Why Mark Messier is Often Regarded the Worst/Most Hated Vancouver Canuck of All Time.

[quoipourquoi]

I don't think you really know what you're saying with the bolded. The Fan perception of the fans perception is overblown?

The argument isn't "Here is why Messier was hated by Management". Rather it's "Here's why Messier is hated by the FANS".

In the end it doesn't really matter if you think the reasons why Canucks fans hate Messier are valid, and really it doesn't matter if there even are. This thread, if nothing else, should clear up OUR reasons for hating him. Of course their not going to be objective, they are in fact inherently subjective.

But none of that can stop yourself or Panther or anyone else from taking pot shots at Canucks fans for feeling the way they do. Or loving the 94 team. Or Loving Trevor Linden. Or hating Messier/Keenan. Whatever. We're used to it. We've never gotten respect and we never will.

Um... no.

"This thread is designed to share with readers the story of Mark Messier's relationship with the Vancouver Canucks throughout the 1990s."

It's about the actual Vancouver Canucks.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Um... no.

"This thread is designed to share with readers the story of Mark Messier's relationship with the Vancouver Canucks throughout the 1990s."

It's about the actual Vancouver Canucks.

Look at the title. What group of people "regard" players? The fans. Your sentence is still accurate, Jets is attempting to explain the relationship between Messier and Canucks brass, Vancouver media, his teammates and the fans. But the point of the thread is to explain why the fans feel the way we do about him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know what you guys are even arguing about now, the OP is clearly intended to be both about fan perception (see title) and Messier's actual effect on the team (see first full paragraph after the disclaimer).

Edit: And some of us are focusing on the Canucks trying to bring Messier back (for less money), because that his what the OP used to bump this thread.

 

[JA]

I'm going to disagree on that. Getting rid of Linden and McLean and the country club crew absolutely is a rebuild - and it's one that didn't go over well with the super-fans like Andrew Castell. Because when a team like the 1994 Vancouver Canucks becomes as iconic as it did, no one wants to see the milk go sour. It wasn't a franchise that was one missing piece away from being a contender as many overly-optimistic people believed; it was a franchise that needed an overhaul. And the outsiders who drove the change were blamed (even though it was healthy for the franchise), because people shoot messengers.

With or without the Mark Messier signing, the 1997-98 Vancouver Canucks were going to be a horrible team. It's just easier to blame the under-performing newcomer than the diminishing talents of the players who missed their window for a championship.

This is from a year ago, and it was all that ever needed to be said on the topic:

That's the answer to the question of why Mark Messier is hated. He's the scapegoat for breaking up the band that hadn't been playing the right notes in years.

Keenan's sights were set on winning. Post #257 examines this:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=105025611&postcount=257

The moves that Keenan made, aside from the Linden trade, were not helpful; the behavior and statements of Keenan, in addition to his clash with Brian Burke, demonstrate that he wanted nothing more than to swap out players for those who he felt could bring immediate success to the team, sometimes at below value. Again, why was Jyrki Lumme allowed to become a UFA without any return in a trade? Keenan felt he could make a playoff push. This is the definition of poor management.

Peter Zezel, 32 years old at the time, spent the first half of the year in the AHL. The Canucks lost a second round pick for an aging player. Zezel was finished.

Would it have been awesome if Todd Bertuzzi and Sean Burke had performed at the level in 1998 that they would go on to become in 2002? Absolutely.

The Sean Burke deal ended up becoming nothing because he only played 16 games and went 2-9-4 before being shipped to Philadelphia two months later for Garth Snow. Geoff Sanderson, a player with a similar career to Martin Gelinas', was traded after 9 games for Brad May -- literally two weeks into his time with the Canucks. Keenan did say he was impatient. You can't give credit to a GM who trades for a player and then trades him away a handful of games later. You don't just flip Sean Burke after just over a dozen games for Garth Snow. That's not rebuilding; that's trying to win right away, being upset that there are no immediate results, and then trying again to achieve immediate results. In the process he's yelling at players, smashing sticks and embarrassing individuals in front of their teammates all while Messier, who said he would protect the players, takes the coach's side; rumors are planted so that players feel more vulnerable and become more likely to listen to him. Messier is, meanwhile, immune to criticism from the coach and plays a lazy game while touting himself as the person who will bring order to the roster. He communicates with Keenan and plays a role in these trades that are meant to give Keenan more authority through the breaking up of the core; this doesn't work because at the end of the season the whole team is still angry at Keenan. It's a ridiculous way of operating the team.

Two months later, the deal had essentially become:

Martin Gelinas and Kirk McLean for Brad May, Garth Snow, Enrico Cicone and Buffalo's 3rd round pick in 1999.

That's a terrible return, especially since Gelinas was only 27 at the time and eventually rebounded. In the two seasons prior to 1997-98, he had back-to-back 30-goal campaigns and 35 goals in 1996-97.

Keenan wanted to win and when he saw that the new acquisitions weren't doing well he flipped them right away.

Besides that move, here are the others. The only deal that isn't below average is the Linden trade. Linden's trade value the previous season was quite high, as in fact there were rumors of him potentially being traded to Boston for Adam Oates in 1996-97.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1724551

Keenan's Linden trade worked out but, at the time, was far less in terms of value than what Linden was worth at the time, which some articles have alluded to.

To Philadelphia: Mike Sillinger
To Vancouver: 5th round pick in 1998 Draft (Garret Prosofsky)

To Vancouver: Peter Zezel
To New Jersey: 2nd round pick in 1998 (Anton But)

To Islanders: Trevor Linden
To Vancouver: Todd Bertuzzi, Bryan McCabe, and a 3rd round pick in 1998 (Jarko Ruutu)

March 1998: To Boston: Grant Ledyard
To Vancouver: 8th round pick in 1998 (Curtis Valentine)

To Toronto: Lonny Bohonos
To Vancouver: Brandon Convery

To Islanders: Gino Odjick
To Canucks: Jason Strudwick

To Philly: Dave Babych
To Vancouver: 5th round pick in 1998 (Justin Morrison)

To Vancouver: Garth Snow, Enrico Ciccone, Brad May, 3rd round pick in 1999 (Buffalo)
To Carolina/Philadelphia: Kirk McLean, Martin Gelinas

Everyone wants their rebuild to last one week so that the fans don't lose hope and everyone wins championships, but it doesn't always work that way. Let's not minimize how great some of those moves were for the team just because Zezel didn't pan out and Todd Bertuzzi didn't peak the day after New York was fleeced.

I believe Keenan was hoping for a "one-week" retool. The articles document his desire to win and the harsh abuse that the players endured. As mentioned, even Brian Noonan, who won the Stanley Cup with Keenan in 1994 and was a part of three of his previous teams, was sick of Keenan.

The team may have certainly declined, sure, but what Keenan and Messier did was cause a ****storm and alienate everybody, making promises and then accomplishing the exact opposite, portraying themselves as those who would fix problems when they in fact turned themselves into a bigger problem than the Canucks had previously had. Their antics and behavior were a significant part of the problem. They went in there promising to extinguish the fire but instead poured gasoline all over it and made the problem worse. The product was different but not better in 1997-98, and the whole year played out as a gong show. The team faced financial difficulty and the fans lost trust in the organization. The entire ordeal was embarrassing and disrespectful to the fans, to the players, and to the whole organization. People were actually ready to welcome Messier at the start of the season but by the end there were only boos to be heard.

Keenan was the first to go. Burke definitely did not want to keep him around.

And also don't pretend that the whole outside fans just don't understand argument is going to fly when there is a split in opinion on Mark Messier's performance between an emotional fan-base who loved the 1994 Canucks a little too much and the new management who wanted Messier back in 2000-01. They're not fans from New York and Edmonton; they ARE the Vancouver Canucks, and they wanted Mark Messier at $4 million.

With Keenan in control, Messier took liberties with the team. Burke, as I mentioned earlier, believed in having a familiar voice continue to guide the young core that he, for the most part, assembled. This is why he wanted to re-sign Messier at a lower price (aka keep him at a reduced price). The other option, as Burke mentioned, was to bring in Igor Larionov, but that would not have made as much sense since he would have been a new voice to that group.

Whereas Mike Keenan might have traded away Markus Naslund, Burke refused to.

After a few years in other markets, Burke brought back Linden to be the team's veteran voice. Keeping Messier was about maintaining consistency within the dressing room after it had been stabilized by Crawford and Burke.

Keenan tried to create a new culture that just happened to be worse than whatever the Canucks had previously. Messier was complicit and took Keenan's side; whenever Mike had a fit, it was always the player's fault... until Keenan admitted his mistakes the following year. That admission by Keenan of his mistakes in October 1998 while still the Canucks' coach says everything that needs to be said about his reactionary decisions and lack of long-term direction with the team. It was not about rebuilding for Mike; it was about winning. Burke didn't see eye-to-eye with Keenan at all; their philosophies clashed. Burke rescued the team from what might have been the continuation of Keenan's failed attempt(s) to retool on the fly, shock players and achieve immediate results.

If Keenan had become the team's general manager in 1998, there likely would have been very little stability for the team for quite some time longer. Keenan always had issues with maintaining relationships, and his mantra was always to win. McCaw's smartest decision was to hire Burke and give the organization room to breathe and rebuild.

This is not about having "too much affection" for the 1994 squad. People were angry because of terrible management, lies and hypocrisy. The 1997-98 season is when most of the damage was done. In the second and third seasons, Messier's issues were only limited to his emotionless on-ice performances and his broken relationship with fans, which affected ticket sales and reduced the team's popularity. People are angry about the period in which Messier and Keenan embarrassed the organization -- not even for the sake of future success but for a "one week rebuild;" it's about the creation of a toxic culture and the hypocrisy of Messier who got a free pass for his lazy, uninspired play and excuses, and yet who talked about reforming the roster. The 1998-99 and 1999-00 seasons were the aftereffect of the 1997-98 season. Messier continued to play poorly, being detrimental to the on-ice product, and yet Burke built a foundation with smart free agent signings and some good drafting. Off the ice, Messier was limited to doing the only thing he was expected to do -- motivate the players under the watchful eye of Marc Crawford. Under Mike Keenan, Messier was no off-ice motivator but was instead an intrusive presence who did not try to mediate or protect players when Keenan lashed out at them irrationally; he was someone who complained about various factors that were hurting his game, and he tried to have a managerial presence, often leading to him siding against his teammates.

Burke told Messier to just play and stop voicing his opinion to management about various issues or making excuses for his own performance (ice issues, travel, etc). From that point on, he just worked with whatever Burke gave him. Burke was able to control Messier's ego. Consistency within the leadership group, as mentioned earlier (but apparently ignored), is the reason for Burke wanting to re-sign Messier, with Burke having been successful at having the player only be a player.

Of course, seeing as there were so many negatives about Messier's time with the Canucks and only one redeeming factor (which was to be a motivational speaker), he failed to be a positive contributor to the organization. Overall, he was a big failure in Vancouver, one who in Year One was an absolutely awful presence in every aspect and who in Years Two and Three was a big on-ice dud. 1997-98 was his greatest offence amidst three years of supreme disappointment.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Look at the title. What group of people "regard" players? The fans. Your sentence is still accurate, Jets is attempting to explain the relationship between Messier and Canucks brass, Vancouver media, his teammates and the fans. But the point of the thread is to explain why the fans feel the way we do about him.

Why on Earth would there be a thread on the history board where we only open up the discussion to a single fan-base's opinions and not even allow for the discussion of the rationality of that opinion based upon the evidence presented (which in this case, is the franchise trying to re-sign him)? The opening sentence says "there was a period in his career in which he was nothing short of a cancer to his team." Is everyone supposed to ignore exploring that type of opening statement - particularly when even you are telling us that it doesn't matter if the reasons are valid?

JetsAlternate is presenting the reasons as though they are valid. He's telling us WHY Messier is the worst and WHY he was a cancer through pages and pages of newspaper articles. No qualifiers. He's not saying only the fans think this. He's saying that Messier was nothing short of a cancer. And if those reasons aren't good enough to justify why he is hated to the extent that he is, then yes, that will come up on a discussion board.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and their is no reason to insult or disrespect anyone on this board. Just because someone lived through the period in Vancouver doesn't mean their opinion is clouded with emotion and just because someone doesn't live in Vancouver doesn't mean they didn't follow the situation closely and aren't well educated and informed on what happened there.

It's also important to remember just because some of the criticisms of Messier may be proven to be unfair or exaggerated doesn't make all of them so. The research by JetsAlternate and others is excellent and make for great analysis and discussion.

For the record, I respect the Canucks fans and what they have gone through, I am also no fan of Mike Keenan and think Mark Messier is very obnoxious.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Of course, seeing as there were so many negatives about Messier's time with the Canucks and only one redeeming factor (which was to be a motivational speaker), he failed to be a positive contributor to the organization. Overall, he was a big failure in Vancouver, one who in Year One was an absolutely awful presence in every aspect and who in Years Two and Three was a big on-ice dud. 1997-98 was his greatest offence amidst three years of supreme disappointment.

Brian Burke's opinion on Mark Messier's commitment to the Canucks and having him as a player in Vancouver:

Former Canucks GM Brian Burke disputes any notion that Messier wasn’t completely engaged in making a difference for the team. Burke, who was GM for Messier’s final two seasons in Vancouver, said he offered to move Messier to another team both years at the NHL trade deadline, but the Canucks’ captain declined each time. The second year, Burke made the offer after he’d told
Messier he wouldn’t be bringing him back.

“He said he came here to do a job,†said Burke, now the President of the Calgary Flames.

“I know Mess,†said Burke. “He always said (the criticism) never bothered him, but I think he cares more than he lets on. It was a privilege to have him as a player. I have a lot of respect for Mark Messier and Canucks fans should too.â€

Tom Renney's opinion on Messier's efforts in Vancouver:

Renney said it’s clear the expiry date had run out on that Canucks team.

“That was an organization and a team that had already had it’s 1994 run to the Cup … and ultimately was the victim of attrition,†he said. “It wouldn’t have mattered who was in there at the time, there was a shelf-life for that team that had met its time. Every organization gets to that point and how far they fall is relative to your depth, your young players, your veteran group and your leadership.

“We didn’t have that fortified look in Vancouver and I don’t think Mark had anything to do with that. It was a function of what the roster was, where people were in their careers, in my case a coach still getting acquainted with the NHL. Through no one’s fault that was what the group looked like and Mark did everything he could to be a difference-maker.â€

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/09/14/101-greatest-canucks-messier-the-most-controversial-pick/

 

[Mayor Bee]

And I didn't say that you don't deserve to have opinions. I said that it's silly of MS and Mayor Bee to talk about "uninvolved parties" who "know absolutely nothing" when the actual Vancouver Canucks wanted Mark Messier at $4 million. Because that's a damn good reason to think that the Vancouver fan perception is overblown. If Mark Messier was a cancer, why does Vancouver want him at $4 million? Not an Oiler fan. Not a Ranger fan. The Vancouver Canucks.

I mean, you're welcome to point out exactly where I said you're not allowed to have an opinion if you think that's what I said. I said it's ridiculous to try to deny others their opinions, especially when the Vancouver Canucks themselves are about as far removed from being uninvolved parties who know absolutely nothing as it gets. I said basically the opposite of what you're saying I did.

Well, certainly no one can find an example of a team doing the exact opposite of both what's good for the fans and what's good for the team. So we're left being able to deduce that obviously Dan Cleary was still a quality NHL player for a decade since Detroit brought him back time and time again while keeping the kids down in the AHL.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well, certainly no one can find an example of a team doing the exact opposite of both what's good for the fans and what's good for the team. So we're left being able to deduce that obviously Dan Cleary was still a quality NHL player for a decade since Detroit brought him back time and time again while keeping the kids down in the AHL.

The parallel there would be if Detroit fans were telling fans of other teams not to challenge the assertion that Dan Cleary is the worst player in the history of the Detroit Red Wings and an absolute team cancer on a discussion board. The mere fact that the Detroit Red Wings do like Dan Cleary runs contradictory to the hypothetical premise that it's only the uninvolved parties that know absolutely nothing about Dan Cleary who defend him, when even the directly involved parties are absolving the player from the assertion.

You can't come into a discussion board and say "For the life of me, I can't understand why uninvolved parties feel the need to defend someone where he cannot be defended" when even Brian Burke and Tom Renney are defending Mark Messier.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Why on Earth would there be a thread on the history board where we only open up the discussion to a single fan-base's opinions and not even allow for the discussion of the rationality of that opinion based upon the evidence presented (which in this case, is the franchise trying to re-sign him)? The opening sentence says "there was a period in his career in which he was nothing short of a cancer to his team." Is everyone supposed to ignore exploring that type of opening statement - particularly when even you are telling us that it doesn't matter if the reasons are valid?

JetsAlternate is presenting the reasons as though they are valid. He's telling us WHY Messier is the worst and WHY he was a cancer through pages and pages of newspaper articles. No qualifiers. He's not saying only the fans think this. He's saying that Messier was nothing short of a cancer. And if those reasons aren't good enough to justify why he is hated to the extent that he is, then yes, that will come up on a discussion board.

Some of the posts aimed towards Canucks fans, both in this thread and of the time, are NOT rational or evidence based. That's the problem. It's fine to say "Messier didn't know he was taking Maki's #11", it's NOT ok to say "It's pathetic and delusional for Canucks fans to blame Messier for taking Maki's #11". That's the point.

 

[Puck Hound]

*Disclaimer: this is a purely informative piece meant to enlighten hockey fans on the influence of Mark Messier on the Vancouver Canucks. This is not meant to be offensive or controversial, and is only designed to allow readers to understand his relationship with the team and the fanbase.



http://search.proquest.com/docview/384630778

Hello, this is my first post.

I've been lurking and reading and I just had to say that this is my kind of post. I think this is about the best opening post to a thread I've ever read on the Internet and I wanted to say thanks for the effort that goes into a thread like this. Great read.

You do realize that the bar you are setting as a standard for posting in this forum is WAY too high.

I look forward to reading more of your posts. You make the off season seem not as long. Again, thanks for putting this gem together!

Cheers!

 

[DeYarmond Edison]

I know this is an old thread but I've always wanted to read into this a little bit more. Thanks for this.

 

[Hardyvan123]

simply a sad chapter in the history of the Canucks, which until recently had a bad news bears sort of bad luck and crummy teams around them.

Even now alot of Canucks fans cringe on the ads which show both the Canucks and Messier.

 

[VanIslander]

Okay, look, I'm 46 years old and am totally winging it on this post (no usual google search confirmaton):

I, then a university grad, CRIED the day I heard Mess joined the Canucks. I LOVED Mess as an Oiler and after Coffey and Gretz he was my fav, especially in the Oilers' latter years (after Gretz left), and I thought Mess was the difference for the NYR (the NYR vs. NJD Game 7 final in the east was epic and apt).

But........ the day (the very day) I heard Messier became a Canuck (I am VanIslander, born in Vancouver General Hospital and grew up on Vancouver Island), I mourned the fact (yes, I knew then against some naysayers it was a FACT) that Trevor Linden would be traded away. ... ***sigh*** ... it indeed happened...

I know other Canuck fans who - like me - loved Messier but hated the Messier signing. There are some names that are sure to spark debate in sports bars in B.C. and among them are "Messier", "Keenan" (though the majority have always been against - but there's always one or two) and "Cloutier" (gawd i can't appreciate the logic of anyone who defends him, but there have been some).

Some players are the right choice at the right time. Messier was surely the Canucks wrong choice at the wrong time. I thought so immediately then (I was not alone) and history has unfortunately proven me right,

Now if only the franchise recognized that Kesler and Bieksa carried the team in the Stanley Cup Finals run and built around them. *** sigh*** Love you Sedins, but you ain't NHL champ material and would bring more in trade value than you bring to the west coast in terms of cup potential.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Now if only the franchise recognized that Kesler and Bieksa carried the team in the Stanley Cup Finals run and built around them. *** sigh*** Love you Sedins, but you ain't NHL champ material and would bring more in trade value than you bring to the west coast in terms of cup potential.

Kesler had the same problems the Sedins did on those teams. The role he had to fill in order for Vancouver to win was too big for him, or really any other player. He never had a strong GF/GA season as the Canucks most utilized defensive forward. He was either scoring 40 points and shutting people down, or scoring 70 and leading the team in goals against. He needed Malhotra playing the thankless defensive minutes to have the type of complete season his Selke competition has consistently accomplished.

 

[DeYarmond Edison]

Well that was fascinating. He comes off a super huge tool. I knew his play had dropped significantly during those Nucks years, but I didn't know it went quite that deep.

 

[Killion]

Well that was fascinating. He comes off a super huge tool. I knew his play had dropped significantly during those Nucks years, but I didn't know it went quite that deep.

.... why yes, yes he does. the most loathed player in any sport in BC of all~time really. not Mark Messier the Ranger or Oiler, but Mark Messier as a Canuck. just a total disaster all~round. it was really all quite unfortunate too. For the Canucks, for Trevor Linden, for Mark Messier as well. To this day you even bring his name up (and I live out here) with hardcore fans & they are legion, absolutely see red & were talking well over a decade now. But like a bad smell, theres Mark again surfacing several years later during a messy & nasty/ugly change of ownership being awarded some serious coin. Just came back to say goodbye. Turn the screw one more time. And believe me, the radio, papers, chat boards, everything boiling over with madder than Hornet fans... blood squirting outta their eyeballs. Highly amusing.

 

[DeYarmond Edison]

Can you imagine if this was happening now, in our social media driven culture?

Imagine all the juicy tweets.

 

[Killion]

Can you imagine if this was happening now, in our social media driven culture?

Imagine all the juicy tweets.

.... oh ya, total meltdown. and it was bad enough at the time. that was followed with residual blowback a few years later when Messier surfaced again during the change of ownership with a multi-million dollar claim against Vancouver. like ripping the bandage off the wounds that were slowly healing.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

blood squirting outta their eyeballs. Highly amusing.

Ok, now I can't get that image out of my head

 

[MS]

Tom Renney's opinion on Messier's efforts in Vancouver:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/09/14/101-greatest-canucks-messier-the-most-controversial-pick/

Renney is a class act who says the right things.

He was absolutely thrown under the bus by Messier in Vancouver and I'm sure has completely different feelings privately.

I'll never forget this interview in November 1997 :

Reporter : Mess, what is your impression of Tom Renney to this point?

Messier : Well, my mother once told me that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. *smirks*

--- awkward silence ---

Renney was fired about a week later. Possibly the most unprofessional thing I've ever seen from a pro athlete.

 

[Killion]

Ok, now I can't get that image out of my head

... oh ya, while frothing at the mouth, Bubblers. Very mention of the name Mark Messier.. was then & still is today practically seizure inducing in some. Full on apoplexy. You wouldnt believe the phone-in SportsTalk radio shows etc. The hosts having to cut-off every other callers profanity laced tirade. Beelzebub's in town. Apocalypse Now. Oh yeah. Nux fans, very serious & passionate.

 

[The Panther]

Renney is a class act who says the right things.

He was absolutely thrown under the bus by Messier in Vancouver and I'm sure has completely different feelings privately.

I'll never forget this interview in November 1997 :

Reporter : Mess, what is your impression of Tom Renney to this point?

Messier : Well, my mother once told me that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. *smirks*

Source?

 

[MS]

Source?

My eyes and ears. It 100% definitely happened and was a big deal at the time.

Unfortunately, stuff pre-2000 is hard to track down on the internet.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Renney is a class act who says the right things.

He was absolutely thrown under the bus by Messier in Vancouver and I'm sure has completely different feelings privately.

I don't know, if those comments were just lip service I don't understand why during the 2008-09 season Tom Renney would of approached Mark Messier about working with his coaching staff in NY.

The Canucks were 19GP 4W 13L 2T when Renney was fired. Maybe as you suggest Renney is a man of integrity and he refuses to support the popular Vancouver myth that all the blame should fall on Mark Messier and is simply telling the hard truth that many in Vancouver just don't want to hear.