From Dan Gross:
The two unnamed players said the Flyers front office was disappointed in Carter and Richards' longstanding party lifestyle and that teammates were concerned about the pair's drinking.
Shortly after his arrival in December 2009, coach Peter Laviolette instituted what players came to call the "Dry Island." Laviolette asked team members to commit to not drinking for a month, and each player was asked to write his number on a locker room board as a pledge. No. 17 (Carter) and No. 18 (Richards) were absent from the board on the first Dry Island, as well as the estimated five more times the policy was instituted.
In a phone interview Thursday, Flyers General Manager Paul Holmgren confirmed that Richards and Carter hadn't put their numbers on the board, but said there had been others who declined. "We carry 23 players and there wasn't 23 numbers up there."We will never know the 100%-true story here, of that much we can be certain. Maybe it was never that big of a deal in the first place. But if any of this is true, in any way, it's almost as though a moderately powerful earthquake just hit "Hockeyland", tearing open a gaping hole to the Flyers' locker room...and the aftershocks of that and of the issue at hand will be interesting to examine.
What's so amazing about this story is that 1) two players would discuss this with any member of the media and 2) something like this may have actually played out to the point where Richards and Carter essentially "lost their jobs."
But can you be part of "our generation" if your job depends on near-total dedication for a seven (or nine if you're that good) month span? Does "our generation" have room for people who achieve most when their bodies are in peak condition? When their time spent 'at work' markedly increases their chance for success? When work IS life?
Sometimes when we view professional athletes, we don't see them in the context of what they really are: People. Mike Richards is a 26-year old man. He's my age. He also happens to be one of the best centers in the NHL and, up until last month, the captain of one of the more successful hockey franchises as of late. And Jeff Carter? He is also 26, also my age...and also a damn good center. From October to April (or June...if they're lucky), these two men have a job to do (which of course doesn't account for off-season training) and over the past few seasons, they've done it well. You can't talk about the top 25 centers in the league without including their names. You can't form gold medal-winning Team Canada without including their talent (at least initially. Carter was the last man cut...). And up until last month, you couldn't imagine the Philadelphia Flyers without picturing their faces.
And now, at least some of that has changed. The talent is still there...but the identity and what that meant is gone. The pair who defined the Flyers, who represented their future, has been broken into two single players, both of whom will have to carve new careers from the remains of their former one. As for the Flyers, they are no longer the same team that came within two wins of a Stanley Cup one year ago but instead, but are instead a team that has changed so remarkably, it won't even recognize itself in the mirror when the puck drops in October.
The trades of Richards and Carter felt so unnatural, so strange, and so improbable that much of the hockey world was completely shocked any GM in his right mind would sign off on them. But Paul Holmgren did...
...and now this. Now comes the speculation that at least some of the decision was based on what many people would term "acting like a normal 26 year old man".
So where's the line? How much can these men act like men and not only like hockey players? How much of a personal life can you really have when so much of your personal life is wrapped up in the requirement that your body is the most important tool of your your job? And if you can still do your job while living your life outside of it, can your boss really have a say in what you do during your time off? Especially if what you do has no impact on how you perform at work? And if you're a professional athlete, is that your job...or your identity?
And what happens when your co-workers essentially throw your personal life in your face? When "what happens at work stays at work" becomes null and void?
The bottom line is, "we" can...but maybe they can't...because what differentiates Richards and Carter from other 26 year-olds in the workforce is that they are ultimately professional athletes first...and 26-year old men second. In today's NHL, one simply cannot afford to lose a step because that may be the step you never get back. But is that really fair? Can anyone really be asked to be "at work" every second of every day?
You can't. So the question now becomes, who in the Flyers locker room had a problem with it? And did it really have any affect on how either Richards or Carter did his job? And exactly how out of line was it for any of this to become public knowledge?
It's all out of the Flyers' hands now and whether trading Richards and Carter was the wrong decision or not is no longer up for debate. What's done is done. But how will this play out in the Flyers' locker room? In locker rooms around the NHL? Is it an isolated incident or something every player will be more aware of in the future? And is that fair? And, at the core, is it really that different from the dilemmas we all face when trying to enter the workforce or stay afloat within it?
I guess until you've had
-Shaela
The balance between life/work is a struggle. You have to form an identity on two levels, and sometimes that doesn't match up. Each person should be allowed, regardless of occupation to have some sort of "down time." We need it. We are not meant to function 24/7/365. We need rest. All creatures, even the plants, need rest. It allows our bodies to heal.
ReplyDeleteAs for the whole what happens in the locker room/work/vegas stays there...I agree. One's personal choices should be one's own, until it become apparent that they can no longer function in a healthy way. What that means, varies to different people.
-Stephy
One note is that as an athlete, like it or not, part of your job is to be a role model. You're held on a national scale and not effect your team, but effect others who are viewing you. To look at it in a smaller light, they are the top players on said franchise, which means you are at the forefront of your teammates, and at best, the face of the franchise (I really have no idea who the players are but just going with it). And because of that your actions are judged differently from you or I and they are magnified that much more.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I had a pic of me giving the finger. No one would really care. I probably wouldn't get fired for it or really have anything said to me, but say a pic of Jeter had that. That be front page news unfortunately, and would change people's perception of not only him, but of the team as a whole. Granted, tons of people hate the yankees anyways, but I digress.
So, I guess you're just highlighting an example for the phrase "Mo Money, Mo Problems", and I can't believe I just quoted Puff Daddy or whatever he's called now.