Takes and trash talk from both ALL sides of the NHL's most obscure PATHETIC* rivalry

* Thanks, Kevin Lowe!

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Drinky post-Phoenix post

(Does that title read two ways or am I just seeing double?)

Earl Sleek: You know what the worst thing about Phoenix is?

Buddy Beez: What’s that?

Earl Sleek: They make so much hoopla about a “Decade in the Desert”

(Chandler Bing voice) Could that slogan BE any less appealing? Who's ever wanted to spend a frickin' decade in a frickin' desert?

Yeah, that's a pretty sweet thought!

(Seriously. The decade has been a bust in so many ways for the poor Desert Dogs. They sign big names and maybe they have bursts of short glory, but that decade looks pretty bleak considering they have won one playoff game since the turn of the millennium and have yet to get past a first-round defeat. The fact that they rub that futility in with a jersey patch, well, it reeks of pathos. Then again, I guess in today's NHL, there is some pride to be taken in not being relocated after ten shitty years.)

Buddy Beez: Hey, at least it’s not forty years.


Doogie said...

Trading Teemu Selanne, their best player since Dale Hawerchuk, was the biggest mistake that franchise ever made. They might have done something if they'd kept him.

RudyKelly said...

Their biggest mistake was trading Teemu? What about their original jerseys?

Sherry said...

Were you drunk when you made that drawing? Because if you were you're probably the most stable drunk I've ever seen.

Earl Sleek said...

Were you drunk when you made that drawing?

Well, I drank as I watched the game, and it was 3 in the morning...

Credit smoothness to MS Paint's "draw circle" function.

Sure, trading Teemu was probably among the worst, but they've had a lot go wrong (or probably, very little has gone right). Late on that list would be signing Jovocop or Roenick or even coach Gretzky.

Seemed like big deals at the time, but there seems little to brag about over 10 years (other than the fact that 10 years is a pretty long time).

dbushik said...

You can dog on the dogs for what they've done in their first decade, but it's better than either Anaheim or San Jose was able to muster in their first.

Looking at each teams winning percentage in the regular season for their first 9 years, PHX leads with 43% compared to ANA at 38% and SJ at 32%. PHX ties SJ with 5 playoff appearances in the time, while ANA managed only 2.

So, if you think the dogs are lucky to still be around after sucking for ten years...well they should have taken the Quacks and Sharks out behind the shed and put them out of their misery (more correctly our misery) a long time ago...

Earl Sleek said...

Oh, c'mon dbushik. I was talking about playoff success here.

Besides, it's tough to take your analysis too seriously if you are going to only use the suspicious "9-year decade" as a comparison point. :)

Hmmm, what happened that 10th year? At least for the Ducks, that was an SCF appearance, wasn't it?

Anonymous said...

At least the Coyotes don't have to suffer the ignominy of having originally picked a name and logo so absolutely stupid that they had to change both about a decade into their existence as a new incarnation of the Jets. Let's at least give the ownership group credit for having not been stupid enough to have originally named them the "Plucky Coyotes" or something, and to have used Wile E. Coyote for the logo in the early years.

Earl Sleek said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention, it's not even apples-to-apples, dbushnik.

Remember: Anaheim and San Jose were purely expansion teams, with expansion drafts, etc.

Phoenix was an existing NHL roster that got relocated.

Anonymous, I think you should pick a user name before picking on team names and logos.

dbushik said...

Hey, even without a username, he makes a good point. Don't know what twisted bizarro world we're in where a Ducks fan can complain about another team's logo being ridiculous.

And I go for 9 years because...well they haven't finished the 10th year. I'd love to have compared them through a full decade, it's just not possible considering they haven't finished the season yet. Don't go getting paranoid people are trying to slant the data on you. It reveals a bit of insecurity.

And what about playoff success? The Ducks winning a single round with three less apearances is somehow making things better?

Hey, just saying there's not really much ground to stand on for any team in California to be mocking other teams for their lack of success. But I kind of would expect Quacks fans to not know much history (or at least acknowledge any) that would go back farther than to allow them to rub two wins together.

This is pretty much the first season the Quacks have had more fans than will fit on a short bus. And it took three years of solid winning to just scrape together that lot.

Earl Sleek said...

OK, well, let me take a step back then. I'm not picking on their logo ("Coyotes" is as fine as anything, I guess), rather it's their celebration of a decade patch when the franchise isn't any closer to success than they were 10 years ago.

Better stated?

And dbush, I don't know why this always turns into a "number/quality of fans" debate with you, I'm really talking about the franchise and its ability to win--not the typical team's fan.

Anonymous said...

Some people are too sensitive after a loss. Especially considering they're not even one of the three teams that are a part of the Battle of California. They should be glad they lost, that way they can compete for a better draft pick. And I'm just saying that because that's what actual Coyote fans on HF Boards are saying.

dbushik said...

Well, the impact of the fans on the organization as a whole is at the heart of any talk of the Ducks for me. I've lived in the local area most of my life and would love to root for the Ducks. Their identity, which is largely a product of their fan base, keeps me from doing that.

And isn't this little portion of the web devoted to "takes and trash talk" on and about CA teams? Don't know where I got that misconception from, so forgive me for razzing the Ducks... :)

Heck, if you're going to talk trash on the Quacks, you're putting forth a pretty incompetant effort if you don't point out the fan base.

My point is fans of CA teams don't really have any legs to stand on laughing at other teams lack of success. That's all. It's like a 3ft tall guy laughing at 2ft guy for being short.

The Sharks ten year celebrations were held while the team had yet to register a single over .500 season. The "Mighty Decade" is narrowly saved at the last moment by the trip to the finals you mentioned before, right? That's all I'm saying.

Okay, you're mocking the 'Yotes. Cool. Just pointing out your mockery is nearly equally applicable to any team to the West of PHX too. Well, you know, and not part of the Great White North.

No hard feelings. Didn't expect such a defensive stance to the idea.

Earl Sleek said...

No, it's OK that you don't like the Ducks fanbase (I'm not sure how much I like them), but I'm not a Duck fan because of other Duck fans.

As for touchiness on the subject, I didn't feel like defending something I hadn't really ever said in the post. None of this was about Phoenix mascots or fans, I guess loosely connected since "D in the D" has to do with marketing.

I need to get less defensive on my drinky posts, I guess. The whole point is I don't think too hard before I post.

VeryProudofYa said...

"And what about playoff success? The Ducks winning a single round with three less apearances is somehow making things better?"

Generally, yes. Everyone wants to do better once they make it. I'm willing to wager that most Blues fans would've swapped the streak they had going for even a single cup.

Granted, the Ducks haven't won it, but I lend more credibility to coming closer to the goal than just showing up as a prelude to going golfing, as the coyotes have continued to do.

Anonymous said...

Because it's interesting, if tangential to the discussion ...

One thing we can't accuse the Schmucks fans of: jumping on the bandwagon. Or at least not doing it properly.

Current NHL attendance figures.

Los Angeles: averaging 16,774 for 35 home dates.

Anaslime: 16,181 for 34 home dates.

In other words, the team that's been hovering around the best record in the NHL the entire season can't outdraw the team up the road that's next to last in the league.

How bad would those attendance figures be if the Schmucks were merely mediocre? Or legitimately awful (as they would be were there any justice in the world)?

At least Kings fans consistently support the team even when it's exceptionally bad.

Just goes to show that Anaheim doesn't even deserve a team. But, hey, I hear Kansas City has a new arena in need of a tenant.

Earl Sleek said...

The notion that Kings fans deserve a team more than Ducks fans is laughable at best--what, since you're 40 miles closer to Canada?

Fact is, you matter as much to Kings attendance as I do to the Ducks attendance--no more, no less. You can cite how well your building fills, but it is at best an observation on your part, and not anything I would merit to your adequacy as a hockey fan.

But hey, enjoy your moral victories, Kings fans. I'll instead enjoy the on-ice victories.

p.s. Anyone remember how this Phoenix on-ice thread became a fan battle?

Anonymous said...

Wow, way to miss the point of my post.

I did say I'm superior as a hockey fan. I said Kings fans collectively do a much better job supporting their team than the Schmucks do. That's borne out by the attendance figures, which should come as an embarrassment to the Quacks' pitiful fan base.

The fact that people don't come out to support the Quacks, that they can't sell out their barn with any consistency, even though they've been at the top of the NHL standings and (over)hyped as a Cup contender from Game One, shows how pathetic the fan base is.

The fact that the Kings are "40 miles closer to Canada" has no bearing on L.A.'s worthiness as an NHL home. It's the fact that Kings fans know how to support a franchise.

I could've also cited Philly, where the Flyers rank fifth in NHL attendance, playing to 99 percent of capacity and putting more than 19,000 butts in the seats each night, even though they've been dead last in the league all season.

And while I'll concede that the situation in Anaheim isn't as sad as Nashville, where attendance is even lower despite having a better team, it's still embarrassing.

And the Kings also have quality in their fan base. At least fans in L.A. know to cheer when the Kings ice the puck on a penalty kill, unlike the morons in Anaheim who always booed at the games I went to.

Seriously, your fan base is a joke. You ought to consider relocating the franchise to a city that will support a team properly. I hear Hamilton, Ont., would love a team.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and this Phoenix post became a battle when you tried to take potshots on how ridiculous you thought the Coyotes patch was and people started pointing out how you, as a Ducks fan, had not a leg to stand on when it comes to stupid uniform stuff.

Also, that should've read "I didn't say I'm superior as a fan." My point was that you were misconstruing what I was saying about the collective fan base of the Kings rather than my individual worthiness as a Kings fan.

But thanks for playing, anyway.

Earl Sleek said...

Wow. Way to miss the point of my post.

I can't believe you wrote this and not me, considering how far we've come from the original post.

I'll concede--if you feel better about your team's legitimacy because of how other fans besides yourself attend games in the face of godawful play, then yay for you.

My allegiance to the Ducks has nothing to do with the quantity or quality of fans that are with me. Color me however you will, but I stopped making 'popularity' decisions in junior high school.

I won't be losing sleep over your hockey racism (yes, let's do judge a team by its logo, that seems pretty sophisticated); apparently you're not losing sleep over a 15th place finish.

Let's go Kings--hey, we're not last in attendance!

Earl Sleek said...

Also, my being a Ducks fan should neither enhance nor detract from my ability to comment on the appropriateness of a Phoenix patch. I don't recall designing the Duck logo, so holding that against me seems a bit misplaced.