Mark Recchi Signs with the Tampa Bay Lightning as Penguin Theft Continues
The Tampa Bay Lightning's attempt to replicate the Pittsburgh Penguins roster of two seasons ago is nearly complete.
Today, the Lightning signed two-time former Penguin, Mark Recchi, to a one-year, $1.25 million contract.
The Recchin' Ball joins Michel Ouellet, Gary Roberts, Ryan Malone, and Adam Hall on the list of former Penguins now employed by the Lightning.
Recchi, who will turn 41-years old in February, is a six time NHL All-Star, and a two time Stanley Cup Champion (Pittsburgh 1991, Carolina 2006).
After being traded to the Philadelphia Flyers from Pittsburgh at the trade deadline in 1992, Recchi spent the next three seasons in Philly.
Recchi holds the Flyers' single season scoring record for his 123 point (53 goals, 70 assists) performance during the 1992-93 season.
Rex is long removed from his 100-plus point seasons, but he certainly will provide a veteran presence, alongside former Penguin teammate Gary Roberts, in the locker room for the Bolts.
Recchi proved last season that he can still play the game he loves. After being a consistent healthy scratch for Michel Therrien, Recchi was claimed off of re-entry waivers by the Atlanta Thrashers.
Recchi finished last season with 48 points (14 goals, 34 assists) in 72 games with the Penguins and Thrashers.
The Lightning could now form a "Penguin line" by putting the five former Penguins on their roster on the ice together.
Though a "Penguin line" likely won't ever hit the ice, perhaps the grizzled vets Roberts and Recchi, combined with the peaking star, Ryan Malone, and the role-playing Hall and Ouellet could help the Lightning surpass the 75 point plateau next season.
Only time will tell if the Lightning's Penguin-stealing efforts will pay off, but on paper, Jay Feaster has given new head coach Barry Melrose a plethora of talent to work with.
All that's left to do now is play the games.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?