View Single Post
03-27-2013, 10:46 PM
Hammer Time
Registered User
Hammer Time's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,707
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I don't get your reasoning. Makarov was a top notch player up until he retired at the age of 36 (SJ was just a mediocre team, and, again, had he been traded to Detroit...). Everything Messier did after the age of 36 was a disaster. So how can you say that Messier aged better than Makarov? Besides, snipers as a general rule have a faster drop-off rate.

As far as peak and prime go, I think this is no contest. Makarov's domination over his peers is something Messier could only dream of. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the list of his competitors, Messier still did not dominate his league to a degree that Makarov dominated his. Plus there is this thing called "eye test." Watch them play, compare their technique and skill, and tell me who was a better player.

I'm also not buying the "never failing to show up" argument. Messier's stint in Vancouver pretty much nullifies it. If he "never failed to show up" and felt like he didn't have it in him anymore, he shouldn't have signed that ridiculous contract and retired. Which is what Makarov did, a much more honest and honorable way of concluding your career. You can say that Makarov also took part in some devastating losses (OG80, CC87), but nobody ever blamed him for any of them.
As poor as Messier's record with the Canucks was, he was still of some value to his team. Makarov was retired, and therefore of no value to any team. Are you saying you think that no value is better than limited value?

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote