Two small American goalies that came up with the Rangers in the 80s and early 90s, Vanbiesbrouck was three years older and had won a Vezina in 1986, was eventually traded to Vancouver in the 1993 offseason and claimed by the Panthers in the expansion draft where he went on to have some great years on an expansion team, going to the finals in 1996 and playing as a workhorse for many years in Florida. Richter won a Stanley Cup and World Cup in 1994 and 1996.
Who was the better of the two? Why did the Rangers keep Richter over Vanbiesbrouck when Vanbiesbrouck was the better of the two in 1993? Could the Rangers have won in 1994 if they kept Beezer instead of Richter?
Well if you are a Ranger fan, it was great to have that kind of strength in net.
Johnny V Good was a great technical goalie. Mikey was more acrobatic and fun to watch. Richter was plagued by injuries more than Johnny.
Richter has a cup and a world cup and was picked over the beezer in international tournaments throughout both of their careers. I tend to think that Richter was the better goalie, but not by that much.
But at the time in 1993 what were the Rangers going by in choosing Richter over Beezer? Seemed like he wasn't all that proven, he was already 26 at the time and Vanbiesbrouck had won a Vezina and was only 29... Also, Beezer had the better record and was the 1A for the season in 1992-1993.
Well if you are a Ranger fan, it was great to have that kind of strength in net.
Johnny V Good was a great technical goalie. Mikey was more acrobatic and fun to watch. Richter was plagued by injuries more than Johnny.
As a Richter-idolizer, I always feel very upset that injuries and crappy Rangers teams in the late 90s took away from what could have been an extraordinary legacy.
why did the rangers keep richter over beezer? a question i asked myself at the time. but then i also wondered why the canucks didn't keep beezer and expose kay whitmore.
but if i had to speculate, i'd say it's because of age, or the perception of age.
at the time, there was a new wave of goalies in the league: belfour, richter, cujo, were the cream of that crop, tugnutt, essensa, and cheveldae looked like they might become stars, and kidd and potvin were very highly touted. keep in mind, ridiculous as it seems in retrospect, that people were whispering during the '93 season that roy might be done, even though he was basically the same age as all of those other guys except kidd and potvin.
there was the perception that the 80s guys were dinosaurs and on their way out. fuhr and hextall lost some years, peeters and liut were gone, to a lesser degree you'd say vernon and moog were on the way down. and barrasso always seemed in the early 90s to have the same kind of profile that osgood later did.
i don't know why this was. maybe because other than fuhr none of the goalies of the late 70s/80s had long careers. you'd have a four year prime and then you were replaced . maybe they just thought beezer's time was shortly coming.
Two small American goalies that came up with the Rangers in the 80s and early 90s, Vanbiesbrouck was three years older and had won a Vezina in 1986, was eventually traded to Vancouver in the 1993 offseason and claimed by the Panthers in the expansion draft where he went on to have some great years on an expansion team, going to the finals in 1996 and playing as a workhorse for many years in Florida. Richter won a Stanley Cup and World Cup in 1994 and 1996.
Who was the better of the two? Why did the Rangers keep Richter over Vanbiesbrouck when Vanbiesbrouck was the better of the two in 1993? Could the Rangers have won in 1994 if they kept Beezer instead of Richter?
VBK was a fan favorite over Richter but showed signs of getting old after terrible performances in the 1992 playoffs and the 1993 season.
VBK was also vastly outplayed by the Younger Richter in 1990 and 1991, and Richter was quickly becoming a crowd favorite. he was also much more athletic than VBK and had a stronger work ethic.
1993 was an abberation. The Rangers stunk from the get-go. Vanbiesbrouck was statistically better in 1993 but was directly responsible for some horrible losses at MSG against bottom feeders which sealed the team's playoff chances.
IIRC it was a loss to Hartford that sealed his fate.
Plus, Smith knew the Isles were going to expose Healy in the expansion draft, so he decided it was Richter's show with a playoff tested Healy (fresh off his CF run) as a suitable backup.
For four seasons, neither VBK or Richter could get a grip on the starting job. Also, both Messier and Leetch endorsed Richter, and it was the right choice.
And no, i dont think beezer would have won the Cup in 1994. He was better suited for a defensive and methodical system, and the 1994 Rangers were run and gun and gave up a lot of chances.
If you look at the 1994 run, Richter made acrobatic save after acrobatic save.
How interesting would it have been in Beezer had stayed with Vancouver instead of going to Florida and we had a Beezer vs Richter cup final. Would have been quite the story.
From what I understand, Beezer was considered the better goalie on a day-to-day basis, but Richter built himself a reputation as a big game goalie. This helps explain Richter's selection in international competition of Beezer.
How interesting would it have been in Beezer had stayed with Vancouver instead of going to Florida and we had a Beezer vs Richter cup final. Would have been quite the story.
Always liked both goalies. While Richter has a Cup I still think I'd take Vanbiesbrouck. What he did in net for that Florida team in the 1996 playoffs was amazing.
I don't think Beezer ever played as well as Richter in the 1994 playoffs or the 1996 World Cup. However, Beezer seemed to be more consistent. Richter was streaky, and when he was good he was GOOD, but like Claude Lemieux he also had those down moments where he looked ordinary. Post 1997 he didn't do a whole lot to add to his legacy. He never made the playoffs, he was bad in the 1998 Olympics, he was pretty good but in a losing cause in the 2002 Olympics and he never had a winning season after 1997.
Beezer was certainly more steady and has the better Vezina voting for his career. But other than 1996 he had a terrible reputation as not being a playoff goalie. Something I tend to agree with, it is his downfall.
Two small American goalies that came up with the Rangers in the 80s and early 90s, Vanbiesbrouck was three years older and had won a Vezina in 1986, was eventually traded to Vancouver in the 1993 offseason and claimed by the Panthers in the expansion draft where he went on to have some great years on an expansion team, going to the finals in 1996 and playing as a workhorse for many years in Florida. Richter won a Stanley Cup and World Cup in 1994 and 1996.
Who was the better of the two? Why did the Rangers keep Richter over Vanbiesbrouck when Vanbiesbrouck was the better of the two in 1993? Could the Rangers have won in 1994 if they kept Beezer instead of Richter?
I will go in reverse. The Rangers decided to keep Richter because he was younger and had untapped potential. BEEZER and Richter were an effective combo with the NYR. The RAngers could have kept both but at that time unlike today the NHL had defined starters and backups. Everyone knew that Beezer would play well with the Panthers as he did with the Rangers. Beezer would have helped the Rangers win the cup but their is no denying that Richter was fantastic that year. Mike is the better goalie
This was the big thing at the time. Why did they get BEEZER when we have Maclean. Why would the Canucks aquire him when the expansion draft is next year. AT the time no one knew for sure what the rules would be. The ISles also lost a goalie to that same expansion draft I believe if my memory is correct, Fitzpatrick
This was the big thing at the time. Why did they get BEEZER when we have Maclean. Why would the Canucks aquire him when the expansion draft is next year. AT the time no one knew for sure what the rules would be. The ISles also lost a goalie to that same expansion draft I believe if my memory is correct, Fitzpatrick
everyone knew beezer was going to be the first pick in the expansion draft. he was basically like a pending UFA that you weren't going to re-sign. in the absence of any team that wanted to trade for him, the rangers offered him to teams that wanted to keep their backup.
the relevant rules of the expansion draft were that 1. a team could only protect one goalie, and 2. a team could only lose one goalie. so once florida took vanbiesbrouck from vancouver, neither they nor anaheim could also claim whitmore, who was a highly regarded back-up at the time and likely would have been picked.
but yeah, you better believe there were a lot of fans in vancouver at the time going, "let's protect beezer and expose mclean instead." less than 12 months later, no one would ever suggest such a thing ever again. i'm pretty sure there were unwritten strings attached to the deal that made vancouver have to expose beezer, like how the neither the extra first round pick vancouver got in the '99 draft had to be used on a sedin, they couldn't take brendl or stefan.
Beezer was a very good, but probably not elite goalie until the age of 30. From there, he went to defensive minded teams and did very well for himself as a top goalie.
Richter was among the top goalies earleir in his career, but his teams essentially sucked after the age of 30.
IMO, Richter was slightly better. Beezer played longer and tended to play on better teams later in his career, but the argument comes down to who was given the nods when they were both at their peaks. When I look at it from that perspective, Ricther won a cup, an all-star MVP and was the starting goalie for Team USA, all over Beezer.
From what I understand, Beezer was considered the better goalie on a day-to-day basis, but Richter built himself a reputation as a big game goalie. This helps explain Richter's selection in international competition of Beezer.
That's the way I saw it too.
Breezer was very consistent, he never really strayed from a certain level of play one way or the other. He usually didn't lose you many games and kept you in most but he didn't "steal" that many games either.
Ritcher on the other hand could suck balls for a couple of games and then be completely lights out for five games. He had the capacity to "steal" games for you.
It's a very similar situation to my all-star and Junior days. The goalie I shared duties with was better technically and was more consistent than I was but I had a level I could go to that he couldn't.
During the regular season I saw more of the bench than he did but come playoff time, playing against a team that out classed us or if we went to a tournament, I got a lot more of the ice time and it pissed him off to no end heh.
93 Rangers team is probably the most talented team ever that flat out SUCKED. (No clue why they were so awful I was still young but its mind boggling they had that bad a year between 92 and 94 teams which were legendary.) So that works against Beezer.
I thought Van Beezbrook was always better and was unsure why Richter was chosen over him for USA. I think the 94 Cup win is why though. So overall Van Beisbrook is the better goalie but Richters cup in 94 somehow gives him the nod for the better career because it resulted in him being the goalie for team USA. But late 90s Van Beisbrook on Florida was better than Richter on the Rangers.
