Brian Leetch vs. Ray Bourque: Who do you want for a run at the cup?

[True Blue]

It was a terrible trade.

Are you kidding me? The salmon sandwiches saved the run.

 

[Kupo]

I’d like to see both players Corsi and Corgi before submitting my final answer.

 

[Machinehead]

Are you kidding me? The salmon sandwiches saved the run.

You're bringing me back now

Salmon sandwiches sounded gross as a little kid.

 

[Whiplash27]

The Rangers didn't win because of Glenn Anderson. That trade did NOTHING for them. Everyone knows that Keenan HATED Gartner. Keenan hated softer skilled forwards. Had Amonte traded for Noonan and Matteau. They didn't even need Noonan, Matteau they don't with the Devils series without.

True, although one wonders if things would have been different with Amonte. Maybe they wouldn't have needed 7 games? Same goes for Gartner. Maybe having Amonte and Gartner would have allowed the Rangers to steamroll the Devils and Canucks. On the other hand, the Rangers may have never won without those trades. It's obviously impossible to know.

Overrated? Hardly. It has just been quite a while since the Rangers have a good on ice leader. Graves should have been captain over Leetch. And McD should not be the captain now. Messier's leadership was a large part of the Cup.

Absolutely, Leetch was not captain material. It was the good ol'make the best player on the team captain rather than the best leader. Leetch's game fell off big time as a result of the pressure.


Anyway, I still stand by saying:
If you're talking about building a team for a single playoff run and you're taking their absolute best season, I'll take Leetch
If you're talking about building a team for a stretch of time, I'll take Bourque.

 

[One Winged Angel]

True, although one wonders if things would have been different with Amonte. Maybe they wouldn't have needed 7 games? Same goes for Gartner. Maybe having Amonte and Gartner would have allowed the Rangers to steamroll the Devils and Canucks. On the other hand, the Rangers may have never won without those trades. It's obviously impossible to know.

Amonte was traded for Matteau and Noonan. Matteau scored 2 key goals in the Devils series and probably the most important goal in team history.

It's pretty easy to see the ramifications of that trade.

It's the Gartner trade where you can clearly look back and say Anderson was useless and having Gartner in a secondary scoring role would have helped big time. It was when Gartner was relied upon to be THE GUY offensively that he didn't produce the way you wanted him to.

 

[Whiplash27]

Amonte was traded for Matteau and Noonan. Matteau scored 2 key goals in the Devils series and probably the most important goal in team history.

It's pretty easy to see the ramifications of that trade.

It's the Gartner trade where you can clearly look back and say Anderson was useless and having Gartner in a secondary scoring role would have helped big time. It was when Gartner was relied upon to be THE GUY offensively that he didn't produce the way you wanted him to.

It's obvious what Matteau did. My point is that you never know how things would have worked out if Amonte was still on the team. Maybe he would have scored a goal (or goals) at some point that wouldn't have required those games to go into OT or where they could have won a game that they lost. It's certainly possible. Amonte wasn't having a great year in 1994 and wasn't really known for being a great playoff player anyway, so it's unlikely, but anything is possible. On that trade, it worked for the best, but there's always a what-if for anything.

 

[One Winged Angel]

It's obvious what Matteau did. My point is that you never know how things would have worked out if Amonte was still on the team. Maybe he would have scored a goal (or goals) at some point that wouldn't have required those games to go into OT or where they could have won a game that they lost. It's certainly possible. Amonte wasn't having a great year in 1994 and wasn't really known for being a great playoff player anyway, so it's unlikely, but anything is possible.

I understand what you're saying and I'm not arguing that.

My point was what I said. That trade was easy to understand the ramifications of. The Gartner/Anderson trade is much more of a "what if?" scenario as Anderson was basically useless and Gartner was having a good season.

 

[Whiplash27]

I understand what you're saying and I'm not arguing that.

My point was what I said. That trade was easy to understand the ramifications of. The Gartner/Anderson trade is much more of a "what if?" scenario as Anderson was basically useless and Gartner was having a good season.

Well, you can make the argument that Anderson was involved with Matteau's game 3 OT winner against New Jersey. If Gartner was there, would the play have unfolded like it did?

 

[One Winged Angel]

Well, you can make the argument that Anderson was involved with Matteau's game 3 OT winner against New Jersey. If Gartner was there, would the play have unfolded like it did?

Involved? I'd say that's a stretch, but ok, I'll play along.

I understand it's like tampering with time, if you went back and changed even a microcosm, things can end up differently, however, Anderson was put on the team's top line and didn't perform.

What would have happened if Kovalev played the entire playoffs with Messier and Graves instead and Gartner was playing with Larmer and Matteau? Odds are they would have scored more goals. Anderson wasn't a great defensive player either.

 

[True Blue]

Anyway, I still stand by saying:
If you're talking about building a team for a single playoff run and you're taking their absolute best season, I'll take Leetch
If you're talking about building a team for a stretch of time, I'll take Bourque.

Loved Leetch. But in the latter case, I would take Bourque without a second thought. And, truth be told, I would probably take him in the former as well.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I mean I could also say “had Richter not let in so many late stinkers, they might have been less tired”.

But you can’t say that. There are people born several years after the cup or even after Richter retired who still yell at me when I say Lundqvist is better and they would take Richter and day because he has a ring.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

"POTI YOU ****ING NERD!"

I'll never forget that night.

 

[Kaapo Kakko]

I mean I could also say “had Richter not let in so many late stinkers, they might have been less tired”.

But you can’t say that. There are people born several years after the cup or even after Richter retired who still yell at me when I say Lundqvist is better and they would take Richter and day because he has a ring.

The thing is though, Richter DOES have the ring, and he had to stand on his head at times to get it. The save on Bure is the greatest save in franchise history, without a doubt. I love Lundqvist but the Rangers had multiple 2 goal leads in the finals against L.A. and he couldn't hold the fort. Richter was one of the best goalies of the 90's and was always completely underrated. Brodeur said Richter was the one goalie he didn't want to face in the playoffs, and he's perhaps the greatest goalie of all time.

I understand you think Lundqvist has had the better body of work in his career, and I can't argue that. But players are remembered most for what they do in the big moments more than their entire body of work. That's why so many people would take Richter over Lundqvist. Random example: Look at Beltran on the Mets. Great body of work on that team. What's he remembered for though? Looking at strike 3, Game 7 NLCS. It's not fair, but that's just the way it is.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The thing is though, Richter DOES have the ring, and he had to stand on his head at times to get it. The save on Bure is the greatest save in franchise history, without a doubt. I love Lundqvist but the Rangers had multiple 2 goal leads in the finals against L.A. and he couldn't hold the fort. Richter was one of the best goalies of the 90's and was always completely underrated. Brodeur said Richter was the one goalie he didn't want to face in the playoffs, and he's perhaps the greatest goalie of all time.

I understand you think Lundqvist has had the better body of work in his career, and I can't argue that. But players are remembered most for what they do in the big moments more than their entire body of work. That's why so many people would take Richter over Lundqvist. Random example: Look at Beltran on the Mets. Great body of work on that team. What's he remembered for though? Looking at strike 3, Game 7 NLCS. It's not fair, but that's just the way it is.

I rest my case.

 

[mjhfb]

People forget Bourque not only won the Norris 5 times, but was runner up another *6* times (along with 3rd another 4 times). That's 15 years of consistent greatness in an era of several HOF defencemen.

Some of those years when others won it, many argued Bourque deserved it. But when Leetch won it, Bourque said "Brian is a friend and a great player. He deserves it and I'm happy for him".