Toggle sidebar

Mike Richards VIII Kings vs NHLPA

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Bandit said:
I dunno, seems like you're making a bit of an outlandish statement. We had two players get busted for drugs and another get deported in one offseason. I've never seen anything close to that before, and If every team had guys like this as you contend, you'd see this sort of thing all the time.
Click to expand...
This idea that athletes are role models is garbage. Its great when they step ot up and are able to be, but nothing about being good at sports automaticly makes you a good person.

I mean was I the only one who was a hooligan at 18?

Thinking back to my brothers hockey team... They wrre only pretty good, and that alone had them acting like little ego driven terrors getting into trouble.

Giving kids a reduced focus on academics, a bunch of extra freedom, millions of dollard and telling them they are better then everyone is NOT the way to build role models.
 
scryan said:
This idea that athletes are role models is garbage. Its great when they step ot up and are able to be, but nothing about being good at sports automaticly makes you a good person.

I mean was I the only one who was a hooligan at 18?

Thinking back to my brothers hockey team... They wrre only pretty good, and that alone had them acting like little ego driven terrors getting into trouble.

Giving kids a reduced focus on academics, a bunch of extra freedom, millions of dollard and telling them they are better then everyone is NOT the way to build role models.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're talking about role models because I didn't say **** about players being role models. :) I totally agree with you, btw. If a kid needs to "look up" to a hockey player, he or she probably has ****** parents.

I also have no doubt that every team has some guys that go overboard with the partying. I'm just saying I don't think every team or even most teams have a situation close to what we just experienced this last offseason.
 
Bandit said:
I'm not sure why you're talking about role models because I didn't say **** about players being role models. :) I totally agree with you, btw. If a kid needs to "look up" to a hockey player, he or she probably has ****** parents.

I also have no doubt that every team has some guys that go overboard with the partying. I'm just saying I don't think every team or even most teams have a situation close to what we just experienced this last offseason.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, just saying I easily believe that pro athletes in general are gonna be worse people then average and I'm sure each team has at least one piece of ****.
 
scryan said:
This idea that athletes are role models is garbage. Its great when they step ot up and are able to be, but nothing about being good at sports automaticly makes you a good person.

I mean was I the only one who was a hooligan at 18?

Thinking back to my brothers hockey team... They wrre only pretty good, and that alone had them acting like little ego driven terrors getting into trouble.

Giving kids a reduced focus on academics, a bunch of extra freedom, millions of dollard and telling them they are better then everyone is NOT the way to build role models.
Click to expand...

The fact that players are role models does not, in fact, mean they are good people. However, it does mean that they have some responsibility in how they act because there are so many impressionable youngsters watching their actions.
 
Bill Daly's and DL's comments seem incredibly strong. If Daly's comments weren't true, I can't see the NHLPA or even the NHL just letting him say that. All parties know what really happened. The comments seem to me far stronger a statement from the NHL than even an entry ban or loss of work visa would warrant.

In either of the two cases, a waiver could be applied for and probably obtained in 6-12 months. It would wipe out much if not all of a season but the comment seems a bit... disproportionate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never really considered this line of thought since there simply wasn't enough info. That's changed in the last few days because of all the comments from Daly and DL.


A lot of people are working off the idea that with immigration issues, a waiver can be obtained. It [can be] a completely differrent story if drug addiction is [an] issue.

If the government deems a person a drug addict, then no standard waiver is available. A waiver down the line is possible but only after medical certification of remission.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume9-PartC-Chapter5.html

The old law was remission determination is only possible if no use occured in the past 3 years. This was changed in 2010 to remove the time requirement. But this gives a general idea of how long it can possibly take.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume8-PartB-Chapter8.html#footnote-1


I think this is what happened to Kate Moss. She got classified as an addict and as such would under the old laws/regulations be required to be drug free for 3 years and would also require a medical certification.

Kate Moss has tried for a visa for 10 years and counting and has not received one.


NHL analysts that claimed knowledge were saying things like "wowzer" and "icky". Then you have Daly's comments and then the article with DL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reclamation Project said:
KINGS17 is my role model.
Click to expand...

EPtk6xs.gif
 
Honestly not sure what people expect from DL or how anyone can place this blame squarely on anyone's shoulders but Richards.

Richards is supposed to be a professional athlete. People can say all they want about that not making the guy a role model but it does to some degree. The sport is marketed that way, the players benefit from that financially, as do the owners. I'm not saying a guy has to be a saint, and I don't expect that, but it's a no-brainer that you should keep your vices under control enough not to become public at least.

Dean isn't at fault at all here. What was he supposed to do? People are saying he's lying or doing damage control? He could've been free and clear of Richards last year but he chose not to do that and Richards agreed to put in work to get his play back, which was a lie. Dean gave Richards plenty of chances and probably tried to help more than we know. We have direct evidence of some of them. Is there any evidence that Richards actually gave his best effort to get some of his play back? Nope. Again, Richards is a professional athlete. When a player signs a contract there's an understanding that he's going to give the best effort he reasonably can to contribute to the team. If a guy can party but keep it under control enough so it's not making the papers and it doesn't effect his game, then fine, party on. Richards clearly wasn't doing that and a lot of it stemmed from off ice problems in one form or another. I don't see why anyone should have any sympathy for the way he's conducted himself.
 
Mike The Franchise said:
Not sure if posted already but would Mike Richards' contract and settlement count against the cap if he retires?
Click to expand...

If he retires it will be on who ever has his contract at the time.

We are done with him at this point, and nothing he does from here on factors into the situation of our cap, which will have a $1.32 cap hit for the next 5 years, with an undisclosed amount on top of that for the next 16 years. The 16 year amount should be low... He was looking at getting something like 10 million from buyout, and I would have to guess he would be getting less after being arrested, having his contract cancelled and settling out of court... even at 10mil that only 625k per year (so 1.975 million for the first 5, again basing that on the incorrect and likely larger than actual amount figure of a 10 million dollar settlement.)
 
scryan said:
If he retires it will be on who ever has his contract at the time.

We are done with him at this point, and nothing he does from here on factors into the situation of our cap, which will have a $1.32 cap hit for the next 5 years, with an undisclosed amount on top of that for the next 16 years. The 16 year amount should be low... He was looking at getting something like 10 million from buyout, and I would have to guess he would be getting less after being arrested, having his contract cancelled and settling out of court... even at 10mil that only 625k per year (so 1.975 million for the first 5, again basing that on the incorrect and likely larger than actual amount figure of a 10 million dollar settlement.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!
 
scryan said:
If he retires it will be on who ever has his contract at the time.

We are done with him at this point, and nothing he does from here on factors into the situation of our cap, which will have a $1.32 cap hit for the next 5 years, with an undisclosed amount on top of that for the next 16 years. The 16 year amount should be low... He was looking at getting something like 10 million from buyout, and I would have to guess he would be getting less after being arrested, having his contract cancelled and settling out of court... even at 10mil that only 625k per year (so 1.975 million for the first 5, again basing that on the incorrect and likely larger than actual amount figure of a 10 million dollar settlement.)
Click to expand...

I thought I saw a tweet this weekend that the 16 year amount wil be $550K/yr,
 
Let's stop here.

Are DL's comments 'revealing?' absolutely.

However, they're also lawyery/abstract enough that we don't know exactly which rumors he's addressing or what MR's downward spiral consists of. Any posts that assume the leap to fact will be deleted.

I can understand if there's frustration with that but nothing was confirmed except that MR has personal problems. It may have been a sneaky way to nod at the rumors and wink at those following MR's career, but there's still nothing definitive there, so let's not discuss as such or speculate much more on that, as it leads us back down to playing the 'what if' game.
 
Last edited:
Brad Doty said:
Let's stop here.

Are DL's comments 'revealing?' absolutely.

However, they're also lawyery/abstract enough that we don't know exactly which rumors he's addressing or what MR's downward spiral consists of. Any posts that assume the leap to fact will be deleted.

I can understand if there's frustration with that but nothing was confirmed except that MR has personal problems. It may have been a sneaky way to nod at the rumors and wink at those following MR's career, but there's still nothing definitive there, so let's not discuss as such or speculate much more on that, as it leads us back down to playing the 'what if' game.
Click to expand...

 
Much appreciated, thank you :)

Funny that it's so similar to the Dillman story in that no one wants to be definitive. It does help color the history a bit regardless.
 
Brad Doty said:
Let's stop here.

Are DL's comments 'revealing?' absolutely.

However, they're also lawyery/abstract enough that we don't know exactly which rumors he's addressing or what MR's downward spiral consists of. Any posts that assume the leap to fact will be deleted.

I can understand if there's frustration with that but nothing was confirmed except that MR has personal problems. It may have been a sneaky way to nod at the rumors and wink at those following MR's career, but there's still nothing definitive there, so let's not discuss as such or speculate much more on that, as it leads us back down to playing the 'what if' game.
Click to expand...

Marshal Doty you know where your application of justice is really needed. :)

I thought libelous accusations were prohibited, but I guess that doesn't apply to discussions about GMs.
 
[nhl]651268[/nhl]

Richards also tried to drag the cup down with him in his downward spiral
 
Mike Richards clearly had problems as a member of the Flyers, if Alexandre Burrows playing on the other side of the continent knew about it, you can bet Kings management did as well. The Kings clearly didn't care about it when they made the trade, that could be for a variety of reasons..

1. Drug use is so rampant in the NHL that it's a non-issue acquiring a player with a problem.

2. The Kings thought they could fix the problem.

3. The Kings were so excited to be getting a player of MR's caliber with a bargain contract that they decided to just look the other way.

This is my only issue with DL's handing of all of this, I think in a way Dean's comments are an attempt to deflect any blame from himself, and I don't think that's fair. The Kings clearly had no problems acquiring the player and committing $50m in salary to him when he was a likely drug user playing at a high level, but then they tried to play the victim card when he became the worst player on the team. This is one area where Kings ownership should really grill Dean when it comes to the handling of Mike Richards from the start.
 
Herby said:
Mike Richards clearly had problems as a member of the Flyers, if Alexandre Burrows playing on the other side of the continent knew about it, you can bet Kings management did as well. The Kings clearly didn't care about it when they made the trade, that could be for a variety of reasons..

1. Drug use is so rampant in the NHL that it's a non-issue acquiring a player with a problem.
Click to expand...

And even the NHL is admitting it

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...edges-it-has-a-cocaine-problem-051534866.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom