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

[The Panther]

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.

Maybe... but I'm skeptical. The quote you typed doesn't sound like something Messier would have said, ever.

 

[SoggyBobcat]

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/11/sports/sp-52694

Last Saturday, in their first home game after Pat Quinn was fired as president and general manager, the Canucks tied a club record with their ninth consecutive loss. Afterward, Messier was polite but terse. "My mother always told me if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all. So that's what I'll do. I won't say anything at all. Thank you," he said.

No mention of Tom Renney in the article, though.

 

[alko]

*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.
...

Never know, i can write such loooong post... It is too long to me to read. Maybe when i will retire and have much more time, i will read it all.

 

[tjcurrie]

Because people love scapegoats

 

[Hobnobs]

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

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/

You rarely see coaches and GMs blast veteran stars. Not if they want to stay in the league. Keenan and Sinden are some of the few that did it.

 

[aemoreira1981]

The start of it might be that he took an unofficially retired number to wear...the number 11, taken out of circulation after Wayne Maki'a death from cancer in May 1974, less than 18 months after being diagnosed. Maki was one of the team's first bright spots.

 

[Dissonance]

As I remember it, the big Mark Messier vs. Tom Renney moment came 13 games in to the Canucks 1997-'98 season, right after we'd just been humiliated by the Devils 8-1 and had lost five straight.

There were rumors that the team was quitting on Renney and Messier was asked about it directly. He gave a non-committal answer that most reporters interpreted as a not-so-subtle dig at the coach:

The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
October 31, 1997, Friday, FINAL EDITION
Canucks quit on coach, hit low in 8-1 loss to Devils
ELLIOTT PAP

[...]

"Are they trying to get me fired? I don't know, you'd have to ask them," said Renney, who is showing considerable class in the face of a crumbling situation. "I don't see anybody packing it in on me, or on each other. I recognize that events from upstairs could suggest otherwise but I'm in the face of these guys daily and I don't get that feeling at all."

New captain Mark Messier is likely to have a large say in Renney's fate and, according to sources, has been made completely aware of the players' lack of respect for the coach. So far, Messier is treading carefully. "My take on Tom is that I've been here for 13 games and we, as a group, have to be responsible for what's going on," he said. "Tom is a long ways from the only problem. From my brief experience with Tom, he's done a fine job."

However, when asked directly if a coaching change would spark the team, Messier replied: "That's a tough question. We were certainly outclassed tonight."

Other reporters who were there also interpreted Messier's comments as a slight against the coach:

Bloomberg News
November 1, 1997, Saturday, ALL EDITIONS
Captain Canuck 'not happy': Vancouver's poor start not what Messier had in mind when he signed

[...]

Though Renney was quick to support Messier, the coach didn't receive the same from Messier, who was unhappy with Roger Neilson's coaching style before the Rangers fired him in 1993 when the team was struggling.

Asked after the Devils' loss if his team would be sparked by a new coach, Messier didn't offer a strong endorsement of Renney, a former Canadian National Team coach. "That's a tough question," Messier said, shrugging his shoulders. "We were certainly outclassed tonight."

That was on November 1, partway through a 10-game losing streak. GM Pat Quinn, who didn't want to fire Renney, was ousted on November 6. Renney was let go on the 14th, and Mike Keenan was hired immediately thereafter. (At the time, Canucks execs claimed that Messier wasn't explicitly consulted on the Keenan hire but the close relationship between the two was a "big factor" in the hiring.)

Many months later, Gino Odjick claimed that Messier had been phoning it in at the beginning of that season, hoping that Renney would get canned:

Messier ''didn't break a sweat for the first 10 games waiting for Tom Renney and Pat Quinn to get fired,'' Odjick said, referring to the former Vancouver coach and general manager. ''He talks to the ownership all the time and he's responsible for Keenan being here and he's part of all the trades. He's responsible for a lot of changes.''

Depends whether or not you want to believe Odjick, who admittedly had just been traded to the Islanders and was feeling bitter. But Gino's always been a pretty honest guy, and it's true that Messier's play had been pretty listless to start the season.

Anyway, Renney wasn't a great coach for us, so I can't say it was a huge tragedy he lost his job, but this is why everyone has always suspected that Messier played a large role in shoving him out. And things only got worse from there.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

Depends whether or not you want to believe Odjick, who admittedly had just been traded to the Islanders and was feeling bitter. But Gino's always been a pretty honest guy, and it's true that Messier's play had been absolutely putrid that fall.

Anyway, Renney wasn't a great coach for us, so I can't say it was a huge tragedy he lost his job, but this is why everyone has always suspected that Messier played a large role in shoving him out. And things only got worse from there.

Its's important to remember their were issues between the team and Tom Renney before Messier arrived and the situation described by Michael Farber matches the criticisms Tom Renney had for himself, http://blogs.theprovince.com/2011/01/26/trip-down-canuckery-lane-tom-renney-mightve-been-ahead-of-his-time/.

So if Messier wasn't breaking a sweat with the intention of getting Renney fired what evil agenda did the rest of the Canucks have to explain their play?

When Tom Renney was fired:
Messier age 36
19GP 7G 6A 13Pts +1

Linden age 27
19GP 5G 6A 11Pts -7

Odjick age 27
14GP 1G 0A 1Pt -1

McLean age 31
15GP 2W 11L 2T .882sv%

Babych age 36
8GP 0G 1A 1Pt -4

 

[The Panther]

Its's important to remember their were issues between the team and Tom Renney before Messier arrived...

Yeah, no kidding, and let's not forget the entire previous season (1996-97) had been a total disaster with the team missing the playoffs, and with talk around the hockey world of a "divided locker room" in Vancouver -- all before Messier.

On January 22, 1997, the Canucks beat Chicago to bring their record to 22-21-2. Not very good, but good enough to get by, probably. But then they went 13-19-5 to close out the season, and missed the playoffs. They were clearly trending downward for about two years before Messier arrived, and he had the misfortune to arrive right at their nadir.

So if Messier wasn't breaking a sweat with the intention of getting Renney fired what evil agenda did the rest of the Canucks have to explain their play?

When Tom Renney was fired:
Messier age 36
19GP 7G 6A 13Pts +1

Linden age 27
19GP 5G 6A 11Pts -7

Excellent point. I really think Linden has to take most of the blame for the Canucks crap-out in the 1997-98 season (until he was traded, that is). In 42 games, Linden had 7 goals and was -13. With Linden on the team, they had a .327 win% that season, and after he was traded they were .519.

The biggest bone-head move by Linden was handing the 'C' to Messier... What the hell? I have never heard of a guy being team captain for years and years, and then just giving it up when another guy joins.

The Canucks were quite lucky to have Messier that season, as they likely would have been even worse without him.

 

[rikki]

Maybe... Rong Xin decoration as a leading brand in Shanghai home improvement industry, and deep plowing home decoration 20 years of new decoration, everyone is not strange. What you may not know is that it is still an advocate of finished home improvement. "For busy modern people, staring at the interior design decoration will be powerless, and finished Jiezhuang standardized process, for them to save a lot of unnecessary trouble, and this is what we most want to see."." Rong Xin decoration chairman Chen Guohong said.
Most worth mentioning is that, in order to allow customers to realize the charm of finished products, Rong Xin decoration in Shanghai subway along the more points, set up 32 real experience model room. With the ratio of 1:1 reduction of real house decoration, all styles of refined decoration, consumers only need to choose their own preferences by consulting the style of decoration, and payment, acceptance.
And in the "finished product equation" in the first appearance, Rong new decoration has also attracted fans and industry attention. There are a lot of fans said: "the choice of Rong Xin, I am proud of my pride!" in the face of all voices, Chen Guohong said: "this is the collision and Luo Zhongxu cooperation, experience and experience, in fact, our best hope is that through this cooperation, can bring you more professional and reliable decoration tips, allowing them to regain the decoration confidence and motivation."but I'm skeptical. The quote you typed doesn't sound like something Messier would have said, ever.

agreed with you

 

[Jinsell]

Yeah, no kidding, and let's not forget the entire previous season (1996-97) had been a total disaster with the team missing the playoffs, and with talk around the hockey world of a "divided locker room" in Vancouver -- all before Messier.

"Total disaster" is a bit harsh, but you're right, 35-40-7 in 1996-97 doesn't make for a good season. The team got off to a decent enough start before hitting the skids hard in December. They picked it up in January but once again fell apart in February and for most of March. Injuries were a huge factor (Bure, McLean, and Linden all missed significant time), but also Tom Renney was not a good fit with the team and had very public issues with the likes of Russ Courtnall and Esa Tikkanen (both of whom were dealt to New York in March). It was a turbulent season, but when the team went 6-1-3 to finish the season, stability appeared to have returned even if it meant missing the playoffs. The finish probably saved Renney from being fired sooner.

On January 22, 1997, the Canucks beat Chicago to bring their record to 22-21-2. Not very good, but good enough to get by, probably. But then they went 13-19-5 to close out the season, and missed the playoffs. They were clearly trending downward for about two years before Messier arrived, and he had the misfortune to arrive right at their nadir.

They definitely were on the decline. That 1994 playoff run had been their peak and the two seasons that followed were quite disappointing. It's strange because it initially felt like the Canucks were on the rise after the '94 Cup. They were a relatively young hockey club with a superstar and it seemed like they could contend for the next few years. Instead, they started to fray and fall apart.

Excellent point. I really think Linden has to take most of the blame for the Canucks crap-out in the 1997-98 season (until he was traded, that is). In 42 games, Linden had 7 goals and was -13. With Linden on the team, they had a .327 win% that season, and after he was traded they were .519.

Meh...I don't know how one player can take most of the blame for a team crapping out whether it's Messier or Linden. The 1997-98 Canucks crap-out was definitely a team/organizational effort from ownership on down to the players.

The biggest bone-head move by Linden was handing the 'C' to Messier... What the hell? I have never heard of a guy being team captain for years and years, and then just giving it up when another guy joins.

Didn't Dave Taylor do the same thing shortly after Wayne Gretzky became a Los Angeles King? Didn't Shayne Corson also do the same thing when Gretzky became a St. Louis Blue? I'm not trying to troll and I could be wrong about the nature in which the 'C' changed hands, but I don't see what's wrong with a player relinquishing the 'C' out of respect for a legend.

While in hindsight I don't think it was the right move, to call it bone-headed on Trevor Linden's part is a bit extreme. Linden handed Messier the 'C' as a sign of respect and because it was expected of him (perhaps ownership even pressured him to do so?). If he hadn't, I'm pretty sure he would have taken a lot of heat for it in the hockey world outside of Vancouver for being selfish or some nonsense. Up to that point in time, Mark Messier was deemed the quintessential leader in hockey. He had led two different teams to championships while Linden had led only one team to a Cup final. Also, keep in mind Linden was only 27 at the time. If I was a 27-year-old captain of a fledgling hockey team and then suddenly along came this 36-year-old sure-fire HHOFer who had led teams to greatness it would be difficult for me to not give up the 'C' out of respect.

The Canucks were quite lucky to have Messier that season, as they likely would have been even worse without him.

I don't know if lucky is the right word. The fact of the matter is the Vancouver Canucks never should have signed Mark Messier in the first place. Sure, they probably would have been worse without him but when you're final record is 25-43-14, does it really matter if you're that much worse? The Canucks, at that point, were a team in obvious need of a rebuild and a need to go younger. Signing an aging veteran superstar to a 3-year $18 million plus contract was not the right move. With that said, that isn't any fault of Messier's but of the ownership/management of the team that threw that kind of money at him.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Never knew that Iron Mike was that close to giving away Naslund.

Thank goodness that didn't happen.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Of all the things to criticize Linden for, giving the C to Messier is not one of them. It was a genuine move. Leetch did the same for Mess when he came back to NY.

 

[c9777666]

Looking back in retrospect, with that shaky goaltending, even if Messier had never gone to Vancouver, they still weren't gonna make the playoffs with how many goals they gave up.

 

[The Panther]

Linden handed Messier the 'C' as a sign of respect and because it was expected of him (perhaps ownership even pressured him to do so?). If he hadn't, I'm pretty sure he would have taken a lot of heat for it in the hockey world outside of Vancouver for being selfish or some nonsense.

To be honest, I agree with you. I'm 99% sure that there was an unwritten vibe in the air (which Linden was made to pick up) of "Messier is coming; you should let him take over". I'm sure Linden felt that and, being a 'company man', deferred to what Burke and the rest expected. But I think Linden should have been stronger. He should have rejected that.

Maybe it was a good move by Linden, though, because nothing was going to save that dismal Canucks' team in 1997-98. Had Linden kept the 'C', he would have been run out of town faster, and the narrative would have been that the Canucks only turned the corner after Messier took over. I mean, Canucks fans would have had to face that narrative. They're much happier now that they can nonsensically blame everything on Messier.

The Canucks, at that point, were a team in obvious need of a rebuild and a need to go younger. Signing an aging veteran superstar to a 3-year $18 million plus contract was not the right move. With that said, that isn't any fault of Messier's but of the ownership/management of the team that threw that kind of money at him.

This is all true, of course. The funny thing is that Canucks fan still blame Messier for the fact that Canucks' management wanted to sign Messier.

Of all the things to criticize Linden for, giving the C to Messier is not one of them. It was a genuine move. Leetch did the same for Mess when he came back to NY.

That was also a mistake. Leetch should have known better.

And by the way, when Gretzky went to L.A. he did not wear the 'C' his first season. Dave Taylor (a player who had once punched Gretzky in the head and felled him not long before they became teammates) kept it.

Looking back in retrospect, with that shaky goaltending, even if Messier had never gone to Vancouver, they still weren't gonna make the playoffs with how many goals they gave up.

Of course. But every failure needs a goat, and Canucks' fan use Messier as their personal whipping boy. It's okay, though -- Mess is tougher than the Canucks and can take it.

 

[mrhockey193195]

That was also a mistake. Leetch should have known better.

I categorically disagree. Linden and Leetch made the choice. It was over and done with. I don't see how either move could cause any issues in the locker room. In Linden's case, it was him welcoming Mess onto the team and saying "Mess, we want you to lead and we will follow". Obviously, what happened after that wasn't so joyous.

Actually, let me rephrase because I may not be making my case very clearly. No matter what Linden decided, it was the right move. If he kept the C - great. If he gave it to Mess - great. In either case, he made the call, it was voluntary.

 

[MS]

Maybe... but I'm skeptical. The quote you typed doesn't sound like something Messier would have said, ever.

He definitely did ...

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/11/sports/sp-52694

No mention of Tom Renney in the article, though.

... and thanks for that, even if I missed it in 2015.

And that quote was definitely in response to a question about Renney. It was absurd and was a big deal in the Vancouver sports media at the time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Mark Messier, on the pathetic play of his team: "My parents always told me, 'If you don 't have anything good to say, don 't say anything at all. ' So I will leave it at that."

This implies a team performance context as well - as opposed to allegedly targeting Renney. Overlooked is that Messier's offensive streak started prior to Renney's dismissal - which lends some credibility to the idea that he was playing hurt early on instead of waiting for Renney to be fired.

October 3-29
12 GP: 2 goals, 1 assist, 3 points

October 30 - November 12
7 GP: 5 goals, 5 assists, 10 points

Tom Renney Fired

November 14 - March 7
44 GP: 14 goals, 25 assists, 39 points

March 9 - April 19
19 GP: 1 goal, 7 assists, 8 points


If it was in direct response to a question about Renney, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Instead we have two sources that indicate he was talking about a team on a losing streak.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Panther, I know you're a defender of Messier and all things old school Oiler, but did you actually watch him play for the Canucks?

I did. And as a Canucks fan, I welcomed his arrival. Now as far as the off ice stuff went, although it bothered some, I did not have a big issue with it. The thing that bugged me was his play. Don't let the stats fool you, he was lacklustre at best. Not for a single shift did I see any of the trademark Messier snarl or "leadership". I saw a disinterested, entitled passenger. The guy who had been killing us on the ice and in the alley for a decade and a half was gone... replaced by someone who obviously didn't give two *****.

I was ready to be a fan, but I was seriously disappointed... and I don't think his age was entirely to blame. He just had a pisspoor attitude, and it rubbed off on the whole team. That's why I hate him as a Canuck, and that's why I don't count him as one of the all-time great leaders. The award should be named after Stevie Y instead.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Panther, I know you're a defender of Messier and all things old school Oiler, but did you actually watch him play for the Canucks?

I did. And as a Canucks fan, I welcomed his arrival. Now as far as the off ice stuff went, although it bothered some, I did not have a big issue with it. The thing that bugged me was his play. Don't let the stats fool you, he was lacklustre at best. Not for a single shift did I see any of the trademark Messier snarl or "leadership". I saw a disinterested, entitled passenger. The guy who had been killing us on the ice and in the alley for a decade and a half was gone... replaced by someone who obviously didn't give two *****.

I was ready to be a fan, but I was seriously disappointed... and I don't think his age was entirely to blame. He just had a pisspoor attitude, and it rubbed off on the whole team. That's why I hate him as a Canuck, and that's why I don't count him as one of the all-time great leaders. The award should be named after Stevie Y instead.

lol yzerman? please...

 

[David Bruce Banner]

lol yzerman? please...

What? I saw Yzerman do more on one leg than Messier did in his entire tenure on the Canucks.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

What? I saw Yzerman do more on one leg than Messier did in his entire tenure on the Canucks.

If we are talking about overrated leaders I think the list starts with old stevie y.

Not saying Yzerman was bad or anything but Messier is clearly a tier or two above him

 

[The Panther]

Panther, I know you're a defender of Messier and all things old school Oiler, but did you actually watch him play for the Canucks?

I did. And as a Canucks fan, I welcomed his arrival. Now as far as the off ice stuff went, although it bothered some, I did not have a big issue with it. The thing that bugged me was his play.

First of all, I'm certainly not a "defender of all things old school Oiler".

Second, yes, I watched Messier play with Vancouver, albeit not that much.

Third, as I've said several times, (a) I have no issue with anyone criticizing Messier's play in Vancouver (within reason, that is), and (b) He was not good with Vancouver.

My issue, as-per this thread (go back and read the OP if you have 3 hours to spare), is people blaming Messier for things he didn't do, and faulting Messier for things that weren't his fault. If you didn't like his play on the ice, that's fine (but also tell me how many 37-40-year-olds were significantly better).


Finally, I'm amazed to read that you welcomed his arrival back in the day. For me, as soon as I saw the headlines in summer '97, I predicted it would be a disaster... for Messier (oh and for the Canucks, too).

 

[David Bruce Banner]

First of all, I'm certainly not a "defender of all things old school Oiler".

Second, yes, I watched Messier play with Vancouver, albeit not that much.

Third, as I've said several times, (a) I have no issue with anyone criticizing Messier's play in Vancouver (within reason, that is), and (b) He was not good with Vancouver.

My issue, as-per this thread (go back and read the OP if you have 3 hours to spare), is people blaming Messier for things he didn't do, and faulting Messier for things that weren't his fault. If you didn't like his play on the ice, that's fine (but also tell me how many 37-40-year-olds were significantly better).


Finally, I'm amazed to read that you welcomed his arrival back in the day. For me, as soon as I saw the headlines in summer '97, I predicted it would be a disaster... for Messier (oh and for the Canucks, too).

Well, I wasn't super stoked about his arrival due mainly to the fact that I thought we could have spent that money a bit better (/younger)... but I was prepared to be a fan if we'd got that Messier that I'd hated so much as an opponent over the years. Maybe the skills would have eroded a bit, but if he played like the mean S.O.B. that he always seemed to be when he was up against us, I was prepared to cheer him on. Not once... not even a whiff. It's like he still was beating us, only now he was on our own team.

As for what he did or didn't do off the ice. Well, it was sad to see some fan favourites go, but the only one I really got pissed about was Gelinas... and I think that was a Keenan screw job, which was funny because initially I thought Gelinas would totally be a Keenan kind of guy.

What ended up happening was that our team got worse and more unlikeable from a fan point of view. I don't lay it all at Messier's feet, but if you're touted as a "leader" you can't only take credit when the team does well.

 

[The Panther]

As for what he did or didn't do off the ice. Well, it was sad to see some fan favourites go, but the only one I really got pissed about was Gelinas... and I think that was a Keenan screw job, which was funny because initially I thought Gelinas would totally be a Keenan kind of guy.

Fair enough. I doubt Messier had anything to do with Gelinas, though, since Messier had sort-of mentored him in Edmonton and won a Stanley Cup with him.

I also agree that as team captain, you have to take credit for the losing as well as the winning. But then you also have to give credit for when the team starts getting better (as the Canucks did, drastically, in 1999-2000, with Messier as captain).