Jeff Carter Love

[radoran]

Just now, King Knut said:

 

That's great.  If only everyone were as disciplined as you or as lucky as me.

I was on Oxy after some surgery a little while back.  Frankly it did nothing and I stopped using it.  Tylenol worked better for me.  

 

I really don't think we can compare a professional athlete's experience to our own. Guys do a lot "just to play" because they feel responsibility to their team - and the team is more often than not pressuring them to do so.

 

And playing professional hockey at the highest level isn't quite the same thing - with all due respect - as we tend to experience.

 

Your previous point of how addiction affects different people differently is also quite salient.

[fanaticV3.0]

10 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

That's great.  If only everyone were as disciplined as you or as lucky as me.

I was on Oxy after some surgery a little while back.  Frankly it did nothing and I stopped using it.  Tylenol worked better for me.  

 

Soooooooo..... You credit an individual for not abusing pills, but when they do it's everyone else's fault. I'm not even sure how you can see that with a straight face.

[King Knut]

21 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I really don't think we can compare a professional athlete's experience to our own. Guys do a lot "just to play" because they feel responsibility to their team - and the team is more often than not pressuring them to do so.

 

And playing professional hockey at the highest level isn't quite the same thing - with all due respect - as we tend to experience.

 

Your previous point of how addiction affects different people differently is also quite salient.

 

I was trying to be generous to a differing point of view.  I completely agree with you.   

[fanaticV3.0]

10 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I really don't think we can compare a professional athlete's experience to our own. Guys do a lot "just to play" because they feel responsibility to their team - and the team is more often than not pressuring them to do so.

 

And playing professional hockey at the highest level isn't quite the same thing - with all due respect - as we tend to experience.

 

Your previous point of how addiction affects different people differently is also quite salient.

 

These guys get paid millions to play a game – and they don't even have to do that much. The second you sign a contract you are getting paid regardless of whether you play or not. No team is cutting a player the second he gets injured. It takes a lot for an organization to simply get rid of you for injuries alone, especially someone like Richards (or at least the previous incarnation of him). You're right, that situation can't be compared us average Joe's. You want to talk about pressure? Look at the everyday working man, especially if he has some sort of family. You take his health away from him, he faces a lot more pressure than some athlete who is a guaranteed millions.

 

And you cares of Carter was second fiddle to Richards? That doesn't mean he wasn't part of the core. The team was built around the both of them – I don't think that's really up for debate. In that scenario, they struggled. They had success, but they struggled in the sense that they could not achieve the ultimate goal. But placed in a situation where they're not expected  to be the best players? It's no coincidence that's where they won their Cups.

[King Knut]

13 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

Soooooooo..... You credit an individual for not abusing pills, but when they do it's everyone else's fault. I'm not even sure how you can see that with a straight face.

 

I credit the individual I'm conversing with because that's polite.

And I never absolved anyone who did abuse pills.  But in the case of something like pain pills and a hockey player... I think you're being naive if you think they're not handed out like firemen tossing out tootsie pops at a 4th of July parade.  

 

 

[fanaticV3.0]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

I credit the individual I'm conversing with because that's polite.

And I never absolved anyone who did abuse pills.  But in the case of something like pain pills and a hockey player... I think you're being naive if you think they're not handed out like firemen tossing out tootsie pops at a 4th of July parade.  

 

 

 

no, you definitely did. You blamed not one, but two organizations for Richard's choices.

 

I never said they weren't handed out like candy, I said nobody can make you take them – let alone abuse them.

[FD19372]

25 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

He was always the second guy to Richards - exactly the way the organization wanted him to be.

 

And he put up 46-33-36 goals when he was here. He hasn't hit any of those numbers since (I guess it depends on your idea of "flourishing") but guys who put up 46-33-36 are generally considered "cornerstones" of franchises. And all they did was make the Cup Final.

 

As for being a "cornerstone" in LA - he was second on the team with 25 points in 26 games in the second Cup run (a good definition of "flourishing" and also of "cornerstone") and is a important voice in the locker room and on the ice to this day.

 

So the Flyers "won the trades", the Kings "won two Cups" and the Kings today are in the same position as the Flyers - holding on to the second Wild Card spot in the West - and doing it without their franchise goaltender.

 

Quite frankly, it was the fans - and I say this as someone who uses (dear, departed) davies' accidental typo of "Crater" to this day - who saw this 30-goal scorer as a "floater" and have grasped at whatever salacious rumor they could find to justify the opinion.

 

FWIW, since "the trades" the Flyers have had all of two 30-goal scorers (Hartnell in 11-12, Simmonds last season) and have four rounds of playoffs in the past five years. #wonthetrades

Carter is ONE of many leaders in that Kings locker room. That Flyer team made it to that Cup Final based on on superb defense, timely scoring, and for a short time, good goaltending. Plus, Carter's off-ice habits were NOT going to be tolerated here. He is not worth the money they would have to have paid him. The bottom line is really this - who would you want on your team, Richards and Carter or Simmonds and Schenn. In spite of Schenn's inconsistent play, I still say the Flyers won that trade, and it's not even close. The game is played in the entire rink, not just in the offensive zone. 

[King Knut]

8 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

no, you definitely did. You blamed not one, but two organizations for Richard's choices.

 

I never said they weren't handed out like candy, I said nobody can make you take them – let alone abuse them.

 

No, I blamed them for not taking care of their players, creating an environment in which their players COULD get hooked on something like Oxy and OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS by dumping said player onto another team and or canning him altogether. 

 

For one of those organizations, those legal ramifications had actual consequences and they needed to mediate.  

 

Frankly if this was almost any another industry other than a professional sport (where all the teams are technically colluding already) the Kings would have been able to sue the pants off the Flyers if there was even a hint that the Flyers knew about Richards' problems and they probably would have won a hefty sum.  

 

I never said the Flyers made Richards sleep with women who he wasn't married to or drink excessive amounts of alcohol or even sort the occasional line of cocaine (all of which are legally just conjecture).  I never said they forced Oxy down his throat when he was a player.

 

But I will certainly stand by my suggestion that they created an environment in which it was plentiful and easy to acquire and probably initially prescribed it to him as a very young man to begin with.  And from an ethical, legal and I believe moral stand point , they bear a certain degree of responsibility that they should have taken more seriously.

 

Imagine if a trucking company had doctors on staff that highly recommended and freely gave prescriptions  to their drivers to help them stay awake.    How many times would they have been sued by accident victims and families and by truckers themselves who couldn't kick the drugs later?  

 

There are reasons tucking companies don't do stuff like that.   They're called lawyers.  

 

 

[FD19372]

8 minutes ago, King Knut said:

No, I blamed them for not taking care of their players, creating an environment in which their players COULD get hooked on something like Oxy and OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS by dumping said player onto another team and or canning him altogether. 

 

I know drug dependency/issues are a serious thing, but Richards wasn't an 18 year old kid. He is a man that should have been smart and responsible enough to steer clear of that stuff. Same thing with Lane Johnson of the Eagles. I'm tired of these million dollar morons. If you want to be drugging yourself up repeatedly, you are worthless to my franchise and selfish. The team doesn't need to hold the player's hand while they figure out their priorities. I'm sorry. He owes responsibility to his employer as much as they owe it to him. 

[King Knut]

40 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

I know drug dependency/issues are a serious thing, but Richards wasn't an 18 year old kid. He is a man that should have been smart and responsible enough to steer clear of that stuff. Same thing with Lane Johnson of the Eagles. I'm tired of these million dollar morons. If you want to be drugging yourself up repeatedly, you are worthless to my franchise and selfish. The team doesn't need to hold the player's hand while they figure out their priorities. I'm sorry. He owes responsibility to his employer as much as they owe it to him. 

 

He went to the Phantoms at 20 years old and started with the flyers a few months later and playing a season and a half of NHL hockey before turning 22.   I'm sorry, I just don't really consider that a grown man.    

 

How is it selfish to take your trainer and doctor's advice and play through pain because your team sucks without you on the ice?  

 

Of course they're morons.  They live lives of completely different consequences than the rest of us.  They never enter the real world until their 30's in most cases and if they're any good, they don't really have to enter it then.  

 

They're coddled and taken care of until they go pro at which point they're unleashed into the world at large without any preparation or maturity.  If you'd have given any of us even just the league minimum on an ELC and a sweet job where we got to play hockey every night when I was 19 or 20, how would any of us have faired?  

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that the team played things completely differently with Giroux.  Look at how they handled him.  They put him in a home with a chaperone, then he moved in with Briere and his two kids when the guy's wife split the next season.  Do we really think that was a coincidence in the wake of how things went with the likes of Richie, Carter, Upshall and Lupul (and let's throw in Hartsy too because he was a part of it all).  

 

There is literally NOTHING about a professional athlete (especially a hockey player who most likely never had four years of college to help sort things out) that is comparable to the way most of us grow up into adults.  

 

There just isn't.  It's ridiculous to expect them all to handle their stuff.  How many people who aren't handed wealth and privilege at 19-20 STILl grow up to have serious addiction problems?  It's a serious problem in the country right now.  

 

I absolve no one, but getting pissed at them and hanging them out to dry isn't going to fix a damn thing.   Especially if your organization is both the source of and the reason for the meds they're getting hooked on.  

 

 

 

 

[radoran]

54 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

And you cares of Carter was second fiddle to Richards? That doesn't mean he wasn't part of the core. The team was built around the both of them – I don't think that's really up for debate. In that scenario, they struggled. They had success, but they struggled in the sense that they could not achieve the ultimate goal. But placed in a situation where they're not expected  to be the best players? It's no coincidence that's where they won their Cups.

 

They got a heckuva lot closer than the current "core" did. This group hasn't been out of the second round and hasn't even gotten that far in four years (missing the playoffs twice).

 

And, again, Carter is expected to be one of the Kings' "best players" - and he is only leading the team in goals (22) and points (37).

 

By way of comparison, $10 million captain Anze Kopitar has four goals and 20 points this season.

 

37 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

 He is not worth the money they would have to have paid him. The bottom line is really this - who would you want on your team, Richards and Carter or Simmonds and Schenn. In spite of Schenn's inconsistent play, I still say the Flyers won that trade, and it's not even close. The game is played in the entire rink, not just in the offensive zone. 

 

Carter is still on the $5.2M contract the Flyers had already signed him to and will be for another five seasons. He currently makes about $100K more than "inconsistent" Brayden Schenn.

 

Not worth the money? His 24 goals and 62 points last season are fifth among players making $5-6M and only one of them (Jamie Benn, 89 points) makes less ($22,727 less, to be exact). The others are Burns, Seguin and Tavares.

 

That's not bad company. Benn will make $9.5M next season. Burns will make $8M next season, Seguin is 24 with two years to go on his deal (and will make bank after that). And I don't think anyone would think Tavares will make less when his deal is up after next season. Again, Carter has five more years at $5.2.

 

Carter's also a lifetime +74 (including a -11 in Columbus) and was +51 in his tenure in Philadelphia. His only minus season in LA was a -1 in his first 16 games. He's +35 since then. He was also +18 last season - and that's good for 25th in the entire league. +1 more than Patrick Kane. -1 less than Sidney Crosby. And, yes, I am well aware of the limitations of the +/- stat.

 

What would you rather have? Simmonds, Schenn, Voracek and Couturier or two Cups? I proudly and happily wear a Simmonds jersey to games - being my favorite current Flyer - and I'd take the two Cups every damn time. #wonthetrades

 

I guarantee you that no one in LA - or in much of the rest of the league - thinks that LA "lost" those trades. Not by a longshot. Even with Richards' problems.

 

I'm still waiting for the Flyers to raise their "Trades Won" banner. Maybe it can go right next to 73-74 and 74-75?

 

Until the Flyers win "their" two Cups with the players they got, they didn't "win" anything in that deal.

[mojo1917]

3 hours ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

Talk about ahead scratcher – you literally just blamed everyone except the addict himself.

 

 

 

I'm not an addictions counselor but I married one. If it were as simple as "it's the addict's fault" no one would be addicted to anything right ? 

 

physiology, behavior, genetic predisposition all play a role. 

The lack of compassion people have for addicts is another awesome trait of our current national culture.

 

 

 

 

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, FD19372 said:

Carter is ONE of many leaders in that Kings locker room. That Flyer team made it to that Cup Final based on on superb defense, timely scoring, and for a short time, good goaltending. Plus, Carter's off-ice habits were NOT going to be tolerated here. He is not worth the money they would have to have paid him. The bottom line is really this - who would you want on your team, Richards and Carter or Simmonds and Schenn. In spite of Schenn's inconsistent play, I still say the Flyers won that trade, and it's not even close. The game is played in the entire rink, not just in the offensive zone. 

 

You can have your Carter hate, own it, hate him for your own personal reasons.

 

When you try to say he was a bad player at any time in his career other than 4 months in Columbus you're lying to yourself.  Currently, he is leading the Kings with his play on the ice and now that he's an adult he's holding other players accountable in the locker room.  

He was a very good player when he was here, and if Brian Campbell doesn't get **** lucky flailing his stick in game 6 on Carter's "missed shot" while he was playing with broken feet...maybe you'd have a different opinion,  then again, maybe not.  

The fact that Philly fans continue to discount Carter and Richard's contributions to the Kings success is baffling to me.  That it continues to be such a  sore spot, able to elicit such vitriol is almost comical.

 

 

[fanaticV3.0]

22 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

No, I blamed them for not taking care of their players, creating an environment in which their players COULD get hooked on something like Oxy and OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS by dumping said player onto another team and or canning him altogether. 

 

For one of those organizations, those legal ramifications had actual consequences and they needed to mediate.  

 

Frankly if this was almost any another industry other than a professional sport (where all the teams are technically colluding already) the Kings would have been able to sue the pants off the Flyers if there was even a hint that the Flyers knew about Richards' problems and they probably would have won a hefty sum.  

 

I never said the Flyers made Richards sleep with women who he wasn't married to or drink excessive amounts of alcohol or even sort the occasional line of cocaine (all of which are legally just conjecture).  I never said they forced Oxy down his throat when he was a player.

 

But I will certainly stand by my suggestion that they created an environment in which it was plentiful and easy to acquire and probably initially prescribed it to him as a very young man to begin with.  And from an ethical, legal and I believe moral stand point , they bear a certain degree of responsibility that they should have taken more seriously.

 

Imagine if a trucking company had doctors on staff that highly recommended and freely gave prescriptions  to their drivers to help them stay awake.    How many times would they have been sued by accident victims and families and by truckers themselves who couldn't kick the drugs later?  

 

There are reasons tucking companies don't do stuff like that.   They're called lawyers.  

 

 

 

These two statements are in contradiction with one another. You Can't complain about them not doing their job and then turn around and say they did their job poorly or irresponsibly.

[King Knut]

16 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

These two statements are in contradiction with one another. You Can't complain about them not doing their job and then turn around and say they did their job poorly or irresponsibly.

 

If their job is to take care of their players WELL, then isn't taking care of them POORLY not doing their job?

 

I'm sorry that I seem to be confusing you. I can guarantee it's definitely not worth the trouble. Maybe it's best for everyone if we move on. 

[fanaticV3.0]

22 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

 

I'm not an addictions counselor but I married one. If it were as simple as "it's the addict's fault" no one would be addicted to anything right ? 

 

physiology, behavior, genetic predisposition all play a role. 

The lack of compassion people have for addicts is another awesome trait of our current national culture.

 

 

 

 

 

No one is denying the psychology of it.

 

Some of us are simply pointing out the absurd notion that not one, but two companies – not even an individual or two – hold the bulk of the responsibility for an individual abusing his medication. That is utterly absurd. It completely absolves the individual from any and all responsibility. It's a ridiculous statement.

[fanaticV3.0]

16 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

If their job is to take care of their players WELL, then isn't taking care of them POORLY not doing their job?

 

I'm sorry that I seem to be confusing you. I can guarantee it's definitely not worth the trouble. Maybe it's best for everyone if we move on. 

 

Not at all.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

Not at all.

 

I'm scratching my head. 

I feel like you're just trolling me with confusing statements now, so I'm moving on.  

[mojo1917]

13 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

No one is denying the psychology of it.

 

Some of us are simply pointing out the absurd notion that Not one, but two companies – not even an individual or two – hold the bulk of the responsibility for an individual abusing his medication. That is utterly absurd. It completely involves the individual from any and all responsibility. It's a ridiculous statement.

 

 

 

Athough I do understand what you are saying about personal responsibility...

By continuing to show your lack of understanding of KK's and my position you aren't helping to persuade me to see your position as being anything other than harshly judgemental, because it seems you equate addiction with a failure of character.  

 

 

You do not seem to understand that perhaps people that become addicted to "things" cannot help it because of the physiology of their brains, irrespective of their level personal responsibility.  

[fanaticV3.0]

1 minute ago, mojo1917 said:

 

Athough I do understand what you are saying about personal responsibility...

By continuing to show your lack of understanding of KK's and my position isn't helping to persuade me to see your position as being anything other than harshly judgemental, because it seems you equate addiction with a failure of character.  

 

 

You do not seem to understand that perhaps people that become addicted to "things" cannot help it because of the physiology of their brains, irrespective of their level personal responsibility.  

 

Dude couldn't even put down the booze for 30 days when his coach asked him to, because he believed it was interfering with both him and the team as a whole. His response was to laugh and tell his coach to piss off.

 

He was then fortunate enough to get traded to a team that was better than his previous one and took some pressure off of him. He won 2 cups there. His play started to drop off in his work ethic was even questioned. The team's general manager flew to his home and literally worked out with him in an attempt to motivate him. It didn't work.

 

After all of that he was arrested for trying to smuggle pills across the border.

 

And you're upset questioning his character? Is that a joke?

[mojo1917]

@fanaticV3.0

 

I'm not upset.

I am not condoning Richard's behavior in any way.

I am also sure the dude didn't say "let me take these drugs so they ruin my life".

I feel like you don't seem to want to consider that his behavior at the time wasn't entirely "his fault" and that's because "he was a bad person, who deserved what he got". This is a standard non-addict's view of an addict.

I am disappointed by the current culture our apparent lack of empathy for one another. 

This is not directed solely at you, just a general observation that seems to inform your attitude on this topic.

 

 

 

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

@fanaticV3.0

 

I'm not upset.

I am not condoning Richard's behavior in any way.

I am also sure the dude didn't say "let me take these drugs so they ruin my life".

I feel like you don't seem to want to consider that his behavior at the time wasn't entirely "his fault" and that's because "he was a bad person, who deserved what he got". This is a standard non-addict's view of an addict.

I am disappointed by the current culture our apparent lack of empathy for one another. 

This is not directed solely at you, just a general observation that seems to inform your attitude on this topic

 

It's also generally accepted in the world of behavioral psychology that this view of addicts as failures is precisely why most addicts don't reach out for help and in fact dig themselves deeper in their desperation.  

 

In any event, I don't really care anymore.  Carter started scoring less and playing better and mostly I think because of Sutter.

 

Addiction and legal troubles in mind, I still think the bigger problem with Richie's game is that his style of play and his generally being undersized for that approach eventually caught up with him and shortened his career.   I think there was probably a reason the guy was taking the prescription meds to begin with.

 

But that's just my take.  Doesn't matter either way.  As I've said all along the only problem I have ever had with trading them was signing Bryzgalov (and the subsequent two years of ridiculous moves and contracts) instead of just rebuilding then and there.  

 

I'm just not so insecure about it all that I can't compliment a player I used to cheer for in orange and black  for doing well now that he's in silver and black... or is it purple and black.. I don't friggin' know anymore with them and their unis.  

 

 

 

[fanaticV3.0]

On 1/13/2017 at 0:41 PM, mojo1917 said:

@fanaticV3.0

 

I'm not upset.

I am not condoning Richard's behavior in any way.

I am also sure the dude didn't say "let me take these drugs so they ruin my life".

I feel like you don't seem to want to consider that his behavior at the time wasn't entirely "his fault" and that's because "he was a bad person, who deserved what he got". This is a standard non-addict's view of an addict.

I am disappointed by the current culture our apparent lack of empathy for one another. 

This is not directed solely at you, just a general observation that seems to inform your attitude on this topic.

 

 

 

 

If you are going to let how people treat one another get you down there are better examples than pill-popping athletes who were given multiple chances – and turned their noses up at people who reached out to them.  I would actually agree with you  that far more people today are a-holes than even a decade ago, but it's not because of a lack of sympathy for someone like Mike Richards.

 

 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

I worked with Jeff's mom in London, Ontario and I had to break the news to her that Jeff was traded. I can tell you with certainty that Jeff was absolutely heart broken when he was dealt from Philadelphia because he was treated like a king there (pardon the pun). I also think the way he was treated was part of the reason why he was moved. To a certain extent, the Flyers condoned his behaviour in terms of night life and women. And before anyone says anything about drugs and the like, I can tell you with certainty he wasn't into the drugs. He liked booze, but drugs were an absolute no no. He was really a big, loveable kid who loved playing hockey and it wasn't until Laviolette came onboard that Laviolette cracked the whip and Carter started to sour and tune him out. Laviolette was a big reason why Carter was moved. So too was his relationship with Richards, which was bordering on toxic. If the Flyers would have cracked the whip with the two of them when they came to Philadelphia, I don't think there would have been an issue. By the time Danny Briere and others came here, it was too late for them to buy into what the team wanted from them and they were going to do their own thing.

[radoran]

4 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

I worked with Jeff's mom in London, Ontario and I had to break the news to her that Jeff was traded. I can tell you with certainty that Jeff was absolutely heart broken when he was dealt from Philadelphia because he was treated like a king there (pardon the pun). I also think the way he was treated was part of the reason why he was moved. To a certain extent, the Flyers condoned his behaviour in terms of night life and women. And before anyone says anything about drugs and the like, I can tell you with certainty he wasn't into the drugs. He liked booze, but drugs were an absolute no no. He was really a big, loveable kid who loved playing hockey and it wasn't until Laviolette came onboard that Laviolette cracked the whip and Carter started to sour and tune him out. Laviolette was a big reason why Carter was moved. So too was his relationship with Richards, which was bordering on toxic. If the Flyers would have cracked the whip with the two of them when they came to Philadelphia, I don't think there would have been an issue. By the time Danny Briere and others came here, it was too late for them to buy into what the team wanted from them and they were going to do their own thing.

 

I still maintain making Richards captain at that point was a terrible mistake.

 

It was all part of the Flyers culture of trying to declare so ething before it happened.

 

And their failure to adequately address the problems - assuming they were aware of them. Because the team gave DECADE long deals to both players. Seems an odd situation for an organization that was aware of serious problems with the social lives of the two guys. They pilloried and drove Eric Lindros out of town for less...

 

The main problem is that no matter how much we can differ on the percentage of incompetence to the percentage of ignorance, it doesn't end well for the organization. And I use that term loosely.