HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

John LeClair Vs. Martin Rucinsky: What would YOU do?

View Poll Results: LeClair or Rucinsky?
John LeClair 9 45.00%
Martin Rucinsky 11 55.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2003, 03:52 PM
  #1
Theoren Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Theoren Fan
John LeClair Vs. Martin Rucinsky: What would YOU do?

-Just as a conversational piece-

We are going back in time, back to this past summer. You are the general manager of the New York Rangers, and you're going to acquire a LW to play with Eric Lindros in an attempt to get him going once again. The two names you are looking at is either Martin Rucinsky of the Blues and John LeClair of the Flyers.

The big question- Who do you go for? Keep in mind we're backtracking here back to over the summer. Rucinsky v LeClair

John LeClair has time tested, proven chemistry with Eric Lindros over a number of years, and could arguably be considered the better player of the two available. He's also more of a power forward then Rucinsky ever will be, and has had a much more highlighted career. However, John's string of injuries makes you question acquiring him on a team that already has poor luck with injury prone players. He also carries with him a contract worth 9 million per season. A huge contract for a aging player (the older of the two) that appears to be on the downside of his great career. LeClair would have to be acquired through trade, and is estimated that he could be had for next to nothing.

Martin Rucinsky has played with Eric more recently then LeClair and even though showing signs of chemistry, only played with Lindros for a short span of 15 games or so. It is also arguable that Rucinsky's good play might have been of a product of showing chemistry with Pavel Bure more so then Eric Lindros himself. Martin Rucinsky is likely the softer of the two players, and arguably would be one of the softer players on the roster. Martin, although coming off whats considered to be a good season with the St. Louis Blues where he was said to play decent two-way hockey, has built a reputation of being a "floater" and rather undependable throughout his career. Rucinsky is a UFA and would certainly cost much less money then LeClair. Rucinsky is also two years younger.

You make the call..(remember, you ARE going to add one of these two players to the Rangers roster this summer, so it's not a question where you could pick "neither".)

Discuss


Theoren Fan is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 04:15 PM
  #2
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
In a one-year vacuum, I'd take LeClair over Rucinsky easily, injury problems and all. He isn't what he used to be, but at least he'd give us a player willing to go to the net and stay there.

But since this isn't a vacuum, I'd have to stick with Rucinsky. It comes down to a 3 year, $9 mil per contract with serious injury problem vs a $1.65 mil, 1 year contract with serious consistency problems. And we would still have to give up an asset to get LeClair. With LeClair's pricetag and injury history, he's just too much of a risk to pick up for 3 years.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 04:23 PM
  #3
Dorthmall
Registered User
 
Dorthmall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dorthmall
If I really had to add one of these 2 guys, then, no question, its definately Rucinsky.

LeClair has a huge contract and something like 2 years left on it? He's also old, injury prone, and a liability defensively. Plus, why would we want to help the Flyers by taking the contract off their hands.

Rucinsky is younger and we signed him to a low salary for only a year(I think). He has chemistry with Lindros too and he can play PK too, 4 short handed goals last year.

Sathers made the right choice even though the Lindros Rucinsky chemistry doesn't really seem to much more than a few good games with Bure.

Dorthmall is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 04:56 PM
  #4
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
Leclair = overpaid and injury prone. Hes not capable of 50 goals anymore so he isn't worth anywhere near that money.

Not a huge Rucinsky fan but oh well.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 05:06 PM
  #5
swflyers8*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Upper Darby, PA
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to swflyers8*
Leclair may be injury prone but he is still good for 20 goals, you guys need all the help you can get.

swflyers8* is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 05:12 PM
  #6
#37-#93-#27*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to #37-#93-#27*
Public Polls > Private Polls

#37-#93-#27* is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 05:58 PM
  #7
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo Fan
-Just as a conversational piece-

We are going back in time, back to this past summer. You are the general manager of the New York Rangers, and you're going to acquire a LW to play with Eric Lindros in an attempt to get him going once again. The two names you are looking at is either Martin Rucinsky of the Blues and John LeClair of the Flyers.

The big question- Who do you go for? Keep in mind we're backtracking here back to over the summer. Rucinsky v LeClair

John LeClair has time tested, proven chemistry with Eric Lindros over a number of years, and could arguably be considered the better player of the two available. He's also more of a power forward then Rucinsky ever will be, and has had a much more highlighted career. However, John's string of injuries makes you question acquiring him on a team that already has poor luck with injury prone players. He also carries with him a contract worth 9 million per season. A huge contract for a aging player (the older of the two) that appears to be on the downside of his great career. LeClair would have to be acquired through trade, and is estimated that he could be had for next to nothing.

Martin Rucinsky has played with Eric more recently then LeClair and even though showing signs of chemistry, only played with Lindros for a short span of 15 games or so. It is also arguable that Rucinsky's good play might have been of a product of showing chemistry with Pavel Bure more so then Eric Lindros himself. Martin Rucinsky is likely the softer of the two players, and arguably would be one of the softer players on the roster. Martin, although coming off whats considered to be a good season with the St. Louis Blues where he was said to play decent two-way hockey, has built a reputation of being a "floater" and rather undependable throughout his career. Rucinsky is a UFA and would certainly cost much less money then LeClair. Rucinsky is also two years younger.

You make the call..(remember, you ARE going to add one of these two players to the Rangers roster this summer, so it's not a question where you could pick "neither".)

Discuss

I would not mind a Lindros Leclair reunion but I think Lindros will head to toronto next year and then we will be stuck with injury prone Leclair with out his center.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
10-17-2003, 06:31 PM
  #8
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
the 2 aren't even comparable...

rucinsky was a UFA who could be signed to a 1 year deal for about $1.6 mil...you don't have to give up anything besides money

on the other hand, you'd have to trade for leclair AND take on his 3 year, $27 mil contract

so straight up all things being equal, leclair is better than rucinsky...but i'll take rucinsky, whatever we would have had to trade for leclair and the $26 mil over leclair

NYR469 is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 06:43 AM
  #9
Potter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bridgewater NJ
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potter
Quote:
Originally Posted by shapa999
How about Ray Whitney or Dominic Moore?
ray whitney?

Potter is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 06:51 AM
  #10
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,779
vCash: 500
Awards:
Is there a neither option somewhere?

I really was neutral about signing Rucinsky or Hlavac. Signing both I never understood.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 08:09 AM
  #11
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Is there a neither option somewhere?

I really was neutral about signing Rucinsky or Hlavac. Signing both I never understood.
I'm with you on that one, Singin. I was for signing either Hlavac or Rucinsky (preferably Hlavac), but not both. I thought Lundmark should have had a shot at the other LW spot.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 08:18 AM
  #12
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,779
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
I'm with you on that one, Singin. I was for signing either Hlavac or Rucinsky (preferably Hlavac), but not both. I thought Lundmark should have had a shot at the other LW spot.
I was really against getting Hlavac back for a long time. But that was mostly because it involved trading for him. When he became an UFA and it became clear that it was not going to cost a lot to sign him (and to a one year deal) I would have been fine if they did or did not sign him.

However, I never really understood why this team needed both (I agree that I would have preferred Hlavac because he is younger and still has an upside). Especially with Lundmark having a decent year on the left side and Barnaby having a super year on the left.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 08:57 AM
  #13
Theoren Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Theoren Fan
I understand all that, and it's not that I don't agree that we could have gone without either. The only thing is part of the whole point of the thread is there is no either option. I knew if there was, mostly everyone would go for that, but then there wouldn't be much of a discussion.

Theoren Fan is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 10:04 AM
  #14
Rodent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On your dinner plate
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
There's another aspect to this that I haven't seen considered.

If NYR takes on LeClair, it not only burden Rangers under the next CBA, but it HELPS Bobby Clarke by releasing him from the burden.

The best thing NYR can do is LEAVE LECLAIR IN PHILADELPHIA where he remains a payroll anchor that hampers Clarke from making other moves.

Just as an example, how good would Ranger fans feel if Slats trades to obtain LeClair and then two days later Gagne goes to Calgary in a package for Jarome Iginla because the Flyers can now afford Iggy's $7.5M? Please let's not get hung up on whether Iggy is available or not. I'm just using Iggy as an example of the kind of thing Clarke could do if LeClair's salary was purged from the ComCast payroll.

The point is that Sather taking on LeClair plays right into Clarke's hand.

Besides which, the Rangers need more speed right now. They don't need beef.

Rodent is offline  
Old
10-18-2003, 01:00 PM
  #15
Theoren Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Theoren Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodent
There's another aspect to this that I haven't seen considered.

If NYR takes on LeClair, it not only burden Rangers under the next CBA, but it HELPS Bobby Clarke by releasing him from the burden.

The best thing NYR can do is LEAVE LECLAIR IN PHILADELPHIA where he remains a payroll anchor that hampers Clarke from making other moves.

Just as an example, how good would Ranger fans feel if Slats trades to obtain LeClair and then two days later Gagne goes to Calgary in a package for Jarome Iginla because the Flyers can now afford Iggy's $7.5M? Please let's not get hung up on whether Iggy is available or not. I'm just using Iggy as an example of the kind of thing Clarke could do if LeClair's salary was purged from the ComCast payroll.

The point is that Sather taking on LeClair plays right into Clarke's hand.

Besides which, the Rangers need more speed right now. They don't need beef.
That's a very good point.

I'm kinda surprised the poll is as close as it is. I voted for Rucinsky because you can sign him for one year and if it doesn't work, you cut your losses and move on. With John, even though he's the better player out of the two, if he doesn't work either, you're still stuck with him for another few years or so while paying that tremendous salary with the CBA coming up. Plus you free up the Flyers payroll enough to be able to afford someone else at that same price.

Theoren Fan is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.