Joe Pelletier's Top 100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Rhiessan71]

I have finally read your link to Bowman's interview. It doesn't say anything about teammates not respecting Fedorov. And, again: Bowman wanted to trade Yzerman, never Fedorov. Does this mean Fedorov was so much better than Yzerman that his talent compensated for his alleged "heartlessness"?

First off, if you‘re asking if a 20 something healthy Fedorov was better than a 30 something Yzerman playing post back and double knee issues, then yes, i could lean towards Fedorov. I‘ll take Yzerman‘s peak over Fedorov‘s on both length and height 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Second, the difference is that Bowman questioned Yzerman‘s commitment to defense to which he later recanted, saying that he had underestimated Stevie.
There was no recanting about what he said about Fedorov‘s heart.

Third, you may wanna give that interview another read or did you skip the part about Fedorov believing his teammates were jealous of him and didn‘t treat him to the level he thought he deserved.

If Fedorov was even a 1/4 of the ********* while he played as he was in that interview, i guarentee you he wasn‘t as respected as you claim.

 

[seekritdude]

Singlehandedly?! Ozolinsh and Irbe were both awesome that year, though Ozo's inability to finish a relatively easy chance was the team's ultimate undoing against Toronto.

ozolinsh was playing with a broken wrist the entire playsoffs. That is the supposed story as to why he didnt take the shot. If you notice he had I think it was 26 goals I think that year. But 0 in the playoffs... Other players were banged up to, irbe was played the entire playoffs with a broken foot or ankle that I recall..

And the reason people remember irbe being great those playoffs despite the terrible record is because if you watched the games a lot of those games could have been worse off. There was one game I think were irbe stopped 4 or 5 break aways and like 3 or 4 2 on ones in a game. Wings had a ton of chances on the sharks and exposed a lot of their D men as admitedly sharks were not very deep on actual good defensive minded players. Hell one of the games I forget who it was scored for the wings. He shot it into his own goal. lol

But as a team that last half or thrid of the season the sharks were leafs and rangers were the best teams in the league record wise that I remember. (im iffy on stats its been awhile).. Sharks were a good team when healthy. And larionov was great that year. He and gilmore were the best players those playoffs before the sharks got knocked out. The sharks only won 3 games that whole year when larionov was not in the line up.

I think if people go back and watch some of those old shark games, they would see that, that 5 man unit of the OV line garpenlov, larionov, makarov, and ozo and norton were the best line in a lot of games vs everyone else top guns.

Just beacuse your not scoring 100 points a year doesnt mean you arent a good player. Easy example look at the russian 5 that first year. I dont care what anyone says that was the best line that year in the NHL. They dominated everyone. Now look at their stats. Besides plus and minus, nothing stands out as crazy as they were. And yet people still remember them to this day.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How much do you think Larionov's pathetic effort in NJ tarnishes his legacy?

How much should anyone's age 43 season tarnish a career?

He fell off the cliff with father time pushing him that year.

Igor is an under rated guy, kinda like a Russian version of Henri perhaps?

I think there is a good case for Igor in the top 30 centers of all time, based on his career and depth of it.

 

[Zine]

How much do you think Larionov's pathetic effort in NJ tarnishes his legacy?

Larionov's effort was never in question.

He was horrible because he was 44 years old.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Larionov's effort was never in question.

He was horrible because he was 44 years old.

You are correct that age was why he was horrible to start with, but once his skating left him entirely, he didn't put forth any effort either. Lost every puck battle, simply went through the motions to collect a paycheck.

If you're going to ding Messier for hanging on too long, you should do the same for Larionov.

 

[Zine]

You are correct that age was why he was horrible to start with, but once his skating left him entirely, he didn't put forth any effort either. Lost every puck battle, simply went through the motions to collect a paycheck.

If you're going to ding Messier for hanging on too long, you should do the same for Larionov.

I can understand how it appeared that way.
However a 25yo Larionov never won any puck battles either. Like Gretzky, Larionov's superior anticipation allowed him to gain control of the puck before a physical battle could occur.
Once his skating left him so did the entirety of his game. 100% useless, although I doubt due to a lack of effort.

 

[Sentinel]

If you're going to ding Messier for hanging on too long, you should do the same for Larionov.

I'm not dinging Messier or any other veterans for "hanging on too long." In fact, I have nothing but praise for Chelios, Howe, Recchi, and others. Messier did not just "hang on." He actively ran the Canucks into the ground (in addition to collecting the paycheck) and then oversaw one of the most shameful stretches in NHL history with the Rangers failing to make playoffs year after year with the highest payroll in the league. He ran those two franchises, more so than the coaches. You are from the New York area, you should remember those days!

First off, if you‘re asking if a 20 something healthy Fedorov was better than a 30 something Yzerman playing post back and double knee issues, then yes, i could lean towards Fedorov. I‘ll take Yzerman‘s peak over Fedorov‘s on both length and height 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Yzerman is 4 years older than Fedorov, and you make it sound like they were a decade apart! Yzerman was 28 y.o. when Bowman considered trading him. If you prefer Yzerman's 155 peak over Fedorov's 55/124+Hart+Selke, feel free. I'll take Fed's. I'm sure plenty of people would pick one or the other.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If you prefer Yzerman's 155 peak over Fedorov's 55/124+Hart+Selke, feel free. I'll take Fed's. I'm sure plenty of people would pick one or the other.

Given two choices, wouldn't everyone pick one or the other?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not dinging Messier or any other veterans for "hanging on too long." In fact, I have nothing but praise for Chelios, Howe, Recchi, and others. Messier did not just "hang on." He actively ran the Canucks into the ground (in addition to collecting the paycheck) and then oversaw one of the most shameful stretches in NHL history with the Rangers failing to make playoffs year after year with the highest payroll in the league. He ran those two franchises, more so than the coaches. You are from the New York area, you should remember those days!

.

I remember those days in New York well - Messier was being given top line ice time, when he should have been treated like a third line role player. At that point, he was clearly bigger than the team, and it cost them. Messier has to share some of the blame, but I think team management should get the majority of it.

Back to Larionov, if the Devils were counting on him to produce, he would have absolutely run them into the ground, but luckily, they had enough depth to kick him to the curb.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Given two choices, wouldn't everyone pick one or the other?

I'm taking Gilmour!

Seriously though you couldn't go wrong with either of those individual seasons. I do know that Yzerman did it with less, though.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I remember those days in New York well - Messier was being given top line ice time, when he should have been treated like a third line role player. At that point, he was clearly bigger than the team, and it cost them. Messier has to share some of the blame, but I think team management should get the majority of it.

Back to Larionov, if the Devils were counting on him to produce, he would have absolutely run them into the ground, but luckily, they had enough depth to kick him to the curb.

I dont know, i thouht i'd just throw it in. Messier has a **** personality, for whatever that is worth. When he was great and a great leader, it did not matter very mch, but he sure is very stale personally.

 

[Sentinel]

I remember those days in New York well - Messier was being given top line ice time, when he should have been treated like a third line role player. At that point, he was clearly bigger than the team, and it cost them. Messier has to share some of the blame, but I think team management should get the majority of it.

Back to Larionov, if the Devils were counting on him to produce, he would have absolutely run them into the ground, but luckily, they had enough depth to kick him to the curb.

But the Devil's did not count on him to produce, because he never positioned himself as a producer and a leader. Mess absolutely positioned himself as the heart and soul of the team, as well as the centerpiece, and a point-producing first line center machine.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

You are correct that age was why he was horrible to start with, but once his skating left him entirely, he didn't put forth any effort either. Lost every puck battle, simply went through the motions to collect a paycheck.

I'd guess that the only 44 year old NHL players that won puck battles were Howe and possibly Chelios. So I wouldn't say that's too unusual.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd guess that the only 44 year old NHL players that won puck battles were Howe and possibly Chelios. So I wouldn't say that's too unusual.

Larionov's season in NJ is officially listed as his age 43 season. He scored 11 points and was a defensive liability

Messier's last season in NY was also his age 43 season. He scored 43 points and was no more of a defensie liability than Larionov was at the same age.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But the Devil's did not count on him to produce, because he never positioned himself as a producer and a leader. Mess absolutely positioned himself as the heart and soul of the team, as well as the centerpiece, and a point-producing first line center machine.

I tend to agree here and while management can be blamed in both Vancouver and New York for those teams problems <Moose invited the mess and was more concerned about his ego and being the man and in reality was a cancer to both teams compared to Larinov for what 1 season?

 

[VMBM]

Igor is an under rated guy, kinda like a Russian version of Henri perhaps?

I think there is a good case for Igor in the top 30 centers of all time, based on his career and depth of it.

This coming from a poster, who questions the worthiness of Maltsev and Petrov on a list of top 60 centers? Oh boy.

 

[ottawa]

Montreal, what up? 7 of the top 14 repping the habs...too bad that kind of dominance and glory won't ever return to the hockey mecca

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

I'm not dinging Messier or any other veterans for "hanging on too long." In fact, I have nothing but praise for Chelios, Howe, Recchi, and others. Messier did not just "hang on." He actively ran the Canucks into the ground (in addition to collecting the paycheck) and then oversaw one of the most shameful stretches in NHL history with the Rangers failing to make playoffs year after year with the highest payroll in the league. He ran those two franchises, more so than the coaches.

The Canucks were a sinking ship before Messier arrived, they had been a team on the decline since their 94 Cup appearance and missed the playoffs the year before they signed Messier. The decline continued during Messier's first 2 years in Vancouver while the team was rebuilt. During Messier's final year in Vancouver the Canucks had their best season since 94.

The Rangers were also an absolute trainwreck before Messier returned, they had missed the playoffs all 3 seasons that Messier was in Vancouver and that continued until the team finally started a proper rebuild at the 04 trade deadline and more importantly when the 05-06 season started the organization finally made a commitment to playing a defense first system (something Sather had been philosophically opposed to). During Messier's final 4 seasons the Rangers finished 30th,29th,21st and 27th in GAA. Following the lockout the Rangers adopted a defense first system and brought in Henrik Lundqvist and their GAA improved to 4th best in the League. The Rangers have been a defense first team since that point and after missing the playoffs 7 straight seasons pre-lockout (the last 4 with Messier) have have made the playoffs 7 out of 8 seasons since.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

It bothers me a little how much hate Messier gets for his time in Vancouver. As mentioned the team wasn't good, period, and had been declining year after year. Not that Messier lit the world on fire or anything but he was at the end of his career in his late 30's, and you had to at least think maybe just maybe he was past his prime - despite how much he was paid. A lot of the Canucks core players the couple years after give Messier credit for developing them as pro's by the way.

 

[Sentinel]

Does having Linden, Bure, and Mogilny constitute "a team on the decline"? Does having Lindros, Fleury, and Bure constitute "a team on the decline"? Is it possible that that "decline" was brought about by Mark Messier himself?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Does having Linden, Bure, and Mogilny constitute "a team on the decline"? Does having Lindros, Fleury, and Bure constitute "a team on the decline"? Is it possible that that "decline" was brought about by Mark Messier himself?

Considering the Canucks posted progressively worse records ever year after their finals appearance up to the year they acquired Messier, what more evidence do you need that they were in decline? Getting worse every year seems to fit the definition of "decline" pretty good to me.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This coming from a poster, who questions the worthiness of Maltsev and Petrov on a list of top 60 centers? Oh boy.

Given the success rate or early guys from Europe coming over to the NHL. it's not a lock that the 2 guys you mentioned would have been great NHL players.

Their respective scoring records against stronger teams in international play also give us an indication of something perhaps lacking.

Igor at least proved that he was a very good NHL player in his 30's, something you can even agree to right?

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Does having Linden, Bure, and Mogilny constitute "a team on the decline"? Does having Lindros, Fleury, and Bure constitute "a team on the decline"? Is it possible that that "decline" was brought about by Mark Messier himself?

de·cline: (typically of something regarded as good) become smaller, fewer, or less; decrease.

1994 - 85pts, 2nd in the Pacific, Lost Stanley Cup Finals
1995 - 48pts, 2nd in the Pacific, Lost Conference Semifinals
1996 - 79pts, 3rd in the Pacific, Lost Conference Quarterfinals
1997 - 77pts, 4th in the Pacific, Did not qualify

This was all before Messier signed with Vancouver so no I don't think Messier brought about the decline.

As for the players you mentioned:
Vancouver years
Pavel Bure - 1 year with Messier
82 51 39 90 (By far Vancouver's best player in 97-98 then demands a trade in a dispute with management, has nothing to do with Messier).

Alex Mogilny - 3 years with Messier
51 18 27 45
59 14 31 45
59 24 20 44 (Traded during the season)
Mogilny was hurt all the time and only delivered 45 points per season because of it.

Trevor Linden - 1 year with Messier
42 7 14 21 -13
Played terrible and was dealt, never regained previous standard of play.

New York years:
I explained in the previous post the problem in NY was no defensive system combined with lack of goaltending. The Ranges missed the playoffs the 3 seasons prior to Messier signing, they maintained the same formula every year, just throw out big money, star players (Gretzky, Lafontaine, Leetch, Graves, Stevens, Kovalev, Nedved ,etc..), with no system (for years Mike Richter was their defensive system but once his body started to break down the Rangers were done).

As for the players you mentioned, Lindros was damaged goods, he floated around avoiding contact, he still was skilled but he wasn't even a ppg player during his time in NY. Fleury was a nightmare he was having crazy off ice issues and couldn't be relied on. Bure was hurt almost his entire time in NY, he played great when he played which was 12 games one season and 39 games the next and then he retired.

 

[Sentinel]

Look at it from this perspective: both Canucks and NYR acquired Messier (and other superstars) to fight their decline. He did nothing but actively contributed to the said decline (ran Linden out of town, etc.). Being a humongous influence on management, he absolutely has to share the responsibility for his clubs' woes.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Look at it from this perspective: both Canucks and NYR acquired Messier (and other superstars) to fight their decline. He did nothing but actively contributed to the said decline (ran Linden out of town, etc.). Being a humongous influence on management, he absolutely has to share the responsibility for his clubs' woes.

So you believe the Canucks thought a reasonable way to fight their decline was to sign a 37 year old Mark Messier who was coming off a season where his goals total dropped by 11 and points total by 15 to a huge contract? Then 3 years later the Rangers thought the best way to fight their decline was to sign a 40 year old Mark Messier who's production had declined even more and was coming off 2 injury plagued seasons in Vancouver?

See I think you're giving Messier way to much credit, I think Trevor Linden played poorly and was traded, that is all on Linden's shoulders. You want to give Messier the credit for the moves that the teams made while he was there and I'm sure as a 6 time Stanley Cup veteran his opinion was asked but I'm sure he wasn't the only one with input and he didn't have any real power. But from your perspective, Messier was responsible for the acquisition of Todd Bertuzzi, Ed Jovanovski,and the pick used to draft the Sedins. When the Canucks put up 83 points his final year there (their highest points total since 1994), that's Messier's doing. Mark Messier should be credited for stopping Vancouver's decline that began well before he signed and their continued rise after he left.

And in New York you want to credit Messier for trading for Jagr and all the assets when the Rangers finally cleaned house at the 04 trade deadline. I guess it's possible Messier is not just a HOF player but actually an excellent GM too but I don't see it that way.