Advance Notice: I will not be posting further on this subject -- and I certainly won't be responding to posters who confront me -- because my experience on this forum is that any attempt at a rational discussion about Messier's time in Vancouver brings out the worst in posters (a small minority of Canuck fans) who feel it is their sworn duty to loudly denigrate anything to do with Messier in this particular time frame.
With that out of the way, I will now present some cold, hard reality for those who might have been around at that time or who aren't well-versed in the topic (because I wouldn't want them to believe a lot of the stuff posted so far in this thread):
Accusation #1: Messier's arrival destroyed the team
REALITY: The Canucks were already well-into a sharp decline before Messier arrived.
Before Messier:
94/95: 18-18-12 (2nd place)
95/96: 32-35-15 (3rd place)
96/97: 35-40-7 (4th place, missed playoffs)
With Messier:
97/98: 25-43-14 (7th place, missed playoffs)
98/99: 23-47-12 (4th place, missed playoffs)
99/00: 30-29-15-8 (3rd place, missed playoffs by four points)
In retrospect (and at the time, if anyone was looking at it rationally), it's obvious that the early-90s' Canucks team was falling apart from about 1995, and the free-agent signing attempts of Gretzky in '96 (Wayne was willing but Canucks' Stan McCammon, reporting to John McCaw, botched it), and Messier in '97 (successfuly), were desperate moves to prop-up a team in decline. Mess's arrival in autumn '97 coincided with the team's nadir circa 1997-98... whether he was there or not.
Accusation #2: Messier demanded Wayne Maki's retired #11
REALITY: #11 was NOT retired, and it was the Canucks management that told Messier he could wear #11 before he arrived in Vancouver, without consulting the Maki family
Like, duh! This is supposed to be Messier's fault?? An obscure player, who died when Mess was 8 years old (in the middle of violent stick-fight), is supposed to be on a free-agent's mind in 1997 as he's looking for a multi-million dollar deal? How is a brand-new free-agent signing supposed to have "respect for (Canucks') history"? Isn't that managements' job? Is Messier supposed to come into the dressing room, see his #11 practice jersey, and immediately say: "Attention! After my careful off-season study of Canucks' history, I -- on my first day here -- refuse to wear the jersey management has given me because I know a lot about an obscure player!" (cue standing ovation from dressing room)
From The Vancouver Sun, October 18th 1997:
No. 11 was re-issued to new Canuck captain Mark Messier this season after 23 years out of circulation. Beverly Maki was not contacted before the Messier signing July 28 and was shocked to discover her husband's number had been re-issued watching the news conference on television. She doesn't object to Messier wearing No. 11 but would like the number retired again following Messier's career.
Around this time (just after?), Beverly Maki said: "We've offered to let Mark wear it for the three years he plays here and then we want them to retire the number again."
In fact, Pat Quinn had told Messier that everything had been taken care of before he arrived, but in fact no one from the Canucks had contacted the Maki family. Canucks' management deserve 100% of the blame here, and it is to them that fans should express their anger.
Accusation #3: Messier demanded Linden relinquish the captaincy
REALITY: Linden offered it to Messier freely
When Messier signed in Vancouver at the '97 press conference, he was asked about the captaincy and he publicly endorsed Linden, saying there was no reason to change the captain. However, years later, Linden admitted he felt had had no choice but to give up the captaincy because if the team failed, he was going to get second guessed. That is, Linden completely chickened out at the moment the team was going into a decline. (I don't necessarily fault Linden, though, because it seems that he was under pressure -- probably from Canucks' management, again -- to defer to the high-priced veteran they'd just signed.)
Somehow, Canucks' management subtly pressuring Linden to consider giving up the 'C' has been twisted into "The-evil-Messier-told-noble-Linden-to-give-him-the-'C'-now-or-else!". What Linden should have done here was man-up and do exactly what he told the BC-media he planned to do in September 1997 -- keep the 'C' and just let Messier be another veteran leadership presence in the room. Linden chose not to do what he had planned to do.
Accusation #4: Messier's presence dispirited the Canucks' dressing room
REALITY: The Canucks' dressing room was in a shambolic state, with Linden as captain, from at least 1996, if not 1995.
From LCS-Hockey (1997):
In the summer of 1995 . . . Once holdout captain Trevor Linden was signed, that was supposed to be the year the Canucks took their offense to the next level. Instead . . . rumors of strife and conflict swirled around players and coaching staff alike. After months of speculation, Pat Quinn fired his taciturn coach, Rick Ley, and stepped behind the bench himself....
So, in the summer of 1996, Quinn addressed the dissension in the dressing room by hiring a young, articulate "players’ coach", Tom Renney. Changing the mood was supposed to fix the vibe in the Vancouver dressing room and once again, come training camp, fans were cautiously optimistic about the fresh start. Once again, it didn’t take long for the vision to unravel.... A few big-margin losses quickly drained away all the promised team-spirit, so in-fighting and finger-pointing became the team traditions in a year where the Canucks failed to make the playoffs for the first time this decade.
This is all one year or more before Messier arrived. (Wait, wasn't Linden supposed to be the perfect captain...?) In spring 1997, when Esa Tikkanen and Russ Courtnall were both picked up by the Rangers at the deadline, they both commented publicly on how dysfunctional the Canucks' team was at that time.
Years after Messier left, people like Markus Naslund and Brian Burke have repeatedly praised Mess's leadership qualities during that difficult period for the franchise. (The only Canuck I'm aware of who threw Mess under the bus is that notable Hall of Famer, Gino Odjick, whose 15-minutes of local fame were up by then.)
Accusation #5: Messier's play was terrible & he was hated by Canuck fans
REALITY: Messier's play was passable, considering his age, and he was voted team MVP by the Vancouver fans in 2000
Remembering that Messier was 36 to 39 years old, his point production was:
1998 - 0.73 PPG (3rd on the Canucks)
1999 - 0.81 PPG (2nd on the Canucks)
2000 - 0.82 PPG (2nd on the Canucks)
Since the Dead-Puck era started (roughly 1998 forward), Mess's 0.82 PPG is the 10th-highest in the NHL among 39, 40, and 41-year-olds (min. 40 games played). And most of the names above him played on considerably better teams.
And, again -- this is the hard one for Canucks' fans to swallow -- Messier was voted team MVP for 1999-2000 by Canucks' fans. This, when he was almost 40.
(Five years from now, will Alex Ovechkin be able to get 0.82 PPG? I doubt it.)
Messier's MVP-of-team status in 2000 was probably well deserved. The 1999-2000 Canucks went through a stretch where they won just 3 times in 16 games without injured Mark Messier in the line-up -- and in those final 30 games with Messier, they won 15 games and collected 37 points, missing the playoffs by just 4 points. In that 30 game playoff push, Messier had 26 points. In other words, had 39-year-old Mess not missed some games, they'd probably have made the playoffs in 2000.
Clearly, Messier was not at his best in Vancouver (duh!), and he was not as physically or defensively engaged as during his salad years. But that's exactly what you'd expect from someone his age -- like, say, Joe Thornton today with San Jose.
I could go on, but that's enough...
CONCLUSION:
The Canucks from 1997 to 2000 sucked, with or without Messier. Obviously Messier didn't play that well (though not that bad either), nor did the team, but only a loser-mentality would attempt to pin this on one player. THE FACT IS THIS WAS A NON-PLAYOFF TEAM, AND ALREADY IN DECLINE, BEFORE MESSIER ARRIVED.
The Canucks'-management is mainly to blame for bringing in Messier when it should have been obvious that a youth-movement led by up-and-comers was what was needed, not a pushing-40 veteran, who -- by virtue of his weighty contract -- would be forced into playing big minutes.
At the end of the day, Messier had about 17 brilliant, Hall of Fame seasons (1980-1997) when he was the 2nd to 4th best center in hockey, the winningest player (along with Trottier, Lowe), and he was widely popular and respected by fans, teammates, and media. He is one of the greatest hockey leaders of all time, and his reputation there is fully deserved. His piddly three years on the west coast playing for a team in decline is never going to change that.
