After spending a significant time at Summerfest this year, there are a few things I have noticed. While 90% of the people attending these festivals you would consider mainstream, it's the other 10% that just doesn't seem to get it. A few thoughts I had after last night's show:
Unless you are under 25 in good shape or over 25 in great shape, you should not wear Spandex! 50 year old fat guys should not wear spandex bicycle outfits!
Has anyone ever seen a young biker guy? Those guys who's entire attire is either leather or Harley-Davidson gear. I swear the average age of these guys (and gals) is 55.
It never fails that anytime you have a summer festival, you get the leather trench coat guy. Last night was no exception. The trench coat guy rounded out the ensemble with a pair of jeans and sandals.
Unfortunately, the weather has been cool and cloudy for a good chunk of the 'Fest so tattoo watching was kept to a minimum. However, the goofiest tattoo award goes to the guy with the Leonardo Da Vinci Vitruvian Man tattooed on his calf.
I'm convinced that white guys are probably the lamest group on the planet. it is made 1,000 times worse when they try to emulate other cultures. The chunky white guy in the Rastafarian hat and dreadlocks down to his rear wins the "lame and I don't care" award.
A lot of people put a lot of thought into what they wear and how they look before heading out to public events. There are a few folks who appear to have put just a bit too much thought into it. It would never occur to me to have my purple shoes match my purple hair...
I'll admit that I made my job a bit easier when I was researching this post by hanging out around the Harley-Davidson Roadhouse stage. However, all examples used were observed by me.
Yes, we all have our little flaws and lapses in judgement. That's what makes us all unique. It's the more obvious ones that are a source of fascination for me. What makes one person want to appear so far outside of the mainstream? What makes an adult stop at the kids face painting booth and gets their entire face painted like a tiger?
I know what some of you are thinking. What gives me the right to pick on these people? They did. You have the right (under most circumstances) to appear however you like. However, if you choose to go out way outside the norm, you are opening yourself up for criticism. If you can't handle or ignore criticism, do not make poor decisions on your appearance.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sharks Free Agency 2009
Free agency time is upon us again. As I said before, this is looking to be the most interesting off season in Sharks franchise history. Below is a look at the UFA's the Sharks have to make decisions on and my take on each one.
Jeremy Roenick - JR is an interesting situation. He showed last season that he still could play at a high level but also showed his age with the time lost due to injury. JR will probably be one of the last players the Sharks make a decision on. I think it would be good to bring him back for one more year, albeit at a reduced price and role.
Mike Grier - The deadline deal for Travis Moen was the writing on the wall for Grier. Although he is still a valuable asset on the penalty kill, he is past his prime and with the addition of Moen and Torrey Mitchell healed and an entire off season to get himself ready for training camp, Grier looks to be expendable. I tend to agree.
Tom Cavanagh - Cavanagh saw limited playing time last season even with all of the man games lost to injury. That says a lot. At 27, Cavanagh should be at his prime. The Sharks may not re-sign him, but other teams might not either. What may decide whether Cavanagh is back or not is how the rest of the FA class goes. Personally, I have no opinion either way. If you want a veteran reserve who knows the system, keep him. If you can get someone else, go for it.
Ryan Vesce - Vesce is in the same boat as Cavanagh. Also 27, he should be taking the next step forward in his career. Unlike Cavanagh, I feel this is a player the Sharks should keep. I don't have any technical reasons for it, just a gut feeling about him.
Travis Moen - Moen is a player the Sharks need to be on the phone with right away on July 1st. Toughness and a great PK asset who is hitting his prime. If the Sharks are truly serious about making a run at the Cup, Moen will be a key piece.
Rob Blake - Blake's play last year showed that he still has plenty left in the tank. However, at $5 mil. last year, his price may be a little steep this year. The thing is, the Defence is not a position you want to be constantly making changes on. With Kent Huskins basically being a new acquisition for next season and Alexi Seminov likely being gone to make room for Huskins, how many more changes do you want to make on the blueline again? If the money is there, I say re-sign him. If the cash isn't there, I suppose that this change may need to take place.
Alexi Seminov - Seminov is another guy who's value was shown by his playing time. Splitting time with a significantly older Brad Lukowich and a much younger Derek Joslin showed that the Sharks are ready to move on without Seminov. Unlike other Sharks fans I have talked to, I'm not as dwon on Seminov. Yes, he made bad plays often, but he did make great plays as well. It's this inconsistency paired with younger and more talented players ready for the NHL in the Sharks system that makes Seminov expendable.
Brian Boucher - This is a key position for the Sharks. Boucher proved his value as a veteran backup last season, but the Sharks really need to give their younger prospects a chance to prove themselves. Boucher is actually the younger of the two Sharks goalies by nearly a year and a half. The time for the Sharks to look to the future between the pipes is now. I think the Sharks need to let Boucher try the free agent market and have a three way battle in training camp between Taylor Dakers, Thomas Griess, and Tyson Sexsmith for the backup to Evgeni Nabokov.
As far as free agent signings, I really don't think that the Sharks need to do more than go after a third or fourth line vet and maybe a vet to use as an extra man on defence. The thing the Sharks really need to do is start giving their talented youngsters a chance to make the next step. Guys like Jamie McGinn, Logan Couture, Derek Joslin, and Ryan Vesce need more ice time now.
Be sure to check back this weekend as I break down the NHL Draft and analyze who the Sharks should go after.
Jeremy Roenick - JR is an interesting situation. He showed last season that he still could play at a high level but also showed his age with the time lost due to injury. JR will probably be one of the last players the Sharks make a decision on. I think it would be good to bring him back for one more year, albeit at a reduced price and role.
Mike Grier - The deadline deal for Travis Moen was the writing on the wall for Grier. Although he is still a valuable asset on the penalty kill, he is past his prime and with the addition of Moen and Torrey Mitchell healed and an entire off season to get himself ready for training camp, Grier looks to be expendable. I tend to agree.
Tom Cavanagh - Cavanagh saw limited playing time last season even with all of the man games lost to injury. That says a lot. At 27, Cavanagh should be at his prime. The Sharks may not re-sign him, but other teams might not either. What may decide whether Cavanagh is back or not is how the rest of the FA class goes. Personally, I have no opinion either way. If you want a veteran reserve who knows the system, keep him. If you can get someone else, go for it.
Ryan Vesce - Vesce is in the same boat as Cavanagh. Also 27, he should be taking the next step forward in his career. Unlike Cavanagh, I feel this is a player the Sharks should keep. I don't have any technical reasons for it, just a gut feeling about him.
Travis Moen - Moen is a player the Sharks need to be on the phone with right away on July 1st. Toughness and a great PK asset who is hitting his prime. If the Sharks are truly serious about making a run at the Cup, Moen will be a key piece.
Rob Blake - Blake's play last year showed that he still has plenty left in the tank. However, at $5 mil. last year, his price may be a little steep this year. The thing is, the Defence is not a position you want to be constantly making changes on. With Kent Huskins basically being a new acquisition for next season and Alexi Seminov likely being gone to make room for Huskins, how many more changes do you want to make on the blueline again? If the money is there, I say re-sign him. If the cash isn't there, I suppose that this change may need to take place.
Alexi Seminov - Seminov is another guy who's value was shown by his playing time. Splitting time with a significantly older Brad Lukowich and a much younger Derek Joslin showed that the Sharks are ready to move on without Seminov. Unlike other Sharks fans I have talked to, I'm not as dwon on Seminov. Yes, he made bad plays often, but he did make great plays as well. It's this inconsistency paired with younger and more talented players ready for the NHL in the Sharks system that makes Seminov expendable.
Brian Boucher - This is a key position for the Sharks. Boucher proved his value as a veteran backup last season, but the Sharks really need to give their younger prospects a chance to prove themselves. Boucher is actually the younger of the two Sharks goalies by nearly a year and a half. The time for the Sharks to look to the future between the pipes is now. I think the Sharks need to let Boucher try the free agent market and have a three way battle in training camp between Taylor Dakers, Thomas Griess, and Tyson Sexsmith for the backup to Evgeni Nabokov.
As far as free agent signings, I really don't think that the Sharks need to do more than go after a third or fourth line vet and maybe a vet to use as an extra man on defence. The thing the Sharks really need to do is start giving their talented youngsters a chance to make the next step. Guys like Jamie McGinn, Logan Couture, Derek Joslin, and Ryan Vesce need more ice time now.
Be sure to check back this weekend as I break down the NHL Draft and analyze who the Sharks should go after.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
I've become what I most feared...
Back in the early days of the Internet, it was considered a status symbol to have a personal website. You needed to have a certain amount of technical knowledge in order to build even a basic site. Then the self-publishing sites came along and helped you out with examples of the HTML codes you would need, but it was still basically up to you to design it, or hire a tech geek to do it.
About this time, the popularity of the Internet really took off. Seemingly overnight, the 'net went from a plaything of geeks and tech savvy individuals to being the next big thing. It was about this time that I decided that I was never going to have a personal site. I wanted to be the last person on the planet without a personal site. I can still remember the day that I made this decision. I'm originally from Appleton, WI. A city of about 70,000 people, too big to be a small town and too small to be a big city. I was driving along one day and came to a stop behind an Appleton police car at a red light. Prominently splayed along the top of the rear window was a decal showing the website of the Appleton Police Department. That is when I decided that, if the Appleton PD felt they needed or wanted a website, I would refuse to have one.
I was able to fulfill that ambition until about two years ago. That's when I started this blog in it's original form. I never really considered it a personal site for two reasons. First, my writings had very little to do with my personal life. Second, what information about me was also limited. Even in it's current form, the amount of information about me is fairly limited.
Now, however, do to a new opportunity, I have just signed up for a Facebook account. I'm still not a huge fan of the social media trend. There seems to be a lot of 'look at me' personalities out there that you have to weed through if you want to find others to have conversations with.
Now I'm faced with the issue of becoming one of those 'look at me' people. I've never been that good at making a scene, nor do I feel the need to have everyone look at what I'm writing. Up until now, I wrote for the love of writing. Now, I have to write for the masses and get the masses to read that writing. Ought to be interesting...
About this time, the popularity of the Internet really took off. Seemingly overnight, the 'net went from a plaything of geeks and tech savvy individuals to being the next big thing. It was about this time that I decided that I was never going to have a personal site. I wanted to be the last person on the planet without a personal site. I can still remember the day that I made this decision. I'm originally from Appleton, WI. A city of about 70,000 people, too big to be a small town and too small to be a big city. I was driving along one day and came to a stop behind an Appleton police car at a red light. Prominently splayed along the top of the rear window was a decal showing the website of the Appleton Police Department. That is when I decided that, if the Appleton PD felt they needed or wanted a website, I would refuse to have one.
I was able to fulfill that ambition until about two years ago. That's when I started this blog in it's original form. I never really considered it a personal site for two reasons. First, my writings had very little to do with my personal life. Second, what information about me was also limited. Even in it's current form, the amount of information about me is fairly limited.
Now, however, do to a new opportunity, I have just signed up for a Facebook account. I'm still not a huge fan of the social media trend. There seems to be a lot of 'look at me' personalities out there that you have to weed through if you want to find others to have conversations with.
Now I'm faced with the issue of becoming one of those 'look at me' people. I've never been that good at making a scene, nor do I feel the need to have everyone look at what I'm writing. Up until now, I wrote for the love of writing. Now, I have to write for the masses and get the masses to read that writing. Ought to be interesting...
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Freedoms and Rights - Where The Line Blurrs
Pardon my ranting, but I'm getting a little sick of people who, the moment they are offended by something, start screaming "that's unconstitutional!" when it's perfectly clear that they have, at best, a passing knowledge of the Constitution.
The worst of the offenders I touched on a bit in my last post. Any group who uses the words 'separation of church and state' are either grossly misinformed or have never read any part of the Constitution. Those words, in that order, do not exist in any version of the Constitution I have ever seen. It's just another example of liberals in this country taking words and twisting them to mean what they want them to mean. The fact that they are using the most sacred document in this country to push their agenda is way beyond despicable.
The problem is, how do you fight it and not come off looking like you are against the Constitution? From where I sit, it can't be done. So we just have to find other ways to discredit their twisted agendas.
This next group I'm a bit hesitant to call out. Not just because they, for the most part, fall on my side of the spectrum, but because some of them are a little too heavily armed for my safety. The second amendment, as written, is archaic at best. The idea of armed citizens making up a militia in an emergency has passed. The founders, I'm sure, didn't wish this to be used to protect a few nutcases in a cabin somewhere, armed more heavily than the armies of some small nations. Being a former hunter myself (former not by objection, but by lack of land), it's a bit hard to admit that our shotguns were not what the founders had in mind. I'm sure that if we took our time, we could rewrite it to make everyone, if not happy, then content. The tripping block there is how necessarily difficult it is to get the Constitution changed.
This next one is a bit tricky. We seem to be awash with people who insist that it is their right to not be offended by anything or anyone. On the surface, that flies in the face of the other person's first amendment rights. In practice, however, this is not that simple. Everyone agrees that there are certain things that cannot be covered by the first amendment. Screaming "Fire!" in a crowded public place, for example, is not protected by the first amendment. Where that line is, however, is the key issue with these arguments.
I'll leave the FCC's obscene arguments alone for now. That's a bigger grey area than I wish to tackle right now. Nobody has really been able to clearly define where free speech ends. What makes matters worse, that line appears to be moving as well. Just look at our TV over the past thirty or so years. What was considered taboo back in the early 70's isn't anymore. There are certain things, while not obscene, just weren't shown or talked about then that are now. One good example is for the longest time, you never saw a toilet on air. Not an obscene object, but just something nobody was comfortable seeing on TV.
That seems to be a microcosm of this argument. What may have been considered in bad taste or taboo before isn't anymore. Naming is the hardest thing to pin down. People are constantly being offended by labels placed on them. We used to have labels for people that were merely descriptive which are now considered offensive. You will get slapped with a lawsuit before you can even finish speaking if you say someone is a cripple. Even medically correct terms are not accepted anymore. Apparently we have solved the problem of dwarfism because I haven't heard anyone talk about a dwarf in years.
To avoid major issues, I'll touch on this last label quickly and a bit comically. From now on, I think when I wish to refer to someone's race by describing their skin color, I'm just going to use myself as a guide. Someone is like me, lighter than me, or darker than me.
So where is the line? I'm not really sure we can even find it anymore. It has been buried under a mountain of legal battles and politically correct speech that I don't think we will ever find it again. It's not for a lack of trying though. Check any newspaper in the country and I will bet that you will find at least one lawsuit per week that has this argument at it's core.
So where does that leave us? As our melting pot continues to be added to with more and more diverse ingredients it appears to me that a middle ground may be impossible to find.
Perhaps we don't need a middle ground. Maybe if we all just give a little ground, accept that not everyone thinks or acts like we do, take a little less offense at our differences, we can take this country from a land of petty bickering and return it to the great nation it can be.
The worst of the offenders I touched on a bit in my last post. Any group who uses the words 'separation of church and state' are either grossly misinformed or have never read any part of the Constitution. Those words, in that order, do not exist in any version of the Constitution I have ever seen. It's just another example of liberals in this country taking words and twisting them to mean what they want them to mean. The fact that they are using the most sacred document in this country to push their agenda is way beyond despicable.
The problem is, how do you fight it and not come off looking like you are against the Constitution? From where I sit, it can't be done. So we just have to find other ways to discredit their twisted agendas.
This next group I'm a bit hesitant to call out. Not just because they, for the most part, fall on my side of the spectrum, but because some of them are a little too heavily armed for my safety. The second amendment, as written, is archaic at best. The idea of armed citizens making up a militia in an emergency has passed. The founders, I'm sure, didn't wish this to be used to protect a few nutcases in a cabin somewhere, armed more heavily than the armies of some small nations. Being a former hunter myself (former not by objection, but by lack of land), it's a bit hard to admit that our shotguns were not what the founders had in mind. I'm sure that if we took our time, we could rewrite it to make everyone, if not happy, then content. The tripping block there is how necessarily difficult it is to get the Constitution changed.
This next one is a bit tricky. We seem to be awash with people who insist that it is their right to not be offended by anything or anyone. On the surface, that flies in the face of the other person's first amendment rights. In practice, however, this is not that simple. Everyone agrees that there are certain things that cannot be covered by the first amendment. Screaming "Fire!" in a crowded public place, for example, is not protected by the first amendment. Where that line is, however, is the key issue with these arguments.
I'll leave the FCC's obscene arguments alone for now. That's a bigger grey area than I wish to tackle right now. Nobody has really been able to clearly define where free speech ends. What makes matters worse, that line appears to be moving as well. Just look at our TV over the past thirty or so years. What was considered taboo back in the early 70's isn't anymore. There are certain things, while not obscene, just weren't shown or talked about then that are now. One good example is for the longest time, you never saw a toilet on air. Not an obscene object, but just something nobody was comfortable seeing on TV.
That seems to be a microcosm of this argument. What may have been considered in bad taste or taboo before isn't anymore. Naming is the hardest thing to pin down. People are constantly being offended by labels placed on them. We used to have labels for people that were merely descriptive which are now considered offensive. You will get slapped with a lawsuit before you can even finish speaking if you say someone is a cripple. Even medically correct terms are not accepted anymore. Apparently we have solved the problem of dwarfism because I haven't heard anyone talk about a dwarf in years.
To avoid major issues, I'll touch on this last label quickly and a bit comically. From now on, I think when I wish to refer to someone's race by describing their skin color, I'm just going to use myself as a guide. Someone is like me, lighter than me, or darker than me.
So where is the line? I'm not really sure we can even find it anymore. It has been buried under a mountain of legal battles and politically correct speech that I don't think we will ever find it again. It's not for a lack of trying though. Check any newspaper in the country and I will bet that you will find at least one lawsuit per week that has this argument at it's core.
So where does that leave us? As our melting pot continues to be added to with more and more diverse ingredients it appears to me that a middle ground may be impossible to find.
Perhaps we don't need a middle ground. Maybe if we all just give a little ground, accept that not everyone thinks or acts like we do, take a little less offense at our differences, we can take this country from a land of petty bickering and return it to the great nation it can be.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Journey Part VI
Or, how I stopped worrying and learned to hate the left.
The Journey is chronicling my thoughts and feelings as I proceed down the path of spirituality. For a detailed explanation, see The Journey Part I
Ok, this post really doesn't have a whole lot to do with my personal spirituality, but it does have a lot to do with my attitudes towards the anti-religious element that is out there.
The Journey is chronicling my thoughts and feelings as I proceed down the path of spirituality. For a detailed explanation, see The Journey Part I
Ok, this post really doesn't have a whole lot to do with my personal spirituality, but it does have a lot to do with my attitudes towards the anti-religious element that is out there.
I first came across the ad for this abomination about a week ago. Where is the outrage? If this would be an attack on any other religion, you would have to get in line to protest or denounce it. I'm beginning to learn and understand that Christians are more likely to not fight back against this kind of crap and that's why people keep doing it. What I don't understand is, if most religions teach peace and understanding, why do some other religions have militant wings? Where is the militant wing of Christianity?
The funny thing is, the left love to denounce repression and injustice throughout the world, but will be the first ones to praise and support this piece of crap as a pillar of free speech.
Why won't Christians stand up and fight against this kind of garbage? My guess is that there is a bit of embarrassment to this day over the crusades that were led by Christians over 1,000 years ago. They want to avoid anything that can look even remotely like a warlike stance on anything. Yes, the crusades were some of the most bloody and violent wars in the history of the world, but come on. It was a millenia ago. Things have changed in the world.
These whackjobs are found here
I guess the thing that bothers me most about these whackaloons, besides being from Madison, is how their biggest argument they bring out when something offends them is a total load of crap.
Recently, the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the Elmbrook School District over their use of Elmbrook Church for their graduation ceremonies. The school and church have had an agreement for years and nobody had a problem. until one idiot recently felt uncomfortable attending a graduation ceremony in a church. I'm so glad that U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert ruled that the schools can use the church.
The argument these morons keep using is the separation of church and state. It's obvious to anyone who has read the first amendment that the Constitution says no such thing. It says that the government cannot establish a religion, sponsor a religion, nor prevent the free exercise of religion. Period. It does not say anything about keeping religion out of state offices, keeping state sponsored institutions (like schools) from using religious facilities, nor does it say that you cannot use state buildings (like schools) for religious gatherings. I guess it's sexier to be able to scream "unconstitutional!" every time you are offended by something.
Unfortunately, because I am still a long way from being able to call myself religious, I really do not have much of a leg to stand on. Still, I can point out what I see and hope that others who can yell louder than I can take up the torch. I believe that I will be there eventually, but I still need help.
Monday, June 1, 2009
A Summer of Low Expectations, how I have missed you
As we head into June, the first two months of the Major League Baseball season is in the books. As of today, my beloved Cubs are mired in fourth place at 25-24, four and a half games back of first. As hindsight is always 20/20, I really shouldn't be all that shocked the Cubs are where they are.
First, some of the offseason moves should have been an omen. First, I think the Cubs should not have given up of Felix Pie. Yes, I know they were basically out of options considering he has to clear waivers to head back to AAA but he should have been given the chance. I would much rather have Pie in left than the headcase Milton Bradley. Given a choice between two players with similar stats, I'll take the younger one every time.
Just a show of hands. Who misses Mark DeRosa right now? The run on injuries the Cubs just went through would have been easier to take had we had him on the bench. Yes, they have received some good play out of guys like Jake Fox, Micah Hoffpauir, and Bobby Scales, but none of them were really a good fit at third defensively.
The one that could come back to bite them in the future is the Joey Gathright for Ryan Freel deal. Giving up a solid prospect for an injured, disgruntled player reminds me of some of the strange moves of Cubs teams past.
It was a lot easier to be a Cubs fan when I was younger. You knew that in any given year that the season would be a success if they didn't lose 100 games. No postseason expectations, no hype, no agonizing over losing streaks. If they won, it was a great day. If they lost, it was easier to take because in a corner of your mind, you knew they were going to lose anyway.
All of these playoff appearances in the last several years have inflated expectations. You now know that they do have what it takes to make the playoffs, so now we have come to expect it. So when the Cubs make bad roster moves and then do not have quality players to get them through injury spells, this is what you get.
Oh well, it is kind of liberating knowing that I shouldn't expect that much this year. It will make the game on any given day more enjoyable, more so when they win.
First, some of the offseason moves should have been an omen. First, I think the Cubs should not have given up of Felix Pie. Yes, I know they were basically out of options considering he has to clear waivers to head back to AAA but he should have been given the chance. I would much rather have Pie in left than the headcase Milton Bradley. Given a choice between two players with similar stats, I'll take the younger one every time.
Just a show of hands. Who misses Mark DeRosa right now? The run on injuries the Cubs just went through would have been easier to take had we had him on the bench. Yes, they have received some good play out of guys like Jake Fox, Micah Hoffpauir, and Bobby Scales, but none of them were really a good fit at third defensively.
The one that could come back to bite them in the future is the Joey Gathright for Ryan Freel deal. Giving up a solid prospect for an injured, disgruntled player reminds me of some of the strange moves of Cubs teams past.
It was a lot easier to be a Cubs fan when I was younger. You knew that in any given year that the season would be a success if they didn't lose 100 games. No postseason expectations, no hype, no agonizing over losing streaks. If they won, it was a great day. If they lost, it was easier to take because in a corner of your mind, you knew they were going to lose anyway.
All of these playoff appearances in the last several years have inflated expectations. You now know that they do have what it takes to make the playoffs, so now we have come to expect it. So when the Cubs make bad roster moves and then do not have quality players to get them through injury spells, this is what you get.
Oh well, it is kind of liberating knowing that I shouldn't expect that much this year. It will make the game on any given day more enjoyable, more so when they win.
Friday, May 22, 2009
State of the Sharks
Against my better judgement, I watched the first two hours of the "State of the Sharks" event that was held at HP Pavilion on May 14th. A few things stood out that I feel I need to comment on.
First things first though. I have been a Sharks fan since the 92-93 season. I have seen highs and lows a plenty. I have never been as angry and depressed as much as I am right now. All of the playoff losses to Colorado and Dallas pales in comparison to the total frustration I am feeling. There's always disappointment when the season ends, but it has never lasted this long. This past season has so turned me off of sports I find myself missing more Cubs games than I hear.
Back to the "State of the Sharks". The thing that stood out the most was the very weakly concealed anger of Doug Wilson. Weeks after the embarrassing first round upset at the hands of the Ducks, Wilson is still fuming. One thing I can say with total confidence is that there will be major changes to the roster this off season. I can almost guarantee that there will be no fewer than four players who are currently on the roster who will not be on the team come October. It will not just be role players who could face the axe. It could be very likely that at least one Shark with an extra letter on the front of his jersey last year will be gone.
CEO Greg Jamison to me didn't show enough emotion one way or the other. Yes, he's the business face of the Sharks and the public liaison for the ownership group, still he could have at least sounded upset.
The most telling about just where the Sharks are right now was the responses that came from Todd McLellan. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but three things stood out to me. First, yes, the Sharks had more than their fair share of injuries last season and it did play a big part on why they seemed to lack focus during the last half of the season. However, as many times as McLellan referred to it, it seemed that he was looking for an easy way out. Second, the mental toughness angle also was brought up frequently. It almost seemed like he was trying to shift blame from himself to the players. Saying the mental toughness is something the players need to find on their own feels like a bit of a cop out. Lastly, in McLellan's favor, he did acknowledge that the coaching staff was responsible for the failures as much as the players. It did seem to me that there may be a shake up in the coaching staff before next season as well as player moves.
As far as the player angle goes, Patrick Marleau, Dan Boyle, Joe Thornton and Joe Pavelski were on hand for a time to field questions as well. What was the most telling to me was not just what they said but how they said it. Joe Pavelski and Dan Boyle did not give generic, canned answers to any question posed to them. They also were more serious than Marleau and Thornton were. Granted, Thornton and Marleau tried to inject a bit of humor into a solemn and serious occasion, but I think it was a bit misguided. When you wear the C and an A, you should not be trying to make jokes after your team became the joke of the NHL this year. Based on what he said and how he said it, I cannot believe that we fans, nor the coaching staff, can look to Joe Thornton to be a leader. Boston knew this after a few seasons. Hopefully the Sharks will learn this as well.
I have to say that this has the potential to be the most interesting July and August in Sharks franchise history. It will all start on June 26th. With no first round draft pick, Look for Wilson to wheel and deal. If the Sharks move into the first round, expect the changes I mentioned before to happen.
First things first though. I have been a Sharks fan since the 92-93 season. I have seen highs and lows a plenty. I have never been as angry and depressed as much as I am right now. All of the playoff losses to Colorado and Dallas pales in comparison to the total frustration I am feeling. There's always disappointment when the season ends, but it has never lasted this long. This past season has so turned me off of sports I find myself missing more Cubs games than I hear.
Back to the "State of the Sharks". The thing that stood out the most was the very weakly concealed anger of Doug Wilson. Weeks after the embarrassing first round upset at the hands of the Ducks, Wilson is still fuming. One thing I can say with total confidence is that there will be major changes to the roster this off season. I can almost guarantee that there will be no fewer than four players who are currently on the roster who will not be on the team come October. It will not just be role players who could face the axe. It could be very likely that at least one Shark with an extra letter on the front of his jersey last year will be gone.
CEO Greg Jamison to me didn't show enough emotion one way or the other. Yes, he's the business face of the Sharks and the public liaison for the ownership group, still he could have at least sounded upset.
The most telling about just where the Sharks are right now was the responses that came from Todd McLellan. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but three things stood out to me. First, yes, the Sharks had more than their fair share of injuries last season and it did play a big part on why they seemed to lack focus during the last half of the season. However, as many times as McLellan referred to it, it seemed that he was looking for an easy way out. Second, the mental toughness angle also was brought up frequently. It almost seemed like he was trying to shift blame from himself to the players. Saying the mental toughness is something the players need to find on their own feels like a bit of a cop out. Lastly, in McLellan's favor, he did acknowledge that the coaching staff was responsible for the failures as much as the players. It did seem to me that there may be a shake up in the coaching staff before next season as well as player moves.
As far as the player angle goes, Patrick Marleau, Dan Boyle, Joe Thornton and Joe Pavelski were on hand for a time to field questions as well. What was the most telling to me was not just what they said but how they said it. Joe Pavelski and Dan Boyle did not give generic, canned answers to any question posed to them. They also were more serious than Marleau and Thornton were. Granted, Thornton and Marleau tried to inject a bit of humor into a solemn and serious occasion, but I think it was a bit misguided. When you wear the C and an A, you should not be trying to make jokes after your team became the joke of the NHL this year. Based on what he said and how he said it, I cannot believe that we fans, nor the coaching staff, can look to Joe Thornton to be a leader. Boston knew this after a few seasons. Hopefully the Sharks will learn this as well.
I have to say that this has the potential to be the most interesting July and August in Sharks franchise history. It will all start on June 26th. With no first round draft pick, Look for Wilson to wheel and deal. If the Sharks move into the first round, expect the changes I mentioned before to happen.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Journey Part V
The Journey is chronicling my thoughts and feelings as I proceed down the path of spirituality. For a detailed explanation, see The Journey Part I.
There's really not too much to report lately, however I have come across a bit of a paradox that I think may be keeping me from taking that last step.
Religion and spirituality relies on faith. I know that is not a profound discovery, but it is a major sticking point for me. As someone who has not had very many people in which to trust so far in my life, making the step to put faith in anything is really hard. It may be impossible.
With seven major religions with over 100 million adherents, one of the biggest issues for me is, how do I know which religion is the right one? Many religions teach that their religion is the "true" or correct religion. How do you know which one is correct? Simple. You need to have faith in your religion. Can you see my dilemma?
Having had virtually no religious background doesn't help. I have no spiritual foundation on which to build faith. How do I know that I am building a strong foundation? Again, it comes down to faith.
It's too early to tell if I have enough faith to make this last, vital step. I guess we will see.
There's really not too much to report lately, however I have come across a bit of a paradox that I think may be keeping me from taking that last step.
Religion and spirituality relies on faith. I know that is not a profound discovery, but it is a major sticking point for me. As someone who has not had very many people in which to trust so far in my life, making the step to put faith in anything is really hard. It may be impossible.
With seven major religions with over 100 million adherents, one of the biggest issues for me is, how do I know which religion is the right one? Many religions teach that their religion is the "true" or correct religion. How do you know which one is correct? Simple. You need to have faith in your religion. Can you see my dilemma?
Having had virtually no religious background doesn't help. I have no spiritual foundation on which to build faith. How do I know that I am building a strong foundation? Again, it comes down to faith.
It's too early to tell if I have enough faith to make this last, vital step. I guess we will see.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Hey, youse guys, where's the bubbler at?
In one of the chats I was a part of today, something was said that got me thinking. The person was not happy with their accent. That struck me a little funny. Maybe it's the amateur linguist in me but I love hearing people speak from different parts of the country. It just shows that we are not all the same.
Yes, I love to have fun with it too. I know what I sound like to folks who are not from around here. That's why whenever I travel outside of my region, I over-exaggerate it. Seeing the looks on people's faces when I say, "Hey, where's the bubbler at?" The looks they give as they open their mental thesaurus is great fun!
The more I thought about it though, the more I was bothered by it. With the amount of feel good, one size fits all legislation that has either passed or is being proposed, why are we not standing up more and saying no?
In a country as diverse as the US, what is good for me is not always going to be good for a family in South Central LA. What's good for people in Phoenix isn't good for people in Boston.
We need to embrace our individuality. Be proud of who we are and where we come from. Why are we obsessed with homogony? I don't want to sound like every one else. That's why I crack off a "don't cha know" or a "why don't cha" every once in a while. Of course, anyone who knows a little about regional speech knows exactly where I'm from now, but that's ok. Where I'm from plays a big part in my beliefs and ideals. If you are willing to embrace your ideals, you should also embrace your accent, be it Southern, Eastern, Californian, or wherever. Be proud, be loud even if some people look at you funny!
Yes, I love to have fun with it too. I know what I sound like to folks who are not from around here. That's why whenever I travel outside of my region, I over-exaggerate it. Seeing the looks on people's faces when I say, "Hey, where's the bubbler at?" The looks they give as they open their mental thesaurus is great fun!
The more I thought about it though, the more I was bothered by it. With the amount of feel good, one size fits all legislation that has either passed or is being proposed, why are we not standing up more and saying no?
In a country as diverse as the US, what is good for me is not always going to be good for a family in South Central LA. What's good for people in Phoenix isn't good for people in Boston.
We need to embrace our individuality. Be proud of who we are and where we come from. Why are we obsessed with homogony? I don't want to sound like every one else. That's why I crack off a "don't cha know" or a "why don't cha" every once in a while. Of course, anyone who knows a little about regional speech knows exactly where I'm from now, but that's ok. Where I'm from plays a big part in my beliefs and ideals. If you are willing to embrace your ideals, you should also embrace your accent, be it Southern, Eastern, Californian, or wherever. Be proud, be loud even if some people look at you funny!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
It's safe to go in the water
Ok, I think I have finally calmed down enough to take an objective look back on a wonderful regular season and a completely disappointing post-season. Despite what happened, there are a few good things to happen over the last seven months.
Young stars
The Sharks have to be optimistic when it comes to the future of the franchise. With the solid performances of young talent like Jamie McGinn, Ryan Vesce, and Derek Joslin. Add that with the high end prospects Logan Couture, Jason and Julien Demers and the Sharks have a very solid young core to build on.
Veteran play
Several young veterans made great strides forward this last season. Marc-Edouard Vlasic played with a stability that belied his 22 years. Devin Setoguchi showed why he will be a major cog in the Sharks machine in the years to come. Joe Pavelski made it known that he is a rising star in the NHL.
Overcoming underachieving
In the regular season, the Sharks showed that they have the talent to win games that they didn't play their best hockey. Although that didn't translate into the post-season, it does show some promise.
What is disturbing though is the apparent huge holes and questionable decisions.
Veteran starts
With the play of the young stars mentioned before, what shocked me is that they didn't get more playing time. Yes, they saw a lot of ice time this past year, but that was mostly due to the injury bug that hit the Sharks hard. The signing of, and recall of, Claude Lemieux still is baffling.
Player moves
Time will tell if the trade that brought Kent Huskins and Travis Moen to the Sharks pans out, but if I were to guess now, I would think the Sharks got the short end of the deal. Moen showed that he could provide some grit, but with Jody Shelley on the roster and Brad Staubitz in Worcester, how much more grit can you have before it starts becoming a liability?
There are going to be a ton of decisions that will be made this off season. Comments from Doug Wilson lead me to believe that there are going to be major changes when it comes to the roster for next year and there may be some that will not sit too well with Sharks fans. I, for one, as a long time Sharks fan will welcome any changes that are made this summer. At this point, I have no allegiance to any current player (except maybe Joe Pavelski...got to stick with the local boy) if it means that the Sharks can get over their playoff hump.
So, how did a President's Cup winning team fall so hard and fast in the playoffs? Honestly, there are only 25 or so guys that can really answer that question. However, I can think of two big reasons.
October, November and December
When you win so many games so easily, it can become a habit to believe that you can still win when you don't play your best. If you come out strong enough, fast enough, teams will just pack it in. Unfortunately, the playoffs do not work that way.
Injuries
I know, it's an easy excuse, but when you lose so many man-games to injury as the Sharks did this year it is very hard to maintain the team chemistry that you need when it comes to playoff time. Only 5 Sharks played 80+ games and one of those was a player acquired at the deadline (Moen). A constant juggling of lines and D pairings makes it hard to get a cohesive unit together. They were able to overcome it in the regular season with talent, but in the playoffs, talent alone usually doesn't win a series.
When this October comes, will we even recognise our Team Teal? If it means a serious run at the Cup come April, I sure hope not.
Young stars
The Sharks have to be optimistic when it comes to the future of the franchise. With the solid performances of young talent like Jamie McGinn, Ryan Vesce, and Derek Joslin. Add that with the high end prospects Logan Couture, Jason and Julien Demers and the Sharks have a very solid young core to build on.
Veteran play
Several young veterans made great strides forward this last season. Marc-Edouard Vlasic played with a stability that belied his 22 years. Devin Setoguchi showed why he will be a major cog in the Sharks machine in the years to come. Joe Pavelski made it known that he is a rising star in the NHL.
Overcoming underachieving
In the regular season, the Sharks showed that they have the talent to win games that they didn't play their best hockey. Although that didn't translate into the post-season, it does show some promise.
What is disturbing though is the apparent huge holes and questionable decisions.
Veteran starts
With the play of the young stars mentioned before, what shocked me is that they didn't get more playing time. Yes, they saw a lot of ice time this past year, but that was mostly due to the injury bug that hit the Sharks hard. The signing of, and recall of, Claude Lemieux still is baffling.
Player moves
Time will tell if the trade that brought Kent Huskins and Travis Moen to the Sharks pans out, but if I were to guess now, I would think the Sharks got the short end of the deal. Moen showed that he could provide some grit, but with Jody Shelley on the roster and Brad Staubitz in Worcester, how much more grit can you have before it starts becoming a liability?
There are going to be a ton of decisions that will be made this off season. Comments from Doug Wilson lead me to believe that there are going to be major changes when it comes to the roster for next year and there may be some that will not sit too well with Sharks fans. I, for one, as a long time Sharks fan will welcome any changes that are made this summer. At this point, I have no allegiance to any current player (except maybe Joe Pavelski...got to stick with the local boy) if it means that the Sharks can get over their playoff hump.
So, how did a President's Cup winning team fall so hard and fast in the playoffs? Honestly, there are only 25 or so guys that can really answer that question. However, I can think of two big reasons.
October, November and December
When you win so many games so easily, it can become a habit to believe that you can still win when you don't play your best. If you come out strong enough, fast enough, teams will just pack it in. Unfortunately, the playoffs do not work that way.
Injuries
I know, it's an easy excuse, but when you lose so many man-games to injury as the Sharks did this year it is very hard to maintain the team chemistry that you need when it comes to playoff time. Only 5 Sharks played 80+ games and one of those was a player acquired at the deadline (Moen). A constant juggling of lines and D pairings makes it hard to get a cohesive unit together. They were able to overcome it in the regular season with talent, but in the playoffs, talent alone usually doesn't win a series.
When this October comes, will we even recognise our Team Teal? If it means a serious run at the Cup come April, I sure hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)