PHILADELPHIA -- This was Mike Richards' post-game interview today. He was a bit sarcastic, as you can see there, especially towards two out-of-town reporters: Helene Elliott of the Los Angeles Times and Adam Kimelman of NHL.com.
We all know he's not necessarily fond of the media, but his unnecessary sarcasm certainly rubbed several people the wrong way today. Some people, on the flip side, might find it hilarious.
Helene Elliott: What were their penalty killers doing that worked so effectively?
Mike Richards: "I don't know. Icing the puck was really effective."
Adam Kimelman: Were you surprised to start on a line with Giroux and Carter? How did you think that line went tonight?
MR: "Well I practiced with them the last two days so I wasn't overly surprised with it. You guys might have been because you weren't there but for some of you guys that weren't there I wound up practicing with them so I wasn't overly surprised but I thought it went well. We generated a lot of chances."
These two folks are fantastic reporters, and their questions weren't necessarily silly or stupid or anything like that.
Elliott is an LA reporter and simply wanted a comment from the Flyers' captain on why the Kings penalty kill was so good today. Kimelman's question would've been better if he cut out that first part (since he was apparently ignorant to the facts about the Flyers' lines) but there's no fairness in blaming a national reporter for not attending every single Flyers practice.
I know this isn't necessarily big news or anything and I know that most people don't care how Mike Richards treats the media. And quite honestly, a lot of people in the media probably get a little self-righteous about this stuff.
So I'll just ask you the question. Does Mike Richards acting like this (for no reason) to two respected reporters say anything more pronounced about his captaincy or anything related to hockey, or is it not a big deal at all? Does it just make him a jerk? Does it make him funny? What do you think?