** Official 2013 Fire Sacco Thread: Part 1 **
- Thread starter IceRat
- Start date
- Status
Bender
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2002
- 17,354
- 8,659
Sorry, not trying to ruffle any feathers but people really need to take a look around and see things for what they are. Teams that float around the #10-#20 mark for 6-8 years never really go anywhere. Sure, they can make a run but a lot of times it does depend on their goaltending and their team is actually weaker than they thought. (*ahem* - RANGERS)
Make a list of teams that you think are going to be very, very strong in the next 5 years and make another list of teams that just aren't going anywhere, it's staggering!
I guess it's just a case of 'the devil you know' as opposed to the one you don't.
There are A LOT of fans that want the Lacroixs gone from this organization but good or bad, we've got 2 Stanley Cups due in large part due to Pierre Lacroix. There is no guarantee that 'RANDOM GM X' would have been able to pull off the Roy trade. Don't think GMs can mess up a 'good thing' like that? Look at what Holmgren did with Richards and Carter and then both those guys are integral parts of the Cup win in LA. I think the Flyers were really on to something but their GM took a shotgun, aimed at his foot and pulled the trigger. What about Nonis with the Canucks? That team has been in prime position to win the Cup now for how many years? But he was too afraid to do what needs to be done to put the team over the hump. Gillis isn't much better either. I'm pretty sure that Cody Hodgson would make the canucks a more dangerous team than sure-bet-3rd-liner Zack Kassian. Huge mistake there.
My point is this, Pierre Lacroix knows what it takes to build a winning team, a true contender and he's shown that in the past by making smart deals that addressed needs. (Krupp, Ozolinsh, Roy, Clark/Lemieux, Blake, Bourque)
He's certainly not perfect either. He's seems to think that having a good, experienced, proven coach is a waste of good money and that 'anyone' can do it. (Granato
) He also needs to stop taking negotiations personally and trading anyone who opposes him out of town. Sometimes, paying more than you'd like to is something that you need to comes to terms with, in pro sports.The next time you think that the Lacroixs should be given their pink slips and thrown out of town, just think that our next GM could be a guy like Jay Feaster.
[*to actually be fair to Jay Feaster, and I've made fun of that guy A LOT, there's a lot of evidence to show that the decisions NOT to rebuild and to hang on to all those veterans are made from the guys who own the team [Murray Edwards])
Bender
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2002
- 17,354
- 8,659
Exactly!
This only goes further to prove my point.
Check it out, how do you build a perennial contender? The reason why it's somewhat difficult to accumulate so many strong assets is that the first guy you pick with your top 5 pick, he eventually, sooner rather than later, helps your team win. So to 'counter that' so-to-speak, you need one of two things: terrible goaltending (Budaj+Raycroft | Budaj+Elliott) or a terrible defense (this year's corps). Add to that a coach that has never had a winning record as a coach (even as an assistant in the AHL) and you have a winning formula...for losing.
Who knows why they hired Chynoweth to coach the Monsters. Didn't they re-sign Lefebvre but then he decided to leave to go coach the Bulldogs so they had to scramble to promote Army to be Sacco's assistant and then subsequently hired Chynoweth from the Islanders? That also doesn't mean that he'll be there next year either.
I think it all stems from Lacroix's biggest weakness and that's his general view on the importance of coaching. I've stated many times that I really believe our Avs core group from 1995 to 2003 should have won FOUR championships instead of TWO if it weren't for his stubbornness.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the TWO though especially when you consider:
Buffalo - 0
Columbus - 0
Florida - 0
Minnesota - 0
Nashville - 0
Ottawa - 0 [not counting back to ancient times]
Phoenix - 0
San Jose - 0
St-Louis - 0
Vancouver - 0
Washington - 0
Winnipeg - 0
That's 12 teams and countless fans that have NEVER experienced a Stanley Cup win. We've had it twice and I'm pretty grateful for that. It doesn't mean I'll always agree with what Pierre Lacroix does but I'll take him guiding this team rather than a lot of other GMs with 'sometimes meddling' ownership groups.
dahrougem2
Registered User
Yes, I'm sure Pierre Lacroix had a lot to do with Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Adam Foote etc. Yes, he made a fantastic trade to acquire Patrick Roy but in reality how many teams were actually in the running? For the package that we got Roy for, I'd say hardly any. He has made some astute moves in the past, I will give you that, but he has also made some of the stupidest movies I've seen, especially when dealing with restricted free agents which worries me a lot because, knowing Lacroix's history, I 100% can see him trading Ryan O'Reilly just for the sake of his own pride
Would we have won cups without Pierre Lacroix? Nobody knows, but we sure as hell didn't win because of the moves Lacroix made
To be honest I agree that the theory you propose is quite possible, but it is disgraceful to think that any team loyal fans invest in is intentionally losing multiple seasons in a row.
-Lacroix has yet to build a consistent winner under a salary cap. Maintaining core pieces and obtaining high caliber compliments is not as easy as it was pre-cap. IMO whether he can do it by putting under achieving/poorly coached teams on the ice for multiple seasons in a row has yet to be seen. To say he's done it before is incorrect.
-One could argue that although a team may not have won a cup, it does not mean that it is not a rewarding and enjoyable team to be a fan of. San Jose while without a cup is consistently competitive. I too enjoyed the 2 Cups, but I also enjoyed and was much more grateful having a team to support that I was proud of consistently even when not winning a cup.
As an Avalanche fan that started watching Hockey 2 years before the move to Colorado, its pretty sad to see a team unnecessarily put out such an inferior product while most teams seem to have hope at least at the beginning of every year.
If it is being put out intentionally under a great "plan" by PL, then that makes it even more disappointing and may be reason enough to no longer support that team until changes are made. While it will be great to be competitive again, its unfortunate and sort of sad if icing an awful team year after year is the only way to do that. To me it just seems to be the easiest.
Skip2myBordyloo
Stay the course
- Apr 7, 2010
- 10,800
- 402
no. take roy out of the equation and we would not have beat the dead wings in 96, i thought he did a great job there after, getting nice pieces to help the team, i had zero problem with any moves until the lockout,(04-05) and at that point we were forced to let key players go due to cap restrictions, we just haven't been able to recover from that.
Sorry, not trying to ruffle any feathers but people really need to take a look around and see things for what they are. Teams that float around the #10-#20 mark for 6-8 years never really go anywhere. Sure, they can make a run but a lot of times it does depend on their goaltending and their team is actually weaker than they thought. (*ahem* - RANGERS)
Make a list of teams that you think are going to be very, very strong in the next 5 years and make another list of teams that just aren't going anywhere, it's staggering!
I guess it's just a case of 'the devil you know' as opposed to the one you don't.
There are A LOT of fans that want the Lacroixs gone from this organization but good or bad, we've got 2 Stanley Cups due in large part due to Pierre Lacroix. There is no guarantee that 'RANDOM GM X' would have been able to pull off the Roy trade. Don't think GMs can mess up a 'good thing' like that? Look at what Holmgren did with Richards and Carter and then both those guys are integral parts of the Cup win in LA. I think the Flyers were really on to something but their GM took a shotgun, aimed at his foot and pulled the trigger. What about Nonis with the Canucks? That team has been in prime position to win the Cup now for how many years? But he was too afraid to do what needs to be done to put the team over the hump. Gillis isn't much better either. I'm pretty sure that Cody Hodgson would make the canucks a more dangerous team than sure-bet-3rd-liner Zack Kassian. Huge mistake there.
My point is this, Pierre Lacroix knows what it takes to build a winning team, a true contender and he's shown that in the past by making smart deals that addressed needs. (Krupp, Ozolinsh, Roy, Clark/Lemieux, Blake, Bourque)
He's certainly not perfect either. He's seems to think that having a good, experienced, proven coach is a waste of good money and that 'anyone' can do it. (Granato
The next time you think that the Lacroixs should be given their pink slips and thrown out of town, just think that our next GM could be a guy like Jay Feaster.
[*to actually be fair to Jay Feaster, and I've made fun of that guy A LOT, there's a lot of evidence to show that the decisions NOT to rebuild and to hang on to all those veterans are made from the guys who own the team [Murray Edwards])
No big deal, it's just that I always thought you viewed the whole "Lacroix as puppet master" thing as a negative.
Pierre's last Cup was in 2001. That was nearly 12 years ago. Like Shanahan with the Broncos, I think there comes a time when even the best minds should step aside. Yes, that runs the risk of someone new and possibly incompetent, but that's the risk you take.
I've railed about how insular the Avs have become, so I won't repeat that here, but I will repeat the simple notion that when you reject those possible candidates for jobs who don't have some sort of "connection" to the organization, you're failing to bring in the best possible candidates. I get it, Lacroix wants to run his organization like a family. But a sports organization isn't a family. It's a business. You need people who don't necessarily kowtow to the company line every time.
Lacroix isn't an idiot. In fact I think he's brilliant. But he's also petty, vindictive, and frankly too scared to give the people he supposedly put in charge the authority they need to do their jobs. He's not healthy enough to handle the day-to-day rigors of being the GM, but yet won't relinquish power. I think that's a problem.
I like the way John Davidson handles responsibilities as president. Hire people in key positions, sit back, make sure everyone gets along, and serve as the public face of the organization. I wish Pierre would do that too, but he seems unwilling, and unable. And that's why he needs to go.
- Oct 24, 2008
- 22,734
- 30,990
If Eric Lacroix is named GM, I'm done. Will still watch the games and stuff, but won't pour my heart into this organization anymore. Enough's enough.
Bender
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2002
- 17,354
- 8,659
I don't think I'd word it as 'intentionally losing' but rather not taking the correct decisions on purpose.
So, if you take this season as an example, firing Sacco like 15 games ago, would have been the 'right decision' for the team for THIS season but drafting in the top 3 will actually be the right decision for the next decade. I guess it's a matter of perspective.I don't believe for 1 second that the salary cap has 'stopped' us from being a cup contending team. I mean, it was there but it's not THE reason why we weren't contenders, imo. We had an amazing team from 1995 to 2004 and coming out of the lockout, lost 2 KEY pieces (not core pieces) and the best goalie of all time had just retired. There's no recovering from that! Despite that, they still tried very hard to still make it work. The Theodore trade, adding Ryan Smyth and Scott Hannan as UFAs, bringing back Forsberg and Foote, the effort was there but it didn't work. Since the cap has been in place, I never once thought that our core group was 'good enough, but if only we could spend more $$$$ on that one last missing piece'...there have always been several missing pieces. The closest we came was in 2007-08 but we had Liles, Clark, Hannan, Leopold, Salei & Sauer on D. In what universe is that good enough to win the cup? So it wasn't the cap that was the biggest issue, it was our core group that just wasn't good enough.
Essentially, ever since Granato got fired and we finished 28th overall with a top 10 payroll in the league, iirc, that's when I believe the decision was taken to sort of 'blow it up' and start over. That's actually only 3.5 seasons if you count this one. It's not like it's been happening for 5+ years.
I believe this will be the last losing season the Avs have for a very long time.
I'm quite certain that if you polled San Jose Sharks fans and asked them if they would trade away their 'consistent competitiveness' of the past 12 years in exchange for 1 Stanley Cup, let alone 2, a great majority of them would do it even if that meant they sucked the other 11 years.
Don't get me wrong, it's not the greatest thing in the world [the puppet master thing], it's just that it really doesn't bother me that much. As long as we keep building a powerhouse, I'm all in. Trading 3.5 seasons for a decade of dominance? Sign me up.
Would a brilliant man hire a guy like Joe Sacco as coach if he's truly trying to give his team the best chance to win on a nightly basis? I think not. I'm quite certain he knows full well that having that kind of coach pretty much means picking pretty highly in the draft on most years. This has to be the end of it though.
I was listening to John Davidson talk about about his role as President of the Blue Jackets on Hockey Central at Noon a few weeks ago (maybe a month) and it's almost identical to what PL is doing with the Avalanche. Davidson said that any and all player decisions still need to be green lighted by him. He said he's known Jarmo a long time and trusts his instincts but that's the way they have it setup.
This isn't that much different from what we have with the exception that Sherman probably isn't actually taking any of the decisions. The point is that PL is still likely green lighting player movement. Obviously the major differences with Davidson is the nepotism and pettiness that you alluded to earlier.
The Kingslayer
Registered User
If Lacroix is still pulling the strings, and he's the brilliant mind behind a great master rebuilding plan, then why would he sign Jones to a four year deal at 4 million per year? Why is Zanon signed to a three year deal at 2.25 million per year?
Are these guys interim players that Lacroix plans on getting rid of before their contracts run their course? Does Lacroix expect these players to perform way better than they did this year in the next few years? Is Lacroix planning on waiting three more years before the Avs are competitive again? Did Sherman make some moves without Lacroix knowing about it?
My point is that either Lacroix isn't in charge anymore and this was Sherman's work or Lacroix's lost his effectiveness as a GM in the post cap era. What other explanation is there for Jones and Zanon being on the team for the next few years?
Are these guys interim players that Lacroix plans on getting rid of before their contracts run their course? Does Lacroix expect these players to perform way better than they did this year in the next few years? Is Lacroix planning on waiting three more years before the Avs are competitive again? Did Sherman make some moves without Lacroix knowing about it?
My point is that either Lacroix isn't in charge anymore and this was Sherman's work or Lacroix's lost his effectiveness as a GM in the post cap era. What other explanation is there for Jones and Zanon being on the team for the next few years?
If the organization and whomever is calling the shots is intentionally not taking the correct decisions in order to stockpile talent ala the Quebec Nordiques before Lacroix took over, it would be some sweet irony if he was shown the door after years of intentional ineptitude and his successor rode the stockpile of talent to years of dominance, just like Lacroix did.
Lacroix deserves credit, no doubt, for some savvy moves that put the Avs over the top. But he's never built a team from scratch as he's trying to do here, so I see no reason to assume he's knows a formula he can ride to success a second time. Especially in a different era for which he has shown he's struggling with.
The organization simply put needs enough introspection to determine that if a certain way of doing things has not led to success, another philosophical approach is in order. All indications from Lacroix is he is not capable of such introspection. A good counter example is Pat Bowlen. There's a guy who will make some bold moves and if they don't fare well, he'll admit his mistakes and change his approach. There's none of that coming from the Avs organization, and it is a major cause for concern if you are an Avs fan.
Lacroix deserves credit, no doubt, for some savvy moves that put the Avs over the top. But he's never built a team from scratch as he's trying to do here, so I see no reason to assume he's knows a formula he can ride to success a second time. Especially in a different era for which he has shown he's struggling with.
The organization simply put needs enough introspection to determine that if a certain way of doing things has not led to success, another philosophical approach is in order. All indications from Lacroix is he is not capable of such introspection. A good counter example is Pat Bowlen. There's a guy who will make some bold moves and if they don't fare well, he'll admit his mistakes and change his approach. There's none of that coming from the Avs organization, and it is a major cause for concern if you are an Avs fan.
Bender
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2002
- 17,354
- 8,659
Well, first things first. We just don't know what kind of interest there was for David Jones at last year's deadline. IF it was substantial, then that may have been the reason to re-sign him as the market generally sets the value for this kind of player, rather than lose him for nothing.
About Jones, so have I been SLEEPING the past 3 years or has he ONLY shown chemistry with Stastny?!?! [Sacco is supposed to KNOW this, no?] If you'll all remember to last season, it took the addition of McGinn on that line to really get those guys going. That line, as a unit has been together this season for a grand total of 5 games. That's all I can say about that.
Zanon is signed to a TWO year deal, not three and as a bottom pairing guy/depth guy, he's fine. He can't be a guy that you play close to 20 minutes a game. I was pretty happy when we initially signed him but he's seemed to have lost quite a bit of footspeed in the past 2-3 years. I still think he can be better than he's shown but I guess that will have to wait until next year.
dahrougem2
Registered User
Its just become painfully obvious to me that Pierre Lacroix isn't going to lead us to the promise land, he just doesn't seem like he knows what he's doing in the salary cap era and he has a sick, twisted vendetta against RFA's who try to hold their own in contract negotiations with him
As I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked one bit if next season (deadline being extended) Ryan O'Reilly was traded for some "up and coming forward" who turns out to be a bust just because Lacroix will likely hold a grudge
As I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked one bit if next season (deadline being extended) Ryan O'Reilly was traded for some "up and coming forward" who turns out to be a bust just because Lacroix will likely hold a grudge
- Jul 25, 2006
- 31,540
- 22,098
Sacco just got a huge break for keeping his job. The management will say Sacco would of turned things around the rest of the season but Stastny got hurt.
Sacco at least coaches next season until his contract expires. Avs draft Seth Jones who helps the Avs have a better season only to come within couple of points short of making the playoffs.
Sacco gets extended another 2 years. 82% of Avs fans see therapists.
Sacco at least coaches next season until his contract expires. Avs draft Seth Jones who helps the Avs have a better season only to come within couple of points short of making the playoffs.
Sacco gets extended another 2 years. 82% of Avs fans see therapists.
foppagirl21
Registered User
Oh absolutely. I don't have anything to add here, I just wanted to support ya.
Sorry, not trying to ruffle any feathers but people really need to take a look around and see things for what they are. Teams that float around the #10-#20 mark for 6-8 years never really go anywhere. Sure, they can make a run but a lot of times it does depend on their goaltending and their team is actually weaker than they thought. (*ahem* - RANGERS)
Make a list of teams that you think are going to be very, very strong in the next 5 years and make another list of teams that just aren't going anywhere, it's staggering!
I guess it's just a case of 'the devil you know' as opposed to the one you don't.
There are A LOT of fans that want the Lacroixs gone from this organization but good or bad, we've got 2 Stanley Cups due in large part due to Pierre Lacroix. There is no guarantee that 'RANDOM GM X' would have been able to pull off the Roy trade. Don't think GMs can mess up a 'good thing' like that? Look at what Holmgren did with Richards and Carter and then both those guys are integral parts of the Cup win in LA. I think the Flyers were really on to something but their GM took a shotgun, aimed at his foot and pulled the trigger. What about Nonis with the Canucks? That team has been in prime position to win the Cup now for how many years? But he was too afraid to do what needs to be done to put the team over the hump. Gillis isn't much better either. I'm pretty sure that Cody Hodgson would make the canucks a more dangerous team than sure-bet-3rd-liner Zack Kassian. Huge mistake there.
My point is this, Pierre Lacroix knows what it takes to build a winning team, a true contender and he's shown that in the past by making smart deals that addressed needs. (Krupp, Ozolinsh, Roy, Clark/Lemieux, Blake, Bourque)
He's certainly not perfect either. He's seems to think that having a good, experienced, proven coach is a waste of good money and that 'anyone' can do it. (Granato
The next time you think that the Lacroixs should be given their pink slips and thrown out of town, just think that our next GM could be a guy like Jay Feaster.
[*to actually be fair to Jay Feaster, and I've made fun of that guy A LOT, there's a lot of evidence to show that the decisions NOT to rebuild and to hang on to all those veterans are made from the guys who own the team [Murray Edwards])
Just goes to show how hard it really is to win a Stanley Cup.
Foppa Frossa
Registered User
Which they should. We have a few examples here in Sweden when players have hated their coach it's chaos in the lockerroom but to the media they have said "best coach in the league"
- Oct 24, 2008
- 22,734
- 30,990
No surprise on O'Ry. Big Sacco supporter, always has been. I mentioned a few times how the relationship with Sacco is good.
RockLobster
King in the North
But even he has to see that perhaps Sacco isn't really getting through to the room.
And surely O'Reilly would be appreciated by ANY coach in the NHL, he's one of those players that Coach's seem to love.
well of course they are gonna say that in public. Off the record who knows how they really feel.
- Dec 2, 2007
- 17,298
- 2,260
As a player, if someone says your coach is failing and they change coaches but you still do bad, the blame starts to fall on you and/or upper management. I'm sure in their eyes it's all up front, in Sacco's eyes it's the guys in front of him (partially due to management) and to management they probably think the players are failing because otherwise Sacco would be gone by now.
What a mess, right?
Only logical reason to keep Sacco around is because they know the season can't be saved and so there's no point in firing the guy now (personally I think there is, but that's just me). I don't think it's necessarily an indictment of the players.
But yes...what a mess.
Signing Jones to a four year $4 million dollar per year deal was not a good decision regardless of the interest in him at last year's deadline. Jones has been given every opportunity to succeed this year and he's failed. He is suppose to be a goal scorer and he isn't scoring goals. It's that simple. His contract and his production will make him difficult to trade. Was that part of Lacroix's mastermind decision or was that Sherman's decision? Either way it doesn't give me confidence that the Avs are close to being a top flight contender soon.
The Avs defense is nowhere close to a championship caliber defense now or in the next couple of years unless over half the D-corps gets overhauled. Other than blocking shots Zanon has been brutally bad this year. Hunwick constantly turns the puck over, constantly gets beaten physically, and has been brutally bad. O'Byrne has been brutally bad in all facets this year and thankfully his contract is up at the end of the season. Wilson is very injury prone and has been his entire career. Elliott has shown nothing at the NHL level to give the team hope that he is the next Shattenkirk in the near future. Barrie has shown some promise but hoping he's the next Ray Bourque, Rob Blake or Adam Foote is wishful thinking. Other than Johnson, and that's debatable, who are the defensive cornerstones of a cup winning team? The team isn't one or two pieces away from having a cup winning blueline. They are a massive overhaul away from having what they need.
The team has some forwards with bright futures and some that can play at the highest level right now. They have a goaltender that's a little inconsistent but has a bright future and I believe is good enough to contend now. Unfortunately they have an extremely poor defensive unit and they've got some top forwards that have work ethic problems.
After a three or four year rebuild the team is currently last in the western conference and 2nd worst in the entire league. They aren't close to being a cup contender and replacing the coach or adding a #1 draft pick or one big free agent isn't going to get them there. They have a long way to go. Is this Lacroix's plan? Is this a seven or eight year rebuild in the works and we just don't know it?
- Status
