Mark Messier on Working for the Oilers
Jonathan Willis
August 18 2009 08:42AM
We talked a few days ago about a report by the New York Post’s Larry Brooks, a report which stated that Messier was interviewed this summer for the coaching position that eventually went to Pat Quinn.
According to Messier, that report wasn’t entirely accurate. Here in part is what Messier told CanWest News Service about finding a job in Edmonton:
" [Brooks’ report]’s not necessarily true. I talked to Kevin about working in the Oilers organization in some regard . . . not just this summer but for the last few years. We never really talked about the coaching, per se. We explored every possibility… "I had an ongoing dialogue with Kevin about coming back to Edmonton, but wasn't able to make any sort of commitment to them."
Messier goes on to explain that his family lives in New York, and that his son is going to start school there in the fall.
There isn’t anything overly surprising about the Messier quote; it often seemed during Kevin Lowe’s tenure as general manager that he was trying to recreate the glory-days Oilers, except in the front office instead of on the ice. Even ignoring Craig MacTavish, former Oilers employed by Lowe included Craig Simpson, Charlie Huddy, Kelly Buchberger, Dave Semenko, Frank Musil, Kent Nilsson and Mark Lamb. While I think that many – even most – of the men on that list are or were good at their jobs, it’s difficult not to be a little suspicious of the sheer volume of Lowe’s former teammates.
It would have been a strange break from Lowe’s common practice had he not been in touch with Messier.
It’s also worth noting that it wasn’t Lowe who couldn’t make a commitment to Messier – on the contrary, it was Messier who was unable to commit to working for Lowe. As for what “every possibility” entails, last summer there were rumours (reported by both Robin Brownlee and Joanne Ireland) that Craig Simpson was a strong candidate for Scott Howson’s vacant Assistant G.M. position. Lowe emphatically denied those, saying “that's craziness, total craziness. One minute he's going to be president, the next minute he's going to be assistant general manager. I don't know who started that, but there's nothing to it whatsoever.” I can’t find the link, but as I recall Brownlee stood by his report despite the denial.
I wonder if Messier was ever considered for that post.
And as much as I’d like to close with that line, I also want to be clear about something after the way the comments section reacted to the Messier as coach article: there’s nothing wrong with considering where a guy might fit into the organizational hierarchy. Problems only arise if he’s hired for something that he’s not yet qualified to do.
"I can’t find the link, but as I recall Brownlee stood by his report despite the denial."
Still do. It only became "craziness" when Simpson said "No thanks" because he wanted to stay in the broadcast booth.
I seem to recall a lot of talk about Messier staying in the game after he retired. His interest in this isn't new and I for one think if her approached management with the tenacity he approached the game of hockey, the "moose" would be a valuable employee on any NHL team. Maybe not coach, but in some capacity. Director of Player personnel? I am sure there are a bunch of people on this site that would gladly swap out Prendergast for Messier.
Nepotism and favoritism are in every industry. For some reason people here hate that it happens. Look around the league, every team has former players in new roles.
@ Robin Brownlee: Can't argue that Simpson isn't great in the booth. Probably a little more job security for him there as well.
I'd love to see NHL logic in the real world:
Someone goes to university and spends years learning how to be a great teacher, but his job gets filled by a kid who aced his diploma exams last year. The justification given is that "he obviously knows what it takes to succeed at the diploma exam level".
Wow Larry Brooks wrong, who would've thunk. Insert smile with eyes rolling.
As for Messier. Didn't Tmabo or Lowe say that they wanted someone with experience? I never once considered Messier for the job as he was no where near a top candidate.
jeff wrote:
Well, look how carefully Messier phrased is denial; it isn't even really a denial, just a "well, there's more to it than that".
I don't think Brooks was wrong, based on what Messier said.
jeff wrote:
Not exactly. Tambellini said that for him to hire someone without NHL coaching experience it would have to be a "special person".
Here we go.....
@ Fiveandagame: Fiveandagame wrote:
I kinda think Simpson has been improving quite a bit in the booth. Not like he had years of training, but he's way better than listening to Marc Crawford. He'll get better too. I could be biased though, Simpson was my favourite player growing up after Moog got traded. But I bet in a couple of ye
The favortism is everywhere and not just with Kevin Lowe. It sucks that people are often given jobs they don't deserve when they're not qualified to do them, but even when they are qualfied -- or at least an argument can be made for their qualifications, "those you know" are often pushed ahead of others.
Quinn and Renney are Tambellini's boys. He's worked with them before, he knows them and there were quite a few other options this summer that the Oilers could have explored.
I have no issues with the coaching tandem, but I'm no fool in believing it's based solely on qualifications.
oilersinsider wrote:
True enough, but the difference is that Quinn and Renney have coached at at least a couple of levels. It's not quite the same as a Tony Granato/Wayne Gretzky situation.
I'm happy Messier landed a front office job, but more so because it is in NY instead of here.
Off topic: I'm guessing Thorton will be the next captain of the Sharks now that Marleau has been stripped.
OvenChicken8 wrote:
Precursor to a Marleau/Heatley deal, perhaps? I wonder if Thornton will take this as a challenge to shed the 'No-Show Joe' label once and for all.
Librarian Mike wrote:
Understandable for sure. There are many examples for more obvious than Edmonton. Colorado and Joe Sacco, Joe Nieuwendyk and Dallas...
It's kind of what hockey is, an exclusive club where by if you follow the organizational rules, stay in the game, express your interest in hockey jobs just sort of become available despite your qualifications.
Edmonton at the very least can finally say they having a coaching core with more experience than maybe anything else.
oilersinsider wrote:
Although Sacco's coached (admittedly a crappy team) in the AHL, and Nieuwendyk actually has more front office experience than Lowe did when he was hired.
Plus, Nieuwendyk may have studied something related (business, law?) when he was at Cornell.
Jonathan Willis wrote:
~So you're saying that Andy Bernard should have been a candidate for the position in Dallas?~
I don't know what the big deal is. Hockey people hire the people they know just like business people hire the people they know.
All sports teams are "stuffed" with past players. So, what?
MrOiler wrote:
Exactly, this is how the world goes round!
Librarian Mike wrote:
Of those who went to university there are good teachers and bad teachers....the university doesnt weed out the bad ones, they end up with jobs too. Same goes with any field from what i've seen..........
@ Wyseguy: I love Simpson in the broadcast booth. Hughson and Simpson are the tops on TV if you ask me.
OvenChicken8 wrote:
I just rewatched "Branch Closing" from Season 4 last night. I hear Cornell has a very good alumni association - they look out for each other.
There you have it. A concise list of reasons why the team and organization suck today and will for years to come. Hiring people only because you know them is nepotism. But hiring people you know who have acquired knowledge and experienced success through a lengthy apprenticeship in coaching or managemebnt is quite another. Whoever is making the decisions in head office seems to have missed the distinction.
Just curious if not Quinn and Renney who should've been named the coach.
And I don't think Sutter or Lemaire were options.
Did we want Crawford?
@ jeff: We got rid of MacTavish and brought in the best of who was available at the time. Sutter was still technically under contract / negotiating with the Flames when Quinn and Renney were hired.
jeff wrote:
If only to witness the daily head-to-head with Brownlee.
jeff wrote:
There were options; Scott Arniel for one.
That said, I don't have any beef with who Tambellini hired; Quinn and Renney aren't exactly new to this.
Jonathan Willis wrote:
I know you pumped his tires plenty, but Arniel was never close.
Tambo will he gone in three years. Lowe gave him the job so he never got fired for being " Black CHECK Lowe". In every job people get hired for who they know not what they know. I like Quinn and Renney but think Tambo hasnt done much to help them in the first year of there contract. IMO
The NHL is not a video game. GMs are not stupid. Teams are not going to give up assets for overpaid spare parts. A team needs cap space to make deals and signs free agents. We, as fans, have no way of knowing what deals Tambo has tried to make. I'm going to give him a few seasons for some of the bad contracts to expire before I rush to jugement on the job he is doing.
Remember K Lowe brought us Pronger and a cup fianl. So far Tambo has brought in O'Sullivan, and Bulin. We will have to see the results in the next few years. Its hard to judge what a GM has done in only one year
oil fan wrote:
Really? Wasn't the Cup final the same season Pronger arrived?
vern wrote:
With certain obvious exceptions *coughDougMacLeancough*.
@ Jonathan Willis: true
oil fan wrote:
oil fan wrote:
He also turned MAP/Salo/Greene/Stoll into Grebs/Gilbert/Vish.
oil fan wrote:
What the hell is a Black CHECK, and how do I get one?
Ogden Brother wrote:
And Cole into O'Sullivan.
@ The Menace: Re-reading that, I guess Sully was already accounted for. love that deal though.
Ah.. Long live the Moose...
I'm hearing Kessel to Edmonton will happen soon, Also the Oilers have been looking hard at Tanguay. Names that I am hearing leaving Edmonton are Schremp, Nilsson, Moreau, Souray and Jacques. This will be a big week for the Oilers
@ Eklund: Im not totally stoked on that idea. The getting rid of Schremp, Nilson Moreau would be nice because we could find some value in them. But I like Souray and he is good and Jaques is a mean Mother F'er and I think he fits perfectly on the 4th line. Tanquay and Kessel would both be sketchy pick up, Keseel preformed very well in his conract year (not saying he isnt going to be good or anything) and Tanquay wouldnt be a good fit in EDM and he is Injury prone. I wish the Oilers would go after players like Ganger from Philly
I don't see Philly making anymore moves. They have a solid team as things stand.
vern wrote:
They are also over the cap.
hey Eklund e1?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpQ–58ZdE0
Once again, long live the Moose…
This is unrelated to anything, but today at work I saw a kid who looked like a Sedin. Man...talk about creepy looking. I couldn't decide whether to laugh, cringe, or slap him and say 'Stop it!'
@ Eklund: It'll be interesting if it's true. Looking forward to a big Oilers week coming up to training camp.
Wow, I hope Eklund is right on the people on the move. We still haven't shaken up the team yet. Look what SanJose just did, they do not have a captain or any assistants as of today. Bold move to shake things up.
Guys. At the very least, the real "Eklund" would have had a link to his site, meaning his name would have been blue. Not to mention that he's signing off now with that ridiculous "E#" thing. I call fake on this one.
You'll be just as well served going here...
hxxp://www.geocities.com/crazy_weatherman/randoms/rumourgen.htm
@ Sandra: Acording to capgeek.com they are just under the cap. However, If they need a little room they would make moves in the 3rd or 4th line. Not their star players
I was laughing when I read 'Eklund's' post (nice work btw, fake E4)...then feeling horrified when people thought it was real.
I need to shower to wash away the shame.
*insert Crying Game song*
Frankly, I find fake Eklund to have about as much credibility as the real one. (J6)
What I find funny about the whole thing is how some of these writers think that they're well connected in the business and go on and write such garbage in order to stir a pot somwhere. It's comical really.
Obviously there had to have been some conversations between Brooks and Messier at one point which were "off the record", but does that give Brooks the right to further investigate the issue and then pass off an artcile as fact?
Be thankful we have a gem here in Edmonton with Jim Matheson. He's had his share of "misses" but the HHOF honours writers for their commitment and integrity. Not alot of them in the business can hold one of those attributes let alone two.