Congrats Preds and Lavvy!

[radoran]

25 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I'm sorry, there was no problem with  making Richards captain when they did and there was no problem with the on ice results with him as captain.  If they didn't like his off the ice personality or example, that was something they should have discussed and worked through then, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to condemn the guy as not being ready to be a captain when his teams did better than 80% of the NHL. 

 

You don't have to be sorry.

 

But if there was "no problem with the on ice results" why was he shipped out of town three years into his captaincy with nine years left on his contract? Seems an awfully strange thing to ship a guy unceremoniously out of town when there was "no problem with his on ice results."

 

The comparison to Crosby and Toews doesn't help, either, as both of them are still captains of their teams and have won multiple Cups as captain.

 

Richards never won a Cup as captain and isn't even playing in the NHL anymore.

 

I don't "condemn" anyone - I'm saying things could - and probably should - have been different had they handled it differently.

 

You want to use more inflammatory verbiage, go ahead.

 

It doesn't help make your point nor invalidate my actual one.

[King Knut]

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

You don't have to be sorry.

 

But if there was "no problem with the on ice results" why was he shipped out of town three years into his captaincy with nine years left on his contract? Seems an awfully strange thing to ship a guy unceremoniously out of town when there was "no problem with his on ice results."

 

The comparison to Crosby and Toews doesn't help, either, as both of them are still captains of their teams and have won multiple Cups as captain.

 

Richards never won a Cup as captain and isn't even playing in the NHL anymore.

 

I don't "condemn" anyone - I'm saying things could - and probably should - have been different had they handled it differently.

 

You want to use more inflammatory verbiage, go ahead.

 

It doesn't help make your point nor invalidate my actual one.

 

To be fair, I didn't suggest you condemned him as a criminal or a drug addict or a punk or anything of the sort.  Just as not being ready to be captain when he was made captain.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that's inflammatory.  I guess it was a poor choice in words.  A less inflammatory phrase might have been "you categorized him as not being ready to be captain."

 

And as far as why he and Carter were traded... I think that's still something only Homer will ever know.  Again, I have no particular issue with the trades, it was what came next and the seeming contradictory but extreme commitments to rebuilding and winning now at the same time that I will condemn as confusing at best.

 

I really don't think we disagree on the salient points.

 

It would seem to make sense, but I really am still curious, I'm not being rhetorical here.  I'm trying to have a discussion. 

 

Besides dealing with the press better, what else do you think two more years as an Alt. would have given Richards and how do you think it would have altered the outcome of those seasons or the play of the team around him when he finally did take the mantle?  

 

For example, he matures a bit and handles the press and their antagonism better, lets it roll of him more easily and doesn't get ruffled by them...  What's that do for the team?

 

AND please take me seriously... I'm just curious.  I'm trying to gain perspective here.

[radoran]

16 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

To be fair, I didn't suggest you condemned him as a criminal or a drug addict or a punk or anything of the sort.  Just as not being ready to be captain when he was made captain.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that's inflammatory.  I guess it was a poor choice in words.  A less inflammatory phrase might have been "you categorized him as not being ready to be captain."

 

And as far as why he and Carter were traded... I think that's still something only Homer will ever know.  Again, I have no particular issue with the trades, it was what came next and the seeming contradictory but extreme commitments to rebuilding and winning now at the same time that I will condemn as confusing at best.

 

I really don't think we disagree on the salient points.

 

It would seem to make sense, but I really am still curious, I'm not being rhetorical here.  I'm trying to have a discussion. 

 

Besides dealing with the press better, what else do you think two more years as an Alt. would have given Richards and how do you think it would have altered the outcome of those seasons or the play of the team around him when he finally did take the mantle?  

 

For example, he matures a bit and handles the press and their antagonism better, lets it roll of him more easily and doesn't get ruffled by them...  What's that do for the team?

 

AND please take me seriously... I'm just curious.  I'm trying to gain perspective here.

 

Let's step back for a moment and recall that this all started not with me saying "Richards shouldn't have been made captain when he was" - my point was that someone other than Jason Smith should have been. I pointed to Timonen, but it could easily have been Briere. I went with Timonen because I feel he would have graciously handed the mantle over "when the time came" (not that Briere necessarily wouldn't have but that Timonen's overall makeup seemed more attuned to it).

 

I think that would have allowed Richards to mature and, as I said previously, deal with his apparent "off ice" issues without the glare and pressure of the captaincy - and without the press being there to needle him about it in interview after interview to the point where he refused to talk to the press.

 

What makes me think that "maturity" was an issue? Here's Paul Holmgren talking about the situation:

Quote

"I think this all falls under the umbrella of discipline. It's on-ice discipline - not overstaying-your-shift discipline - it's off-ice discipline, it's night before a game taking better care of ourselves. That's a natural maturation process that a lot of our younger players are still going through. We've addressed that. So am I concerned about it? We'll see how it goes this year. All our players have been talked to about it. Is it an issue? The fact that we've talked about it, I guess it is an issue."

 

Here's an article describing the different atmosphere in the room once Pronger arrived as the New Sheriff in Town:

http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20091002/a-quiet-flyers-maturity-now-permeates-the-room

Quote

Mike Richards, Jeff Carter and in some ways, at least, Scott Hartnell are still young, developing stars. But there was never a doubt that the missing links for their team were a standout goalie, a punishing defenseman and a vocal leader in the locker room.

 

With the acquisitions of Emery and Pronger, they feel they have nailed all three.

 

Pronger has won a Cup. He's been a captain. He's an outspoken leader - so much so that for the first time in team history, the Flyers are going to rotate four alternate captains behind Mike Richards.

 

Pronger has that influence. He has taken control of the room. It's Richards' team in letter only. Pronger owns the locker room.

 

...

 

Put it all together and coach John Stevens finally has a team that should win. Combined with the efforts of general manager Paul Holmgren, he turned the team into a league semifinalist in one season. But last year it took a step back.

 

Discipline problems and a "what me worry" line of thinking led to the team's demise.

 

If the goal was simply "being better than 80% of the other teams in the league" then, terrific. Richards' three years as captain is a resounding success. If the goal was "win a Stanley Cup" they weren't.

 

There's no magic that "because Toews and Crosby were ready" that Richards Q.E.D. must have been "ready." Was Gabriel Landeskog "ready" to be captain in Colorado just because Towes and Crosby were? It certainly doesn't seem so...

 

Rod Brind'amour was 35 when he was named captain and led the Hurricanes to the Cup. Just because Toews and Crosby were ready is no reason to assert that Richards was. Toews had an incident in North Dakota where he was charged with an alcohol violation and that seemed to straighten him out from then on. Crosby lived with the team owner and All Time Great Mario Lemieux.

 

Maybe if Richards had been living with Bobby Clarke we're having a different conversation. Maybe if someone else was the undisputed leader of the team they could have had some more influence over the situation, no? (Because, in the end, that's what the team was practically forced to do in bringing in Pronger). Just for the record on Timonen, it wasn't in his makeup to be "that guy" if he wasn't "the leader." IMO if he had had the C he would have been more vocal.

 

I don't take any "joy" in saying any of this. I'm not here to "dump on Richie." The whole situation saddens me today as it saddened me at the time.

 

But maybe, just maybe, a more "mature" Mike Richards who had a leader to show him the way at 24 has a longer, productive career in Philadelphia that results in multiple Cups and a legend being born.

 

Instead of a rail out of town and an ignominious end.

[King Knut]

12 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Let's step back for a moment and recall that this all started not with me saying "Richards shouldn't have been made captain when he was" - my point was that someone other than Jason Smith should have been. I pointed to Timonen, but it could easily have been Briere. I went with Timonen because I feel he would have graciously handed the mantle over "when the time came" (not that Briere necessarily wouldn't have but that Timonen's overall makeup seemed more attuned to it).

 

I think that would have allowed Richards to mature and, as I said previously, deal with his apparent "off ice" issues without the glare and pressure of the captaincy - and without the press being there to needle him about it in interview after interview to the point where he refused to talk to the press.

 

What makes me think that "maturity" was an issue? Here's Paul Holmgren talking about the situation:

 

Here's an article describing the different atmosphere in the room once Pronger arrived as the New Sheriff in Town:

http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20091002/a-quiet-flyers-maturity-now-permeates-the-room

 

If the goal was simply "being better than 80% of the other teams in the league" then, terrific. Richards' three years as captain is a resounding success. If the goal was "win a Stanley Cup" they weren't.

 

There's no magic that "because Toews and Crosby were ready" that Richards Q.E.D. must have been "ready." Was Gabriel Landeskog "ready" to be captain in Colorado just because Towes and Crosby were? It certainly doesn't seem so...

 

Rod Brind'amour was 35 when he was named captain and led the Hurricanes to the Cup. Just because Toews and Crosby were ready is no reason to assert that Richards was. Toews had an incident in North Dakota where he was charged with an alcohol violation and that seemed to straighten him out from then on. Crosby lived with the team owner and All Time Great Mario Lemieux.

 

Maybe if Richards had been living with Bobby Clarke we're having a different conversation. Maybe if someone else was the undisputed leader of the team they could have had some more influence over the situation, no? (Because, in the end, that's what the team was practically forced to do in bringing in Pronger). Just for the record on Timonen, it wasn't in his makeup to be "that guy" if he wasn't "the leader." IMO if he had had the C he would have been more vocal.

 

I don't take any "joy" in saying any of this. I'm not here to "dump on Richie." The whole situation saddens me today as it saddened me at the time.

 

But maybe, just maybe, a more "mature" Mike Richards who had a leader to show him the way at 24 has a longer, productive career in Philadelphia that results in multiple Cups and a legend being born.

 

Instead of a rail out of town and an ignominious end.

 

Okay...  yeah.  I just don't agree.  

 

I think if they delay it, the Flyers just end up with an broken down, banged up 30 year old with a slightly less daunting contract and a likely addiction to the pills that keep is aching joints moving on their hands and no B. Schenn or Simmonds and probably a harder time trading Timmo at the deadline to the Blackhawks.

 

Rayzor still gets hurt.  Pronger still gets hurt. There's no reason to think they'd have won the cup any year or that Homer wouldn't have destroyed the team with Bryzgalov, MacDonald and Streit contracts, or traded Bob or tried to sign Parise, Suter and Weber.  He probably still trades JVR for a D man (because they'd still have needed one).  There's no reason to think he doesn't still sign and then let go of Jagr and VLC.  

 

That's just me. 

[radoran]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Okay...  yeah.  I just don't agree.  

 

I think if they delay it, the Flyers just end up with an broken down, banged up 30 year old with a slightly less daunting contract and a likely addiction to the pills that keep is aching joints moving on their hands and no B. Schenn or Simmonds and probably a harder time trading Timmo at the deadline to the Blackhawks.

 

Rayzor still gets hurt.  Pronger still gets hurt. There's no reason to think they'd have won the cup any year or that Homer wouldn't have destroyed the team with Bryzgalov, MacDonald and Streit contracts, or traded Bob or tried to sign Parise, Suter and Weber.  He probably still trades JVR for a D man (because they'd still have needed one).  There's no reason to think he doesn't still sign and then let go of Jagr and VLC.  

 

That's just me. 

 

Richards signed his contract in December 2007 before being named Captain in September 2008.

 

Pronger isn't traded for. Perhaps Timonen

 

 

And, yes, there are so many variables that it's obviously impossible to know. It's not like we have a TARDIS to go find out...

 

 

Homer still be Homer though

 

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, radoran said:

 

Richards signed his contract in December 2007 before being named Captain in September 2008.

 

Pronger isn't traded for. Perhaps Timonen

 

 

And, yes, there are so many variables that it's obviously impossible to know. It's not like we have a TARDIS to go find out...

 

 

Homer still be Homer though

 

 

Damn, I forgot about the contract.  Man they signed the captain before making him captain.  They should have just given him a bridge contract.  At worst they'd have ended up paying similar numbers over similar years.  

 

If they don't trade for Pronger, I don't think 2010 happens regardless of who is captain.  

[radoran]

On 5/25/2017 at 4:40 PM, King Knut said:

 

Damn, I forgot about the contract.  Man they signed the captain before making him captain.  They should have just given him a bridge contract.  At worst they'd have ended up paying similar numbers over similar years.  

 

If they don't trade for Pronger, I don't think 2010 happens regardless of who is captain.  

 

In which we find ourselves so far down the "potential" rabbit holes that we're just spinning wheels.

 

That said, it appears that you don't feel Richards had the leadership ability to take his team "for the first time since Clarke and Poulin (and Lindros)" to the Conference Final.

 

Which is an interesting position, given that you've previously asserted that accomplishment as evidence of his readiness and fitness to be captain.

 

Spinning wheels...

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

In which we find ourselves so far down the "potential" rabbit holes that we're just spinning wheels.

 

That said, it appears that you don't feel Richards had the leadership ability to take his team "for the first time since Clarke and Poulin (and Lindros)" to the Conference Final.

 

Which is an interesting position, given that you've previously asserted that accomplishment as evidence of his readiness and fitness to be captain.

 

Spinning wheels...

 

Thats silly.  No captain gets there without a supporting cast.

 

I'm dont think Clarke gets there without Hammer & Parent, Poulin doesn't get there without Howe and Hextall.  Lindros doesn't do it without Rico (who knows how far he gets if he has a goalie). 

 

 

 

 

[radoran]

On 5/28/2017 at 0:32 PM, King Knut said:

 

Thats silly.  No captain gets there without a supporting cast.

 

I'm dont think Clarke gets there without Hammer & Parent, Poulin doesn't get there without Howe and Hextall.  Lindros doesn't do it without Rico (who knows how far he gets if he has a goalie).

 

Absolutely true - as far as it goes.

 

It just neatly ignores the previously posted stuff about how the team was obviously "Pronger's team" and that Pronger was brought in because of the GM's perception of the "immaturity" of the leadership group prior to his arrival.

 

Carry on.

 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Absolutely true - as far as it goes.

 

It just neatly ignores the previously posted stuff about how the team was obviously "Pronger's team" and that Pronger was brought in because of the GM's perception of the "immaturity" of the leadership group prior to his arrival.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Me Ignoring it and it being inconsequential conjecture are two different things.  

[radoran]

3 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

Me Ignoring it and it being inconsequential conjecture are two different things.  

 

Reality is such a harsh mistress.

 

Richards was such an abject failure as a leader that in his second season in the job they had to go out and give up three first rounders to get a guy to show him how to do it.

 

And then ran him out of town on a rail after the next year.

 

#winning

 

From where I sit, it would have been better to let someone already on the team show him how to do it and maybe, just maybe, it would have worked out better for everybody.