Sentinel
Registered User
Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Mark Messier Dan Cleary
Players Who Hurt Their Teams/Their Legacies By Not Retiring/Ending Their Careers Sooner
- Thread starter Jim MacDonald
- Start date
Sentinel
Registered User
It was an interesting story. He scored a goal in an opener, but then got injured and that was that. Not his fault.
Gretzky too.
Funny how so little mention is made of how dramatically his offensive production declined once the game stopped being glorified shinny in the late 1980s. He could barely skate his last season and was a -23 (worst on a non-playoff team). Of course, I'm sure The Panther will show up now and say that it was all his team mates' fault. Wayne never missed a check in his life!
Howe skated through a couple full generations of NHL players, but the Wayner couldn't do it.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
It's kind of like what happened with Doug Gilmour returning to the Leafs back in 2002-2003.
Injured and out for the season in his first game.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
He won the Art Ross trophy in 1990, 1991 and 1994.
Look at his point production in 1986, and then look at his point production in 1990 (29), and 1991 (age 30). Still a young man, but he's scoring a third less than during the glory days of shinny hockey (even while still with Edmonton, there's a drop-off of nearly 18% between 1985-86 and 1986-87, then it stabilizes in 1987-88, but remains well below the 210+ we were seeing a few years earlier). The reason why I believe Gretzky stopped being a 200-point scorer after 1986 is that the league quickly began to shift to a league featuring better goaltending, more systematic coaching, better athletes (who kept themselves in better condition throughout the year), and more consistent systems play.
Gretzky wasn't injured (pre-September 1991), it's just that the game Wally taught him on the Blessed Backyard Rink (TM) to dominate changed and the slow, lumbering, unintelligent players he exploited in the first-half of the 1980s were being pushed out of the league from 1987 onward. He's the most context-dependent of all the great players, but no one seems to want to acknowledge it. Other great players, like Howe, were able to skate through multiple generations and suffer only stubborn declines, but Gretzky's game did not age well when compared to many great players before him - largely because I think the era helped make the man. A Gretzky in the O6 era still runs away with the scoring title, but not in the devastating manner he did in the free-wheeling 1980s when he's playing with a team loaded with more talent than any other team in the NHL. And Gretzky at no age is going to score as he did in the 1980s if he's transported to the NHL of the mid-1990s onward.
He needed the NHL game of 1980-86 almost as much as it needed him.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I agree that differences in offensive ability were exacerbated during the 1980s. A 10 point difference in scorers in 2018 is the equivalent of a 40 or 50 point difference in 1984.
But I don't think that this somehow taints his legacy in some way.
He was still the dominant player in his era, and when he was "slowing down" in the 1990s, the guy taking his titles was also one of the top 5 players of all time, with Lemieux winning in 1992 and 1993, as well as in 1996 and 1997.
Gretzky was still finishing among the top scorers in the league when playing enough games.
The absolute numbers are eye-popping sure, but ultimately and more importantly, he was in a class of his own for awhile, and then in a class of two players for another span of his career.
If Howe had played in the 1980s (in his prime, not with Hartford), his numbers would have gone up and down too, just as it did with everyone else who played across that era. I don't see how the fact that he played across an era where offensive output didn't fluctuate as much is evidence of anything.
I'm not sure why it has to be held against Gretzky.
Phil Parent
Sorel, 'fant d'chienne!
Sometimes, a contract is offered and you can't blame someone for signing it.
Mark Streit was probably content with quietly retiring this last offseason, hell of a story his career was. 400 some points in 700 games, good show for somebody not drafted until his late-mid 20s. Last two seasons were difficult though, and in his mind, he probably knew he was done.
And then Bergevin came calling. Those two games felt like a hundred. He no longer was the Streit that carried the Swiss national team to respectability or got 60 points that year. He was an embarassment to watch for everybody who loved his precision, skills and brains. He was the definition of a player running on an empty tank.
Wanna see a former all-star player embarassing himself? Find those two Mark Streit games from this year.
And we knew, everybody on the Habs board, we all knew it would happen. But what was Streit gonna do, turn down money? I don't think anybody was mad at him for his performance, we knew. We were mad at MB and our professional scouting dept for signing him. On the flip side, it did allow him to retire a Hab, so, while he should have never left, at least he ended it in the right jersey.
Mark Streit was probably content with quietly retiring this last offseason, hell of a story his career was. 400 some points in 700 games, good show for somebody not drafted until his late-mid 20s. Last two seasons were difficult though, and in his mind, he probably knew he was done.
And then Bergevin came calling. Those two games felt like a hundred. He no longer was the Streit that carried the Swiss national team to respectability or got 60 points that year. He was an embarassment to watch for everybody who loved his precision, skills and brains. He was the definition of a player running on an empty tank.
Wanna see a former all-star player embarassing himself? Find those two Mark Streit games from this year.
And we knew, everybody on the Habs board, we all knew it would happen. But what was Streit gonna do, turn down money? I don't think anybody was mad at him for his performance, we knew. We were mad at MB and our professional scouting dept for signing him. On the flip side, it did allow him to retire a Hab, so, while he should have never left, at least he ended it in the right jersey.
Hi Nyquil.
The only reason I mention the period and context is because there are posters on here who bash Orr for playing in an expansion era, conveniently overlooking the fact that the primitive sports medicine of his age basically butchered one of his knees and kept him from his full potential. You can't use context to diminish Orr (who never played for a team or coach as good as the team and coach Gretzky had in Edmonton) and not use it to rationalize Gretzky's scoring numbers. Gretzky gets a lot of reflexive love in these forums, and there's a tendency to ignore or downplay Orr, or Lemieux (maybe especially Lemieux) and even Howe.
Too many neophytes (not you, by the way) around here want to downplay the challenges posed by the eras in which these other men played while somehow ignoring the massive advantages Gretzky enjoyed: free-wheeling era in which the European influence was being felt while the old, conventional defensive strategies of previous generations were clearly being proved ineffective; a smart coach behind the bench; a terrific team around him that was also tough and gnarly (so that, even if you wanted to target Wayne, there was a hefty price to be paid for doing so); a team that bought into the European model earlier and better than other NHL organizations; and, while there wasn't the same massive expansion as we saw in the 70s (which featured some terrible hockey), there were still plenty of awful teams and awful players for Gretzky to feast on in the early 1980s (and with a bunch of world-class running-mates to aid him, to boot).
Because he didn't have many of Gretzky's advantages, and because of the health concerns, I always give Orr the edge. Wayne's absolute numbers are phenomenal, but I think Orr's actual on-ice impact was greater - and there's no question he was more valuable to his team. Howe is said to have played in an "easier league" (since it was all-Canadian), but that league featured only 120 players. Take the 120 top Canadian players in professional hockey and put them in one small league, and you'd have a pretty darn good league, too, even today (and hockey in Canada today doesn't occupy as much cultural space, and have the same cultural importance, as it did 60-plus years ago). If the new hypothetical era is anything like the era in which Howe played, it would also be an era in which players would be under constant pressure to fight their own battles. Obviously, Wayne didn't fight his own battles.
As far as Howe's own time, you have to factor in the primitive travel, even more primitive sports medicine, factor in the rudimentary coaching and terrible equipment, factor in the comparatively poor diets those guys subsisted on, and the general level of violence in the sport during the 1940s and 1950s. Factor all those things in, and Howe's longevity and consistent excellence becomes pretty remarkable. He never had a period at the end of his career where people were wondering (as they did with Gretzky) how he'd managed to do those remarkable things earlier in his career, because he remained an elite player until, quite literally, into his 50s.
Anyway, I appreciate your post. It's nice to have a solid conversation with a real hockey fan.
Too many neophytes (not you, by the way) around here want to downplay the challenges posed by the eras in which these other men played while somehow ignoring the massive advantages Gretzky enjoyed: free-wheeling era in which the European influence was being felt while the old, conventional defensive strategies of previous generations were clearly being proved ineffective; a smart coach behind the bench; a terrific team around him that was also tough and gnarly (so that, even if you wanted to target Wayne, there was a hefty price to be paid for doing so); a team that bought into the European model earlier and better than other NHL organizations; and, while there wasn't the same massive expansion as we saw in the 70s (which featured some terrible hockey), there were still plenty of awful teams and awful players for Gretzky to feast on in the early 1980s (and with a bunch of world-class running-mates to aid him, to boot).
Because he didn't have many of Gretzky's advantages, and because of the health concerns, I always give Orr the edge. Wayne's absolute numbers are phenomenal, but I think Orr's actual on-ice impact was greater - and there's no question he was more valuable to his team. Howe is said to have played in an "easier league" (since it was all-Canadian), but that league featured only 120 players. Take the 120 top Canadian players in professional hockey and put them in one small league, and you'd have a pretty darn good league, too, even today (and hockey in Canada today doesn't occupy as much cultural space, and have the same cultural importance, as it did 60-plus years ago). If the new hypothetical era is anything like the era in which Howe played, it would also be an era in which players would be under constant pressure to fight their own battles. Obviously, Wayne didn't fight his own battles.
As far as Howe's own time, you have to factor in the primitive travel, even more primitive sports medicine, factor in the rudimentary coaching and terrible equipment, factor in the comparatively poor diets those guys subsisted on, and the general level of violence in the sport during the 1940s and 1950s. Factor all those things in, and Howe's longevity and consistent excellence becomes pretty remarkable. He never had a period at the end of his career where people were wondering (as they did with Gretzky) how he'd managed to do those remarkable things earlier in his career, because he remained an elite player until, quite literally, into his 50s.
Anyway, I appreciate your post. It's nice to have a solid conversation with a real hockey fan.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
smokingwriter said:
I have a hard time comparing Howe, Orr and Gretzky because they not only played in vastly different eras but also played fundamentally different roles and different positions. You could probably throw someone like Hasek in there if he had been dominant for a little bit longer.
Assessing their respective value and impact is a challenging task.
I'm sure this forum has made a solid attempt to do so but ultimately I find it hard to believe that anything could ever be conclusive.
Typically people assess their impact relative to their peers but that assumes that there is a relatively consistent pool of skill from era to era and from career to career.
The Panther
Registered User
I think this is a little unfair. First of all, was Messier's team or legacy hurt in any way by his not retiring earlier? It's all debatable, but I don't think so. The Canucks had a better record with him dressed than not dressed, and he was voted team MVP. In his last two seasons, he was still around 2nd on the Rangers in goals, etc. Relative to his age, his production was outstanding by any historical NHL standard.
As far as his legacy goes, other than a proportion of Canuck fans who think Messier is responsible for war and pestilence and everything else that's bad, I don't really think his legacy was damaged. I just checked this very forum's lists of "top centers of all-time" and "top playoff performers of all-time" and Messier came in 6th and 7th, respectively. Did you think he'd be higher than that if he had retired in, say, 1997?
I mean, in some alternate reality, it would indeed be nice to look at Messier's retirement in 1997. His career would look more perfect in retrospect. But I can't get behind arguing that a player's legacy is damaged by his decline after age 36, unless the player is dealing drugs or something nefarious.
The Panther
Registered User
I don't respond to click-bait (and won't do so with the rest of your posts), but just to point out that I have never argued that Gretzky was a better player than Gordie Howe. In fact, I've said on here a few times that I have no argument with anyone ranking Howe at #1. Indeed, I'm often inclined to think that way myself.
Iginla is the obvious answer for the last few years. The last couple of seasons he looked like he genuinely couldn't be bothered to put in constant effort, he was a massive net negative at ES, and only made a dent on the PP, but one could argue that with the PP orchestrated in a way to feed the puck to him at all cost, he actually neutered it by making it predictable. On top of all that, watching him be gifted away just so that they get him off the team and then seeing him play with more energy for the Kings than he showed in his 3 years in Colorado combined made me lose all respect I had for him.
Sentinel
Registered User
Two words: Oilers fan. I am a little disappointed it took you this long to respond
This board is hardly representative of what people think out there. The consensus is clear: MM stuck around for 7 extra years. Naturally, his playoff performance isn't affected: he has not seen playoffs in any of them.
Messier hung around because of his ego (and greed), and he hung around way too long. He was slow, ineffective, over-utilized, and a net loss his final 7 seasons. Actually, it's weird how dramatically his game went down hill. Someone remarked that his decline actually began mid-way through the 1996-97 season, but I haven't seen the game logs to know with certainty. But he was awful in Vancouver: a narcissist who, along with Keenan, wanted to clean out the dressing room so that he could play with his buddies. It's absolutely stunning that we have some people on these boards who believe Messier was as great, or greater, than Jean Beliveau as a leader and captain. That passes almost beyond farce, but we know who those people are, don't we? Beliveau would never have acted the way Messier did in Vancouver, and the team would have been better for it.
Given Messier's loving relationship with Keenan, and given that his own strained relationship with Keenan drove him from St. Louis, I'd be curious to know the Blessed Wayner's real thoughts when he saw Keenan at the "Greatest Team of All-Time" ceremony in Edmonton back in (I believe) February of this year.
Given Messier's loving relationship with Keenan, and given that his own strained relationship with Keenan drove him from St. Louis, I'd be curious to know the Blessed Wayner's real thoughts when he saw Keenan at the "Greatest Team of All-Time" ceremony in Edmonton back in (I believe) February of this year.
Political correctness protected Iginla for a lot of years in Calgary. He was the Teflon Iggy: no one wanted to criticize him in print for reasons that should be pretty obvious. A lot of nights when he simply couldn't be bothered showing up, or when his sum contribution was a lazy skate on the wing, a few mistimed and misfired shots, some bad passes into team mate's skates, a careful avoidance of physical contact. I was told some time ago by a former NHLer that he wasn't the world's greatest team mate, either, but I can't say either way as I never shared a dressing room with him (though I believe it to be true). Funny how his character flaws are actually more evident now, at the end of his career, than they were when he was younger and in his athletic prime.
Of course.
Messier is the Greatest Leader in Sports (TM); a well-adjusted and mature leader of men, Mike Keenan, says so. He should have been allowed to play forever and clog up a roster spot forever.
Jim MacDonald
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2017
- 704
- 180
Very curious to look at the tail end of Iginla's career numbers now......I didn't know things got that bad with him in Colorado where you could genuinely see effort wasn't being made...ai yi yi...
blood gin
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2017
- 4,174
- 2,203
ha. I think it may be loaded nachos. The Devils used to have a segment during home intermissions where Chico Resch would walk around the new arena and sample food. This is where the gif is from
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Iginla is kind of a funny player in that I see that same "power forward" label cropping up for him as it did for Dany Heatley, when both were more reasonably classed as snipers with a tendency to float through games from time to time.
I guess they were both pretty big.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
In his two Hart Trophy seasons, Mark Messier made a little under $2 million combined. In his 20th-26th professional seasons, he made $42 million combined for an average of $6 million per year.
Big money contracts came into the league because of guys like Mark Messier driving up contracts and getting the players a bigger slice of the pie. Criticizing him or any other late-80s/early-90s player for sticking around longer than usual to get a little for himself indicates a lack of awareness of NHL economics.
Retiring with 1552 points in 1272 games (100 points per 82 games) and 295 points in 236 playoff games while being a two-way wrecking ball and probably the greatest captain of all-time would have been nice, but being a key figure in driving up contracts so that everyone in the locker room can buy a gold boat is up there too.
Big money contracts came into the league because of guys like Mark Messier driving up contracts and getting the players a bigger slice of the pie. Criticizing him or any other late-80s/early-90s player for sticking around longer than usual to get a little for himself indicates a lack of awareness of NHL economics.
Retiring with 1552 points in 1272 games (100 points per 82 games) and 295 points in 236 playoff games while being a two-way wrecking ball and probably the greatest captain of all-time would have been nice, but being a key figure in driving up contracts so that everyone in the locker room can buy a gold boat is up there too.
Jim MacDonald
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2017
- 704
- 180
Oh that's Chico Resch?! ha ha ha.....I didn't even know....lol I'm staring at the nachos and not the guy...epic!!
I think Brendan Shanahan and Ron Francis held on for too long. It became tough watching people skate circles around them.
The Panther
Registered User
Yeah, that Shanahan-with-the-Devils things was a head-scratcher (for all of 34 games). It's a bit like Brodeur, where you can't help but ask yourself, "Why'd he do that?"
Still, I don't think Shanahan hurt his legacy at all.
