|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jan 3, 2003 13:58:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 3, 2003 14:14:49 GMT -5
OK, hate to be sound like a Gilmour basher here but if this guy is back with the Habs next year taking the spot of a youngster then this organization has no clue what they are doing...
If he comes back...it has to be in that 4th line/grinding role a la Kirk Muller. No way can you count on him to be such a huge cog in the offence at that age.
BTW, this was nice..
''The way they've screwed up so many things this year, what with $8.6 million US going out in goaltending, given that they haven't been able to trade Jeff Hackett, and $5 million more tied up in stiffs Donald Audette and Mariusz Czerkawski, this group has the potential to be pretty sour.
They reached the second round of the playoffs last year and when they needed help to take the next step, management hasn't been able to deliver that additional defenceman, goal scorer or big forward who can make opposition defencemen keep their heads up.''
Jeez, an idiot like Galagher could see this...why couldn't AS see it?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 3, 2003 15:02:35 GMT -5
Jeez, an idiot like Galagher could see this...why couldn't AS see it? After 30 games, Gilmour has become a major contributor again, if we make it to the playoffs, we know he'll be a key guy. I don't see Savard cuting him lose next summer and I don't see Dougie walking away from 2 mil. I fully expect the HABS to count on Gilmour for a major role next year.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jan 3, 2003 18:01:35 GMT -5
The article states that Gilmour will play 'until the lord sends him over the boards' ... it doesn't say he will be back next year. Even if his career is over in the NHL, he will keep playing in a garage league or something like that. I have a ton of respect for the guy and I still think he brings a lot to a young team fighting to find it's identity. If he thinks he can still contribute, I say keep him. Don't forget, Perreault has most of his points thanks to Gilmour's playmaking and efforts. I agree that we need to get bigger and if Gilmour leaves, this will open up a roster spot. But think about it, if the person coming in doesn't contribute more offensively than Gilmour, why not just keep him?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 3, 2003 18:20:12 GMT -5
After 30 games, Gilmour has become a major contributor again, if we make it to the playoffs, we know he'll be a key guy. I don't see Savard cuting him lose next summer and I don't see Dougie walking away from 2 mil. I fully expect the HABS to count on Gilmour for a major role next year. I agree it depends on if we make the playoffs this year. Gilmour would be good to have around with all the kids coming up...good role model..
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 4, 2003 17:58:10 GMT -5
The article states that Gilmour will play 'until the lord sends him over the boards' ... it doesn't say he will be back next year. Even if his career is over in the NHL, he will keep playing in a garage league or something like that. I have a ton of respect for the guy and I still think he brings a lot to a young team fighting to find it's identity. If he thinks he can still contribute, I say keep him. Don't forget, Perreault has most of his points thanks to Gilmour's playmaking and efforts. I agree that we need to get bigger and if Gilmour leaves, this will open up a roster spot. But think about it, if the person coming in doesn't contribute more offensively than Gilmour, why not just keep him? I know what it's like. At 56 years of age, I still play (not in the NHL but in a league that is appropriate for my diminished skills) and I'm still having fun. When I get on the ice the other team is the 1972 Russian All-stars, the guy I'm checking is Valeri Kharlomov and the goaltender I'm beating is Tretiak. Keep going Dougie and don't look back. All my friends who retired from hockey to play golf regret it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Jan 5, 2003 2:02:46 GMT -5
They reached the second round of the playoffs last year and when they needed help to take the next step, management hasn't been able to deliver that additional defenceman, goal scorer or big forward who can make opposition defencemen keep their heads up.'' Jeez, an idiot like Galagher could see this...why couldn't AS see it? Man, about 26 teams need that additional dman, goal scorer or big forward who make opposition defencemen keep their heads up, this is hardly a revelation.. but exactly where are they supposed to get them from? How many of them are avaiable? McLaren? Lapointe, maybe? Satan? If you've got no problem paying the price, dollar-wise and talent-wise (landing a Satan WILL require a Komisarek, Hainsey or Markov, at the minimum) then you can talk (and you still need to find the available players), but if you're trying to peddle Dackell, Czercawski and Quintal out of town you're sure as heck aren't going to get anything that can help you out back.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 5, 2003 11:14:00 GMT -5
If his bad backs allows him...
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 5, 2003 11:32:40 GMT -5
Geeze HA, you'd almost think there was a little bird talking to you.
The sword you refer to is a possibility I suppose, but Savard would have to be holding on to his share of the hilt to see this through. In the past, Savard has always defended his coach first and unless there's a drastic turnaround I can't see that changing overnight.
Right now the team is either very hot, or very cold. They have a terrible period sometimes followed by an excellent period or visa-versa. The turnaround I'm referring to may come if the Habs are hopelessly out of a playoff race, or miss the playoffs entirely. Short of that, Savard is still supporting his coach at least publicly.
Anyway, coming full circle on you, Gilmour won't be able to oust Therrien by himself. I think he'd be moved well before that if for no other reason than for Savard to re-establish the chain of command. However, if MT is to go, it will have to be Savard's decision, not Gilmour's.
Cheers.
|
|