Take a mulligan on which trade?

[off_the_post]

Schenn has been one of their better forwards this year, so I'm not sure how that's your pick. Bad year aside, him and Simmonds have easily been the biggest producers of those three trades. I got with JVR for Luke Schenn.

I just don't see it with Schenn.  I hope they sign him to a 2 year bridge contract to give him more of a chance and perhaps let him play is center position though.  Sure he has been one of the better forwards "this year" but that isn't really saying much is it?  Simmonds has produced nicely but all that being considered I'd rather still have Richards though the disparity between L. Schenn and JVR grows each game.

[jammer2]

I'd mulligan JVR. Lavy never used him properly, nor had patience when JVR did get into the top 6. Injuries didn't help, but I can't shake the feeling he could have broken out in Philly. All he needed was patience and consistent, legitimate linemates.

 

 

 Nice post Doomster, been saying the same thing for a while, rad has also pointed this out many times.

[jammer2]

I love how people still like to diminish Richard's role on the Kings during that cup run.

He no longer had to be counted on for scoring and pulling idiot linemates around every shift, true, but Sutter had him on the ice whenever a game needed to be won. And Mike found a way weather it was fighting in St Louis , winning defensive face-offs vs the extra man, or manning the point in the opposite situation he was playing and leading.

It is Disingenuous sour grapes to say he blended in and became a solid player, he was and is relied upon by the Kings, we will see it this year in the playoffs too, when the coach needs a guy he can count on 10 will be on the ice.

For, me Richards is the trade mulligan to take.

 

 

 Excellent points Mojo. Just cause Richards is not on the top line of the Kings, does not mean he is not counted on heavily. Dustin Brown is the emotional and spiritual leader of the Kings, but Mike is a very close second. When they really desperate for a big goal, Mike is one of the go to guys....if anyone thinks Kopitar is more important than Mike on the Kings, they need their head checked...for real!!

[fanaticV3.0]

There are so many unknowns that I don't really know one way or another exactly what happened.

Let me correct myself... The Pronger trade by itself didn't lead to the destruction of the club, but if the media reports are to be believed, it caused a rift in the room, which is *one* of the factors that led to the destruction of the team.

In terms of what Richards did wrong here, I honestly don't know. On the ice, I thought he did a fine job. He wasn't perfect by any stretch, but he often raised his level in big games, and generally played well. He seemed to be in control of this team, at least for the one year he was captain before Pronger arrived.

Off the ice, there's only speculation and a few pictures from Crossing Broad about them having a good time at parties. Holmgren acknowledged in one interview that "if we're talking about it, then I guess that means it's a problem." Ok, so there's that. Kane had the same problem, and I would say MUCH worse. Somehow Chicago made it work because he was and is an integral part of their franchise. In the Flyers case, there's so much missing from the entire context, and I know we've discussed and heard a lot of rumours, but the truth is we really don't know. I think it's clear there was a problem... otherwise, Snider and Holmgren should just be institutionalized right now.

This is not absolving Richards of responsibility. Maybe he did really feel threatened by Pronger, or they had strong differences on how to lead this team. And maybe Richards was unable to rise above it and mature. Maybe there were some really serious off-ice issues with behaviour and substance abuse. He was named captain at 23, and traded at 25. I would argue that they gave up on him at 25 because the Flyers have no patience. That's their window, apparently, and that's how they roll.

But haven't we seen this movie before? How is it that our captains keep running afoul of the media and the front office? Lindros, Richards, Giroux. These are 3 franchise players that got messed up in Philly. All for different reasons, but the fact that it keeps happening is disturbing.

All that to say that there's enough blame to go around, and Richards can't escape it.

 

 

It's not somebody else's fault how an individual reacts to a situation.

[fanaticV3.0]

I just don't see it with Schenn.  I hope they sign him to a 2 year bridge contract to give him more of a chance and perhaps let him play is center position though.  Sure he has been one of the better forwards "this year" but that isn't really saying much is it?  Simmonds has produced nicely but all that being considered I'd rather still have Richards though the disparity between L. Schenn and JVR grows each game.

 

Don't see what? He's one of the better players on the team. That a lone is growth. He's never been much of an impact guy on the team, but this year he is.

 

Forget Richards. People need to understand it wasn't going to happen here. The relationship was already strained. He had a bad relationship with is coach, the media, and his veteran teammates. It wasn't going to get better here. He had to go. Even if he's the best player we traded away in recent years, it doesn't matter. There are times where you have to cut ties with a player and this was one of them. Richards was not going to get better here. He resented his coach for the whole dry island thing and was threatened by Pronger's presence.

[fanaticV3.0]

A lot of these trades look bad now but I can't blame homer for make most of the trades. I thought Richards became a punk who wasn't really captain material. He went to LA where he didn't have to be captain and he blended into the middle of a solid team and has become a reliable player. We were getting a strong, gritty, tough player with some heart and skill plus the "top prospect" in the league at the time. Also, we were dumping a long, expensive contract.<br />I would have been happy with spectrum ice coasters to get rid of carter but we dumped his contract, picked up voracek (talented young potential) and we freed up money for a goalie. Carter also fit into a nice role in LA.<br />JVR for Schenn didn't bother me either. JVR was severely underperforming and we needed defense. Little did we know, JVR just needed a different coach and trainer to help his skating. Schenn became a stiff.

 

It's become fashionable to bash the GM and owner and people don't look at a situation objectively at that point. Richards had to go. It wasn't a matter of talent, but when a guy has a bad relationship with his coach, the media, and the veterans are speaking out (Pronger and Timonen) you are past the point of no return. JVR was not playing well when here, so they decided to part ways with him. Big deal. Sometimes it works out in your favor, sometimes not. It happens.

 

As far as which player I'd want back, it's still JVR. Not because he was the most talented of the bunch, but because Richards and Carter's time was up here. They had a bad relationship with the club. JVR did not. Plus, JVR is sort of what they need right now: a big scoring winger.

Edited November 11, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[brelic]

Richards had to go. It wasn't a matter of talent, but when a guy has a bad relationship with his coach, the media, and the veterans are speaking out (Pronger and Timonen) you are past the point of no return.

 

I personally don't believe that he had to go. He was the captain and face of the franchise, and under contract for over a decade. However strained things became, I don't believe it was beyond repair. They just chose to back a different horse and ship out the captain.

[radoran]

It's become fashionable to bash the GM and owner and people don't look at a situation objectively at that point. Richards had to go. It wasn't a matter of talent, but when a guy has a bad relationship with his coach, the media, and the veterans are speaking out (Pronger and Timonen) you are past the point of no return. JVR was not playing well when here, so they decided to part ways with him. Big deal. Sometimes it works out in your favor, sometimes not. It happens.

 

As far as which player I'd want back, it's still JVR. Not because he was the most talented of the bunch, but because Richards and Carter's time was up here. They had a bad relationship with the club. JVR did not. Plus, JVR is sort of what they need right now: a big scoring winger.

 

It is also quite possible to agree that it was probably good to have them move Richards while simultaneously questioning whether the GM that signed him to a 12-year deal and rushed him into the captaincy should also been retained.

 

Especially if, as you note, that both players' "time was up" barely into the nine+ year commitments that the GM had made to them.

 

That's not "fashion," that's "looking at a situation objectively."

 

Agreed on the JVR trade. That's gonna be haunting this franchise for a long time. 

 

And it was made by the same guy that screwed up handling Crater/Richards.

 

Good thing they kept him.

[fanaticV3.0]

I personally don't believe that he had to go. He was the captain and face of the franchise, and under contract for over a decade. However strained things became, I don't believe it was beyond repair. They just chose to back a different horse and ship out the captain.

 

He resented his coach and the media, didn't get along with Pronger, Timonen was vocal about the fact that the young core was a problem, you tell me how you repair all of that. Get rid of all of them and keep Richards? Come on, be realistic. I get that you like Richards and all, but that's irrelevant. You can't look at whether you like him or his talent when the guys relationship with others around him was bad.

[fanaticV3.0]

It is also quite possible to agree that it was probably good to have them move Richards while simultaneously questioning whether the GM that signed him to a 12-year deal and rushed him into the captaincy should also been retained.

 

Especially if, as you note, that both players' "time was up" barely into the nine+ year commitments that the GM had made to them.

 

That's not "fashion," that's "looking at a situation objectively."

 

Agreed on the JVR trade. That's gonna be haunting this franchise for a long time. 

 

And it was made by the same guy that screwed up handling Crater/Richards.

 

Good thing they kept him.

 

Homer screwed up their contracts, but their demise in this organization was their own fault. They are gone because of their attitudes, not how much money they were making - even if it was too much.

 

You can evaluate anyone anytime you please and I don't have an issue with it, but if you think ownership is going to trade it's two core forwards and fire the GM at the same time, that's just not gonna happen. Teams just don't operate that way. There's never a mass exodus of that scale. Sides are always taken. Especially if - and I really do believe this - the old man himself has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts. The old man isn't going to ditch Homer for something he  likely signed off on.

 

I don't even know how I feel about what JVR's ceiling is yet. I don't know what I think about what sort of points producer he will be. But because of his age and what we got in return, he's easily the trade you want back the most. Luke Schenn is the least valuable in what we got back. Couturier is close, but Voracek helps with that trade.

 

In all honesty, if it's a choice, I'd rather have Homer than those two. Their relationship with Lavy was headed in a bad direction. That was going to get ugly.

[brelic]

He resented his coach and the media, didn't get along with Pronger, Timonen was vocal about the fact that the young core was a problem, you tell me how you repair all of that. Get rid of all of them and keep Richards? Come on, be realistic. I get that you like Richards and all, but that's irrelevant. You can't look at whether you like him or his talent when the guys relationship with others around him was bad.

I wish I knew how to repair that... if I did, I'd be a good candidate for GM.

This isn't about whether or not I like Richards. I did for many years. I thought he was the heart and soul of this team, like Brind'Amour was. But he annoyed me many times too. There was a period I didn't like him at all. He could be more frustrating than Carter.

I just don't believe in "no choice." They made a choice, and it wasn't Richards. However difficult or complicated the decision was, they chose to trade their $69M captain.

[fanaticV3.0]

I wish I knew how to repair that... if I did, I'd be a good candidate for GM.

This isn't about whether or not I like Richards. I did for many years. I thought he was the heart and soul of this team, like Brind'Amour was. But he annoyed me many times too. There was a period I didn't like him at all. He could be more frustrating than Carter.

I just don't believe in "no choice." They made a choice, and it wasn't Richards. However difficult or complicated the decision was, they chose to trade their $69M captain.

 

You think maybe because there really wasn't any other option at that point?  It's not like the only problem he had was with Pronger. If that was that case, it's not an issue because Pronger was pretty much done with the team at that point anyway. If it was a single issue then I agree with you, they gave up too quickly. But that's not the case here. He was a part of a culture that was toxic here. He didn't like Pronger, I don't know if he had beef with Timonen, but Timonen - who is pretty much one of the nicest guys on the team - was openly criticizing the core of the team at that point. He said there were guys taking shifts or nights off plenty of the time. Then there is the relationship with the media. Add that to the fact that he pretty much scoffed as his boss (his coach) when they asked him to cool it on the drinking. They had no respect for Lavy at that point. You can't keep players around who have no respect for their coach.

 

They traded away all of their party friends too. They tried to eliminate the environment, by getting rid of everyone else but them. The problem still existed. They gave them plenty of chances.

[radoran]

Homer screwed up their contracts, but their demise in this organization was their own fault. They are gone because of their attitudes, not how much money they were making - even if it was too much.

 

You can evaluate anyone anytime you please and I don't have an issue with it, but if you think ownership is going to trade it's two core forwards and fire the GM at the same time, that's just not gonna happen. Teams just don't operate that way. There's never a mass exodus of that scale. Sides are always taken. Especially if - and I really do believe this - the old man himself has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts. The old man isn't going to ditch Homer for something he  likely signed off on.

 

I don't even know how I feel about what JVR's ceiling is yet. I don't know what I think about what sort of points producer he will be. But because of his age and what we got in return, he's easily the trade you want back the most. Luke Schenn is the least valuable in what we got back. Couturier is close, but Voracek helps with that trade.

 

In all honesty, if it's a choice, I'd rather have Homer than those two. Their relationship with Lavy was headed in a bad direction. That was going to get ugly.

 

It's not a choice. That's the point. They could have gotten rid of all three.

 

And all of the Snider speculation is fine - Homer gets all the credit for anything that goes well and anything that doesn't is "probably Snider's fault."

 

I said at the time - and believe now - that the team got younger, cheaper and better for the long term with those deals. But a younger team still needs to grow as the team with Crater/Richards had already. And the team, in "growing," made it to the second round of the playoffs - beating the Cup favorite Penguins and losing to an eventual Cup Finalist - before having two important cogs (regardless of what we think of Jagr/Carle individually, they were important cogs) dropped for nothing.

 

The team then failed to make the playoffs and had the worst start in franchise history.

 

Decisions made by the GM.

 

Crater and Richards were also NOT "making too much" - they had very cap-friendly long-term deals. And now the Kings have those deals.

 

The "mistake" was making Richards captain and signing him for a bazillion years KNOWING that there were "issues" on the horizon - and they clearly did know that as they dealt Upshall, Lupul, etc. to try to diffuse the potential problems. NOT THAT I MISS UPSHALL/LUPUL - just that the moves were clearly made to break up a problem that was beginning to fester.

And they made the decade-long commitments anyway.

 

Decisions made by the GM.

 

So, fine, everything bad is Snider's fault and everything good is Homer's doing.

 

How's that working out for them?

[fanaticV3.0]

It's not a choice. That's the point. They could have gotten rid of all three.

 

And all of the Snider speculation is fine - Homer gets all the credit for anything that goes well and anything that doesn't is "probably Snider's fault."

 

I said at the time - and believe now - that the team got younger, cheaper and better for the long term with those deals. But a younger team still needs to grow as the team with Crater/Richards had already. And the team, in "growing," made it to the second round of the playoffs - beating the Cup favorite Penguins and losing to an eventual Cup Finalist - before having two important cogs (regardless of what we think of Jagr/Carle individually, they were important cogs) dropped for nothing.

 

The team then failed to make the playoffs and had the worst start in franchise history.

 

Decisions made by the GM.

 

Crater and Richards were also NOT "making too much" - they had very cap-friendly long-term deals. And now the Kings have those deals.

 

The "mistake" was making Richards captain and signing him for a bazillion years KNOWING that there were "issues" on the horizon - and they clearly did know that as they dealt Upshall, Lupul, etc. to try to diffuse the potential problems. NOT THAT I MISS UPSHALL/LUPUL - just that the moves were clearly made to break up a problem that was beginning to fester.

And they made the decade-long commitments anyway.

 

Decisions made by the GM.

 

So, fine, everything bad is Snider's fault and everything good is Homer's doing.

 

How's that working out for them?

 

That's never going to happen. No team is going to trade it's two cornerstones AND fire their GM all at the same time. It's not realistic. Something of that level is pretty much unprecedented. When a team chooses to trade not one but two of its biggest names at the same time, that alone is a rarity. It's about as much as you are going to get in terms of big moves all at once.

 

Nobody said that rad. I realize you have this blind spot when it comes to him, but lets not put words into people's mouths.

[radoran]

That's never going to happen. No team is going to trade it's two cornerstones AND fire their GM all at the same time. It's not realistic. Something of that level is pretty much unprecedented. When a team chooses to trade not one but two of its biggest names at the same time, that alone is a rarity. It's about as much as you are going to get in terms of big moves all at once.

Nobody said that rad. I realize you have this blind spot when it comes to him, but lets not put words into people's mouths.

It would be like firing your coach and GM on the same day - it doesn't happen.

Or trading the two cornerstones of your franchise on the same day - it doesn't happen.

Or firing your coach three games into the season - it doesn't happen.

And, quite frankly, if you "really do believe this - the old man himself has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" then you are deliberately discounting the GM's role and culpability for mistakes.

You don't like the rephrasing? Fine.

Snider "has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" and "isn't likely to ditch" the GM "for something he likely signed off on."

Even though Snider insists publicly he has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

But that's not at all making excuses for the performance of the GM. Not at all.

I realize you have a bit of a blind spot in this situation.

[fanaticV3.0]

It would be like firing your coach and GM on the same day - it doesn't happen.

Or trading the two cornerstones of your franchise on the same day - it doesn't happen.

Or firing your coach three games into the season - it doesn't happen.

And, quite frankly, if you "really do believe this - the old man himself has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" then you are deliberately discounting the GM's role and culpability for mistakes.

You don't like the rephrasing? Fine.

Snider "has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" and "isn't likely to ditch" the GM "for something he likely signed off on."

Even though Snider insists publicly he has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

But that's not at all making excuses for the performance of the GM. Not at all.

I realize you have a bit of a blind spot in this situation.

 

You  have absolutely no objectivity to anything related to Homer at all. Not even a little bit. I could come out and say I want Homer fired today and you'd say I defended him.

[radoran]

You  have absolutely no objectivity to anything related to Homer at all. Not even a little bit. I could come out and say I want Homer fired today and you'd say I defended him.

 

I make an objective case for his dismissal: that's the definition of objectivity.

 

You react emotionally. I make an objective case, you say "it's probably Snider's doing."

 

Your last statement doesn't even make sense. I don't simply take the opposite position of what people said. I have outlined why I think he's been a disaster for the team.

 

And he has been.

 

Because here we are.

 

If you'd care to explain why you think he's been good for the team and that the team has benefitted both long- and short-term from his decisions - if, in fact, you do - I'm happy to discuss it.

 

But that would require a little more than stating that you think Snider "has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" and "isn't likely to ditch" the GM "for something he likely signed off on."

[fanaticV3.0]

I make an objective case for his dismissal: that's the definition of objectivity.

 

You react emotionally. I make an objective case, you say "it's probably Snider's doing."

 

Your last statement doesn't even make sense. I don't simply take the opposite position of what people said. I have outlined why I think he's been a disaster for the team.

 

And he has been.

 

Because here we are.

 

If you'd care to explain why you think he's been good for the team and that the team has benefitted both long- and short-term from his decisions - if, in fact, you do - I'm happy to discuss it.

 

But that would require a little more than stating that you think Snider "has a lot to do with the high-priced long term contracts" and "isn't likely to ditch" the GM "for something he likely signed off on."

 

Exactly what I am talking about. I haven't said Homer has been good for the team, but you interpret anything that isn't complete and total blind criticism of him as an endorsement of him.

 

There's a difference between thinking he's a part of the problem and the only problem. I am in the former and just because I don't single him out exclusively doesn't mean I think he's blameless. I simply don't blame him for everything that's going on. You do. Someone's playing poorly, it's Homer's fault for signing them, and so on.

Edited November 12, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

Exactly what I am talking about. I haven't said Homer has been good for the team, but you interpret anything that isn't complete and total blind criticism of him as an endorsement of him.

 

There's a difference between thinking he's a part of the problem and the only problem. I am in the former and just because I don't single him out exclusively doesn't mean I think he's blameless. I simply don't blame him for everything that's going on. You do. Someone's playing poorly, it's Homer's fault for signing them, and so on.

 

No, that's simply not true.

 

I blame Homer for giving Giroux the C. I blame Homer for keeping Lavy over the summer. I blame Homer for not signing Jagr/Carle. I blame Homer for signing Bryzgalov. I blame Homer for committing the team long term to Crater and Richards.

 

At no point have I blamed any of the "poor play" on Homer. Not once. Never.

 

In fact, I have praised the VLC signing. I have praised the return gotten on Crater/Richards - while acknowledging that it put the team's development back.

 

You're welcome to find an example to back up your assertion that I am blaming the poor play of any individual player on Homer.

 

"I realize you have this blind spot" here, "but lets not put words into people's mouths."

 

Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

I have said for example that I think the failure to sign Jagr/Carle was a mistake - that they should have just reloaded the "gun" that got them to the second round of the playoffs especially since they missed the playoffs the next season. I have said that putting a coach with no NHL experience in charge of this disaster is not likely to fix it. I have said that Giroux needs a player to occupy space and open up the ice to get his game really moving - like Jagr or VLC. I have said that the offer to Streit wasn't a particularly good signing - but that was primarily no the back end of the long term deal he signed not going into this season.

 

None of that is "blaming" Homer for the overall poor play of the team on the ice, but it is an acknowledgement that the moves a GM decides to make do have a direct impact on the makeup of the team and can affect the "chemistry" therein.

 

Which is true for the Flyers and the 29 other NHL franchises.

[King Knut]

The real question I have is why did anyone think Richards was a punk?

Because he didn't like answering moronic questions by the press? Makes no sense.

And carter is hated because he mised an easy shot that would have caused game 7 and he missed the net a lot.

But what wouldn't you give now for a guy who consistently scored 35 goals and who is out there skating on two broken feet in the Stanley cup finals ?

In mean seriously... The carter trade makes the most sense, but listen to us! We wanted to run the guy with three straight 30 goal seasons (almost 4) out on a rail and we've done nothing to replace him. That my friends is idiotic. Can we please be more realistic once in a while?

We got good return on him that's not scoring yet. But he did t need to go anywhere for a bag of pucks. That's ridiculous.

Philly Phans and our press are spoiled rotten little hypocritical brats with no memory and a strong tendency to be incredibly Short sighted and silly.

Of the three trades the carter one makes the most sense because we got the most in return. I don't mind the JVR trade so much. I think playing quality defense in this league takes time and like will get there (plus I don't think Ed as bad as everyone says).

His brother is certainly decent, amd i like Simmer a ton, he's a quality. Guy with hear when he wants to be..but Simmonds and Brayden weren't positive return in the end. We should have he'll out for quick (who was not an out and out starter just yet) or Bernier.

Too late now. No time machines. No backsies.

Milk spilt.

A lot of these trades look bad now but I can't blame homer for make most of the trades. I thought Richards became a punk who wasn't really captain material. He went to LA where he didn't have to be captain and he blended into the middle of a solid team and has become a reliable player. We were getting a strong, gritty, tough player with some heart and skill plus the "top prospect" in the league at the time. Also, we were dumping a long, expensive contract.<br />I would have been happy with spectrum ice coasters to get rid of carter but we dumped his contract, picked up voracek (talented young potential) and we freed up money for a goalie. Carter also fit into a nice role in LA.<br />JVR for Schenn didn't bother me either. JVR was severely underperforming and we needed defense. Little did we know, JVR just needed a different coach and trainer to help his skating. Schenn became a stiff.

[King Knut]

Sorry, I don't feel like digging for the post you were responding to, so I'll respond to it too here....

-How do we know he resented his coach? Oh Sammy C or Timmy P said so? Well the it must be true. It's not as if they have an axe to grind ever...

-Who the hell DID get along with pronger? He was a notorious pain in the ass to everyone.

-Do you think maybe pronger resented that this kid was captain and not him? Does pronger seem like the kind of dude to listen or follow anyone else gracefully?

-Timmonen was notorious for calling out his team late in the playoffs and ragging in them for making mistakes that he himself was making and then would go out and make them again the next night.

-Timmonen was a former captain too... I know he's Scandinavian and therefore he has no negative personal qualities and what not but so you think maybe he had a case of the "should've been me's" too?

-neither Richards nor Carter sent this team into the playoffs with Hackett, Biron, Boosh, Leighton and Bryz in net. Why no cup? That's why. End of discussion. Can we please stop stop nit oicking over needles in the hay stack when there's a needle stack right next to it?

We can get frustrated by them for not being amazing, but lets keep things in perspective.

I wish I knew how to repair that... if I did, I'd be a good candidate for GM.

This isn't about whether or not I like Richards. I did for many years. I thought he was the heart and soul of this team, like Brind'Amour was. But he annoyed me many times too. There was a period I didn't like him at all. He could be more frustrating than Carter.

I just don't believe in "no choice." They made a choice, and it wasn't Richards. However difficult or complicated the decision was, they chose to trade their $69M captain.

[King Knut]

I blame homer for Bryz and losing jagr, Carle and gagne when it was apparent to all that each guy was key to the teams's dynamic and overall quality.

I'll not blame him for losing bob, but I will blame him for getting Squat in return for bob.

I also think the team probably doesn't like him after all that crap and for how he treated Richards, carter, gagne as well as other well liked guys like and upshall & lupul & jvr among others

I don't want them back, but it creates a bad vibe to trade guys or lose them for no good reason and no good return.

Exactly what I am talking about. I haven't said Homer has been good for the team, but you interpret anything that isn't complete and total blind criticism of him as an endorsement of him.

There's a difference between thinking he's a part of the problem and the only problem. I am in the former and just because I don't single him out exclusively doesn't mean I think he's blameless. I simply don't blame him for everything that's going on. You do. Someone's playing poorly, it's Homer's fault for signing them, and so on.

[radoran]

I also think the team probably doesn't like him after all that crap and for how he treated Richards, carter, gagne as well as other well liked guys like and upshall & lupul & jvr among others

I don't want them back, but it creates a bad vibe to trade guys or lose them for no good reason and no good return.

 

This has been something that I've wondered about.

 

I blame homer for Bryz and losing jagr, Carle and gagne when it was apparent to all that each guy was key to the teams's dynamic and overall quality.

 

I think Gags might be a bit overstated, but the other two are unquestionably true.

 

The "treatment" of Gagne might also have had an impact of "bad vibes" - no matter what one particularly thinks about how stupid Gagne was for taking Homer's line about anything.

[coords]

They traded away all of their party friends too. They tried to eliminate the environment, by getting rid of everyone else but them. The problem still existed. They gave them plenty of chances.

 

If only giving them plenty of chances included a goaltender

[fanaticV3.0]

If only giving them plenty of chances included a goaltender

 

You could say that about any Flyers team that has made a run in the last 20 or so years.

 Richards and Carter were good enough to get us to the cup, but then it's suddenly Homer's fault when they don't win it all? Richards, Carter, and Gagne's production dropped off in that series. That team barely made the POs and had a miracle comeback too. But it was all Homer for not getting a goalie? Come on man.