This will be our 37th post in November, by far our most prolific month in the history of this blog. Thanks to Grier for helping to make it our best month ever, both in terms of posts and in terms of readership. Though I could have done without that last one.

Someone tell Santa to put this gift under the tree of my fellow blogger. I think Mike would want his in Matt Carle.

Seriously hilarious.

Good article in the Merc today by Purdy that follows up on what we talked about yesterday. Does he have Shaved Ice on his favorite bookmarks?

My diagnosis: They have a climate-control crisis. The team temperature never seems to rise or fall. Behind or ahead, the Sharks operate at the same constant level of intensity. Some nights, that’s enough. Other nights, when the temperature needs to be turned up, it’s definitely not. And of course, when you’re talking about a hockey team’s attitude, you tend to look at the captain. That would be Patrick Marleau. He is the ultimate Mr. Climate Control. A coincidence? Marleau’s biggest asset might also be his biggest weakness. His demeanor seems to stay the same, no matter what goes on around him. He’s never too excited. He’s never too depressed.

Check out the rest below. He makes the similar argument I did yesterday that, with Marleau at the helm, this team may never rev up the intensity enough to take the next step. Marleau knows he plays on the even keel, but his self comparison to Vinny D is pretty off the mark. Vinny has several season of 70+ PIM’s, so I’d say he played with a little more tenacity.

Let’s face it Sharks fans. This team isn’t lacking skill – they are lacking intensity and heart. To allow yourself to get beat two nights in a row AT HOME by a team that is currently assembled of players no one wanted mixed with a few young guys is inexcusable. The fans in our section (props to 124!!) were disgusted by the result and you can feel the Tank is not the home ice advantage it used to be. The Sharks don’t own “Sharks Territory” anymore and the Kings certainly aren’t afraid of coming to town, it might be their favorite place after all. I think I saw Kopitar and O’Sullivan skipping through Christmas in the Park actually. Cute couple.

You can’t teach heart. Some of these guys on the Sharks just don’t have it. We know who Marleau is – a very good skill player without much fire and prone to slumps. When that is who your Captain is – the teams attitude reflect it. When your Captain is Chris Pronger or Brendan Morrow….I think you know the answer.

GM Meeetings are upon us. Doug Wilson, your move boss.

You know what really sucks about last night? The Sharks couldn’t even beat the last-place team in the division missing two of their top three scorers. Kopitar was the only King in the lineup who the Sharks really needed to watch out for, and they didn’t. Kopitar’s goal was a bit of a flukey play in that the puck was just laying under Nabby, unbeknownst to him, but the Sharks launched into their ‘woe is me’ bit again after that. They used the kooky Kopitar goal as an excuse to play like crap for the next twenty minutes or so. Flat-out missed coverage led to the second goal, and the Sharks had to scramble to tie it. Then they sat on their haunches, like they are automatic in OT and the shootout. Note to Sharks: not so much. Nabby looked foolish on all three shootout goals, and it was game over.

On Friday we play a team that will make the playoffs this year, and if the Sharks take a period off like they did last night, we’ll suffer another 6-2 beatdown like we did on October 7th.

So Nick asked in the comments of the previous post:

in my limited-knowledge opinion I think the one name that hasn’t been talked about, but should be, is Cheechoo. I know everyone think back to 2 years ago and how he broke out under big joe but in the end I think history will show that he had one miracle year and fizzled out. While he doesn’t pull a huge contract I think he would be the best form of trade bait despite his poor numbers this year. Your thoughts?

I decided to make a whole post on it, because I tend to get long-winded at times like these.

Let’s talk about the prospect of the Sharks trading a major player first (Marleau, Cheech, Joe, etc.). It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, given Doug Wilson’s history of deliberate moves. I think it’s a unnecessary panic move. Given how stacked the Sharks are with young talent, I don’t think any trade like this would happen this year. Unless the Sharks gain a big time piece that would stick around for several years. This isn’t an aging team that needs to win now.

About Cheech- first of all, being tied for 14th in the league (last year with 37 goals) isn’t ‘fizzling out’ in my opinion. Here are some players who scored fewer goals than Cheech last year ( a ‘disappointing’ year according to some): Hejduk, Zetterberg, Briere, Jagr, Smyth. Let’s not call him a flash in the pan quite yet. Only 1 guy since 2000 has had back-to-back 50 goal seasons, and only 3 guys have had back-to-back 40 goal seasons.

None of that means he’s not having a brutal year so far. Of course he is. As I said in my first Teal Spiel call, I’m not convinced the Sharks’ coaching staff are giving Cheech the best opportunity to succeed. At that time, I thought they were punishing him for playing badly, putting him on the fourth line where he has basically no chance to score. He needs a guy feeding him. Since then, he’s showed a bit more spark, hasn’t spent as much time on the 4th line, and still hasn’t opened it up. He’s working very hard, but the biscuit ain’t going in the basket.

We’re still only a quarter of the season in. I don’t think you trade a guy who’s in a 20-game scoring slump after he had two great years. Reason #1 – you won’t get the best value for him. Reason #2 – it’s bad business. As you said, he’s not breaking the bank, and the Sharks aren’t up against the cap. The problem with the Sharks right now seems to be lack of scoring- why would we want to dump our top scorer the last two years? Even if we package him with other players or picks for a truly elite scorer, is that really going to make enough of a difference? Best case is we’d gain 50 goals (if we’re damn lucky) plus a huge contract and lose 30 goals and a cheap contract.

So here’s my prescription. You don’t trade Cheech this year, regardless of what happens. He goes half a season with 10 goals, you put him on the fourth line again, you put him in the press box, and you hope the disincentive pushes his buttons. He’s a ferociously competitive guy. I’ve seen it personally at Sharks practices. He’s the first guy that knows he’s sucking, and the last guy that wants to drag his team down. If that mentality changes AND his output stays horrible, you consider trading him after the season is over.

What can I say, I get excited about Sharks hockey. And there’s only one radio show. Here’s my latest… I talk about the Carle contract, Sharks trade ideas, and the Kings matchup last Saturday (before it happened, of course). Don’t forget to hear the part where I claim the Kings have “horrible goalie problems”, and of course, LaBarbera played great, making 26 saves on 27 shots.

After that loser of a comment, I don’t know why they’d want me back, but I’ll be taking part in the “roundtable discussion” segment of the show this week, with Dan Rusanowsky (voice of the Sharks on radio). Don’t kid yourself- I won’t be going in cold, but I can always use help. If you have an interesting topic of discussion, or questions for Mr. Rusanowsky, please leave them in the comments. I’ll bring them up if the discussion steers that way.

The grinders. The grit. The muscle. These are the guys who you usually find on the ice on an NHL 4th line. The offensive line of a hockey club, doing the thankless work that rarely shows up on the stat sheet. Winning a key face off, delivering a meaningful hit, intimidating an opponents star player. The Sharks lack a truly effective 4th line. We have seen different versions of it the past few weeks, but the combination usually revolves around Goc, Bernier, Brown, Rizz and now the new and improved LW Rob Davison. While Bernier has shown flashes of life and physical play as a 4th liner, the others have rotated in and out of the line up and haven’t performed the duties described above with any consistency or fire. The 4th line is just the collection of players that suck enough to not be on the top two lines, but good enough to avoid being scratched.

I’m not a big Rizz guy – Mike and I both agree that he does everything average and we’ve seen everything there is to see from him. Good guy, tries really hard, but we know what we know about the Rizz. He needs to be replaced. I certainly don’t think he is in the Sharks long term plans. Send him to the press box. I suggest rolling Bernier-Brownie-Davison for now, but this is an area DW needs to address before season’s end.

A few other comments/notes

– Toronto continues to implode. Maybe Mike and my wish for Darcy Tucker could become a reality??? He has never played out West and maybe he has no desire to. We will see…

– Eklund has gone off the deep end, I’ve decided. Today he commented that the Sharks and Ducks are asking Montreal about Huet. Huet now? What do the Sharks want with another #1 goaltender? The Ducks just got rid of one – so now they want Huet? Nonsense. I enjoy reading his blog for fun but his rumors are going sour…

– Hey Ron Wilson? Please no more rolling out seven defensemen please. I would rather see the Sharks call up Kaspar or Armstrong than endure another game of seven D.

See you at the Tank on Wednesday!

You may have noticed that there’s a new little link at the end of each post that says “hype it up”. It’s a tracking mechanism, kind of like Digg (if you know what that is). I registered at a site called BallHype, which tracks sports blogs. If a particular blog entry gets enough ‘hype’ (i.e. readers click on the ‘hype it up’ link enough times) it’ll show up over there, which might just send a few more readers over here. A tiny way for us to get a bit more visibility. And a decent spot to find cool hockey blogs, if you’re into that sort of thing. Which you are, because you’re reading this drivel.

So hype up the posts you like. It’s not gathering personal information on you or anything, unless you sign up over there. I totally understand if you can’t be bothered to click on a link every once in a while- I have a remote control for a fan in my bedroom that is literally three feet away from where I sleep. And here I was using my arms like a sucker.

Again with the losing. The Sharks gave up two power play goals in the first period and went on to lose 2-1. They didn’t really show any urgency until quite late in the third period, when they managed to score. The Kings were wandering around at the end of the game, with the Sharks buzzing, but L.A. managed to run out the clock, barely. I actually turned to Grier with about ten minutes left in the game and said, “They’re playing like the game is tied.” It was 2-0 at the time. The lack of desperation was palpable.

One thing that is interesting is the Sharks again outshot their opponents, this time 27-17. The Sharks have lost eight times in regulation this season, and only three of those times were they outshot. The two losses to Detroit, and the one against Columbus (outshot 18-17). In total, the Sharks have outshot their regulation betters 219-188 (on average 27 to 23).

What this means, I’m not exactly sure. Could they be watching stats during the game, thinking that outshooting the opposition somehow excuses their lack of tallies? That seems pretty unlikely. Eight games is not exactly a sample size, but only being outshot 3 of 8 times seems extraordinarily odd. The Ducks have lost nine games in regulation, and only two of those times they weren’t outshot. The Kings have lost twelve in regulation, and were outshot in ten of those games. It’s a very odd circumstance, but I honestly have no idea what it means. It could just mean the obvious, the Sharks are able to hit the broad side of a barn with the puck, but they can’t actually get it past the goalies.

I have a feeling this might have something to do with their dismal play at home. Their five losses at home they’ve outshot the opposition 165-106 (33 to 21), much more lopsided than the overall numbers above. Are the Sharks just soaking up the adulation at home, knowing the fans will cheer the slightest scoring chance or the most routine save?

I’m pretty well stumped, any ideas?