Revisiting the Richard's Trade

[radoran]

Call me a crazy optimist. Call me delusional. I'm going to take the fact that Homer could have traded Couturier several times over by now as a sign of a New Day (if not a "fresh perspective") in Flyerland.

 

From your post to Homer's ears.

I'm just not going with the past five months trumping the past seven years argument.

 

Happy to be wrong.

[fanaticV3.0]

Correction: Richards and Carter were never on their own. They had great players on the flyers with them. More experienced players. So what you really mean Is that Pronger, Timmo, Briere, Giroux, Hartnell, Gagne, Carle, Coburn, etc weren't good enough to win with Richards and Carter but that Kopitar, Doughty, Brown, Mitchell, Scuderi and Williams and Gagne were?

Because that seems to be the essence if your argyment seems to be that Briere and Pronger and Timmonen just are terrible leaders too.

The fact that Richards and Carter get along and fit in out there just blows the "bad apple" theory out of the water.

Maybe the fact that Richards isn't a captain there and just an A makes some difference in your heads, but I still think as I did then, if a "C" being on another guy's shirt keeps Pronger, Briere and Timmo from speaking up, then that alone makes them crappy leaders. In fact it makes them petulant bitches whichisnwhat everyone said about Pronger before he came to town anyway.

The running theory is that Richie and carts had to go because they had bad attitudes. That has not played out in LA. They have become focal points of a very good team.

They are leaders there. There is another captain there, but Richards and Carter have become extremely important to that team. They're not role players. They're not chipping in for depth. They are team leaders.

They're good players that we traded for some potential and a crazy ass Russian goalie. The first year, I'll concede. But the second year they missed the playoffs again and in the thes year since we're in a season long dogfight for the 8th spot. Which for young guys might feel like the new normal but for those of us over 35 is just a horror show.

It just didn't work. Now at least the potential is still growing and the goalie is gone so we can pick up the pieces and try to move on. But let's not fool ourselves. We are picking up the pieces and movin on.

 

 

They are not problems there, so they couldn't have been here?

 

That's just stupid. People change, as do their circumstances.

 

Plus, it's not "speculation" that they had problems here. It's actually domuented and in today's day and age, you can find examples of it rather easily

 

http://www.crossingbroad.com/2011/05/mike-richards-lands-direct-hit-on-tim-panaccio.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Flyers-captain-Mike-Richards-vs-the-Philadelphi?urn=nhl-197842

http://phillyreign.com/articles/twitter-pocalypse-in-flyerland

 

I'm sure you'll dismiss it because you still seem to be pining for Richards, but at least I tried.

[JackStraw]

But I do think you'll be in the stark minority if you don't think "who won" the trade is going to be an ongoing evaluation

 

Oh I know. Just one of the many crosses I bear.

[fanaticV3.0]

I will agree that I found the two of them "disappointing"

 

But I "literally have no tolerance" for the opinion that absolves the guys who picked the players, put them in positions of responsibility and signed them to ridiculous long-term contracts.

 

There's more than enough "blame" to go around in this situation. Crater and Richards certainly deserve their fair portion. But there's certainly a fair portion of the "blame" that lies elsewhere as well.

 

 

 

Agreed mojo. It's like the Flyers with Richards as captain and Crater as top goal scorer didn't get to Game 6 of the Cup Final (with the essential help of Pronger) playing in front of a Leighton/Boucher tandem.

 

I don't have a problem with calling out management for the bad contracts (I actually really hate these double-digit year contracts), but when a player fails to lead - especially when he has "won at every level" - that's on him. How a player acts and reacts to a situation is up to him. There are plenty of players both their age and younger who were asked to and had no problem putting on their big boy pants and acting like an adult.

[JackStraw]

They are not problems there, so they couldn't have been here?
 
That's just stupid. People change, as do their circumstances.
 
Plus, it's not "speculation" that they had problems here. It's actually domuented and in today's day and age, you can find examples of it rather easily
 
http://www.crossingb...m-panaccio.html
http://phillyreign.c...se-in-flyerland

 

Wait, a pro athlete in Philadelphia having a beef with the Philly media??? Wow, never heard THAT before.

 

Seriously, Richards was not traded because he didn't like Timmy P. Nobody likes Timmy P.

[fanaticV3.0]

Wait, a pro athlete in Philadelphia having a beef with the Philly media??? Wow, never heard THAT before.

 

Seriously, Richards was not traded because he didn't like Timmy P. Nobody likes Timmy P.

 

I didn't say he was. He was traded because he couldn't handle the fact that he didn't like him. He couldn't take criticism and actually let it get to the point where he got involved in a "Twitter war" with him. What kind of ***** lets something like that bother him?

[aziz]

t I do think you'll be in the stark minority if you don't think "who won" the trade is going to be an ongoing evaluation.

 

and that's fine, appropriate even.  so long as it is an ongoing evaluation.  as opposed to someone declaring it a closed subject when it is very obviously a "time will tell" situation.

[radoran]

I don't have a problem with calling out management for the bad contracts (I actually really hate these double-digit year contracts), but when a player fails to lead - especially when he has "won at every level" - that's on him. How a player acts and reacts to a situation is up to him. There are plenty of players both their age and younger who were asked to and had no problem putting on their big boy pants and acting like an adult.

 

With Richards as Captain the Flyers got to:

Eastern Conference Final (lost to Cup Finalist Pittsburgh)

First Round (lost to eventual Cup champion Pittsburgh)

Cup Final (lost to Cup champion Chicago)

Second Round (lost to eventual Cup champion Boston)

 

For me, that's not a record of "failure to lead". Not that I am 100% happy with the Richards Era - I've been quite critical as you well know. But, again, for me, a lot of the Richards-wasn't-leading mantra came after the trade as a means to justify it.

 

They lost to Cup Finalists in every year he was captain, three of which were the Cup Champions in the same year.

[JackStraw]

I didn't say he was. He was traded because he couldn't handle the fact that he didn't like him. He couldn't take criticism and actually let it get to the point where he got involved in a "Twitter war" with him. What kind of ***** lets something like that bother him?

 

Over the years there have been many, many cases of athletes having feuds with the media. It's not particularly unusual. Heck, Steve Carlton completely stopped talking to the media his second year with the Phillies. Never said a word to them after that. I doubt that a professional athlete like Richards, who is making millions, cares at all what Timmy thinks of him.

[radoran]

and that's fine, appropriate even.  so long as it is an ongoing evaluation.  as opposed to someone declaring it a closed subject when it is very obviously a "time will tell" situation.

 

I completely agree. I'm in no way declaring it a "closed subject" and have been very clear throughout this thread that there are another six years after this one that are involved in the evaluation.

 

But I do think that eight years is an appropriate term in which to determine the overall impact of most trades.

[fanaticV3.0]

Over the years there have been many, many cases of athletes having feuds with the media. It's not particularly unusual. Heck, Steve Carlton completely stopped talking to the media his second year with the Phillies. Never said a word to them after that. I doubt that a professional athlete like Richards, who is making millions, cares at all what Timmy thinks of him.

 

Posting about it on Twitter is an interesting way of showing one does not care.

[JackStraw]

But I do think that eight years is an appropriate term in which to determine the overall impact of most trades.

 

But eight years later, what are the criteria for evaluating the trade? Cup or no Cup? Even eight years from today, if the Flyers haven't won the Cup how could anyone say it was because of that trade? Or that they would have won a Cup if they hadn't made that (those) trade(s)? Or that they would have won a Cup if they had made different trades? If the player(s) you got turn out to be as good or better for your team as the ones you traded isn't that enough to say it was a good trade? And personally I think that's already true, although none of the players involved are really near the end of their careers.

[JackStraw]

Posting about it on Twitter is an interesting way of showing one does not care.

 

We live in the age of social media. People these days feel the need to share all sorts of trivial stuff with the outside world. Telling everyone you think someone is a lousy reporter (in this case, something we all pretty much already knew) doesn't necessarily mean it hurts the quality of your life.

[radoran]

Posting about it on Twitter is an interesting way of showing one does not care.

 

I've got to agree with this. Richards comments about the media "throwing the team under the bus" seems to bear out that he held their opinion in Very High Regard. And that was in a little-known rag called The Hockey News.

 

Then he lambasted the Daily News and got into a verbal spat with reporters.

 

I agree with JackStraw that a millionaire professional athlete shouldn't give the hind quarters of a rodent what the media says, but Richards clearly did.

[aziz]

I completely agree. I'm in no way declaring it a "closed subject" and have been very clear throughout this thread that there are another six years after this one that are involved in the evaluation.

 

But I do think that eight years is an appropriate term in which to determine the overall impact of most trades.

 

 

i didn't mean you, meant knut.  there are obviously times where trade results will be lopsided for a while, but with reason to believe they will even out over time.  

 

and i'd say 8 years is probably exactly appropriate.

[radoran]

But eight years later, what are the criteria for evaluating the trade? Cup or no Cup? Even eight years from today, if the Flyers haven't won the Cup how could anyone say it was because of that trade? Or that they would have won a Cup if they hadn't made that (those) trade(s)? Or that they would have won a Cup if they had made different trades? If the player(s) you got turn out to be as good or better for your team as the ones you traded isn't that enough to say it was a good trade? And personally I think that's already true, although none of the players involved are really near the end of their careers.

 

The purpose of any move a team makes - doubly so with the Flyers - is to improve the team (first) and win a championship (one might argue this is the Flyers' first purpose).

 

I've said explicitly and believe now that if the Flyers don't win a Cup with the "new core" that I would give a negative evaluation to the trades.

 

Do I believe they "would have" won without the trades? Nothing is guaranteed. But with Richards as captain they made the Conference Finals twice, the Final once and lost to the eventual Cup champion three times. Since then they lost to a Cup Finalist, missed the playoffs, got off to the worst start in team history and fired their coach.

 

I had a similar conversation after the Pronger trade (in person) with davies about whether or not it would be a "good trade" for the Flyers. I said if the Flyers win the Cup with Pronger, it was a good trade. If not, I don't think it was.

 

I stick to that.

 

That said, every trade isn't on the level of Richards/Crater/Pronger. Harry Zolnierczyk for Jay Rosehill, for example. But when a team trades it's captain and leading-goal-scorer (after given them both decade-long contracts) on the same day it's certainly a few orders of magnitude different in terms of how it is evaluated.

 

And, for the record, I thought Harry Z for "Rosey" was a dumb idea.

[King Knut]

You have no tolerance for facts, reason and logic then.

 

the 2006-2007 team was captained by Peter Forsberg and was lead by Forsberg, Knuble and Gagne.

Carter and Richards were up and comers and their play was strong enough that Homer decided to "build a team" around them when he took over.  In fact Homer had such confidence in them as the focus of the team that he went out out and immediately got Hartnell, Timmo, Coburn and Briere who along with Gagne and Knuble made up a tighter lineup than the Flyers had had since the Lindros era. They may have been the guys the team was built around, but they were hardly ever expected to be the only guys doing anything.  Anyway that lineup was certainly tighter than the '04 rag tag team that made it to the conference finals.

 

Don't like that?  How about Algebra:

 

X=Richards and Carter

 

The Flyers + X = Conference Finals, First Round Loss to eventual Cup WInners, Cup Finals Loss, 2nd Round Loss to Eventual Cup Winners.

The FLyers - X = 2nd Round loss to the Devils and missing the playoffs.

Now on the other side:

 

The Kings - X = Missing the playoffs with 2 sub .500 seasons, losing in the first round to the Sharks and a loss in the conference finals to the Canucks.

The Kings + X = Cup Winners, Conference Finals Loss.

 

Over the past 6 seasons whichever team has X does better.

 

And you're other reasoning is beyond perplexing.

 

They got Upshall Traded?  They got Lupul Traded?  They made it so Homer refused to resign Gagne?  They Got Pitkanen Traded?  They got Sbisa and 4 picks traded for a 34 year old who we got two years out of?  They Got Downie traded?  They Got Carcillo Acquired?  They got Biron Acquired?  They got   Carter and Richards MADE homer do all of that? 

 

If they were such problems, why haven't the Kings traded a bunch of people trying to accommodate them?

 

If they had such bad attitudes, why haven't there been any problems like you're alluding to in LA? 

 

When exactly did Richards or Carter complain that "management didn't do" something that lead to the loss?

 

Do you think that perhaps the team's top offensive producers weren't as strong int he finals because one of them was skating on two broken feet (because he's so lazy and uncompetitive), another was having to try to shut down Kane and Sharp and oh by the way the Blackhawks Defense is good and there's a reason they won the cup?

 

Come on man.  You didn't like them for whatever reason you didn't like them, but it wasn't based on the team being successful or not.   If you like the team better without them, so far you just like a team that doesn't play as well or win as much.  

 

Maybe you're an optimist who likes hoping for the future more than you like succeeding in the present.  That's admirable.  I like that.

 

I like doing both.  Because I'm a Flyers fan.

 

I literally have no tolerance for this. And yes I can absolutely recognize our goaltending (in particular) situation that season was nothing more than lighting in a bottle, the clock striking midnight on Cinderella, or quite frankly not good enough. But nothing gets my blood boiling more than absolving a player their responsibility and pointing the finger upstairs instead of where it belongs. Those two were the core of some of the most inconsistent, lazy, show up when I feel like it teams I have ever seen. Talented, but horrible cornerstones. If you think this year or last was bad, need I remind you the fact that they not only missed the POs for the first time in years with those two here, but were the worst team in the league. Even at their best (a cup run), they barely managed to put together a .500 team.



I haven't even begun to scratch the surface on how many chances they were given. How many players around them were traded to address the locker room issues before it became painfully obvious they were the issue? Management went out and got them one of the best damn defenseman to play the sport. And what did they do? Cry that he was too mean to them. So don't give me this "management didn't" stuff. The players didn't and particularly those two. During that cup run they - along with Gagne - totally disappeared in that final series.



Oh and as far as Crosby goes, he makes players around him better. He is the guy that team depends on and he excels in that role. The same cannot be said those two twerps and their sore vaginas when they were here.

[King Knut]

It's a very good point you make. 

Of course he cares.

And he should care because people like many of us seem to care and we're the reason he gets paid.

 

If you or I go to work and people start heckling you for being on drugs and being an alcoholic because they read what some guy wrote it about you because you got drunk at a party and someone took a picture,  I think we'd all care too.

 

 

Posting about it on Twitter is an interesting way of showing one does not care.

[JackStraw]

I've got to agree with this. Richards comments about the media "throwing the team under the bus" seems to bear out that he held their opinion in Very High Regard. And that was in a little-known rag called The Hockey News.

 

Then he lambasted the Daily News and got into a verbal spat with reporters.

 

I agree with JackStraw that a millionaire professional athlete shouldn't give the hind quarters of a rodent what the media says, but Richards clearly did.

 

Some might say that's providing some team leadership. Pronger didn't even try to hide his disdain for the media but nobody criticized him for it. While I have tons of respect for guys like Briere and Timonen, who are always civil and "professional" with the media, I don't have any problem with athletes who feel they need to speak their mind.

 

But my larger point with respect to this thread is that I seriously doubt that Richards difficulties with the media (which I readily acknowledge) affected him so much that management felt they needed to trade him.

[fanaticV3.0]

With Richards as Captain the Flyers got to:

Eastern Conference Final (lost to Cup Finalist Pittsburgh)

First Round (lost to eventual Cup champion Pittsburgh)

Cup Final (lost to Cup champion Chicago)

Second Round (lost to eventual Cup champion Boston)

 

For me, that's not a record of "failure to lead". Not that I am 100% happy with the Richards Era - I've been quite critical as you well know. But, again, for me, a lot of the Richards-wasn't-leading mantra came after the trade as a means to justify it.

 

They lost to Cup Finalists in every year he was captain, three of which were the Cup Champions in the same year.

 

Is that really that much of an impressive run? Serious question, because for me personally it's not. It's nice and it's always better to be in the mix than not ( I get it, I honestly do), but I don't look at that and think, "Wow, we were really fortunate to have him and it's a time in Flyers history I'll never forget." There's dozens if not hundreds of players who played for one team for a fairly long period of time, that team was successful during that time, but never won the whole thing.

 

The fact that he won a cup the second he went to another young talented team, but wasn't asked to be "the man" only illustrates the point. Here we have this guy who we are told "has won at every level" and when asked to do it here could not, but goes somewhere else and has the pressure taken off him and bam...cup. How does that not speak volumes to his inability to lead? That's not to say he isn't a good, contributing player, he clearly is. He has value on a team. I am the guy who started the thread about him not being on team Canada. I recognize his place and value to a team. But as the focal point? That's just not him if you ask me.

 

I can't ignore that cup run and by that I mean the bad parts of it. The good is easy. The good can't be denied. They made it to the cup. It goes without saying, but it's obviously a good thing. But that whole season, that cup run, that's not the way to play hockey. You can't expect to wait until the last day of the season to make the POs or to come back from 0-3 (which is virtually impossible) that way that group did. He was the leader of that "flip the switch" mentality.

[King Knut]

That reporter has the ability to tell everyone that he thinks Richie is a lousy hockey player...  kinda seems fair to me.

P.S.  He is a lousy reporter.  In fact lousy is being extremely kind to that hack.

 

We live in the age of social media. People these days feel the need to share all sorts of trivial stuff with the outside world. Telling everyone you think someone is a lousy reporter (in this case, something we all pretty much already knew) doesn't necessarily mean it hurts the quality of your life.

[fanaticV3.0]

You have no tolerance for facts, reason and logic then.

 

You're the one who can't accept the fact he is gone (and really had to go). You keep proclaiming him a great leader, despite his lack of cups as a captain.

 

I'll tell you the reason I don't like them. It's not because they failed, because we haven't won a cup since before I was born, it was because they cried about it when probed about that fact. He was asked tough questions - which is what is expected of a captain - and couldn't handle it like a big boy.

Edited January 16, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

Some might say that's providing some team leadership. Pronger didn't even try to hide his disdain for the media but nobody criticized him for it. While I have tons of respect for guys like Briere and Timonen, who are always civil and "professional" with the media, I don't have any problem with athletes who feel they need to speak their mind.

 

But my larger point with respect to this thread is that I seriously doubt that Richards difficulties with the media (which I readily acknowledge) affected him so much that management felt they needed to trade him.

 

Absolutely.

 

But I don't think it helped and may have given the team the cover they were looking for to obfuscate the issue.

[King Knut]

I was actually rethinking Homer's approach to the defense last night.

Then I rethought it again and came to the conclusion that there's something about this team that just keeps them from being able to sort it out.

 

All in all, I honest can't see any good reason Schenn isn't better than he is.  I don't know what's going on there.  I really don't.

 

 

The Flyers right now are one of the top spending teams on defense in the league - almost $29M of their cap is in defenseman (and that's not counting Pronger). The Pens - including LTIR Martin - are spending nine million less than that (number increases with Letang's new contract).



So, now, two seasons into "needing" to trade a long term, valuable asset "for defensive help" the Flyers find themselves still "desperately needing defensive help."



Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[fanaticV3.0]

Some might say that's providing some team leadership. Pronger didn't even try to hide his disdain for the media but nobody criticized him for it. While I have tons of respect for guys like Briere and Timonen, who are always civil and "professional" with the media, I don't have any problem with athletes who feel they need to speak their mind.

 

But my larger point with respect to this thread is that I seriously doubt that Richards difficulties with the media (which I readily acknowledge) affected him so much that management felt they needed to trade him.

 

Bre said it best, it was not a hockey trade, there was something else going on. Technically, his behavior and habits affect the team, so it is a "hockey trade" in that sense, but the point is he wasn't traded because he was a bad player. He was traded because he was a piss poor leader, moody brat, and that affected the rest of the team. If you think for one second that he was traded for other reasons, you've got your head buried pretty far up his ass.