Despite logic, Larry Brooks writes story calling Chris Pronger the problem in Flyers' room
by Travis Hughes on Apr 4, 2010 5:50 PM EDT
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
PrintThere is something foul in Philadelphia far beyond the goaltending fiasco that has become the focal point of the NHL's most disappointing team.
We're not there on a day-to-day basis, so we can't claim first-hand knowledge, but when two league GMs were asked what they perceived to be the problem, neither hesitated.
"Pronger," each said, referring to Chris Pronger, the defenseman who has a reputation for splitting locker rooms as well as heads.
Two league general managers say that Chris Pronger is the problem in the Flyers' locker room. Let's think about this a little bit.
First, let's just qualify this by noting that only one general manager has been in the Flyers locker room this season, and his name is Paul Holmgren. Second, let's not jump to assumptions because that would be doing the same as this 'report' -- but how easy could it be to find two general managers who might not like Mr. Pronger? Half the league hates the guy, not to mention about 100 percent of fans who don't root on the orange and black.
But if you really, truly think about the claim that Chris Pronger is the reason the Flyers locker room is allegedly fractured, then that means the problems started this season, right? Wrong. The Flyers troubles didn't start in June or July or August or September. They started way before Pronger ever pulled that jersey over his head.
I think the funniest part about this is that Brooks insists on qualifying his report by saying "we're not in the room... ." It's funny that immediately after that qualifier, he tries to bring legitimacy back to the claim by quoting two general managers, who also aren't in the room.
So, okay, let's see the reaction from someone who is in the room everyday.
Philadelphia Inquirer beat writer Sam Carchidi:
Memo to Larry Brooks: Pronger is #Flyers' MVP and their unquestioned leader. Period.
We'll ignore the obvious Mike Richards sub-plot in that quote and move on. I think Pronger summed it up nicely himself.
"[Brooks] likes to stir the pot. He’s good at it. I don’t take credence to anything that comes from people like that’s mouth."
111 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
New Yorkers
Why would you ever listen to something someone from New York says about a Philly sports team? A journalist form New York is clearing looking to cause trouble. Give him Ex Lax brownies so he will have diarhhea top and bottom.
As for th other GM’s it depends some are looking to get an edge others are just honest hockey guys.
I like Prongerand I think the FLyers will sort a lot of things out over the summer. – I dont; think Pronger is one of the things that needs sorting.
by Fr. Orange and Black on Apr 4, 2010 6:46 PM EDT reply actions
Pronger article
It may be but aren’t they doing the same exact thing as last year. And correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t pronger on the west coast last season. I think that it’s a problem with team chemistry, with the guys that have been on the team for a good while. Whatever the problem is it’s got to stop. who knows if it’s been identified.
Look, being a long time fan i’ve seen the ups and downs but what is apparent is that the business plan of the flyers sucks. They have no first round picks this year, very little depth in the minors. compare that to the capitals. it makes a huge difference. they need to stop signing the huge outrageous free agent contracts and start developing some youth in the minors.
This story is no surprise to me in that somone would say this. I have to say that this is one of the items I had on my plus/minus list under minus. Bringing in a strong leader like Pronger has to be accounted for because like it or not he is going to overshadow the locker room. Almost like the Messier debacle in Vancouver. This team however was in an undiagnosable funk since the trade deadline last year.
Just Call Me "M"!
Considering everyone in NY and the Rangers organization hates Larry Brooks, I am not sure that you can really take anything that scum bag reporter says. Pronger is right, Brooks loves to stir the pot. Suddenly the Rangers are doing ok and so he doesn’t want to stir the pot with them or their looney tune coach so instead he goes after the Flyers.
Maybe tomorrow Gramps can write an article about Sean Avery and how his whole team hates him.(That was a baseless statement, I have no idea if that is true or not)
Pronger is as bad to the Flyers and Utley is to the Phillies. Or like Bill Gates is to Microsoft, and Obama is to the US. Yeah, I went there.
//Sarcasm
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
by JpH89 on Apr 4, 2010 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
So we’re just going to ignore that some of the Flyers own beat writers have been saying that there’s a division in the Flyers locker room then? And we’re just going to ignore the season-long theme of questioning Richards leadership and comparing it to Pronger’s? All because the source is from New York?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 4, 2010 8:55 PM EDT reply actions
The “season-long theme of questioning Richards’ leadership” has been addressed.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Not to feed the troll, but...
… if there’s any players who have an issue with Pronger, it’s probably guys like Briere who have led elsewhere and were passed over here. But really, who knows for sure?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I could be wrong
At any rate, we have the answer: There’s a disconnect between the younger and older Flyers players.
The issue in the Flyers’ dressing room is the same now as it was at the start of the season. Many of the younger Flyers don’t appreciate Pronger’s abrasive criticisms about what it takes to win and prefer the more honey-coated approach by team captain Mike Richards.
Pronger has won a Stanley Cup, and you need to recall what general manager Paul Holmgren said about his coming here last summer: that he expected Pronger wouldn’t tolerate mediocrity, and that his defenseman would be quick to rattle his saber when things went awry and wouldn’t be afraid to do it vocally behind closed doors.
You don’t win a Cup without hard-asses in the dressing room.
Ask Penguins GM Ray Shero why he brought Bill Guerin in for Sidney Crosby. It’s because Guerin had won a Cup and offered a no-nonsense approach to winning that would counter-balance a young captain (like Richards) that hadn’t won a Cup – and maybe had a softer way of getting his point across in the dressing room.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
If that’s true, actually, it shows that Pronger’s wearing of the C would make no difference.
If the players here last year preferred Richards’ approach as captain, was their preference magically going to switch to Pronger’s style if he wore the C? No.
Pronger gets to say and do a lot while wearing an A. If some players don’t like his style when he wears an A, they’re not going to like it when he wears a C.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Apr 4, 2010 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because Pronger and Laperierre were brought in here because Richards wasn’t leading this team well.
And instead of the team changing under the Pronger/Lappy guidance, instead they’re fighting it.
They clearly missed the message. And part of that is because the message wasn’t strong enough. Give Pronger the C and the locker room may start to understand whats acceptable behavior and what isn’t.
Because Pronger and Laperierre were brought in here because Richards wasn’t leading this team well.
Neither was Briere, a former co-captain in Buffalo and former alternate with the Flyers. Neither was Timonen. Because you hate Mike Richards, it’s easy for you to say that this is all his fault.
Read the fucking Donnellon article I keep linking to. The organization is behind Richards whether you like it or not. He is not going anywhere.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
The most telling sign, for me, that Richards has the support of the organization:
When the Flyers took their team picture, they showed the process on CSN. After the photographer was done, Snider and Richards chatted for a moment, then both laughed and Snider good-naturedly patted Richards on the knee.
Does Ed Snider do that with everyone? I doubt it.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
They took the team picture a day after beating NJ for points 81 and 82 on the season. So the team had already been performing poorly well before the team picture was taken.
This is a silly argument. Your position boils down to:
1. The Flyers have had a bad season.
2. I don’t like Mike Richards.
3. Therefore, this is all his fault and he will be traded.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Yeah, that’s exactly it.
Or, perhaps, it boils down to:
The Flyers have an attitude and leadership problem that has been documented by everyone and Richards is the leader of the ship. Therefore, he’s a problem.
For the same reason Stevens was fired, Richards needs to lose the C.
But, that’s cool, since there’s no logical defense of Mike Richards, just keep harping on your fantasy that I have a personal problem with a guy I’ve never met.
just keep harping on your fantasy that I have a personal problem with a guy I’ve never met.
In previous posts, you’ve said things like this about Richards:
Dude, he’s "very upset" his boss got fired? When everyone in the free world expected it to happen? GROW THE FUCK UP. First off, he’s a goddamn idiot if he wasn’t prepared for Stevens being fired. Second, getting upset about a coach being fired? That’s acting like a child.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Yep.
And what exactly do you think that proves? Other than reiterating why Richards is a bad captain.
I don’t get this axe you have to grind with Richards. Is Richards the perfect captain? No, he’s not, but he’s done plenty of things this season and prior seasons that mean he’s just as capable to lead as Pronger.
We don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. You want to take quotes and attribute your own interpretation of them when it’s been well documented that players say a lot of cliche stuff, that means jack schitte.
I’m fine with the argument that perhaps Pronger is more suited to wear the C, but he isn’t the face of this franchise. Mike Richards is. I’m sorry you attribute all the problems to Mike, but frankly, given the make up of this team etc., some of the stupid moves by management etc., like I’ve said before, even Mark Messier couldn’t lead this team, so I tend to cut Mike a little slack.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m fine with the argument that perhaps Pronger is more suited to wear the C, but he isn’t the face of this franchise.
But he is. He was brought in here to change the lockeroom to reflect his image, and less of Richards’. Thats the exact point all of these articles are making.
And the fact is that just bringing in Pronger wasn’t enough to make the players be more like him. Therefore, it only logically follows, that he needs the C.
I’m sorry you attribute all the problems to Mike, but frankly, given the make up of this team etc., some of the stupid moves by management etc., like I’ve said before, even Mark Messier couldn’t lead this team, so I tend to cut Mike a little slack.
Again, Richards has to lose the C for the same reason Stevens was fired. Holmgren brought in Pronger to send the message, the players ignored it. Holmgren stupidly thought he could fire the coach and the players would get the message, they still haven’t. Therefore, the only logical next step is to put the C on Pronger. If that doesn’t send the message, then its time to start trading the players who still aren’t listening.
And I disagree that just giving the C to Pronger is going to do anything. He has the A, which mean’s he is more than capable of standing up expressing his opinion, which he has done. It hasn’t done anything to help this team do anything better.
Pronger isn’t going to get anymore out of these guys then Richards is.
Until Management (ie. Holmgren) puts a team on the ice that is the complete package (legit goalie, 3 lines of defense, 4 complimentary lines) then this team will continue to be inconsistent from one game to another. Richards can’t be faulted for having to lead a bunch of spare parts, which is quite literally, what this team is looking like.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree completely.
If Homer is saying that Richards is doing everything that’s expected of him, and if Laviolette is saying that Richards is doing a good job, the problem is not with Richards. The problem is with the players who do not – or CAN not – do what they are supposed to do.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
This is nonsense.
Holmgren can “say” Richards is doing whats expected of him but he clearly doesn’t mean it. Or else he wouldn’t have, last June, said he needed to get some leaders, then proceed to go out and get veteran leadership who are completely different personalities from Richards.
You continue to hinge your argument to PR bullshit instead of looking at the obvious truth.
He has the A, which mean’s he is more than capable of standing up expressing his opinion, which he has done. It hasn’t done anything to help this team do anything better.
You’re totally missing the point.
The pretense of this discussion was “if Tim’s statement that there’s a locker room divide between young guys who don’t like Pronger’s attitude is true”.
It is undeniable that Pronger was brought in here to change the attitude. If there are players who are bristling at Pronger doing what was brought in to do, that’s a problem.
So, returning to your point
He has the A, which mean’s he is more than capable of standing up expressing his opinion, which he has done. It hasn’t done anything to help this team do anything better.
The entire basis of this conversation is that Pronger having the A ISN’T WORKING. That the young players are fighting with and/or resentful of the fact that he does what he does. They don’t respect him for having the A.
There are only two answers left to solve this team’s attitude problem which Holmgren has been trying to address for over a year now:
1) Give Pronger the C and see if they get the message
2) Start trading/waiving the guys who still didn’t get the message.
no, Pronger was brought here because
a) he was an elite defender that was available on the market, something Holmgren identified as a need.
I’m sure Holmgren would have been just as happy to land Jay Bouwmeester, which he did try to do, so don’t give me a load of bullshit that Holmgren had other ulterior motives like bringing in a guy to change the locker room attitude.
Regardless of that point, this team was/has been built horribly. Until Holmgren puts a team on the ice that is solid in all facets of the game and doesn’t overcompensate one place to the detriment of another (ie. pay too much for forwards, then cheap out on the goalie), he is setting the team up for failure no matter who is captaining it.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
From the Pronger press conference
Q: You mentioned being a team that’s harder to play against. Do you also want to have a team that plays harder?
.
Holmgren: "Well I think there’s times where we do play hard. I think there’s some inconsistencies in our game over the last few years that I attribute a lot to youth and to not knowing. I think having Chris and now Ian as part of our group, they can help. I also think the maturation process of our young players will be a factor too….
my god, you really are a great lawyer. You spin everything to meet your bottom line agenda.
you answer my point, by completely ignoring the most vital part about it and that is that Homer was courting f’ing jay bowmeester. He didn’t give a fuck about veteran leadership, he wanted an elite defender.
pull your head out of your ass, the criteria that homer wanted was
1. elite defender
it didn’t get any more complicated than that.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
No. He made it perfectly clear when the Flyers got eliminated that he was going to get veteran leadership.
He also needed to fix the defense. But he found a way to get both at the same time.
Boumeister wasn’t traded until AFTER the Flyers got Pronger.
Holmgren could’ve had either one.
If that last paragraph I posted was true, then why wasn’t Guerin given the “C” in Pittsburgh? A while ago I asked FrankD what kind of captain Crosby was, and Frank said that Crosby and Richards have very similar soft-spoken, lead-by-example styles of captaincy.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Because the Pittsburgh locker room didn’t pout like spoiled children, they took Guerin’s advice and grew the fuck up.
I hardly see how that’s Richard’s problem.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
What? That’s OBVIOUSLY Richards’ problem. Because he’s not Captain material if he can’t teach grown men to listen to a veteran who has won a Stanley Cup. Clearly, the thing that WILL make those spoiled children grow the fuck up is if some piece of fabric is reshaped on both Richards’ and Pronger’s jerseys.
Because this is nothing personal against Richards at all. It’s just science.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 5, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
oh right, I also forgot that the guy wearing the “C” also has input into personnel decisions and he is responsible for telling Holmgren which guys need to be on the roster in order to win.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Why don’t you guys read this discussion again:
Ask Penguins GM Ray Shero why he brought Bill Guerin in for Sidney Crosby. It’s because Guerin had won a Cup and offered a no-nonsense approach to winning that would counter-balance a young captain (like Richards) that hadn’t won a Cup – and maybe had a softer way of getting his point across in the dressing room.
Frank said that Crosby and Richards have very similar soft-spoken, lead-by-example styles of captaincy.
why wasn’t Guerin given the "C" in Pittsburgh?
So, Crosby and Richards are both the kind of shitty captains who need a veteran to come in and give the team instructions on how to play.
Pittsburgh brings in a veteran and the team listens and wins the cup.
The Flyers bring in a veteran and the team doesn’t change their behavior, fights him, and misses the playoffs.
Gee, what’s the variable?
Evgeni Malkin? Ray Shero? Marc-Andre Fleury? The team not listening to Pronger?
No, you clearly must mean that a stitched letter on a jersey will solve this problem for good.
Gee, why doesn’t everyone understand?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 5, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
What are you talking about?
Malkin, Shero, and Fleury have nothing at all to do with this conversation.
Sarcasm certainly goes over your head. What’s the variable between the Penguins winning the cup and the Flyers not? It’s clearly the fabric stitched on Mike Richards sweater and not Malkin, Shero, or Fleury.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 5, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
for the lawyer on the short bus. Guerin certainly WAS NOT the only reason they won the cup, except of course, when you try to reach and make your point that Richards is a shitty captain. Congratulations.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
1) I didn’t bring Guerin up.
2) I didn’t say he’s the only reason they won the Cup.
Mike made the analysis that Guerin was brought in to do the same thing as Pronger and he didn’t need a C. But the difference is that the Penguins listened to him, as evidenced by their on ice success. The Flyers, as evidenced by seemingly everyone who’s been in that locker room this year, don’t want to listen, and now they’re on their way to 9th place.
There are clearly problems in the locker room I think. I also think that to say they’re Pronger’s fault is irresponsible at this point.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
I agree Travis. And the signs of something wrong that is way more then hockey were here last year. This is the same core that didn’t want Hitchcock, right? It is apparent this core wants to play when they want and not be challenged. But that again goes way further and deeper than Pronger.
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on Apr 4, 2010 9:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Why are you posting this? He only wrote it so people like you would be stupid enough to post it and give him the publicity. And you played right into his hand.
Even if Travis didn’t post this, others would have given Brooks the free publicity anyway. Puck Daddy posted it, for example. If it’s news that involves hating on the Flyers, someone will post it.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Maybe, if someone didn’t post it, other people would follow that lead, and you wouldn’t have to morally equivocate for Travis.
If it were something like that ridiculous rumor posted by that idiot about Carter and Mrs. Hartnell earlier in the year, I wouldn’t touch it. And we didn’t. But something like this is already in the public discourse. It’s in the New York Post, so it doesn’t make a difference whether or not it’s posted by us.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 4, 2010 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I never would’ve read it if you hadn’t posted it here.
How many people here do you think read the NY Post?
I don’t read the NY Post either (wouldn’t be caught dead, really). I learned about it via Twitter, but indirectly from the hockey media. CSN, Kukla’s, and Philly.com. There were several reactions up around the web before this was up.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 4, 2010 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
We try to post everything that’s Flyers-related, especially if it’s already being discussed around the web. It’s part of the discourse, which is plenty of reason to post it.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 4, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
But you just said:
If it were something like that ridiculous rumor posted by that idiot about Carter and Mrs. Hartnell earlier in the year, I wouldn’t touch it.
Which fits the criteria you just laid out:
We try to post everything that’s Flyers-related, especially if it’s already being discussed around the web.
The clear difference is that that rumor wasn’t in a major publication and it was completely false. Brooks, regardless of his idiotic opinion, is still a credentialed journalist for the biggest tabloid paper in New York and a member of the PWHA.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 4, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you honestly need to make your point so much that you’re willing to be on the side of talking about your team as if it’s a soap opera?
by The Finn Abides on Apr 4, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
You should probably reread this conversation again, and see if you can understand it the second time around.
Maybe focus on this comment.
my fault
If i can pull the foot out of my mouth for a second, I still don’t mind this being posted and the Carter/Hartnell issue being ignored.
by The Finn Abides on Apr 4, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you’re seeing the difference.
That ‘rumor’ was not respected, and the Inquirer didn’t write about it because they thought it was newsworthy. I’d bet 100 bucks that Carchidi (or his editor told him to) wrote that article to pounce on a blogger. There’s a gigantic ulterior motive for him to write that piece, because the MSM is fearful of bloggers getting acceptance. You see this all the time, MSM trying to rip down bloggers like we’re all the idiots who post that crap.
We made the calculated judgment not to post about that because as a blog, we don’t want to associate ourselves with that garbage. It’s a media story, not a hockey story.
With Brooks, he actually got a quote from an NHL GM, which takes it far beyond a journalist just being irresponsible. That makes it a hockey story worth talking about.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 5, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
With Brooks, he actually got a quote from an NHL GM
Really? An anonymously sourced one word (“pronger”) “quote” makes it a legitimate story?
You took this nonsense, posted it above the game story, and this became the focus of the day (46 comments vs 23 comments). And you put Larry Brooks’ name in the headline and gave him all the publicity he was seeking. You don’t think there is editorial problem there?
I’m sorry, I didn’t see your name listed in the staff of this website? I’m not sure what gives you the authority to call out editorial decisions?
I agree with Travis, this is Flyer news and no matter if it’s garbage or not, it’s worthy of it’s own post, regardless if you think it’s nonsense.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry, I didn’t see your name listed in the staff of this website?
I have to be on the staff to point out stupid decisions? That’s just a retarded idea.
I have to be on the staff to point out stupid decisions? That’s just a retarded idea.
what’s retarded is you criticizing what these guys decide to post on their website. Read that again slowly, it’s THEIR website. So you pointing out what should or shouldn’t be posted is really the fucking stupid thing. Kudo’s to Travis for entertaining your rant for more than a post. If I was running the blog, I’d have just told you to piss off.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t give a shit what profession you’re in, telling your audience/customers/clients to “piss off” when they point out you are doing a poor job of serving them is just idiotic.
not when your customers are stupid.
And who is defining what is poor service? I happen to think they are giving great service and I’m sure the majority of people here would say the same.
In fact probably everyone here except you has zero problem with this post. I learned a long time ago, that you’ll never please everyone, no matter how hard you try.
Obviously, I know that Travis isn’t going to tell you to piss off, so I’m doing it for him.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
In fact probably everyone here except you has zero problem with this post.
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2010/4/4/1405001/despite-logic-larry-brooks-writes#33862012
Obviously, I know that Travis isn’t going to tell you to piss off, so I’m doing it for him.
And I’ll say: “Fuck you”. Happy? This site more than once has decided it was appropriate to criticize the media for what stories they chose to run. It is not immune to the same type of criticism.
We’ve criticized the media for “what stories they chose to run”? Really?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 5, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry, have you somehow failed to read the “s” behind “storie” in my comment? Or have you failed to remember that you said “This site more than once.”
I’m no math major, but I do believe the article I just commented on equal ONE story, thereby failing to meet your statement of “more than once.”
Try again, Tito?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 5, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t give a shit what profession you’re in, telling your audience/customers/clients to "piss off" when they point out you are doing a poor job of serving them is just idiotic.
if i’m running a GAP clothing store, and one of my customers is upsetting or wasting the time of all my other customers….yes, i kick them out of the store.
Mario, your not paying for this site. Travis doesn’t owe you anything with what stories that he posts. If you don’t think that a particular post is worth talking about then you should practice what you preach and just ignore it. Instead right now your guilty of what your calling Travis out on. By you continuing to bitch about it, you’re only bringing more people to the post and keeping it in the discourse.
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 5, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Customer (noun) – a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business
You don’t pay to be on this site. If you don’t like it, stop reading, don’t comment, and practice what you preach.
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 5, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
of course you do because without you, they would only have 49,999 pageviews instead of 50,000. Wow, the advertising revenue would really take a hit if you stopped coming around.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 5, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t matter how much.
Not to mention, apparently, Travis wasn’t allowed to post this article if he isn’t a subscriber to the NY Post?
Not true, it’s fair use.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 5, 2010 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I was referring to this ridiculous notion that one can only criticize things which they pay for.
I never said you couldn’t criticize what you don’t pay for, I said only that Travis doesn’t owe you anything as far as content is concerned.
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 5, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, and if you notice that was in response to you calling yourself a “customer.” Which you’re really not. You don’t pay to view this site or read these articles. You can use the argument that you generate ad revenue all you want but that only means that Travis has an obligation to the advertisers, not the volunteered readership. You don’t see the hypocrisy in continually bitching about this article? Because I do, and I’m done.
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 6, 2010 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You started this whole mess under the pretense that by choosing to post this “nonsense” that the site is providing “poor service to its audience/clients/customers”, as if to imply that you care about the sites’ reputation. If that’s what you really meant to imply, then the hypocrisy is that a concerned customer would have emailed Travis and had this conversation behind the scenes, not started an argument that everyone could read that could tarnish the sites’ reputation instead of helping it.
But back to what you said way at the beginning about Brooks:
He only wrote it so people like you would be stupid enough to post it and give him the publicity. And you played right into his hand.Congratulations, you got everyone here to play into your hand too. Now we should all let it go.
by DragonGirl0583 on Apr 6, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow, um. Okay. Missed a lot by not reading this post all day.
Let’s just take a step back. Mario, have you complained to CSN Philly, the Inquirer, the Inquirer a second time, the Inquirer a third time, the Daily News, the Bucks County Courier Times, the Courier-Post, Kukla’s Korner, Kukla’s again, or Puck Daddy about running with this story?
I appreciate the fact that you care enough about our site to feel the need to criticize what we choose to post, but I still stand by the decision to post this. It’s hockey news. It’s directly related to the team. And it was written by a respected (deserved, maybe not, but respected nonetheless) member of the hockey media. (Yes, even a one word quote by two different GM’s is still a quote.)
By the way, calling us ‘stupid’ for posting something you disagree with is pretty unacceptable.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 5, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
So, once again, you’re taking the moral equivocation defense that everyone else doing it makes it legit?
No, my justification is…
It’s hockey news. It’s directly related to the team. And it was written by a respected (deserved, maybe not, but respected nonetheless) member of the hockey media. (Yes, even a one word quote by two different GM’s is still a quote.)
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 5, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sure I’ll get a nice letter in the mail. Or maybe an Edible Arrangement. Those things rock.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 5, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Everyone knows Larry Brooks is a Vermont Teddy Bears guy. What are you stupid? Oh, wait…
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
I dont have any problem with this being posted because it leads to discussion over the real problem. The Flyers play hard when they want to and take nights off when they want to. Thats evident to most Flyers fans. Pronger and Laperriere were brought in to change that. I doubt its their fault that this team hasnt changed and started putting in a consistent effort. I believe that this means the other players are at fault.
This team needs to make some big changes in the offseason. Obviously they need a consistent sound goaltender or they need to began a rebuild by shuttling out some of the veterans and picking up a young goalie who can be groomed into being the team’s long term starter. Moving Briere and/or Hartnell would be a start.
Maybe Brooks is a Mastermind...
Brooks and Tortorella aren’t even close to friendly and Torts has even publicly stated he won’t answer any of Brooks’ questions. You have to believe that if the Rangers failed to make the playoffs it could spell Johnny’s job. Maybe this is Brooks’ attempt to give the Flyers some extra incentive to embarrass the blueshirts, not that that’s needed.
I’m telling yall it’s Sabotage.
by The Finn Abides on Apr 4, 2010 10:44 PM EDT reply actions
Mom would tell me to consider the source
Give Larry’s article all the weight and credence it deserves, none.
Exactly as Prongs did.
Holy shit
This is the least interesting topic I could think of discussing three games before a possible playoff berth.
If you can’t put on a dumb, happy face and just enjoy hockey for the next week, find something else to devote your time to.
Anyone on this team who has a problem with Pronger...
…doesn’t like to work hard and expects everything handed to him, which is why we’re in this situation in the first place. Pronger works hard and expects nothing less from everyone else and he’s the guy who isn’t afraid to call you out when you’re being a lazy ass out there and playing like a sloppy turd. THAT is a real captain, not Mr whiny pants who won’t even speak to the media and holds grudges like a 2 yr old. I like Richards on ice (when he brings his game) but he has got to grow a pair of balls because that whiny attitude is old already. We already have one crybaby captain on a PA team- don’t need two. Hopefully he’ll learn from Pronger and demand more of his teammates instead of letting them get away with being undisciplined and heartless. This is FLYERS hockey, not Thrashers hockey- although even they have more heart and spunk than our team right now. How pathetic does that make us look? Ugh.
"Despite logic, Larry Brooks writes story"
End of story.
by Peter Raaymakers on Apr 6, 2010 9:34 AM EDT reply actions
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
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- McKegg breaks scoring drought to lift London
- Tokarski, Admirals blank IceCaps 4-0; Norfolk wins AHL's Eastern Conference
- Norfolk advances to Calder Cup Finals
- Oilers president Lowe says vacant coaching job not discussed with Sutter
- Eastern Conference champ to host Game 1 of Stanley Cup final on May 30
