News Article: Brooks speaks with Dolan.

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Messier is reviled in Vancouver. And rightly so, his time there was a disaster.

His 2nd stint here was no picnic either, but I'd certainly stop short of calling him a cancer.

He, in conjunction with management, lobbied for short-term fixes in an attempt to make the team immediately competitive again...in reality, the franchise was in no condition for this type of treatment in the early 2000's.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Why we talking about Messier anyway? He’s not a head coaching candidate, or a candidate for any prominent position in the org anyway.

We really need some news guys I don’t know how much longer I can take this.

 

[Edge]

Why we talking about Messier anyway? He’s not a head coaching candidate, or a candidate for any prominent position in the org anyway.

We really need some news guys I don’t know how much longer I can take this.

Agreed. Messier is not, nor should he be a candidate for a head coaching position with the Rangers.

 

[nyr2k2]

Why we talking about Messier anyway? He’s not a head coaching candidate, or a candidate for any prominent position in the org anyway.

We really need some news guys I don’t know how much longer I can take this.

Like I mentioned in the Prospect Thread which has gone completely off the rails--it's just the offseason. We're also not accustomed to things being over already. So, it's just mindless chatter in the absence of actual news to discuss. Just click on the thread, see if anything new and substantive is being discussed, and if not, move on.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

And I think you selectively present a very one-sided approach.

And that's coming from someone who worked with the man, and many of his teammates, over a number of years.

My sources are all long gone (either retired or with other teams) since I haven't been writing in years or even connected to folks in the industry in years, but I've never heard of anyone on the team hating the guy, really. I was not a fan of his personally from the couple of times I interacted with him. But I never, ever got the vibe that he was a cancer on the Rangers from anyone in the organization or connected to it. No clue about his days from Vancouver, but the old second and third hand accounts made it sound like he was a different person up there (more likely that, as a new guy, he tried his old Rangers act and it just didn't work around a new cast of characters).

 

[Machinehead]

And I think you selectively present a very one-sided approach.

And that's coming from someone who worked with the man, and many of his teammates, over a number of years.

You don't think he was a bit of a bully?

 

[Edge]

Like I mentioned in the Prospect Thread which has gone completely off the rails--it's just the offseason. We're also not accustomed to things being over already. So, it's just mindless chatter in the absence of actual news to discuss. Just click on the thread, see if anything new and substantive is being discussed, and if not, move on.

Ugh, the off-season. Unfortunately, one of the side effects is there is a tendency to try and make bold declarations and that's usually when subjects go off the rails.

 

[Edge]

You don't think he was a bit of a bully?

A bit, sure.

Messier was stubborn, strong-willed, intimidating, forceful, unapologetic and could be abrasive.

He could also motivate people like few I've ever seen, worked his ass off, helped A LOT of guys out behind the scenes in ways that will never be reported and had the respect of a lot of people.

He was neither a saint nor a sinner, a messiah nor a pariah.

Like most things the truth was in the middle. But I think 99 percent of the people who interacted with him would not describe him as a "cancer." Even if they disagreed with him or didn't like him.

 

[Thirty One]

Messier is reviled in Vancouver. And rightly so, his time there was a disaster.

(Maybe they had unrealistic expectations for the then 36 Messier)

 

[Machinehead]

A bit, sure.

Messier was stubborn, strong-willed, intimidating, forceful, unapologetic and could be abrasive.

He could also motivate people like few I've ever seen, worked his ass off, helped A LOT of guys out behind the scenes in ways that will never be reported and had the respect of a lot of people.

He was neither a saint nor a sinner, a messiah nor a pariah.

Like most things the truth was in the middle. But I think 99 percent of the people who interacted with him would not describe him as a "cancer." Even if they disagreed with him or didn't like him.

Fair enough. Again, maybe he had his place back then and I was too young to comment on the state of that NHL.

I can comment on this one and the game has evolved and so has this generation of players. I don't want that element in the room in 2018, and more importantly, I'd like to focus on defense and skill over leadership, because that's where the game is now, as much as everyone doesn't want to let go of their archaic thoughts.

This is a hockey team, not a pack of wildebeest. I'm more concerned about finding a 70 point winger and a 27 minute defenseman than I am about finding an alpha male.

Matter of fact, we had the 27 minute defenseman but he wasn't alpha enough to be our captain

 

[Machinehead]

(Maybe they had unrealistic expectations for the then 36 Messier)

He demanded the captaincy from the greatest legend (at the time) in team history and demanded #11 from a dead player.

Had nothing to do with expectations.

 

[Thirty One]

He demanded the captaincy from the greatest legend (at the time) in team history and demanded #11 from a dead player.

Had nothing to do with expectations.

The first is patently false. The second may have an element of truth in it, but at the time he got the number he didn't know who Wayne Maki was.

 

[Edge]

Fair enough. Again, maybe he had his place back then and I was too young to comment on the state of that NHL.

I can comment on this one and the game has evolved and so has this generation of players. I don't want that element in the room in 2018, and more importantly, I'd like to focus on defense and skill over leadership, because that's where the game is now, as much as everyone doesn't want to let go of their archaic thoughts.

This is a hockey team, not a pack of wildebeest. I'm more concerned about finding a 70 point winger and a 27 minute defenseman than I am about finding an alpha male.

Matter of fact, we had the 27 minute defenseman but he wasn't alpha enough to be our captain

I pretty much 100 percent agree with you.

Messier is not what this team needs now, which is to say nothing about the fact that he doesn't have the coaching experience essential to navigate a game that has evolved and continues to evolve rapidly.

This team needs skill and it sure as hell as needs a high end defenseman.

I'm not really worried about the leadership on this team moving forward. What I am worried about is being able to get those guys who are essential if you want to be considered a top contender.

Whether it's coaching, or some of the players we put on the ice, we need to focus on how best to move forward. I'm really not particularly interested in looking toward yesteryear for our future.

 

[McRanger]

(Maybe they had unrealistic expectations for the then 36 Messier)

I think they expected him to not create a civil war in the locker room culminating with the trading of half the team (including the captain he replaced) as well as the firing of the coach and GM.

I consider that a reasonable expectation.

His 2nd stint here was no picnic either, but I'd certainly stop short of calling him a cancer.

He, in conjunction with management, lobbied for short-term fixes in an attempt to make the team immediately competitive again...in reality, the franchise was in no condition for this type of treatment in the early 2000's.

I didn't want to even bring up his 2nd stint.

 

[haveandare]

Imo leadership isn't the most important thing, but it is important. Look how often this team came out totally flat over the years despite having the talent to take it to the other team out of the gate. That's an issue of leadership imo.

But ultimately, yes you need to focus on getting the high scoring players and the minute eating d-men because they are the most rare and most valuable pieces necessary for success by far. Once you have those guys, it's not all that hard to trade for or sign some good leadership guys. Players get paid and generally valued due to their points and/or the minutes they can handle well, not for leadership. When they do get paid for leadership, like Toews, it quickly looks like a terrible move.

So yeah, we need leaders, but we need top players both forwards and d-men first and more importantly.

 

[Thirty One]

I think they expected him to not create a civil war in the locker room culminating with the trading of half the team (including the captain he replaced) as well as the firing of the coach and GM.

I consider that a reasonable expectation.

Well I'm not sure he started a civil war, and I definitely don't approve of Keenan's methods, but trading half that team was for the better. The players who "survived" Messier's years, or came aboard during became the core of the Canucks' next good team, and credit Messier for helping them develop as players/leaders.

Good retrospective read about his time in Vancouver: The 101 Greatest Canucks: Messier No. 1 in the hearts of Rangers fans, but 93rd on our list

I think Tom Renney nails it:
“That was an organization and a team that had already had it’s 1994 run to the Cup … and ultimately was the victim of attrition. It wouldn’t have mattered who was in there at the time, there was a shelf-life for that team that had met its time. Every organization gets to that point and how far they fall is relative to your depth, your young players, your veteran group and your leadership."

 

[Tawnos]

As long as hockey remains a game driven by emotions, leadership is going to continue being a key factor to winning.

As long as hockey teams have more 4 players, leadership is going to continue being a key factor to winning.

That second one isn’t limited to hockey. Any group of people striving towards the same goal benefits from good leadership. Doesn’t matter if it’s sports, military or business.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I know we try to avoid the whole "age" thing around here, but can we consider some time of self-regulating approach in which we don't comment about things that happened when we were toddlers as if we have an actual recollection of them happening?

It's one thing if we chime in from a general historical perspective, but I also see people on here who literally were learning to talk during certain time periods and are now commenting on it like they had a front row seat.

I mean I get the whole opinion thing, and sometimes we agree to disagree. But it's always interesting when it's not even based on actual experiences.

Finally !

My signature ...

 

[True Blue]

I can comment on this one and the game has evolved and so has this generation of players. I don't want that element in the room in 2018, and more importantly, I'd like to focus on defense and skill over leadership, because that's where the game is now, as much as everyone doesn't want to let go of their archaic thoughts.

You seem very focused on labels. "Archaic". "Caveman".

YOU don't want "that" element in the room. What exactly is "that"? Your statements seem to believe that a room can be rudderless as long as it has all world skill. Very nice. But that is YOUR view. One could just as easily label it as "fantasyland" and it would have just as much validity as your label of "archaic".

This is a hockey team, not a pack of wildebeest. I'm more concerned about finding a 70 point winger and a 27 minute defenseman than I am about finding an alpha male.

This hockey team could have used a vocal leader this year. Take this team and add a 70 point winger, and you would still have a team that was the easiest to play against and not interested in competing at times. Pretend all you want, but this was a rudderless group who could have easily used a strong voice in the locker room.

Matter of fact, we had the 27 minute defenseman but he wasn't alpha enough to be our captain

People's view that he was or was not a good captain has nothing at all to do with him being "an alpha male" or not. That is once again a term that only you associated with this debate.

 

[McRanger]

Well I'm not sure he started a civil war, and I definitely don't approve of Keenan's methods, but trading half that team was for the better. The players who "survived" Messier's years, or came aboard during became the core of the Canucks' next good team, and credit Messier for helping them develop as players/leaders.

Good retrospective read about his time in Vancouver: The 101 Greatest Canucks: Messier No. 1 in the hearts of Rangers fans, but 93rd on our list

I think Tom Renney nails it:
“That was an organization and a team that had already had it’s 1994 run to the Cup … and ultimately was the victim of attrition. It wouldn’t have mattered who was in there at the time, there was a shelf-life for that team that had met its time. Every organization gets to that point and how far they fall is relative to your depth, your young players, your veteran group and your leadership."

I dont think the Canucks sucking was directly Messier's fault. Nor do I have any doubt Messier helped some young players become better NHLers. He did that here with Leetch and Graves, etc.

The problem with Mess, and Keenan even more so, is how they treat the OTHER players that they dont mentor who get caught up in their penchant for cleaning house of everyone who they don't believe fits what they are trying to build. It alienates player and fan alike and has the potential to be extremely counter productive. If it works they are geniuses and icy veined leaders of men. If it doesn't then they look like arrogant boneheads.

The Vancouver "Messier hate" might be a bit overdone, but I find it hard to look at his time there and see it as a net positive. And by the late 90's I wasn't so sure Messier was a better leader than the Sakics or Yzermans of the world, who didn't play with their elbows up, never guaranteed anything and I wasn't even sure possessed vocal chords. And this is from someone who has a soft spot for all things '94.

 

[alkurtz]

Hockey has a unique culture that makes it different than all other sports. Perhaps it is due to its working-class roots in Canada. Perhaps for some other reason. Yes, other sports have captains, but they are for the most part superfluous, just for show. Not so in hockey: in hockey, "the captain" actually means something, not just symbolically, but historically, and on and off the ice. I would agree that it is because of the emotional nature of the game.

Leadership comes in all forms: "rah-rah" types, strong silent types, on-ice emotional types. I think these days, many teams make the mistake of giving the captaincy to the best, young player. I'm not sure that is the best way to go.

Many posters have griped about our captains for years: Callahan was to much "on-ice" but not enough off ice. McD was to stoic and didn't show apparent emotion.

Most of us think we know what is going on behind the scenes: on the team plane, in the hotels, at team meals, but official and unofficial. This is where a captain earns his pay just as much as on the ice. And we just don't know, really, what transpires.

I would never, as a Ranger fan going back to circa 1960, say anything negative about Messier. Ever. He did what I never thought possible and that I would never see. He was the most unique athlete I have ever seen in any sport. I don't care what happened in Vancouver or his second stint here. He brought us the Cup. He is the ultimate "Captain."

For some older posters: the captain of the Rangers as they emerged from the horrors of the early 1960s and in the early days of the Francis era was Bob Nevin: the strong silent type. The captain during the height of the Francis era was Vic Hadfield: an on-ice leader.

I don't know who is captain material on this team. Sometimes I think that Kreider is the guy; if he would only be consistent. Zuc: my sense (which could be wrong) is that his leadership comes from just getting guys to relax and laugh. He might be the guy always saying things to lighten situations. Fast: to quiet but perhaps the strong silent type. No one else strikes my fancy. Maybe we go with three alternate captains next year until the next generation of leadership emerges.

But yeah, in hockey, historically, symbolically, and in actuality, due to the emotion of the game, a captain is important if not essential.

 

[Machinehead]

You seem very focused on labels. "Archaic". "Caveman".

YOU don't want "that" element in the room. What exactly is "that"? Your statements seem to believe that a room can be rudderless as long as it has all world skill. Very nice. But that is YOUR view. One could just as easily label it as "fantasyland" and it would have just as much validity as your label of "archaic".

"Rudderless" is a meaningless label that you're using to criticize meaningless labels.

We don't know what happens in the room, unless we're told. We do know what happens on the ice and what was objectively wrong on the ice.

You choose to ignore the latter to trumpet about the former.

This hockey team could have used a vocal leader this year. Take this team and add a 70 point winger, and you would still have a team that was the easiest to play against and not interested in competing at times. Pretend all you want, but this was a rudderless group who could have easily used a strong voice in the locker room.

They would still be easy to play against because they had no system and never had the puck. That's a bigger problem whether you choose to realize that or not.

People's view that he was or was not a good captain has nothing at all to do with him being "an alpha male" or not. That is once again a term that only you associated with this debate.

Patently false.

It's a term I can't stand, and I didn't bring it up. Read the thread again.

 

[Thirty One]

I dont think the Canucks sucking was directly Messier's fault. Nor do I have any doubt Messier helped some young players become better NHLers. He did that here with Leetch and Graves, etc.

The problem with Mess, and Keenan even more so, is how they treat the OTHER players that they dont mentor who get caught up in their penchant for cleaning house of everyone who they don't believe fits what they are trying to build. It alienates player and fan alike and has the potential to be extremely counter productive. If it works they are geniuses and icy veined leaders of men. If it doesn't then they look like arrogant boneheads.

The Vancouver "Messier hate" might be a bit overdone, but I find it hard to look at his time there and see it as a net positive. And by the late 90's I wasn't so sure Messier was a better leader than the Sakics or Yzermans of the world, who didn't play with their elbows up, never guaranteed anything and I wasn't even sure possessed vocal chords. And this is from someone who has a soft spot for all things '94.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much every word.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

Stevens as head coach, Messier as assistant, Kovalchuk as captain. Hire a Netflix documentary team too

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Stevens as head coach, Messier as assistant, Kovalchuk as captain. Hire a Netflix documentary team too

Messier head coach, Trottier/Stevens assistant coach, bring back Nash and make him captain, replace Gorton with Lou Lams, Dennis Rodman buys the team from Dolan and makes kim jong un junior VP of hockey ops.