I didn’t hear until late last night (ferry trip plus Mark Knopfler concert kept me away from sports news), but yesterday longtime Canuck Markus Naslund signed a two-year deal with the New York Rangers for what works out to $4 million a year:
“It wasn’t hard to keep playing because I knew a few weeks after the season I wanted the chance to play again and maybe redeem myself and play the way I know I can play,” Naslund said last night from his home in Ornskoldsvik.
I’m glad to see the backside of Naslund (as, I’m sure, were many Vancouverites when he was walking around town). Don’t get me wrong–he could play. In his prime he had a Brett Hullesque release from the slot, cunning hands around the net and terrific outside speed. Also like Hull, he has that ability to sneak into the bare patches of defensive coverage to make room for a shot. He had three forty-goal seasons here in Vancouver, and was obviously a key component to the team’s success during his tenure. For a couple years, the West Coast Express line of Naslund, Morrison and Bertuzzi was the best in the league.
Still, his production has been systematically tailing off in recent years. He may enjoy a boost with a more attacking-style team and a more capable centre, but that was never going to happen in Vancouver. The team hasn’t had the personnel for the past two or three years. Last year the Canucks paid Naslund $6 million for 25 goals from Naslund last year, which was about 15 goals too few.
Naslund was never the kind of player I really admired. His commitment to defense was, at best, spotty and he was reasonably timid on the ice. Mike Keenan’s decision to hand Naslund the captaincy after Messier left was a brilliant tactical decision, but I think its effectiveness has long been exhausted. Naslund always struck me as too cool to be captain. It was hard to imagine him getting angry at his teammates for underperforming, or standing up for them physically on the ice.
It’s a common pattern as players age: they don’t necessarily want to decline in the same city where they rose to prominence. I’ve enjoyed watching Naslund over the years in Vancouver, but his expiry date had, for me, already passed.
If I have the Swedish correct, the title of this post means “we’ll miss you, Naslund”, “I love you, Markus”. Cue the cheesy tribute video:
DarrenBarefoot.com 
Nearly there with the blog title, which actually says “I love you, Markus” 🙂
I’m Norwegian, not Swedish, the right wording should be something in the neighbourhood of “Vi kommer att sakna dig.”
Hmm, insert the words “posting” in my first sentence and “but” in the second one. Long day, warm brain.
I’m amazed by some of the vitriol I’ve heard from Canucks fans now that Naslund has left (not speaking of you, Darren, just in general on the net and radio). I wonder what new levels of nastiness people will come up with in a couple years time when Luongo leaves after his contract is up and its clear that he’s not playing for a contender?
Of course, it’s always easier to blame the pieces of the puzzle rather than the clowns in charge who never seem to be able to find all of them and assemble them into a team that can make a convincing run in the post season. Blah.
Darren–I have to admit “Jag alskar dig” does mean “I love you”…That’s what I knew offhand, and I gave you the loose translation of “We’ll miss you…” ;)Maybe the title is more apt to me than you but in any case, the sentiment is there…