Post-Game Talk: Avs at Yotes l 4-0 L l "Avs Y U No Win With All The Patience?"

[AslanRH]

It's clear to me that he is saying that Anderson deliberately lost games that season.

Furthermore, I agree with that. I believe Anderson played poorly, only putting forth a minimal effort, intentionally. I believe he wanted to be traded ASAP, and was willing to throw games to force a trade.

I agree whole heartedly with LW and you about Anderson and that he, for lack of a better term "quit". That was my impression at the time, and is to this day. But I'm more along the thinking with Foppa regarding Sherman.

Perhaps now (last 10 games) Sherman could be seen as quitting on the year, a few of our "franchise" players have as well, but I do not believe that it is more than a recent mentality. I think there was hope that once ROR was back into the fold and the team began to get healthy it would turn around and be at least a bubble team. By the time it was clear that was not going to happen, in a shortened season, it was too late to really do much. I think Sherman was late to pull the trigger on Sacco, but in his defense, even we HF experts still had hope the team would turn around a bit when everyone came back.

Firing a coach without a permanent successor in waiting would not have helped much. Taking the time and all possible options available this summer makes more sense now than a month of interim coaching that adds more turmoil to what is already existing. If it were a normal season where teams actually have practice time to develop and evaluate players, firing Sacco would make more sense, but this season, most skating is done in games and therefore not much can be developed outside of that. At least by maintaining Sacco for the rest of the year, there is some consistency in "system", expectations, etc for the players. 20 more days of misery, and then hopefully spring/summer will bring new life into this franchise.

 

[Foppa2118]

I made a reference to another discussion where I said by not improving the team (firing Sacco or attempting something meaningful) that Sherman is intentionally not trying to win this season anymore and whatever happens happens. This is in essence the same concept as tanking without actually going about the act.

Using the same logic I applied there which I deemed acceptable I posited that because Andy was not trying to win games or keep our club in games (on ice demeanor, poor attitude towards the club, being denied what he wanted and his overall terrible play) that while he may not have said explicitly "I am going to **** over this team for what they did to me." he might as well have said that because the end result of HIS actions were the same.

It's simple logic. If A + B = C and A + D = C then B = D. Applied to human reasoning it becomes much more difficult to judge and is generally frowned upon, so you need to account for more variables. Which I did in evaluating Andy's play versus Varly's play, there is a clear and distinct difference between Varly trying to keep us in games and Andy not trying to keep us in games. Varly's scenario makes my logic invalid, Andy's just further facilitates it.

Thus, I brought out some video evidence to help support my claim. But that was quickly mocked (amusing how when one tries to bring hard proof to the table people are so quick to cry foul, but when they don't people are equally as quick to challenge them) and denounced.

So here's my question to you. Do YOU have any evidence to prove Andy was not trying to lose games for our clubs beyond assuming he was doing what any logical human being might do?

Ok, this is getting a little comical. Not only are you saying something completely illogical and calling it logical thinking, you are putting forth no evidence or PROOF that Andy or Sherman are intentionally losing games, while asking me to put forth evidence to PROOVE you wrong.

Let me break it down again for you, since I don't have hidden cameras or microphones picking up Sherman and Andy saying they planned on intentionally losing games. I'd love to hear yours though since you apparently have PROOF.

You're whole theory is based on the idea that it doesn't matter if he wanted to, or intentionally lost games, they are the same thing "because the end result of HIS actions were the same." and that "A + B = C and A + D = C then B = D."

The fact that they both ended up losing games is not indicative whatsoever of them wanting to do so. This is not proof of anything. You might has well just made up a language, or spoke gibberish and it would hold up just as well as proof.

Using your logic, Varly must be intentionally losing these games lately and looking like crap, because he doesn't want to re-sign with this team. He probably wants them to trade him, and then he can play in the KHL or something right?

EJ, obviously he hasn't taken the step the team wanted because he's offended they haven't brought in a legit partner for him, and this pisses him off. He's clearly intentionally not scoring, so they'll trade him back to the Blues. He may not be intentionally missing the net on all his shots, but he might as well right? The end result is the same.

Oh, and Sherman he obviously wants to again cost his owner millions and millions in the 4th year of a rebuild, lose more fan support, and potentially lose his own job, by intentionally missing the playoffs. It's not that he didn't like the options on D in the offseason, and went with shorter term stop gap guys instead. It's not that once they clearly were going to miss the playoffs, it would be stupid to bring in guys to save this season, considering what everyone has said the prices were.

No he intentionally did this to lose games. He may not have wanted to do so, but the end result of his actions were the same, so that means they are the same thing.

So every time a team has had a losing season it must have been intentional, and every time a player had a bad game, or a bad shift, it doesn't matter that it's hurting them by doing so, the end result is the same, and they must be doing it on purpose. In fact, anything that has ever happened to any human or any thing in the history of the universe must have been intentional, because the end result is the same. I stand corrected, like you say this is very logical thinking, and there's no proof that can rebuff it.

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

I'm done with this, you're taking what I'm saying and twisting it into something entirely else. At no point have I even brought up EJ nor did I ever mention Sherman failing to bring in a partner for him as an example of willfully losing games.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. At no point until my last post did I ask you to prove your point using evidence, but I was backed into a corner to try and prove mine, so I did with the best 'data' I could. We're fans discussing a team which for all intensive purposes has no connection to the outside world, yet you're lambasting me for using the only intrinsic evidence I have for drawing the only conclusion I deem logical?

I'm out. You can argue with the other people that agree with me instead and tell them why they don't make any sense either.

For the record, Aslan's point about Sherman makes sense to me and was something I did not consider since it is a shortened season. If Sherman did decide that for better or worse, the best decision was to recover in the offseason rather than try to right the ship by firing Sacco now than at least that makes sense. I was only pointing out earlier that by not firing Sacco it seemed indicative of him not caring about the season anymore. Tbh, promoting Quinn for twenty games once we heard he signed with Boston seemed like a no lose scenario but that's just my opinion.

 

[Foppa2118]

I'm done with this, you're taking what I'm saying and twisting it into something entirely else. At no point have I even brought up EJ nor did I ever mention Sherman failing to bring in a partner for him as an example of willfully losing games.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. At no point until my last post did I ask you to prove your point using evidence, but I was backed into a corner to try and prove mine, so I did with the best 'data' I could. We're fans discussing a team which for all intensive purposes has no connection to the outside world, yet you're lambasting me for using the only intrinsic evidence I have for drawing the only conclusion I deem logical?

I'm out. You can argue with the other people that agree with me instead and tell them why they don't make any sense either.

For the record, Aslan's point about Sherman makes sense to me and was something I did not consider since it is a shortened season. If Sherman did decide that for better or worse, the best decision was to recover in the offseason rather than try to right the ship by firing Sacco now than at least that makes sense. I was only pointing out earlier that by not firing Sacco it seemed indicative of him not caring about the season anymore. Tbh, promoting Quinn for twenty games once we heard he signed with Boston seemed like a no lose scenario but that's just my opinion.

Haha, ok. That's exactly what you're saying, I'm not twisting anything. Andy and Sherman may not have intentionally lost games according to you, but the end result was the same, so that means they are the same thing and that's your proof. If A + B = C and A + D = C then B = D right?

I won't argue that the team hasn't sucked this year. I won't argue that the decision on the D for this year, and in keeping Sacco all year contributed to losses. I won't argue that Andy didn't suck in his year, or that he might have become apathetic to the team that he didn't think was showing interest in him. But there's no reason to believe either was done on purpose when it does so much damage to both Andy and Sherman. They aren't the same thing, just because the results are the same, that's all I was trying to point out.

 

[Iceberg]

I'm done with this, you're taking what I'm saying and twisting it into something entirely else. At no point have I even brought up EJ nor did I ever mention Sherman failing to bring in a partner for him as an example of willfully losing games.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. At no point until my last post did I ask you to prove your point using evidence, but I was backed into a corner to try and prove mine, so I did with the best 'data' I could. We're fans discussing a team which for all intensive purposes has no connection to the outside world, yet you're lambasting me for using the only intrinsic evidence I have for drawing the only conclusion I deem logical?

I'm out. You can argue with the other people that agree with me instead and tell them why they don't make any sense either.

For the record, Aslan's point about Sherman makes sense to me and was something I did not consider since it is a shortened season. If Sherman did decide that for better or worse, the best decision was to recover in the offseason rather than try to right the ship by firing Sacco now than at least that makes sense. I was only pointing out earlier that by not firing Sacco it seemed indicative of him not caring about the season anymore. Tbh, promoting Quinn for twenty games once we heard he signed with Boston seemed like a no lose scenario but that's just my opinion.

Let's put an end to this discussion. No one PROVED anything. Posting a video of a goalie letting in a bad goal doesn't prove he was letting that goal in on purpose.

You can make your assumptions based on what you call evidence. But in the end, it is only what YOU think. Sure there will be other fans that will agree with you, it's only natural, there is a lot o sore fans that were mad at him for not taking what Sherman offered (same guys that hated on ROR too).

We are all fans, and we get emotionally attached to the team. Sometimes that sentiment escalates to the point where we lose side of reason.

 

[dahrougem2]

Yeah, but theire core is A LOT better than ours, it's not even close.

That's the problem with these "rebuiding projects", if you don't have the luck to get a Crosby you'll be stuck at the bottom forever.

In our case if Jones is another EJ instead of Lidstrom, we'll not improve a lot. Unless, of course, management decides to actually work and build a decent team.

I said that there core is, nobody is denying that, but the main point is that they did not regress while we did. Is the Blackhawks core A LOT better than ours too? I'd argue it isn't, they don't have any Crosby's or Malkin's floating around on their team but they just didn't regress, they took the next step and then took off from there, where as we have not and we're heading into year 5 now

Also, that's what scares me a ton about Seth Jones. I just feel like he could be another Erik Johnson, not that EJ is bad, but he isn't franchise defenseman material. He's a solid #1 defenseman on about 23-25 teams in this league but he isn't elite, which is what I hope Jones is

 

[S E P H]

How I see it,

Anderson did not let in any bad goals on "purpose", but didn't care if the opponents scored or not, you can tell that strictly by his body language.

 

[Iceberg]

I said that there core is, nobody is denying that, but the main point is that they did not regress while we did. Is the Blackhawks core A LOT better than ours too? I'd argue it isn't, they don't have any Crosby's or Malkin's floating around on their team but they just didn't regress, they took the next step and then took off from there, where as we have not and we're heading into year 5 now

Also, that's what scares me a ton about Seth Jones. I just feel like he could be another Erik Johnson, not that EJ is bad, but he isn't franchise defenseman material. He's a solid #1 defenseman on about 23-25 teams in this league but he isn't elite, which is what I hope Jones is

I would say that Chicago's core is better then ours. Toews, Kane and Keith are better than anyone on our team. Duchene is the closest we have. While i love ROR and Landeskog, they don't have the high end potential of the guys on the Blackhawks.

But that is not the problem, the bottom line is that we have a nice core, a solid core for sure. But Sherman has failed to surrond those young guys with better suport players.

He screwed up with Anderson and had to give two high draft picks to find another goalie. That's bad asset management and for a rebuilding franchise that's a costly mistake. Sure the Sherman apologists are going to put that on Anderson, like a 4 year/3.2M per is such an absurd deal.

We could have Anderson and the picks/prospects now to help in a trade for that top Dmen we are looking for.

 

[AslanRH]

But Sherman has failed to surrond those young guys with better suport players.

He just finished getting the core in place, and has just started to build around it with guys like PAP, McGinn, and Downie. Do not believe it can be said yet that he failed. Rome was not built in a day. If that is being an apologist then I'll take on that moniker.

He screwed up with Anderson and had to give two high draft picks to find another goalie. That's bad asset management and for a rebuilding franchise that's a costly mistake. Sure the Sherman apologists are going to put that on Anderson, like a 4 year/3.2M per is such an absurd deal.

We could have Anderson and the picks/prospects now to help in a trade for that top Dmen we are looking for.

This is all under the assumption that Anderson would have played as well on this team as he is in Ottowa now that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder due to the situation with the Avs. He was not showing top tier play in the season he was traded.

I think both sides did what was best by parting ways with each other in the Anderson deal, and unfortunately hindsight looks like the Avs came out on the short side of the deal. It happens to every team.

 

[Iceberg]

He just finished getting the core in place, and has just started to build around it with guys like PAP, McGinn, and Downie. Do not believe it can be said yet that he failed. Rome was not built in a day. If that is being an apologist then I'll take on that moniker.

No one is asking him or the franchise to go all crazy on free agency, giving out bad contracts to overratted veterans.

But come on, you lose your top PKer and you sign Mitchell? You go out of your way to sign Matt Carkner? Then settles for Zanon? It's that the best you can do?

Let's be patient, ok... but at least fill the team needs... we are severilly lacking leadership, i'm pretty sure we could've find a cheap veteran with leadership qualities but we negleted that too.

This is all under the assumption that Anderson would have played as well on this team as he is in Ottowa now that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder due to the situation with the Avs. He was not showing top tier play in the season he was traded.

I think both sides did what was best by parting ways with each other in the Anderson deal, and unfortunately hindsight looks like the Avs came out on the short side of the deal. It happens to every team.

It has nothing to do with the way Anderson is playing now. Sure he was a having a tough year, but he had to deal with injuries too, and the entire team was playing like crap, much like this year.

All we nedded to get from Anderson, if he had stayed, it's decent goaltending like we ended up getting from Varlamov (good/decent not necessarilly great), and it would've been worth keeping him and the picks in the end.

 

[AslanRH]

No one is asking him or the franchise to go all crazy on free agency, giving out bad contracts to overratted veterans.

But come on, you lose your top PKer and you sign Mitchell? You go out of your way to sign Matt Carkner? Then settles for Zanon? It's that the best you can do?

Let's be patient, ok... but at least fill the team needs... we are severilly lacking leadership, i'm pretty sure we could've find a cheap veteran with leadership qualities but we negleted that too.

I agree that vet presence should have been addressed, as well as PK, and admit I have not really deeply looked at who was available at the time to fill those roles.

As far as defensemen go, this is a list of defensemen who are currently on NHL rosters who signed with a different team after Zanon signed and before the lockout.

SEPT 14 D Carlo Colaiacovo Detroit 2x2.5m
SEPT 11 D Michal Rozsival Chicago 1x2m (NTC)
AUG 17 D Scott Hannan Nashville 1x1m
JULY 6 D Matt Taormina Tampa Bay 1x700k
JULY 5 D Bruno Gervais Philadelphia 2x825k
JULY 4 D Matt Carle Tampa Bay 6x5.5m
JULY 4 D Ryan Suter Minnesota 13yr for 98m
JULY 3 D Jack Hillen Washington 1x650k

Not making excuses, because I believe the team could have gone without signing Zanon especially after signing Hunwick and O'Brien, but the choices Sherman had were minimal. Granted, maybe Sherman could have stole a player from resigning with a bigger offer, but that is hard to estimate and higher risk of overpayment.

 

[Freudian]

We only got Zanon because we missed out on the Carkner sweepstakes.

 

[AslanRH]

We only got Zanon because we missed out on the Carkner sweepstakes.

I remember reading that as it was going on. What a cluster. That is when I really started trying to figure out why they wanted either guy and I came up with

 

[Alex Jones]

Yep, management actually thought getting pylons was a good idea.

I honestly would have preferred Carkner, at least we'd get the entertainment of seeing him fight.

 

[Iceberg]

I agree that vet presence should have been addressed, as well as PK, and admit I have not really deeply looked at who was available at the time to fill those roles.

As far as defensemen go, this is a list of defensemen who are currently on NHL rosters who signed with a different team after Zanon signed and before the lockout.

SEPT 14 D Carlo Colaiacovo Detroit 2x2.5m
SEPT 11 D Michal Rozsival Chicago 1x2m (NTC)
AUG 17 D Scott Hannan Nashville 1x1m
JULY 6 D Matt Taormina Tampa Bay 1x700k
JULY 5 D Bruno Gervais Philadelphia 2x825k
JULY 4 D Matt Carle Tampa Bay 6x5.5m
JULY 4 D Ryan Suter Minnesota 13yr for 98m
JULY 3 D Jack Hillen Washington 1x650k

Not making excuses, because I believe the team could have gone without signing Zanon especially after signing Hunwick and O'Brien, but the choices Sherman had were minimal. Granted, maybe Sherman could have stole a player from resigning with a bigger offer, but that is hard to estimate and higher risk of overpayment.

Exactly there was no need for Zanon. While they didn't adress the team needs they got a bad defenseman they didn't need (for 2 years to make things worse), and also managed to get embarassed by Matt Carkner in the process, LOL...

While signing Zanon is not going to cripple us, it did not help our chances of improving either.

Couple those litte things with the other questionables and more important decisions they have made, and i don't feel very confident that Sherman and/or PL are the right people to make us better in the future.

 

[AvsRobin]

I don't think Carkner had much to do with Zanon. They wanted a goon and would probably had played him as a winger. They didn't get him. Went with Bordeleau instead.

Could be true?