Take a mulligan on which trade?

[fanaticV3.0]

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.

 

 

Give me a break. It's just one excuse after another for those two from you.

 

Their social lives and it causing problems in the locker room were common knowledge, but yes let's dismiss that because you don't like the guys writing about it. That's fair. Pronger resented him? Timonen is a notorious pot stirrer? Jesus, you're just making **** up now. You have trouble accepting a well-known fact, but give credence to something with no basis at all? There's no logic in your rationale at all.

Edited November 13, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[fanaticV3.0]

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.

 

In this entire post - and plenty of others - there isn't a single criticism of any individual player. Every criticism you made in this post revolves around.....Homer. You don't bring up poor play or leadership, you bring up the fact that Homer signed/traded for them or didn't get them the right piece to paly with. Homer has made plenty of mistakes, but he's the only thing you talk about.

Edited November 13, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[King Knut]

Actually it's typically the exact same excuses for me when it comes to the two of them because they never stopped being valid.

When we criticize them on these boards, most of what we criticize them for is assumptions and inferences.  Meanwhile, the fact remains that they were good players that got run out of town based on something other than their on ice performance. 

 

Water under the bridge now, but it doesn't change the fact that they contributed more than you or the writers in Philly want to give them credit for.

I can't change that.  Sorry if it disagrees with your point of view, but it's not invalid. 

 

How their social lives were causing problem in the locker room and how that was common knowledge is still a perplexing concept for me.

You're doing a whole lot of assuming and trusting 3rd and 4tha nd even 5th parties there.

 

My ex step sister in law was in the ER the night they brought in Jerry Penacoli with the gerbils too... but that doesn't make it true... but more importantly, it doesn't change how Jerry reported the news.

 

 

 

 

Give me a break. It's just one excuse after another for those two from you.



Their social lives and it causing problems in the locker room were common knowledge, but yes let's dismiss that because you don't like the guys writing about it. That's fair. Pronger resented him? Jesus, you're just making **** up now. You have trouble accepting a well-known fact, but give credence to something with no basis at all? There's no logic in your rationale at all.

[fanaticV3.0]

Actually it's typically the exact same excuses for me when it comes to the two of them because they never stopped being valid.

When we criticize them on these boards, most of what we criticize them for is assumptions and inferences.  Meanwhile, the fact remains that they were good players that got run out of town based on something other than their on ice performance. 

 

Water under the bridge now, but it doesn't change the fact that they contributed more than you or the writers in Philly want to give them credit for.

I can't change that.  Sorry if it disagrees with your point of view, but it's not invalid. 

 

How their social lives were causing problem in the locker room and how that was common knowledge is still a perplexing concept for me.

You're doing a whole lot of assuming and trusting 3rd and 4tha nd even 5th parties there.

 

My ex step sister in law was in the ER the night they brought in Jerry Penacoli with the gerbils too... but that doesn't make it true... but more importantly, it doesn't change how Jerry reported the news.

 

But you lend credence to assumptions about Timonen of all people? And Pronger's the bad guy, but Richards and Carter did nothing wrong? Please. Save your outrage for a time when you don't contradict yourself in the same exact post. Don't talk to me about rumors and hearsay when you bring up something that has even less legitimacy than the examples I was talking about.

Edited November 13, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[King Knut]

That's a valid crit.  And while there has been plenty of criticism of individuals elsewhere (I've been hard on Giroux, others have wanted to see Coburn or Striet drawn and quartered at center ice) but don't you think when the entire team is playing as poorly as they were, there's more going on than one or two guys not pulling their weight?

 

I think for most of us criticizing management, that perspective comes because we believe underneath it all that these guys are solid quality players.  We've seen it from them in the past.  It's not like we're just imagining it, it happened.  They've almost all shown us seriously talented hockey in the past (okay that 4th line maybe not so much, but you get my point).  So when 14 quality hockey players are all looking that lost and clueless, I think it's fair and valid to look past the individuals and at the team dynamic and when you're looking at the entire team, you have to look at the guys running that team and putting it together.

 

What happened in the last devils game was a complete collapse.  That was an entire team just consistently man to man to man not having any idea what the hell to do at any point in the game.

 

What we saw against the Islanders and a bit more last night was a team that seemed to be feeling better about things, had some confidence behind them and seemed to know where each other would be and how to find them.  Hopefully that's the real Flyers club.  If they can keep playing like that consistently against good teams and bad ones, I think we'll all feel a lot more comfortable.  Personally, at this point I won't care if they lose to better teams if they can at least play well in those losses.  If they can play their game without being totally dismantled by the middle of the third period, I'll consider it all steps forward. We'll see how they do against the Penguins. 

 

In this entire post - and plenty of others - there isn't a single criticism of any individual player. Every criticism you made in this post revolves around.....Homer. You don't bring up poor play or leadership, you bring up the fact that Homer signed/traded for them or didn't get them the right piece to paly with. Homer has made plenty of mistakes, but he's the only thing you talk about.

[King Knut]

How is wild conjecture and hearsay about Richards and Carter just swell and the same about Pronger and Timmonen not?

 

You're basing your entire assessment of the four of them on preconceived notions and gossip including your assertion that Kimmo is beyond reproach.

 

At least my inferences about Pronger are backed up by gossip from around the league for a decade and a half before he came to philly.  As unreliable as hearsay is, at least mine's based on a larger and therefore less biased sample.

 

But you lend credence to assumptions about Timonen of all people? And Pronger's the bad guy, but Richards and Carter did nothing wrong? Please. Save your outrage for a time when you don't contradict yourself in the same exact post. Don't talk to me about rumors and hearsay when you bring up something that has even less legitimacy than the examples I was talking about.

[fanaticV3.0]

That's a valid crit.  And while there has been plenty of criticism of individuals elsewhere (I've been hard on Giroux, others have wanted to see Coburn or Striet drawn and quartered at center ice) but don't you think when the entire team is playing as poorly as they were, there's more going on than one or two guys not pulling their weight?

 

I think for most of us criticizing management, that perspective comes because we believe underneath it all that these guys are solid quality players.  We've seen it from them in the past.  It's not like we're just imagining it, it happened.  They've almost all shown us seriously talented hockey in the past (okay that 4th line maybe not so much, but you get my point).  So when 14 quality hockey players are all looking that lost and clueless, I think it's fair and valid to look past the individuals and at the team dynamic and when you're looking at the entire team, you have to look at the guys running that team and putting it together.

 

What happened in the last devils game was a complete collapse.  That was an entire team just consistently man to man to man not having any idea what the hell to do at any point in the game.

 

What we saw against the Islanders and a bit more last night was a team that seemed to be feeling better about things, had some confidence behind them and seemed to know where each other would be and how to find them.  Hopefully that's the real Flyers club.  If they can keep playing like that consistently against good teams and bad ones, I think we'll all feel a lot more comfortable.  Personally, at this point I won't care if they lose to better teams if they can at least play well in those losses.  If they can play their game without being totally dismantled by the middle of the third period, I'll consider it all steps forward. We'll see how they do against the Penguins. 

 

I don't have a problem with criticizing management. I can't stand Snider and can not wait for the day he is no longer a part of the organization. You could fire Homer right now and I would have absolutely no problem with it at all. I wouldn't question or criticize that decision. But when it's the only thing somebody talks about, I take issue with that. There are guys on this team who are or were playing like total **** and that is on them. Criticize everyone who deserves it, that's my belief. I think scapegoating is a cop out. It's almost never just one person's fault.

[fanaticV3.0]

How is wild conjecture and hearsay about Richards and Carter just swell and the same about Pronger and Timmonen not?

 

You're basing your entire assessment of the four of them on preconceived notions and gossip including your assertion that Kimmo is beyond reproach.

 

At least my inferences about Pronger are backed up by gossip from around the league for a decade and a half before he came to philly.  As unreliable as hearsay is, at least mine's based on a larger and therefore less biased sample.

 

Really? You outright dismissed the more frequent and valid reports about Richards/Carter because of who wrote them and the fact you like them better. Not to mention, There were no stories about Timonen and Pronger being problems here. If the stories about Richards and Carter have no merit, I have absolutely no idea how you can give any merit to something that didn't even exist here. This is based on nothing more than the fact that criticizing management is the cool thing to do now, even when it's not warranted and you can't get over the fact they traded away two guys you like.

[radoran]

In this entire post - and plenty of others - there isn't a single criticism of any individual player. Every criticism you made in this post revolves around.....Homer. You don't bring up poor play or leadership, you bring up the fact that Homer signed/traded for them or didn't get them the right piece to paly with. Homer has made plenty of mistakes, but he's the only thing you talk about.

 

You really read things how you want and then react in ways that support your original bias.

 

You conveniently ignore posts that DO criticize players - there are "plenty" of "criticisms" for "individual players" - Timonen, Voracek, Giroux, Luke Schenn, Rosehill, Simmonds, Streit, Hartnell... You can ignore them if you like, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - and they go back at least to last season.

 

Do I focus on management often? Yes. I do think that Homer's decisions - reflected in the overall makeup of the organization - are a detriment to the team succeeding.

 

If the tree is rotten at the root, don't expect good fruit.

 

Talking about how the leaves look a little piqued doesn't fix the fundamental problem.

 

You have a nice rake, though.

[fanaticV3.0]

You really read things how you want and then react in ways that support your original bias.

 

You conveniently ignore posts that DO criticize players - there are "plenty" of "criticisms" for "individual players" - Timonen, Voracek, Giroux, Luke Schenn, Rosehill, Simmonds, Streit, Hartnell... You can ignore them if you like, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - and they go back at least to last season.

 

Do I focus on management often? Yes. I do think that Homer's decisions - reflected in the overall makeup of the organization - are a detriment to the team succeeding.

 

If the tree is rotten at the root, don't expect good fruit.

 

Talking about how the leaves look a little piqued doesn't fix the fundamental problem.

 

You have a nice rake, though.

 

Save the "I do not" and "how dare you" act for when you can actually shove it in my face that what I just said is wrong. A post in which you claim you criticize everyone in the organization equally and fairly and follow it up with one that is nothing more than a list of Homer's mistakes isn't the best time for it. That was not a well-played move.

[radoran]

Save the "I do not" and "how dare you" act for when you can actually shove it in my face that what I just said is wrong. A post in which you claim you criticize everyone in the organization equally and fairly and follow it up with one that is nothing more than a list of Homer's mistakes isn't the best time for it. That was not a well-played move.

 

Save the self-congratulatory posts for one in which you've actually done something worth straining your shoulder to pat yourself on the back about.

 

Not a well-played move on your part.

 

Nice rake, though.

[King Knut]

Really? You outright dismissed the more frequent and valid reports about Richards/Carter because of who wrote them and the fact you like them better.

 

Well, yes and no.  I dismiss the reports because of who wrote them, let's face it, anyone who knows anything about journalism knows that Philly Sports beat writers don't qualify, but also because I simply DO NOT GIVE A CRAP about who's a dick and who gets drunk and laid and who doesn't.

 

I defend them because they're the ones who got run out of town and Pronger and Timmo were the ones who stayed here, and either had their career ended prematurely or stayed active to preside over the debacle we're seeing now.

 

Your assumption that I like Richards and Carter better than Pronger and Timmonen is way off.  I like them all quite a bit.  They're all great players.  WE almost won a cup mostly because of what Pronger brought to the team.  The fact isn't that I like Richards and Carter better, but simply that I am not biased against them by erroneous reports, ergo, I don't like them worse.

 

There's a difference.  They are/were all good players.  I stand up for Richards and Carter because people love to hang them based on their reputations and they were eventually run out of town based on those reputations.  Meanwhile if you base things on what happened on the ice, you'd had to have been crazy to want them gone unless you got some serious return for them.  If people were trashing Timmo and Pronger all the time, I'd probably be defending them too.

 

In regards to that, I still attest that we got the best return for Carter, it just hasn't panned out yet. 

 

I'll also say that even though I really think he's a great player, Timmonen is arguably the most overrated Flyer over the past 5 seasons or so in terms of actual performance.  ESPECIALLY when it comes to the playoffs. 

 

Doesn't mean I don't like him and that I'm not glad to have him around.  He just doesn't need to be defended because no one's erroneously criticizing him based on the fact that he didn't kiss the press's ass enough.

 

I still think that the reason Richards got raked by the press and Pronger didn't (because let's face it, Pronger was way more of a dick to the press than Richards could ever have been) is because the Press was Scared Shitless of Pronger.  When he'd give them ****, he was scary!  YOu weren't sure what he was going to do in those moments.  Personally I LOVED IT!  The press would laugh it off like, "Oh that's just pronger, isn't he crazy?"  but it was a nervous laughter.  THEY WERE SCARED.  Richie gave them the same sort of lip and dismissal, but he wasn't intimidating about it.  he was just annoyed and bitchy.  The weren't afraid.  They ragged on him because they could and they didn't think he'd kill them where they stood the next time he saw them. 

 

Not to mention, There were no stories about Timonen and Pronger being problems here. If the stories about Richards and Carter have no merit, I have absolutely no idea how you can give any merit to something that didn't even exist here. This is based on nothing more than the fact that criticizing management is the cool thing to do now, even when it's not warranted and you can't get over the fact they traded away two guys you like.

 

I'm not giving Merit to stories about Pronger and Timmo.  I'm just saying that we don't friggin' know the first thing about any of their motivations and who was bugging who and a jerk to whom for what reasons. 

 

my rhetorical point was that it's just as stupid of me to suggest that Pronger wanted to be captain and was a pain in the ass to Richards because of that as it is for Sammy C to suggest that the Flyers lost the cup because Richards and Carter were drunks and a drug addicts.

 

In the grand scheme of things, as honestly as you can, tell me which of those two erroneous suggestions sounds more realistic?

 

In hindsight, I get to point out in defense of the two of them that Richie and Carter were both gone and the Flyers fell apart, meanwhile Richie and Carter went on to win a cup and get to the conference finals again the next season while Carter finished last year among the league leaders in goals while Pronger played his last game ever a few months after they got traded. 

 

But really I don't have a point because I think Sammy C and Timmy P had an axe to grind with Richie and Carter.

 

I didn't start this thread.  I'm over the fact that they're traded.  I'm happy for them.  They won a damn cup!  They're playing for a GM who knows how to put a team together!    I should be jealous of them, but I'm happy for them.

 

What I'm not over is the fact that even though they've proven all their critics wrong by any reasonable measure, people here still rag on them and are thrilled they're gone.

 

That makes no sense and really sounds idiotic to me.  So if I'm not over anything, it's that.  I don't even really criticize Jake and Cooter and Wayne and Simmonds for not being worth it yet.  I'm still defending Cooter most nights when others rag on him.  I still think Jake will come around again.  Simmer is one of my favorite flyers.  Schenn... well I don't know what to think about either Schenn just yet, but I'm still rooting for them.  I never really criticize either of them.

 

If People would just stop being ridiculous and just stop talking about about how much they thank God Richie and Carter are gone and how much they were unmotivated jerks, I won't have to defend them.

 

We all need to take a step back from the situation and look at it objectively.  Objectively, Richards and Carter proved all their critics wrong and objectively, trading them hasn't reaped any great rewards yet for the Flyers.

 

It gave us 4 under-performing magic beans that still have a lot of promise and a Bryzgalov (which let's face it, the need for a goalie that Homer was charged with is the real reason those guys were traded).

 

But objectively speaking, that's not nearly enough to validly suggest we're better off without them. 

I'm sure Bryzgalov is happy we made those trades though.

[fanaticV3.0]

Well, yes and no.  I dismiss the reports because of who wrote them, let's face it, anyone who knows anything about journalism knows that Philly Sports beat writers don't qualify, but also because I simply DO NOT GIVE A CRAP about who's a dick and who gets drunk and laid and who doesn't.

 

I defend them because they're the ones who got run out of town and Pronger and Timmo were the ones who stayed here, and either had their career ended prematurely or stayed active to preside over the debacle we're seeing now.

 

Your assumption that I like Richards and Carter better than Pronger and Timmonen is way off.  I like them all quite a bit.  They're all great players.  WE almost won a cup mostly because of what Pronger brought to the team.  The fact isn't that I like Richards and Carter better, but simply that I am not biased against them by erroneous reports, ergo, I don't like them worse.

 

There's a difference.  They are/were all good players.  I stand up for Richards and Carter because people love to hang them based on their reputations and they were eventually run out of town based on those reputations.  Meanwhile if you base things on what happened on the ice, you'd had to have been crazy to want them gone unless you got some serious return for them.  If people were trashing Timmo and Pronger all the time, I'd probably be defending them too.

 

In regards to that, I still attest that we got the best return for Carter, it just hasn't panned out yet. 

 

I'll also say that even though I really think he's a great player, Timmonen is arguably the most overrated Flyer over the past 5 seasons or so in terms of actual performance.  ESPECIALLY when it comes to the playoffs. 

 

Doesn't mean I don't like him and that I'm not glad to have him around.  He just doesn't need to be defended because no one's erroneously criticizing him based on the fact that he didn't kiss the press's ass enough.

 

I still think that the reason Richards got raked by the press and Pronger didn't (because let's face it, Pronger was way more of a dick to the press than Richards could ever have been) is because the Press was Scared Shitless of Pronger.  When he'd give them ****, he was scary!  YOu weren't sure what he was going to do in those moments.  Personally I LOVED IT!  The press would laugh it off like, "Oh that's just pronger, isn't he crazy?"  but it was a nervous laughter.  THEY WERE SCARED.  Richie gave them the same sort of lip and dismissal, but he wasn't intimidating about it.  he was just annoyed and bitchy.  The weren't afraid.  They ragged on him because they could and they didn't think he'd kill them where they stood the next time he saw them. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not giving Merit to stories about Pronger and Timmo.  I'm just saying that we don't friggin' know the first thing about any of their motivations and who was bugging who and a jerk to whom for what reasons. 

 

my rhetorical point was that it's just as stupid of me to suggest that Pronger wanted to be captain and was a pain in the ass to Richards because of that as it is for Sammy C to suggest that the Flyers lost the cup because Richards and Carter were drunks and a drug addicts.

 

In the grand scheme of things, as honestly as you can, tell me which of those two erroneous suggestions sounds more realistic?

 

In hindsight, I get to point out in defense of the two of them that Richie and Carter were both gone and the Flyers fell apart, meanwhile Richie and Carter went on to win a cup and get to the conference finals again the next season while Carter finished last year among the league leaders in goals while Pronger played his last game ever a few months after they got traded. 

 

But really I don't have a point because I think Sammy C and Timmy P had an axe to grind with Richie and Carter.

 

I didn't start this thread.  I'm over the fact that they're traded.  I'm happy for them.  They won a damn cup!  They're playing for a GM who knows how to put a team together!    I should be jealous of them, but I'm happy for them.

 

What I'm not over is the fact that even though they've proven all their critics wrong by any reasonable measure, people here still rag on them and are thrilled they're gone.

 

That makes no sense and really sounds idiotic to me.  So if I'm not over anything, it's that.  I don't even really criticize Jake and Cooter and Wayne and Simmonds for not being worth it yet.  I'm still defending Cooter most nights when others rag on him.  I still think Jake will come around again.  Simmer is one of my favorite flyers.  Schenn... well I don't know what to think about either Schenn just yet, but I'm still rooting for them.  I never really criticize either of them.

 

If People would just stop being ridiculous and just stop talking about about how much they thank God Richie and Carter are gone and how much they were unmotivated jerks, I won't have to defend them.

 

We all need to take a step back from the situation and look at it objectively.  Objectively, Richards and Carter proved all their critics wrong and objectively, trading them hasn't reaped any great rewards yet for the Flyers.

 

It gave us 4 under-performing magic beans that still have a lot of promise and a Bryzgalov (which let's face it, the need for a goalie that Homer was charged with is the real reason those guys were traded).

 

But objectively speaking, that's not nearly enough to validly suggest we're better off without them. 

I'm sure Bryzgalov is happy we made those trades though.

 

It's hard to get past the fact that you can't accept something someone wrote just because you don't like them. You wrote a nice long post, you are obviously passionate. But you can't discredit or dismiss something because you don't like someone. That's just now how it works. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. On top of that, the media had an agenda against them? Come on man. That's borderline paranoid. All leaders get criticized. They weren't targeted anymore than Lindros was before them or Giroux now.

 

How did they prove the critics wrong? They went from a situation where they were asked to be a part of the leadership to a team that already had it. One of which was a franchise goalie. They didn't lead LA, they were along for the ride. And that's not me saying they are bad players either, but rather calling out their leadership (which was the biggest criticism against them).

[King Knut]

It's not that I don't like the writers.  I don't know the writers personally to like or dislike them.

 

It's that they're not good journalists.  That means something to me.  Mostly what it means is that I can't really take much of what they say seriously.  They write because they have a deadline and they get paid by the word. Not because they're following a story with actual facts.  Most of their stories are inflated and filled out with conjecture and their own personal assumptions.  That's why I don't take much of what they say, write or tweet seriously.  I have no opinion of them personally.  I don't think I know them.

 

I can discredit and dismiss the rumor mill conjecture of faulty reporters.   At the very least it's fair to suggest that you should take what they write/tweet with a grain of salt (or a few) and at the very very least, maybe just don't buy it hook line and sinker, especially when subsequent evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

 

The media doesn't have an "agenda" against them, just momentum.  They all smell a story and move toward it.  

Did Richards and Carter get drunk and laid a bit?  I'm sure they did.  So that became the story for the press to chase and folks like us ate it up. 

Does it mean they were bad players and locker room cancers and needed to go?  Apparently not.

 

Look at what the philly press did to Bryzgalov.  The guy was weird.  The guy didn't have a decent grasp of english.  The guy was obviously out of his league in this market.  But they painted him as an absolute lunatic because he was off.  Instead of seeing that he obviously wasn't a guy who was prepared or capable of handling that level of intense scrutiny, they didn't back off, they made him a running gag and laughed in his face, brazenly poking fun at him while they shoved their microphones in his face, often assuming he didn't realize they were mocking him.

 

Yes, it was very entertaining to all of us, but also... They were being jack asses. 

 

Does that mean I like Bryzgalov?  Nope.

Does that mean I wish he was still here?  Nope.

Does that mean I think he really could have been our answer in net?  Nope.

 

Still doesn't mean they treated him fairly or acted like respectable journalists. 

 

I take issue with your assessment of the kings compared to the flyers at that point.

Are you suggesting that Richards and Carter only had continued success and only continued to play essentially as well as they played in Philly because the Kings were a better team than the Flyers and already had leadership in place?

 

Are you suggesting that if Richards and Carter hadn't been Captain and one of the Alternates, that the Flyers would have won a cup?

 

Are you suggesting that the Kings already in place were that much better than the Flyers were at that time that they withstood Richards and Carter definitely so well that they won a cup IN SPITE of Richards and Carter and the Locker room cancers they brought with them?  Are you suggesting that without those trades the Kings would have somehow been even better over the last two seasons?

 

How does your argument hold up in the face of the fact that in the same time frame, the Flyers have completely fallen apart?

 

I'm not saying you have to like them, I'm not saying you have to wish they were back (I don't even do that anymore).  Just look at the facts and honestly tell me you think this team became better for those trades.

 

All I'm saying is that I can't do that.  I can't look at what's gone down in the time since and still tell myself that those trades worked out for the Flyers.  I can't look at what's gone down here and in LA and suggest that Richards and Carter were the bad influences, bad players and locker room cancers they were painted as when they were here.

 

The evidence just doesn't support those ideas.  I'm not saying the Flyers would have won a cup and been to the conference finals the past two seasons if Richards and Carter will still here.  That would be ludicrous.    I'm just saying that continuing to assert that the team is better off without them just doesn't make any sense at this time.

 

It's hard to get past the fact that you can't accept something someone wrote just because you don't like them. You wrote a nice long post, you are obviously passionate. But you can't discredit or dismiss something because you don't like someone. That's just now how it works. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. On top of that, the media had an agenda against them? Come on man. That's borderline paranoid. All leaders get criticized. They weren't targeted anymore than Lindros was before them or Giroux now.



How did they prove the critics wrong? They went from a situation where they were asked to be a part of the leadership to a team that already had it. One of which was a franchise goalie. They didn't lead LA, they were along for the ride. And that's not me saying they are bad players either, but rather calling out their leadership (which was the biggest criticism against them).

[OH1FlyersFan]

As a frequent advocate for the Devil, well done

 

I'll return serve.

 

The team committed to Richards/Crater for the long term. Immediately after doing so, they brought in Pronger and commited to Pronger for the long term.

 

Then they shipped out Richards/Crater.

 

Then they committed to Bryzgalov long term.

 

Then Pronger got hurt.

 

Then they bought out Bryzgalov.

 

Then they committed to Giroux long term.

 

And here we are. For the record, that's long term commitments to five players over the course of six years.

 

One guy is still here.

 

Quite frankly, I was saying over and over again last year that the team's problems were more than just the space cadet in goal - "defending Bryzgalov" I believe it was characterized as. The end result of jettissonning the space cadet has been the "implosion" of which you speak.

 

And there were more than a few people who were very hesitant for them to have committed the way they did to Pronger - given his over-35 status and the potential for injury with older players. Did anyone "predict" he would get a flukey concussion injury and never be able to play again? No, not specifically.

Nicely done, yourself.  Totally agree.  The contracts dealt out by this organization suggest building for the "long term" or having some sort of long-term strategy, but their actions totally belie that.  Of all the long-term deals they've entered into the one that bothered me the least was the Pronger deal because I thought, though old, he was the one who could most live up to it and deliver.  But that flukey injury ended that hope.  And like you said, those things are totally unpredictable.

[OH1FlyersFan]

In this entire post - and plenty of others - there isn't a single criticism of any individual player. Every criticism you made in this post revolves around.....Homer. You don't bring up poor play or leadership, you bring up the fact that Homer signed/traded for them or didn't get them the right piece to paly with. Homer has made plenty of mistakes, but he's the only thing you talk about.

Yeah, Homer's not out on the ice, yeah he can't pick up the stick or put on the pads, yeah he's not out scoring goals or stopping shots, but he is calling the shots.  He's putting the mix of players together, creating the "team" that is supposed to successfully do all of those things.  He's responsible for getting them to work together, to create the opportunity, atmosphere, and culture the team needs to be competitive and win games.  He is a leader.  The leader. Ultimately he IS the one responsible.  I'd argue even more so than Snider.  Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here".  It's a good lesson that should be taken to heart but is all too often ignored these days.  The new sign on the desk reads "The Buck's Passed Here."

[fanaticV3.0]

It's not that I don't like the writers.  I don't know the writers personally to like or dislike them.

 

It's that they're not good journalists.  That means something to me.  Mostly what it means is that I can't really take much of what they say seriously.  They write because they have a deadline and they get paid by the word. Not because they're following a story with actual facts.  Most of their stories are inflated and filled out with conjecture and their own personal assumptions.  That's why I don't take much of what they say, write or tweet seriously.  I have no opinion of them personally.  I don't think I know them.

 

I can discredit and dismiss the rumor mill conjecture of faulty reporters.   At the very least it's fair to suggest that you should take what they write/tweet with a grain of salt (or a few) and at the very very least, maybe just don't buy it hook line and sinker, especially when subsequent evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

 

The media doesn't have an "agenda" against them, just momentum.  They all smell a story and move toward it.  

Did Richards and Carter get drunk and laid a bit?  I'm sure they did.  So that became the story for the press to chase and folks like us ate it up. 

Does it mean they were bad players and locker room cancers and needed to go?  Apparently not.

 

Look at what the philly press did to Bryzgalov.  The guy was weird.  The guy didn't have a decent grasp of english.  The guy was obviously out of his league in this market.  But they painted him as an absolute lunatic because he was off.  Instead of seeing that he obviously wasn't a guy who was prepared or capable of handling that level of intense scrutiny, they didn't back off, they made him a running gag and laughed in his face, brazenly poking fun at him while they shoved their microphones in his face, often assuming he didn't realize they were mocking him.

 

Yes, it was very entertaining to all of us, but also... They were being jack asses. 

 

Does that mean I like Bryzgalov?  Nope.

Does that mean I wish he was still here?  Nope.

Does that mean I think he really could have been our answer in net?  Nope.

 

Still doesn't mean they treated him fairly or acted like respectable journalists. 

 

I take issue with your assessment of the kings compared to the flyers at that point.

Are you suggesting that Richards and Carter only had continued success and only continued to play essentially as well as they played in Philly because the Kings were a better team than the Flyers and already had leadership in place?

 

Are you suggesting that if Richards and Carter hadn't been Captain and one of the Alternates, that the Flyers would have won a cup?

 

Are you suggesting that the Kings already in place were that much better than the Flyers were at that time that they withstood Richards and Carter definitely so well that they won a cup IN SPITE of Richards and Carter and the Locker room cancers they brought with them?  Are you suggesting that without those trades the Kings would have somehow been even better over the last two seasons?

 

How does your argument hold up in the face of the fact that in the same time frame, the Flyers have completely fallen apart?

 

I'm not saying you have to like them, I'm not saying you have to wish they were back (I don't even do that anymore).  Just look at the facts and honestly tell me you think this team became better for those trades.

 

All I'm saying is that I can't do that.  I can't look at what's gone down in the time since and still tell myself that those trades worked out for the Flyers.  I can't look at what's gone down here and in LA and suggest that Richards and Carter were the bad influences, bad players and locker room cancers they were painted as when they were here.

 

The evidence just doesn't support those ideas.  I'm not saying the Flyers would have won a cup and been to the conference finals the past two seasons if Richards and Carter will still here.  That would be ludicrous.    I'm just saying that continuing to assert that the team is better off without them just doesn't make any sense at this time.

 

It doesn't matter whether you think they are good journalists or not, if something is true it's true. This was not just some random story that popped up that never gained a lot of steam. This is something that was addressed both directly and indirectly by several people. Lavy had problems with them, Timonen had problems with them, Pronger had problems with them, everyone around them was traded and the problems still existed, Hitch was fired because he wasn't connecting with the youth, Stevens was brought in because they respect him and they still failed with him behind the bench. I mean seriously, how much more do you need for you to even consider they were maybe a bit of a problem? They were here for six seasons. The team gave them a plethora of different players, they tried to go the "guys they like" (their party buddies) route vs "guys they need" (Pronger). They gave them coaches who were player friendly and ones who were disciplinarians. None of it worked. Ignoring all this is denial.

 

As far as LA vs PHI goes, LA was always a better team. LA has Quick, Daughty, Kopitar, and Brown in leadership positions. Richards and Carter were expected to be those guys here and they couldn't do it. This is not rocket science. They won a cup in LA because LA was a better team and didn't ask them to be the guys. No pressure or responsibility like there was here at all.

[fanaticV3.0]

Yeah, Homer's not out on the ice, yeah he can't pick up the stick or put on the pads, yeah he's not out scoring goals or stopping shots, but he is calling the shots.  He's putting the mix of players together, creating the "team" that is supposed to successfully do all of those things.  He's responsible for getting them to work together, to create the opportunity, atmosphere, and culture the team needs to be competitive and win games.  He is a leader.  The leader. Ultimately he IS the one responsible.  I'd argue even more so than Snider.  Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here".  It's a good lesson that should be taken to heart but is all too often ignored these days.  The new sign on the desk reads "The Buck's Passed Here."

 

GMs build teams, coaches coach them, and players play the games. Don't talk to me about passing the blame when you keep coming back to one single man. When a team is bad, there's many people responsible for that.

[King Knut]

Look even I'm bored silly with this discussion now.  We're just not seeing each other's POV and normally it would be a good time to let it go,

 

but the Flyers just keep playing well while we debate it and I'm a superstitious guy.  I mean if I keep on calling the Richards deal the worst one, will Simmer and Schenn keep playing like last night?  If so then I will keep ragging on that deal until the cows come home.  whatever helps the cosmic balance fall in favor of the O&B. 

 

Maybe there's some new detail or nuance we can debate about rater than rehashing the same crap over and over again?

 

As far as LA vs PHI goes, LA was always a better team. LA has Quick, Daughty, Kopitar, and Brown in leadership positions. Richards and Carter were expected to be those guys here and they couldn't do it. This is not rocket science. They won a cup in LA because LA was a better team and didn't ask them to be the guys. No pressure or responsibility like there was here at all.

[OH1FlyersFan]

GMs build teams, coaches coach them, and players play the games. Don't talk to me about passing the blame when you keep coming back to one single man. When a team is bad, there's many people responsible for that.

You're right.  Everyone has a role and there are three roles in this case, just as you identified.  Not everyone is playing their role as best they can.  Some are playing their role better than others.  It's just my opinion that Homer is not "playing" as well as he should be.  And because he's the boss, the responsibility for the success or failure of the whole team ultimately lies with him.  I understand it's easier for you to not want to see that and to give the guy a pass.  If you ever find yourself in a position of leadership, you'll better understand the accountability that comes with having that role.  A good leader actually would accept it.

[fanaticV3.0]

You're right.  Everyone has a role and there are three roles in this case, just as you identified.  Not everyone is playing their role as best they can.  Some are playing their role better than others.  It's just my opinion that Homer is not "playing" as well as he should be.  And because he's the boss, the responsibility for the success or failure of the whole team ultimately lies with him.  I understand it's easier for you to not want to see that and to give the guy a pass.  If you ever find yourself in a position of leadership, you'll better understand the accountability that comes with having that role.  A good leader actually would accept it.

 

I'm not giving Homer a pass, I just hold players more responsible for their own play than their GM. This is especially the case when you are talking about players who have proven themselves (at a certain level) and are playing far below that. It's not Homer's fault Giroux, Hartnell, Simmonds, and Voracek are all producing at a rate much lower than they are capable of. That's on them.

 

If you want to talk about Homer's mistakes we can do that too. His handling of McGinn has been embarrassing. In a team that has been starved for offense, to jerk this kid around, is a disservice to him and the team. All of the NTCs over recent years is beyond human comprehension. The length of several players contracts - and the amount they are getting paid - are far too much. He should have kept Jagr. It's looking like he traded JVR too soon, which isn't the worst offense in the world, but the return is less than stellar. But guys not producing? That's their own problem. A GM really has nothing to do with how a guy plays. The player himself and his coaches are more responsible for that than the GM.

Edited November 14, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[OH1FlyersFan]

I'm not giving Homer a pass, I just hold players more responsible for their own play than their GM. This is especially the case when you are talking about players who have proven themselves (at a certain level) and are playing far below that. It's not Homer's fault Giroux, Hartnell, Simmonds, and Voracek are all producing at a rate much lower than they are capable of. That's on them.

 

If you want to talk about Homer's mistakes we can do that too. His handling of McGinn has been embarrassing. In a team that has been starved for offense, to jerk this kid around, is a disservice to him and the team. All of the NTCs over recent years is beyond human comprehension. The length of several players contracts - and the amount they are getting paid - are far too much. He should have kept Jagr. It's looking like he traded JVR too soon, which isn't the worst offense in the world, but the return is less than stellar. But guys not producing? That's their own problem. A GM really has nothing to do with how a guy plays. The player himself and his coaches are more responsible for that than the GM.

That's fair.  Totally agree with you on McGinn.  Would like to see more of him.

 

What it boils down to is an apportionment of blame - and there's been plenty of it to go around.  I tend to put more on the GM than the players at this point - at the macro level.  Homer created the universe, so to speak, now the players have to live (and play) in it to the best of their abilities - under the rules/constraints of that universe as created by Homer.  If that universe was poorly put together, which I argue it was, it can hamper the way a guy plays - but only to a degree.  There's no denying individual talent and sometimes that can overcome GM manufactured obstacles. 

[King Knut]

You both have a point.

Personally it's not homers fault they didn't win that cup.

It's not Richards or Carter's either though.

Richards production died down because they were playing a great team who shut him down, but also because they were playing a great team that had guys he needed to shut down.

Carter's production didn't die down because he was still recovering from two broken feet. He didn't get worse... He was still coming back.

They lost for two simple reasons. There's no mystery.

1) injuries. Razor goes down (had been very solid before his hip injury). Then Leighton went down. Then Boosh went down. Leighton came back before he was probably totally ready, but that's what good hockey players do. The problem was he got hurt in game one and didn't tell anyone.

At that point, both goalies were playing hurt. The team only knew about one.

Does Boosh get the starts over Leighton if they know? Not sure, it was sort of a crap shoot at that point because neither was playing lights out ... because botj were hurt.. oh that and neither kne was a legit starter at that point in his career, but even if they kept playing Leighton, I bet the plan would have been different if they knew he was hurt.

But others were playing with documented injuries including the aforementioned carter and of course there's Lappy who was an extremely integral part of tht team's success.

2) The Blackhawks were just friggin good. The flyers didn't beat themselves. Chicago was and is quality. Maybe if carter is healthy and Leighton not hurt it goes to 7, but what then? The Blackhawks were the better team. If the flyers could have pulled it out, it would have been beyond a legendary upset.

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.

[King Knut]

Anyone who's ever had a bad boss knows its harder to sdo your job well when your boss does stupid things, fires your friends for no reason and hires complete morons to fill important roles.

It's just harder.

I feel like Homer might just be a bad boss.

You're right. Everyone has a role and there are three roles in this case, just as you identified. Not everyone is playing their role as best they can. Some are playing their role better than others. It's just my opinion that Homer is not "playing" as well as he should be. And because he's the boss, the responsibility for the success or failure of the whole team ultimately lies with him. I understand it's easier for you to not want to see that and to give the guy a pass. If you ever find yourself in a position of leadership, you'll better understand the accountability that comes with having that role. A good leader actually would accept it.

[doom88]

Anyone who's ever had a bad boss knows its harder to sdo your job well when your boss does stupid things, fires your friends for no reason and hires complete morons to fill important roles.

It's just harder.

I feel like Homer might just be a bad boss.

I still get my job done to the best of my abilities. Happy hour is the time for "coping".