An Open Letter To Sandy Clough

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 12:04 PM MST in News

[Sandy Clough is the co-host of The Sports Guys, a cleverly-named morning talk show on Denver radio station AM 950 The Fan]

Dear Sandy,

So you disagree with us here in the online Avalanche fan community that Coach Joel Quenneville has done an overall lousy job behind the Colorado bench and should find employment elsewhere. Fair enough. Nobody said you had to agree with us.

It's unfortunate, though, that you've become the most recent mouthpiece of the "Blogs Are Boogie Men" crowd, led by my bedridden 85 year-old grandfather. You've decided, because we disagree with you, that we are "Chuckleheads" with 1) no credibility, 2) no accountability and 3) no knowledge of hockey. You've now taken the time to openly bash us on the Altitude Sports post-game show after the Edmonton and Calgary games and on your own radio show this morning.

First of all, I encourage you to actually think about how the "market of ideas" generally works for blogs. The more ridiculous crap a blogger types about a subject, the less his readers will take him seriously. And then the less readers he will have. That's how it works. The notable exception to this is Eklund over at Hockey Buzz, but his audience now consists primarily of people that just want to pounce on him for being wrong. Simply put, if I, as a blogger, spout nothing but bullshit, nobody will read my blog. The truth, however, is that the traffic, membership and participation by commenters continues to increase at Mile High Hockey every single week.

So that gets accountability and credibility out of the way. The next is hockey knowledge.

I and my Avalanche blogging colleagues have been watching, playing and studying hockey for much of our lives. We've watched all the same Avalanche games that you have watched. We've read all of the same books and newspaper columns. We've studied the same statistics and read the same scouting reports. This newfangled Internets allows us, regardless of our geographic location, to experience the team just as anyone else would. With the exception of meeting the players face-to-face, our experience with the Colorado Avalanche has been no different in any way than your own. Simply because you use a microphone to distribute your opinions and we use a keyboard does not make you all that different than us. It's still opinion, and we're still as much entitled to our own as you are to yours.

The fact that you disagree with me and all the other bloggers about Coach Quenneville is not what bothers me. Shit, I couldn't care less. I don't send angry emails to Scott Burnside every day because he insists on saying Coach Q deserves the Jack Adams award. I could, and probably should, but he's entitled to be wrong, just like you are.

What bothers me is that you find it necessary to bash our credibility and belittle us (and call us names like "coward" and "phony"---see the comments) simply because we don't have a radio show or get a paycheck from Altitude Sports. I find it odd that you've taken so much time to lash out at the very fanbase you rely upon to stay in business. We're fans of the team, too. We care what happens on the ice and we want to see another Stanley Cup banner hanging from the Pepsi Center rafters. Just because we disagree with you and don't like the coach doesn't mean we love the team any less. In fact, you're supposed to be a journalist, so you're not technically allowed to love the team anyway.

I find it especially annoying that a person---like yourself---with a vested interest in sucking up to the Avalanche franchise has taken the time to bash those who don't for not sucking up to it. Are you so afraid that criticizing Coach Q would endanger your access to him? Access upon which you rely to maintain a place in the media marketplace? Without the face-to-face access enjoyed by radio, TV and the newspapers, there'd be no reason for fans to consume your product anymore anyway. You know that. Are you afraid that criticizing Coach Q will lead him to stop doing his show on your radio station? Or that Kroenke Sports Enterprises will stop giving you credentials at the Pepsi Center?

Sandy, I sent you this email yesterday:

Sandy,
I'm the editor of MileHighHockey.com, a blog dedicated to the Colorado Avalanche. I took exception to your comments last night after the Edmonton game in which you said (and I'm quoting as accurately as possible):
"Some of these chuckleheads on the message boards and the email system around town are calling for his head. They must be confused and think they're watching the 95-96 Avalanche. This is a team that's 10th over all in the conference, still only 4 pts out of the playoffs, frankly it's miraculous that they're within 15 pts from a playoff spot right now considering the effect of these injuries. Everyone around the league knows it, except the fans around here apparently."
Personally, I think you're both wrong about Coach Quenneville's performance this season and your assessment that fans who criticize him are "chuckleheads" or lacking in knowledge. I'd like to engage you in an informal debate on the matter, if you'd be interested. Since I don't live in the Denver area, I think it would be difficult to coordinate an on-air appearance, so email may have to suffice.
If you're interested, please let me know and we can each present our arguments on various coaching-related topics. I figure we could badmouth each other from a distance, or we could just address each other's points in a civilized manner. Let me know which option you prefer.
Joe
Mile High Hockey

But you didn't respond to it*. Well, not to me, personally. No, you responded on the air and specifically belittled out-of-town hockey fans. I mentioned in my email that I don't live in Denver so I assume you were at least indirectly referring to me. Like I said earlier, this new Internet contraption allows me, wherever I am, to see and read the same things that fans in Denver get to see and read. I know it seems like magic, but it's real!

The offer to exchange emails about our positions on Coach Q stands. I'd still like to discuss your views and counter them with my own.

Whether you accept my offer or not, please understand that it's silly to belittle the fans of the Colorado Avalanche, the very people that comprise the market for your program. Regardless of whether or not we disagree with you, you rely on us. Without our ears, you have no advertisers, and without advertisers you have no revenue. No revenue means you're out of a job.

So quit lashing out at modern technology like my poor old grandfather and embrace the reality of New Media. And while you're at it, quit painting us as boogie men and take the time to get to know us, our backgrounds and our opinions before you criticize us from on high while hiding behind call screeners. It's called being accountable.

Joe

*The original email was sent to "mikeandsandy@950thefan," which is linked to from their site, but is apparently no longer active. I did not receive a bounce back. I have re-sent the email to a different address in hopes that I am no longer a "coward" or a "phony" for having unknowingly used the wrong address.

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Is this:

A formal declaration of war?

VIVA LA REVOLUCION

by Jibblescribbits on Feb 27, 2008 12:22 PM MST 0 recs

Re: Is this:

I think this is pretty tame for a declaration of war. More like a request for diplomacy.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 12:37 PM MST up 0 recs

Gaaahhh

Ok I'll put the torches and Pitchforks away... for now.

by Jibblescribbits on Feb 27, 2008 12:38 PM MST up 0 recs

I think it would be cool if

Sandy posted on here. Or Dater. Or any of the local journalists. Do they have rules against that sort of thing?

Sorry to be such a DOC (Defender of Clough), but again, I think overall Sandy is great. Then again, I've never been on the short end of one of his rants. Of course, just as Sandy went overboard in his gross mischaracterizations of all bloggers, you then responded in kind with the implications that he is a new media dinosaur. Fire with fire? Can't we all just get along?

;)

by Bob in Boulder on Feb 27, 2008 12:40 PM MST 0 recs

Re: I think it would be cool if

Hey, when you lash out against blogs with the same old, tired straw men (like "underwear in their parents' basement"), you've officially earned your Old Media Dinosaur membership card.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 12:45 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: I think it would be cool if

I asked Dater to contribute but the Post discourages its writers from finding other outlets for their work, understandably.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 1:29 PM MST up 0 recs

that's it

I'm canceling my trip.

not.

by Draft Dodger on Feb 27, 2008 12:55 PM MST 0 recs

he's cleared me to post his responses

I'll put the discourse in reply:

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 12:55 PM MST 0 recs

original email from me

Sandy,

The argument that bloggers don't have valid points because they're 500 miles away is silly. These people stay up late every night on the east coast to watch games on center ice. If anything, they're far more dedicated than fans here.

And your argument last night that blogs lack accountability is a bit off. Certainly, blogs lack consequences on the scale that you and other journalists do, but they're held accountable by their readers to a high degree. Unlike you, there's no one screening their calls -- the comments readers make are there for everyone to see. If you're wrong, people will let you know in a highly public manner.

Finally, regarding Q -- no one is debating he's not had a lot to work with. I still take issue with several issues though:

He juggles lines obsessively, killing chemistry, especially in the first part of this year. Fortunately, he's mellowed out on this in the second half of the year, so it's a less valid concern.

He sits on leads. Can you really tell me stopping all offensive pressure the moment you get a lead is a valid strategy? We lost a lead last night, and vs. Edmonton too!

What about his goalie juggling the last few years? Even I can see that his goalies perform the best when they're given consistent starts, why the alternating for half the year?

Why send Richardson down in favor of players like Jones? Richardson's handling in particular is mystifying to me.

Matt

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 12:57 PM MST up 0 recs

response from sandy

The blogs basically consist of a select group of people reinforcing the same silly notions without challenge, and assuming that
they're more entitled than those silly fools who actually pay to watch the games in person. And any media person who doesn't
level the same vicious, personal attacks in addition to the usual blather about firing the coach must be a shill or a stooge.

That's not to say that you don't occasionally come by some reasonably decent analysis, or that even the lunatics aren't entitled
to an opinion. It's just not opinion that they're more entitled to hold.

There's a massive difference between thoughtful criticism and calling for someone's immediate dismissal. I challenged no one
particular site, but one particular site did take offense. The response was to claim that an email had been sent to me in an effort
to promote some level of civil discourse. Which would be fine if the email had ever in fact been sent. Of course, it wasn't because
these folks are cowards who lack the ability to argue a point, much less a case. The last thing they want is a conversation they
can't dominate.

Quenneville is on the air here every week at the same time. People can call, email, or text a message. No caller has ever been screened
for content...another lie that cowards who have never even tried to get in constantly perpetuate. Quenneville is quite graceful, as is Karl,
about accepting critical commentary and answering it. Again, you have to come with something beyond saying that the coach is
incompetent because he changes lines during games, but our standards aren't terribly high.

If, as you say, people get knocked down for false assertions, how come the notion that Quenneville is nothing more than "a .500 coach"
has never been identified as false? We'd be skewered if anyone on our show misrepresented a coach's record, or anyone else's, this way.
But on the blogs, it doesn't matter. Fact is opinion and opinion is fact. And for $75, you, too, can have a website on which to say anything
you wish and pronounce yourself an ultimate, unchallenged authority.

The Avalanche went 15-2-2 "sitting on leads" down the stretch last year. I personally hate the trapping style they played then, and employ even
now, but Quenneville's in the winning business. So is the much-celebrated Jacques Lemaire, whose Minnesota Wild sit all of three points
ahead of the Avs this morning. With Gaborik having played in 58 games...Bouchard 63 games...Rolston 62 games...Demitra 50 games...
Burns 63 games. The Wild play a soporific style that would have any self-respecting admirer of the late Herb Brooks deeply disenchanted.
Lemaire has great talent that's shackled by his methods. If you're honest, you'd subject him to the same criticism you apply to Quenneville.

As to the line-juggling, tell me how that could conceivably affect the power play or penalty kill units? It would only have an impact in even-strenth,
five-on-five situations, wouldn't it? An area in which the Avs have won the most favorable working margins across the entire league. I understand
that this kind of analysis is rarely practiced by the "elite bloggers" because it requires the application of fairness, intelligence, and knowledge.
None of which they have in abundance.

Budaj was awful in preseason. The job was his, even if Theodore hadn't been injured. He messed it up, or maybe he was never anything more
than a back-up in the first place. He played early and often only because he was healthy, not because he played well. Anyone who didn't have
an agenda saw this clearly. Again, this would leave out the bloggers with nothing but interest in advancing agendas. The players, even those
who weren't Theodore fans, could see that the injured goaltender was working hard. When the stars began to fall to injury, he responded, as did
Hannan and Clark to a lesser degree. The Lake Erie guys helped but were victimized collectively as part of the law of diminishing returns, a
familiar principle to sophisticated sports fans, who only occasionally include the bloggers.

Neither Jones nor Richardson should be playing in the NHL. Jones plays now because he's bigger and more of a banger, but you're arguing
about which one would always be among the least often used forwards. It's the kind of essentially irrelevant debate the bloggers love
because it makes them seem smart and engaged and since neither is qualified to play, there's no wrong answer. Just no answer that matters.

In doing this for 30 years, I would hope that I have come to understand that listening to what people more expert say has more value than
telling those same people what I think. When I first started doing sports talk in 1980, I used to be like the bloggers. Rip now and think later,
if ever. Team starts slowly, fire the coach. Be a tough guy. Fortunately, one friend who saw some hope for me told me to grow up and knock
it off. "Get to work. Do your job. Go to the games and don't just watch. Talk to people. Learn from them. The coaches, administrators, and
even players are usually happy to help someone who's curious."

Today, I NEVER advance a thought without some foundation. The conclusions I reach are my own, but the information I draw from are obtained
by asking questions. What a great concept! Something the bloggers in question would never understand.

sandy

p.s. You're free to send this along to that phony at "Mile High Hockey," who claims to have sent me an email and will I'm sure shortly attack me
for having not responded to an email I never received because it was never sent. Just posted on his site that I found by chance yesterday. You can
be ignorant through no fault of your own and still have integrity. The bloggers are frequently ignorant and deliberatley dishonest.

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 12:58 PM MST up 0 recs

my response:

Sandy,

I'm just going to respond to your points one by one. My reponses are in black, your statements are in blue. (doc's note: im italicizing his comments here, since colors don't work)

No argument here. Personal attacks shouldn't have any place in reasonable discourse. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with us. I'm curious though, as to what the attacks were, and when and where they were published? You've been grouping all blogs together, and that's not really fair to them. You should specifically name what instances have frusterated you rather than broadly attacking everyone.

Also, you've been coming back with the same nonsense attacks. Chuckleheads? Living in basements with too much time? I really respect you -- I'm puzzled why you would stoop to the level of the minority using these personal attacks. why not simply address the points and call the personal attacks nonsense without all that?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I think I agree, that everyone can have an opinion?

Is it possible it went to another email you don't check? I believe Joe when he said he emailed you (and I have no idea why he's lie and post the entire text of an email he sent you) -- and that attempt at rational discourse was my idea. We'd really like to give it a shot. I can ping Joe about this -- should he resend it to this email?

Honestly, I don't always catch the show due to work (no, I don't live in my parents basement, I make cameras, thanks for the generalized personal attack). Many out of state fans can't either, since you're local. The times I do catch it, it's been very fair. I never said otherwise.

We're trying to find where this was said, and we can't. Could you show us?

And I do -- I'm not a trap fan period, be it Q or Lemaire. I would prefer a Lindy Ruff style in a perfect world. But in particular over the last few months, with a roster of less defensively skilled players (Arnason, Svatos, etc), he continues to try this. He even sends out Arnason for critical defensive faceoffs!

Well, agree to disagree, I guess. It certainly is a minor point. I still think Richardson / Guite / Lapperiere was a great line both ways for several games, and it's frusterating to see such combos torn up willy-nilly.

Not all rip now and think later. And this Q talk has been years in building on the blogs I visit -- and even then none of us are calling for his head NOW. Who would we replace him with?

Actually, you'd be surprised. that's why we'd like to have this little civilized debate -- I believe you'll find our points well supported, even if you disagree.

I appreciate the response, and I'm sorry things are a little heated. I have much respect for you -- to be honest, I think you're the best sports journalist in town -- but that's why I'm mystified at the generalized personal attacks coming from you in response to this issue. Sure, there'll be some bad apples in the group, but don't toss out the baby with the bathwater. Let's be civilized!

Would you mind if I posted this response in the comments at Mile High Hockey? I'm sure everyone would be very interested in your points.

Matt

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 1:00 PM MST up 0 recs

his response:

Sure, go ahead and post it, and I do appreciate your attempts to mediate this. My comments were
never directed to a single site.

I have no idea whether "Mile High Hockey" is more or less vitriolic than any other blog, but it was
the one that took offense to my remarks, which were not premeditated but
rather a response to a point made by my colleague with which I agreed.

It was addressed last night only because Altitude asked me to speak one last time on the subject.
I guess they got a few emails themselves. And I imagine that the Avs weren't exactly thrilled with
my characterization of the team they've been putting on the ice across the last three months.

I get called things worse than "chucklehead" on a daily basis. The difference is that I explain my
reasons for making this sort of reference. One guy on your site acted as if his not having any idea
of who I was happened to be my problem. That's where the "basement" remark came from.

And people think I'm arrogant!!!!!!

My point, finally, is really only this: You all have every right to express an opinion but without any
credentials that can be examined by the public, your views aren't inherently more worthwhile
than any expressed in a less public manner.

sandy

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 1:03 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: his response:

I'm just going to bite my tongue on this one. Wow.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Feb 27, 2008 1:10 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: his response

Why? He's not biting his.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 1:15 PM MST up 0 recs

and in reading this now...

I see I missed a couple points in my initial response, concerning line juggling and the goalies. if you're reading, sorry Sandy -- I just missed them as I responded. We'll save those for the debate, hows that? :)

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 1:27 PM MST up 0 recs

A debate

I think a debate about the Avs would be interesting material for watching/listening/reading.

Never trust the lunch lady.

by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Feb 27, 2008 1:48 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: response from sandy

Wow, he seems pretty bitter. I never even called him a name, which he has no trouble calling all of us.

What a shame.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 1:07 PM MST up 0 recs

Sandy...

I don't know if you will even read these comments, but I must point out that in case you ever check the Avs' message boards--don't presume they are the same as these blogs.

A lot of people on those message boards really don't know much, and really do like to just dump the blame on someone (Quenneville). But people on the blogs at Mile High Hockey, Jibblescribbits, and Avs Talk, are more intelligent, and their purpose is to report what is happening with the team, analyze whatever is going on, and provide logical, thought-out opinions. Whereas the people on the forum are there to chat with others on the topic of hockey, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it is more for leisure, than it is for actual reporting.

That's all I wanted to say, because I hear you said on Altitude that those "people of the forums and blogospheres don't know what they're talking about". And I just wanted to point out that there's a big difference between the people over at the forums and the bloggers at the blogsites, they shouldn't be generalized as one and the same.

by Mike the Avs Fan on Feb 27, 2008 1:46 PM MST 0 recs

How could I forget

Among those bloggers I forgot to mention "In the Cheap Seats", which is another great blog right on par with the other 3, which should never be compared to anything said on the forums.

by Mike the Avs Fan on Feb 27, 2008 1:48 PM MST up 0 recs

heh

mock indignation
how could you???

by Draft Dodger on Feb 27, 2008 2:10 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: ITCS?

Is that site still active? I thought that guy's mother took his computer away and told him to put on some clothes and go look for a job?

by Bob in Boulder on Feb 27, 2008 3:23 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: ITCS

He did move out of his mom's house. Now he lives in my basement.

And by "lives" I mean tied up and locked in a cell.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 3:37 PM MST up 0 recs

my own deep thoughts

"One guy on your site acted as if his not having any idea of who I was happened to be my problem. That's where the "basement" remark came from."

I think I'm the guy he's referring to there. And now instead of not knowing who the fuck Sandy Clough is, I know him as the guy who thinks I'm an idiot. He's certainly not the first, nor will he be the last. Although most others get to know me before making that assessment.

That letter? Wow. I don't know that I've seen so many myths about bloggers perpetuated in such a concise, compact package. I don't feel he's got an accurate grasp on the blogging community at all. And certainly not the Avs bloggers.

He's either a) not reading enough of the thoughtful posts made out there or b) he's reading it and still feels like we're all a bunch of pinheads. Either way, I have no desire to waste any energy on setting him straight. He's entitled to his opinion...even if he's wrong. That's the blogger's credo, right?

by Draft Dodger on Feb 27, 2008 2:06 PM MST 0 recs

Re: my own deep thoughts

Yeah, for a guy that doesn't seem to read many blogs (he admitted to never having read this one), he sure has a strong opinion about them.

I don't listen to his radio show so I've withheld forming an opinion about him. I could just lump him in with other radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahamamam, and Glen Beck, but that wouldn't be very fair would it? Then again, he's a radio show host and they're radio show hosts, so they must all be the same, right? Right?

Even if he did try to send me an email to the wrong address that I posted on my site and never corrected, I wouldn't do that.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:12 PM MST up 0 recs

i would refrain from that assessment

Sandy is good people, best journalist that Denver has. He's off kilter here, imo, but that barely scratches the surface of his credibility. When I want good Avs commentary besides here and ITCS, I listen to him and Dater.

My dad (yeah, yeah, shut up) is an avid reader of this blog, and actually just read all this and called me to say that he's been listening and reading Sandy for 30 years, and this is a common thing he does: a straw man debate tactic.

the ".500" outrage that he declined to provide examples of is just one of his techniques from radio. Fortunately, we can see that for what it is. Right? RITE?!

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 2:21 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: I would refrain from that assessment

Again, I don't want to make assumptions because I don't know the guy's work, but using straw man debate tactics is not the sign of good journalism. And calling people names using faulty assumptions is not a trait of most "good people."

But again, I will refrain from drawing conclusions based on my limited exposure to him.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:25 PM MST up 0 recs

well, we all do it

I'm guilty of straw man tactics from time to time and I'm sure others (has Thomas posted since I counter-trolled him?), you offer up personal attacks and sarcasm pretty frequently, etc, etc. Part of the game!

most important thing is to call these things what they are, ignore them, and get to the core information of debates and discussions.

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 2:33 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: well, we all do it

I couldn't agree more. I hope it's evident that I've tried to take the high road here and engage the man in some conversation. I don't have to do that. I'm not trying to score points with the Denver sports media, so I don't have to worry about burning bridges. But I'm a nice guy and I'd prefer to keep things civil, educational, and entertaining. At least I've done one of those things so far.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:37 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: well, we all do it

Joe, if you really do care about blogs getting main stream acceptance you should consider the value good relationships with traditional media. Why should you get respect if you they don't percieve any coming back. BTW Respect doesn't mean agreeing on everything.

Never trust the lunch lady.

by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Feb 27, 2008 2:46 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: well, we all do it

Don't misunderstand me. For one, blogs already have mainstream acceptance. Millions of people read them and contribute to them, and they're not going anywhere. Blogs affect political campaigns, the criminal justice system, and yes, even sports franchises. Blogs got Dan Rather fired. A blogger just won a Peabody award.

My petty battle with a radio talk show host won't have any effect on blogging's mainstream acceptance.

All I want is for people in the Old Media to recognize the future and embrace it. Many of them already have. Many of them have not.

I suppose my main concern is not the perception of blogging itself, but the failure to recognize that the same people who consume radio, TV and newspaper reporting are the same people who consume (and write) blogs. It doesn't have to be a battle.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:53 PM MST up 0 recs

Radio

Now for years we've heard that talk radio is nothing but a vast right wing conspiracy. So since Clough is a radio host, and does talk radio does that make him part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ETC. (the so-called "established media"), all want to shut down the "NEW media" last I checked, talk radio was lumped in with the bloggisphere when the term "new media" is used...so in their opinion Sandy is no better than any of us. Right?

by Americanario on Feb 27, 2008 2:25 PM MST up 0 recs

RE: Radio

I can't even keep track of who the Old Media thinks is stupid or lacks credibility. Hell, Fox News and MSNBC bash each other nightly. They don't even like each other.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:27 PM MST up 0 recs

WOW!

I can't even begin to express how I feel about this turn of events. There really are no words.

I came to this sight after finding "inthecheapseats" which I found because DD was posting over at Avalanche-Country.com. I got sick of the 13 and 14 year olds over at the "forums" and the whole daily soap opera business over there. Some of the good people over at Avalanche-Country invited me and I jump out of the forums like a rat on a sinking ship. Granted things outside of the forums may not be as entertaining...
You guys keep up the good work here and we'll continue to try and actually put forth some well though out responses to civilized debate.

by Americanario on Feb 27, 2008 2:20 PM MST 0 recs

Re: WOW!

Hey, thanks as always. Your contributions are always welcomed and appreciated. This is a community, after all.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 2:26 PM MST up 0 recs

.500 Coach

By the way, I found the now-infamous ".500 coach" comment. It was indeed just a comment, not part of an actual blog post, and it was meant in a very general way.

Said Americanario on January 1st, 2008:

Disappointing... (none / 0)
is about the only word that can describe the attitude of Quenville. This must be why he is nothing more than a .500 coach. That and he'll probably play Theo on Wednesday and we can look forward to a loss with no points.

I don't think anyone could mistake that for an assertion that Coach Q's actual lifetime win percentage was .500 on the dot. I mean, he did have that one great season in St. Louis to drag his numbers up.

It was a general statement about his overall ability as a coach. Don't nitpick.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 3:02 PM MST 0 recs

I'm a Sandy Clough fan

I got to say I like Sandy a ton. What he says is interesting and even if it's controversial at least he has an opinion.

However, judging all Blogs via a few is obviously a poor approach. I don't judge the AM 950 on hockey by the commentary Irv and Joe make on the sport. I've diversified my listening hours and I can say that while some shows are totally inept in the subject of hockey,(Irv and Joe's interview with Giguere was brutal) there are some like the Sports Guys that are well educated and obviously passionate about the sport.

Joe, I can say with confidence to not take Sandy's commentary literary. Blogs are a conversation, when you espouse a repeated theme that coach Q should be fired or that Skrastins has defensive issues, Sandy has no background on how you developed that opinion. You, as a blogger aren't obligated to outline your posts with background information every time you bring up a repeatable theme. Blogging is a new animal for many mainstream media guys and it's appeal is foreign to most of them (and threatening to others) although it's getting better. Sandy doesn't have the time to figure out why your posts say we need to fire Quenville, he probably just lumps you in with all the message board posts at the official Avalanche site. Should Sandy be a little more diplomatic in his response? Perhaps, but I've listened to him for many, many years and I can say that Sandy will reluctantly examine opposing points of view when well supported. His passion for his opinions is what makes him appealing as a listener and I'm sure he understands and nurtures it.

Sandy on the other hand should get to know some blogs better. There's a ton of great material and well formulated opinions. Sandy still doesn't have a cell phone so give the man time to adapt. I think he can compliment blogging as much as you may feel he's attacking it at the moment.

Oh, and Sandy... I think there are compelling arguments on why Coach Q's job is on shaky ground. It has everything to do with his body of work and less to do with the three top forwards being out for a portion of the season. I think the subject is kind of played out at this point so there's no reason for me to go in to my War and Peace thesis on why I believe what I believe. However, I think the level of expectations for this team is WAY below where it should be. We've fired coaches for much less and considering the talent in the NW, it's a crime the Avs are fighting for a playoff spot right now.

by Dario on Feb 27, 2008 3:08 PM MST 0 recs

Fan

Sandy doesn't have the time to figure out why your posts say we need to fire Quenville, he probably just lumps you in with all the message board posts at the official Avalanche site.

That doesn't say much for journalism if he's a member of that hallowed fraternity.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 3:42 PM MST up 0 recs

Like sand through the hour glass...

Man, it's like Melrose Place, All My Children and Days of our Lives all rolled into one :)

I think Clough makes a few reasonable points but it's masked behind what appears to be complete and utter hatred for anyone who is not a "legitimate" journalist.

He also makes silly assumptions like when he says:
"but the information I draw from are obtained
by asking questions."

Well I - and everyone else - would love to be able to pose questions and have discussions with the players and coaches. Unfortunately I don't live in Colorado, have a full-time job I enjoy and work hard at and obviously don't have the access he does. Bloggers are not given the same access as print journalists by pretty much all organizations so I'm not sure how we'd pose the questions. I don't have time to call in to Q's show and though it appears Clough will respond to emails, he won't respond in a helpful manner, it's in a bitter, vile manner.

And then to go on and claim he used to be like the bloggers who he now rails upon indicates to me that he is not that good a person (or that good a journalist maybe), otherwise he'd be willing to open a discussion to share his 30+ years experience with people. I guarantee nobody would mind, as long as he didn't call us cowards along the way.

Of course, he's entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else but to say bloggers think they're more entitled to an opinion is flagrantly false. I, Joe, DD, Jib et al. have never taken offense at being told we were wrong. I mean sure, it doesn't happen all that often but nonetheless... ;)

And to make a sweeping claim about all bloggers being cowards makes it fairly obvious that he isn't willing to debate anything, he just wants to vent.

by Shane on Feb 27, 2008 3:28 PM MST 0 recs

Soapy in here

I hate it when guys like Clough pull the "journalist credential" card while making sweeping, unsubstantiated personal attacks on people. Is that journalism? I thought bloggers were supposed to be the impulsively crass ones.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 3:41 PM MST up 0 recs

I've gotta say

I don't know Sandy Clough from a hole in the ground, but his assertation that I have no life and can't know anything about my favorite team hurts my feelings...

That being said (whew, cathardic!), as far as any of MY content that may have been misconstrued, that's all on me. Of the three of us that publish to the front page, I see my role as more opinionated than DD or Joe, with the exception of goaltending issues (I'm no expert in that arena either, but my knowledge goes pretty deep, IMO). I may have more of a rant-y tone at times, especially when it comes to Coach Q., but I've always tried to back my opinions up with factual, contextual info. I never write a post that is just off the cuff. It takes seconds, nay minutes!, to come up with the gems of insight and comedy that only I find funny, yet subject our regular readers to on a semi-weekly/monthly basis. Even then, I've got multiple sources open and I try to cite as many references as possible (my thesis had like, four gagillion literature references, so Izz Knowz How Ta Cite, Beyotchez). I'll never have access to the sources Sandy does, but I don't think a couple of hours of research on a 500-word post about goaltending is anything to sniff at.

Consequently, if he took even 1 hour to visit some of the sites that everybody has talked about (Jibbles, Shane's site, ITCS, Jerseys..., etc.) in preperation to address the blogosphere issue on his show, I don't see how he can come away with the opinion that we are unfounded, reactionary twits with no sex-life and an aversion to sunlight (Except Shane, who lives on top of the world and thus doesn't SEE the sun except for about 3 days a year). We may have desenting opinions from his own, but I have yet to read a post from any of us along the lines of the 'Fire Q cuz he suxxorz!' crap that the message board contains. We've all cited reasons for his dismissal at the end of the season: Line-juggling hurting offensive chemistry, talent evaluation, the goalie rotation, his style of play, his in-game decisions, the lack of a PP, the ineptness of his trainers, his robot for an assistant coach, etc. We've referenced most, if not all, of those in every post about our dissatisfaction with Quenneville's tenure as the Avs' head coach.

We've also discussed how the injury bug, nay injury elephant, shouldn't be a get out of jail free card. He had a decent lineup last year, and the team underachieved. They improved in every major area in the offseason (depth, defense, offense) and the goaltending has shaped up since December, and this team is still on the outside looking in. They weren't lighting the world on fire before the injuries, and the record was pretty similiar to last year's before the three Esses went down. The style of play has sapped the offensive spark out of guys like Hejduk, Svats, and Wolski. His neckties are terrible and the PP continues to kill kittens at an alarming rate. Shouldn't we be able to talk about that stuff without giving 1000 bonus points to the "look what he's done with so little" stance?

by Mike @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 3:52 PM MST 0 recs

lol

His neckties are terrible and the PP continues to kill kittens at an alarming rate.

good to see some well reasoned analysis. :)

seriously though, well said.

by thedoctor on Feb 27, 2008 4:04 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: lol

There's an extremely large pile of dead kittens outside the Pepsi Center. I hear Dion Phadouche's SUV is buried underneath it.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 4:06 PM MST up 0 recs

Re: I've gotta say

You know, coaches should only get the "look what they've done with so little" treatment when they're actually winning games. Q hasn't been winning many games. That's why I can't understand why a guy who admits that Q is "in the winning business" then gives him a pass when he's not winning.

The team was half-ass before the injuries and it was half-ass after. The team showed some life last night but they've owned Calgary all season and it was just one game.

In the final 18 games, if the team still can't make it to the playoffs with Forsberg and Foote back in the fold, then it has to be over for Q, even though it should be regardless.

by Joe @ MHH on Feb 27, 2008 4:05 PM MST up 0 recs

shockaroo.

Frankly, Sandy's comments shock me. I had never heard of him before, but with comments like that it is evident that he has spent extremely little time reading round some good blogs.

And the arrogance is overwhelming. Just because he is lucky enough to get paid for what he does does not grant him a divine right to be better than all the bloggers.

Personally, I really enjoy reading the opinion of other fans on these blogs. They can say what they like, and sometimes they are wrong. If they are, people tell them they are. And if they consistently talk rubbish, then people don't read their blog. Which is why people post measured opinions on things.

I guess I am repeating a lot of points, but Sandy has riled me up a little...

by pingu on Feb 28, 2008 4:39 AM MST 0 recs

Farcical

It's farcical that Clough would focus his Altitude comments after the Calgary game on the blogger who said Quenneville is a .500 coach, when it was just one of the comments to the original blog post. And talk about an unchallenged opinion - you've got Sandy going off and the other three paid-by-the-Avs toadies yukking it up, instead of pointing out that the actual blog post never made that statement. Real winning journalism, there. It's like one of us ripping a talk show host if Elliot from Aurora made some sort of factual mistake during one of his calls (and if anyone gets that reference that tells you how long it's been since I stopped listening to Denver sports talk radio).

There's a whole lot more to this that I want to say but haven't formulated into any real coherent opinion. Clough is intelligent and well spoken and adds real content to the Altitude broadcasts, but he's surrounded by sychophants in the studio and on the game broadcasts, and his opinions are not as direct or critical as I would expect.

Good for him that he's matured since he was the controversial guy you had to listen to on KOA after Broncos games. He'd call fans names (which is a habit he apparently can't break), rip the team, and be generally controversial and sometimes entertaining. He's one of the best and smartest sports guys in this city, it's too bad he resorted to the lazy stereotypes about blogs and bloggers. If he took an afternoon to read the excellent sites that Dario already mentioned, I think he'd quickly realize that these blogs are the best source for game stories, opinion, analysis, and original content. They blow the MSM guys out of the water, and it's not even close, no matter how much "access" the beat guys have, because in their case, "access" seems to mean interviewing the same 3 or 4 guys after every game and not being able to enterprise a story if their lives depended on it.

by Dan Winkler on Feb 28, 2008 4:14 PM MST 0 recs