CuJo or Mike Richter?

007

You 'Orns!
Feb 11, 2004
3,758
168
Mannahatta
I don't know, the Rangers return to respectability has also coincided with Henrik Lundqvist's arrival, which has given them all-star workhorse goaltending year in and year out the way Cujo did for the Blues, Oilers and Leafs. The Rangers are drafting better these days but their tendency to purchase high price UFA talent is the same as when Richter was a Ranger. Seems like the big difference is a goalie who can be the glue to hold things together.
You're partly right: the Rangers return to respectability has a lot to do with Lundqvist. This team wouldn't have made the playoffs without him (though it must be noted that there were several years between Richter's enforced retirement and Lundqvist's arrival in the NHL).

The team is not run the same way at all anymore, however. If you look at the Rangers current roster, you see that its made up largely of young players brought up within the system. They've made some bad free-agent signings, but the new CBA has basically forced the Rangers to strategize. They've drafted a lot better, and we're finally starting to see the results. There's a lot less noise coming from management about the need to fill this hole or that hole via free agency now that guys like Staal, Callahan and Dubinsky are stepping up, and there's a genuine prospect pool in place.

Despite the free agent slip-ups, there's been a rhyme and a reason to the way the Rangers have been run since the lockout, which there never really was before.
 

007

You 'Orns!
Feb 11, 2004
3,758
168
Mannahatta
My take on the 1997-2003 Richter is the exact opposite.

I think he was in a similar situation to the post-1991 Bill Ranford - a guy whose skills had substantially eroded but was excused for mediocre play by the fact that the team around him was perceived to be poor.

When Richter was injured in 2002, a journeyman starter in Mike Dunham came in and posted numbers that absolute blew away anything Richter had posted in years. So it was possible to stop pucks on those teams.

To me, Richter was a guy who had 2 elite seasons (1993-94 culminating in the Cup win, and 1996-97 starting with the World Cup) that were huge outliers in a career that outside of those years was that of a very average starting goalie.

Joseph didn't have the couple major highs that Richter did, but was consistently a much more reliable goalie.
I concede that what you write is an entirely plausible way of looking at things.

Richter made show-stopping saves almost every night towards the end of his career, and I geniunely don't remember a lot of softies getting by him, but his stats were pretty poor. He still might let in 4 goals in a game, but it always seemed that he kept it from being 7 or 8. I can't lie and say that I don't look back on Richter career with at least slightly rose-tinted glasses.

One thing I'd never say: that if the Rangers had kept Vanbiesbrouck or had Joseph instead of Richter in '94 that they wouldn't have won the Cup. Neither Beezer or CuJo had that chance, which is a shame, because they both deserve better than an asterisk marked "never won a Cup".

Hypotheticals aside, however, Richter was amazing that year, and was a great playoff performer (whatever you might think of that Flyers series in '97).
 

Boom Boom Geoffrion*

Guest
Too much of a homer to vote (although I did just vote) :laugh:
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
I concede that what you write is an entirely plausible way of looking at things.

Richter made show-stopping saves almost every night towards the end of his career, and I geniunely don't remember a lot of softies getting by him, but his stats were pretty poor. He still might let in 4 goals in a game, but it always seemed that he kept it from being 7 or 8. I can't lie and say that I don't look back on Richter career with at least slightly rose-tinted glasses.

One thing I'd never say: that if the Rangers had kept Vanbiesbrouck or had Joseph instead of Richter in '94 that they wouldn't have won the Cup. Neither Beezer or CuJo had that chance, which is a shame, because they both deserve better than an asterisk marked "never won a Cup".

Hypotheticals aside, however, Richter was amazing that year, and was a great playoff performer (whatever you might think of that Flyers series in '97).

They've been better lately in terms of building from within, but to my mind, when they had the Jagr, Nylander core a few years ago they were still buying a winner, as well as when they were signing Gomez and Drury in 2007.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Although I never saw Cujo play as well as Richter did in the 1996 World Cup, I think the next half dozen or so best performances (in terms of strong series, for example) between the two are his. Richter did win the cup in 1994, but this wasn't some legendary performance, it was your standard cup-winning goaltending performance. He did his job and he did it well. Cujo, as was stated in this thread, was often a giant-killer, and had a few unreal series for the Leafs, better than any playoff series Richter ever had for the Rangers.
 

Sonny Lamateena

Registered User
Nov 2, 2004
1,261
14
Ottawa, Ontario
Cujo always looked amazing when he was playing on bad teams and getting bombarded with shots but he also played on 6 teams that earned 100 points in the regular season (i'm including the 94-95 shorted season where the Blues were on pace for 100 points), he was only able to get one of those teams as far as the conference finals. He was also the Starting goalie for Canada in two best on best tournaments, the 96 World Cup which he lost and the 02 Olympics where he lost the starting job after losing his first game to Sweden. Cujo was a good goalie but he was never able to deliver when it mattered most. Richter was able to win when it was expected (94 with Rangers), and win when it wasn't (96 World Cup) and thats why If i had to chose one I would choose Richter.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
Cujo always looked amazing when he was playing on bad teams and getting bombarded with shots but he also played on 6 teams that earned 100 points in the regular season (i'm including the 94-95 shorted season where the Blues were on pace for 100 points), he was only able to get one of those teams as far as the conference finals. He was also the Starting goalie for Canada in two best on best tournaments, the 96 World Cup which he lost and the 02 Olympics where he lost the starting job after losing his first game to Sweden. Cujo was a good goalie but he was never able to deliver when it mattered most. Richter was able to win when it was expected (94 with Rangers), and win when it wasn't (96 World Cup) and thats why If i had to chose one I would choose Richter.

Richters performance in '94 wasn't that spectacular. He was outperformed by Mclean, Potvin, Hasek, Brodeur, Roy and might have been marginally better than Wakaluk and Belfour.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Richters performance in '94 wasn't that spectacular. He was outperformed by Mclean, Potvin, Hasek, Brodeur, Roy and might have been marginally better than Wakaluk and Belfour.

Wow. That's harsh. No doubt in my mind Richter performed better than goalies who failed to get out of the first round that year (Roy, Hasek, Belfour). Then there is the one who split duties with Moog (Wakaluk) and didn't get out of the second round. That leaves Potvin and McLean and Brodeur. Potvin played splendid the first two rounds only to falter a bit against Vancouver I thought. Brodeur got more shots his way and I would say he outplayed Richter in Game 7 but at the end of the day he still lost, so what can you do?

You are right about McLean though. He played unbelievable and there was only a goal in the 7th game that separated them from reversed roles. But heroic performances like McLean's are recognized around here as pretty rare so Richter taking a back seat to that isn't so bad.

But he still played very well in 1994. He made that huge save in double overtime in Game 7 vs. New Jersey in which Matteau scored a minute later. Then there was the penalty shot save against Bure which is about as clutch of a save as it gets in the playoffs. The tide turned that game, remember Vancouver was winning in the game when Bure had the penalty shot. Then the big save off Gelinas (I believe) in the dying moments of Game 7 in the final. No doubt he had some spectacular moments.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
Wow. That's harsh. No doubt in my mind Richter performed better than goalies who failed to get out of the first round that year (Roy, Hasek, Belfour). Then there is the one who split duties with Moog (Wakaluk) and didn't get out of the second round. That leaves Potvin and McLean and Brodeur. Potvin played splendid the first two rounds only to falter a bit against Vancouver I thought. Brodeur got more shots his way and I would say he outplayed Richter in Game 7 but at the end of the day he still lost, so what can you do?

You are right about McLean though. He played unbelievable and there was only a goal in the 7th game that separated them from reversed roles. But heroic performances like McLean's are recognized around here as pretty rare so Richter taking a back seat to that isn't so bad.

But he still played very well in 1994. He made that huge save in double overtime in Game 7 vs. New Jersey in which Matteau scored a minute later. Then there was the penalty shot save against Bure which is about as clutch of a save as it gets in the playoffs. The tide turned that game, remember Vancouver was winning in the game when Bure had the penalty shot. Then the big save off Gelinas (I believe) in the dying moments of Game 7 in the final. No doubt he had some spectacular moments.

Just because your team didnt get out of the first round does it mean that the goalie wasnt excellent or great.

Richter had huge saves, yes, but could he be replaced by another goalie with Rangers still winning the cup? Absolutely.

I agree with you on Potvin though. I forgot that he was a bit shaky vs. Vancouver.
 

Loto68

Registered User
Aug 12, 2006
861
3
Boston
Just because your team didnt get out of the first round does it mean that the goalie wasnt excellent or great.

Richter had huge saves, yes, but could he be replaced by another goalie with Rangers still winning the cup? Absolutely.

I agree with you on Potvin though. I forgot that he was a bit shaky vs. Vancouver.

I've gotta ask, when's the last time you watch more than random clips from those playoffs?
 

Fire Sweeney

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
24,489
1,847
Bergen
I'm surprised it is that close, it should be Cujo hands down. He has Richter beat in longevity and performance. Just a notch below the top goalies (Hasek, Belfour, Roy), but didn't benefit from being average/decent on a top team and in a huge market during his prime like Richter did.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,776
7,800
Danbury, CT
What I saw was a guy who simply wasn't very good anymore. Made hard saves look difficult, was flailing out of position a lot relative to the newer generation of larger butterfly goalies.

Didn't really put up numbers better than a very bad set of backups (especially a completely washed-up Kirk McLean). And again, the fact that an average goalie Dunham walked onto the *exact same team* and put up a .920 save % and 2.30 GAA when Richter had been floating around .905 and 2.90 for several years is very telling.

If that team was as crap defensively as it was made out to be, Mike Dunham wouldn't have looked like a star behind it. I know he fell off the next season, but the point holds.

Almost every time I saw Richter play during that period, I was left with a negative impression and was baffled by Ranger fans saying he was still excellent. IMO what he had done previously clouded the objectivity of Ranger fans when looking at his performances. Which I think happens relatively often - would say the same thing about Olaf Kolzig his last 4 years, and Ranford as mentioned previously.

The point only holds if the player proves the numbers were not an abberation ie, performing at the same level the next season which Dunham clearly did not.

However, i do agree that fans tend to hold players of their teams in high regard even after an obvious decline in skills. Leetch being one of them.

I'm just not sure that I saw a major decline with Richter in terms of ability from the 97 Conference Finals to when he retired.

What I remember most was some injuries and some very bad Rangers teams that had Leetch and Samuelsson, Buekeboom on D supported by a cast of clowns.

The three years following the Conference finals, Richter had the following numbers

97-98 - 2.66 GAA and a .903 SvPct
98-99 - 2.63 GAA and a .910 SvPct
99-00 - 2.87 GAA and a .905 SvPct

The save percentage is still there, the problem was that he was starting to have to make more difficult saves as the coverage in front of him started to decline rapidly.

Following those three years, Richter was hurt in 00-01 and again in 01-02 and finally retired in 02-03.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
When Richter was on (1994 and 1997 playoffs, 1996 World Cup), he was better than Cujo at his best, I think. But Cujo was much more consistent during his prime and also had a much longer prime.

That's a good way to put it. "In his prime" probably isn't a specific enough phrase for this question, as the two players had non-comparable primes.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
wtf..potvin in 94? Ummm if thats the case then irbe should be in that list to. I recall potvin giving up a lot of "soft"er goals.

...and Richter didn't? I remember how he let a slapper from Brown(?) go right though him. He wasnt even screen and no redirections. I believe it was in game 6.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->