Did he not trade away other possible negative influences that may have promoted Richards' and Carter's off-ice life?
Did he not bring in veteran leaders that would be a strong positive influence in the locker room on Richards and Carter?
Did he not fully commit to them enough by the way of long-term, substantial contracts to keep them at the forefront of Philadelphia hockey for over a decade?
Did he not have multiple sit-downs and private discussions with the two in an attempt to set them back on the right track?
Did he not even prompt a coaching change to spark something out of a team that they were supposed to be the young leaders of?
Come on now...pinning this on Holmgren for a supposed "lack of action" is pathetic.
Did he provide them a coach who was a leader and an authority figure to teach them how to be professionals during their developmental years?
Did he provide a stable core group of veteran leaders from day one?
Did he rush Richards into the captaincy role too soon (especially after Richards publicly said he did not want it)?
Did he hand them too much stability too soon with those long term contracts?
Did he bring in a veteran that is known to rub people the wrong way and can be a divisive force?
Did he attempt to smooth over the relations between Richards and the media?
It seems to me by the time he canned Stevens and attempted to bring in veterans it was too little, too late. He handed the keys to the franchise to them when they were too young and it was too late to fix it. Instead, it appears it made them feel like they were being attacked by bringing in Pronger and put them on the defensive. You can't say Richards is your guy and them bring in a vet who is going to want to do things his way.
Did he provide them a coach who was a leader and an authority figure to teach them how to be professionals during their developmental years?
Did he provide a stable core group of veteran leaders from day one?
Did he rush Richards into the captaincy role too soon (especially after Richards publicly said he did not want it)?
Did he hand them too much stability too soon with those long term contracts?
Did he bring in a veteran that is known to rub people the wrong way and can be a divisive force?
Did he attempt to smooth over the relations between Richards and the media?
It seems to me by the time he canned Stevens and attempted to bring in veterans it was too little, too late. He handed the keys to the franchise to them when they were too young and it was too late to fix it. Instead, it appears it made them feel like they were being attacked by bringing in Pronger and put them on the defensive. You can't say Richards is your guy and them bring in a vet who is going to want to do things his way.
They are not little boys, they are men, but they were treated like little kids.
They are young rich good looking fellas, of course they are going to have fun but there is a line, a line this organization believe they crossed, a organization which has and always will attempt to be a team that contends for a Stanley Cup.
Yes they are young but by the age of 21 you know the difference between right and wrong.
Did he provide them a coach who was a leader and an authority figure to teach them how to be professionals during their developmental years?
Did he provide a stable core group of veteran leaders from day one?
Did he rush Richards into the captaincy role too soon (especially after Richards publicly said he did not want it)?
Did he hand them too much stability too soon with those long term contracts?
Did he bring in a veteran that is known to rub people the wrong way and can be a divisive force?
Did he attempt to smooth over the relations between Richards and the media?
It seems to me by the time he canned Stevens and attempted to bring in veterans it was too little, too late. He handed the keys to the franchise to them when they were too young and it was too late to fix it. Instead, it appears it made them feel like they were being attacked by bringing in Pronger and put them on the defensive. You can't say Richards is your guy and them bring in a vet who is going to want to do things his way.
That last sentence was the beginning of the end for Richards. You bring in a loud guy whose poop doesn't stink, who's ten years older, who gets away with everything and anything because he won a cup, who's abarasive and divisive and then you have a young, quiet guy who you've deemed the next Bobby Clarke who's already the captain. Recipe for disaster. This is turning into a comedy of sorts considering Pronger's cloudy future. Hopefully he doesn't need to go on LTIR to start the season with Lappy already on it.
I like Richards as much as the next guy, in fact, his jersey is hanging up on my wall only 5 feet away from me right next to the Gagne jersey.
Still...to blame Holmgren or Pronger or anyone else is pretty unreal.
Richards and Carter were adults. It's obvious that they weren't traded for hockey reasons. It's obvious that the organization not only reached out to them but even catered to them on every possible occasion. Richards and Carter were supposed to usher the Flyers back into the glory years.
Somewhere along the way that changed. Ask yourself why.
As always, the crest on the front makes us fans, not the name on the back. Stop being blinded by hatred for Holmgren/love of Richards.
[QUOTE=Libertine;35396857]Vokun is better than Bryzgalov. Vokoun has highest save percentage since the lockout.
Vokoun .922
Thomas .921
Luongo .918
Duh. save percentage? really? on florida? come on. now if he got them into the playoffs and was nominated for a vezina, then i'd be like schooled and embarrassed. Come on man, im just happy we finally have a goalie. we all waited forever. dont take this from me.
I like Richards as much as the next guy, in fact, his jersey is hanging up on my wall only 5 feet away from me right next to the Gagne jersey.
Still...to blame Holmgren or Pronger or anyone else is pretty unreal.
Richards and Carter were adults. It's obvious that they weren't traded for hockey reasons. It's obvious that the organization not only reached out to them but even catered to them on every possible occasion. Richards and Carter were supposed to usher the Flyers back into the glory years.
Somewhere along the way that changed. Ask yourself why.
As always, the crest on the front makes us fans, not the name on the back. Stop being blinded by hatred for Holmgren/love of Richards.
It isn't at all obvious that they weren't traded for Hockey reasons. It's the opposite. They were absolutely traded for Hockey reasons
Why is it you always feel the need to lecture people with your posts?
Did he provide them a coach who was a leader and an authority figure to teach them how to be professionals during their developmental years?
They were given a great developmental coach in Stevens, and surrounded by plenty of others (Berube, Clarke, etc). Are you saying that 26 yrs old is too old to turn it around? Because it isn't.
Quote:
Did he provide a stable core group of veteran leaders from day one?
Maybe not the stablest, but he had Hatcher, Smith, and a score of others to learn from. You act is if they do not surrounded these guys with mature leaders and former Flyers. The organization is littered with them.
Quote:
Did he rush Richards into the captaincy role too soon (especially after Richards publicly said he did not want it)?
Maybe, but perhaps that is because another young forward with leadership skills was given the captaincy at 23 and took the team to Cups.
Quote:
Did he hand them too much stability too soon with those long term contracts?
A stable contract is a good thing. It sends a special message, especially to a guy you're building around. It says: "Hey, you're our guy. We're with you." Sure, in the end, that meant nothing, but they did hand him the keys and he chose not to drive.
Quote:
Did he bring in a veteran that is known to rub people the wrong way and can be a divisive force?
Pronger isn't the problem. Richards is his own man. Pronger was brought in to help. Instead, it seems like Richards went into a shell when Pronger got here and let Pronger take the locker room. Coburn's comment that Pronger "led" the room really annoyed me when I read it.
Quote:
Did he attempt to smooth over the relations between Richards and the media?
Would that have helped? Richards took it upon himself to punish the media for the comments they made. That was one of the more confident things he'd done.
It isn't at all obvious that they weren't traded for Hockey reasons. It's the opposite. They were absolutely traded for Hockey reasons
Black is white.
Up is down.
Hot is cold.
Hockey is football.
Honestly, if there is ONE thing in the entire saga we know fully and understand completely it's that Richards and Carter were not traded for simple "hockey reasons."
To continue to jam your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALALA" is pointless, reckless, and annoying. I wish you'd knock it off already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
Why is it you always feel the need to lecture people with your posts?
Because some people still don't get it even after having it spelled out for them.
Honestly, if there is ONE thing in the entire saga we know fully and understand completely it's that Richards and Carter were not traded for simple "hockey reasons."
To continue to jam your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALALA" is pointless, reckless, and annoying. I wish you'd knock it off already.
Because some people still don't get it even after having it spelled out for them.
All typical responses from you Chris. When someone challenges you, you respond like this. And start telling people what to do or how to think. I really don't know why the moderators let you get away with it. You try and push people around.
Yes they were traded for Hockey reasons. I spelled that out in the other thread in which I got no response from you. Which I'm not surprised about.
In terms of knocking something off, you should really get off your high horse and pay attention to people who know more than you do.
Clearly, you don't fully understand why they were traded, even after I spelled it out for you. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Talk Hockey Chris, not about the people posting. There's a reason why people have to do that, and it's a dead giveaway.
Vokun is better than Bryzgalov. Vokoun has highest save percentage since the lockout.
Vokoun .922
Thomas .921
Luongo .918
Duh. save percentage? really? on florida? come on. now if he got them into the playoffs and was nominated for a vezina, then i'd be like schooled and embarrassed. Come on man, im just happy we finally have a goalie. we all waited forever. dont take this from me.
Those stats on Florida are nothing short of amazing. That team leaves their goalie out to dry on a regular basis. We have a good goalie here now, that has little to do with you being way off base saying Vokoun sucks, and more to do with being completely uninformed.
Edit: I'm not even going to attempt to fix the job you did on the quoting. (This is clearly not @ Libertine)
All typical responses from you Chris. When someone challenges you, you respond like this. And start telling people what to do or how to think. I really don't know why the moderators let you get away with it.
Yes they were traded for Hockey reasons. I spelled that out in the other thread in which I got no response from you. Which I'm not surprised about.
In terms of knocking something off, you should really get off your high horse and pay attention to people who know more than you do.
Clearly, you don't fully understand why they were traded, even after I spelled it out for you. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Talk Hockey Chris, not about the people posting. There's a reason why people have to do that, and it's a dead giveaway.
Holy crap dude.
I'm far to impatient to deal with you. That's why I did not respond. Hell, I'm still too impatient.
If you seriously believe that Richards and Carter were traded for hockey reasons then prove me wrong by starting a poll:
Quote:
Why were Richards and Carter traded?
A. Strictly because of on-ice performance and the return they got.
or
B. Something, regardless of reason, was involved off the ice.
When everyone believes you are right, then you can come lecture me.
I'm far to impatient to deal with you. That's why I did not respond. Hell, I'm still too impatient.
If you seriously believe that Richards and Carter were traded for hockey reasons then prove me wrong by starting a poll:
When everyone believes you are right, then you can come lecture me.
Chris are you that clueless that you think popular opinion proves anything. Your not too impatient. You simply don't have a response to refute what I said. LOL
Chris are you that clueless that you think popular opinion proves anything. Your not too impatient. You simply don't have a response to refute what I said. LOL
I spelled it out for you
Alright here you go. I'll run this again:
Here's everything that supports off-ice reasons being involved whatever they may be:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
-There have been rumors for years about Richards and Carter partying.
-There have been rumors about a rift in the locker room between Richards and Pronger.
-There have been rumors about a rift in the locker room between Richards and Laviolette.
-There have been multiple people involved in the so-called "partying" group that have been shipped out without much remorse despite at one point being part of the "future" of this team as long ago as 2007-08.
-There was recently a report about Richards' and Carter's refusal to adhere to organizational alcohol policies. They were apparently the only ones who refused.
-That same report claimed that individuals from the locker room were willing to tell the media about this anonymously suggesting that other players noticed the incident and were willing to come forward about it.
-There seemed to be a significant lack of shock/displeasure from other players when their reactions about Richards and Carter being moved came true.
-There were apparently sources that said that Richards and Carter were not very nice to the staff to put it bluntly.
-Rumors, though I will certainly not put very much weight on this, that there was substance abuse involved.
-These were also two players that were not too long ago declared the cornerstone of this franchise going forward.
-They were given decade+ contracts to stay Flyers for basically their entire careers, yet there was no implications that either party was unhappy with either contract.
-Carter and Richards had a strong relationship and both happened to be shipped out of the same day.
-Reports from the organization clearly talked about a change in the "make-up" of the team.
-No reports from Holmgren or otherwise (outside of Bobby Clarke) claimed that this made the team any better. In fact, as much as Holmgren claims that these were "hockey moves," there certainly didn't seem to be much excitement in the fact that the team was likely getting worse.
-There was also no pressing salary cap implications that required for either Richards or Carter to get traded, let alone both.
-Richards certainly wasn't surprised by the trade even if Carter was.
-Richards' clashes with the media were also well-publicized.
Here's everything that suggests that on-ice reasons were not the motivation for the trades:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
A) These were the two most marketable players in the franchise.
B) They had no history of significant career-threatening injury.
C) They were signed to decade+ bargain contracts to stay in Philadelphia.
D) One was a former Selke runner-up and the other was the statistical leader of the team at even strength.
F) One was the captain and pegged as the next "Bobby Clarke" while the other was an alternate.
G) They were both just entering their prime and were the biggest contributors on a team that had been to an Eastern Conference Finals and a Stanley Cup Finals.
H) They were the backbone of an organization that had made the playoffs four straight years and looked to be in a position to make the playoffs for the foreseeable future if not make deep runs or more Cup bids.
I) One was a member and another was an alternate for a Team Canada that won Gold; Richards was a major factor in the most dominant line of the tournament.
J) Both had already made the All-Star Game with likely plenty more appearances in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof
I'm honestly bewildered, yet at the same time amused by your arrogance.
I'm honestly bewildered, yet at the same time amused that you think you're right just because you assume I'm wrong.
If I'm arrogant, then you're just as arrogant.
At this rate, anyone who has ever said anything in defense of an argument and at opposition of another is arrogant.
They are not little boys, they are men, but they were treated like little kids.
They are young rich good looking fellas, of course they are going to have fun but there is a line, a line this organization believe they crossed, a organization which has and always will attempt to be a team that contends for a Stanley Cup.
Yes they are young but by the age of 21 you know the difference between right and wrong.
If you compare elite athletes to regular people, maybe. But you have to take into account that all these guys who come up from juniors went from living with their parents to living with billets to the time they were 20, then suddenly had the big leap to the NHL (if they're really good) with a ton of money and stardom. In the OHL they get less than $100 a week and have curfews. Things change dramatically from April to September in a year where players go from Juniors to the NHL. It's not like players are going to suddenly go from boys to men because they change leagues.
This isn't just about the 2 in question. Also, the partying starts well before these guys get to the NHL, it's just hidden more because they're under the age of majority.
Here's everything that supports off-ice reasons being involved whatever they may be:
Here's everything that suggests that on-ice reasons were not the motivation for the trades:
All that you have offered that you say supports off ice reasons is unsubstantiated speculation. You can't back any of it up with proof. It's like an episode of the View.
I explained to you in my post on the other thread everything that points to why the deals were Hockey related. You refused to respond. And I know why.
The second part of your response, you should know better. Quality players have been traded throughout the history of the NHL. I guess according to you only sub par players are traded? Wow. LOL
Do I need to run my post again from the other thread?
All that you have offered that you say supports off ice reasons is unsubstantiated speculation. You can't back any of it up with proof. It's like an episode of the View.
So you believe there was no off-ice reason that the Flyers traded their two all-star centers for far more risky futures?
When are the Red Wings going to trade Datsyuk and Zetterberg? I want in on that action.
How about Malkin and Crosby? Yep, I'm game. Let me just pile up the futures to ship out.
Kane and Toews? Man, that would make our team amazing.
Teams don't trade away both of their franchise forwards, both at the age of 26, both coming off a Stanley Cup bid the year before, just because the organization wants some new players in the prospect pool.
It just doesn't happen.
EDIT:
Also, you said something about not refuting your arguments before? Fine. You said:
A) Salary Cap issues Except there were far more realistic ways to circumvent the salary cap than by giving up your two best forwards. Those ways have been outlined over and over again. There's no reason for me to do it again. The Flyers could have given up Carle alone and pretty much been cap compliant. Even then, why trade both? If you want to go out on a limb and say one was a salary cap move, then what was the other one? We just really, really wanted Jagr? Give me a break.
B) Orginizational depth What organizational depth? Jester has gone into detail before about the complications just taking Carter out of our forward core. Now you take out Richards too? There goes not only our size down the middle, but our defensive edge down the middle as well. Meanwhile Briere is aging and a defensive liability. Giroux's supposed to carry our team down the middle going forward? And ignoring the return on investment from the trades (since this is supposed to be a discussion about our abundance of center depth before the trades) you really trust Holmstrom or Kalinski to be your third line center? Awesome. That's some stellar depth.
C) Possible trades and the quality of return Quality of return that MAY end up being as good as what we traded? Yeah, we certainly hosed those guys who took our two franchise centers away from us.
D) Financial and payroll issues We're the freaking Philadelphia Flyers. Since when do we care about how much money falls out of Snider's pocket? Hell, since when does Snider care?
Last edited by Chris Shafer: 07-26-2011 at 09:18 PM.
So you believe there was no off-ice reason that the Flyers traded their two all-star centers for far more risky futures?
When are the Red Wings going to trade Datsyuk and Zetterberg? I want in on that action.
How about Malkin and Crosby? Yep, I'm game. Let me just pile up the futures to ship out.
Kane and Toews? Man, that would make our team amazing.
Teams don't trade away both of their franchise forwards, both at the age of 26, both coming off a Stanley Cup bid the year before, just because the organization wants some new players in the prospect pool.
It just doesn't happen.
This is an asinine response. They do if they no longer consider the players franchise players worthy of franchise deals. I spelled it all out for you in the other thread. Off ice reasons had very little to do with it. If there was no Salary Cap, Richards and Carter are still Flyers.
This is an asinine response. They do if they no longer consider the players franchise players worthy of franchise deals. I spelled it all out for you in the other thread. Off ice reasons had very little to do with it. If there was no Salary Cap, Richards and Carter are still Flyers.
Those stats on Florida are nothing short of amazing. That team leaves their goalie out to dry on a regular basis. We have a good goalie here now, that has little to do with you being way off base saying Vokoun sucks, and more to do with being completely uninformed.
Edit: I'm not even going to attempt to fix the job you did on the quoting. (This is clearly not @ Libertine)
stop it. your embarrassing me. and your way off base insulting my quote abilities. how dare you. yes. the panthers were amazing. your right. for not making the playoffs once with his outstanding goaltending that seems to dissapate come crunch time every year. The Flyers loss is the Capitals gain.
Last edited by funghoul: 07-26-2011 at 09:29 PM.
Reason: retardation
Also, you said something about not refuting your arguments before? Fine. You said:
A) Salary Cap issues Except there were far more realistic ways to circumvent the salary cap than by giving up your two best forwards. Those ways have been outlined over and over again. There's no reason for me to do it again. The Flyers could have given up Carle alone and pretty much been cap compliant. Even then, why trade both? If you want to go out on a limb and say one was a salary cap move, then what was the other one? We just really, really wanted Jagr? Give me a break.
No they haven't been outlined again and again. You haven't done it once, let alone again. You again bring up trading Carle. You missed the boat the first time around on that, and I explained to why trading Carle wasn't an option. Which was confirmed by statements made by Holmgren and Luuko that they needed to keep the defense intact. This was also referenced by Bill Meltzer, in regards to the Pronger situation. Cap reasons were part of it for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
B) Orginizational depth What organizational depth? Jester has gone into detail before about the complications just taking Carter out of our forward core. Now you take out Richards too? There goes not only our size down the middle, but our defensive edge down the middle as well. Meanwhile Briere is aging and a defensive liability. Giroux's supposed to carry our team down the middle going forward? And ignoring the return on investment from the trades (since this is supposed to be a discussion about our abundance of center depth before the trades) you really trust Holmstrom or Kalinski to be your third line center? Awesome. That's some stellar depth.
This is so off base I don't even know where to begin. I thought I was dealing with a somewhat informed Hockey person, but it's even worse than I thought. The depth at Center is now Giroux, Schenn, and Couturier. The team now has a solid blend of established young NHL forwards, and solid NHL prospects in Schenn and Couturier. And Cap flexibility for the future. The deals solved multiple problems for the team going forward.
Man, are you seriously grasping and reaching here. This is fundamental
I'm just laughing hysterically on how you figure that Kalinski and Holmstrom figure in for the 3rd line Center spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
C) Possible trades and the quality of return Quality of return that MAY end up being as good as what we traded? Yeah, we certainly hosed those guys who took our two franchise centers away from us.
You badly miss the boat here. The quality of return has to do with trading players other than Carter and Richards. You may want to go back and review what was said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
D) Financial and payroll issues
We're the freaking Philadelphia Flyers. Since when do we care about how much money falls out of Snider's pocket? Hell, since when does Snider care?
Salary Cap is part of that. It isn't about the fans caring. It's about being able to take on more bad contracts and having to hide them in the AHL like they've had to do previously in making deals to get under the Cap. Again, very simple and fundamental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer
Every point you brought up was wrong. Try again.
I outlined it for you above.
The only problem is that these words are hollow. You failed miserably to show me how I was wrong. Your responses were actually embarrasing. They show that zero thought was put into them, but you just wanted to throw a bunch of words together just to disagree. You were correct to not reply in the other thread, you should have stuck to that.
