fanaticV3.0

I don't agree any aspect of this is all on one person. The players want too much money for their production, the owners give it to them, and they both act confused when the inevitable issues pop up. Plus, what would you have him do? These are two sides who haven't even gotten together to speak yet. Bettman has to do something. Force them to lose money - since that's what they care about most - the only option. That's when they'll sit down and talk. **********.

Go get em Tiger!

BS bro. I don't like Bettman either, but I'm sick of blaming the establishment. That's the easy way out. Not to mention, it's just wrong. As rad pointed out, most Canadian cities can't even afford a team, and that has nothing to do with Bettman. You know what that is? Simpe economics; which I sucked at in college, but even I get this. The players make too much money and the sport isn't popular enough to support their salaries. They make too much money compared to what the sport brings in. They expect too much and the owners give it to them. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, wiser, or more likely because I don't like anyone, but I'm past that blaming one side crap. It's simplistic and often wrong.

I don't care that it's a niche sport. That's ok by me. I'm not sitting around worried that it's not one of the big 4 (let alone equal to the NFL or MLB). Nothing is going to ever equal football in this country. It's obsessed with football. Hockey just needs more support than it has now. It used to be more consistent in the ratings: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/07/updated-what-if-they-held-an-nhl-stanley-cup-final-and-nobody-watched/137284/

Richards, Carter, and Gagne all **** the bed in that cup against Chicago. It was a total failure in leadership. Sure it came after the whole Boston thing and making the PO in the miraculous manner they did, but it's the end that matters most. That was the thing with that team. They were either on fire or choking. I’m glad that core was broken up. You just don’t win (very often) playing that way.

Rival league, hmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that to be honest. I totally agree with you that 3 stoppages in 18 years is suicide (or eventually heading towards that). But I have to wonder if a rival league, rather than a replacement one, huts more than it helps? If the NHL folded and another league opened up, it makes no difference to me. But I worry that two commpeting leagues would make for an inferior product; if not all the best names were not playing against one another. I agree though they need to sort this **** out and stop threatening lockouts, demanding more money, or just generally complaning every few years.

How many games did he play last year? I forget the exact number, but it was well over half a season wasn't it? I don't disagree that goaltending was a problem that year - like it is every other year - but they weren't good enough from top-to-bottom. They were a team with a decent amount of young talent, some nice vets, but not everybody was on the same page, nor did they apply themselves all of the time. He was a part of that. A big part.

I know he had a good PO in 2010, but his finals performance is exactly my point. When the games mattered most, he kinda disappeared. Is that really so unfair to say? I'd say the same about Gagne and Carter that series too. Neither of them had a ppg in the PO like he did, but all 3 of them were not as good in the finals. And we haven't even touched on the fact of how they made the PO. That team was filled with guys who didn't try hard until they realized they were about to be eliminated from a PO spot; and you can't absolve him from that.

Aside from when I was a young kid, most of my time as a fan has taken place during rough times for the sport of hockey. There's been two lockouts and when there isn't one there's always buzz about how another one is coming. Most of my time as a fan has also taken place in which the league has done a ton of differe things - most of which have failed - to generate more interest in the sport. Whether it's new teams in new markets, a change in the game to increase offense, or something along those lines, there's always talk about what the sport can do to generate more interest. I forget exact when, but I've actually seen it stated that hockey was no longer a top 4 sport. That was several years ago now and I jus thave to wonder at what point does the sport just not have the ability to bounce back from another problem? It's already lost popularity and another lockout is the last thing an unpopular sport needs. Even as someone who is a fan, I can say my tolerance is pretty low for this kind of stuff. I don't think I'm really in the mindset that I can say I'll miss the game if there is a stoppage, but more likely be annoyed it's happening yet again. Maybe it's just for me personally, but I don't think the NHL can handle much more of this.

Did I ever say he wasn't a good player? To quote a great man, "Show me where I said that."

His accomplishments in juniors means nothing to me. I'm not saying it didn't happen or that he didn't play an integral part, I just so happen to not give a f-ck. You know what it is to me? A reason to draft him, that's about it. It's potential. It stops meaning anything the second he joins the big, let alone how many years later? You're actually bragging about it this many years later as if it's something I should get excited about. He won in juniors, good for him. Who f-cking cares, now let's move on. The Olypmic team was an all-star team. He played well for sure, but did they win because of him? Did he lead them to that gold medal? I can't say yes to that with confidence, especially when I look at the rest of his professional career. That doesn't mean I'm saying he wasn't good during the Olympics. He was good, I just can't say that team won because he led them. I don't think it's clear or obvious enough either way. What I do think is clear is his NHL career. His time in Philly is unique because it's the only time aside from juniors - means nothing in the NHL - he's been asked to lead and he failed at that. Finally, we have his time in LA. It was one of his worst seasons in quite some time. His team got hot at the right time and he wakes up. That's supposed to impress me? Richards was a passenger for that Cup. He played well in the PO, but that doesn't mean he led them to anything. You know what I see when I look at that? A guy who plays well when surrounded with leaders, but when asked to be one hasn't delivered. I don't think that's unfair at all.If that hurts your feelings, sorry. I'm not really, but society tells me it's not socially acceptable to be that honest.

Don't put words into my mouth boss. I never said he wasn't good, I just said he wasn't a leader.

I thought you were gonna say the POs, because I can at least agree he he good numbers then. I think he was along for the ride, but that's a separate issue. But when I read that you said the regular season, I almost did a double take. His points were horrible this past season, like Scott Hartnell before this year horrible. He dropped from his peak when he was still a Flyer and that's only continued. But all of that aside, why are we still talking about LA? It's all you guys keep bringing up. It's like the bad didn't happen or something.

I don't care how many times you mentioned it. I care that it, along with his time in LA, and his accomplishments in juniors are all you mentioned; especially when you tell me - a Flyers fan - about his leadership skills. If you are going to read off his resume to me, I simply want to know your opinion on all of it.

Oh, I can think of one he played for that didn't win. It also happend to be the one where he was asked to play the biggest role. Is that a coincidence? I'm not trying to start **** with your or insult your favorite player, that's an honest qustion. You keep telling me he's won at every level. Ok. I'm asking you what you feel about his time here; and more specifically about his leadership qualities during that time.

Indeed it does. But do not forget to include his stint in Philly, because all I keep hearing out of you is Olympics, LA. Just stating he won at every level isn't the strongest argument.

I don't completely disagree with this, but if you're going to boast that "he's won at every level", you can't make excuses for him too. Call a spade a spade bro. He couldn't handle the pressure here. They even and went out and got a guy - Pronger - who could take it off of him and he couldn't even get along with him.

Here is how I see it. The Olympic team was, well an Olympic team. LA had several things going for them, but most of all, they had Quick. When Richards was supposed to be "the man" here, he didn't deliver. He couldn't lead here, but is perfectly comfortable in a supporting role in other situations.

I'm not in the mood to type the same thing out twice, so you can just read my reply to mojo.

His Olympic team was an all-star team. That's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that. I don't know if I can say they won because of him. I worded that poorly. I feel similarly about his LA team. I think he was along for the ride. That's not to say he couldn't have played good - because he did - but I can't say they won because of him. I think you look at us vs Chicago and LA vs NJ and the major difference in Richards' teams was a stud goalie. If we had a stud goalie, I wouldn't have been shocked if Richards played better in the Cup. I think he plays well if those around him are, but not necessarily the leader of the pack (when it really counts).

Yeah, same here. That's why they went out and got Pronger. He could handle all the criticism, rally the troops (unless they are a bunch of ******* who don't like being yelled at), and do all the leader stuff Richards can't. I think the theory was to make him have a bigger impact by taking some pressure off him and in a roundabout way making him the leader; but without the pressure. LA had enough guys who play a bigger role that he could just slide in and when he didn't play well it didn't matter, but when he did itw as because he was free of most of the pressure. It's not impossible his intagbiles are good. We know he can play D. But for thay money I'd rather go in another direction. Like you said, G is almost as good and certainly better offensively.

If you want to argue that he was an important part of his junior team's accomplishments you go right ahead. I will let you have that point. But try to tell me the same about his Cup or Gold Medal. Tell me why his team won because of him; because we both know you're implying it.

Not bad. is how I always imagined the players during contract negotiations.

He was better than Carter sure, but he only played well in the POs because the rest of the team was playing well. He had one of the worst seasons of his career. The team catches lightning in a bottle and he suddenly cares. That and he had no pressure on him to be the leader. The guy is a $5+ million dollar, 50 or so point, supporting cast member. No thanks. Better than Carter? Sure, but I'll take somebody who actually wants to take the bull by the horns.

Who cares? I'm serious. The team traded two of their core players and ended up in the same exact spot in the POs they did with them. The team literally did no miss a beat. I'm supposed to be bothered those two douchebags won a Cup? Why? It's obvious they fell into that situation. They lucked out and road on the coattails of a hot goalie. **** happens. I wish they didn't win the Cup, but I'm not that upset about it all. I don't miss those douchers for a second and they proved what we all thought here: they can't do it on their own.