Why not Mike Richards

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Why not Mike Richards

    Should he be bought out i will be first in line to say i want him on the Bruins.  His game has slipped a bit this year.  But the guy is heart and soul.  Can play wing or center.  Would look great in a Bruins uniform.  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BigBadnBruin. Show BigBadnBruin's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

       I don't like the idea. Too old, and someone will overpay for him.

    I would rather a younger player get a chance on the 3rd line LW spot.

    Bruins do not need to get any older or slower.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    Love his game Shupe, but I just don't see him coming here.




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.

     



    I think his contract is whats wearing out his welcome.  I would love him.  One of my favorites so im biased.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.

     



    I think his contract is whats wearing out his welcome.  I would love him.  One of my favorites so im biased.  



    I am with you shupe, like Richards. Still only 29, plenty of hockey ahead of him.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    Yes he has a ton of grit but the Bruins need someone to pop the puck in the net and that is why Richards is being let go. He is not the 2010 Richards anymore.

     

    Playoffs: Reilly Smith > Tyler Seguin

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    When a guy is too old at twenty nine, the rest of us are in trouble.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to billge's comment:

    When a guy is too old at twenty nine, the rest of us are in trouble.



    Lol, so true.




     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    The Grapevine has it that he is a closet Bruin fan. He'll take a discount!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hanrahan1. Show Hanrahan1's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    The Grapevine has it that he is a closet Bruin fan. He'll take a discount!




     How much a discount? Like 40% off?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    I like Richards.  I think he got scapegoated a little in Philly (who got the last laugh on that one?).

    A lot of centers in the mix and I wonder how seamlessly he can go to wing on a new team.  

    It's worth a vigorous tire kicking...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Zinga_zinga. Show Zinga_zinga's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.

     



    He has never worn out his welcome.... Seriouly???? The whole thing in Philly was dumb. They wanted a Rah Rah leader and were mad that he wasn't that type of guy. The media crucified him. He hasn't worn out his welcome in LA. 

     

    He doesn't make sense in Boston because we have Bergy but he doesn't wear out his welcome. The two cups in LA prove that Philly media stuff to be wrong.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Zinga_zinga. Show Zinga_zinga's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    I like Richards.  I think he got scapegoated a little in Philly (who got the last laugh on that one?).

    A lot of centers in the mix and I wonder how seamlessly he can go to wing on a new team.  

    It's worth a vigorous tire kicking...



    I agree. When him and Carter were traded, I started laughing. I knew Philly would regret it. They were both key parts to this cup team.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    the Kings will find a suitor, i think Richards can still be a top six on many teams....

    can't say the same about the Rangers' Richards....  just awful in the finals, as was Nash....

    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”


     
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.



    Two reasons Richards got traded out of Philly, one of them was not his hockey talent.

    1. Holmgren needed money to address his goalie and defense plus he wanted to get younger up front with Giroux and Co. and did. The Flyers weren't going back to the finals with Richards.

    2. The rumors are true about Richards and Carter partying way too much when they were in Philly. He was told by Flyer management to get it right but he didn't. Richards has a bad habit and still does.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Like Richards, but guy seems to wear out his welcome pretty quickly.



    Two reasons Richards got traded out of Philly, one of them was not his hockey talent.

    1. Holmgren needed money to address his goalie and defense plus he wanted to get younger up front with Giroux and Co. and did. The Flyers weren't going back to the finals with Richards.

    2. The rumors are true about Richards and Carter partying way too much when they were in Philly. He was told by Flyer management to get it right but he didn't. Richards has a bad habit and still does.



    Bet winning the cup isnt gonna help that habit.  Lots of party guys in the league.  Usually the under 30 with no family.  Doughty is a huge party guy.  Has been questioned about it.  Still plays though.  

    LA has the space to keep richards and resign one of mitchell/green and gabby.  My bet is Richards is traded for a young cost efficient dman.   Lots of guys on the market to take a 4th line center role.  

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    Why not? Because he was a -6 in the playoffs on a Stanley Cup winning team. Because he only scored 11 goals last year. Because his playmaking ability seems to have dropped along side with his goal scoring. His game has been in a slow decline since being traded much like you might expect from a guy in his late 30's yet he's only 29. Something isn't right with this guy. If he goes to a lousy team where the supporting cast isn't the best you'll see how flawed he really is.

    Even if he took a pay cut I'm not sure where he is an upgrade on this roster unless you got him for 4th line money and put him there but that isn't going to happen. I would love to have the Mike Richards from 07-09 but the Mike Richards of 2014 isn't that guy anymore. Not even close. No thanks on this one, Shupe.

    Cheers.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    In response to shuperman's comment:



    Two reasons Richards got traded out of Philly, one of them was not his hockey talent.

    1. Holmgren needed money to address his goalie and defense plus he wanted to get younger up front with Giroux and Co. and did. The Flyers weren't going back to the finals with Richards.

    2. The rumors are true about Richards and Carter partying way too much when they were in Philly. He was told by Flyer management to get it right but he didn't. Richards has a bad habit and still does.



    Bet winning the cup isnt gonna help that habit.  Lots of party guys in the league.  Usually the under 30 with no family.  Doughty is a huge party guy.  Has been questioned about it.  Still plays though.  

    LA has the space to keep richards and resign one of mitchell/green and gabby.  My bet is Richards is traded for a young cost efficient dman.   Lots of guys on the market to take a 4th line center role. 




    That's really it as well, LA has young talent coming up. Richards hast talent still no doubt but his price isn't right to remain with the Kings. Plenty of teams will line up for Richards when Lombardi puts the word out that he is available.

    Phoenix or New Jersey would be a good fit.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Mike Richards

    Both those teams would be ideal fits.  NJ may look to deal Salvador.  Pretty good swap for both clubs.  Ribero likely gets bought out.  The Yotes would also be a good fit.  I dont think he is bought out.  I think teams will be there wanting to trade for him.   Lots of teams looking for a 2/3 line centers.  

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share