What Other Teams Were Interested in Mark Messier in '91?

[The Dude]

17 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Even with Sakic, they’d have still needed major help elsewhere on that roster in 97-98.

He would have made the destination more desirable to FA’s.

But turning that roster over quickly would have been near impossible.

 

Forward group in the top-6, even with Sakic, was not great and the bottom-6 was poor at best.

The blue line, after Leetch, was downright wretched and ancient. 

And the cupboard was bare. 
 

 

If not for the hurt feelings of not bringing Messier back and the burden of taking that brunt hit, Skrudland and Keane might have worked out, with Sakic here and not LaFontaine. They'd probably have to let Gretzky go too and that is very unlikely. Gretz/Sakic as the 1-2 punch is some EA dream stuff.  

 

The forwards weren't that bad. 24 year old Kovalev,  Sundstrom, Keane, Graves, Savard isn't the worst bunch. Kevin Stevens was a reach though, but they didn't have many options. They did have some options the following year in FA though. 

 

The D was terrible though and not much I remember in FA. 

 

You'd also think maybe with a new face of the organization in Sakic, they don't follow up Colin Campbell with John frikken Muckler. But with Gretzky here, that may have been his say...

 

I think if they got Sakic, a new atmosphere and mindset takes over the team.  There might be less crying or emotional drop off, if an absolute franchise forward for the next 5+ years is here to push through.

 

Like Messier  did, maybe Sakic could have lured former Avs to the Rangers.  I think Deadmarsh was a free agent at the time. Could gotten that scoring machine Kamensky too (LOL). 

 

[RangersIn7]

5 hours ago, The Dude said:

If not for the hurt feelings of not bringing Messier back and the burden of taking that brunt hit, Skrudland and Keane might have worked out, with Sakic here and not LaFontaine. They'd probably have to let Gretzky go too and that is very unlikely. Gretz/Sakic as the 1-2 punch is some EA dream stuff.  

 

The forwards weren't that bad. 24 year old Kovalev,  Sundstrom, Keane, Graves, Savard isn't the worst bunch. Kevin Stevens was a reach though, but they didn't have many options. They did have some options the following year in FA though. 

 

The D was terrible though and not much I remember in FA. 

 

You'd also think maybe with a new face of the organization in Sakic, they don't follow up Colin Campbell with John frikken Muckler. But with Gretzky here, that may have been his say...

 

I think if they got Sakic, a new atmosphere and mindset takes over the team.  There might be less crying or emotional drop off, if an absolute franchise forward for the next 5+ years is here to push through.

 

Like Messier  did, maybe Sakic could have lured former Avs to the Rangers.  I think Deadmarsh was a free agent at the time. Could gotten that scoring machine Kamensky too (LOL). 

 

Overall, I’m not saying Sakic wouldn’t have helped. 
He would have. 
A star to build around, in his prime. With Leetch, etc.

Totally a boost.

 

My point is that even with Sakic, that roster was still was poor, and they’d have still needed probably 2 seasons to turn that roster over to competitive again.

 

They’d have still needed to change out 8-10 roster spots. And limited means to do so. 
 

It would have taken time, if they could’ve even pulled that off. 
 

[Rangers1994]

11 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Overall, I’m not saying Sakic wouldn’t have helped. 
He would have. 
A star to build around, in his prime. With Leetch, etc.

Totally a boost.

 

My point is that even with Sakic, that roster was still was poor, and they’d have still needed probably 2 seasons to turn that roster over to competitive again.

 

They’d have still needed to change out 8-10 roster spots. And limited means to do so. 
 

It would have taken time, if they could’ve even pulled that off. 
 

 

Doesn't matter. Sakic or no Sakic, NYR still would have missed the playoffs.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Rangers1994 said:

 

Doesn't matter. Sakic or no Sakic, NYR still would have missed the playoffs.

Yes

 

It would have taken whomever was GM at least a year and a half to flip that roster. Very likely more than that. 
 

They’d have sucked for 2 seasons. 

[The Dude]

17 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Overall, I’m not saying Sakic wouldn’t have helped. 
He would have. 
A star to build around, in his prime. With Leetch, etc.

Totally a boost.

 

My point is that even with Sakic, that roster was still was poor, and they’d have still needed probably 2 seasons to turn that roster over to competitive again.

 

They’d have still needed to change out 8-10 roster spots. And limited means to do so. 
 

It would have taken time, if they could’ve even pulled that off. 
 

As I said though. The roster wasn't THAT bad and the 2 key free agents in Skrudland and Keane may have worked better than they did,  if the pressure wasn't instantly placed on just them to cure the Messier hangover.

 

They both did well when they left here. The mindset of the team was way off.  An elite player with a real future may have altered the teams psyche including players that you think needed to be changed. The team would have been way better than they were. 

[RangersIn7]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

As I said though. The roster wasn't THAT bad and the 2 key free agents in Skrudland and Keane may have worked better than they did,  if the pressure wasn't instantly placed on just them to cure the Messier hangover.

 

They both did well when they left here. The mindset of the team was way off.  An elite player with a real future may have altered the teams psyche including players that you think needed to be changed. The team would have been way better than they were. 

I think Sakic would have absolutely helped establish a pecking order and define roles and all of that, which may have led to some guys playing better.

 

But that roster was bad Dude.

Bad.

 

The fact that we are talking about guys like Keane and Skrudland kind of acts as evidence of that.

Top-6 wingers were Graves, who was breaking down, Kovalev who never found his ceiling here, Sundstrom who was a middle-6 guy and Kevin Stevens, who was pretty deep into substance issues by then. 
 

And then look at the D.

Really bad. 
 

Its hard for me to look at that roster and not see a need for major changes.

 

 

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

I think Sakic would have absolutely helped establish a pecking order and define roles and all of that, which may have led to some guys playing better.

 

But that roster was bad Dude.

Bad.

 

The fact that we are talking about guys like Keane and Skrudland kind of acts as evidence of that.

Top-6 wingers were Graves, who was breaking down, Kovalev who never found his ceiling here, Sundstrom who was a middle-6 guy and Kevin Stevens, who was pretty deep into substance issues by then. 
 

And then look at the D.

Really bad. 
 

Its hard for me to look at that roster and not see a need for major changes.

 

 

It wasn't good, but not as bad as you're making it out to be. I think a lot of people had misconceptions on what Skrudland and Keane were when they were signed. Skrudland was a sleek candidate a bunch of times in his career. He wasn't there to bring points. Nor was Keane. As solid 3rd liners they were fine. When injuries happened to LaFontaine and Graves, people thought these guys should have stepped up and been top players. They pretty much did what they always did. 

 

Those were different times. Teams really weren't very deep back then except for a few. The drop off from top line on down the roster for most NHL teams is kinda on par with what that roster was. Your 3rd liners weren't going to put up 50-60 points. Your 4th line likely had 2 goons on it and a trash AHL center. 

 

The D you have a point on. They were old 

 

Leetch, Beuk, Ulf, Driver (yuck),Karpotsev, Finley and Lidster. But they also had Cairns, who they foolishly let go, as he went on to have a decent career. They also brought in Schneider the following year, who was a good player.  

 

On paper today, it looks like that roster was absolute garbage.  But if you look at the rest of the league,  it was pretty average. The league has certainly changed. 

[RangersIn7]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

It wasn't good, but not as bad as you're making it out to be. I think a lot of people had misconceptions on what Skrudland and Keane were when they were signed. Skrudland was a sleek candidate a bunch of times in his career. He wasn't there to bring points. Nor was Keane. As solid 3rd liners they were fine. When injuries happened to LaFontaine and Graves, people thought these guys should have stepped up and been top players. They pretty much did what they always did. 

 

Those were different times. Teams really weren't very deep back then except for a few. The drop off from top line on down the roster for most NHL teams is kinda on par with what that roster was. Your 3rd liners weren't going to put up 50-60 points. Your 4th line likely had 2 goons on it and a trash AHL center. 

 

The D you have a point on. They were old 

 

Leetch, Beuk, Ulf, Driver (yuck),Karpotsev, Finley and Lidster. But they also had Cairns, who they foolishly let go, as he went on to have a decent career. They also brought in Schneider the following year, who was a good player.  

 

On paper today, it looks like that roster was absolute garbage.  But if you look at the rest of the league,  it was pretty average. The league has certainly changed. 

I completely understand that guys like Keane and Skrudland were there to play as checking forwards in a more defensive role and that neither of them were going to do too much offensively. And your point about forward depth is fair.

 

Even still though, you dump Stevens, and move Sundstrom to the 3rd line, you still need 2 top-6 wingers to go along with Kovalev and Graves.

And probably at least 3 defenseman, 1 of which would have had to be premium. 
 

Thats 5 pretty significant pieces. 
Plus depth guys after that. 
 

Pretty big turnover. 

[RangersIn7]

Also, being as bad as they were defensively, not just on D but team wide, that’s what killed them.

You get a 3rd line of Sundstrom-Skrudland-Keane, which actually looks pretty good as a checking line, that helps.

 

But that group on D was so bad. Very old.

Sammuellson, Beukeboom, and Driver were all just done by then. Lidster too.

They could’ve kept Finley around as a bottom pairing guy.

 

But you still need 4 defensemen.

3 alone for your top-4.

 

Tall order to find them. And nothing really to deal to acquire anyone via trade. 

 

Imagine if they’d have kept Zubov and Mattias Norstrom around.

 

 

[RangersIn7]

If they had Zubov and Norstrom, D pairings look something like…

 

Leetch-Zubov

Norstrom-?

Finley-Karpovtsev

 

Thats assuming they don’t flip Potsy for Schneider. Which they shouldn’t have, but needed to in order to get another puck mover.

They would’ve needed to find a guy to play with Norstrom.

Or shuffle the pairs, play Norstrom and Zubov together.

And find Leetch another partner.

 

It’s debatable what might’ve worked best.

Splitting Leetch and Zubov?

Play them together, which could’ve setup a really premium shutdown pair that could play big minutes if you could find the appropriate RD to play with Norstrom.

 

 

Who knows?

Edited August 22, 2023 by RangersIn7