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This topic has been archived.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

#61 racerjoe

racerjoe

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:03 PM

I have never been in the Ballard hater camp. My only problem with him is on our team he is not a top 4 guy with our current guys. Basically he struggles on the right side, and he is not better than alex and Dan. So where does he fit? If we can fit him in on the third pairing I would love to keep him it just comes down to cap management.

#62 funkyfresh

funkyfresh

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:12 PM

Edler-Wideman
Hamhuis-Bieksa
Ballard-Carkner


Tanev needs to be in the top 6, he's ready.

#63 Ugli Fruit

Ugli Fruit

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 09

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:12 PM

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Given that he hadn't played hockey in months, they probably aren't horrible numbers - but he should have been replaced by Rome IMO (things I never thought I'd say).


There was a thread a couple days ago that said Ballard was +1 on chance differential and Tanev was even. Edler, Bieksa and Hamhuis were all -10~ and Salo was -5.

Say what you will but this stat is not an exact art and from what I've seen on the numbers and on the ice, he was without doubt one of our better D-men.

Formerly known as LordofBrussels

There we have it folks, we have literally blamed everyone for everything at this point


Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


#64 soshified

soshified

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,383 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:17 PM

Ballard was our 3rd/4th best Dmen this year. Though, if only his caphit was at least one million lower.



Posted Image


#65 Underachieving Hero of CDC

Underachieving Hero of CDC

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Joined: 12-February 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:43 PM

He looked much better during the playoffs. Why not give him a shot next year? Its not like his trade value could possibly get any lower than it is right now anyway.

#66 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:39 PM

There was a thread a couple days ago that said Ballard was +1 on chance differential and Tanev was even. Edler, Bieksa and Hamhuis were all -10~ and Salo was -5.

Say what you will but this stat is not an exact art and from what I've seen on the numbers and on the ice, he was without doubt one of our better D-men.


Yes, and if you read that thread I stated there are lot of stats guys who count the chances differently. The guys at Canucks Army have proved their way is the same as Canucks management.

So I guess it depends on who you believe, a guy who write for Edmonton, or guys who write for Vancouver.

#67 canuckistani

canuckistani

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 12

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

Ballard needs to go. For one simple reason: his style of hockey is far better appreciated in the open coast-to-coast eastern conference rather than the west, where it is a grindfest. Ballard, in my books, is a better skating, slightly less offensive but slightly better defensive Christian Ehrhoff. Unfortunately, we don't need a player like that, particularly in our bottom pairing.Edler, Bieksa and Hamhuis are better defenemen than Ballard (one series notwithstanding) and IMO, the offence that Ballard brings to the table is far less needed from our D-men than a Willie-Mitchell-esque solid defensive defenceman. Our greatest problem this year on the back end, was that Hamhuis wasn't 100%. I don't care what the Canucks establishment says- he may be fit to play, but Hamhuis, IMO has still not regained his core strength pre-Lucic hit. He's been outmuscled to the puck a lot more this year and IMO, a full offseason will see Hammers return to his old ways: one of the elite defensive D-men in the league.

#68 6string

6string

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 514 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:58 PM

ballard is hard to deal with that fat contract, i've seen enough of him and would of shipped him out a long time ago. yes, he looked fine at times in the playoffs but he is just like mason raymond, ya never know from one game to the next what you are gonna get and we can't afford that if we are serious about making a run to the cup with this core!

#69 Line Juggler

Line Juggler

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 498 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

This coming season is make it or break it for Ballard. Obviously we want him to fulfill the promise Gillis originally saw in him. If he doesn't play in the top 4 next year then he is an absolute bust!
Posted Image

#70 Jaku

Jaku

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 08

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

I have never been a Ballard fan. 4.2M/ year for 7 points a year. IMO he hasn't been worth the money that they have been paying him. I'm still on the whole we shouldn't have traded Grabner bandwagon. He has been useless since coming to Vancouver. If he can prove me otherwise in the next little while, that he deserves the 4 mil a year, I say that he should be shipped for something worth while.
R.I.P- #37 Rick Rypien, #28 Luc Bourdon, #38 Pavol Demitra Forever Canucks.
Posted Image
Credit to Khalifawiz501 for the Sig.
Posted ImageColorado Avalanche GM in CDC STHS Sim League

#71 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,539 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:09 PM

He was good for a third pairing defenceman..

#72 canuckistani

canuckistani

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 12

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:12 PM

He was good for a third pairing defenceman..


Indeed. He was exceptionally good for a third pairing defenceman. Problem is, exceptionally good third pairing defencemen cost anywhere between 1.5-2.5 million. Not 4.2 million. That is at best a first pairing D-man and at worst, 2nd pairing.

We already have an exceptionally good third pairing defenceman, provided we play him that way and he is back and he costs what an elite third pairing D-man should: Sami Salo.

#73 John Garret's moustache

John Garret's moustache

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 11

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:36 PM

I wouldn't mind keeping him if he earned what he is worth to us. For the Canucks, Ballard is worth no more than 3 million, maybe on the lightning he's worth his 4.2 million dollar cap hit... IMO that is just an obscene amount for a 3rd pairing Dman...
Posted Image

Thanks to Vintage Canuck. for the sick Zeppelin sig!

#74 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:18 AM

Ballard needs to go. For one simple reason: his style of hockey is far better appreciated in the open coast-to-coast eastern conference rather than the west, where it is a grindfest. Ballard, in my books, is a better skating, slightly less offensive but slightly better defensive Christian Ehrhoff. Unfortunately, we don't need a player like that, particularly in our bottom pairing...


In 194 games with the Canucks, Ehrhoff scored 113 points. In 126 games with us to date, Ballard has 15 points.

Slightly less offensive? That's like saying Manny Malhotra is slightly less offensive than Henrik Sedin.
Posted Image

#75 Hugemanskost

Hugemanskost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 09

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:25 AM

Ballard looked fine against LA, despite what the statistics say. If he can play 18-20 minutes at the level he played in the 1st round, he is worth his salary.

Ballard can skate, move the puck effectively, play the PP (if allowed!), and defend physically. He and Tanev were the Canuck's best pairing, in my eyes.

I say keep him and play the crap out of him. The more ice he sees, the better he plays. Tanev / Ballard looks like a good pairing moving forward.

:towel: :canucks:

webkit-fake-url://D8829558-F65F-49B9-9829-A7DFC7F2E6E4/application.pdf


:towel: :canucks:


#76 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:05 AM

In 194 games with the Canucks, Ehrhoff scored 113 points. In 126 games with us to date, Ballard has 15 points.

Slightly less offensive? That's like saying Manny Malhotra is slightly less offensive than Henrik Sedin.


Haha, laughed at the Malholtra-comparison

#77 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,365 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:19 AM

Ballard has to go despite being one of our best D against LA.

Reason is, AV will NEVER give him a chance at teh top 4 and that is where he has to play. He is not a shotdown guy and wasn't intended to be.

The act that AV played a faltering Edler and an injured inneffective Bieksa ahead of Ballard confirms that Coach Chew, doesn't like how Ballard plays and doesn't trust him.

Personnally, I'd rather keep Ballard and get a new coach that will make better personnel decisions.

#78 nwo

nwo

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 07

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:14 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


Love Ballard think he's great.

#79 Jester@wraiths.ca

Jester@wraiths.ca

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:34 AM

In 194 games with the Canucks, Ehrhoff scored 113 points. In 126 games with us to date, Ballard has 15 points.

Slightly less offensive? That's like saying Manny Malhotra is slightly less offensive than Henrik Sedin.


But then again, Erhoff got as much PP time in one game as Ballard was given in a season here... They aren't the same type of player but Ballard is more well rounded and HAS shown that in Phoenix and Florida where he got PP time. It wasn't until getting the joy of being coached by AV that he suddenly wasn't capable of playing on a PP unit...

#80 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:45 AM

But then again, Erhoff got as much PP time in one game as Ballard was given in a season here... They aren't the same type of player but Ballard is more well rounded and HAS shown that in Phoenix and Florida where he got PP time. It wasn't until getting the joy of being coached by AV that he suddenly wasn't capable of playing on a PP unit...


OK then. Ehrhoff had 50 even-strength points in the time frame, while Ballard has had 15. It's still a stretch.

I think it's a combination of being in AV's doghouse, and not being the same player after suffering some fairly serious injuries. Maybe being the laughing-stock of the league for nearly taking his own goalie's head off affected his psyche too.

Edited by D-Money, 01 May 2012 - 11:46 AM.

Posted Image

#81 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,470 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:47 AM

I have never been a Ballard fan. 4.2M/ year for 7 points a year. IMO he hasn't been worth the money that they have been paying him. I'm still on the whole we shouldn't have traded Grabner bandwagon. He has been useless since coming to Vancouver. If he can prove me otherwise in the next little while, that he deserves the 4 mil a year, I say that he should be shipped for something worth while.


Doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it, Grabner was getting traded. He had run out of time to make the team and was waiver illegible. Had he not been traded he would have been lost to waivers.

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#82 Maniwaki Canuck

Maniwaki Canuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 10

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:00 PM

I like Ballard and would be happy to see him stay but our defense clearly isn't configured right. We need to upgrade the skill, size and grit level and get someone who is comfortable playing on the right side. Since Ballard is tradable in the way that most of our other good D are not, he is very likely to be part of t he deal if the kind of defender we need becomes available. But that probably won't happen...

#83 Jester@wraiths.ca

Jester@wraiths.ca

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:29 PM

OK then. Ehrhoff had 50 even-strength points in the time frame, while Ballard has had 15. It's still a stretch.


If you're going to compare points though, at least compare apples to apples. 09/10 season, Erhoff was playing here and had 44 points, 21 of them were even strength. Ballard was in Florida and had 28 points, 18 of them were even strength. Those outputs when both players got almost identical total icetime of over 22 minutes. Erhoff put up more PP points but Ballard blocked over 100 MORE shots than Erhoff and also threw over 100 more hits.

I think when comparing both players in the same year, getting the same amount of ice time, the picture looks a lot different than comparing how Ballard has played while being AV's whipping boy.

#84 canuckistani

canuckistani

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 12

Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:44 PM

In 194 games with the Canucks, Ehrhoff scored 113 points. In 126 games with us to date, Ballard has 15 points.

Slightly less offensive? That's like saying Manny Malhotra is slightly less offensive than Henrik Sedin.


I am talking their styles and playing ability here. Obviously, Ehrhoff was on the 1st unit PP while ballard is rarely even on the second unit PP. Ehrhoff was out a lot when the Sedins were on ice even at even strength- Ballard is almost never out with the Sedins, because he is out usually with 3rd/4th lines. If you stick Ballard and Ehrhoff in the same situation, ie, prime-minutes offensive defenceman, he'd have similar numbers: IMO, Ballard's numbers would be slightly worse, as Ehrhoff is the better offensive D, but then again, Ballard is positionally better defensive D.

Ultimately, like Ehrhoff, Ballard's true value lies in the eastern conference, where the games are a lot more open and Ballard would get to utilize his prime asset a hell of a lot more: great speed through the neutral zone and silky skating. For eg, i wouldn't be too surprised if Ottawa showed interest in him if Karlsson demanded the moon after his incredible season.

Edited by canuckistani, 01 May 2012 - 10:48 PM.


#85 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,470 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:15 AM

If you're going to compare points though, at least compare apples to apples. 09/10 season, Erhoff was playing here and had 44 points, 21 of them were even strength. Ballard was in Florida and had 28 points, 18 of them were even strength. Those outputs when both players got almost identical total icetime of over 22 minutes. Erhoff put up more PP points but Ballard blocked over 100 MORE shots than Erhoff and also threw over 100 more hits.

I think when comparing both players in the same year, getting the same amount of ice time, the picture looks a lot different than comparing how Ballard has played while being AV's whipping boy.


Are you saying Ballard didn't deserve to be in the doghouse his first season here? It started from the get go in preseason. Prospects were making Ballard look like a buffoon. That carried over to regular season. Around midseason for about three weeks he actually looked pretty decent but it didn't last. In the playoffs all he deserved was the press box.

Don't get me wrong I was willing to cut him some slack and chalk that season up to injuries. This season he has been ok. Nothing to rave about but didn't deserve the press box either. But he did get what I had hoped for which was a shot at Ehrhoffs spot. Sadly it didn't go well. Ballard said himself afterward that he's not comfortable on the right side. Which means he should be moved. With both Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him on the left side his $4.2m could be put to better use than for a depth d-man. A parting of ways is best for both Ballard and the team at this point.

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#86 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:22 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.


Where is the grit in that lineup?

#87 greetingsfrombrazil

greetingsfrombrazil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:06 AM

He was great in the playoffs, I was really impressed with him paired with Tanev.

But I just don't see him in the top 4 next season. Bieksa, Hamhuis and Edler are not getting traded, at least are not expected to be traded. I think that, because of his salary cap, he's more suited for a trade. But I would love to see the Ballard - Tanev pairing next season, that would be a perfect 3rd d pairing.

MG should focus on bringing a top d-man to pair with Edler, Ballard is doing fine where he is.

#88 Russ

Russ

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 06

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:18 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.

You do realize Ballard was traded for before we got Hamhuis. Hamhuis rights had been traded twice to different teams who were offering more $$ than he took to play for the Canucks so at the time he traded for Ballard there was no guarantee he would have signed here.
Xbox Live - Lenerdosy
PSN - Lenerdosy

Interested in a game of NHL or BF3? Send me a friend request and lets play.




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.