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

[saskganesh]

I agree with a lot of the OP's facts, but the interpretation has a bit too much vitriol to be objective.

A lot this is old ground. For example:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=789382
and
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=544670

Anyway, Markus Naslund was one young talent who credits Messier with making him a better player. I'm not making that up. Naslund of course was another Keenan acquisition (for the immortal Alex Stojanov).

Keenan was one of those trade happy GM's. He did make some good ones (Linden for Bert & McCabe). But he also made his share of lateral, meh ones. I think he just liked to keep busy.

Orca Bay stories. Not surprisingly, Keenan lacked people skills. I remember reading Business in Vancouver and noting the steady flow of front office staff away from the hockey team and towards better jobs elsewhere. It wasn't just on ice turmoil. A classmate of mine snagged a graphic design job there, and when Burke was brought in, she said everyone she worked with was relieved that he was back with the team. Burke's hire brought immediate organisational stability as the outflow ended.

I'm also surprised no one brought up the Frito Lay commerical. That really was Messier's signature Vancouver moment.

 

[Big Phil]

Sundin was also 23 years old and, while Messier was 36, so it's not exactly the same situation.

I get that trading fan favorites sucks, but from a purely cold hockey perspective, trading Linden for Bertuzzi and McCabe has to be considered a win for the Canucks, right?

In the long run the trade looked good in the short term, until Bertuzzi's mess in 2004 I guess. No, Sundin was never loathed or hated anywhere near the way Messier was. I was just equating that losing your franchise favourite always puts the next guy at a disadvantage. That's where the comparisons end though with those two. Messier and Sundin couldn't have been two different players. The odd time we Leaf fans said: "We will NEVER win a Cup if Sundin is captain" but that was the worst of it I thought. In hindsight that was such a silly thing to say, we haven't had a player near as good as Sundin since.

 

[BulletTheBlueSky]

WOW WOW WOW. JUST WOW! I hated Messier i remember when he was on Canucks, he was the most lazy guy for certain. This is disastrous information. WOW! I always hated messier because Scotty Stevens is my guy and Messier was a dirty punk. Thank you for this information i will print it and give it to all my stupid Rangers fan friends. So Sad for Linden. SO sad.

 

[newfy]

His time with the nucks makes me laugh when people say he was a better leader than Yzerman or Sakic or even Stevens. A guy that good and showing that much leadership wouldve been locked up by one of the 4 teams he played for

 

[quoipourquoi]

Mark Messier: The shocking story of a talented hockey player who likes money.

 

[yave1964]

Well written. Nice job on this, I always just thought it was because Messier and Keenan didn't lead the team to the promised land as agreed.

 

[mrhockey193195]

His time with the nucks makes me laugh when people say he was a better leader than Yzerman or Sakic or even Stevens. A guy that good and showing that much leadership wouldve been locked up by one of the 4 teams he played for

Stevens has a couple strikes on his record as well. Sulking when he first went to Jersey, and even suggesting that he might leave right after they won the cup comes to mind.

And people point to Messier failing to lead his teams to the playoffs in his last 7 seasons. What about Yzerman, who until 1997 was considered to be a Joe Thornton-like player who couldn't lead his team all the way. Messier's failings happened at the end of his career, while Yzerman's happened at the beginning of his career. This is a massive over-simplification, but I don't want to hijack this thread and start talking too much about Yzerman.

Not trying to knock Stevens or Yzerman at all, just pointing out that even some of the best captains (Messier, Stevens, and Yzerman included) have things you can red flag in an attempt to discredit their leadership capabilities.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Stevens has a couple strikes on his record as well. Sulking when he first went to Jersey, and even suggesting that he might leave right after they won the cup comes to mind.

And people point to Messier failing to lead his teams to the playoffs in his last 7 seasons. What about Yzerman, who until 1997 was considered to be a Joe Thornton-like player who couldn't lead his team all the way. Messier's failings happened at the end of his career, while Yzerman's happened at the beginning of his career. This is a massive over-simplification, but I don't want to hijack this thread and start talking too much about Yzerman.

Not trying to knock Stevens or Yzerman at all, just pointing out that even some of the best captains (Messier, Stevens, and Yzerman included) have things you can red flag in an attempt to discredit their leadership capabilities.

the difference being that stevens was still a professional (didn't hold out, wasn't disruptive) and still contributed instead of being a giant suck for three years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

the difference being that stevens was still a professional (didn't hold out, wasn't disruptive) and still contributed instead of being a giant suck for three years.

Stevens actually was a giant suck for a large part of the 1994-95 regular season after NJ matched his contract, until Claude Lemieux reamed him in the locker room for being a disgrace to the captaincy.

It's funny how results are what matter in the end. Mark Messier did almost the exact same thing to the Rangers that he did to Vancouver - immediately got into a power struggle with the coach and got him fired and replaced by Mike Keenan, had the roster of the team totally blown up and replaced with cronies from Edmonton - and unlike Vancouver, this was a roster that was making the playoffs when Messier got there. But in New York it worked, so the media revered him. Obviously a big difference is that Messier put the money where his mouth was in NY, but wasn't able to do so in Vancouver because his skills had eroded.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's funny how results are what matter in the end. Mark Messier did almost the exact same thing to the Rangers that he did to Vancouver - immediately got into a power struggle with the coach and got him fired and replaced by Mike Keenan, had the roster of the team totally blown up and replaced with cronies from Edmonton - and unlike Vancouver, this was a roster that was making the playoffs when Messier got there. But in New York it worked, so the media revered him. Obviously a big difference is that Messier put the money where his mouth was in NY, but wasn't able to do so in Vancouver because his skills had eroded.

Not just Messier's skills:

1997-98
Linden: 42 GP, 7 G, 14 A, 21 PTS, -13
Lumme: 74 GP, 9 G, 21 A, 30 PTS, -25
McLean: 29 GP, 6-17-4, .879

Top-10 team in scoring (and just 7 goals behind the division-winning Colorado Avalanche). If Kirk McLean (and later Sean Burke) had performed at even just an average-level, the Canucks would have shaved off enough goals to make the playoffs. With respect to McLean, he did a lot of damage to the Canucks in his last three seasons with the team.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points#stats::14

Of course, he didn't have a contract clause guaranteeing his jersey number, nor did he have to deal with the prospect of captaincy, so people tend to lump him in with the crowd of personality players who were wrongly dealt.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Stevens actually was a giant suck for a large part of the 1994-95 regular season after NJ matched his contract, until Claude Lemieux reamed him in the locker room for being a disgrace to the captaincy.

It's funny how results are what matter in the end. Mark Messier did almost the exact same thing to the Rangers that he did to Vancouver - immediately got into a power struggle with the coach and got him fired and replaced by Mike Keenan, had the roster of the team totally blown up and replaced with cronies from Edmonton - and unlike Vancouver, this was a roster that was making the playoffs when Messier got there. But in New York it worked, so the media revered him. Obviously a big difference is that Messier put the money where his mouth was in NY, but wasn't able to do so in Vancouver because his skills had eroded.

huh, did not know that about stevens. you know, we also had a respected veteran call out captain suck guy in the room. that was gino odjick. he was traded a week later.

but yeah, i guess you're right: results do matter. though i'm not sure gartner, turcotte, jeep, and all the other guys that were shipped out, even roger nielson, were anywhere close to as beloved as the vancouver guys that left during the messier era. i guess what i mean is it was more than just messier sucked and the team sucked. i remember being at linden and odjick's first game back in vancouver, just days after the odjick trade. i'd never seen the fanbase actively rooting against our team before.


but actually, thinking about it again, maybe even messier's actions are not as compatible as you suggest.

to be more precise: neilson was with the team all year in '92 when the team won the presidents trophy, and leetch and messier took home the norris and hart. he was replaced by their AHL coach the next year, but keenan didn't come until '94. i definitely remember a very public a power struggle between messier and neilson, but i don't think that started until the '93 season. i'm not sure what happened to that team to miss the playoffs between presidents trophies, but i certainly would believe messier acted like a giant suck to get rid of neilson; just didn't happen right away.

and also, it was an almost three year process to change that team over: doug weight for tikkanen near the end of '93 (though weight was hardly a longtime guy or institution), beezer gets dumped before the expansion draft in the off-season before '94 because they could only protect one goalie; turcotte and jeep for larmer early in '94; then gartner for anderson, matteau and noonan for amonte, and marchant (then a 20 year old prospect) for mactavish at the deadline.

as for the other ex-oilers, graves was signed as an RFA before the messier trade and beukeboom was a future consideration in the messier trade, which leaves only kevin lowe as a "hired gun" messier immediately brought in (traded for prospect roman oksiuta and a pick).

in vancouver, linden, odjick, mclean, gelinas, babych, and lumme -- plus pat quinn and tom renney -- were all gone within the first year. the important players who preceded messier (beezer, jeep, gartner, turcotte) all lasted two or almost three years after he showed up. if anything, neil smith had already partially blown up that team before messier even got there (kisio and mullen left exposed in the expansion draft, ogrodnick not re-signed, nicholls going the other way in the messier deal).

 

[Captain Bowie]

It should also be noted that Vancouver was coming off 3 straight years of declining results including missing the playoffs the season before Messier signed. Messier's last season in Vancouver (2000) the team had 83 points missing the playoffs by 4 points, it was the franchises best season since 1994.

In New York after going the conference finals with Messier in 1997 the team missed the playoffs every year Messier was in Vancouver.

Mark Messier had nothing to do with rise or fall of either team. Vancouver was on the way down before he got there and was on it's way back up with Messier on the team. New York became a perennial non playoff team before Messier returned. Both teams had major problems and had to be totally rebuilt, 36-44 year old Mark Messier wasn't either teams problem but he wasn't a solution either.

That is mis-leading. It is technically true because of the addition of the bonus point for OTL's, in which the Canucks had 8 that year.

Based on Wins alone, the 99/00 season was only the 4th best after the cup run. The only 2 worse seasons were Messier's other two seasons in Vancouver.

Before Messier:
94/95: 18-18-12
95/96: 32-35-15
96/97: 35-40-7

With Messier:
97/98: 25-43-14
98/99: 23-47-12
99/00: 30-29-15-8

And the main reason that the Canucks were finally starting to turn it around in his 3rd year, was Naslund and Bertuzzi were starting to look like the players they would soon become. Naslund had 65 points with 27 goals, while Bertuzzi had 25 and 25 for 50. Naslund was just as good the year before, but finally had an equally talented player that cared.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And the main reason that the Canucks were finally starting to turn it around in his 3rd year, was Naslund and Bertuzzi were starting to look like the players they would soon become. Naslund had 65 points with 27 goals, while Bertuzzi had 25 and 25 for 50. Naslund was just as good the year before, but finally had an equally talented player that cared.

You'll have to explain to me how Bertuzzi's 50 points in 80 games was a bigger reason for success than Messier's 54 points in 66 games, especially with the team performing much worse without Messier in the lineup. Bertuzzi was certainly an improvement over Linden though. As for the "main reason," it was clearly because the team was no longer bottom-three in GA, as the team had a top-10 offense in 1997-98 (something they wouldn't have again until 2001-02) and managed to lose 43 games in spite of it.

 

[FakeKidPoker*]

His time with the nucks makes me laugh when people say he was a better leader than Yzerman or Sakic or even Stevens. A guy that good and showing that much leadership wouldve been locked up by one of the 4 teams he played for

Messier >>>> Yzerman and Sakic.

Don't buy the Yzerman myth.

 

[Bexlyspeed]

i think we all left our Messier's other Guarantee(s), the one when he Re-signed for the Rangers and Guaranteed they would make the playoffs, but failed to for the rest of his career

 

[newfy]

Messier >>>> Yzerman and Sakic.

Don't buy the Yzerman myth.

Doesnt matter if you buy it, its true. Messier has one bogus guarantee that everyone looks to and says hes great. Great leaders dont leave a franchise as their most hated player. Greta leaders with that level of talent dont play on 4 different teams in their career.

There is no myth about Yzerman. Completely changed his game to win cups, put up a tonne of points playing through a slew of injuries. Sakic was as clutch as they come and even wings fans couldnt hate him. Meanwhile Messier is the msot hated player in the history of a team HE captained. Funny how that would happen to such an amazing leader

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

WOW WOW WOW. JUST WOW! I hated Messier i remember when he was on Canucks, he was the most lazy guy for certain. This is disastrous information. WOW! I always hated messier because Scotty Stevens is my guy and Messier was a dirty punk. Thank you for this information i will print it and give it to all my stupid Rangers fan friends. So Sad for Linden. SO sad.

i cant tell if this is serious or not. Very interesting read. As a rangers fan I can sympathize. (See gomez, Drury, Redden, now Richards and thats not even inluding pre cap signings like Holik)

 

[FakeKidPoker*]

Doesnt matter if you buy it, its true. Messier has one bogus guarantee that everyone looks to and says hes great. Great leaders dont leave a franchise as their most hated player. Greta leaders with that level of talent dont play on 4 different teams in their career.

There is no myth about Yzerman. Completely changed his game to win cups, put up a tonne of points playing through a slew of injuries. Sakic was as clutch as they come and even wings fans couldnt hate him. Meanwhile Messier is the msot hated player in the history of a team HE captained. Funny how that would happen to such an amazing leader

He changed his game because he was forced to, Yzerman was the biggest choke artist in the game and was a lame duck.. and was about to be shipped out by Bowman but was saved at the last minute.

You need someone to win the game for you on the ice you take Messier over Yzerman 10 times out of 10.

Messier was the better player, had the better career and was the best leader.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Doesnt matter if you buy it, its true. Messier has one bogus guarantee that everyone looks to and says hes great. Great leaders dont leave a franchise as their most hated player. Greta leaders with that level of talent dont play on 4 different teams in their career.

There is no myth about Yzerman. Completely changed his game to win cups, put up a tonne of points playing through a slew of injuries. Sakic was as clutch as they come and even wings fans couldnt hate him. Meanwhile Messier is the msot hated player in the history of a team HE captained. Funny how that would happen to such an amazing leader

Messier played on three different teams...the Rangers twice. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but other great leaders who have played on 3+ teams:

-Scott Stevens (whom you just quoted as being a much better leader than Messier)
-Ron Francis
-Joe Nieuwendyk
-Wayne Gretzky
-Doug Gilmour

amongst others. And yes, I understand your point, which is that Messier is disliked by Vancouver fans, while most other great captains were never disliked by their teams. But as others have mentioned in this thread, I think Messier gets a little extra flack (he definitely deserves some flack) for Vancouver struggling as a team so much while he was there. Also, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Messier after having 15+ seasons where he was considered a tremendous leader and exemplary player, while only his last seven seasons (half of which he was over the age of 40) were not that great.

 

[IComeInPeace]

I never hated Messier during those years (or even now). I was a diehard fan of the 'Nucks, but lived in SF, so I wasnt exposed to the constant media crap storm that followed the team.

Put on a Canuck uniform, and I love you. But Messier's tenure was undoubtedly disappointing. Not simply b/c the way the team was dismantled and became horrible,but Messiers play was atrocious (and don't simply go by the numbers).

He was a very one dimensional player in Vancouver. He played the game like a pure skill player (maybe not unlike how Grezky played towards the end of his career). There was no physical play, he was your prototypical perimeter player. He was always mostly the last man back in the defensive zone, and the first guy out.
That was very disappointing to watch. There was zero physical dimension to his game.
I cut him slack for it, figuring he was an older, beat up version of his former self, and this is how he had to play to prolong his career.

Without any doubt, I think Mess is the most hated Canuck of all time. I don't think there is anyone even close to him.

For the most part I think he deserves it...
However, I think that Canuck team in Messiers final season grew under his leadership. I think Naslund especially really became a totally different player and person.

I think b/c his time in Vancouver was so disappointing, everyone seems to forget, or purposely discount what Messier did to bring that group of guys together.

Without any doubt in my mind Linden was a much, much better leader in Vancouver...from the time he was an 18 yr old rookie, to the time he was forced out, Linden set the standard for how someone should conduct themselves under any circumstances.

 

[byrone12]

Lost a ton or respect for Messier and how he torpedoed Roger Neilson when Roger coached NYR. "Great Leader"...NO WAY.

 

[Killion]

The Canucks hit a wall post 94. The acquisition of Messier & subsequent trade, return on that investment, the end of Quinn & the transitory Keenan precisely what the franchise needed there & then. A bridge. What Vancouver received in terms of short term pain nowhere near equal to what they received in long term gain, the latter setting the franchise up for many a more runs at the Cup, an Elite team for years to come.

 

[SealsFan]

This was very informative. I thought he finished his career with Vancouver but looking at the stats I see he wound up back with the Rangers for 4 more years! (this was about the time I stopped following hockey) How did his second tenure with the Rangers go?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This was very informative. I thought he finished his career with Vancouver but looking at the stats I see he wound up back with the Rangers for 4 more years! (this was about the time I stopped following hockey) How did his second tenure with the Rangers go?

He was a shell of himself when he returned to the Rangers and got way more ice time than he deserved. He could barely skate anymore and should have been strictly a third liner by that point, but nobody was willing to tell him that. He put up decent points but was a liability defensively. Nobody really cared that much though because they still remembered him as The Messiah.

 

[Sentinel]

He was a shell of himself when he returned to the Rangers and got way more ice time than he deserved. He could barely skate anymore and should have been strictly a third liner by that point, but nobody was willing to tell him that. He put up decent points but was a liability defensively. Nobody really cared that much though because they still remembered him as The Messiah.

Yes, I observed it first hand. It was painful to watch, and Rangers kept failing to make playoffs year after year. Sometimes a player needs to know when to retire. He was certainly harming his club more than helping it.