Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
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.