Jump to content

Mike Richards has chance to take shot at Flyers, does not


Guest Irishjim
 Share

Recommended Posts

by

Travis Hughes

GYI0060640908.jpg

While the mainstream media has already begun to drag

Mike Richards and Jeff Carter back into the Flyersconversation this offseason -- the assertion at Paul Holmgren's press conference Thursday that they were bad in the locker room, the lede in this story from the Associated Press -- the Los Angeles Times wrote a story yesterday about Richards' role in helping the Kings to the Western Conference Final.

It was

a pretty benign piece: Nobody expected Richards and Carter to be here playing for a spot in the Final together, the Flyers are out and the Kings are still in, Richards watched the New Jersey series, etc. The interesting part, though? Columnist Lisa Dillman absolutely left the door open for Richards to crack a joke about the Flyers -- or, as the AP put it, "share a chuckle" at the Flyers demise this season.

Did he? Nope.

star-divide.v5e9d7f1.jpg

"I have a lot of friends there," he said. "You always wish your friends the best. You never want to go against a team, especially when you have a lot of friends on there and a city that's given me a lot. So you always hope the best for them.

"We still have a long ways before we can get there. But it would be a little bit awkward if we had to go back there and play the first year back. It would have been a little bit weird."

We're constantly sold the idea that this break-up was for a million different reasons. That Richards and Carter were drunks, that they were cancers in the Flyers dressing room, that their attitudes were holding the team back. Yet not one person on either side of this divorce has ever said anything negative about the other. Like, ever.

In fact, there were just a lot of broken hearts. Paul Holmgren almost cried when making the announcement last June. Richards was notably upset as well, something touched on in the LA Times story. Carter didn't even report to the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/teams/columbus-blue-jackets" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(190, 61, 18); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; ">Blue Jackets immediately after his trade.

Someday, this will all just go away. Not today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by

Travis Hughes

GYI0060640908.jpg

While the mainstream media has already begun to drag

Mike Richards and Jeff Carter back into the Flyersconversation this offseason -- the assertion at Paul Holmgren's press conference Thursday that they were bad in the locker room, the lede in this story from the Associated Press -- the Los Angeles Times wrote a story yesterday about Richards' role in helping the Kings to the Western Conference Final.

It was

a pretty benign piece: Nobody expected Richards and Carter to be here playing for a spot in the Final together, the Flyers are out and the Kings are still in, Richards watched the New Jersey series, etc. The interesting part, though? Columnist Lisa Dillman absolutely left the door open for Richards to crack a joke about the Flyers -- or, as the AP put it, "share a chuckle" at the Flyers demise this season.

Did he? Nope.

star-divide.v5e9d7f1.jpg

"I have a lot of friends there," he said. "You always wish your friends the best. You never want to go against a team, especially when you have a lot of friends on there and a city that's given me a lot. So you always hope the best for them.

"We still have a long ways before we can get there. But it would be a little bit awkward if we had to go back there and play the first year back. It would have been a little bit weird."

We're constantly sold the idea that this break-up was for a million different reasons. That Richards and Carter were drunks, that they were cancers in the Flyers dressing room, that their attitudes were holding the team back. Yet not one person on either side of this divorce has ever said anything negative about the other. Like, ever.

In fact, there were just a lot of broken hearts. Paul Holmgren almost cried when making the announcement last June. Richards was notably upset as well, something touched on in the LA Times story. Carter didn't even report to the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/teams/columbus-blue-jackets" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(190, 61, 18); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; ">Blue Jackets immediately after his trade.

Someday, this will all just go away. Not today.

The whole Richards trade still makes no sense...Carter I can see getting rid of but Richards was a mistake..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It made sense in that Richards was being paid #1 centre money and Giroux will be the number one centre for as long as the club can foresee. It made sense because we had too many centres and not enough wingers. It made sense because the return was solid. Schenn will assume Richard's role (not saying he will completely fulfill it) and Simmonds is the physical right winger with some scoring touch that are really hard to find. And both are YOUNG.

If LA would have bit on Briere (and if he would have waived his NMC), I'm sure the Flyers would rather have kept Richie. Events and circumstances dictated that Richards was the guy LA wanted enough to give up what we got.

That trade was purely business and sometimes the business of hockey sucks for everyone involved.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Clarke2Leach

You pretty much hit it out of the park. Richards in an all star, Giroux is a superstar. The organization wanted to rid lifetime contracts to players they decided weren't the franchise. Giroux is the franchise. Its actually a good thing when you think how bad the Bryz contract can turn out and how the number of years and money remaining on the Pronger deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Clarke2Leach

You pretty much hit it out of the park. Richards in an all star, Giroux is a superstar. The organization wanted to rid lifetime contracts to players they decided weren't the franchise. Giroux is the franchise. Its actually a good thing when you think how bad the Bryz contract can turn out and how the number of years and money remaining on the Pronger deal.

Aren't the 4th sentence and 6th sentence in total conflict with each other? If I had my choice between Richards contract, and Bryz, I'll take Richards...even if he has to play goal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It made sense in that Richards was being paid #1 centre money and Giroux will be the number one centre for as long as the club can foresee. It made sense because we had too many centres and not enough wingers. It made sense because the return was solid. Schenn will assume Richard's role (not saying he will completely fulfill it) and Simmonds is the physical right winger with some scoring touch that are really hard to find. And both are YOUNG.

If LA would have bit on Briere (and if he would have waived his NMC), I'm sure the Flyers would rather have kept Richie. Events and circumstances dictated that Richards was the guy LA wanted enough to give up what we got.

That trade was purely business and sometimes the business of hockey sucks for everyone involved.

if you think "#1 Center" money in the NHL is $5.75M a season, you are sadly mistaken.

Richards had too much thrust upon him too soon and, quite frankly, was not up to the task - at the time. Flyers management bungled thing badly and put far too many expectations on a player 0 "the next Bobby Clarke" - when there were few actual parallels between the players.

I like Richards. I wish him well. I do no want LA to win the Cup, but that's up to the hockey Gods. My favorite is Zamboni - God of Smooth Tidings.

Richards is in the exact right place where he SHOULD have been in Philadelphia - a valued A and "captain in waitng" playing 2/3 line. He's a consummate 2nd line center that the Flyers (IMO, because of the "C" - were forcing into the top C spot.

And that's what $5.75M is supposed to get you in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PhilsFanDrew

I don't need hindsight to prefer Richards over Bryzgalov. Been saying it since day 1. I just find it funny that Holmgren felt he needed to get rid of those two longterm contracts then signed this idiot to one. I know, we needed a goalie. A little research would have been nice in finding one. It'd be like needing a goal scorer so you sign Dave Semenko cause Gretzky deflected that many in off ol' Cementhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PhilsFanDrew

I don't need hindsight to prefer Richards over Bryzgalov. Been saying it since day 1. I just find it funny that Holmgren felt he needed to get rid of those two longterm contracts then signed this idiot to one. I know, we needed a goalie. A little research would have been nice in finding one. It'd be like needing a goal scorer so you sign Dave Semenko cause Gretzky deflected that many in off ol' Cementhead.

You know as well as I do that Bryzgalov was Snider's call. And, while I'm sure Homer could have said "no way, dude, not signing him" - I think we all know that you don't say "no" to Mr. Snider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My BIGGEST BEEF with the whole deal was they couldn't settle on a 3,4-5 year deal FIRST!!!!!

IT WAS A 9 YEAR DEAL OR NOTHING WITH A NMC????

No middle ground there they could agree on 9 years or he walks????

Or WAS THE 9 YEAR DEAL THE MIDDLE GROUND AND BRYZ REALLY WANTED A 18 YEAR DEAL AND THEY MET IN THE MIDDLE!!!!!

It's like going on a first date with a girl and even before you've had just a single KISS you ask her to marry you...AMAZING!!!!

Who does that????

I'll tell ya who...the FLYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you think "#1 Center" money in the NHL is $5.75M a season, you are sadly mistaken.

Richards had too much thrust upon him too soon and, quite frankly, was not up to the task - at the time. Flyers management bungled thing badly and put far too many expectations on a player 0 "the next Bobby Clarke" - when there were few actual parallels between the players.

I like Richards. I wish him well. I do no want LA to win the Cup, but that's up to the hockey Gods. My favorite is Zamboni - God of Smooth Tidings.

Richards is in the exact right place where he SHOULD have been in Philadelphia - a valued A and "captain in waitng" playing 2/3 line. He's a consummate 2nd line center that the Flyers (IMO, because of the "C" - were forcing into the top C spot.

And that's what $5.75M is supposed to get you in this day and age.

Point taken about "Number 1 Centre money" and I agree that Richards is more suited to #2 Centre. But also remember Briere (with an NMC) at 6.5 per year and Giroux's next big contract that will expire in 2014. Richards will still have 6 more years on his contract then. I suppose if you keep Richards, you pass on Cooter and take Dougie Hamilton, but hypotheticals don't matter when you're discussing business moves in hindsight.

While Richards is a well-suited (if not smallish) #2 Centre, he isn't going to do you much good if you don't have decent wingers to play him with. I'm not sure we could have had both in a short time window.

Well, we might have if Snider didn't stick his nose in things, but we wouldn't have Simmonds and Schenn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...