Media Takes Another Shot at Richards
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 17, 2010 11:32 PM EST
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
PrintIn case you missed it, the mainstream media took yet another shot at Flyers' Captain Mike Richards today. For those familiar with the Flyers, this is nothing new. There has been an on-again off-again feud going since last year, most recently peaking with Richards' refusing to speak to the media for a month.
Tim Panaccio, Sam Carchidi and Anthony SanFilippo have all written stories on the subject so far (and Ben Feldman already put up a fanshot of SanFilippo's article), and my bias is shining through: I much prefer how SanFilippo wrote about it.
In SanFilippo's article, he not only wrote the transcript of the exchange, but he specified which source was asking the questions. And by source, I don't mean author. Omitting the names of those involved may anger some of you, but it shows class. Besides, it's not hard to figure out who's who.
After the jump, what happened and my take.
So, Mike Richards did an interview with The Hockey News apparently six weeks ago - according to Richards - which was in the January 25th issue. In the interview, Richards said:
"It's Philadelphia - when you're winning there are no problems in the world and you can pretty much do whatever you want. When you start losing, rumors start flying and people seem to just make things up to take a negative spin on things.
"That's happened so many times this year already. In the first part of the year, nothing was going on, but all of a sudden when we're losing, the media starts throwing us under the bus and bringing up things from the past that aren't true. We have a great start and nobody's saying these things, but we go on a little bit of a skid and everybody's all over us.
"You deal with things in your own way. But I love playing in Philadelphia and wouldn't want to play anywhere else."
Again, some may find this controversial and petty. There certainly are some things here that Richards probably wishes he didn't say, but the whole point of this quote is nothing new. Jimmy Rollins has said similar things, as has Donovan McNabb and Eric Lindros, and any number of athletes who have played in this city would certainly agree.
But Sam Carchidi reads this and sees a story. He reads this quote and decides he hasn't gotten his quota of Richards bashing for the year in, so he confronts the team Captain. Per SanFilippo, here's the transcript:
INQUIRER: A story was published this weekend where you say the Philadelphia media makes stuff up. Can you address that?
RICHARDS: The articles to begin with at the beginning of the year. Things like that.
INQUIRER: Such as?
RICHARDS: The drinking articles and things like that.
INQUIRER: The drinking articles?
RICHARDS: The articles… that’s why I didn’t talk to you for a month."
INQUIRER: I did an article that said that you drank?
RICHARDS: Yes.
INQUIRER: I have no idea what you are talking about. Elaborate please?
RICHARDS: Are you allowed to write something in the paper at any time that I say we didn’t…
INQUIRER: (interrupting) I didn’t.
RICHARDS: You didn’t write an article at the beginning of the year?
INQUIRER: That said you were drinking?
RICHARDS: That we’re out too much and that you asked Lupes (Joffrey Lupul, now with Anaheim) all the questions and everything? Anthony? Weren’t there articles?
DELCO TIMES: There were articles about those events but nothing naming you specifically.
RICHARDS: They said the players were drinking too much. Richards and Carter were out all the time.
INQUIRER: He (Lupul) said that?
RICHARDS: Isn’t that what the article said?
INQUIRER: No. I think that you’re making that up.
RICHARDS: Oh, O.K.
INQUIRER: You’re making it up.
RICHARDS: O.K.
CSNPHILLY.COM: The follow up to that is, do you think there’s a problem between us and you?
RICHARDS: Um.. Probably not. I haven’t even read the (Hockey News) article. I don’t know if I was misquoted or what was said. So, I can’t elaborate on that.
DELCO TIMES: I guess the question that might clear this up is, is this something that was brought up to you by the (Hockey News) writer, or was this something you brought back up again yourself.
RICHARDS: No. I’m not sure in this instance because it was a month-and-a-half ago. But, in the texting it was like, ‘What’s it like playing in Philadelphia?’ I said, ‘The media’s tough sometimes when we’re losing, it’s good what we’re winning.’ I can’t say exactly what I said but…
INQUIRER: (interrupting) You did say in the next sentence that ‘they make stuff up.’
RICHARDS: Oh, O.K.
COURIER POST OF NJ: Do you think you’re treated unfairly by us this season?
RICHARDS: No... Thanks guys. It was a pleasure, as usual.
If SanFilippo's transcript is accurate, the truth of what happened today is fairly easy to discern. Since it's quite obvious who "DELCO TIMES", "CSNPHILLY.COM", and "INQUIRER" are, it's also no surprise that the Inquirer beat writer has titled his post "Captain Whine rips media". You stay classy, Inquirer.
Carchidi's article was written very defensively, mostly sounding like a ten-year old explaining to their mom why the new pair of jeans they just got were already ripped and stained - something out of his control happened and he just had to step in to defend a young maid's honor.
The best part was Carchidi's close:
"Personally, I'm tired of writing about his media battles and would rather be writing about his on-ice exploits. But he went national and erroneously charged the local media with being dishonest - and that strikes a nerve."
I don't buy it. If Carchidi was honestly "tired of writing about his media battles", he wouldn't a) confront the Captain, b) in front of the entire press corps, c) after a game, d) interrupt him twice, and e) then twice accuse him of the same thing that struck a nerve with you - making something up. Instead, you ask this question at practice, non-confrontationally, avoid interrupting him, and refrain from calling him a liar. Unless you want to control the story for a couple of days.
What we have here is a story that just won't die. It was reported last year that the team had a drinking problem and it hasn't gone away. When Joffrey Lupul came back into town, it was Sam Carchidi who asked him if "he thought he was traded because the Flyers wanted to break up the players who live in Center City and enjoy the night life." Not only is that a horribly stupid question, an ignoramus knows the answer is: "No. I was traded for Chris Pronger." Any devout follower of the Flyers knows the next line in that answer is also "plus, I'm severely overpaid for just how streaky of a player I am, so I was the logical choice to be moved in order to fit Pronger under the salary cap."
But Carchidi asked the question anyway, knowing it would generate some sort of buzz. When Richards has a natural reaction to freeze out this juvenile reporter, he went too far and froze the entire media. Story worsened. Now, the story comes back up because - surprise! - Sam Carchidi needs something to write about in tomorrow's paper.
In comes this Hockey News story, and Carchidi finds his filler. Nowhere in Richards' quote does it say anything about the Philly media making things up - but that's what Carchidi takes offense to and accuses Richards of saying. The only time "make things up" is in that quote is when Richards says, "rumors start flying and people seem to just make things up to take a negative spin on things." Notice "rumors" and "people", not "stories" and "media".
Instead, what Richards said was, "the media starts throwing us under the bus and bringing up things from the past that aren't true." That sounds accurate to me. Maybe not the smartest thing to say, but why does this story never die? It isn't because the players keep talking about it.
Notice how I didn't once defend Richards. That's because he certainly deserves some blame for his handling of this situation. But he didn't start this battle. By all accounts, the media and him had been getting along fine recently and Richards was showing more leadership in the locker room. Now, the story is once again whether Richards is mature enough to wear the 'C', and it's all because one writer doesn't like him.
At this point, the whole feud reeks of a personal vendetta against Mike Richards. So, my advice to Carchidi would be this: If you want to make an enemy of Mike Richards and crucify him in Philly, don't be such an ass about it.
223 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think it’s a combination of A and C. Richards needs to mature a little more and learn how to use the media to his advantage, but that will come with time. Carchidi is a dick and should drop this non-story. He took offense to what Richards said? At what point in the story did he point a finger specifically at Carchidi? He’s the same reporter who mixed it up with Brett Myers and the “can you spell retarded” thing. That’s 2 controversies for this guy in 2 years—that we know of—how many more strikes until he is out?
he is dealing with the media fine in my opinion as Captain he has the media attacking him and not that team I see it as he is taking on for the team as a captain should. Nobody else is getting asked these questions just him so it is all fine. Primeau took the same heat when Bill Barber got fired he took the hit became the bad guy and that is that.
Primeau was doing the stabbing that is why he had to answer for it. But Richards needs to take more of the high road and not wear the heart on his sleeve in the interviews. I like the fire and could care less if he hurts their feelings but he is the leader and needs to be a little more savvy. Not different but just more savvy.
agreed
But 4 years ago when I was the same age as Richards I don’t think I would have handled it as well, this all feud has got my blood boiling as I fan if this was all going on about me personally I would blown a fuse much quicker.
Unfortunately he has to be bigger and better than the usual 20 year old. But I am in agreement that Carchidi is a hack because he broke the journalism rule of not making the story about yourself. He could have just as easily read The Hockey News and written a defensive article without even involving Richards. Especially not after a deflating loss where the topic should have been the game.
I think Primeau did the stabbing because he was Captain that what he has to do speak for the team and be the bad guy.
Lets not get into Primeau. He is one of my least favorite Flyers and was a fraud his whole career. He laid the loss in the playoffs on Barber as an excuse for them not getting it done. As far as I am concerned which gets more into my beef with having past players coaching and or running the team. This will obviously incite the same junk it did the last time his name came up so this is off topic and unimportant people.
I put it in my comment on the FanShot already, but the article from the last man in the SanFilippo transcript, Chuck Gormley of the Courier Post, is up too: Richards Fires Shots at Philly Media. He’s pretty much just like “What the heck just happened?”, but it’s still the last viewpoint I’m sure is out there.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 18, 2010 12:10 AM EST reply actions
Whoa, stop the presses! The Philly media taking cheap shots at a player. That’s front page news. Maybe Richie can call Schmitty for advice.
I wish we didn’t a-hole reporters in town, but we do. Always have. Richards will figure out how to handle the situatuion better eventually.
I wish we didn’t a-hole reporters in town, but we do. Always have.
and whats worse is that these morons think they are the “voice of the philly fan”. get real. just about all of them are glorified tabloid reporters masquerading as serious sports journalists.
by zerofischer on Jan 18, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
Carchidi’s blog post has been taken down.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Ooh, incriminating. Unless he made the decision to remove it (and I don’t think so), even his own people think he’s being a jerk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 18, 2010 12:39 AM EST up reply actions
There are still links to it from the front page of Philly.com Sports, as well as from Carchidi’s recap of the game. No blog post, though.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Well we didn’t say they were thorough, but I’d be willing to believe it’s really gone and not just temporarily gone.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 18, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
And I admit, I am wrong.
Carchidi renamed and edited the article, that’s why the link died:
Richards rips media
It’s got a new line from Carchidi that made me laugh:
Veteran defenseman Chris Pronger put things in perspective.
“There’s going to be some negative articles when you’re not playing well,” Pronger said, “but for the most part, you’re trying to do a job and we’re trying to do a job.”
And both sides do their work honestly.
Most of the comments are hilarious… my favorite:
Next time I hope Laviolette just lets him hit you.
Props to the commenters!
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 18, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
The media should come up with the “Mike Schmidt Award” for the player who best handles all of their (the media’s) shit every year. It would obviously be named for Michael Jack Schmidt, who (I believe) once described playing in Philadelphia as “The thrill of victory and the agony of reading about it in the paper the next day.”
Mike Richards has a lot to learn if he wants to unseat Donovan McNabb for this imaginary award.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Oh, I forgot to say it in any of my comments… props to SanFilippo, because he handled the situation extremely well.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 18, 2010 12:59 AM EST reply actions
“Instead, you ask this question at practice, non-confrontationally, avoid interrupting him, and refrain from calling him a liar.”
This, this, this, a thousand times THIS. As someone who’s been studying Journalism (news writing, sports writing, etc.) there are just certain things you do and don’t do as a reporter. Look, writers are always looking for something to generate buzz, but this is a farcry from how it’s supposed to be done, and then when fucking idiots like this act like dicks those of us who have done responsible reporting on real news and real stories (sports or otherwise) get lumped into this category of “the Media” and get completely shit on by the general public and sports fans alike.
In other words, can I sweep his job out from under him? (Granted I would still poke and prod here and there to get answers and get shit that’s interesting but not at the expense of sounding like some retarded tabloid.)
What practice, though?
Based on the schedule, it looks like they don’t practice again until January 27.
(And feel free to use whatever language you like, some of us are actual adults here.)
welcome back Mario!
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 18, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Media IA
So is there a media “internal affairs”…if not there should be, at least until this current plague of poor reporting is under control. And I mean more than a media watch-dog group, or editors, but reporters policing reporters. Scientists do this all the time with “peer review”. It’s unforunate that the unintended consequence of blog-osphere informality and the over commidifying of major news outlets have been destabilizing the ethics of journalism. Those who still hold themselves to a higher standard need to assert themselves before the newspapers become one large op-ed section for michael moore and bill o’riley to throw shit at one another.
"Media IA" post is in response to the post before it by Boog609
Sorry, I forgot to click on “reply”. Was adressing Boog609. I didn’t want to go off topic with a new thread
Richards has it easy
Just look at the Eagles, every win the fans love them. Every loss the fans want to fire Reid and trade McNabb.
"So basically, the Stats make no sense whatsoever."
Sam Carchidi means nothing to me or this team and I could care less what he says. Mike Richards has to take the same approach. The organization really needs to address some things with Richards and help him with media relations. He has to learn the team and players are just pets in a cage to the media and they are always going to pick up a stick and poke at them. Carchidi is obviously not a professional the way he handled the situation and by making himself part of the story.
Richards is a big baby.
No one, a month ago, was writing anything about players going out at night. He brought it up all by himself.
The GM of the team is the one who originally raised the issue that the players go out too much.
That is not something “invented by the media” or even “untrue”.
I don’t think Carchidi is a good reporter and he never writes anything interesting to me. But he’s not in the wrong here.
No one, a month ago, was writing anything about players going out at night. He brought it up all by himself.
Carchidi brought it up with Lupol when the Ducks were in town that is how this all got started.
In Apirl when it was brought up that might have been true and was addressed in April. But it is it totally irresponsible journalism to bring that up all over again in November without any sources or evidence to support that partying was going on and is the reason for the losing streak. You can’t recycle old stories like that. The GM raised the issue in April and no one coach GM or player ever mention any concern about “partying” this season.
Lupul was traded to break up the partying is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. He was traded for the 3rd or 4th best defensive in the league. Period. To even ask such a question is utterly ridiculous and almost slanderous. Carchidi should have lost his press pass for that one.
I would just point out that after the GM raised the issue it doesn’t make much sense for Richards to say the media made it up. Sure, the media is perpetuating it and trying to continue to beat that horse, but they didn’t just make it up; it came from the organization. Bringing it up again with Lupul, and then using the Hockey News interview to rehash it, is stupid, but I do see why a group of journalists would be offended after someone publicly claims they make stuff up.
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
That’s why I distinguished what he said. In the Hockey News interview, he never said the media made up stories.
His problem was accepting the incorrect premise of Carchidi’s question at the beginning. In other words, Carchidi claims RIchards said the media makes things up, and rather than correct him, Richards tried to answer the question.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I’m not entirely in agreement with your distinction, though I do think it makes the quote less antagonistic than the Philly media seemed to take it. It’s kind of semantic, but the point remains that the partying is the central conflict point between Richards and the media, and that all started with the GM. I agree that Richards should not have even engaged in the discussion. Just say this isn’t the appropriate time and end it there, don’t argue it there.
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Oh, certainly. I just like the distinction because it shows the immaturity and hypocrisy of the writer. Richards certainly handled it wrong, but it is obvious to me that Carchidi provoked this altercation for the purpose of writing a “Richards attacks media” story. When the reporter decides he’s going to make the story and make it about him, it ruins his credibility for me.
Either way, Richards needs to learn from this. I hope he doesn’t freeze out the media, but rather becomes very sarcastic, short, and evasive whenever Carchidi asks him questions. Don’t give him anything, positive or negative, but treat the rest of the media normally.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely agree that Carchidi blew it out of proportion and made it say what he wanted it to say, and that Richards needs to learn a lesson from this one. I have no doubt that Richards will learn, he’s a young guy and seems to be pretty smart. He’s going to be around for a long time so at some point a working relationship is going to have to be established.
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Carchidi brought it up with Lupol when the Ducks were in town that is how this all got started.
But it is it totally irresponsible journalism to bring that up all over again in November
It was October 10th that Lupol was in town. And in the middle of December then, Richards brought it up to THN.
The story story was quiet for at least two whole months until Richards talked about it, and it was dead for three months before THN published Richards’ comments.
Richards is being an idiot, he shouldn’t even talk about this stuff with the media. The media is like your younger brother goading you into punching him out, then running to mom to tattle on you and get you in trouble. The best thing Richards could do is just ignore it.
I’m more interested in these guys playing consistent hockey against the contenders of this league. They played lazy and unispired against the Leafs on Thursday, like they were looking past Toronto to the Caps game. Then came out and got worked by a legitimate team.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 18, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
I agree and that should be what the post game interview is about not your little defensive stance to an article in another paper than your own. But yes as I have said Richards has to be teflon to the media not defensive. We haven’t even talked about what is going wrong on this site yet due to this situation.
timing
Anyone else feel that now the that the Eagles are done it was good time for the papers to start some shit with the Flyers. End of January is usually the annual goalie controversy time. But this Richards shouldn’t be captain, Richards feud with the media / Pronger stuff is a little more interesting. Maybe Ray Emery can go get a couple of speeding tickets to pull the heat off the captain for awhile.
I would vote A and C. Definitely not the appropriate forum to bring that up with Richards but I don’t think he’s handled the whole conflict very well all year. Some of you tried to explain how bad the local Philly media was earlier this season; now I see. They’ve actually managed to make the Caps beat writers look excellent. Hey, Richards will always have Pierre McGuire, right?
The funny thing, to me, is that if Carchidi had it out for Richards, and actually would rather cover hockey as he says, then all he had to do was bring up Richards’ back check on the Laich SHG. That was shameful from anyone, even more so from a “lead by example” Captain. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Carchidi, doing it that way would have at least maintained the guise of trying to cover hockey instead of advancing a personal vendetta. Poor strategery on his part.
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Exactly. And I had never thought of that. But that’s assuming Carchidi is smart. Instead, he thought the guise of “defending journalism” was better, and not at all ironic.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
It just looks like both sides are dug in now and fighting for their personal reputation. Richards doesn’t want to be seen as an immature partier and the Philly media doesn’t want to be seen as lazy hacks. Both sides are understandable but they’ve lost sight of the big picture and are just perpetuating a personal disagreement in a public forum. I’m sure Flyers fans would probably rather read about something else.
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
But that is the point the media is saying Richards and the boys are repeat offenders of partying and this entire situation is based on some internet photos from ONE incident last year. ONE.
One that had photos on the internet. If GMPH felt the need to say something in public don’t you think he was concerned that it was more than ONE incident?
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
(And my point wasn’t about who is right or wrong, just that it’s personal and both sides are dug in and I don’t see a happy ending to this, though it may still be messy.)
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
I totallly agree. Both sides are now entrenched in this utterly uninteresting battle for their reputations, and I can’t personally think of anything that I care less about. The only thing on my mind today is how the Flyers had a chance yesterday to prove how far we’ve come by beating one of the best teams in hockey, and we fell well short. Drinking and not talking to the media- what difference does any of that noise make if we can’t beat the Capitals or the Devils or the Penguins? Thankfully it’s still January and there’s still lots of time to enact changes, but that’s really all I want to hear from the media- how the Flyers are performing and what they’re doing to get themselves ready for playoff caliber teams.
1) It was more than one incident. Just because you only remember the one incident, there is more than evidence to support the claims long before Holmgren confirmed them.
2) Also not helping? The handful of accounts from people who in Boston on NYE and talking to Flyers’ players out at bars that night. (Carcillo promising to fight comes specifically to mind, but I vaguely recall there being a couple others.)
3) The story was dead from October 11th until January 17th. The media let it go months ago. Its Richards who brought it back to the forefront (speaking two months after it was dead, published three months after the story was dead).
Didn’t the Hockey News bring it back up or did Richards call them?
Guys out drinking and having girls around them is part of the lifestyle. What separates them from the rest of us is the god given talent the ability to go out at night and it doesn’t effect them because they aren’t average humans. It really was the pictures from that one incident that started the fire storm more than a couple guys getting drunk. At least I would hope. But I could be wrong.
Just read the article on this page.
THN quoting Richards:
“It’s Philadelphia – when you’re winning there are no problems in the world and you can pretty much do whatever you want. When you start losing, rumors start flying and people seem to just make things up to take a negative spin on things.
“That’s happened so many times this year already. In the first part of the year, nothing was going on, but all of a sudden when we’re losing, the media starts throwing us under the bus and bringing up things from the past that aren’t true.
Now, cut to the press conference:
INQUIRER: A story was published this weekend where you say the Philadelphia media makes stuff up. Can you address that?
RICHARDS: The articles to begin with at the beginning of the year. Things like that.
INQUIRER: Such as?
RICHARDS: The drinking articles and things like that.
Clearly Richards was talking about the story about drinking, which is a perfectly legit story since Holmgren stated it was an issue.
Now, Richards claims the drinking issue was raised when things were going poorly for the team, not when they were going well. In fact, the Flyers 3-1 when that story was published. So that’s the first thing Richards has wrong.
Further, he claims that the issue of drinking/partying “isn’t true”. Which is just blatantly a lie.
So, how exactly is Richards a victim here?
Because Richards is referring to the media’s writing about them AGAIN when Lupul came to town, long after the issue was dead.
And how is it a perfectly legit story the year AFTER it happened? Homer mentioned it in the off-season, said it was settled, so the media brings it back up during the season on a ridiculous premise.
Now, when RIchards gives an interview, Carchidi immediately accusing him of saying something he didn’t: That the media makes things up.
When Carchidi blatantly provokes Richards, interrupts him twice and accuses him of lying twice, that’s not a writer’s job. In doing so, he proved Richards right. Whether Richards was right when he said it, he is now. The team is slumping and the media just made up a story, throwing RIchards under the bus.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Because Richards is referring to the media’s writing about them AGAIN when Lupul came to town, long after the issue was dead.
Except for when Richards refers to this terrible sleight, its two months after the fact and nothing has occurred in the interim.
And how is it a perfectly legit story the year AFTER it happened? Homer mentioned it in the off-season, said it was settled, so the media brings it back up during the season on a ridiculous premise.
That was four months after the Holmgren statement, and the first time Lupol was available to the Philadelphia press. I think its perfectly reasonable.
Now, when RIchards gives an interview, Carchidi immediately accusing him of saying something he didn’t: That the media makes things up.
That is factually incorrect. Richards’ statement is “bringing up things from the past that aren’t true.”
That’s accusing the Philly media of making things up.
When Carchidi blatantly provokes Richards, interrupts him twice and accuses him of lying twice, that’s not a writer’s job.
1) That is his job. To call Richards out on lying, which is what Richards did by denying the drinking issue exists.
2) Except the media didn’t make it up now. The media hadn’t commented on it for four months until Richards (was published) brough it up. Richards is the one who resurrects the story, making it a self-fulfilling prophesy.
And now you’re going a step further saying the media has proved Richards’ true, when in fact its Richards’ who brought up the story and lied about it himself.
So just to clarify, Carchidi did nothing wrong? He was simply doing his job?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
I have no problem with what Carchidi did in profiling Lupol or in questioning Richards. Richards brought the anger from Carchidi upon himself by defaming the Philly press (including Carchidi) to THN.
- Unless I have some part of the THN publication timeline incorrect pertaining to when the opportunity to ask Richards about it arose.
The manner in which he questioned him, the interruptions, the dumb-ass question of “were you traded because you drink”, nothing?
Then there is no sense in even arguing further since the most basic premise of mine you disagree with.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
"were you traded because you drink"
I have no idea what this is a quote from, since its not listed on this page and Richards wasn’t traded.
I’m assuming it may be something Lupol was asked. Incredibly, Lupol didn’t care. Yet, you’re using that to justify Richards four months later acting like a fucking baby about it? Really?
There were two interruptions when Richards was blatantly lying and Carchidi called him on it. I have no problem with that when Richards is lying about Carchidi right to his face.
This is why Wyshneski said the Philly media was correct.
Yes that was what Carchidi asked Lupul.
There were two interruptions when Richards was blatantly lying and Carchidi called him on it.
Except the interruptions weren’t when Richards was blatantly lying.
RICHARDS: Are you allowed to write something in the paper at any time that I say we didn’t…
INQUIRER: (interrupting) I didn’t.
That’s a question that Carchidi didn’t allow Richards to ask, not a false statement that Carchidi was correcting. And:
I said, ‘The media’s tough sometimes when we’re losing, it’s good what we’re winning.’ I can’t say exactly what I said but…
INQUIRER: (interrupting) You did say in the next sentence that ‘they make stuff up.’
Not allowing Richards to finish what he was saying in order to inform him of what he actually said. Not a lie, just an interruption.
And I don’t give a shit what Wyshynski said.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
That’s a question that Carchidi didn’t allow Richards to ask, not a false statement that Carchidi was correcting.
Read it again:
Are you allowed to write something in the paper at any time that I say we didn’t…
1) Richards doesn’t get to critique the media
2) THAT IS A LIE. He’s denying the drinking story right there.
Not allowing Richards to finish what he was saying in order to inform him of what he actually said.
So Richards tries to pussy out of his quote by pretending he doesn’t know it, and Carchidi won’t let him, instead informs Richards of the quote so that Richards has to give an answer.
No problems there.
I should have known you have no problem with someone interrupting when someone else is speaking. Nothing rude about that at all, it’s the way all of society should be when someone believes they are right. It also follows that he is asking a question he doesn’t want the answer to, since he knows the answer. Which again leads to – Carchidi asked the question without wanting the answer. He just wanted to attack Richards and call him a liar and not let Richards actually explain.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Once again, you’re reading a line of questioning that I haven’t seen.
It also follows that he is asking a question he doesn’t want the answer to, since he knows the answer.
These are the two actual questions asked:
INQUIRER: I did an article that said that you drank?
RICHARDS: Yes.
INQUIRER: I have no idea what you are talking about. Elaborate please?
RICHARDS: Are you allowed to write something in the paper at any time that I say we didn’t…
“Elaborate on the article in which I said you drank”
“Are you allowed to write something in the paper…”
That’s no answering the question, and instead Mike Richards, who didn’t even go to high school, critiquing the journalistic integrity of Sam Carchidi. Absolutely inappropriate and Carchidi is correct to set him back on topic to the question Carchidi asked.
DELCO TIMES: I guess the question that might clear this up is, is this something that was brought up to you by the (Hockey News) writer, or was this something you brought back up again yourself.
RICHARDS: No. I’m not sure in this instance because it was a month-and-a-half ago. But, in the texting it was like, ‘What’s it like playing in Philadelphia?’ I said, ‘The media’s tough sometimes when we’re losing, it’s good what we’re winning.’ I can’t say exactly what I said but…
INQUIRER: (interrupting) You did say in the next sentence that ‘they make stuff up.’
Once again, Richards is asked a question, and he’s weaseling out of answering by saying “I’m not sure”. The question has now been answered. Richards is rambling along off topic of the question he didn’t answer, and repeats that he doesn’t remember, so Carchidi refreshes his memory. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Carchidi wanted an answer to the question he asked, Richards decided not to answer and instead attacked Carchidi. The second question, Carchidi didn’t even ask AND Richards had already answered.
Mario, your feelings on Richards aside, I have no idea why you’re defending someone in the philly media. From what I hear, a lot of them are hacks, pure and simple.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
I specifically don’t read Carchidi, and have said he’s a terrible writer.
But that doesn’t make him wrong.
Right, which is why debating whether Richards is in the wrong or not is a pointless exercise. Ok, if you hate Richards, fine, but throwing Richards under the bus, because some douchebag writer has a hard on for the guy, seems pretty pointless.
I don’t think anyone here is jumping around saying Richards is right and he handled this 100% correct. I think we’re all agreeing that he has quite a bit to learn in this regard, but that doesn’t absolve the philly writer from being a prick.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Carchdi is a dick
He asked Lupol if he thought he was traded to break up the Center City group. As soon as the season ended the Flyers were in the market for a top D man even at the deadline rumors were flying around to land J-Bo. Lupol was traded to fit Pronger in the cap no one else on the roster could be moved to fit him. To even think for a second that this trade had anything to do with Lupol is utterly ridiculous. It was a move to get Pronger we all agreed we needed another D-man and that Flyers were going to trade for one and we all knew Lupol was going to go in that trade because of his contract. Carchidi is not this stupid he brought this up to start trouble Lupol was very abrupt with his answer and even seemed shocked when he replyed “No I was traded for Pronger.” It was an insulting ignorant question used to stir the pot to generate a story.
Exactly.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Victim, absolutely not. I just think this is not what is wrong with the team and I really don’t like Carchidi and his bully style. I really just want to deal with the on ice team situations and hearing about guys drinking at night is boring and I believe not the issues that could have been dealt with yesterday after that loss.
As for point #2, not that I was surprised, but yeah, i didn’t think any Flyer player should have been out partying on NYE, especially considering it wasn’t a “charity” game, but a game that actually meant 2 pts in the standings.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 18, 2010 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
On point two, so what? Are players not allowed to go to bars? Boston has nothing to do with the controversy, especially since not one account said anything was a problem. Further, that night revolved around Carcillo at a bar. He wasn’t even here when all the drinking/partying stories came about, so I’m not sure how this helps your argument – other than to point out that players do in fact go to bars.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
I have nothing against the Flyers going to bars, however, if I’m paying a pretty penny for a ticket (whether the winter classic, a home or away game), I’d like to think that I’m going to be seeing a guy who is paid millions of dollars perform to the top of his game.
I am humored by all the “partying” stories etc. to be sure and as far as Richards, I’ve stated it before, it should be a non-issue to him, he should ignore it completely, not rehash it, as mario is pointing out. As a fan, I’d just rather be ignorant to the players personal lives. Richards is obviously letting this get personal and maybe in some way it’s affecting his game, because he’s thinking after every loss, someone from the media is going to attribute it to his personal life.
Futhermore, now that I am given a glimpse of what they do on their off days and then the effort on the ice reflects it (whether that is a real problem or a phantom one), I tend to be a little cynical/critical of the players who I am shelling out dollars to watch.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 18, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
Err, don’t think it matters.
Ie: I don’t care what they do at night. But it certainly is fair game for journalism once Holmgren raised the issue.
I agree, but I just feel like after yesterday’s game was a bad time (weird time, too) to bring it up.
Do it on a practice day, if ever, but not after a loss on the road. It’s just silly.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 18, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
Fun take from LeBrun at ESPN.com…
He called up former captains Primeau, Lindros, and Clarke to get their take.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
All three responses were incredibly predictable. Primeau loved it, Clarke thinks Carchidi needs a “tap on the ankle”, and Lindros avoids the question.
But did you read the comments? One friggin’ guy says Richards is failing because the Flyers are trying too hard to be the Penguins. WTF? A couple of years of success and some fans just lose their f’ing minds. Just because Crosby worked out as a young captain doesn’t mean Richards will—I mean, not all players can be as super awesome as Sidney Crosby. OMGZ!
Of COURSE, you want to be able to compete with your biggest division rival.
Pitt fans make me nuts. Not the real ones that have suffered long, mind you; just this kind of pathological one who sounds more like a cult member than fan.
And let me add that Crosby succeeds because he’s surrounded by a better set of players than Richards, ultimately. Lindros was an incredible player but rarely was he surrounded by enough weapons to be a cup contender. I would venture to guess Crosby wouldn’t be considered as successful of a captain had they not 1) been to the Stanley Cup Finals 2 years in a row, and 2) won the whole thing last year.
Winning breeds success and yada, yada.
Or spent several years living at Super Mario’s house. No better guy to mentor a new Captain than the Pens most famous Captain. I think that is the big key. Crosby was rather immature when he first got into the NHL but he kept his nose clean, practiced hard, lead by example and listened to those around him. I can’t stand Crosby but at this point in the game he is a far better Captain than Richards is, or may ever become.
From Gramps’ story:
Richards spoke with the media on Monday, but would not answer questions from the Inquirer.
Obviously, some won’t like that. But until Mike learns to say “I’m not answering that”; “Next question”; or some witty, disarming, non-answer, I think this is the best way to go about it. The other reporters didn’t do anything wrong, so he shouldn’t go on another juvenile “media freeze.” Baby steps, Mike.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 18, 2010 6:57 PM EST reply actions
Then I hope the Inquirer stops covering the Flyers. Because that’s how Richards’ salary gets paid.
He’s still a acting like a petty child who can’t deal with his own mess.
If it means Carchidi stops covering the Flyers, I have no complaint. But since the Inquirer is so intertwined with the DN and Philly.com, I don’t see much of a problem. Especially since Comcast pays Richards’ salary, I think as long as he and Gramps don’t have a falling out, he’ll be fine.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
No no no, the Inquirer itself should stop covering the Flyers. If the Flyers don’t want to talk to the Inquirer, they shouldn’t worry about it.
The Flyers need the Inquirer a hell of a lot more than the Inquirer needs the Flyers.
The Flyers need the Inquirer a hell of a lot more than the Inquirer needs the Flyers.
And I disagree. Not that the Flyers can’t use the Inquirer, I disagree that either needs the other. Now, if philly.com stops covering them, the problem is bigger. But with CSNPhilly.com, the Daily News, DelCo Times, the Courier Post, and everything on the internet, I don’t think a niche sport needs the lackluster coverage offered by the biggest newspaper in the city. And the paper certainly could care less about the Flyers without repercussions.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
You might not, but some of us do, and when there’s a Morning Fly By their relevant articles are usually linked.
The Courier is the local paper to me, and they care more than you seem to think they do.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
The Delco paper does a non-AP article on the paper a couple days a week. I’ve never even heard of the Courier Post, but you’re telling me they write about the Flyers every day?
Well, I’m sorry that it’s hard for you to believe that a South Jersey paper that has the practice facility inside it’s local area might care. But on average, Gormley posts an article a day on his Flyer Files blog (although I’m sure you’ll crucify him for every one day he takes off, and give him no credit for the days he writes 4), and hosts a live chat there too. And I am one of those freaks of nature that still reads the newspaper that’s on my doorstep in the morning (gasp!), so yeah they write about the Flyers every day. But since they aren’t in the city, I’m sure they’re meaningless to you no matter what I say.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, forgot to mention, the beat writer for the Courier just released a book on the Flyers since he’s been covering them a long time (20 years or so). It may not be with a huge publisher, but beat writers that don’t care about the team usually don’t write books about them.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Gormley has been on the Flyers beat for 20-ish years, I believe. He also used to do (and might still do) the Atlantic notebook on NHL.com.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 19, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
really the inquire is practically bankrupt and sports fans go to paper is the Daily News, the Flyers are the 3rd or 4th most valuable franchise in the NHL they certainly don’t need a failing newspaper to sell tickets or promote the their team. Philly is the best hockey market in the US with or without the friggin Inquirer.
I don’t necessarily agree with Wysh’s POV, but he does provide a handy scan of the page from the Hockey News article to provide more context:
Why Flyers’ Mike Richards needs to drop his media vendetta
The context makes it sound, to me, like THN might have brought the issue up.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 12:54 AM EST reply actions
I was thinking the same thing. The context of the article doesn’t appear to be “Interview with Mike Richards” but rather, what’s it like to be a player in today’s media-scrutinized world.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 8:42 AM EST up reply actions
reading this complete waste of time reinforces the idea that sports writers try very hard to assemble some sort of humanity about the players whether negative or not. The reaction shows their true self and its the players job not to show this. Mike handled this terribly but Carchidi is still a douche for taking advantage of the situation. how would you handle it? Coming out of a 8 hour day of work or meeting and then being verbally attacked by a colleague when not prepared…
does anybody know the douche who started the hartnell’s wife and carter rumor? to me, that’s about as unproductive and retarded as this
Well, no.
This has much bigger implications because it’s a real, evident problem that’s been going on since the summer. It happened in the locker room, and the players’ relationship with the media is vital to how we follow the team and how the team is seen in the public eye.
That rumor, on the other hand, was completely falsified by some guy who goes to Temple.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 19, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
is he a member of BSH?
the “public eye” doesnt really exist. its a false standard which gives legitimacy to unqualified hacks with pens and paper or today: computers…
dont get me wrong, l like what BSH is all about
by fitzy first on Jan 19, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
Is who a member? The guy who wrote that rumor? Hell no, he’d be banned in a hot minute.
Carchidi isn’t a member either, if that’s what you meant.
I’m kind of confused over what exactly you think is a waste of time, I think. Do you not think this whole Media v Richards thing is important to talk about?
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 19, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
i see the importance in the transcript and the reality of the relation between a professional sports leader and it’s local media. the reality that is, not what he said or she said. but when all is said and done. Richards is right though he didnt express it correctly: Flyers go back on the ice and win and all this will be forgotten. I guess the little jabs don’t matter is what im saying, Carchidi was being petty. and that makes sports writing look bad. The whole “image” of Tiger Woods for instance comes to mind. the “public eye” feels violated, yet maybe the media is at fault for not showing his real jagoff image.
by fitzy first on Jan 19, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
well he probably at least knows that dc is only 2 hours from charlottesville va and not 6
by fitzy first on Jan 19, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
he wasn’t give the oppurtunity to really say anything…
MarioD can you answer two questions for me?
1) Do you think bringing up the THN article as the 3rd question in a post game interview was the right thing to do?
2) Do you think asking Lupol if he thought he was traded because of nightlife issues was a fair question?
He already answered the second one:
“I have no problem with what Carchidi did in profiling Lupol”
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
hard to argue with MarioD because when you make a point that he has no answer to he just ignores it entirely and brings something else up to deflect so I figure to flat out ask him simple yes no questions that need no intepretation
by chrislanci on Jan 19, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
That was my plan, but I didn’t succeed.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
what is the term bloggers use for a person who ignores what you reply and answers by saying youre wrong and goes in a complete and different direction in the debate?
It’s Philadelphia – when you’re winning there are no problems in the world and you can pretty much do whatever you want. When you start losing, rumors start flying and people seem to just make things up to take a negative spin on things."
That was correct.
“That’s happened so many times this year already. In the first part of the year, nothing was going on, but all of a sudden when we’re losing, the media starts throwing us under the bus and bringing up things from the past that aren’t true. We have a great start and nobody’s saying these things, but we go on a little bit of a skid and everybody’s all over us.”
And this is true in terms of questioning Richards’ captaincy; making the Hartnell/Carter flap actual news as opposed to relegating it to obscurity; the issue you wouldn’t let die of Richards “giving up the ‘C’”, which was quickly retracted… how many more do you want?
Yes, all these examples make what he said true, even if Richards focused on the drinking article – which Carchidi LIED about and said he didn’t write what he did.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
throw in the trade rumors, the alleged Pronger Richard fued and tension in the locker room crap, the stories focused on the locker room and not with the on ice issues. Sex sells. The majority of mainstream sports writers for all sports all over our country especially ESPN have turned into TMZ and the game is now secondary that is why I came to the BSH where we usually talk about HOCKEY
not who is dating who, Tom Brady’s marriage, A-Rod and Kate Hudson, Romo and whoever, Tiger woods affair, what Chad Ochochino tweets, Shaq and Kobe’s relationship, or how many young girls Richards and Carter double team over the weekend, I can care less I am MAN I want to talk about sports the game I love.
I have a hard of enough time ignoring my wife’s gossip stories now I what has this world come to GOD DAMN IT
lol, but we all love a good A-Rod and Kate Hudson sex and centaur conversation, no? Throw in the hilarity of NFL football players on Twitter (the700level’s Desean coverage is hysterical) in general, but “Child please!” in particular, and I enjoy that too.
But I certainly see your point. I don’t give a shit “who is dating who, Tom Brady’s marriage” or any other crap.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
1) Thats absolutely not correct. Rumors fly regardless of winning or losing and you know that.
2) That is absolutely bullshit. Again, the thing Richards complains about, the Lupol article, was published 5 GAMES INTO THE SEASON.
Its revisionist history to claim that “In the first part of the year, nothing was going on, but all of a sudden when we’re losing, the media starts throwing us under the bus”. It happened when the Flyers were 3-1-1 on October 11th.
If you want to point specifically to me, go back and look. The day they acquired Pronger I said they must be regretting having named Richards captain.
Yes, all these examples make what he said true, even if Richards focused on the drinking article – which Carchidi LIED about and said he didn’t write what he did.
Just because he didn’t name any other examples doesn’t mean “when we’re losing, the media starts throwing us under the bus” isn’t true. As evidenced by all the other examples Chris and I were able to name.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
THE MEDIA THROWS EVERYONE UNDER THE BUS ALL THE TIME.
The part that isn’t true is the part about “when we’re winning, everything is quiet”. As proven by the fact that main source of the controversy took place when they were winning.
THE MEDIA THROWS EVERYONE UNDER THE BUS ALL THE TIME.
Then what’s the problem with Richards stating the obvious? What’s the justification for Carchidi’s “calling RIchards out” for saying something that’s true then??
Oh no, I just went in a circle didn’t I? Shit, I hate when that happens…
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Because thats not what Richards said.
Richards said they only criticize when the team is going bad. Which is so fucking wrong that I can’t believe you’re still defending it.
The idea that if a team in Philly is winning then the media won’t criticize it is just a staggeringly incorrect argument.
Richards said they only criticize when the team is going bad.
That is so fucking wrong that I can’t believe you’re still espousing it.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Have you not read the first sentence of Richards’ quote:
when you’re winning there are no problems in the world and you can pretty much do whatever you want.
You’re quite clearly wrong.
“no problems in the world” and “pretty much” tend to contradict each other, so maybe, maybe “no problems in the world” is a colloquialism that isn’t to be taken literally, like you are.
But of course, you can use “no problems in the world” as Richards saying they “only” criticize while ignoring the second part of that same quote where he says “pretty much.” Again, non-parallel sentence means you’re wrong.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
That’s just attrocious sentence construction. You’re reading so far beyond the plain meaning that its laughable.
Regardless, reading the next sentence makes clear that you’re misinterpretting:
When you start losing, rumors start flying and people seem to just make things up
The use of the word “Start” means, by definition, that it wasn’t happening until that point in time.
He didn’t say “rumors increase” or “rumors get worse”. He said that rumors “start”
Oh, and they weren’t “winning”. They were on a one game losing streak, so… WRONG.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
I love Dave Matthews Band, have seen them like 60 times in 8 different states. I’m still not going to play DMB music before the opening faceoff of a hockey game. (PS: Charlottesville, VA is not DC. It’s like six hours away. They are not a "local band".) bq.
2 hours – not 6…
by fitzy first on Jan 19, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
From Carchidi's article yesterday:
We interrupt Captaingate to bring some news:
He creates a story, then terms it a “gate”? To quote from my favorite show ever, “Mayflowergate? That’s a ‘gate’ already? No way is that a ‘gate’…”
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 12:51 PM EST reply actions
I guess “Captaingate” is a bigger issue for him if his bosses actually look at the comments from the readers on his blog posts… I realize they were stupid about throwing Carchidi in there when he didn’t know hockey, but when the comments say things like “Laviolette should have let him hit you”, I can only hope that the Inquirer would reassign him to save face. Not likely, I know, but I’m allowed to hope.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s the original article: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/63948197.html
Also returning last night: Anaheim right winger Joffrey Lupul and defenseman Luca Sbisa, two players involved in the Chris Pronger trade.
Lupul and Sbisa went out with several of their former teammates Friday.
“It’ll be tough to play against a lot of those guys, but it’s also something I’m looking forward to,” Lupul said before the game. “We push each other.”
Lupul used to live in Center City and was popular with his teammates.
“It was a tough place to leave. I was here a couple of years, and really liked the city a lot,” he said. "The fans are the best in the NHL, and the group of guys over there is a special group, too.
“Just the way all of us got along, I don’t think I’ll be able to quite play on a team like that again, where the guys are that close,” Lupul said.
Asked whether he thought he and Scottie Upshall were dealt because the Flyers were trying to break up the players who enjoyed the nightlife, Lupul shook his head.
“Upshall was moved last year at the deadline for cap reasons, and I was moved to get Chris Pronger, so I don’t think that had anything to do with it,” he said. “We were out a lot . . . but those young guys” – he mentioned Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, and Scott Hartnell - “are definitely professionals and know how to handle themselves.”
Someone please point out to me where Sam Carchidi singles out Mike Richards for drinking?
but who really cares? So he didn’t single him out, so what, he writes a story to try to generate some “controversy”, spins it whatever way he can to make it seem bigger than it is, then he goads Richards into some kind of controversy.
Richards handled it wrong. Agreed. He rehashed stuff he shouldn’t, but that shouldn’t mean that the Philly media now has open season to stir up some ridiculous crap when this team should be focused on playing hockey….consistently.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
What exactly did the Philly media stir up?? Richards stirred it up every single time. He stopped talking to the media for a month in response to that article above. What is wrong with that article??
Then, two months later, Richards re-raised that article, falsely characterized it, and was a front page story in THN criticizing the Philadelphia media. All over these two paragraphs:
Asked whether he thought he and Scottie Upshall were dealt because the Flyers were trying to break up the players who enjoyed the nightlife, Lupul shook his head.
"Upshall was moved last year at the deadline for cap reasons, and I was moved to get Chris Pronger, so I don’t think that had anything to do with it," he said. "We were out a lot . . . but those young guys" – he mentioned Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, and Scott Hartnell – "are definitely professionals and know how to handle themselves."
The point is, Carchidi didn’t make this story up. Paul Holmgren legitimized it and Carchidi followed up on it given that Holmgren talked about it like six days before he traded Lupol.
I think it was a reason why Lupol was on the trading block. Its also a reason why Holmgren needs to make more trades. The chemistry of this team sucks.
As for why he went to Anaheim, I imagine they wanted him since they were very familiar with him.
Lupul was on the trading block for being an inconsitent top line player about to make $4MM per season.
Maybe villanizing him as being a “partier” as the reason for his inconsitency made it easier for the philly media to justify the trade. Who knows and who really cares. I was fine with him going. Guys like Lupul are almost a dime a dozen in the NHL.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
You and Sam Carchidi are the only people in the hockey world that think the trade for Chris Pronger was more about getting rid of Lupol then adding Chris Pronger a superstar 1st Ballot Hall of Fame Defense with a Stanley Cup ring.
If that was the case I don’t think the Flyers would have resigned Pronger till he was 42 years old a week after the trade was made, nor would have given up 3 1st round picks. They could have shipped Lupol out for guys with smaller cap hits and kept Sbisa and the draft picks if that is what they wanted to do.
After the lose the Pens it was obvious this team need to further bolster the D to try to get past the Pens.
and I agree with your point, but my point is that regardless, it doesn’t make what the philly media did right or even acceptable.
Richards needs to shut up about it and the beat writers need to stop trying to instigate him into focusing on something other than playing hard every night to win.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Creating a story for the sake of creating a story. Who cares about the sideshow? Let’s focus on writing about hockey. Isn’t that what “hockey” writers are suppose to do?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
What story did they create?
The story was the cover story in The Hockey News. How did the Philadelphia media create that?
The story they created was the subject of Carchidi’s blog was it not? (ie. Richards takes another shot at the Philly media or Captain Whiner or whatever it was)
I’m way past the HN story, i’m talking about the controversy created by Richards latest press conference.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
No.
The shot Richards’ took at the media was in the THN article when he falsely claims that the Philly media makes things up.
I’m talking about the story created by this latest “outburst” by Richards.
The perfect professional scenario that I blame the Philly media for is when Richards spouts off about losing and getting thrown under the bus, the reporter could have taken the high road and directed his questioning to the game at hand or the direction of the team or whatever, instead, he turned it into a pissing match between what he said vs. what Richards perceived he said. This isn’t TMZ, this is suppose to be the local beat writers covering Philly hockey.
Leave the sensational writer’s, gossip columns for hockeyoutsiders, haha.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
What don’t you understand here?
- 2008-09 Season: various sites like deadspin post stories about flyers on the town
- June 2009: Holmgren acknowledges that the organization believes Flyers on the town is a problem
- October 11, 2009: Carchidi asks Lupol if thats why he was traded. Lupol throws Richards under the bus by naming names.
- October 12, 2009: Richards declares he won’t talk to the media.
Two months go by
- December 10th-ish: Richards defames Philly media in interview with THN
*That issue is the January 25th issue of The Hockey News.
I don’t know when specifically Sam Carchidi and other Philly media got a copy. But it was clearly over the weekend sometime. That webpage announcing the issue was posted Friday morning.
The next time they speak to Richards, they ask him about the defamation Richards committed against the Philly media.
I don’t see how they created anything in this timeline.
The next time they speak to Richards, they ask him about the defamation Richards committed against the Philly media.
This is what I’m referring to. I already know what you’re going to say "The media had the right to call him out on this, blah, blah, blah. Ok, fine. My point is that the media shouldn’t have used this forum after the game to do this. That’s all anyone is saying. I don’t see anyone specifically defending Richards handling of this issue, only criticism for the way the Philly media handled this thing by choosing a forum where they knew they would start more controversy vs. using the forum to interview Richards about the game etc.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jan 19, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
1) Its the first chance they have to talk about. Thats when you raise an issue.
2) What other opportunity is there? I’ve asked this question multiple times. Richards is available to the media after games. Im not even sure he’s available at practice. And the Flyers play every other day until January 25th, so I’m not sure they’ll even practice.
If you’re going to criticize the timing of the question, someone needs to provide the reasonable alternative time.
I’ve seen reporters at the practice facility in Voorhees before, so unless someone can correct me that he isn’t available to the press those days, I’m inclined to believe they could speak to him there.
But that means Carchidi would have to care enough to go practice, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t take his job that seriously.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Go to the FlyersTV and you have many interviews of players after practice commenting on many things. There is also the post morning skate. Carchidi could have also approached him off camera in the little side interviews they do. Not during the live post-game interview with the Captain which is covered by many news outlets. Now why did he do that because it would bring city wide and nationwide coverage to the issue making this a much bigger issue not just a disagreement between Carchidi and Richards over the semantics of who said what when. Dick move by Carchidi and everybody including fellow reporters agree that the is not the place to air this out.
No one singled out Sam Carchidi as the prick who started this fuss, yet we all know who Anthony SanFilippo was singling out, did we not?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Richards did EXACTLY that.
Richards blaming Sam Carchidi (and being factually wrong in doing so)
RICHARDS: The articles… that’s why I didn’t talk to you for a month."
INQUIRER: I did an article that said that you drank?
RICHARDS: Yes.
Thats the article I just posted. It doesn’t say what Richards claims it says.
Where does he blame “Sam Carchidi”? He doesn’t, but you know who he’s talking about. Just like in Carchidi’s article.
So, if “Richards did EXACTLY that”, so did Carchidi.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously?
He says “I stopped talking to the media because of a story you wrote”
How is that NOT blaming Carchidi?
Seriously?
Seriously?
You’re saying Richards called out Carchidi but Carchidi didn’t call out Richards. Looking at the articles, Carchidi’s story mentions Richards BY NAME and Richards does not mention Carchidi at all.
How you can say Richards calls Carchidi out and not see the hypocrisy in saying Carchidi never called out Richards is ridiculously ignorant.
Seriously?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
Looking at the articles, Carchidi’s story mentions Richards BY NAME and Richards does not mention Carchidi at all.
No.
Carchidi quotes Lupol mentioning Richards by name. Carchidi doesn’t mention Richards himself.
He actually doesn’t quote Lupul (again, do you not know how to spell his name, or do you enjoy being wrong?) but instead throws out Richards himself.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
HOLY FUCK. How do you not know how to read???
he mentioned Mike Richards
HE MENTIONED MIKE RICHARDS. Not Sam Carchidi. Jeoffrey Lupol mentioned Mike Richards.
Oh, so you backtrack from:
Carchidi quotes Lupol
Got it.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Well, if we’re going to nitpick, we should be pointing out that he’s misspelling the first name, too.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
You nitpick the rest of us, so we get to nitpick about you, too. Turnabout is fair play, after all.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 19, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
No, it is not a quote. It is Carchidi stating that Lupul said those names. It’s most likely true (since the interview would presumably be recorded), but it is not a direct quote, and the placement of the names in what amounts to a parenthetical means that even though it’s not a quote, Carchidi considered it significant enough to mention in addition to the actual quote.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I figured that meant that Lupul said “Richie, Carts and Harts” and I’m sure the Inquirer has guidelines against printing nicknames. Though Carchidi could have just used brackets…
Seems like a pretty silly thing to be arguing over anyway.
Yeah, that’s probably the case, though I’m more in line with the school that would have had “Richie [Mike Richards], Carts [Jeff Carter], and Harts [Scott Hartnell]” because it’s less ambiguous. A direct quote should make it clear that Lupul mentioned those three and only those three – the way Carchidi wrote it, we know Lupul mentioned those three, but don’t know if he mentioned anyone else, which does leave Carchidi open to these kinds of issues where he can appear to have an issue with Richards (regardless of whether he does or not).
Meh. Sloppy journalism’s one of my pet peeves. I blame my mother the English teacher for that.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I still take issue with Carchidi asking Lupul in that question in November. That question could have easily been asked when the trade was made a certainly much more relavent time to ask Lupul about the trade, when the trade was made. The partying issue was relavent in June when Homegren brought it up to rehash 4 months is an obvious attempt to stir things up and create controversy. The excuse of that is when Lupul was availble is ridiculous in the age of modern technology I sure he could have made a few phone calls to get a hold of Lupul at any time in the off-season. But the most revelant time to ask a player to comment on why he thinks he got traded was during the time of the trade.
I still take issue with Carchidi asking Lupul in that question in November
I don’t think its that uncommon. He was already in California when he was traded so there was no opportunity to speak to him. Its unknown whether his agent was ever contacted to ask for an interview. But also remember that the local newspapers weren’t covering hockey in late June, so there was no reason to do the interview.
That is a valid opinion, though. The problem is that it doesn’t defend any of Richards’ actions.
In response to that question being asked, Richards:
1) Didn’t talk to the media for a month. Thats a ridiculously petulant and disproportionate reaction.
2) Two months later brought it up to THN and falsified the facts to make himself look better and the Philly media look worse.
He was already in California when he was traded so there was no opportunity to speak to him.
There are plenty of opportunities to speak to him. There are such technologies as the internet, the telephone, and the text message. Carchidi could have asked his question then, but he waited until October to do it.
But also remember that the local newspapers weren’t covering hockey in late June, so there was no reason to do the interview.
There’s four stories on Carchidi’s blog from June, so they certainly were covering hockey. On top of that, two of them dealt with the Pronger trade – perfect reason to do the interview with Lupul then.
1) Didn’t talk to the media for a month. Thats a ridiculously petulant and disproportionate reaction.
This is irrelevant to what is being discussed right here. An argumentative question to a player at a time where even the GM – who supposedly made this topic okay to talk about – said was the wrong time.
2) Two months later brought it up to THN and falsified the facts to make himself look better and the Philly media look worse.
Carchidi brought it up four months later to Lupul, so what’s your point about “two months later brought it up to THN”? Regardless, who’s to say Richards brought it up to THN? The story was about media scrutiny, that they equated to TMZ, and Richards gave a critique of the Philly media. Falsified facts? Both parties falsified facts – we’ve already shown that – yet you place all the blame on Richards, ignoring blame for Carchidi. It doesn’t make sense.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
And looking through the archives of the Inquirer (not just Carchidi’s blog) reveals 41 stories in June of 2009 mentioning the Flyers. Some of them aren’t accurate, but 6 of the first 10 on the search page are Flyers stories, written in a span of 3 days.
They were covering hockey in June, so there was plenty of reason to do the interview.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
And the trade went down on June 26th. There were stories about the draft, the Pronger trade, and free agency. Those are major news stories.
There was no place in the Inquirer for minor pieces like an interview with Lupol, which no one even knows was possible since it was the middle of the offseason.
Not to mention your link is total bullshit.
Article #4 is about Sheryl Crow
Articles #7 and 8 are Michael Klein’s tabloid bullshit
Wait, was Lupul not included in the Pronger trade?? I thought he was… Damn, because if he was, that’s a perfect place for a quote from him… But a game against Anaheim is a MUCH better place to interview Lupul than a story about Lupul being traded. Wait, they’re equally solid? Yeah, that’s right.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
1) Four stories in 30 days. Thats real evidence of blanket coverage…
2) What on earth are you talking about?? Richards’ wasn’t asked any question which caused him to stop talking to the media for a month.
3) The point of Richards waiting two months to bring it up and complain is that HE COMPLAINS THE MEDIA BROUGHT IT UP. Its the most ironically assinine thing he could say.
Look Geoff, it’s obvious you have a totally unfounded hatred for Sam Carchidi. But as the writer of an allegedly journalistic pursuit, you really ought to be showing some mild form of objectivity instead of this atrocious personal vendetta.
Moving the goalposts again. You didn’t say anything about “blanket coverage”. I didn’t claim to prove “blanket coverage”. I refuted your ridiculous assertion that local newspapers weren’t covering hockey in late June.
Four BLOG entries in the month of June, upwards of 40 stories in the Inquirer (if you were able to scroll through the entire database, I could give you a more accurate count), 15 of which included the name “Lupul” in the month of June is direct evidence that you were wrong when you said they weren’t writing about hockey.
2) What on earth are you talking about?? Richards’ wasn’t asked any question which caused him to stop talking to the media for a month.
Again, this has nothing to do with Carchidi instigating a fight with Mike Richards after the Capitals game. Nothing.
3) The point of Richards waiting two months to bring it up and complain is that HE COMPLAINS THE MEDIA BROUGHT IT UP. Its the most ironically assinine thing he could say.
Who says Richards brought it up? No one. The Hockey News was writing a story about tabloid journalism and asked Mike Richards about it. He answered. Where is the “ironically assinine” part of that? He didn’t go running to THN, which your statements imply.
Look Geoff, it’s obvious you have a totally unfounded hatred for Sam Carchidi. But as the writer of an allegedly journalistic pursuit, you really ought to be showing some mild form of objectivity instead of this atrocious personal vendetta.
This whole thing is absolutely hysterical. Pot, meet kettle: you have a totally unfounded hatred for Mike Richards. And as Carchidi is the writer of an allegedly journalistic pursuit, he really ought to be showing some mild form of objectivity instead of this atrocious personal vendetta.
Seriously, did you intend to write comedy? Because that was rich.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Four BLOG entries in the month of June, upwards of 40 stories in the Inquirer
Again, this is total bullshit. You found 40 stories with the word “flyers” in it. Out of the first ten, two were gossip blogs and one was about Sheryl Crow. Thats a totally ludicrous conclusion to reach.
Again, as I’ve shown, standard operating procedure is to interview the player the next time they come to town and are made available to the press.
You can allow your bias to blind you to that fact, but it doesn’t make you correct.
Again, this has nothing to do with Carchidi instigating a fight with Mike Richards after the Capitals game. Nothing.
That’s funny, because its the very thing you’ve been railing against this entire time.
The Hockey News was writing a story about tabloid journalism and asked Mike Richards about it. He answered. Where is the "ironically assinine" part of that?
Once again ignoring the truth. The story is about Mike Richards. He was asked about playing in Philly. He decided to turn it into a discussion of the media.
you have a totally unfounded hatred for Mike Richards.
That’s completely untrue. You, on the other hand, have taken every opportunity possible on this website to embarrass yourself in criticizing any actual media outlet (Seravalli, the Metro, and now Carchidi).
My declination to blindly stand behind Richards’ terrible decisions doesn’t mean I hate him.
The story is about Mike Richards.
Factually inaccurate.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it is. And once again you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
It’s about Mike Richards.
by MarioD on Jan 19, 2010 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And once again you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
There are plenty of other quotes in the same vein in this thread. Why, exactly, do you read this site?
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
by Rob Parker on Jan 20, 2010 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ok, so it’s okay for Carchidi to sit on his question for Lupul from June of 09 until October of 09, bring it up only because Lupul is back in town because “there was no opportunity to speak to him”, except through e-mail, phone, or text message, but it’s not okay for Richards to talk to THN regarding a story in which they ask him and Pronger about media scrutiny?
You keep saying Richards brought this upon himself after months of inactivity, but Carchidi did the same thing from June to October with the cover of Lupul coming to town. Richards doesn’t mention it until THN comes calling about an article in which they say “In many respects, the rise of TMZ.com tabloid reporting…”? I don’t see how Richards is to blame for bringing up a dead issue, yet Carchidi isn’t. Both have excuses (Lupul in town; THN story), yet only Richards gets lambasted for “making it an issue”.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 4:44 PM EST reply actions
I’ve read multiple times this year from a beat writer that a player or Homer responded to their question via text message. I know that Seravalli has numbers for prospects, too — he suspected Legein was being called up, but a quick back and forth over SMS confirmed that he wasn’t.
There’s an ignorant, out of context argument…
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
Secondly, and I know you still can’t digest this due to your obvious bias:
Richards… is complaining… about the media coverage of the issue.
The media… is not complaining… about coverage of the issue.
Coverage… went away for two months… until Richards… brought it back up.
That is why… Richards… is the hypocrite… and not the media.
I love how I have “obvious bias” yet you have no bias whatsoever. You have an unfounded hatred for Mike Richards, but your bias is nonexistent.
Richards…answered a question…about the media coverage of the issue.
The media…is complaining…about Richards answer.
Coverage…went away for four months…until Carchidi… brought it back up.
This is why…you… are the hypocrite.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
Jackass, try to follow this very simply.
The media complained AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPPORTUNITY. Which you’re now criticizing the timing of.
Richards complained about it IMMEDIATELY. THEN he brought it back up two months later.
How can you not comprehend such simple fucking logic?
Richards complained “We shouldn’t be talking about this! We talked about it two months ago and now I’m going to tell you we shouldn’t be talking about it even though NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT EXCEPT ME.”
By the way, the Inquirer treated Mike Knuble the exact same way, interviewing him only when he came to play here in October: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/63656457.html
His interview was also a section of a larger article on various topics
Knuble returns
Last night marked the return of Mike Knuble, the popular former Flyer who signed with Washington in the off-season.
“Obviously, they had a lot of parts already in place here,” he said. “I’m here to address a little need they had – and that was to be around the net. . . . I’m just trying to be a piece of the puzzle and maybe add something that can help the group go to the next level.”
Playing in Washington has given Knuble a different appreciation for his new teammate, reigning MVP Alex Ovechkin.
“When you play against him, you see the goals and see the shots and see the celebrations, but sometimes you don’t realize what it takes to get to that point and the plays that are made around the ice,” Knuble said.
“I’ve been really impressed with how hard he plays every night and his energy around the room. He’s a fun guy to have on the team. That stuff can be contagious to a team, and he’s a guy who just loves being around the game, loves to play the game of hockey, and I’d think he’d play it for $100 a year.”
A hundred dollars a year?
I don’t know about that," cracked a smiling Ovechkin.
Yes, because a player who was not resigned is exactly the same as a player who was traded.
What about how the media treated Scottie Upshall? I seem to remember them chasing him to the airport to get a quote.
You say that is entirely different? Exactly. So is Knuble’s situation.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
Please show any interview with Upshall when he was traded. Because here’s Carchidi’s two blog posts about the trade, which do not include a quote from Upshall.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inqflyersreport/Upshall_dealt_defenseman_acquired.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inqflyersreport/40759772.html
In fact, I can’t find a single article with an interview with Upshall since the trade. So, please, do show me what the hell you’re talking about when you say:
I seem to remember them chasing him to the airport to get a quote.
http://search.philly.com/?q=scottie+upshall&cat=site&f=&sortby=date&offset=20
That’s the search of philly.com for “scottie upshall” framed around March 2009, which reveals no interviews with Upshall in their publishing history.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
So John Borak, who gets his paycheck signed as a Flyers’ broadcaster, and is not a beat reporter, made a video interview meeting Upshall ten minutes from his office.
And none of the beat writers spoke to Upshall. Which proves my point that its standard operating procedure for the beat writers not to talk to players until they return to town.
snore
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
Whatever, this was your claim:
What about how the media treated Scottie Upshall? I seem to remember them chasing him to the airport to get a quote.
And you’ve proven it was wrong, because the beat writers didn’t go to the airport.
By the way, the Inquirer treated Mike Knuble the exact same way
What about how the media treated Scottie Upshall?
That’s the search of philly.com for "scottie upshall" framed around March 2009, which reveals no interviews with Upshall in their publishing history.
And the best you came up with, after not even addressing the actual issue (that Carchidi waiting four months to interview Upshall was standard operating procedure for the Inquirer) was a video interview from a non-beat writer.
But at least you found one person who covers the Flyers, in Borak, that you haven’t libelled on this website. Yet.
Yes, because a player who was not resigned is exactly the same as a player who was traded.
What about how the media treated Scottie Upshall? I seem to remember them chasing him to the airport to get a quote.
You say that is entirely different? Exactly. So is Knuble’s situation.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
That’s the search of philly.com for “scottie upshall” framed around March 2009, which reveals no interviews with Upshall in their publishing history.
And that reveals four stories in one month. The exact same shit you criticized me for. So, shut up you hypocritical deuche.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 19, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Geoff, you’re above this petty argument. Stop letting Mario drag you down. He’s provoking you, and it’s no better than Carchidi provoking Richards to start this mess.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 20, 2010 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
Haha, I realized that last night.
He’s a hack, thank you.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 8:57 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, the irony of the person who spins ever opportunity possible to attack a REAL media member calling me a hack. Keep making up pet nicknames for Panaccio, Geoff, that shows true professionalism.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
Oh shut your trap. Geoff is a good guy, so he’s worth the energy I’m wasting defending him to the likes of you. You’re disrespecting him on his turf. This is his blog, at least in part. That’s like somebody coming into my home and then disrespecting me there, and that’s intolerable.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 20, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
dude start your own blog, i implore you. it would be a hilarious read.
by Natty Bumppo on Jan 20, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
I ask again...
Why do you read this site if you have such contempt for the authors?
Now let's say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
I’m closing this. It’s getting ridiculous.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Kings vs. Coyotes Game 5; Pierre McGuire on Tortorella/DeBoer argument (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Behold, the incredible playoff beards of Radko Gudas and AHL’s Norfolk Admirals
- Coyotes vs. the road warriors: Can Phoenix end LA Kings’ road domination?
- Coyotes, Kings Game 5 preview; Claude Giroux has fun; PK Subban on the ladies (Puck Headlines)
- Stanley Cup Final schedule released; Game 1 on May 30, Game 7 would be June 13
