Gilmour HOF?

before you accuse me of being a huge Gilmour homer, let me freely admit that I am...

i had never really considered it before, but i just checked up on his career stats on hockeydb.com, and i was surprised at how many points he has.

he has more points than guys like Andreychuk, Hull, Robitaille, Shanahan, and a number of other guys who are mentioned as possible or probable hall of famers (obviously hull will be). hell, he has more points than Kurri, Sittler, McDonald, Mullen, Goulet, Gartner, Lafleur, etc (that's just me going through a list of fairly recent inductees). obviously longevity has something to do with that, but there's something to be said for longevity as well.

great captain, great leader. played for his country, won a cup, over 1 ppg in the playoffs, (and from what i hear probably would have won the heart trophy in 1992/93 if not for some guy named lemieux scoring 160 points in 60 games).

he was a fierce competitor, with great leadership, desire, and heart. all in all a fantastic two way player.

so that's my case. verdict?

I think he will get in for sure. He was one of the few players to average more than a point per game in the playoffs.

for sure. one of the greatest captains and leaders all time. second in playoff points only behind gretz... this guy is a lock. even tho he only played a season and a bit with the habs, this guy has ALWAYS had my respect. even while he was with the leafs. to command a habs fan respect while playing with the leafs means something. CLASS ACT.

of course, he played for the Leafs.

I think he will get in for sure. His longevity is amazing and his point totals in the playoffs are awesome. The things I'll remember the most about him are his character and leadership but also when he broke the penalty box glass during the playoffs man that was hell of a swing. I'll always remember that. :lol:

He's probably borderline a HOFer.

More heart and soul then any player I've ever seen, and by more then a small margin... beyond that I'm not touching this thread.

This is one area I'm definitely too biased to offer a worthwhile opinion.

Easily

He's a Hall of Famer, especially given the fairly low standards these days, but it's not because of a lot of the sentimental blabber that many will use to support his candidacy. Take away all the mushy stuff and there's still a hall of fame career left, but not by anywhere near as much as many will make it sound.

He's a Hall of Famer, especially given the fairly low standards these days, but it's not because of a lot of the sentimental blabber that many will use to support his candidacy. Take away all the mushy stuff and there's still a hall of fame career left, but not by anywhere near as much as many will make it sound.

i wish mods would start closing threads when posts like these are made..

nothing really is left to be said, nice post :thumbu:

of course, he played for the Leafs.

oh please, save the bitterness for when i make my Jamie McCown HOF thread...

for sure. one of the greatest captains and leaders all time. second in playoff points only behind gretz... this guy is a lock. even tho he only played a season and a bit with the habs, this guy has ALWAYS had my respect. even while he was with the leafs. to command a habs fan respect while playing with the leafs means something. CLASS ACT.

well said :handclap:

Being a Leaf fan aside, I have a hard time believing that someone could even ask this question, he's a HOFer, no doubt about it.

second in playoff points only behind gretz.

Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, and Hull all have more.

before you accuse me of being a huge Gilmour homer, let me freely admit that I am...

i had never really considered it before, but i just checked up on his career stats on hockeydb.com, and i was surprised at how many points he has.

he has more points than guys like Andreychuk, Hull, Robitaille, Shanahan, and a number of other guys who are mentioned as possible or probable hall of famers (obviously hull will be). hell, he has more points than Kurri, Sittler, McDonald, Mullen, Goulet, Gartner, Lafleur, etc (that's just me going through a list of fairly recent inductees). obviously longevity has something to do with that, but there's something to be said for longevity as well.

great captain, great leader. played for his country, won a cup, over 1 ppg in the playoffs, (and from what i hear probably would have won the heart trophy in 1992/93 if not for some guy named lemieux scoring 160 points in 60 games).

he was a fierce competitor, with great leadership, desire, and heart. all in all a fantastic two way player.

so that's my case. verdict?


I think Gilmour is a tad overrated but that's mostly because HNIC (mainly Don Cherry) treats him like he's god. in terms of air time on coach's corner.... gilmour has gotta be right up there in air time.

Having said that.... gilmour is still a solid hall of famer

Pat lafontaine is in.....why would'nt Gilmour be in then?

As much as I dislike the Leafs, he's gotta be in there. He's one of Toronto's best players of all time, he lead the team for so many years, and his consistency was scary. He's in for sure.

Gilmour is a hall of famer

One of the greatest playoff performers.

i wonder what cap he'll wear on his plaque.

He definitely has the points, but he got most of them them in an era where even the likes of Craig Janney were getting 100 pts. He definitely played with ferocious intensity and was a clutch player. Pierre Turgeon has almost identical stats minus the penalties. Since I would consider Turgeon as a HoF candidate when he retires, I guess Gilmour would have to be considered also.

Where Gilmour loses it for me is not what he did on the ice but what he did off the ice. If Pete Rose (arguably the best baseball player in history) can't get into the baseball HoF because of the off field stuff, I would use the same argument for Gilmour.

His "adventures in babysitting", his walking out on the Flames (a legit cup contender at the time) in mid season, are all well documented and can certainly be looked up for any one not familiar with his escapades. Certainly not the actions of a "great team captain" or leader. Maybe he was great in toronto (BTW remember why they traded him to the devils?), but he certainly created lots of off ice headaches for the Blues and Flames with his behaviour. How much weight does that carry for entry into the HoF? Who knows.

If he had never played in toronto, I suspect he would have a bit of a wait before going in. The fact he played on a major market team, probably pushes him in on his first year of eligibility. Whereas Turgeon may have to wait a longer period of time after he retires.

Easily

Agreed. If you don't think so you didn't watch him play in his prime.

No question in my mind.

i wonder what cap he'll wear on his plaque.Toronto's.

His best years were here.

A Selke, a cup, and 1400 points says yes. One of the best players of the 90s.

To me he's like Adam Oates or Turgeon. A lot of points but no major awards. Not to say he wont get in but I dont think he's going to be a first year ballot. His numbers are good I'll admit. Three times over 100 points. '87 Canada Cup veteran. Cup champion in '89. As far as his off ice troubles? Well he may have "slept" with his babysitter in St. Louis but he was in his mid 20s then not 40. Not to say it was okay but if they would dock him because of that then why let in Martin Brodeur? I mean he slept with his wife's sister!

Patrick Roy was arrested for a domestic dispute with his wife, Belfour once headlocked a hotel security guard, Grant Fuhr was a cocaine user! See all of these guys are either in already like Fuhr or are going to be right away. Let their on ice display speak for itself. We dont need a Pete Rose clause here. (By the way Rose not being in the HOF is terrible)

Belfour once headlocked a hotel security guard

Belfour also offered police "A Billion Dollars" to let him go on a public drunkenness charge, which scores him extra points in my books for being hillarious


when i made this thread, i actually expected there to be a little more resistance. i'm not really sure if i think he'll be first ballot or not...

If Dougie makes it, then Tikkanen should too.

He definitely has the points, but he got most of them them in an era where even the likes of Craig Janney were getting 100 pts. He definitely played with ferocious intensity and was a clutch player. Pierre Turgeon has almost identical stats minus the penalties. Since I would consider Turgeon as a HoF candidate when he retires, I guess Gilmour would have to be considered also.

Where Gilmour loses it for me is not what he did on the ice but what he did off the ice. If Pete Rose (arguably the best baseball player in history) can't get into the baseball HoF because of the off field stuff, I would use the same argument for Gilmour.

His "adventures in babysitting", his walking out on the Flames (a legit cup contender at the time) in mid season, are all well documented and can certainly be looked up for any one not familiar with his escapades. Certainly not the actions of a "great team captain" or leader. Maybe he was great in toronto (BTW remember why they traded him to the devils?), but he certainly created lots of off ice headaches for the Blues and Flames with his behaviour. How much weight does that carry for entry into the HoF? Who knows.

If he had never played in toronto, I suspect he would have a bit of a wait before going in. The fact he played on a major market team, probably pushes him in on his first year of eligibility. Whereas Turgeon may have to wait a longer period of time after he retires.
Thats about the greatest post in this thread. So I'll quote you just to share in its greatness.

Gilmour will get in. Maybe not first-ballot, but he will get in. Don't mention him in the same breath with Adam Oates or Pierre Turgeon. (Turgeon will never get in, unless they create a floater HOF). Gilmour brought heart, intensity, leadership, defensive play and faceoff ability to the table. He was clutch in the playoffs. (In all reality, he was the MVP of the 1994 playoffs, he played with a serious injury that ultimately impacted the rest of his career, but the supporting cast wasn't near enough to beat a much better Vancouver team). Oates walked out on his teams several times, and had several years where he was invisible in the playoffs. (Even years like 1991 and 1993, where he put up big numbers, his play was openly questioned). Turgeon lacks all of the attributes mentioned above for Gilmour. (I'll argue the only way he gets in is in 50 years, when people who only look at stats and never saw him float are determining Hall candidates.

Gilmour's lofty status in the all-time standings are more a reflection of longevity than all-time great skill. (Dale Hawerchuk, for example, was a much better offensive player). But Gilmour, in his prime, was among the best in the league in all aspects of the game. That's good enough in my books.

PS: If off-ice conduct was to be a determining factor in getting into the Hall, then Bobby Hull - one of the biggest jerks to ever play - would have to be removed, too.

He will get in!!!

Yeah,he's a hof'er.

i wonder what cap he'll wear on his plaque.Forsberg4ever, you must be american. Hockey HoF players do not go in with a "cap" on their plaque or even an identifiable sweater. All the teams they played for are listed on the plaque.

Don't mention him in the same breath with Adam Oates or Pierre Turgeon. (Turgeon will never get in, unless they create a floater HOF).Maybe. but it was the starter of this thread that wrote his stats were better than other players. All I did was point out that Turgeon has almost exactly the same stats except for PIM (total and on a per game basis) as Gilmour.

Gilmour brought heart, intensity, leadership, defensive play and faceoff ability to the table. He was clutch in the playoffs.Agreed.

Oates walked out on his teams several times, and had several years where he was invisible in the playoffs.But Gilmour did it in mid season (end of December) because he was upset that an arbitrator ruled he should be paid roughly half way between what the Flames were offering and what he wanted. At the time the Flames were a legit cup contender and never recovered after the terrible Gilmour trade, (made with a gun to their heads put there by Gilmour). Not the actions of what I would consider a "character" player or team leader. He let his Flames teamates down BIG TIME. If Gilmour had been a European player Don Cherry would have been all over him instead of kissing his butt all the time the way he does now.

Gilmour's lofty status in the all-time standings are more a reflection of longevity than all-time great skill. (Dale Hawerchuk, for example, was a much better offensive player). But Gilmour, in his prime, was among the best in the league in all aspects of the game. That's good enough in my books.His "lofty status" is a reflection of playing in an era when the top 20 players in the league all had hundred point seasons. Like I said, when someone like Craig Janney can get 100 points in a season, well....nuff said

PS: If off-ice conduct was to be a determining factor in getting into the Hall, then Bobby Hull - one of the biggest jerks to ever play - would have to be removed, too.Being a jerk and being of dubious moral character are two different things. Have you looked up why the Blues "had" to trade him to Calgary?

I think he's a cinch based on how many journalists love the guy. He may have to wait given the bottle neck of greats hanging them up in the near future

Definately.

:thumbu:

Hell yeah, I'm all for Gilmour in the hall. His stats look pretty, but it's the intangibles that put him over the top. I loved him in Montreal. Even as a shadow of his former self, he was still a player.The image of the penalty box glass shattering without him even blinking was badass.

Gilmour = HOF, definitly.


GP G's A's TP's
NHL Totals 1474 450 964 1414

1,414 pts in 1,474 games I think thats HOF worthy.

D.G career NHL stats, didnt include OHL and the other league.
1983-84 St. Louis Blues NHL 80 25 28 53 57 11 2 9 11 10
1984-85 St. Louis Blues NHL 78 21 36 57 49 3 1 1 2 2
1985-86 St. Louis Blues NHL 74 25 28 53 41 19 9 12 21 25
1986-87 St. Louis Blues NHL 80 42 63 105 58 6 2 2 4 16
1987-88 St. Louis Blues NHL 72 36 50 86 59 10 3 14 17 18
1988-89 Calgary Flames NHL 72 26 59 85 44 22 11 11 22 20
1989-90 Calgary Flames NHL 78 24 67 91 54 6 3 1 4 8
1990-91 Calgary Flames NHL 78 20 61 81 142 7 1 1 2 0
1991-92 Calgary Flames NHL 38 11 27 38 46 -- -- -- -- --
1991-92 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 40 15 34 49 32 -- -- -- -- --
1992-93 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 83 32 95 127 100 21 10 25 35 30
1993-94 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 83 27 84 111 105 18 6 22 28 42
1994-95 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 44 10 23 33 26 7 0 6 6 6
1994-95 Rapperswil-Jona LNSw 9 2 13 15 16 -- -- -- -- --
1995-96 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 81 32 40 72 77 6 1 7 8 12
1996-97 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 61 15 45 60 46 -- -- -- -- --
1996-97 New-Jersey Devils NHL 20 7 15 22 22 10 0 4 4 14
1997-98 New-Jersey Devils NHL 63 13 40 53 68 6 5 2 7 4
1998-99 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 72 16 40 56 56 -- -- -- -- --
1999-00 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 63 22 34 56 51 -- -- -- -- --
1999-00 Buffalo Sabres NHL 11 3 14 17 12 5 0 1 1 0
2000-01 Buffalo Sabres NHL 71 7 31 38 70 13 2 4 6 12
2001-02 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 10 31 41 48 12 4 6 10 16
2002-03 Montreal Canadiens NHL 61 11 19 30 36 -- -- -- -- --
2002-03 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 1 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
NHL Totals 1474 450 964 1414 1299 182 60 128 188 235

one more question:

Growing up, Gilmour was (and still is) regarded as a god in toronto. I was right at the perfect age to become a hockey fan, and the hype was innescapable. when i think about it, i was really too young to be a good judge of talent and such, so just out of curiosity, how good was Gilmour regarded as outside of Toronto in his prime? top 5, 10, 20 in the league? non-Leaf fans opinnions are appreciated

YES

no doubt about it... he's solid gold baby.

pissed me off how his career ended though :cry:

he'll get in.

it's not like the standard for entry to the hall is that high anyways.

There isn't a doubt in my mind. Killer will be a member of the HOF.

To me he's like Adam Oates or Turgeon. A lot of points but no major awards.


The Selke isn't a major award?

Or his Stanley cup...

pissed me off how his career ended though :cry:
I thought it was perfect irony, seeing him crawl on all fours across the Flames logo at centre ice...the very team he screwed over. Just wouldn't have been the same if it had happened anywhere else. I'm sure many fathers of teen aged girls in NHL cities breathed a sigh of relief when he retired

I thought it was perfect irony, seeing him crawl on all fours across the Flames logo at centre ice...the very team he screwed over. Just wouldn't have been the same if it had happened anywhere else. I'm sure many fathers of teen aged girls in NHL cities breathed a sigh of relief when he retired

Oh, the irony. :lol

Speaking stickly in terms of statistics, no question Gilmour should be in. The guy is 14th all time in scoring! Plus people will always remember his heart and gutsy play. (And how much Cherry loved him ;) ) His off ice troubles and lack of major trophies might hinder his chances at being a first ballot guy, but I doubt he will be in. People often compare players of the same era who got in. Using that logic and pointing to Pat Lafontaine, Gilmour should be in no doubt.

However, this raises the question of true merit. It's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of very good. Gilmour might be remembered one the best of all time, Lafontaine is not. Also, with Lafontaine in, it opens the door for players like Sundin, Federov and Niewendyk, who do not deserve to be in the Hall at all. This is why comparisons can be useful, but must be used carefully.

If Dougie makes it, then Tikkanen should too.
I'm sorry I don't see the similarity. doesn't Gilmour have twice as many points?

Speaking stickly in terms of statistics, no question Gilmour should be in. The guy is 14th all time in scoring! Plus people will always remember his heart and gutsy play. (And how much Cherry loved him ;) ) His off ice troubles and lack of major trophies might hinder his chances at being a first ballot guy, but I doubt he will be in. People often compare players of the same era who got in. Using that logic and pointing to Pat Lafontaine, Gilmour should be in no doubt.

However, this raises the question of true merit. It's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of very good. Gilmour might be remembered one the best of all time, Lafontaine is not. Also, with Lafontaine in, it opens the door for players like Sundin, Federov and Niewendyk, who do not deserve to be in the Hall at all. This is why comparisons can be useful, but must be used carefully.

i might be alone here, but lafontaine was an outstanding player. if his career wasn't cut short and he played another 5 seasons, another 400 points would not be out of the question.

however his career did end early. but he still had a great career and in my view there's no doubt he's a hall of famer. his biggest drawback, similar to hawerchuk, is that he didn't play for one of the major franchises during his prime ... ie. toronto, detroit, rangers, flyers, montreal..etc.

of course, he played for the Leafs.
I honestly wonder if you believe even a single Leafs player should be in the Hall.

"Being a jerk and being of dubious moral character are two different things. Have you looked up why the Blues "had" to trade him to Calgary?"

Yes, Kickabrat, I'm aware of the stories that led to the Blues trading him to Calgary. But moral character has never been a factor in determining who goes into the Hall. Terry Sawchuk and Bobby Hull were wife beaters. Hull also fired frozen tennis balls at his kids' heads, and made pro-Hitler comments during an interview with a Russian paper in 1998. Gilmour wouldn't be the first HHOF inductee with a checkered past. I never argued for Gilmour's status as a King Clancy candidate (the guy looked stoned out of his mind on a 1993 UD hockey card), I argued for his heart, grit, elite two-way play and playoff record.


Gilmour also cleared 100 points in two seasons where there were 10 or fewer 100-point scorers.

Gilmour and LaFontaine were different players. Gilmour was more of a gritty, two-way player whose hockey sense and heart carried him to success. LaFontaine was pure skill, who, like Dale Hawerchuk, was a gifted offensive centre who would be much higher on the all-time scoring list if not for injuries and many years spent putting up big numbers with lesser players. The only similarity is like LaFontaine, it'll likely take a couple shots before Gilmour is inducted.

Dougy's in for sure.... look at this points not only in the regular season, but the playoffs also, and plus the type of heart and soul player he was... he's in the HOF no problem....

one more question:

Growing up, Gilmour was (and still is) regarded as a god in toronto. I was right at the perfect age to become a hockey fan, and the hype was innescapable. when i think about it, i was really too young to be a good judge of talent and such, so just out of curiosity, how good was Gilmour regarded as outside of Toronto in his prime? top 5, 10, 20 in the league? non-Leaf fans opinnions are appreciated


I am from Toronto, but I have not been a Leafs fan since the 80's. More of a hockey fan than any one team, but I did love my Whalers! So take this for what its worth.

During his heyday, say 93/94 playoffs, an argument could easily be made that Gilmour was one of the top 5 players in hockey, all around. Keep in mind, these are the days of Gretzky, Lemieux, Francis, so some pretty heady company. He really was, for about 3/4 years, am exceptional talent who really came to play.

To those of you who are questioning his character, and the allegations in St.Louis, I would like to say this. I have had the pleasure of meeting the man this year, and have seen how he spends his time post-hockey. There is no one in Toronto who gives to charity like Doug Gilmour does. He may not give the most in dollars, but he gives his time, over and over again, without any fanfare or media coverage. I myself have been involved in two events that he has helped, and neither time did he ask for any special treatment or acknowledgement. And noone outside of that event knew how he came, helped out and did so with pleasure. The guy is a gentleman, and he was from what I can tell a model citizen during his stay in Toronto as a player. This may have nothing to do with his HofFame possibilities, but it should be told if others are going to come on here an question his character and spout about teenage daughters.

(as far as I know, those were just allegations. Was he convicted?)

And I hope those of you who are chastizing him for holding out for money realize today's players and their actions are no different in my opinion. Lockout or not, you can also eliminate all 700 current players from the Hall of Fame if thats your criteria. Greed is greed.

i wonder what cap he'll wear on his plaque.The Yankees undoubtedly. Steinbrenner will probably give him a front office "job" to assure it.

Forsberg4ever, you must be american. Hockey HoF players do not go in with a "cap" on their plaque or even an identifiable sweater. All the teams they played for are listed on the plaque.You must have no sense of humor.

450 Goals, 964 Assists and 1414 Points in 1474 Games Played in the regular season will get him in.

Wasn't Craig Janney centering Hull and Shannahan that year? He finished ahead of both of them to lead the Blues in scoring for 1992-93. Gilmour had 21 more points than Janney and finnished the year in 7th place in scoring for the league.

Gimour is 14th all-time in points and 11th all-time in assists. Those are impressive feats.

Gilmour finished second to Mario Lemieux for the Hart Trophy in 1992-93, fourth for the Hart and second for the Selke to Sergei Federov in 1993-94. That gives him a nice peak to go along with his career numbers.

"
Gilmour and LaFontaine were different players. Gilmour was more of a gritty, two-way player whose hockey sense and heart carried him to success. LaFontaine was pure skill, who, like Dale Hawerchuk, was a gifted offensive centre who would be much higher on the all-time scoring list if not for injuries and many years spent putting up big numbers with lesser players. The only similarity is like LaFontaine, it'll likely take a couple shots before Gilmour is inducted.

I agree with what you said about Gilmour. Also regarding Lafontaine, I didn't mean to sound as if I thought he wasen't a good player, don't get me wrong, he was absolutely great and probably deserves to be in the Hall. My issue is simply that with Lafontaine's stats, admittedly, stats aren't everything, arguments can be made for players who don't deserve. Should Sundin because his stats are comparable to Lafontaine's? I don't hink so. (I think Pat is more deserving) However, you are right when you say that injuries hurt him. I think that was one determining factor. Because Lafontaine only played 1 full season I think. If he had played a full career he probably would have had around 1400 points. Anyways, Gilmour should be in but unfortunately probalby won't be first ballot. Lafontaine deserves to be as well but his case is a little harder to argue. Players with 1000 points though? Should not be in automatically.

He will be in there at a some point

....This may have nothing to do with his HofFame possibilities, but it should be told if others are going to come on here an question his character and spout about teenage daughters. (as far as I know, those were just allegations. Was he convicted?).
A civil lawsuit was brought against him by the girl's parents. Don't remember the exact details but I think it was settled out of court.

And I hope those of you who are chastizing him for holding out for money realize today's players and their actions are no different in my opinion. Lockout or not, you can also eliminate all 700 current players from the Hall of Fame if thats your criteria. Greed is greed.
He did not hold out. He was awarded a contract by an arbitrator and he did not like it so he quit the team in late December. Like I said, not the actioons of a team kind of guy.

And like I wrot before, he will most likely make it to the HoF.

Kickabrat, not that it matters a whole helluva lot, but I remember an old Red Fisher column about Gilmour walking out on Calgary. From what I remember, he and Risebrough didn't get along. Risebrough was a rookie GM. Unknown to Risebrough, Gilmour was in the next hotel room, and overheard him ranting and raving about what an a hole Gilmour was and how he wanted to get rid of him. Gilmour got pissed and decided to force the situation.

I agree, he's an obvious hof'er. BTW, Whaler Boy, I've heard the same of Gilmour's behaviour today. I also heard the stories years ago. I guess people grow up and you hope there isn't too much destruction along the way.

A civil lawsuit was brought against him by the girl's parents. Don't remember the exact details but I think it was settled out of court.

He did not hold out. He was awarded a contract by an arbitrator and he did not like it so he quit the team in late December. Like I said, not the actioons of a team kind of guy.

And like I wrot before, he will most likely make it to the HoF.


For his character, I can only comment on what Ive seen, and what I know to be true. Settling out of court, that doesnt tell me he is guilty, though I have no reason to believe he was or was not.
And as far as the Calgary thing, if you think holding out, or not playing under a signed contract means you should not get into the hall, dont you think you'll be taking out a lot of players?
(i agree though, shows a lack of integrity)

That said, to judge a man by what he did in his early-mid twenties...well, lets just say i doubt every hall of famer is so innocent and pure.

Ive seen Wayne Gretzky, the shy, pure boy wonder of Canada, in a couple of situations that would have gotten an NHL player in trouble. at least with their wives!!!

Gilmour will with out a doubt nake the HOF.

And as far as the Calgary thing, if you think holding out, or not playing under a signed contract means you should not get into the hall, dont you think you'll be taking out a lot of players? (i agree though, shows a lack of integrity)
The thing about Calgary was, that Riseborough called him an A-hole because Gilmour was making noise that he wanted more money and that he would not accept the arbitrator's decision (in those days, an arbitrator could rule at any time, and in this case came roughly half way between the bid/ offer spread in December). That is when Gilmour took a hairy fit, demanded more money or he would leave. Riseborough did not give in, and Gilmour left. My beef about this is that he left a team that was a legitimate cup contender. By putting a gun to Risborough's head, he forced him into one of the worst trade in NHL history, and basically destroyed any hope of a cup for years to come. That is not the action of a leader or a team player. If he was a European player, everybody particularly Don Cherry, would be all over him for doing something like that.

Like I said, it won't stop him from going in the HoF, but if I had a vote, I would make him wait a few years before he gets in.