Mogilny - Why did he refuse to play at 2002 Olympics?

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
I think he owes his family far more than he owes some stupid invisible lines we've divided amongst ourselves when it comes to both life and hockey.

So having your summers off being able to retire whenever you'd like isn't enough of a luxury? I wouldn't call Wayne Gretzky a neglectful father but he was at the tournament every time he was asked. That's loyalty and Bourque lacked it later on in his career regardless of how you want to spin it.

Don't take my word for it, Don Cherry himself a guy who never said a negative thing about Bourque criticized him for it in the 1996 World Cup. Shall I bring up the video?
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,979
1,802
Rostov-on-Don
So having your summers off being able to retire whenever you'd like isn't enough of a luxury? I wouldn't call Wayne Gretzky a neglectful father but he was at the tournament every time he was asked. That's loyalty and Bourque lacked it later on in his career regardless of how you want to spin it.

Don't take my word for it, Don Cherry himself a guy who never said a negative thing about Bourque criticized him for it in the 1996 World Cup. Shall I bring up the video?

What Don Cherry thinks, that 'family man' Gretzky made time to play in CC, or that Bourque had the luxury of summers off is all immaterial.
Fact is - a person is never neglectful for choosing family first regardless of how much time normally spent with them.....and particularly when the alternative is some sports tournament.

Now if Bourque was fishing with buddies or gambling in Vegas you'd have a point, but I don't think this was the case.

Sorry, but family >> canada cup
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,738
16,127
this is kind of beside the point, because i don't judge ray bourque for his summertime choices. but no one in the history of the game has played as many minutes as ray bourque did.

in '91, he was coming off 13 playoff rounds in the last four years, all while routinely playing 30-35 minutes a game, and usually more than that in the playoffs. whatever else was going on in his life, the man needed a rest, even if he was a physical freak.

in '96, he's still averaging 30 minutes a game and he's 35 years old. he's played ungodly minutes for the last 17 years, and made the playoffs every year too, so there's a lot of extra games right there. he'd played three canada cups, which is fine when you're 21, 24, and 27, but like markus naslund said the year sweden won in the olympics, a guy's first responsibility is to the organization that pays him millions of dollars to compete for a stanley cup, and older guys need more a break when they can get it.

i can hear the response now: if chelios can do it, ray bourque can do it. well yeah, he could have, but that doesn't mean it would have been the right decision for him.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
What Don Cherry thinks, that 'family man' Gretzky made time to play in CC, or that Bourque had the luxury of summers off is all immaterial.
Fact is - a person is never neglectful for choosing family first regardless of how much time normally spent with them.....and particularly when the alternative is some sports tournament.

Now if Bourque was fishing with buddies or gambling in Vegas you'd have a point, but I don't think this was the case.

Sorry, but family >> canada cup

Too bad the other guys who played in the NHL didn't have families either. Whether Bourque had played in the World Cup in 1996 or not he'd still have had plenty of time to spend with his family because Boston was out early. He retired at 40 years young with the ability to not lift a finger the rest of his life. Thanks to hockey and the country that taught him this game he is filthy rich for the rest of his life. He didn't have a month and a half every 5 years in his 30s to repay them? Sad.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,738
16,127
Too bad the other guys who played in the NHL didn't have families either. Whether Bourque had played in the World Cup in 1996 or not he'd still have had plenty of time to spend with his family because Boston was out early. He retired at 40 years young with the ability to not lift a finger the rest of his life. Thanks to hockey and the country that taught him this game he is filthy rich for the rest of his life. He didn't have a month and a half every 5 years in his 30s to repay them? Sad.

again, not to make an argument moralizing about bourque's actions, just to present facts that may have some bearing on this conversation: when bourque retired at age 40, one of his sons was already off at boarding school pursuing his hockey career. his daughter was about to go off to college. his other son was the only one left at home.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
again, not to make an argument moralizing about bourque's actions, just to present facts that may have some bearing on this conversation: when bourque retired at age 40, one of his sons was already off at boarding school pursuing his hockey career. his daughter was about to go off to college. his other son was the only one left at home.

Chris Bourque I am assuming you are refering to. Yeah, he'd be 10 years old or so at that time in 2001. In reality, they all lived in Boston with him his whole career and Bourque would see the summers off all the time just like any other NHL player. It isn't as if Ray was fighting for his country with the chance of being blown up in Afghanistan or anything. But that 1996 defence corps for Canada was weak especially when MacInnis dropped from an injury. I think he had plenty of time to spend with his kids.

It pales in comparison to Gretzky. Here is a guy who won the Cup in 1984, 1985 and 1987. He played for the Canada Cup in 1984. He never missed an all-star game. He played full seasons. And at the end of the 1987 Cup final he suggested he needed a "break". Just suggested, that's all. In an interview all he wanted people to know is that he had played a lot of hockey and that he never said he wouldn't play in the 1987 Canada Cup. Did you see Gretzky in the 1996 World Cup? The guy had aged but was still a good hockey player. He was criticized for wanting out of L.A. and had a longer playoffs than Bourque. At the exact same age as Bourque with many children (I think Janet and Wayne have 5 kids overall) he still played in the 1996 World Cup for his country.

And Ray's excuse?
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,738
16,127
ryan bourque was 10. chris, five years older, left in ninth grade to attend prep school.

but like i said, just because it's good enough for one guy doesn't necessarily make it a moral imperative, and it doesn't mean ray is a bad person or an ungrateful jerk or whathaveyou for making a different choice.

also, as i said, i want no part of this debate. just presenting facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
ryan bourque was 10. chris, five years older, left in ninth grade to attend prep school.

but like i said, just because it's good enough for one guy doesn't necessarily make it a moral imperative, and it doesn't mean ray is a bad person or an ungrateful jerk or whathaveyou for making a different choice.

also, as i said, i want no part of this debate. just presenting facts.

Nah, Ray's not a bad person. But I just believe he gets off the hook more than he should regarding that.
 

IslandersFan

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
696
39
New Jersey
Visit site
I think the point totally went over your head. If not for Canada Bourque wouldn't have been in the NHL. Had he been born in Ohio which is not a hockey hotbed, he'd almost certainly not have made the NHL. He owes the Canadian coaches, the junior program, etc. The money Bourque made playing in the NHL is something he owes to his country for teaching him the game so well. By 1996 Bourque had been in Boston for 17 years and it's safe to say he forgot about his roots as to what got him there in the first place. The Canada Cup was played in 1991. The World Cup was in 1996. He couldn't sacrifice part of a summer every 5 years?
Sure. Because his god-given talent, ability, desire, or perseverance had absolutely nothing to do at all with his success.

Anyone in Canada can be a hockey Hall of Famer because the Canadian coaches and their Junior programs are really THAT spectacular.

Who would’ve ever thought that its as simple as being born in Canada to play hockey. I need to go home and smack my parents for not moving the family north of the border so MY talentless ass could’ve made the NHL.
 

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
26,030
15,602
San Diego
2d56b77.jpg


Sometimes I forget that Fetisov was an assistant coach on the 2000 and 2001 Devils teams that had Mogilny. As others said, there was likely some lingering distrust between Mogilny and the powers that be in Russia. I remember one anecdote from when Mogilny was in Vancouver; Apparently Mike Keenan was chewing him out during an intermission and Mogilny calmly responded with something like "In Russia they threatened to kill my family, do you think you're going to scare me?"

Not sure if it was a secondary factor, but perhaps Mogilny was a little burned out after two extended playoff runs in 2000 and 2001? I always thought the 2001-02 Devils had a bit of playoff hangover plus a handful of guys (Elias, Sykora, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Brodeur) played in the Olympics as well.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
Sure. Because his god-given talent, ability, desire, or perseverance had absolutely nothing to do at all with his success.

Anyone in Canada can be a hockey Hall of Famer because the Canadian coaches and their Junior programs are really THAT spectacular.

Who would’ve ever thought that its as simple as being born in Canada to play hockey. I need to go home and smack my parents for not moving the family north of the border so MY talentless ass could’ve made the NHL.

You don't think Bourque had coaches and a system in Canada that helped foster his talent?

Anyway, you disagree. But it was irritating to not have him in 1996. 1991 was bad enough, but we won so it softens the blow. 1996 we needed a rock like that on defense. Everyone knows Lemieux alone makes a huge difference in the series outcome. But even if the only other player we got was Bourque, I think he makes the difference in Canada winning then as well.
 

TheGoldenJet

Registered User
Apr 2, 2008
9,446
4,548
Coquitlam, BC
Self-explanatory question. Zhitnik and Zubov also declined Fetisov's invitation. At this point, Mogilny already had played for Russia in the 1996 World Cup so I don't think it was leftover resentment from his defection.

Anyone have any insight?
As far as I remember, it was because the players suffered abuse at the hands of Russian coaching staff at the 96 World Cup.

Might have cost Russia a gold medal in ‘98, which serves them right for doing that to their own players.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,979
1,802
Rostov-on-Don
As far as I remember, it was because the players suffered abuse at the hands of Russian coaching staff at the 96 World Cup.

Might have cost Russia a gold medal in ‘98, which serves them right for doing that to their own players.

Nah. Nobody 'abused' anybody.
But a dichotomy existed with old-school Boris Mikhailov coaching NHL millionares. The result was a shit-show at the 1996 World Cup.

From that point many players refused to play because the 1996 debacle showed the Russian Ice Hockey Federation to still be a corrupt joke of an entity.. among other things.

It wasn't until Tretiak was elected head of the Federation in '06, and, ironically, Putin put his weight behind things, did the Federation clean up its act and modernize. That's when NHLers started flocking to play for the national team.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenJet

TheGoldenJet

Registered User
Apr 2, 2008
9,446
4,548
Coquitlam, BC
Nah. Nobody 'abused' anybody.
But a dichotomy existed with old-school Boris Mikhailov coaching NHL millionares. The result was a shit-show at the 1996 World Cup.

From that point many players refused to play because the 1996 debacle showed the Russian Ice Hockey Federation to still be a corrupt joke of an entity.. among other things.

It wasn't until Tretiak was elected head of the Federation in '06, and, ironically, Putin put his weight behind things, did the Federation clean up its act and modernize. That's when NHLers started flocking to play for the national team.
Too bad for the fans that they failed to capitalize on a potential golden age in the mid 90s with Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Zubov, Zhamnov, Malakhov, Gonchar, Kamensky, Konstantinov, Kovalev etc. due to problems between the players and their Federation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,866
13,848
Somewhere on Uranus
Self-explanatory question. Zhitnik and Zubov also declined Fetisov's invitation. At this point, Mogilny already had played for Russia in the 1996 World Cup so I don't think it was leftover resentment from his defection.

Anyone have any insight?
old school russian ideas vs NHLERS who had been to the promise land and saw that they were not pieces of meat
 

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,406
654
Gladstone, Australia
I'm intrigued by the nearly twelve-year-old thread bump. What necessitated this, @IslandersFan ?
Sometimes youre reading old threads on specific topics and see something that makes you say "aww hell no"
old school russian ideas vs NHLERS who had been to the promise land and saw that they were not pieces of meat
Even as late as 2010 I recall their olympic team was still using set in stone 5-man units, which was practically stone age at that point

Dont know about since, although Id assume theyve relaxed on some things like that since 2016 or so
 

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,406
654
Gladstone, Australia
Pronger was actually in consideration in August 1996. MacInnis had fallen ill and Rob Blake suffered a groin problem, so Glen Sather had to look for replacements. After an "emergency call" to Ray Bourque went unheard, Ed Jovanovski and Chris Pronger were under discussion, but Sather finally opted for Sylvain Côté.
Just because I looked it up and cant make sense of it:

Macinnis: Right shot
Blake: Right shot

To be replaced in lineup with

Bourque: Left shot
Jovanovski: Left shot
Pronger: Left shot

mr-bean-why.gif


Were all coaches prior to babcock just oblivious to putting defencemen on their natural side?
 

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
26,030
15,602
San Diego
Were all coaches prior to babcock just oblivious to putting defencemen on their natural side?

This kinda came up in a different thread, but RD being exclusively right handed shots wasn't as prevalent in the 90's. As I remember it, Bourque played a lot on the right side for Boston. Not sure about Pronger in 1996, but I think he mostly played on the right side for Anaheim/Philadelphia later in his career.

Speaking of Babcock, in the other thread I pointed out the 2003 Finals between Anaheim and New Jersey featured 11 out of the 12 defensemen being lefties and that being something we likely won't see again. The Conference Finalists (Minnesota/Ottawa) also had five left shot D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Stathead

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,979
2,360
Were all coaches prior to babcock just oblivious to putting defencemen on their natural side?
My own impression of that is that strictness over D position is something that's waxed and waned over time. I think Babcock incepted the concept in a lot of fans' consciousness though, it's not something I often saw discussed and debated before him.
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,566
59,697
Ottawa, ON
You don't think Bourque had coaches and a system in Canada that helped foster his talent?

Anyway, you disagree. But it was irritating to not have him in 1996. 1991 was bad enough, but we won so it softens the blow. 1996 we needed a rock like that on defense. Everyone knows Lemieux alone makes a huge difference in the series outcome. But even if the only other player we got was Bourque, I think he makes the difference in Canada winning then as well.

I like how you are carrying on with the same exact point 12 years later as if no time has passed. ;)

It’s like waking up from a coma and just continuing a conversation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nerowoy nora tolad

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,145
I like how you are carrying on with the same exact point 12 years later as if no time has passed. ;)

It’s like waking up from a coma and just continuing a conversation.

What can I say? I still think/wish Bourque had played in the 1996 World Cup. Thought so in 1996, thought so 12 years ago, think so today. Would have made a world of difference.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad