Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Ballard Anybody?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
87 replies to this topic

#31 smackyo23

smackyo23

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:36 AM

Cap hit is bad, the player is good.
Posted Image

#32 AndyBernard

AndyBernard

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,411 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:49 AM

I can see him pairing up with tanev again or possibly getting more minutes with edler on the second d-pairing. And whoever we get to replace salo if he decides to retire, will slot in somewhere.
Posted Image
credit - VintageCanuck


#33 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,826 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:09 AM

I would rather Grabner and Howden and have used the cap for resigning Mitchell. MG's biggest blunder, he's pretty good otherwise.


in hindsight, that wasnt his best move, but at the time it wasnt that bad. i mean Raymond was coming off a career year with a 50pts season and we were not able to keep both him and Grabner within the top 6 role they both were capable of. Raymond (at the time) was thought to be the better player already and start to get better every year.As for Mitchell, he was coming off a concussion so signing him could/was going to be a risk.

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#34 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,295 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:13 AM

I agree that stats aren't everything, and really it's a small sample size. I just don't see Ballard getting top 4 minutes on this team, and when he's eating $4.2M of cap space, he's not well utilized. He's a lefty who can't play the right side. Edler and Hamhuis are ahead of him on the depth chart, unless he can consistently play better than either of them- he won't get the ice time.


I agree that he isn't utilized well. So unless AV wants to start rolling all 3 D pairings more evenly, he isn't worth his cap hit, regardless of how he played in the playoffs this year.

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#35 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:20 AM

MG has typically made one move too many. Hamhuis was a great acquisition, but we didn't need Ballard. Likewise, Pahlsson was a great addition but we didn't need Kassian.

I wish Mitchell re-signed here and we had Hamhuis as well, Cup winning team right here:

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows (great top line)
Grabner - Kesler - Raymond (amazing speedy line, the 3 played great together)
Higgins - Lapierre - Booth (ex-Habs chemistry, great forechecking and can score)
Malhotra - Pahlsson - Hansen (shutdown line, all 3 are great defensively)

Edler - Hamhuis
Mitchell - Bieksa
Salo - Tanev/Rome
Alberts

Luongo
Schneider

That team probably would have won a Cup.


3 Defensemen on the wrong side

Grabner and Raymond on a Stanley Cup Champion? On the 2nd line?

I honestly don't get you. you say some smart things and then take a left turn off the cliff at almost every opportunity.

It's probably why you're a Raymond fan, he does the same thing.

Keslerific, on 25 May 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

Gaunce is wayy cooler though, Gaunce is the kind of guy you want to bring with you to Costco

 

vPTJpcO.jpg


#36 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,931 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:21 AM

Not worth the cap hit but a great player nonetheless. I respect what he's able to do with his size, 5'11 200, dishes out huge hip checks and is this years fastest skater, for an undersized defenceman he plays with heart.

I just can't figure out why Vigneault gets angryface with Ballard, hes the coach V kind of guy that starts something and fights his own battles.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#37 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:53 AM

I agree that stats aren't everything, and really it's a small sample size. I just don't see Ballard getting top 4 minutes on this team, and when he's eating $4.2M of cap space, he's not well utilized. He's a lefty who can't play the right side. Edler and Hamhuis are ahead of him on the depth chart, unless he can consistently play better than either of them- he won't get the ice time.


I'm glad to hear you say that about stats, they really are misleading, kudos to you for not relying solely on them. I agree that Ballard is not well utilized and I don't know if he will ever be given the opportunity to play top four minutes (for at least a few games straight) even if he does outplay his companions. For that to happen it would take a change in either the coach's hockey philosophy (team system by extension) or a change in coaching itself. Neither is likely to happen, but at least we have Ballard in case we run into injury problems or the like. I hope we keep him for the long haul.

Edited by Kryten, 30 April 2012 - 02:54 AM.

Posted Image

#38 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,391 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:17 AM

What did you guys think of his post-season performance? I thought he looked absolute fantasic and did exactly what we thought he could do, all while getting 3rd pairing minutes. He was energetic, smart, and played with speed and power. Would you trade him in the offseason or try him out for the first 15 games or so with top 4 minutes? All opinoins are welcome:P


Who are you going to take top 4 minutes away from: Edler or Hamhuis? Ballard was tried on the right side and didn't play well. He said himself he's not comfortable on the right side. Edler has also said he's not as comfortable on the right side. Basically if Hamhuis and Edler are staying then Ballard needs to be moved. His cap hit is too high for that bottom pairing and could be put to better use on a left side d-man to pair with Edler.
Posted Image

#39 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,391 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:22 AM

I'm glad to hear you say that about stats, they really are misleading, kudos to you for not relying solely on them. I agree that Ballard is not well utilized and I don't know if he will ever be given the opportunity to play top four minutes (for at least a few games straight) even if he does outplay his companions. For that to happen it would take a change in either the coach's hockey philosophy (team system by extension) or a change in coaching itself. Neither is likely to happen, but at least we have Ballard in case we run into injury problems or the like. I hope we keep him for the long haul.


For Ballard to move up he has to outperform Edler offensively or Hamhuis defensively. Neither is ever likely to happen.
Posted Image

#40 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:34 AM

I want Ballard to stay for one reason alone...

...He entertains me!

The team is just more fun with KB4 around.


Funny how you said that, I was thinking the very same thing. He plays on the edge but is always good enough to get away with it.........I like that. I think he plays a lot bigger than his size and his awareness of what is around him has embarrassed a few opponents this year.

I also think he is the best possible tutor for CT as he always looks calm and in control. His salary shouldn't matter if he is played for longer spells and thereby giving more rest time to the other Ds.
Kevin.jpg

#41 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:44 AM

For Ballard to move up he has to outperform Edler offensively or Hamhuis defensively. Neither is ever likely to happen.


Agreed but what if either was injured? Look at the effect even Ballard's injury had on the defence (and Sami's) I f we are going to do well in the SC we must have talented depth to our team. There is no point mentioning Gragnani or Connauton as they will not be in Ballards class for at least 2 years.............in fact I suspect Yann Sauve will beat both of them in the end.
Kevin.jpg

#42 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,391 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:50 AM

I would rather Grabner and Howden and have used the cap for resigning Mitchell. MG's biggest blunder, he's pretty good otherwise.


I honestly don't understand why anybody is still whining about Grabner. If he wasn't traded we would have lost him to waivers for nothing. Do the math:

1 - Entire top 6 just had a career year
2 - Grabner regularly showed up to camp in poor shape
3 - Grabner had to make the team or clear waivers

If he hadn't been traded what would have happend? Waivers. Although Ballard became somewhat redundant the moment Hamhuis was signed, something is still better than nothing. Grabner simply took too long to develop and had to be moved.
Posted Image

#43 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,391 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:01 AM

Agreed but what if either was injured? Look at the effect even Ballard's injury had on the defence (and Sami's) I f we are going to do well in the SC we must have talented depth to our team. There is no point mentioning Gragnani or Connauton as they will not be in Ballards class for at least 2 years.............in fact I suspect Yann Sauve will beat both of them in the end.

Would you rather have a $4.2m depth d-man or a $7m top two d-man to pair with Edler? That's what Ballards cap space could be used towards.

Last season when Edler was injured they tried Ballard in his spot. He was terrible holding the line and was guilty of attempting pinches he had no hope of winning. The result was Ballard was put back to the third pairing and Samuelsson took Edlers spot on the pp and Rome filled in even strength and short handed. I like Ballard but that money could be better spent. I'd rather see a top two d-man than a $4.2m backup plan whose play has been all over the map.
Posted Image

#44 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,674 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:33 AM

For Ballard to move up he has to outperform Edler offensively or Hamhuis defensively. Neither is ever likely to happen.


He did out perform Edler in the playoffs, even his coatch called Edler out.

#45 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:13 AM

Would you rather have a $4.2m depth d-man or a $7m top two d-man to pair with Edler? That's what Ballards cap space could be used towards.

Last season when Edler was injured they tried Ballard in his spot. He was terrible holding the line and was guilty of attempting pinches he had no hope of winning. The result was Ballard was put back to the third pairing and Samuelsson took Edlers spot on the pp and Rome filled in even strength and short handed. I like Ballard but that money could be better spent. I'd rather see a top two d-man than a $4.2m backup plan whose play has been all over the map.


I don't think it's fair to quote last year............for anything...........as we have seen, never mind Ballard's form. Ballard has arguably been just as good as Edler this season despite playing with a rookie. I would accept your argument if we had another "Tanev" or Salo to step in, but I look at Chicago and see D's who are just not ready.
Kevin.jpg

#46 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:33 AM

A bit gracious in your praise, but yes Ballard did play well. And cudo's to him for it; coming directly off 25 games on the IR and off substantial criticism.

But we have three bonafide left side D who can play Top 4 roles, and then Bieksa & Salo on the right side. Bieksa is multi talented, but not top class in any arena. It makes him a fantastic role player, but not a headliner. And while Bieksa is tough as nails in a fight, he's still not in a league like Seabrook at 225 lbs where he can move bodies in front of the net. Neither Salo or Bieksa is a big hitter or particularly physical. A left side guy needs to be sacrificed because we are weak on the right side!

Then it becomes desperate if Salo retires or does not sign with us.

In my mind, it would be incredibly smart to trade Edler while his contract makes him a bargain. I was on record pre-season this year, and knocked around by some on CDC for it, saying Edler would be an all star but not the never the Norris candidate people were gushing over him becoming. I only wish we still had Hodgson, a blue chip prospect who with Edler might have attracted the Weber type guy we need. So that probably wont happen either.

Gillis is conservative, except where he gets abused in a trade like with Hodgson. I would bet that we stay status quo on the left side & sign a journeyman defender; Scott Hanan or ??? It's not a bad plan B either, both him or Sheldon Souray would have helped us this year.

What did you guys think of his post-season performance? I thought he looked absolute fantasic and did exactly what we thought he could do, all while getting 3rd pairing minutes. He was energetic, smart, and played with speed and power. Would you trade him in the offseason or try him out for the first 15 games or so with top 4 minutes? All opinoins are welcome:P


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 30 April 2012 - 06:36 AM.


#47 erkayloomeh

erkayloomeh

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:48 AM

as far as im concerned it doesnt matter how good he plays as long as hes a third pairing d then he should be traded because the cap space is so valuable that it is wasted on someone not getting enough minutes.
GOD BE PRAISED

#48 SuperReverb2

SuperReverb2

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:03 AM

Pretty sure Ballard is gone if AV returns as the coach. Who knows if AV is canned and the Canucks have a new coach next year.

:)

#49 CowtownCanuck

CowtownCanuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 08

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:03 AM

Fairly average for his cap-hit. But not as brutal as last year.



#50 Sixteen W's

Sixteen W's

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:04 AM

I've always liked Ballard for some reason. Too bad about the cap hit, but it seemed like he was finally starting to play to his potential.
Posted Image

#51 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,234 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:07 AM

He's too expensive for what he brings. I don't see him having a lot of trade value. And if you keep him, Edler, and Hamhuis, then what is the point of Gragnani?

The one scenario where I can see him fitting in is if Edler was traded for an elite right-side defenseman (ie. Weber). Then there would be an obvious fit for him in the top-4, making his salary no longer obscene.
Posted Image

#52 kloubek

kloubek

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:04 AM

If we trade with Tampa Bay, you can almost rest assured that Ballard is going with Luongo as part of the deal.

Doubt it.  In order to take on Luongo's salary they will have to shed some... not take more on.  The *only* was this happens is if we were take take some serious salary back.As far as Ballard's play goes: He did very well against LA.  He was certainly not to blame for our early exit.

Edited by kloubek, 30 April 2012 - 11:05 AM.

Biggest Canucks Fan this Side of the Rockies.

#53 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,947 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:34 AM

He's had too many ups and downs here in Vancouver. I say trade him and we all start fresh. But that's just my opinion.
Posted Image


#54 Jester@wraiths.ca

Jester@wraiths.ca

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,226 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

Plus/minus stats are not exactly relevant stats, the underlying ones tell the real story.

He played against the plugs (3rd and 4th) lines majority of his shifts, averaged the smallest icetime, and was still on the ice for 2 goals against at even strength (Tanev = 0). His useless penalty in gm 2 led directly to the GWG for LA. He was a -5 chance differential in the entire series, only Salo and Hamhuis were worse (and Hammer/Salo played more mins against toughest/tough competition).

Given that he hadn't played hockey in months, they probably aren't horrible numbers - but he should have been replaced by Rome IMO (things I never thought I'd say).


Ballard was on for only 2 goals against and 1 for without the benefit of regular PP time to inflate his goals for stat like Edler (on for 3 PP goals for example). As for the goals against, both goals Ballard was on for was while not paired with his partner, 1st with Bieksa, then with Edler. Being paired with Edler was a guarantee of being scored against with Edler being on the ice for 8 out of the 12 goals scored against us...

Ballard made good plays, looked calm, and rushed the puck when he had the chance. He looked very good, and the one short shift he got on the PP, it looked great. He looked like the Ballard that WAS prior to arriving here and being instantly in AV's doghouse.

#55 406281dylan

406281dylan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

i love keith ballard but we need one more big d men and one guy who can put that puck in the net on defence and then we are set defensively
bieksa-hamhuis
schenn-edler
diaz-ballard

#56 arsenalian

arsenalian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,348 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:33 PM

MG has typically made one move too many. Hamhuis was a great acquisition, but we didn't need Ballard. Likewise, Pahlsson was a great addition but we didn't need Kassian.

I wish Mitchell re-signed here and we had Hamhuis as well, Cup winning team right here:

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows (great top line)
Grabner - Kesler - Raymond (amazing speedy line, the 3 played great together)
Higgins - Lapierre - Booth (ex-Habs chemistry, great forechecking and can score)
Malhotra - Pahlsson - Hansen (shutdown line, all 3 are great defensively)

Edler - Hamhuis
Mitchell - Bieksa
Salo - Tanev/Rome
Alberts

Luongo
Schneider

That team probably would have won a Cup.

OK, on Willie Mitchell. Great player, loved him, but there was no way we were re-signing him. He wanted a multi-year deal and was coming off a very bad concussion. Even after signing for the kings, he only played 57 games for them that year. Last year it wasn't looking like a good deal for LA at all. This year being fully recovered, yeah he's doing well, but hindsight is 20/20. Could you imagine the people on hear screaming, if we'd signed him to a multi-year deal and he only played 57 games. People would be calling MG a moron for signing such a risky contract..blah blah. As for Ballard, he looked great in the playoffs, and was playing how I expected him to, when we first traded for him. I hope that's a sign of things to come from him. That is a pretty big cap hit for him though, so I wouldn't be surprised if Gillis tries to move him, but I certainly won't be unhappy if he stays either.

#57 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,689 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:02 PM

If we trade with Tampa Bay, you can almost rest assured that Ballard is going with Luongo as part of the deal.

They are desperate for D-men, and he has shown that even though he is a very good player... he just isn't fitting into the niche we need here. I suspect that his spot will be ripe for the "bigger, stronger" element that Gillis is looking for. With Tanev and Gragnani almost certainly spending the year up with the big club, his skills are a bit superfluous.

Expect to see a meaner customer signed on defence in his stead.

If we package two big cap hit contracts to go to Tampa, you can bet we're getting at least 2/3rds of that back. That doesn't mean good players necessarily, but players with larger cap hits.

Ballard played better than he had previously (certainly compared to what he did last year in the playoffs) but I'm not ready to anoint him the next Norris trophy winner or anything. He still has room to improve considering the cap hit he does take up, so it has to be weighed against that and what he may be holding us back from acquiring.

You can't really use that kind of stat against him. You can't expect him to create multiple scoring chances on his own, his linemates need to create the chances too.

You can when people are saying he was our only defender who looked like he knew how to play offence, or was better than Bieksa or Edler. Small sample sizes are a double-edged sword.

The chance differential should give a good indication of possession, and when Ballard was playing against lesser competition (aka the 3rd and 4th lines) his possession numbers should be better if he really was playing well.

Agreed but what if either was injured? Look at the effect even Ballard's injury had on the defence (and Sami's) I f we are going to do well in the SC we must have talented depth to our team. There is no point mentioning Gragnani or Connauton as they will not be in Ballards class for at least 2 years.............in fact I suspect Yann Sauve will beat both of them in the end.

Depth is great, but not when it's costing you $4.2M. We need to find solid, trustworthy players who can hold down a bottom pairing role and have a young player who can step up into the top 4 short term. Hopefully then we could use the extra cap space to augment our top 6 forwards or our top 4 D to make injuries even less of a concern.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#58 Jma7

Jma7

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 07

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:44 PM

Why would you trade him when he started to play the best hockey for the team? Even if you were to trade him, it likely wouldnt bring much since he has a long contract left on him right now and teams would know you are trying to deal him meaning less leverage in negotiations. It also means that we'll probably have Rome-Tanev on the 3rd pairing since I think the goaltender trade this summer is going to bring in a 2nd line or 1st line offensive player
Posted Image

#59 Ronning4center

Ronning4center

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:55 PM

Sorry to burst the bubble, but he was terrible. I've already posted the numbers in other forums, but he was one of the worst Canucks defenseman (other than Salo) in that series.


There was a neat post which compared scoring chances given up vrs scoring chances created.....ballard was at the top of that list for fewest chances surrendered. Hamhuise gave up the most.

Edited by Ronning4center, 30 April 2012 - 03:56 PM.


#60 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,527 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:57 PM

He looked okay but again were talking 3rd pairing minutes against the easier of the opposition. At 4.2 million he's a pretty big burden on the salary cap for a 3rd pairing guy. I can't possibly see us keeping him around unless nobody wants to touch that contract.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.