Rumors about the New York Rangers’ coaching vacancy have stirred North American hockey circles. It has surfaced that Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier have submitted applications for the top job behind the Rangers’ bench. Messier enters the process without prior NHL head coaching experience, while Gretzky brings a coaching résumé built over four seasons with the Phoenix Coyotes. The idea of Gretzky steering the Rangers has sparked a mix of excitement and skepticism among fans who remember his unparalleled playing career and wonder how his leadership style would translate to a modern NHL club. In a franchise with high expectations and a market hungry for immediate results, the possibility of bringing in two living legends adds a fresh layer of intrigue to a routine job search.
Gretzky’s coaching story is anchored in a four-season tenure with the Phoenix Coyotes, a stint that showcased his commitment to building a system from the bench rather than simply applying a player’s instincts. When the time came to move on, his resignation was followed by criticism that focused on decision making, game management, and the pace at which his teams shifted between plans during tight games. Since leaving that role, he has not returned to coaching duties, which leaves a question mark over whether the cadence of his voice could reliably guide a large, high-profile group under national scrutiny. Still, the potential appeal is clear. Gretzky carries an intimate knowledge of the game from every vantage point—offense, set plays, power plays, and the psychological pressure that comes with a demanding schedule. His contacts across the league, his history of winning, and his ability to command attention could help a Rangers squad trying to redefine its identity and maximize the best years of veteran talent while integrating young players into a faster, more dynamic style of play. In clubs that need a decisive voice and a proven ability to command room respect, a figure with Gretzky’s stature can offer a kind of authority that is hard to replicate from scratch.
On the other side, Messier presents a different kind of potential. He would arrive as a legendary figure with immediate name recognition and a cache of leadership experience from a storied career, but without direct NHL head coaching history. The Rangers would face the challenge of converting a celebrated player persona into regular, day-to-day instruction, game planning, and staff coordination. The decision would hinge on whether the organization believes a fresh bench voice can translate the intensity of a long playing career into practical guidance for players, coaches, and the management staff. The choice would also factor in the realities of a league that emphasizes structure, analytics, and quick, adaptive systems. If a deep cultural shift is desired, Messier could provide a powerful inspirational presence; if the goal is an established coaching framework, Gretzky offers a different kind of credibility that comes from a longer track record behind the bench, albeit with a mixed history in recent years.
For fans and analysts, the question isn’t simply about fame or affection for a one-time dynasty. It is about whether either man can deliver sustained, year-to-year improvement on the ice and steady leadership in a franchise that carries a heavy spotlight. The Rangers’ next coach will need to balance accountability with development, manage the veteran core while cultivating rookies, and adapt to a schedule that tests every team’s depth. The conversation around Gretzky versus Messier will continue until the decision is made, with supporters arguing that a legendary player can still learn the art of coaching and detractors noting that past success as a player does not guarantee success behind an NHL bench. In time, the franchise’s choice will reveal how much weight is placed on name recognition versus proven coaching acumen, and what it signals about the team’s direction in a league that never stops evolving.