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

[Hardyvan123]

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?

Well I can give you 6 million reasons why management here in Vancouver did think so and Glen Sather hasn't been an average GM since he left Edmonton

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.

Moose was very actively involved in voicing his opinion and seeking his control and stamp on that Vancouver room.

Part of it was the fault of new ownership and management to be sure but when push came to shove it was always more about Moose than it was about the Canucks...period.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Well I can give you 6 million reasons why management here in Vancouver did think so and Glen Sather hasn't been an average GM since he left Edmonton

The expectation in Vancouver was that Messier would make them a Stanley Cup contender and in New York the Rangers were bringing back their Stanley Cup hero, to get them back into the playoffs. Those were the expectations of those teams at those times but now in hindsight knowing what happened is that something that Mark Messier at that point in his career should of been able to deliver?

Moose was very actively involved in voicing his opinion and seeking his control and stamp on that Vancouver room.

Part of it was the fault of new ownership and management to be sure but when push came to shove it was always more about Moose than it was about the Canucks...period.

Fair enough and in hindsight the moves that were made were positive for the Canucks. It was cancerous locker room with a captain (Linden) who quit on his team, once Captain/General Manager Messier was able to clear out all the deadwood he got the team moving back in the right direction.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The expectation in Vancouver was that Messier would make them a Stanley Cup contender and in New York the Rangers were bringing back their Stanley Cup hero, to get them back into the playoffs. Those were the expectations of those teams at those times but now in hindsight knowing what happened is that something that Mark Messier at that point in his career should of been able to deliver?

No one seriously expected the canucks to challenge for a SC, sure every team hopes but it was a bad call by managment and Moose milked it for his ego.

Fair enough and in hindsight the moves that were made were positive for the Canucks. It was cancerous locker room with a captain (Linden) who quit on his team, once Captain/General Manager Messier was able to clear out all the deadwood he got the team moving back in the right direction.

Yes the moves turned out great for the Canucks but you can spend the rest of time trying to find any player, or part of that management team (except perhaps that bagman from Seattle) that thought Linden was a cancer and you would still be looking.

You are totally out to lunch on that assertion.

The Canucks got better with some very good trades, including the Linden one, but Moose was long gone by then and even then it was a team that always under achieved come playoff time, kinda like recently

 

[Hammer Time]

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?

So far you've only named forwards. The Canucks' issues during those dark years were with keeping pucks out of their own net. Goalie graveyard years, as they're often called. But that big ego Messier just had to refuse to switch positions. He could have been a defenceman or a goalie, which is what the team really needed, but the Moose was such a big dick that he refused.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Yes the moves turned out great for the Canucks but you can spend the rest of time trying to find any player, or part of that management team (except perhaps that bagman from Seattle) that thought Linden was a cancer and you would still be looking.

I didn't say Linden was a cancer, I said they had a cancerous locker room with a captain who quit on his team. That Vancouver team had serious lockeroom issues, their best player was mad at the organization, they had a bunch of players who were hero's from that 94 team who were basically done and then their captain gives away the captaincy because he's afraid to take the heat if the team fails.

The Canucks got better with some very good trades, including the Linden one, but Moose was long gone by then and even then it was a team that always under achieved come playoff time, kinda like recently

If people want to discredit Messier because he had stroke with management than he should also get credit for positive changes that happened while he was there, even if the full effects weren't seen until after he was gone.

 

[Killion]

I didn't say Linden was a cancer, I said they had a cancerous locker room with a captain who quit on his team. That Vancouver team had serious lockeroom issues, their best player was mad at the organization, they had a bunch of players who were hero's from that 94 team who were basically done and then their captain gives away the captaincy because he's afraid to take the heat if the team fails.

Sonny, this is revisionism at its worst. Linden voluntarily gave up his Captaincy to Messier as here the Canucks had just acquired "The Captain" in the NHL. A guy who's legend loomed larger than life. The moment he walked into the dressing room owned it. Exactly why Messier was left off of Team Canada when the club was built around an Eric Lindros Captaincy for the Olympics. Trevor Linden is/was a total class act & never "quit" on anyone nor his team, team mates. Your theory is completely off-base, bordering on the specious. Where or how you arrived at such a conclusion I have no idea. Patently false.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Sonny, this is revisionism at its worst. Linden voluntarily gave up his Captaincy to Messier as here the Canucks had just acquired "The Captain" in the NHL. A guy who's legend loomed larger than life. The moment he walked into the dressing room owned it. Exactly why Messier was left off of Team Canada when the club was built around an Eric Lindros Captaincy for the Olympics. Trevor Linden is/was a total class act & never "quit" on anyone nor his team, team mates. Your theory is completely off-base, bordering on the specious. Where or how you arrived at such a conclusion I have no idea. Patently false.

"It was just something I had to do. If I remained the captain, bringing in a player with his history and leadership qualities, if things did go wrong I was going to be second-guessed the whole time. So my only option was to say to, 'Mark, listen, I think this is the way it should be,' and Mark accepted it, so we moved on."

 

[Hardyvan123]

"It was just something I had to do. If I remained the captain, bringing in a player with his history and leadership qualities, if things did go wrong I was going to be second-guessed the whole time. So my only option was to say to, 'Mark, listen, I think this is the way it should be,' and Mark accepted it, so we moved on."

Putting the team first and you are somehow thinking this is quitting on the team?

Alot of things are debatable here, Linden's effort and desire for the Canucks isn't one of those things.

 

[Killion]

"It was just something I had to do. If I remained the captain, bringing in a player with his history and leadership qualities, if things did go wrong I was going to be second-guessed the whole time. So my only option was to say to, 'Mark, listen, I think this is the way it should be,' and Mark accepted it, so we moved on."

And you interpret that comment as Trevor Linden "bailing" on his team mates & the Canucks. That he's abrogating his responsibilities & transferring the onus of responsibility onto Mark Messiers shoulders yes?

Well, I think you should maybe reconsider your interpretation and really break that comment down because your not quite catching the nuances & context of the statement.... the key there is that bolded sentence. He wasnt quitting nor was he abrogating his responsibilities. He was merely deferring his Captaincy to Mark Messier who's resume was far more impressive than his own, and as I posted earler, "The Captain" in the NHL during his days with Edmonton & the Rangers. He walked into any dressing room in the NHL, he owned it.

Didnt matter whether it was Vancouver, LA or Colorado. New Captain of the club. So Lindros passed him the C. Not as a selfish act, as a selfless one. For the good of the club. Here. This guys a better Leader. Proven Winner. Had he not done so, and the team slides then yes, he'd be 2nd guessed by the Coaches, media & fans. No one likes to be 2nd guessed and if youve got the premier Captain of all Captains on your team, give the guy the C. Theres only room for one Alpha, and Messier was it. Period.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Putting the team first and you are somehow thinking this is quitting on the team?

Alot of things are debatable here, Linden's effort and desire for the Canucks isn't one of those things.

He didn't put the team first, he put his reputation first, he didn't think Messier was the better choice as captain of the Canucks, he was afraid of being blamed for not giving up the C if the team failed. He didn't say it was the right thing to do, he said he no choice.

 

[Killion]

Ok gang, honestly, enough now about Trevor Linden & Mark Messier. We can all agree to disagree on that one.
Bottom line, this thread is about Joe Pelletiers Top 100 Hockey Players of All Time, so lets reel it back in please...

 

[VMBM]

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.

I guess it's just my blind faith in them, heh. Not a lock per se, but still a strong possibility, as far as I'm concerned.

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

Again, please show how their scoring records are worse/more suspect than e.g. Makarov's or Larionov's. Makarov too scored a lot less vs. Czechoslovakia than, say, vs. Finland, so what? And if anyone's scoring record in international play is mediocre, it's Larionov's.

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

Sure, 'very good' sums his career up pretty well, I think. But that's sort of the problem: he was never great IMO.