Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
People forget that unrestricted free agency didn't really exist back then either. The team basically owned you until they didn't want you anymore. You have to see the dispute in the context of when it happened. Also I believe Gilmour was most angry about how the process went down with Risebrough being all chummy with the arbitrator. I really think his legacy would be viewed as more positive if his trade wasn't completely butchered, helping usher in the dark years. Being traded for garbage was hardly his fault. I think it's time to move on from vilifying Doug Gilmour and focus on the good he brought this franchise. No Gilmour means no cup after all. It would be a travesty if his #39 isn't honored at some point.
|
When did they bring in unrestricted free agency? I thought the age at the time of the Gilmour fiasco was 31, but I could easily be wrong.
At any rate, there are definitely 2 sides to the story. It wasn't uncommon in those days for owners to come up with creative ways to underpay players by promising them future rewards (i.e., sign for a discount now, and we'll give you a bigger contract next time, or a "special services" contract after you retire, or Little Caesars shares... ect...). The NHL has done their best to stamp these out now, but I am sure it still happens on the down-low in some franchises.
IIRC, Gilmour was given a handshake deal from the former GM that the new GM did not want to honour. Tough beans for Gilmour, but not an excuse to walk out on his teammates. It was the decision he made at the time to accept a handshake deal.
Having said that, players were generally underpaid back then and it's water under the bridge now.