RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,837
- 9,332
Either way Linden was a replacement level player on ice and did nothing to prove the coaches wrong or indeed even just earn his ice time.
lol
Either way Linden was a replacement level player on ice and did nothing to prove the coaches wrong or indeed even just earn his ice time.
He was certainly beginning his offensive decline after peaking a year or so earlier. He was still a 20g/40p over 82 games guy, which he pretty much maintained for the next 8 years. Replacement level is more than a stretch.
But that's kinda beside the point. He was still THE leader of that team. Naslund would emerge a couple of years later.
Bottom line is you don't take a C off of the player unless it's something egregious. If you want to change leadership you make a trade (see Horvat). To give the C to the anointed one who hadn't yet (and never would) earned the respect of his teammates just added insult to injury.
Keenan's primary objective and strategy was to embarrass Linden. It was a jerk move by any standard.
Much as Keenan deserves any and all criticism, that wasn't his move. Tom Renney was coach at that time.
I would treat these questions separately. No matter what one wishes to think about Messier in Vancouver, Keenan was still right to keep Linden demoted to an 'A' once his on-ice performance fell off the cliff and he became the type of player to provide veteran leadership in the room rather than lead a successful team on the ice. Whatever his pace, he never scored 20 goals again and had only two 40-point seasons out of ten. That at 27.He was certainly beginning his offensive decline after peaking a year or so earlier. He was still a 20g/40p over 82 games guy, which he pretty much maintained for the next 8 years. Replacement level is more than a stretch.
But that's kinda beside the point. He was still THE leader of that team. Naslund would emerge a couple of years later.
Bottom line is you don't take a C off of the player unless it's something egregious. If you want to change leadership you make a trade (see Horvat). To give the C to the anointed one who hadn't yet (and never would) earned the respect of his teammates just added insult to injury.
Keenan's primary objective and strategy was to embarrass Linden. It was a jerk move by any standard.
Fair enough...my memory has failed me. I just think of Messier and Keenan being one and the same in Vancouver.Much as Keenan deserves any and all criticism, that wasn't his move. Tom Renney was coach at that time.
Yeah, this was purely an ownership decision.
I counted 1 year twice! Oops. He had 109g/157a for 266 pts in 501 games over 7 years from the ages of 27 to 33. That's 18g/27a = 45 pt average over 82 games. Sure, he had some injuries but his production when healthy was middle 6. That's not "replacement level". His production really fell off after the lost year in 2004 when he came back for 05/06 as a 35 year old. He still went on to play over 200 games.I would treat these questions separately. No matter what one wishes to think about Messier in Vancouver, Keenan was still right to keep Linden demoted to an 'A' once his on-ice performance fell off the cliff and he became the type of player to provide veteran leadership in the room rather than lead a successful team on the ice. Whatever his pace, he never scored 20 goals again and had only two 40-point seasons out of ten. That at 27.
Once he was traded, the Islanders tried giving him the captaincy and subsequently went on to have one of the worst seasons in franchise history. That's obviously by no means all on Linden, but regardless he was no longer capable of taking a weak team anywhere the way he did with the early 1990s Canucks. Once he returned back to Vancouver a few years later at 31, he received the same 'A' he had with Keenan and an even more limited on-ice role, to everyone's benefit.
I agree. I was a little off in my initial post but the transfer of the C and acceptance by he who shall not be named was incredibly disrespectful. I had also forgotten how Linden handled his return with Naslund. Another demonstration of leadership by Linden.I would say Keenan's subsequent treatment of Linden - including the famed locker room tirade - was the slap in the face that came from Keenan.
By his own admission, no one forced Linden's hand in giving up the C. It was his idea, although probably driven by no small amount of market pressure and speculation about it...and maybe a little internal pressure as well, which would have had to have come from Quinn, Renney, ownership, etc.. I think the real slap in the face there came from "THE GREATEST LEADER EVER" accepting the damn thing when he should have said "no man, it's yours - I'm here to help", as Linden did years later with Markus Naslund upon his return to Vancouver.
Fair enough...my memory has failed me. I just think of Messier and Keenan being one and the same in Vancouver.
Evidently because he was good veteran presence, his production between 97/98 and 07/08 was most similar to Derek Morris who was a physical defenseman. Until 2004 his pace was the same as Chris Gratton's, but missing more games. I wouldn't necessarily romanticize how hard it is to replace that on the ice.I counted 1 year twice! Oops. He had 109g/157a for 266 pts in 501 games over 7 years from the ages of 27 to 33. That's 18g/27a = 45 pt average over 82 games. Sure, he had some injuries but his production when healthy was middle 6. That's not "replacement level". His production really fell off after the lost year in 2004 when he came back for 05/06 as a 35 year old. He still went on to play over 200 games.
I guess the obvious question is, if he was a replacement level player, how come nobody replaced him for 700+ games after he turned 27?
One is pig shit & the other is chicken shit. Actually Messier is both.Fair enough...my memory has failed me. I just think of Messier and Keenan being one and the same in Vancouver.
Evidently because he was good veteran presence, his production between 97/98 and 07/08 was most similar to Derek Morris who was a physical defenseman. Until 2004 his pace was the same as Chris Gratton's, but missing more games. I wouldn't necessarily romanticize how hard it is to replace that on the ice.
I think your definition of "replacement level player" greatly differs from mine.Either way Linden was a replacement level player on ice and did nothing to prove the coaches wrong or indeed even just earn his ice time.
The media kind of put pressure on his as well to cede the captaincy to what was trumped as the greatest captain. I think the whole thing could of handled better. Quinn should have came out and defended Linden's captaincy but Messier should have refused the C. But of course...He was certainly beginning his offensive decline after peaking a year or so earlier. He was still a 20g/40p over 82 games guy, which he pretty much maintained for the next 8 years. Replacement level is more than a stretch.
But that's kinda beside the point. He was still THE leader of that team. Naslund would emerge a couple of years later.
Bottom line is you don't take a C off of the player unless it's something egregious. If you want to change leadership you make a trade (see Horvat). To give the C to the anointed one who hadn't yet (and never would) earned the respect of his teammates just added insult to injury.
Keenan's primary objective and strategy was to embarrass Linden. It was a jerk move by any standard.
Once he was traded, the Islanders tried giving him the captaincy and subsequently went on to have one of the worst seasons in franchise history. That's obviously by no means all on Linden, but regardless he was no longer capable of taking a weak team anywhere the way he did with the early 1990s Canucks. Once he returned back to Vancouver a few years later at 31, he received the same 'A' he had with Keenan and an even more limited on-ice role, to everyone's benefit.
I think your definition of "replacement level player" greatly differs from mine.
The media kind of put pressure on his as well to cede the captaincy to what was trumped as the greatest captain. I think the whole thing could of handled better. Quinn should have came out and defended Linden's captaincy but Messier should have refused the C. But of course...
I think there were a multitude of reasons for Linden's decline. Offensively, I always felt he was more suited to be on the wing but coaches and GMs liked what he brought at C.
Offensively, he's mostly a north south player. A very good skater for his size with good hands and a good shot. Consenquently, he was good off the rush and good in close. Too bad teams didn't play him at RW with a playmaking C.
Just wanted to point out that the Isles had worse seasons in 95-96 and 00-01, as well as maintaining basically an identical record the year after Linden. The season OP is referencing is in the middle of a seven year period where they missed the playoffs and were under .500 every year.
It should have been obvious when they said he was a replacement level player in the summer of '97, but you guys are arguing with someone who isn't posting in good faith.
Life Line 4 LifeMy favourite time of him was when he was RW with Cliff Ronning as his centre and Geoff Courtnall on the other wing.
Loved that line. Ronning was one of the most gifted players to ever play for the team. I was sad to see him go.My favourite time of him was when he was RW with Cliff Ronning as his centre and Geoff Courtnall on the other wing.
And number 11 from the raftersMessier taking C from Linden
Luongo sitting on the bench for the winter classic
For me these are the two most disrespectful moves by management/coaching and I don't think it's close. Both Linden and Luongo were undisputed leaders on their teams and both were marginalized by coaches that thought the best way to manage players was to play mind games with them.
And number 11 from the rafters
Was it actually in the rafters or just unofficially retired.
That was the enigma of AG,Sr wasn't it. He knew how to make money. Like by owning the team and the media engine around it. Or as part of it.To be fair, given Jr. lost all his money, maybe cheap was the way to go.
Hmm, and I was under the impression it was like the deal they had with Sweden and other leagues regarding transfer fees for their players.Canucks management had ZERO to do with Larionov not re-signing. He didn't sign with *ANY* other NHL team but played in Europe because the Professor refused to give a chunk of his salary to the Soviet authorities (as per their agreement between the two hockey organizations). At least that's my understanding of the events. Now one can question them not trying harder to get him back after that "sabbatical".
To be fair, retiring jersey numbers was pretty rare at the time in any major sport and wasn't always done by hanging them the rafters.Unofficially retired.