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

[ReggieDunlop68]

As far as not knowing what I'm talking about, it's well documented that he's a megalomaniac. I'm not speculating here.

Even so, the guarantee thing wasn't his fault. And Kovalev had a great game and we don't win without him having a great game, same as Messier.

You're on the defensive for no reason at all.

You already answered my long standing assumption to someone else in the current GDT.

Do whatever you want.

Peace.

 

[One Winged Angel]

I'd have to agree with Machinehead, Kovalev's performance is overlooked and vital to them winning game 6. It was when Keenan put him with Messier and Graves that the offense turned it around in that series because jersey didn't have answer for them at that time. They adjusted, but Kovalev was the spark plug that helped ignite that line. Anderson was horrible, he was the most useless pickup ever and honestly, if they had kept Gartner and played him with Larmer and Matteau, they probably would have trounced the Devils as they did in the regular season with Gartner. They got rid of huge scoring depth in Amonte and Gartner.

 

[haohmaru]

That was actually me making the Kovalev argument.

 

[haohmaru]

Ok.

Let's say you were at a meet and greet with the entire 1994 roster.

You say Kovalev was the driving force in that game.

How many minutes would be it be until they stopped laughing?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Just watch the game. The goal that got them back in the game and two primary assists on the tying and go ahead goal - one a nifty backhand pass and the other a shot on goal where Messier is cleaning up the garbage rebound to score.

I seriously doubt ANYONE on that roster would laugh at the idea of Kovalev being an integral part of the game 6 win. Kovalev doesn't play, they lose. It's that simple.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Messier would have won it with Bourque, but Leetch wouldn’t have won it without Messier.

I mean Messier won it without Bourque, Gretzky, or Leetch for his 5th cup in 1990.

I’m not knocking Leetch at all, but I’m fairly certain Bourque would have done pretty well too on the pre-Vancouver Messier era roster.

A lot of those Boston Bruins teams were pretty weak particularly after the dirty hit on Neely.

It started with this

Messier wouldn't have won it without Kovalev or Leetch. Kovalev was the reason "the guarantee" game ended up with a "W"

That Leetch playoff run might be the best of any defenseman in NHL history. Ever. Don't kid yourself, the Rangers 1940 chant would still be around if not for Leetch.

Let's not act like the '89-90 Oilers were a bunch of schlubs either - Lowe, Kurri, Anderson, Tikkanen, Graves, Simpson, Murphy, and old favorite Ruotsalainen, etc... and they were (mostly) all still in their late 20's.

Then it went to this

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Just watch the game. The goal that got them back in the game and two primary assists on the tying and go ahead goal - one a nifty backhand pass and the other a shot on goal where Messier is cleaning up the garbage rebound to score.

I seriously doubt ANYONE on that roster would laugh at the idea of Kovalev being an integral part of the game 6 win. Kovalev doesn't play, they lose. It's that simple.

Irony

No shit

Is a really weak argument given how Messier was playing that game. Maybe Messier even willed Kovalev, who had been driving Keenan nuts that playoffs, in that game.

I'm not saying Kovalev didn't have a good game. Messier, Leetch, and He, were the only ones with any point that game. I understand it's a team game, but it's a very weak argument to say "without Kovalev" any more than Doug Lidster started playing great in the finals finally when he met his old team.

Anyway, the point of the thread was Leetch or Bourque, and I would pick Bourque. They doesn't mean we weren't lucky to have Leetch.

 

[haohmaru]

It started with this




Then it went to this



Irony

No ****

Is a really weak argument given how Messier was playing that game. Maybe Messier even willed Kovalev, who had been driving Keenan nuts that playoffs, in that game.

I'm not saying Kovalev didn't have a good game. Messier, Leetch, and He, were the only ones with any point that game. I understand it's a team game, but it's a very weak argument to say "without Kovalev" any more than Doug Lidster started playing great in the finals finally when he met his old team.

Anyway, the point of the thread was Leetch or Bourque, and I would pick Bourque. They doesn't mean we weren't lucky to have Leetch.

When I said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about it was in reference to what a '94 roster reunion would have to say, er, "laugh" about Kovalev being a key factor in winning game 6.

Kovalev played probably the best playoff game of his career. The team was down two goals and things were looking bad and he scored to get his team back in the game and then had two primary assists to help put the Rangers ahead. There's nothing weak about that argument. Leetch had 8 shots, Messier 7, Kovalev had 5 to lead the team. Kovalev was a force that game and I don't really care about his history as an enigma and all of that nonsense. I'm talking about ONE GAME. I have been from the beginning.

You said that Messier wins without Leetch. I say that's a fallacy. My Kovalev point was about one game in particular, where if he didn't play the way that he did then we'd still be hearing 1940 chants. I stand by that.

And, for one playoff run, I'll take '93-94 playoff Leetch over just about anyone that's ever played and won a Cup as a defenseman.

 

[Machinehead]

I'd have to agree with Machinehead, Kovalev's performance is overlooked and vital to them winning game 6. It was when Keenan put him with Messier and Graves that the offense turned it around in that series because jersey didn't have answer for them at that time. They adjusted, but Kovalev was the spark plug that helped ignite that line. Anderson was horrible, he was the most useless pickup ever and honestly, if they had kept Gartner and played him with Larmer and Matteau, they probably would have trounced the Devils as they did in the regular season with Gartner. They got rid of huge scoring depth in Amonte and Gartner.

Totally cost Gartner a Stanley Cup thanks to Keenan's "muh veteran muh grinder" bullshit.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

When I said you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about it was in reference to what a '94 roster reunion would have to say, er, "laugh" about Kovalev being a key factor in winning game 6.

Kovalev played probably the best playoff game of his career. The team was down two goals and things were looking bad and he scored to get his team back in the game and then had two primary assists to help put the Rangers ahead. There's nothing weak about that argument. Leetch had 8 shots, Messier 7, Kovalev had 5 to lead the team. Kovalev was a force that game and I don't really care about his history as an enigma and all of that nonsense. I'm talking about ONE GAME. I have been from the beginning.

You said that Messier wins without Leetch. I say that's a fallacy. My Kovalev point was about one game in particular, where if he didn't play the way that he did then we'd still be hearing 1940 chants. I stand by that.

And, for one playoff run, I'll take '93-94 playoff Leetch over just about anyone that's ever played and won a Cup as a defenseman.

Kovalev played his best playoff hockey anywhere that year and most certainly was his best work in a blueshirt.

I'm not knocking him.

I think the stone skipped the pond here a while ago.

Given just the question on the spot, I'd still take Bourque, but that's neither shitting on Leetch nor his accomplishments, and of course there are all types of butterfly effects where Bourque might have ended being way worse playing here.

Who knows?

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

And oh please on Gartner.

Loved watching Mike, but they didn't make the Anderson trade for #tuffnezz

Yes, Anderson was not the money player he had been for so many post seasons until he turned it around from the ECF onward.

Gartner was a softer player, and his 11 points that post-season didn't exactly stop the Canucks knocking out the Leafs in the WCF.

 

[One Winged Angel]

At their very best for one playoff run, I'll take Leetch. His 1994 run was probably the greatest postseason run by a defenseman under the current playoff format of all 7 game series. Bourque's 91 run saw him play 4 less games than Leetch but score 9 less points and Leetch won the Conn Smythe. So no, Bourque never had a playoff run like Leetch did in 1994. Coffey had 37 points playing with Gretzky right in the middle of his peak years.

Bobby Orr's 72 run is probably the greatest ever. If you extrapolated his numbers over 23 games, he would have scored 37 points.

 

[One Winged Angel]

And oh please on Gartner.

Loved watching Mike, but they didn't make the Anderson trade for #tuffnezz

Yes, Anderson was not the money player he had been for so many post seasons until he turned it around from the ECF onward.

Gartner was a softer player, and his 11 points that post-season didn't exactly stop the Canucks knocking out the Leafs in the WCF.

Are you seriously gonna try to tell me that Toronto had a team that was even as close to as good as the Rangers were?

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Are you seriously gonna try to tell me that Toronto had a team that was even as close to as good as the Rangers were?

They weren't.

Give it a second read and then look at the post to which I was referring.

The Anderson trade was not made because of #tuffnezz, but Gartner was a softer player too.

The Amonte trade was made most definitely to be more physical, but I'm not debating that now, and that wasn't the question.

 

[One Winged Angel]

They weren't.

Exactly. Gartner's 11 points on Toronto could have easily been more on the Rangers and we both know it.

The Rangers needed extra firepower against the Devils and how close that series actually was only proves my point.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Exactly. Gartner's 11 points on Toronto could have easily been more on the Rangers and we both know it.

The Rangers needed extra firepower against the Devils and how close that series actually was only proves my point.

No it doesn't because given Anderson and Gartner's playoff track records, it wasn't a bad move at the time of the trade.

I mean it sucks he didn't pull his head out of his ass until mama brought the salmon sandwiches , but that doesn't mean it was a weak trade given the context at all.

I mean I don't want to go into X-Files territory.

[let me look around and hide in my bunker]

There were other Oilers on the team who were close friends with him and might have wanted him...

[steps back into shadows...]

 

[One Winged Angel]

No it doesn't because given Anderson and Gartner's playoff track records, it wasn't a bad move at the time of the trade.

It was. Anderson hadn't been that good since 1990. His 93 season was meh and he had 35 points before being traded to the Rangers. He was clearly on his last legs. It was a bad deal.

I mean it sucks he didn't pull his head out of his ass until mama brought the salmon sandwiches , but that doesn't mean it was a weak trade given the context at all.

I mean I don't want to go into X-Files territory.

[let me look around and hide in my bunker]

There were other Oilers on the team who were close friends with him and might have wanted him...

[steps back into shadows...]

Who the hell cares if Lowe, Messier or anyone wanted him there? It was still a terrible trade and there's nothing you can say that will change that.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It was. Anderson hadn't been that good since 1990. His 93 season was meh and he had 35 points before being traded to the Rangers. He was clearly on his last legs. It was a bad deal.



Who the hell cares if Lowe, Messier or anyone wanted him there? It was still a terrible trade and there's nothing you can say that will change that.

It wasn't a terrible trade.

You can "what if" anything I suppose.

 

[One Winged Angel]

It wasn't a terrible trade.

You can "what if" anything I suppose.

It was a terrible trade. Gartner had 7 less GOALS than Anderson had POINTS at the time of the trade and went on to finish that season with 34 goals and 64 points.

Then Gartner had 2 more 30 goal seasons in 96 and 97 while Anderson went into obscurity and retired after the 1996 season.

Just stop. You sound absolutely foolish. You clearly hated Gartner and that's fine, but that doesn't make it a "good trade" even with them winning the cup.

Anderson had 6 POINTS playing the majority of the playoff run on the top line with Messier and Graves. That's AWFUL.

The trade sucked and thankfully they won.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It was a terrible trade. Gartner had 7 less GOALS than Anderson had POINTS at the time of the trade and went on to finish that season with 34 goals and 64 points.

Then Gartner had 2 more 30 goal seasons in 96 and 97 while Anderson went into obscurity and retired after the 1996 season.

Just stop. You sound absolutely foolish. You clearly hated Gartner and that's fine, but that doesn't make it a "good trade" even with them winning the cup.

Anderson had 6 POINTS playing the majority of the playoff run on the top line with Messier and Graves. That's AWFUL.

The trade sucked and thankfully they won.

Gartner was my favorite Ranger as a kid.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

I'd have to agree with Machinehead, Kovalev's performance is overlooked and vital to them winning game 6. It was when Keenan put him with Messier and Graves that the offense turned it around in that series because jersey didn't have answer for them at that time. They adjusted, but Kovalev was the spark plug that helped ignite that line. Anderson was horrible, he was the most useless pickup ever and honestly, if they had kept Gartner and played him with Larmer and Matteau, they probably would have trounced the Devils as they did in the regular season with Gartner. They got rid of huge scoring depth in Amonte and Gartner.

The Rangers won--so I draw a line about the trades. But, I definitely agree with you about Gartner--the team lost too much skill and speed at the deadline when they traded him. It was unnecessary and I still hate it.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Gartner was my favorite Ranger as a kid.

I bet he was.

 

[One Winged Angel]

The Rangers won--so I draw a line about the trades. But, I definitely agree with you about Gartner--the team lost too much skill and speed at the deadline when they traded him. It was unnecessary and I still hate it.

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.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I bet he was.

He was. I wasn't happy with the trade then, but I'm talking in retrospect.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

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.

Where did I even mention Anderson? What I said is since the Rangers won the Stanley Cup I'm not going spend the rest of my life moaning and groaning about all the trades. However, I didn't like trading Gartner. He was a classy guy and a great hockey player. They probably would have had an easier time in the latter two rounds with him on the roster. But, since they did win....

 

[haohmaru]

He was. I wasn't happy with the trade then, but I'm talking in retrospect.

I'll bet the most unhappy about that trade was Gartner. He probably still thinks about it to this day since he never won a Cup.

Anderson was washed up. I didn't like the trade either and I don't think GA was a better fit, other than snarl, than Gartner. But, yeah, it worked - but I hate trading for pending UFA's at the deadline. Always have.

 

[True Blue]

My favorite thing about the Rangers is reading your comedy all day.

I don't think Messier sucks. He's one of the best centers we ever had. But I do think he's a pretty scummy person and the whole leadership thing is overrated.

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.