Jump to content

Scott Hartnell Extended for 6 Years


Guest dilbert719

Recommended Posts

I agree with Carter. More like he whined and cried his way into that situation.

But Richards was solid in the playoffs. He had a weak regular season, but brought it when it counted.

How he got there may be pure crap, but once there Carter did well for the Kings. Had a good playoff run too. Credit where it's due. He wasn't the leader of the team, but he was a good contributor, and you need them to win the Cup. 6 goals 3 assists in 16 regular season games, and then 8 goals 5 assists in 20 playoff games. Apparently a guy who flourishes when not in the limelight. *shrugs*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Polaris922

What's the substantive difference between Hartsy and Simmer, other than age? Why can't they both be good deals? As a Flyer fan, I likle both of them. Just like I hate Bryzgalov's deal and Briere's deal.

My hesitation with Simmonds' deal was he's not proven yet. He has ONE good season... and that gave me pause. But I deferred to the opinions of some of you Flyers folks who saw more of him last season than I did, and my "not so sure" opinion became an "okay good deal then" opinion after reading some of the responses. It's all in that topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Polaris922

Fair enough. I get the not proven yet, in general.

I guess we feel we've seen enough of him. Personally, I don't think he was used properly in LA. Just my opinon based on watching the odd LA game on TV. I don't think he got enough ice-time either. But maybe he didn't deserve it. I dunno. Young players with potential need to develop. It looks like he has developed into the potential that people saw in him (including me, as I watched him in Jr).

He certainly is a much faster skater than I remember him being. For me, when you add speed to the other things he has (grit, work ethic, a nose for the net - yup, he does have that. He is very effective in front of the net, knows how to position himself), it's a nice package for a decent sum and definitely worth investing in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Podein25 "He certainly is a much faster skater than I remember him being. For me, when you add speed to the other things he has (grit, work ethic, a nose for the net - yup, he does have that. He is very effective in front of the net, knows how to position himself), it's a nice package for a decent sum and definitely worth investing in"

All excellent pts Pods. I also saw Simmer in a few LA games and was SHOCKED to see his speed in a Flyers uniform....weird how that worked out. I also don't think he was used properly in LA. I'm thinking Homer was thinking about him setting up shop in front of the net on the pp before the deal was even made, something LA did not use him for. Like I said before, even if the goals go down and not up, still a great deal for us....ditto for Harts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Carter. More like he whined and cried his way into that situation.

But Richards was solid in the playoffs. He had a weak regular season, but brought it when it counted.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take somebody who actually wants to take the bull by the horns.

You mean, the kind of guy who has won everything, in every league he has ever played, including internationally?

He's in a tiny category of people who have won what he has won. Are you saying he's just been fortunate? You can hate the guy all you wat, and there's stuff about him that I can't stand, but his hockey achievements speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yup, all true. His regular season was no good, at least statistically. I didn't actually watch any Kings games to see if his intangibles were worth the price tag.

There's something about Giroux that is Richards++. Same defensive awareness, but seems more driven, and definitely more offensively gifted. Giroux makes the players around him better... I don't think that's the case with Richards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's in a tiny category of people who have won what he has won

Isn't he 1 of 2/3 that have won Memorial Cup, Calder, Stanley and Gold medal?

Boy, the Mike Richards from his 1st few years as a Flyer was something to watch. For me, that's what made the last year so hard to watch...for whatever reason, he just wasn't the same player.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, the kind of guy who has won everything, in every league he has ever played, including internationally?

He's in a tiny category of people who have won what he has won. Are you saying he's just been fortunate? You can hate the guy all you wat, and there's stuff about him that I can't stand, but his hockey achievements speak for themselves.

:lol:

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.

Edited by fanaticV3.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, all true. His regular season was no good, at least statistically. I didn't actually watch any Kings games to see if his intangibles were worth the price tag.

There's something about Giroux that is Richards++. Same defensive awareness, but seems more driven, and definitely more offensively gifted. Giroux makes the players around him better... I don't think that's the case with Richards.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But try to tell me the same about his Cup or Gold Medal.

his line in the olympics was dominant. morrow, richards and nash ground the hell out of people and made it easier for whomever came over the boards after them. you can't say he was riding coattails in that tournament and keep a straight face.

as for the cup win, i dunno man i saw #10 on the ice during many of the big moments especially at the end of games when the Yotes and Devils were pressing, if it makes you feel better to belittle his contribution that's fine. i understand your point about not being "the man" in LA and it's valid, i still think he was a big contributor to the teams success . i don't think the Kings get by St Louis if not for his all around play in that series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Aw shucks, thanks for the charity.

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.

Says you. It's a convenient bar that you have set for proof of his value: teams have to have won because of him. Of course, you can't say that about his time in LA, when you put it that way. It's a team sport - probably the consummate team sport - and he's been a part of teams that have won every thing. Go figure. Again, I ask you, has he just been lucky?

And by the way he was a key part of the Olympic gold. That line of him and Toews was arguably Canada's most consistent line throughout the tournament. And he and Toews were their best, most dangerous penalty killers. If you were GM of Canada's team would you have cut him?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mojo1917 "his line in the olympics was dominant. morrow, richards and nash ground the hell out of people and made it easier for whomever came over the boards after them. you can't say he was riding coattails in that tournament and keep a straight face."

I was going to say the exact same thing, his line in the Olympics was wicked! I'll go even further, he was instrumental in making Canada's top line go. He was constantly creating turnovers and feeding a wide open Nash....and creating on offense in general. I don't think it was the top line per say....but production wise, and playing at key moments, Team Canada came to depend on those 3. I do think it was Toews, RIchards and Nash though, and Mike got pushed to the wing. I honestly don't think Team Canada wins without Mike chipping in on that line and killing key penalities. Mike and Towes being on the pk meant that Canada could push the physical envelope, and if they took a penalty, they knew it would be ok with those two beasts back there killing it off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

his line in the olympics was dominant. morrow, richards and nash ground the hell out of people and made it easier for whomever came over the boards after them. you can't say he was riding coattails in that tournament and keep a straight face.

as for the cup win, i dunno man i saw #10 on the ice during many of the big moments especially at the end of games when the Yotes and Devils were pressing, if it makes you feel better to belittle his contribution that's fine. i understand your point about not being "the man" in LA and it's valid, i still think he was a big contributor to the teams success . i don't think the Kings get by St Louis if not for his all around play in that series.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw shucks, thanks for the charity.

Says you. It's a convenient bar that you have set for proof of his value: teams have to have won because of him. Of course, you can't say that about his time in LA, when you put it that way. It's a team sport - probably the consummate team sport - and he's been a part of teams that have won every thing. Go figure. Again, I ask you, has he just been lucky?

And by the way he was a key part of the Olympic gold. That line of him and Toews was arguably Canada's most consistent line throughout the tournament. And he and Toews were their best, most dangerous penalty killers. If you were GM of Canada's team would you have cut him?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas, I think he makes others around him better.

We can disagree on it. He's no longer a Flyer, so whatever....

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.

Edited by fanaticV3.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fanaticV3.0

Hindsight is 20-20, but I think Richards could have been a great captain, someday. He was given the "C" too soon IMO. He has leadership qualities, which he has shown throughout his career, but he need to grow up first as a pro. And he didn't do that in Philly. I could see him as a future captain in LA if they were to move Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fanaticV3.0 Hindsight is 20-20, but I think Richards could have been a great captain, someday. He was given the "C" too soon IMO. He has leadership qualities, which he has shown throughout his career, but he need to grow up first as a pro. And he didn't do that in Philly. I could see him as a future captain in LA if they were to move Brown.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call a spade a spade bro. He couldn't handle the pressure here.

I do. And have. Specifically I was hugely critical of him for not moving his dumb asss and that of his posse out of Center City and generally behaving like a petulant child. But his record as a hockey player speaks for itself. You undervalue that record as a player because you don't like him or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. And have. Specifically I was hugely critical of him for not moving his dumb asss and that of his posse out of Center City and generally behaving like a petulant child. But his record as a hockey player speaks for itself. You undervalue that record as a player because you don't like him or something.
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. Edited by fanaticV3.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Podein25 The guy has won everything but a KHL title , to me it is more than a coincidence that all these teams he plays on win stuff.
Oh, I can think of one he played for that didn't win. :D 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. Edited by fanaticV3.0
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...