ripped Roy today.

End of the day, you can't turn a Dodge, into a Ferrari, no matter how much paint you splash around, or who drives it. Under the bonnet, it's still that old beaten up Dodge, breaking down.

Fact of the matter, is there is an entrenched under current of mediocre that runs through our club - it's culture. Roy & Joe spoke about "bringing that winning mentality - that Stanley Cup attitude back to the fanbase and team.

It hasn't happened.

But they knew what was required, and I agree with them. Give Roy the Hawks, Blues, Caps rosters - he'd be killing it (in a good way).

Therefore, despite who is coaching, we will be, who we will be. We've all said our piece on where we will end up next season due to this. I just feel bad for whoever gets the gig, because they are going to be on a hiding to nothing, with players who appear they feel the world owes them something.

 

[Avs91]

I'm sorry, you're the one not getting it here. Take out all the coaches, their tenure, where they are now, the players named to simplify it for you.

I'm suggesting that the problems here are deeper than the coach that has been behind our bench. I think it has been pretty unfair how some have ripped Roy today.

End of the day, you can't turn a Dodge, into a Ferrari, no matter how much paint you splash around, or who drives it. Under the bonnet, it's still that old beaten up Dodge, breaking down.

Fact of the matter, is there is an entrenched under current of mediocre that runs through our club - it's culture. Roy & Joe spoke about "bringing that winning mentality - that Stanley Cup attitude back to the fanbase and team.

It hasn't happened.

But they knew what was required, and I agree with them. Give Roy the Hawks, Blues, Caps rosters - he'd be killing it (in a good way).

Therefore, despite who is coaching, we will be, who we will be. We've all said our piece on where we will end up next season due to this. I just feel bad for whoever gets the gig, because they are going to be on a hiding to nothing, with players who appear they feel the world owes them something.

So your opinion is that Roy is a good coach then, yes? You're applying that opinion as an example as to why the Avalanche organization itself has a culture problem. I think Avs44's position (and mine) is that Roy is not a good coach, and that this group of players hasn't had an opportunity to have an experienced coach. Thus, as stated, past player groups are irrelivent and have nothing to do with, again, the point that this group of players might be better under an experienced coach. See the difference?

As far as the Avs culture, I definitely think Sakic deserves credit for trying to at least step in the right direction, and he hasn't panicked by dumping the team and starting a rebuild. Plus we have no idea what the coaching will end up like, even 1-2 years from now if they go interim.

EDIT: just to add this, I would love to have Quenneville coaching this current team

 

[Sea Eagles]

So your opinion is that Roy is a good coach then, yes? You're applying that opinion as an example as to why the Avalanche organization itself has a culture problem. I think Avs44's position (and mine) is that Roy is not a good coach, and that this group of players hasn't had an opportunity to have an experienced coach. Thus, as stated, past player groups are irrelivent and have nothing to do with, again, the point that this group of players might be better under an experienced coach. See the difference?

As far as the Avs culture, I definitely think Sakic deserves credit for trying to at least step in the right direction, and he hasn't panicked by dumping the team and starting a rebuild. Plus we have no idea what the coaching will end up like, even 1-2 years from now if they go interim.

EDIT: just to add this, I would love to have Quenneville coaching this current team

So it's NOT the players onus to be much better? Sorry, as Avs44 says about me, I feel Avs44 has no idea on the subject. Here is a direct quote from a player today, and how the playing group feel about that:

Johnson said his initial reaction was “sadness from myself, and I think from other players as well, knowing that if we played better and got this team into a better position, he would still be here. The hammer falls on us players because if we played better and got this team where it needed to be, I’m sure Patrick wouldn’t have felt the need to want to make some of the changes that he wanted to make that obviously weren’t made, and that’s why he stepped down, it sounds like.”

Now, I'm guessing the next thing will be that this is mis-quoted, or he didn't mean it or something.

Ens of the day, like I said, at least the PLAYERS realize they need to be better, and the culture needs to change.

Do people really think Pat asked his players to be hemmed down in their own zone, shoot poor outlet passes, and more over be soft on the puck, and not have a competitive edge to them?

Roy's a winner. He was an attacking style of coach. It was always going to be tough for him when he took on the job given the make-up of the place, the drafting, the roster & the culture.

The coaching may change. The players may change. But the same bad habits are there from a decade ago.

Also, I'd love to know what MAKES a good coach? If someone comes in like Sacco, gets lucky and wins a fair few games, does that make him good? Wasn't he nominated for coach of the year his first year? Roy won the thing.

Nah mate, this is on the players (like thankfully Johnson - and I'm sure the other players) admit. I'm glad they are saying it, because it shows accountability.

I'm not saying Roy is coach of the year or anything. But if Quenneville, Granato, Sacco and Roy couldn't get this club out of the rut its in, I'm very interested in seeing who can?

 

[Freudian]

I don't think Avs had any chance of winning a Stanley Cup with Roy as a coach. It seems not even Roy had faith in his ability as a coach since he decided to quit. Perhaps not even his ego prevented him from recognizing how badly he has been out-coached, especially the last two years when the book was out on him. When the odds of looking really bad are greater than the odds of looking good, perhaps quitting is pure self-preservation. Now he can go to Quebec where he's the big fish.

Just like players have ceilings, so do coaches.

Personally I always figured Roy would go scorched earth on us, depleting everything for one or two shots at a cup so I'm happy this happened. By the comments he made about him wanting to have more influence this off-season I suspect he was starting to switch to that mode.

Before the Stuart buyout Avs might have been able to squeeze Radulov in, but after it was obvious the only way to do it is to get rid of Varlamov/Duchene/Barrie or perhaps even Landeskog.