Giroux Says He's Been Playing Injured

[brelic]

11 minutes ago, Bertmega said:

I don't see it that way. It's like the one guy that goes into the office with the flu and gets everybody sick. If he is hurt, he is not 100%. If he is not 100% he is not helping. 

 

Of course we'd all bitch, we're Flyers fans are we not?

 

I completely disagree. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team full of 100% healthy hockey players. There's always something nagging.

 

The question is whether or not a player can still be (more) effective than other options, and whether or not there's a (high) risk of making the injury worse or chronic by playing through it. 

 

This is a multi-billion dollar industry and there is no question that players are playing hurt all the time.

 

[King Knut]

10 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

He (Voracek) is a winger

 

 

Not getting smashed into the wall by Pavelski in a glorified exhibition game isn't going to help him heal faster?

 

Interesting...

 

 

This is absolutely plausible. And it is a valid point that if he's not at risk of re-injury then there's no benefit to being out.

 

On the other hand, if he's not himself and can't do the things he is used to doing on the ice, does that put him more "at risk"?

 

It's a known unknown at best. I can see where there isn't a "good answer" to the question.

 

But it returns to the point that he was never "100%" - not in August, September, October, November, December, January or February. So why did he - and the team - continually assert that he was?

 

 

The World Cup was a joint venture between the league and the NHLPA . The NHLPA wasn't "pressured" into doing it. They were part of the pressure on the players to be a part of it.

 

 

 

 

While Lundqvist does say the "league was pushing for it" - the NHLPA didn't exactly walk away from splitting the $65 Million.

 

 

 

 

The league wanted this tournament to eclipse the Olympics.

 

It didn't, doesn't and won't do that.

 

He wasn't rushed to be cleared to play early because of the World's.

He could just as easily have been checked into the boards during practice or an exhibition game by some kid trying to make a name for himself.  It he hadn't been in the World's that's where he would have been.  

 

Claude not being himself makes him a decidedly mediocre player in this league.  Slightly above average.  

Your "other hand" logic suggests that half the players in this league shouldn't be playing because they're not at superior enough to not get hurt?

 

Most players in this league are never 100%.  Certainly not in March or April.  

And often many of them who have off season surgery could use more recovery time by traning camp.  

 

It was a pretty big story that the GM's and coaches and many players would just ass soon not have had their guys in the worlds.  

 

Hextall even commented on it, mostly to say, "The league thinks it's important for the league so we're going to go along with it." or something like that.  that's as enthusiastic as he got.   it was a non denial denial.

 

I guess sometimes I forget there's a difference between the NHLPA and the NHL Players. Clearly there is

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bertmega]

13 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

I completely disagree. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team full of 100% healthy hockey players. There's always something nagging.

 

The question is whether or not a player can still be (more) effective than other options, and whether or not there's a (high) risk of making the injury worse or chronic by playing through it. 

 

This is a multi-billion dollar industry and there is no question that players are playing hurt all the time.

 

Of course there has to be some nagging injuries on any pro-level sports club, but when your biggest investment is 80% at best, after two surgeries, it's clear as day that he should shut it down till he is marginally better. But how does one assess "marginally better"? Maybe he declines the Worlds invitation? Maybe he bypasses the first month of the regular season? Would it have made a difference? By the looks of the entire picture, probably not that much. 

 

I questioned his health in the past, but had no idea that the rumors were true until he came out and said it. Now I am starting to question his intelligence for even lacing up while still recovering from two (to us minor) surgeries that vastly impacted his ability to play the game at his God given talent level. The validation of an injury plagued season are his words, not mine. 

 

Hopefully, I am just reading too much into it and I am looking for a scapegoat for this season. Next year will certainly tell.

[radoran]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

He wasn't rushed to be cleared to play early because of the World's.

He could just as easily have been checked into the boards during practice or an exhibition game by some kid trying to make a name for himself.  It he hadn't been in the World's that's where he would have been.  

 

Claude not being himself makes him a decidedly mediocre player in this league.  Slightly above average.  

Your "other hand" logic suggests that half the players in this league shouldn't be playing because they're not at superior enough to not get hurt?

 

Most players in this league are never 100%.  Certainly not in March or April.  

And often many of them who have off season surgery could use more recovery time by traning camp.  

 

It was a pretty big story that the GM's and coaches and many players would just ass soon not have had their guys in the worlds.  

 

Hextall even commented on it, mostly to say, "The league thinks it's important for the league so we're going to go along with it." or something like that.  that's as enthusiastic as he got.   it was a non denial denial.

 

I guess sometimes I forget there's a difference between the NHLPA and the NHL Players. Clearly there is

 

Sure, injuries can happen to anyone anywhere. Guys can get hurt stepping out of the shower.

 

The GMs don't want their players in the Olympics, either. There's no secret to that.

 

But $65M is $65M and neither the NHL nor the NHLPA didn't take the money...

 

If you get injured at practice (we talkin' 'bout practice) at least it's practicing for the team that's paying you.

 

My primary issue is the insistence (from both the team and the player) that he was 100% in August. You know that's not true. I know that's not true. And it clearly wasn't true.

 

So why insist upon it? Just so Claude can get a medal playing fifth fiddle to Sidney Crosby? woo-hoo!

 

If Radko Gudas can be held out of the World Cup, your captain and primary linchpin of your organization can be held out.

[radoran]

1 minute ago, Bertmega said:

Of course there has to be some nagging injuries on any pro-level sports club, but when your biggest investment is 80% at best, after two surgeries, it's clear as day that he should shut it down till he is marginally better. But how does one assess "marginally better"? Maybe he declines the Worlds invitation? Maybe he bypasses the first month of the regular season? Would it have made a difference? By the looks of the entire picture, probably not that much. 

 

I questioned his health in the past, but had no idea that the rumors were true until he came out and said it. Now I am starting to question his intelligence for even lacing up while still recovering from two (to us minor) surgeries that vastly impacted his ability to play the game at his God given talent level. The validation of an injury plagued season are his words, not mine. 

 

Hopefully, I am just reading too much into it and I am looking for a scapegoat for this season. Next year will certainly tell.

 

In fairness, he did start out with 11 points in 11 games (all assists, it was Game 12 before he scored). And they did have the 10 game run.

 

But as you, me and just about everyone else noticed, he was never "G" out there this season.

 

I hope he returns to form next season. But last season's surgery doesn't explain his trend line of 83-76-67 points the previous three years. And if "returning to form" means that he's a 60-65 point player, that's not what this team needs from its #1 C.

[pilldoc]

14 minutes ago, radoran said:

But it returns to the point that he was never "100%" - not in August, September, October, November, December, January or February. So why did he - and the team - continually assert that he was?

 

 

And I have a severe problem with team management for that.  It's like telling a child a certain medicine isn't bitter when in fact it will always be bitter and no amount of flavoring (trying to sugarcoat the truth) will change that fact. 

 

17 minutes ago, radoran said:

The World Cup was a joint venture between the league and the NHLPA . The NHLPA wasn't "pressured" into doing it. They were part of the pressure on the players to be a part of it.

 

I didn't like the World Cup then and I still don't like the World Cup now. There were way TOO many injuries that came about because of these "exhibition" games that affect many teams.

 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

 

Many of the fans who are bitching about his poor play would be bitching that he was sitting out. 

Playing injured or not to 100% really seems to be a lose / lose proposition 90% of the time.

If he doesn't play he's soft and a *****... He's not living up to his contract or his leadership role on the team. He does play but he's not himself... he's a liar and he's not living up to his contract or his leadership role on the team.

wtf ?

If I were him I don't know what I'd do, to be honest.  Do you at 85 % think you're still the team's best option ? If you're a competitor you most likely do...I know I did. How much pressure does the big contract and leadership role play into wanting to play hurt ? - to show you're worth the investment.

I don't know, it's a snake eating it's tail.

 

 

 

To be crystal clear, by comments are strictly with regard to him playing in the World Cup.  If he was not 100%, then he had no damn right to be playing for Team Canada.    My comments are strictly that it sets a bad example to younger players that it is ok to make it appear that you are 100% when in fact you are not.  Again, I am not talking about the regular season here.  I am talking about playing for Team Canada when in fact his primary responsibility is to Team Flyers.  It is his responsibility to make sure he is 100% for the regular NHL Season.  He is paid by the Flyers, not Team Canada.

 

The regular season it gets more dicey with regard to playing when injured or not.  It depends on the injury and if you are medically cleared or not.  However, by him playing in the World Cup and getting injured again, which prevented him from getting back to 100% full health for the regular season,  then yes...I have a serious problem with that.  It sets a very bad example for the younger players.

 

29 minutes ago, radoran said:

The league wanted this tournament to eclipse the Olympics.

 

It didn't, doesn't and won't do that.

 

Totally agree!

 

35 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Here's where I sit. If resting wasn't going to help his recovery (ie, no risk of further damage), then I have no issue with his decision to either play in the WC (from a health standpoint. I give a rats rear about the WC, and would have preferred the Flyers players all stay home to avoid other potential injuries) or to play through it. It's a bit of a double standard, in that if it had been a 3rd/4th liner I would have wanted him to sit so you could play someone who might contribute more, but in the case of Giroux, even at whatever percentage he was, he still has put up more points than anyone on the team but Voracek. What good would him sitting have done the team, assuming his playing didn't cause the injury to take longer to heal or risk injuring it further? How would the team have fared with Schenn as the 1C for half to two thirds of the year? I guess if you're looking for a draft pick it makes sense, but otherwise what's the point?

 

Agree on many points here.  However, I do disagree about the risk of further injury.  Even if he was cleared medically to play, why not just stay home, rehab some more and get stronger.  Why risk re-injury at all by playing is all I'm asking.  After all, like I stated above, his primary responsibility is to Team Flyers...NOT Team Canada.

[pilldoc]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

Guys can get hurt stepping out of the shower.

 

Or by getting a meal ready.. see Anderson, Craig, RE: slicing his hand ..... https://www.nhl.com/news/senators-goalie-craig-anderson-out-indefinitely-after-cutting-his-right-hand/c-618532 

[pilldoc]

13 minutes ago, radoran said:

My primary issue is the insistence (from both the team and the player) that he was 100% in August. You know that's not true. I know that's not true. And it clearly wasn't true.

 

So why insist upon it? Just so Claude can get a medal playing fifth fiddle to Sidney Crosby? woo-hoo!

 

If Radko Gudas can be held out of the World Cup, your captain and primary linchpin of your organization can be held ou

 

This ^^^^ x1000.    My point exactly in my posts......  Also, as I have mentioned several times...it sets a bad example for your younger players. 

[flyerrod]

4 hours ago, radoran said:

Might things have been different had he not been "for the good of the game" playing the fourth line for Team Canada? Obviously, we'll never know. But it certainly doesn't help people have confidence in what you're telling them going forward.

Michael Leighton says hello....right after he signed his contract.....Playing through injury in a playoff run is different than half assing your way through the entire season because you thought you could pull it off. Most people on this site pointed towards him playing like he has been injured since the international tourney anyways. This seems to be a standard especially for the Flyers I.E. Umberger/Timmonen/Desjardins/Lindros/Lapierriere/Primeau/and insert about 40 more names here.

[peter puck]

5 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

...because where are his wingers?

 

Jake is a winger. 

It was in response to wtf is Jakes excuse. The subject got off track for a few posts. 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, peter puck said:

The subject got off track for a few posts. 

 

Yes it did i was confused as hell.

[murraycraven]

No team in professional sports is going to be healthy 100% of the time.   Hockey and the physical nature dictates injuries throughout the lineup all of the time.   As suspected G has been playing injured all year long.   He and Ghost's surgeries are not something that is recovered from easily.   

 

I have no issue with him playing hurt but I do have an issues w/ him playing with Team Canada.   I understand why he would want to play but this is something that really aggravates me about the national tournaments.   The player is a paid professional for the Flyers organization.   I am not a Dr and dont pretend to know the finer details of his injury - was it an injury/recovery that could not get worse?  Did he aggravate the recovery process by playing?

 

To me this is another shoddy scenario by the Flyers management and training staff.  Their job is to protect the interests of the Flyers organization.  

 

Now I will say... G at 100% would not have pushed this team into the playoffs IMO.

[pilldoc]

28 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

I have no issue with him playing hurt but I do have an issues w/ him playing with Team Canada.   I understand why he would want to play but this is something that really aggravates me about the national tournaments.   The player is a paid professional for the Flyers organization.  

 

This has been the crux of my argument / POV also.  I'm just disappointed with the whole mess this created.  Time to end these exhibition style formats once and for all.....

[Bertmega]

6 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

Time to end these exhibition style formats once and for all.....

Or they should just go back to the old ways of not letting pro players participate in these events. 

 

Keep it College and Juniors, etc and I'd be happy with it.

[murraycraven]

29 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

This has been the crux of my argument / POV also.  I'm just disappointed with the whole mess this created.  Time to end these exhibition style formats once and for all.....

 

 

I agree doc...   it makes no sense to me considering these are exhibition games in a sense.   

 

22 minutes ago, Bertmega said:

Or they should just go back to the old ways of not letting pro players participate in these events. 

 

Keep it College and Juniors, etc and I'd be happy with it.

 

agree as well bert...  Honestly, I would rather watch the Jr/Collegiate players in this type of format.  It provides a bit more exposure to hockey fans of the leagues future players.   

 

I just don't understand how the Flyers held back Gudas from playing in the tournament and then let G and Ghost play after surgeries that are not easy to recover and require time.  Why?  It makes not sense whatsoever...  G is the franchise player.  The fact of the matter, with the way this Team is constructed, is the Flyers will only go as G goes.   

 

Not sure what the hell Hextall was thinking but I really hope a reporter presses him on this....

[radoran]

11 hours ago, pilldoc said:

 

This has been the crux of my argument / POV also.  I'm just disappointed with the whole mess this created.  Time to end these exhibition style formats once and for all.....

 

I'll give you 65 million reasons that ain't happening...

[pilldoc]

6 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I'll give you 65 million reasons that ain't happening...

 

sadly I believe you are correct ....

[CoachX]

Forgive me if Im restating what has already been said, but I agree with "rad' and "Pill"....

 

If playing for Canada hampered his recovery or set it back, that incredibly irresponsible and not what I would expect from a captain. The Flyers are paying his salary and his obligation should be first, and foremost to them. And if the team has had to suffer due to his injury, there should be some consequence. I think they should strip him of his position and give it to a player who lives up to what that role embodies (Simmonds?)

 

A question that sticks in my mind, did Giroux push to play for team Canada because it gave him an immediate reward now, knowing the Flyers were nowhere near a cup, and may never get there?

 

Another question, why do the Fl;yers always rush a young star to be captain, just to see the wheels come off shortly after they do?

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, CoachX said:

Another question, why do the Fl;yers always rush a young star to be captain, just to see the wheels come off shortly after they do?

 

From where I sit, the Flyers use the "captain" as more of a marketing opportunity than a presence on the ice. Six of the past eleven captains held the position for one season.

 

Lindros got it too early. Richards got it too early. Giroux had never been in a leadership position prior to being named captain.

 

Forsberg had never been a captain before. Pronger and Hatcher were installed based on reputation from other teams.

 

Jason Smith, by all accounts, was given the captaincy in the hopes that he would re-sign with the Flyers. Another dumb reason to make the move.

 

Desjardins, as far as I could tell, never really wanted it and was thrust into the position after L'Affaire Lindros blew up in the organization's face.

 

Primeau represents one of the few "good" choices over the past 25 years - as much as it might pain me to say so.

[King Knut]

Just to revisit the original topic,

 

Claude has had 11 points in 13 games (basically since the outdoor classic).

+3 over that stretch.

 

This is markedly better than he had been playing all year.  Maybe there's some legs to the 18-24 month recovery rumors afterall.

 

Claude as a captain is another story.  

[King Knut]

42 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

From where I sit, the Flyers use the "captain" as more of a marketing opportunity than a presence on the ice. Six of the past eleven captains held the position for one season.

 

Lindros got it too early. Richards got it too early. Giroux had never been in a leadership position prior to being named captain.

 

Forsberg had never been a captain before. Pronger and Hatcher were installed based on reputation from other teams.

 

Jason Smith, by all accounts, was given the captaincy in the hopes that he would re-sign with the Flyers. Another dumb reason to make the move.

 

Desjardins, as far as I could tell, never really wanted it and was thrust into the position after L'Affaire Lindros blew up in the organization's face.

 

Primeau represents one of the few "good" choices over the past 25 years - as much as it might pain me to say so.

 

I have no problem with Richards or Lindros getting the captaincy.

Smith was appropriate and if he'd stuck around another year before retiring, it might have been a more appropriate time to hand it over to Richards... though as I said I have no problem giving the C to Richards.  It worked.  The team got better immediately and had several good years with him as captain.  

 

There's this idea that Richards wasn't a good captain somehow, and I guess it's because he was a partier off the ice and because Pronger hated his guts or something, but the tone he set on the ice and from the bench was clear and the team clearly responded to it on the ice.  They went from being extremely bad (the worst actually) to being very good (ECF's Finals) with Richards as captain.  I think the would have continued to do well if he'd stayed (at least until his body gave out to the injuries as it did). 

 

Drug running at the border 5 years later aside, I'm just not sure where the criticism of Richards as captain comes from.  Certainly not from the results.

 

Pronger and Hatcher and Forsberg would probably have been good choices, but they were just too old and too damn injured to hold it.  Maybe Pronger would have been captain for 5 more years had the eye thing never happened.  Who knows.  Might have worked out better and we might have had more time for Claude to mature.

 

Even so, I don't really have a problem with giving the C to Claude when they did.  The problem I have is that they gave him the C, then let Jagr go and traded away JVR, kept Bryz and traded Bob.

 

Remember they gave it to him after "The Shift".  In hindsight, they should probably have given it to Timmo but remember at that time, he only had one year left on his contract and was supposedly considering retiring then, so I could see why they didn't.

 

Looking at what Homer did that summer, I assume they intended to sign Parise and Suter and make them the centerpieces and one of them (Parise) would be captain.  

 

If they'd have kept Jagr they could have made him captain, but I'd just as soon have made G captain then and let him continue to learn from the old one.  I don't think Giroux was unprepared to be captain.  I don't think there's necessarily a way for a young player to prepare to be captain.

 

Remember it was after all this that Giroux made the promise that the team would make the playoffs after starting 0-7 or whatever it was.  And he delivered.  

 

It's been the subsequent years of bad coaching and horrible rosters that IMHO have deadened his urgency and assumption that he must win no matter what that has weakened his case for the captaincy.  I was against it at the time because (as I said then) I just want him to score and set up goals.  let someone else worry about the captaincy crap.  Maybe I wasn't wrong, but in hindsight, I'm not sure what the options were at that point.  No Richards, No Jagr, No Carter, No Pronger, Briere injured and careening toward a buyout, Timmonen pondering retirement...  I mean do you give it to a 40 year old Knuble?  Max Talbot?  Scott Hartnell?  Giroux was the only option then.  Of course now is a different story... or is it?

 

Because who could replace him?  People say Simmer... but as much as I love Wayne, the dude doesn't have that leadership vibe either.  Not the kind we want as fans in this town.  When was the last time Simmer said, "Follow me dudes!" and took the game on his shoulder and the team followed?  That's just not his thing and that's fine. He just plays a different game and I prefer that he keep playing it just as he is.

 

Long story short is they're not going to strip Giroux of the C.

Now if they somehow managed to get John Tavares next year however...  

(yes,  i am a broken record.  I admit it)

 

 

 

 

 

[radoran]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

Long story short is they're not going to strip Giroux of the C.

Now if they somehow managed to get John Tavares next year however...  

(yes,  i am a broken record.  I admit it)

 

I don't expect them to strip Giroux. At all. It's not how they do things.

 

I don't want to re-litigate the Lindros/Richards decisions. Honest people can disagree and that's fine. I think the results speak best to the situation.

 

They had committed the team to Lindros from the moment they made the trade. I still think Richards would have benefitted from a longer interim captain. The big "mistake" for Richards - who was anointed the "captain of the future" from the moment they drafted him - in my mind was Smith.

 

A Briere or - my choice - Timonen would have been a much better decision both for the short and the long term. That said, I don't think Timonen would have been a good choice before Giroux, for many of the reasons you mention. And the only reason they went with Giroux was because Pronger went down with injury. Pronger was supposed to be the captain for much longer than he was allowed.

 

As you note, I would have much preferred to "let G be G" and not burdened with the C. IMO all concerned would have a much different opinion of the player at this point had he not gotten it.

[King Knut]

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I don't expect them to strip Giroux. At all. It's not how they do things.

 

I don't want to re-litigate the Lindros/Richards decisions. Honest people can disagree and that's fine. I think the results speak best to the situation.

 

They had committed the team to Lindros from the moment they made the trade. I still think Richards would have benefitted from a longer interim captain. The big "mistake" for Richards - who was anointed the "captain of the future" from the moment they drafted him - in my mind was Smith.

 

A Briere or - my choice - Timonen would have been a much better decision both for the short and the long term. That said, I don't think Timonen would have been a good choice before Giroux, for many of the reasons you mention. And the only reason they went with Giroux was because Pronger went down with injury. Pronger was supposed to be the captain for much longer than he was allowed.

 

As you note, I would have much preferred to "let G be G" and not burdened with the C. IMO all concerned would have a much different opinion of the player at this point had he not gotten it.

 

Yeah not looking to reignite debates... Just looking back I don't necessarily disagree with the calls or I can at least see where they're coming from.

 

From a certain standpoint, the entire lindros deal was a bad idea.  many hear would argue that.  but from another standpoint, getting him and making him captain so soon made this organization a LOT of money at a time when the league in general had more money potentially to be made than in previous decades.  It was good timing.

 

Who the hell knows?  I don't want to get into it either.  But I will say I understand the inclination in the form of Lindros, Richards, or Giroux to challenge your young "looks like the future" kind of player and put the mantle on him to push him to respond.  

 

It's worked with other players the league over throughout history.  It almost worked with Lindros and it almost worked with Richards.  Not quite.  

 

G isn't even that close at this point.  He knocked out Crosby and scored a goal on the same shift though.  That was fun.  

[radoran]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Yeah not looking to reignite debates... Just looking back I don't necessarily disagree with the calls or I can at least see where they're coming from.

 

I can see where they were coming from. I just thought they were the wrong moves then and I think they were the wrong moves now

 

From where I sit, this franchise has a history of wanting to declare things to be true rather than seeing what is true.

 

Lindros was "the right move" up until this point where it wasn't. And so was Richards.

[King Knut]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I can see where they were coming from. I just thought they were the wrong moves then and I think they were the wrong moves now

 

From where I sit, this franchise has a history of wanting to declare things to be true rather than seeing what is true.

 

Lindros was "the right move" up until this point where it wasn't. And so was Richards.

 

I think there is also a certain delusion about what Clarke was that has persisted.  The feeling is Clarke did everything by himself and was that platonic uber captain.  He kinda was... but he forgets how the players he was surrounded by made him better as much as he made them  better and he TOTALLY forgets how protected he was... if he'd have afforded Lindros that kind of protection, I'm pretty convinced the Flyers win two cups with Eric as well.  Instead... 

 

Poulin:  No nonsense committed competitor of a captain.  No delusions that he had to score all the goals, great two way guy.  Got the job done and well.  No controversy.  He just did the job.  Propp and Kerr scored a boat load more.  None of us cared.