** Official 2013 Fire Sacco Thread: Part 1 **
View Single Post
03-26-2013, 10:03 AM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Originally Posted by
To be honest I agree that the theory you propose is quite possible, but it is disgraceful to think that any team loyal fans
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.
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
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.
Originally Posted by
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.
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
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.
View Public Profile
Visit Bender's homepage!
Find More Posts by Bender