Since Mike Richards is now a trainee.......

[Rusty Pickles]

When does Cindy finally hit that list lol?B) I guess you need to see him go out again.....:P

If I saw him getting minor band aid boy status injuries I\'d be more concerned. Or if he was a whiner or a crier. However, Richards is a warrior. He\'ll be back and sooner than expected.

[Dobber]

He is a warrior - he plays so hard that I wonder if he will ever play 75 games in a season again.

If Sid misses seven games next season he is a trainee for sure. Six or less, I will keep him off the list.

[Rusty Pickles]

He is a warrior - he plays so hard that I wonder if he will ever play 75 games in a season again.

I figured that was the angle you were seeing, and I agree, I am just having some fun lol:laugh: I like torturing Crosby owners, since I know they do it to me some weeks, intentional or not :silly:

[shook81]

It seems a lot of admins/mods here have it out for Mike Richards while giving uber-gimp Patrick Marleau a reprieve. I\'ll gladly take Richards production across the board over 3/4ths of a season. He has been an absolute stud this season. Crosby is hardly a BAB...the guy has had awful luck thus far, but don\'t see a trend occuring. One last bit...I see Richards toning the physical play (and fights) down next season as he assumes more of a leadership role.

[Dobber]

shook81 wrote:

It seems a lot of admins/mods here have it out for Mike Richards while giving uber-gimp Patrick Marleau a reprieve. I\'ll gladly take Richards production across the board over 3/4ths of a season. He has been an absolute stud this season. Crosby is hardly a BAB...the guy has had awful luck thus far, but don\'t see a trend occuring. One last bit...I see Richards toning the physical play (and fights) down next season as he assumes more of a leadership role.

It\'s not a question of who you would take. Of course you would take Richards, who wouldn\'t? It\'s about playing full seasons. I doubt Richards will do that again.
Marleau, however crappy a player he may be, has played 77, 82, 80, 82, 79, 81, 81, 81 over his last eight seasons. That\'s just phenomenal. If he\'s an uber-gimp, than you must have thought Doug Jarvis and Steve Larmer were back in their day!

B)

[shook81]

Dobber wrote:

It\'s not a question of who you would take. Of course you would take Richards, who wouldn\'t? It\'s about playing full seasons. I doubt Richards will do that again.
Marleau, however crappy a player he may be, has played 77, 82, 80, 82, 79, 81, 81, 81 over his last eight seasons. That\'s just phenomenal. If he\'s an uber-gimp, than you must have thought Doug Jarvis and Steve Larmer were back in their day!

B)

Well...I believe you and a few other mods recommended trading Richards for Marleau straight up earlier this year. The sheer number of games a player plays does not mean as much to me as his production...quality over quantity. Marleau can play 82 games each season for the next five seasons, but if they\'re anything close to his past season and a half (as I have explained in my post \"The Leaudown on Marleau\&quot then I don\'t want anything to do with him. I take 65+ games of production in all cats from Richards.

The Jarvis/Larmer bit is irrelevant...Larmer actually played with some heart which I could never say about Marleau.

[Dobber]

\"I take 65+ games of production in all cats from Richards.\"

That\'s an obvious statement. \"I\'ll take 65+ games from Spezza over 82 games from Ken Daneyko\" another obvious statement.

The Bandaid boy list is to point out the games you can expect the player to play, not to belittle a player\'s talent. C\'mon.