Friday, December 17, 2010

Dater Watch – Plain Vanilla

Well it’s been a long time since I wrote a Dater-Watch piece. Maybe I’ve been slacking.

Dater published his blog the other day about Altitude team member Mark Rycroft calling Jason Spezza a wimp. Big deal. Well, at least Dater wants us to think it’s a big deal. I have to say that I’m a little disappointed with Dater on this matter. He who is often on the bus populated by the critics of the Altitude crew and their unfailingly sunny view of all things Avalanche. There is a small vocal crowd out there that doesn’t care for the overly positive slant on the team that is presented by Mike Haynes and Peter McNab, particularly during game time and Dater has often been a part of that crowd.

Interestingly enough the studio crew that Mark Rycroft is a part of has now been assaulted by Mr. Dater as being less than vanilla and one has to wonder why that is. I mean, if he would like to see a little more criticism of Avalanche players why are other team's players off limits? Dater alludes to doing some research on the two, Rycroft and Spezza, and could find no previous encounter to explain this less-than-vanilla behavior by Rycroft. Perhaps it is just his opinion of Spezza, simple as that.

Why does there have to be a grudge at the root of this comment? To throw you off the scent, that’s why.

Don’t think for a minute that everyone in the media are all good buddies and don’t rib each other now and again. And Rycroft has taken a shot at Dater in the past. Here’s the video. The sound is pretty low so crank it up.

I kept this little jab at Dater mainly because I thought it was funny, but also because I thought Rycroft had a good point. I believe that Dater had recently written a piece on the value of Paul Stastny. That would be a piece questioning the value of that $6 million contract. In fact Dater spent a good deal of last season driving that bandwagon. He seems to have abandoned it by the side of the road this season because even the least statistically savvy of us can see that Stats is maintaining a point a game.

What Rycroft points of are the other less statistically quantifiable parts of his game and calls into question people writing in the papers that don’t know the game. Ouch!

I suspect this little burn has been festering for a bit and Dater finally saw a chance to zing Mr. Rycroft in his blog. Problem is that you can’t have it both ways Dater. You can’t complain about vanilla all the time and then pitch a bitch when someone delivers something with a little more flavor.
-From the Point

1 comment:

  1. The difference is that Rycroft played the game, and Dater didn't. So if Rycroft says something about a player, and one he played against, he has a certain credibility. That's the value of Rycroft, and shows how Dater is just grasping at whatever he can get.