Wednesday, March 17, 2010

is there such thing as an owership deal ?

i have always maintained i'm not so great at maths, and with 13 games left i realize that it's still possible that the flames will pull it out and make the post-season.... possible, yes. realistic ? ...not so much....

because really, it's not the losses that makes me think we're done, it's the way we lose. the vancouver game was a total abomination and the detroit game was classic 09/10 calgary (giving up goals in the last minutes of periods).... this team has trouble scoring goals and has for months. it seems pretty clear to me now that the problem is not the players, it's something bigger; i'm basing this theory on the fact that the current squad has the exact same issues that the january version did and the team is made up of 30-35% different players (give or take higgins)... and also, our best players are never our best players....

a friend of mine works in the bowels of the 'dome and queried a much more "in the know" guy about why the flames never hoot and holler (or offer any rallying-type words that begin in "c'mon !!") as they exit the lockerroom for a game. the guy suggested that it's the way that sutter wants it. all business, no fun. right. good. awesome.... let's just say that i know how well i perform at work when i hate my job.

an interesting theory came out the other night on overtime with pat steinberg, and that was that the flames' ownership group may actually have instructed darryl sutter to get the team into the playoffs at all cost.... while i'm still perpetuating the idea that dion had asked for a trade, this "ownership insistance theory" would go a LOOOONG way in explaining the addition staios and his ugly 10/11 contract.

the other theory that makes sense, of course, is that darryl sutter has lost his fucking mind and was desperately making moves to save his job.... this is is the one i would like to go with.

darryl also once made mention of the jokinen trade being "an ownership deal" because of his pricetag.... i'm not sure exactly what that means but i would rather they stay the eff out of the dealings, especially if they're aged and senile as suggested by our newest pal domebeers.

and in case anyone is wondering my thoughts on the ovechkin suspension, here it is:

i was yapping last night about how i don't think 'intent to injure' plays, even if they seem to fall in a 'grey area', should ever be overlooked for reprimand. i also propose that, in these instances, the degree of injury should be factored in, and i'm also a huge believer in what i'm going to dub "comparison suspensions." here, i would sum up that if maxime lapierre got 4 games for a late hit/boarding infraction on scott nichol, then ovechkin should've gotten 4 games for what is essentially the same exact play. the biggest problem with the colin campbell wheel of justice is that (in regards to comparison suspensions) matt cooke got no suspension for feasibly ending marc savard's career (and quality of life), while sean avery got a six game suspension for ending phaneuf's by way of insults.

thanks to "the guy i haven't thought of a nickname for" for the inspiration (read: quote) on the avery/phaneuf thing.

oh, and happy birthday to mickis. :)

[sutter(s) dismissal countdown: day 14]


Resolute said...

In as much as it is possible, for ownership to become involved in the hockey operations side would be significantly out of character.

Anonymous said...

I have maintained for quite some time that Sutter is killing the soul of all who work for him, and I still maintain that. DOWN WITH SUTTER!