If coots is out short what about Laughton taking his place and frost on the 4 th. Would help a little with matchups with two responsible wingers. I think he has a little familiarity with NAK and raffl can play with anyone. Scott is responsible defensively and has played consistently well for over a season.
- Peter Richards

This probably makes the most sense actually.

My decades-long lament is they still do not have the overall team speed to out-chance and win puck races with the faster clubs. If they make it to the finals, it will take a Vezina-like season by Hart
- DaveofYork

Indeed.

My God. Just had a chance to hear it now. I wonder if Jake will get fined?
- Hextall271

He can afford it so it’s all good.

I was amazed at TK's reaction. That was amazing restraint on his part and speaks to his growing maturity as a player.

Full disclosure Im 51 and would have spit my drink on the table.
- MBFlyerfan

No you wouldn't. You would be used to have your "press-face" on to begin with.

I have to say, I did not like what Jake did there. Having bad press is part of the job. Take the guy aside and sort it out privately. Its bad enough being a sports journalist and having 1 million lunatics think they know better than you. The guys journalists cover make 100 times more than they do. No need to show the latter up in public especially given that they cannot afford to retaliate.

Sielski was doing what they do, trying to find an angle to stir up $hit. Making news instead of reporting news.
- MBFlyerfan

Gee. I wonder why. Could it be because that's where the demand is?

My God. Just had a chance to hear it now. I wonder if Jake will get fined?
- Hextall271

Hope so. Take the mofo to the cleaners.

No you wouldn't. You would be used to have your "press-face" on to begin with.

I have to say, I did not like what Jake did there. Having bad press is part of the job. Take the guy aside and sort it out privately. Its bad enough being a sports journalist and having 1 million lunatics think they know better than you. The guys journalists cover make 100 times more than they do. No need to show the latter up in public especially given that they cannot afford to retaliate.
- PT21

When you listen to bills recount of what happened in the locker room he 100% deserved it. He essentially made up a story. And his excuse of being on a deadline with people coming over is a farce.

No you wouldn't. You would be used to have your "press-face" on to begin with.

I have to say, I did not like what Jake did there. Having bad press is part of the job. Take the guy aside and sort it out privately. Its bad enough being a sports journalist and having 1 million lunatics think they know better than you. The guys journalists cover make 100 times more than they do. No need to show the latter up in public especially given that they cannot afford to retaliate.
- PT21

Mike turned a complete innocuous, mundane moment -- two teammates gabbing and sharing a chuckle over something -- and turned it into an implication that Voracek was being insubordinate or was indifferent that the team was a funk at the time; neither of which were true.

Last not was their first interaction since then. Would I have preferred if Jake got Mike's number the day the story ran, told him off over the phone and been done with it? Yes. But that article shouldn't have been written in the first place.

Charlie O'Connor, Dave Isaac and I were all in the room that day. AV calling out his top players was the story there (and AV wasn't saying anything to us that he hadn't already communicated to the players). The story was NOT that Voracek happened to be on the other side of the room, amiably chatting with a teammate after practice.

https://twitter.com/brad_keffer/status/1350280733659693056?s=10
- Tfaehner

Instant franking classic!

No you wouldn't. You would be used to have your "press-face" on to begin with.

I have to say, I did not like what Jake did there. Having bad press is part of the job. Take the guy aside and sort it out privately. Its bad enough being a sports journalist and having 1 million lunatics think they know better than you. The guys journalists cover make 100 times more than they do. No need to show the latter up in public especially given that they cannot afford to retaliate.
- PT21

If you talk poop, then I’m not sure what the issue is. I think it’s within Jakes right to call out a guy who pretends to know the sport. It’s probably not the look you want but Jakes an emotional guy. Are some of his past remarks on point ? Maybe, but as Bill suggested the Locker room incident and the reporting of it in that way makes the reporter fair game. Good on Jake!

When you listen to bills recount of what happened in the locker room he 100% deserved it. He essentially made up a story. And his excuse of being on a deadline with people coming over is a farce.
- Tfaehner

Here is the thing that I see...Mike had months to go make it right with Jake and did not. It’s not okay to just say you are willing to make amends then not actually do it. Mike’s original article was wrong and he admitted that and revised it, but he should have talked with Jake.

Mike turned a complete innocuous, mundane moment -- two teammates chatting and sharing a chuckle over something -- and turned it into an implication that Voracek was being insubordinate or was indifferent that the team was a funk at the time; neither of which were true.

Last not was their first interaction since then. Would I have preferred if Jake got Mike's number the day the story ran, told him off over the phone and been done with it? Yes. But that article shouldn't have been written in the first place.

Charlie O'Connor, Dave Isaac and I were all in the room that day. AV calling out his top players was the story there (and AV wasn't saying anything to us that he hadn't already communicated to the players). The story was NOT that Voracek happened to be on the other side of the room, amiably chatting with a teammate after practice.
- bmeltzer

Well said. We all appreciate your comments on this and perspective.

Mike turned a complete innocuous, mundane moment -- two teammates chatting and sharing a chuckle over something -- and turned it into an implication that Voracek was being insubordinate or was indifferent that the team was a funk at the time; neither of which were true.

Last not was their first interaction since then. Would I have preferred if Jake got Mike's number the day the story ran, told him off over the phone and been done with it? Yes. But that article shouldn't have been written in the first place.

Charlie O'Connor, Dave Isaac and I were all in the room that day. AV calling out his top players was the story there (and AV wasn't saying anything to us that he hadn't already communicated to the players). The story was NOT that Voracek happened to be on the other side of the room, amiably chatting with a teammate after practice.
- bmeltzer

Fair enough Bill. But take it up in person. Or Twitter. Dont humiliate the guy in public, and create a video that will last forever, especially since he cant swing back. And you are a 8 million + player who has done squat in the playoffs in almost a decade now.

Fair enough Bill. But take it up in person. Or Twitter. Dont humiliate the guy in public, and create a video that will last forever, especially since he cant swing back. And you are a 8 million + player who has done squat in the playoffs in almost a decade now.
- PT21

Shouldn't it be on the writer to make amends? Not jake. Again he could of done it differently. But the writer had 15 months. He was content with what he did.

Fair enough Bill. But take it up in person. Or Twitter. Dont humiliate the guy in public, and create a video that will last forever, especially since he cant swing back. And you are a 8 million + player who has done squat in the playoffs in almost a decade now.
- PT21

Nah, in person? Did Mike take it up in person?

Or did he shoot off the article because he had a party to host?

If you talk poop, then I’m not sure what the issue is. I think it’s within Jakes right to call out a guy who pretends to know the sport. It’s probably not the look you want but Jakes an emotional guy. Are some of his past remarks on point ? Maybe, but as Bill suggested the Locker room incident and the reporting of it in that way makes the reporter fair game. Good on Jake!
- landros 2

Be "emotional" in private. What is he, a woman approachimg PMS? Emotional? This is his (frank)ing job.

What he did was unprofessional amd pulling rank since he knows Sielski cant call him out for *his* shortcomings on the job. Does Sielski have kids?

Hope the league teaches him a good hard lesson. A 1 game suspension is what I would love to see.

Here is the thing that I see...Mike had months to go make it right with Jake and did not. It’s not okay to just say you are willing to make amends then not actually do it. Mike’s original article was wrong and he admitted that and revised it, but he should have talked with Jake.
- NC Flyers Fan

This was Mike Sielski editorializing.

Which is opinion-based, so I agree. It was on him.

Jake may have been passive aggressive until last night, but Mike needs Jake more than Jake needs Mike.

Fair enough Bill. But take it up in person. Or Twitter. Dont humiliate the guy in public, and create a video that will last forever, especially since he cant swing back. And you are a 8 million + player who has done squat in the playoffs in almost a decade now.
- PT21

There wasn't a chance to take it up in person. He didn't see Mike in the locker room the rest of last season. I don't recall if Mike was on site thereafter; I'd say he probably was at some point (he usually comes to Voorhees a few times per season), but perhaps Jake didn't get interviews that day.

What I think Voracek should have done was gotten Sielski's phone number, called him to vent, and been done with it. As for Twitter, doing it there is the same as doing it on Webex video conference. You're doing it in front of everybody, essentially.

Again, I think what really peeved Voracek, and why he fumed over it 15 months later, is the implication that he didn't care or was disrespectful/insubordinate to Vigneault. That's a far more serious implication than saying so-and-so needs to play better. One is having your game questioned, and that's fair game. The other is calling your character in question.

No you wouldn't. You would be used to have your "press-face" on to begin with.

I have to say, I did not like what Jake did there. Having bad press is part of the job. Take the guy aside and sort it out privately. Its bad enough being a sports journalist and having 1 million lunatics think they know better than you. The guys journalists cover make 100 times more than they do. No need to show the latter up in public especially given that they cannot afford to retaliate.
- PT21

So it’s OK for this guy to blast Jake publicly but not for Jake to give it back a little? Weird take.

Nah, in person? Did Mike take it up in person?

Or did he shoot off the article because he had a party to host?
- DrMidnite

Wow, the ra-ra vigilantism of the hockey mob is out in force today.

Some dude is a jerk on his job at worst. Or maybe it was a misunderstanding.

Nurse that grievance for a (frank)ing year! Lets start insulting his wife and kids too in oublic while we are at it.

Hope he gets it rammed good and hard up his ass by the NHL.

Wow, the ra-ra vigilantism of the hockey mob is out in force today.

Some dude is a jerk on his job at worst. Or maybe it was a misunderstanding.

Nurse that grievance for a (frank)ing year! Lets start insulting his wife and kids too in oublic while we are at it.

Hope he gets it rammed good and hard up his ass by the NHL.
- PT21

Nice. None of this addresses my point.

Yes, one of the better defensive team. They were leaded by Hart (Elliot played well too). The d-Corp held their own. But the defense lost #1b (Nisky). They didn’t get a replacement and none in sight. #1b is being filled by #3a or b.

The most of the forwards are fast enough, defensively responsible, and coachable. Some are not and untrainable.
- leon neon

I don't think any player on the team in untrainable or un-coachable. Last season both JVR and Voracek improved their off the puck play.

The Flyers were one of the top teams in the league last season in shot suppression.

This was Mike Sielski editorializing.

Which is opinion-based, so I agree. It was on him.

Jake may have been passive aggressive until last night, but Mike needs Jake more than Jake needs Mike.
- DrMidnite

I could have said, if you behave like a weasel, you might just be called one.

Jake could have simply said why don’t you come talk to me afterwards, next question. However, he is Jake. If he gets a $ fine so be it, but suggesting any thing more is downright stupid IMO.

So it’s OK for this guy to blast Jake publicly but not for Jake to give it back a little? Weird take.
- Ftown19125

He made a professional error. At best. And I most certainly would want to hear Sielski's side of things. Does he have a history of this sort of thing?

There are avenues to address professional errors. Behaving like a piece of low life trash is not one of them. You dont go to the kitchen and start berating tbe chef if your steak is not rare enough.

Wow, the ra-ra vigilantism of the hockey mob is out in force today.

Some dude is a jerk on his job at worst. Or maybe it was a misunderstanding.

Nurse that grievance for a (frank)ing year! Lets start insulting his wife and kids too in oublic while we are at it.

Hope he gets it rammed good and hard up his ass by the NHL.
- PT21

Why would he do that? They’re not the ones trashing him on twitter.