Hal Gill

[Constellation]

As much as I like him, but last game was horrible...

[weepingminotaur]

On a night when most of the team responded and we beat Philly decisively, Gill was still poor. Slow, ineffective, ridiculous number of unforced turnovers (how many times did we see Gill weakly swat the puck trying to clear it, only to have it stay in the zone?), penalties, and not even particularly good on the penalty kill. I can't believe we kept this guy over Hamrlik, it's appalling. The only reason I'd continue to play him is because our blue line is even weaker without him in the lineup, but that's hardly an endorsement. It just means we have a badly built blue line with no depth.

[jennifer_rocket]

On a night when most of the team responded and we beat Philly decisively, Gill was still poor. Slow, ineffective, ridiculous number of unforced turnovers (how many times did we see Gill weakly swat the puck trying to clear it, only to have it stay in the zone?), penalties, and not even particularly good on the penalty kill. I can't believe we kept this guy over Hamrlik, it's appalling. The only reason I'd continue to play him is because our blue line is even weaker without him in the lineup, but that's hardly an endorsement. It just means we have a badly built blue line with no depth.

I am wondering if we might benefit from playing Emelin instead. Emelin might even be the more physical player, to be honest. He's certainly a better passer and shooter than Gill is. The positional play might not be there, but... At this point, I see no reason for Gill to be in the line-up when we have another competent player sitting in the press-box.

[weepingminotaur]

I am wondering if we might benefit from playing Emelin instead. Emelin might even be the more physical player, to be honest. He's certainly a better passer and shooter than Gill is. The positional play might not be there, but... At this point, I see no reason for Gill to be in the line-up when we have another competent player sitting in the press-box.

If I were Jacques, I'd play Emelin, but I can understand the logic in pressboxing him when we're already playing three young players (Subban, Weber, Diaz) on defense.

[jennifer_rocket]

If I were Jacques, I'd play Emelin, but I can understand the logic in pressboxing him when we're already playing three young players (Subban, Weber, Diaz) on defense.

Which is fair, but... Boy, sometimes Hal exhibits the skills of rookie out there. He's strong in certain aspects of the game, and maybe his supposed locker-room "leadership" does count for something, but he's lacking in so many other areas. And it's not like we're paying him $800K either.

[BeanCountingHab]

Best case scenario IMO would be the young guys keep developing and we get Markov and Campoli back by the deadline allowing us to trade Gill and/or Georges by that time. As things stand, I don't see either of them in our long-term plans. Gill, for obvious reasons and for Georges I feel like the market will price him out of what we want to pay for his services.

[weepingminotaur]

Which is fair, but... Boy, sometimes Hal exhibits the skills of rookie out there. He's strong in certain aspects of the game, and maybe his supposed locker-room "leadership" does count for something, but he's lacking in so many other areas. And it's not like we're paying him $800K either.

Gill's play has regressed to the point where the value he provides is so minimal that it doesn't outweigh his shortcomings on most nights. He's good at two things: defending the cross-seam pass down low on a penalty (particularly on a 5-on-3), and using his size and reach to protect the net on a penalty. But by the same token, he is horrendously bad at clearing the puck in general, and on the penalty kill specifically: his clearing attempts are frequently weak and easily kept in by enemy d-men at our blue line. So whatever value he provides on the penalty kill is mitigated by the fact that he can't clear the puck, which leads to us spending more time in our own end when we're shorthanded. His ability to stay in position and not blow coverage when the other team is cycling the puck is also questionable. It's too easy to get him to vacate a high-percentage area near the net. I haven't even gotten into the lack of foot speed, lack of recovery speed when he gets beaten to the outside skating backward, inability to consistently make good first passes out of the zone, lack of offensive output, and tendency to take holding penalties to compensate for his lack of speed and positional play.

I thought Gill provided decent value last season on most nights. This year, he's just not adding value most of the time. We could have re-signed Hamrlik for two years and given ourselves a player who could play bigger, better minutes in more situations, and who actually generates some offense from the backend. But no, we chose to keep the good locker-room guy.

[jennifer_rocket]

Best case scenario IMO would be the young guys keep developing and we get Markov and Campoli back by the deadline allowing us to trade Gill and/or Georges by that time. As things stand, I don't see either of them in our long-term plans. Gill, for obvious reasons and for Georges I feel like the market will price him out of what we want to pay for his services.

True! Although, dropping Gill will depend on where we are in the standings at that time of year. I can hardly see Pierre dropping him if we are in a position to make the play-offs.

[dwdemonwolf]

Gill's play has regressed to the point where the value he provides is so minimal that it doesn't outweigh his shortcomings on most nights. He's good at two things: defending the cross-seam pass down low on a penalty (particularly on a 5-on-3), and using his size and reach to protect the net on a penalty. But by the same token, he is horrendously bad at clearing the puck in general, and on the penalty kill specifically: his clearing attempts are frequently weak and easily kept in by enemy d-men at our blue line. So whatever value he provides on the penalty kill is mitigated by the fact that he can't clear the puck, which leads to us spending more time in our own end when we're shorthanded. His ability to stay in position and not blow coverage when the other team is cycling the puck is also questionable. It's too easy to get him to vacate a high-percentage area near the net. I haven't even gotten into the lack of foot speed, lack of recovery speed when he gets beaten to the outside skating backward, inability to consistently make good first passes out of the zone, lack of offensive output, and tendency to take holding penalties to compensate for his lack of speed and positional play.

I thought Gill provided decent value last season on most nights. This year, he's just not adding value most of the time. We could have re-signed Hamrlik for two years and given ourselves a player who could play bigger, better minutes in more situations, and who actually generates some offense from the backend. But no, we chose to keep the good locker-room guy.

It sure hurts to see Hamrlik play 20-25 minutes a night for the Caps. I've seen a few of their games and he's ridicilously consistent. A true workhorse.

[weepingminotaur]

It sure hurts to see Hamrlik play 20-25 minutes a night for the Caps. I've seen a few of their games and he's ridicilously consistent. A true workhorse.

Ridiculous that we let him go ostensibly only because he wanted two years, not one. Even if that second year is subpar, we'd have Spacek off the books by then, and Hamrlik had shown no signs that his play was going to fall off. Choosing Gill over Hamrlik is IMO the worst move PG has made in his tenure as GM.

[jennifer_rocket]

Ridiculous that we let him go ostensibly only because he wanted two years, not one. Even if that second year is subpar, we'd have Spacek off the books by then, and Hamrlik had shown no signs that his play was going to fall off. Choosing Gill over Hamrlik is IMO the worst move PG has made in his tenure as GM.

I suppose it's possible Pierre saw the savings. However, look what we did with that... Nothing. I saw the savings at one point, too, but we didn't use any of our remaining cap room to invest in the back-end (Campoli is no upgrade), so there really was no point.

[dwdemonwolf]

Ridiculous that we let him go ostensibly only because he wanted two years, not one. Even if that second year is subpar, we'd have Spacek off the books by then, and Hamrlik had shown no signs that his play was going to fall off. Choosing Gill over Hamrlik is IMO the worst move PG has made in his tenure as GM.

Indeed, I am generally quite pleased with Gauthier but I disagree completely with the decision to let Hammer walk. Just straight up replacing Gill with Roman would make such a huge difference to our defense.

Just imagine that we right now could have:

Subban - Hamrlik

Gorges - Diaz

Weber - Spacek

Emelin

Which would be a big, big improvement. That would give us a legitimate top pairing, allow us to scale back Gorges' minutes a bit (Josh is good but he struggles when he logs too many minutes) and have a solid veteran presence in all our three pairings.

[jennifer_rocket]

I would have been willing to replace Gill AND Gorges with money for Roman at this point. Hindsight is 20/20 I know, but damn if Roman wouldn't look good back there now.

[WinnipegJet]

Ridiculous that we let him go ostensibly only because he wanted two years, not one. Even if that second year is subpar, we'd have Spacek off the books by then, and Hamrlik had shown no signs that his play was going to fall off. Choosing Gill over Hamrlik is IMO the worst move PG has made in his tenure as GM.

My thoughts exactly, on the first half at least. I can understand PG liking the idea of keeping Gill around - even though fans gripe a lot, Gill's presence seems to have meant a lot in a few ways on and off the ice.

[Habs_Hockey_Nutz]

Gill is a sad case as a Habs 7th d-man IMO. Even Paul Mara at a lower cap hit would not look as bad a signing at this point.

PG over-valued this player any way you look at it. By the look of things... he could easily be demoted/waivered as he doesn't seem to have any NMC/NTC.

[Nine1One]

Gill is making more bad plays than goods ones lately it seems.

[habs_93]

Gill is making more bad plays than goods ones lately it seems.

Well, he is older than time.

[seth505]

Can we play Emelin for a few games in place of Gill pleeeeeease...

[BeanCountingHab]

Ridiculous that we let him go ostensibly only because he wanted two years, not one. Even if that second year is subpar, we'd have Spacek off the books by then, and Hamrlik had shown no signs that his play was going to fall off. Choosing Gill over Hamrlik is IMO the worst move PG has made in his tenure as GM.

Every GM makes good moves and bad moves. This would fall under the bad move category IMO. To be fair to PG, this move doesn't look half as bad if Markov is in the lineup to start the year which Gauthier would have no doubt been thinking was going to happen when he made these decisions. Heck, it doesn't even look as bad if Campoli is in.

It may still be ok in the long run if it gives us the ability to bring in another solid top 4 guy from free agency this summer. Assuming the rookies continue to develop, I'd be happy to roll with 3 of Diaz, Webber, Emelin and Gorges as the bottom half of our defense core. (Gorges is a question mark at this point until we see how he performs the rest of this year and what it would cost to retain him.)

[weepingminotaur]

Every GM makes good moves and bad moves. This would fall under the bad move category IMO.

No question, and folk here know that on the whole, I'm pleased with what Gauthier has done since taking over from Gainey.

To be fair to PG, this move doesn't look half as bad if Markov is in the lineup to start the year which Gauthier would have no doubt been thinking was going to happen when he made these decisions. Heck, it doesn't even look as bad if Campoli is in.

I still think it was a bad move, and here's why:

Signing Markov was a gamble, and one I approved of. It was either sign Markov and take our chances or not sign him and condemn ourselves to mediocrity. BUT when you sign a player coming off three major injuries in less than two years and who hasn't played a full regular season for you in over two years, you must have a viable backup plan in case injury strikes. That's why Hamrlik should have been the priority over Gill. Campoli is a depth guy and not someone who can fill the breach even temporarily, whereas Roman had shown that he was capable of stepping up in Markov's absence. The proof was already there. All it required was one extra year of Hamrlik, which frankly wouldn't be terrible even if he declined in year two, because Spacek would be gone and he would effectively become a cheaper, better Spacek.

[Habs_Hockey_Nutz]

No question, and folk here know that on the whole, I'm pleased with what Gauthier has done since taking over from Gainey.

I still think it was a bad move, and here's why:

Signing Markov was a gamble, and one I approved of. It was either sign Markov and take our chances or not sign him and condemn ourselves to mediocrity. BUT when you sign a player coming off three major injuries in less than two years and who hasn't played a full regular season for you in over two years, you must have a viable backup plan in case injury strikes. That's why Hamrlik should have been the priority over Gill. Campoli is a depth guy and not someone who can fill the breach even temporarily, whereas Roman had shown that he was capable of stepping up in Markov's absence. The proof was already there. All it required was one extra year of Hamrlik, which frankly wouldn't be terrible even if he declined in year two, because Spacek would be gone and he would effectively become a cheaper, better Spacek.

Agreed Weep... exactly my feeling on this (and I mentioned as much in the PG thread during a lengthy discussion) though I'm not completely satisfied with other moves that PG has made.

[BeanCountingHab]

No question, and folk here know that on the whole, I'm pleased with what Gauthier has done since taking over from Gainey.

I still think it was a bad move, and here's why:

Signing Markov was a gamble, and one I approved of. It was either sign Markov and take our chances or not sign him and condemn ourselves to mediocrity. BUT when you sign a player coming off three major injuries in less than two years and who hasn't played a full regular season for you in over two years, you must have a viable backup plan in case injury strikes. That's why Hamrlik should have been the priority over Gill. Campoli is a depth guy and not someone who can fill the breach even temporarily, whereas Roman had shown that he was capable of stepping up in Markov's absence. The proof was already there. All it required was one extra year of Hamrlik, which frankly wouldn't be terrible even if he declined in year two, because Spacek would be gone and he would effectively become a cheaper, better Spacek.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think it was a bad move too. I wasn't very happy when we re-signed him to that deal, and was especially upset when didn't bring back Hammer. It was more saying this looks even worse because of the situation with Markov and Campoli.

[72coleman]

Agreed Weep... exactly my feeling on this (and I mentioned as much in the PG thread during a lengthy discussion) though I'm not completely satisfied with other moves that PG has made.

i think that keeping gill over roman h was a right decision look at roman age and now he is playing on a high scoring team and still is a -2 he is to slow now and i think that gill is a better mentor for our younger defencemen then roman would be.

[dwdemonwolf]

i think that keeping gill over roman h was a right decision look at roman age and now he is playing on a high scoring team and still is a -2 he is to slow now and i think that gill is a better mentor for our younger defencemen then roman would be.

Hamrlik leads by example. I've seen quite a few Washington games this year. He can still skate, much better than Hal Gill for starters.

Not to mention he logs 22-25 minutes per night in ALL situations.

[BigTed3]

Again, there's no question in my mind that Hamrlik for 1 year > Gill for 1 year. But I'm not convinced that Hamrlik for 2 years is better than Gill for 1. That second comparison is more debatable. Yes, Spacek is coming off the books, but that doesn't mean we have to replace one slow aging vet with a guy who might be in that same situation of declining. We can speculate one way or the other, but no one knows how effective or injury-free Hamrlik will be next year and Gill for one year is less of a risk any way you cut it, even if the potential reward is not as great.

If you look at how we're set up for next year, we have Spacek and Gill off the books, in addition to having the option of whether to pick up Gorges and/or Campoli as well. With the plethora of young, cheap #5 and #6 guys we're developing this year, we now have the money to go after a real top 2-3 guy and pay him 5, 6, maybe even 7 million if we need to. If we had kept Hamrlik, maybe we're more secure on our second pairing, but we don't have the same cap space to go after a big name, not withstanding having to pay out to Price, Subban, and Eller in the off-season. Gill's ceiling is not as high, but personally, I'd rather see where we get with Campoli/Gill/Spacek this year and have that cap flexibility next year to get a real player rather than an aging fill in. The UFA crop next year is better on D and there will again be teams who need to unload a D man to fit under the cap (like Calgary with Regehr this year). I think it bears repeating that cap room is an asset in itself, and with both the cap and the 35+ rule applying to Hamrlik, we are better off in the big picture of things with what we did.