Gilmour HOF?

[Big Phil]

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)

 

[arrbez]

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...

 

[Jussi]

If Dougie makes it, then Tikkanen should too.

 

[#66]

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.

 

[God Bless Canada]

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.

 

[BuppY]

He will get in!!!

 

[mvp76]

Yeah,he's a hof'er.

 

[Kickabrat]

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?

 

[Hasbro]

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

 

[Juicer]

Definately.

 

[Schlep Rock]

 

[revolverjgw]

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.

 

[AG9NK35DT8*]

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

 

[arrbez]

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

 

[Porn*]

YES

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

pissed me off how his career ended though

 

[Hawker14]

he'll get in.

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

 

[Amoroq]

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

 

[Morbo]

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

The Selke isn't a major award?

 

[mvp76]

Or his Stanley cup...

 

[Kickabrat]

pissed me off how his career ended though

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

 

[The Kingslayer]

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

 

[Quiet Robert]

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.

 

[looooob]

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?

 

[Hawker14]

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.

 

[Verbal Kint*]

of course, he played for the Leafs.

I honestly wonder if you believe even a single Leafs player should be in the Hall.