In which gossip columnists invade the Philadelphia Flyers offseason

TMZ has broken news before you know

I apologize if what I said is wrong/stupid. I’m still learning. Give me a chance! And by all means…correct me.

Couldn’t of said it any better

Couldn’t have said it any better

John Kruk loves gum.

Only if it’s deep fried.

I stole this and used it on Twitter.

True. Anytime I feel like my work is meaningless and doesn’t contribute to society, I can say “at least I’m not a gossip columnist.”

(The article, not Travis’ story about it)

Gotta sell papers somehow.

You serious?

Greg Wyshynski isn’t horrible, at least anymore. Not good, but not horrible.

Anyone else, though, that’s another story.

We require more hugging and sharing of feelings! A Festivus, if you will.

Alcoholics don’t usually have a problem stopping drinking for a defined period of time. It’s STAYING stopped that’s a problem.

Also Dan was a straight edge kid growing up so that may play into this. he might still be which would make sense.

Yeah, I’m sure we’re all going to take the word of a friend of a friend of an anonymous commenter as gospel. Steroids and coke for everyone!

there is always stuff that goes on behind the scenes that you don’t hear about in the papers

and there is always stuff that you hear about in the papers that isn’t going on behind the scenes.

I heard it was primarily Oxy’s with Richards. But this type of stuff is rubbish, and shouldn’t even be the subject of banter

Right, and one of the questions is whether the whole operation was an attempt to out and shame the two of them or whether Laviolette knew or believed that the problem was more widespread.

I believe the press has an obligation to report this information if the evidence meets the standards that ethical investigative reporters require for their articles. Even though they cover entertainment they are reporters and should be able to jump the fence to covering news.

I sometimes sense a double standard from fans who think the press should leave guys alone but who also deplore the criminal/arrogant attitudes of the players who act as if they can operate under a different legal standard than the rest of us. Reporters who turn away from criminal activity encourage this attitude.

Furthermore, hockey (and other sports) pitches itself as family entertainment. Teams and league foster links with youth hockey, there are events like the Wives’ carnival and at least some of the merchandising is oriented towards kids tugging on their parents’ wallets. Perhaps it is unwise to encourage children to adopt sports figures as role models or heroes but teams and leagues and TV networks encourage this and generate revenue from it, so it seems fair to me to hold these heroes to at least the standard that we hold each other.

Finally, spectator sports is itself somewhat addictive. If you consider how much time, money and emotions many fans invest in players they’ll never know and games in which they likely experience no tangible profit, there is an argument it is at least a little unbalanced. As with any addiction you want to get them young. Targeting the kids (and through their parents) is a way of ensuring a reliable revenue stream each generation.

So if guys are blowing coke or dispensing scripts or arriving at games and practices inebriated then I say put it on the front page. Just treat it as serious news that must meet the highest standards for verification.

And they openly joke about it all today, too.

Because its going into issues that should be off limits and has very little to do with hockey.

Because opinions on stuff like this, that happen in every single lockerroom, can be damaging to a player’s reputation? It’s beyond irresponsible, bordeline libel, to take some “facts” and misconstrue them as the reason for which a player was traded. It makes it seem like their drinking/extracurricular activities are so out of control that they cannot be trusted on the ice, which, from the stats would prove to be false.

Its lazy journalism….

i guess I just don’t know why we’re attacking this columnist?

The writer inferring a conclusion that Holmgren specifically denies? For taking something that most athletes do and making it into a big story?

Is it because we don’t like the story he wrote so we’re going to blast him for it?

It’s because the story and the inferred conclusions make no fucking sense. Because there is no evidence that their partying actually impacted anything on the ice. Because one of the most beloved teams ever in the city were renowned for their drinking.

It seems factually accurate, and he’s allowed to write his opinion that this is why they were traded

He can write his opinion. Just like I can say his opinion is cuckoo fucking bananas (h/t WholeCamels of The Good Phight for introducing that one to me).

doesn’t mean it is the reason though, and I don’t see why we should attack him for it

Outside of getting a couple quotes from Holmgren, it is lazy journalism. The fact that Holmgren’s quotes contradict the inferred conclusion, makes it even lazier journalism.

i wonder if he wrote that two unnamed teammates wrote that carter and richie were the best teammates ever, if we’d praise him for it, just because it confirms for us what he want to hear

It would certainly have more basis in statistics than this does, that is for sure. Because according to statistics, they were very good hockey players, so it stands to reason that more often than not, they would be considered good teammates. The narrative that is being written about Richards and Carter is they were drunk party freaks who only cared about girls and booze. Their performance on the ice completely debunks that. It is easy to play along with the false narrative. It is a truer test of journalism to actually get down to the facts. But at the same time, every time someone uses “unnamed sources” your B.S. detector does go up, so in a sense, it does go both ways.

Just to keep things factual from the article:

as well as the estimated five more times the policy was instituted.

So if your boss came in today and asked you to quit drinking for a month, you’d do it?

If my boss did that to me, I’d tell him to butt the fuck out of my personal life.

Did you see Dan Carcillo’s framed Flyers jersey on the wall on the episode of “Entourage” last night?

Richards is going to lead the Kings to a Stanley Cup title one of these years. And then everyone will say “Oh, if he had played like that when he was here, we never would have traded him!” That has to be the most oft-repeated Philly sentiment towards ex-players, regardless of whether or not it is based in fact.

This. People are going to use crap like this to rewrite history and make Richards and Carter out to be two worthless players and we should be glad we got rid of them. Look at the responses I’ve gotten this summer from so many people to the name “Cechmanek.” The media conditioned us to respond to that name with “bat-shit crazy” instead of any mention of his excellent goaltending record. His performance has been forgotten in favor of a revisionist “he was crazy all along” narrative. If left to the gossip columnists and MSM, the same thing will happen here.

I remember that, too. Clarkie took MacLeish and others aside during the 1975 Finals and told them to dry up for a little bit there, because they were “Foolishly wasting an opportunity” to win a second championship. I think they won the first two games in Philly and thought the rest of the way would be easy. Well, the Flyers let their feet off the gas and before you knew it, the series was tied at 2.

If you or anyone is listening, post any interesting quotes. Thanks!

As someone who rarely drinks and never does drugs, I’ve always wondered what the hell smoking an apple was like.

The story here is that Carter and Richards like to drink(common knowledge), and that the management didn’t like how much they drank(less common, but also very plausible) and tried to limit the amount they drank during playing season(which we now know is true). Thats the whole story, but the writer tried to link that knowledge with the fact that they were traded, and came to his own conclusion that both players drank, and thus thats why they were traded(which is not true, and if it is, really speaks poorly about Snider and the rest of the brass here)

Agreed. But I think “Dry Island” is a story, at least from Laviolette’s angle. I think it’s weird. And I think Holmgren’s quote is weird too, in that he confirmed Dry Island in the first sentence and then complained about publicizing it in the second. What was management doing with Dry Island and what is management doing now with the quotes?

But that leap is being made by two (now-former) teammates of Carter and Richards. Not the reporter. Doesn’t that give it more weight that other “reports” about this topic?

Last of all…right now, does it matter?

Honestly, I think the answer is no. That may seem a bit of a surprise, given the hard time we previously gave players like Mike Commodore or Jakub Voracek over conditioning and fitness, but there’s a difference. There’s no indications that Richards or Carter’s alleged behaviors ever impacted their play. We had those indications with Voracek and Commodore.

Gee, thanks for that ray of sunshine regarding Voracek there.

Eric T, new stats we need. Similar chart for cocaine, psuedoephedrine (for comparison to the Oilers), or THC, please! Clearly, these are important stats for us to know as sports fans.

Certain types of alcohol (like red wine) have health benefits. But in and of itself, alcohol is not “good for you.”

Is sugar good for you? Because that’s what alcohol is.

I bet the number of deaths from swarms of angry bees is much lower than the alcohol related deaths. Bring on the bees!