Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

What Should The Nucks Do About Ballard


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#61 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:56 AM

the canucks need to resolve the ballard situation.he is paid 4.5 mill to sit in the press box or be on the 3rd pair.gillis needs to do something.any ideas?

uhh play cause he was pretty much the best D we had in the playoffs outside of hammer

ill never understand the pretend hatred for ballard on this site

he plays good , blindly gets hated on by the children of CDC because your sheep who cant think for yourselves
  • 1
Posted Image

#62 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:58 AM

I sure hope Ballard can come around. But I can see him being traded.

if anything i could see it too , just too make cap space and because another team would actually want him

in the playoffs he won over AV and was playing big minutes

i dont see why we want to get rid of him tho

he was playing great before he got concussed and came back great too

Edited by cIutch, 09 May 2012 - 11:58 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#63 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,874 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:08 PM

Is it me or does anyone else not notice Ballard when he plays . . ?


Only when it's one of his good games.

But when he makes a blatent giveaway on 3 consecutive shifts, I not only notice him, but curse his very soul...


...In all honesty though, Ballard has got a lot better since arriving. That said, with that contract, and his inability to mesh in AV's system, we're better off cutting our losses. I'd rather give Gragnani a spot on the 3rd pair and hopefully develop him into a solid player, and save the 3 million + for something else (RH guy to play with Edler?)

Edited by D-Money, 09 May 2012 - 12:11 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#64 goblix

goblix

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

true but since vigneault does not trust him we have to do something and either give him ahot or ship him to a place were hell get a chance


I wonder if it's a Vigneault does not trust him or a Bowness does not trust him, remember that much of the coaching on the defense is actually coached by Bowness.
  • 0

#65 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:13 PM

If gillis doesn't fire AV then he better trade Ballard, because AV has never given Ballard the benefit of the doubt and will not give him a fair shot at the top 4


Are you taking Hamhuis or Edler out of the top four to give Ballard the "fair shot" he so deserves?

Edited by Baggins, 09 May 2012 - 12:13 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#66 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,525 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:52 PM

The bigger question: What should the Canucks do with Aaron Rome?

Pending unrestricted free agent and could double his currently salary on the open market. If he re-signs, most likely looking for Andrew Alberts type of a contract: multi-year at $1 million to $1.5 million.
  • 0

Posted Image


#67 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,760 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:10 PM

I've seen enough of Ballard. I say trade him, for whatever, let's sign some more productive UFA's.
  • 0
Posted Image


#68 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,167 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

He's good enough to be a first line centre though, that's the thing.

Edler for Staal is actually a pretty fair trade for both teams. Both of them are on the last year of their contracts and both have reasonable cap hits.

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Booth Staal Kesler

Hamhuis Bieksa
Suter Salo
Ballard Tanev

Definitely solves our second line problem.

That would be an interesting lineup. Rather see Tanev with Suter. Salo isn't top 4 any more. Regular season OK but playoffs no. Getting a Staal would blow my mind. Makes a very serious 2nd line and Suter gives you the defensive QB long needed. Enough physicality on the backend to get bye but something would have to be added on the bottom six to compensate. Hopefully that is Kassian.
  • 0

#69 wwwacky

wwwacky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

so according to CDC, we should...

trade the Sedins - they aren't physical enough / they couldn't score down the stretch / we can get a good return for them

trade kesler - he's too injured

trade booth - he's overhyped

trade higgins - he's not a playoff performer

trade raymond - he's useless

trade kassian - we miss hodgson

trade malhotra - he's not the same after his injury and being paid too much

trade edler - he played for the kings anyways

trade ballard - he was the best d-man in round 1 but AV doesn't like him

trade bieksa - he's too risky

trade luongo - we have schneider

trade schneider - we have luongo / we can get a good return

trade rome - he's a plug

trade alberts - he's worse than rome

fire AV - he's a horrible coach



am i missing anything?
  • 2

#70 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:46 PM

so according to CDC, we should...

trade the Sedins - they aren't physical enough / they couldn't score down the stretch / we can get a good return for them

trade kesler - he's too injured

trade booth - he's overhyped

trade higgins - he's not a playoff performer

trade raymond - he's useless

trade kassian - we miss hodgson

trade malhotra - he's not the same after his injury and being paid too much

trade edler - he played for the kings anyways

trade ballard - he was the best d-man in round 1 but AV doesn't like him

trade bieksa - he's too risky

trade luongo - we have schneider

trade schneider - we have luongo / we can get a good return

trade rome - he's a plug

trade alberts - he's worse than rome

fire AV - he's a horrible coach



am i missing anything?


You missed:

Burrows: Do we really want him?
  • 4
Posted Image

#71 CANUCKLELION

CANUCKLELION

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,078 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:57 PM

why would we send him an apology letter when he wanted 10million dollars the first year and he htought that buffalo had a chance to win the stanley cup - HE SHOULD BE WRITING US THE APOLOGY LETTER.


You could not be more wrong, he wanted 5.2, and instead of a counter offer, MG traded his rights, he was offered 10 mil, besides his cap hit is only 4 mil, you should be the one apologizing, lol
  • 0
R.I.P, Rick Rypien Posted ImagePosted Image

#72 Jaku

Jaku

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

4.2M for him to sit most the year? Overpaid to play in a 5th or 6th Dman spot. He had all this hype that he would be a great defenseman here in Vancouver, and i really haven't seen much, or any production from him in the last 2 years. I'll give him a bit of a break only playing 47 games this year, but 14 points in 112 games...
  • 0
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

#73 kloubek

kloubek

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:18 PM

He's certainly overpaid for what we get out of him. Unfortunately, he has far less trade value than we gave up to get him. Another GM would have to hope Ballard would return for form if we tried to trade him - and that risk is just too great to give up anything reasonable in return.

So we're really stuck with him... unless we were to buy him out.

As has been said - he actually looked pretty good in the playoffs, and I don't think he has been *that* bad overall... just not worth the money he is paid. With any luck, his playoff play will continue into next year and he'll be closer to playing the kind of minutes Gillis intended him to play when he was acquired.
  • 0
Biggest Canucks Fan this Side of the Rockies.

#74 Wiznac

Wiznac

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:19 PM

I have to come to his defence on this one Ballard may have been week in the regular season but played like one of our best in the play-offs. AV noticed and gave him more ice time..... if he continues to play like that i want him next year on the same pairing with Tanev they had great chemistry
  • 0

#75 Visp

Visp

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 10

Posted 09 May 2012 - 02:36 PM

Such a simple solution. AV tells Ballard that he will play him more IF he agrees to be paid a fair amount of $3 million. Ballard puts the extra 1.2 mill in a briefcase and hands to MG. MG re-signs Schneider for only around 2 mill, hands him the same briefcase, with an extra 1.2 mill tax free. A Win for Ballard, MG/AV and Schneider!
  • 0

#76 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:05 PM

Tradesies for one Dennis savard rookie card
  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#77 Dreamy_Nuck

Dreamy_Nuck

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

As much as i love Staal, this really isn't what our team needs. Our top 2 lines already have solidified Centers. Trading for a third would only be a repeat of the Hodgson scenario.

And before everyone tells me that its the same situation that he has in pittsburgh: No, it isn't. Crosby and Malkin have both seen injuries that have limited their playing time and increased Staal's.
Crosby GP last 3 years
22,41,81
Malkin GP last 3 years
75,43,67


Us having Stall would decrease the pressure on Kesler to come back too soon from injury, like this past year. Unless if we have another 2nd line centre we can get. Kesler will and should take his time coming back from injury - Id say keep him in training until after Christmas. And even then, work towards the playoffs and dont burn him too early.

Hence, we need a Stall or similar calibre player on this team. Same goes for Salo - he ll need rest and we ll need an extra solid D-man ie Ballard.
  • 0
Should'nt replies to threads be well thought out too, just like posts should be well thought out? Just saying.

#78 erkayloomeh

erkayloomeh

    Comets Star

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:46 PM

i never really understood the benching of ballard. his brain farts were certainly no worse than what bieksa played like for a couple of years. Raymond plays bad and gets lots of ice time. Ballard didnt even play in game seven last year when our d was so banged up??? doesnt make sense if he cant fit into a top four role then he has to be traded because cap space is so valuable. would it be so bad to get rid of him raymond and malhotra, then insert youth and sign suter for 6 or 7 mil?

Edited by erkayloomeh, 09 May 2012 - 06:48 PM.

  • 0
GOD BE PRAISED

#79 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,862 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:56 PM

Are you taking Hamhuis or Edler out of the top four to give Ballard the "fair shot" he so deserves?

Probably Salo.....but Ballard should be ahead of Rome, alberts...gragnani on depth chart.

If I had to pick one of our top 3 he could compete with I'd say Edler...solid? Yes. The all star 2-way dman legend locals have made him out to be? That's just a fu**ing joke.
  • 0

#80 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:32 AM

You could not be more wrong, he wanted 5.2, and instead of a counter offer, MG traded his rights, he was offered 10 mil, besides his cap hit is only 4 mil, you should be the one apologizing, lol


Source or it never happened. And as you've never managed to supply a source (other than your own imagination) the numerous times I've asked....I must call BS.
  • 0
Posted Image

#81 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:37 AM

Probably Salo.....but Ballard should be ahead of Rome, alberts...gragnani on depth chart.

If I had to pick one of our top 3 he could compete with I'd say Edler...solid? Yes. The all star 2-way dman legend locals have made him out to be? That's just a fu**ing joke.


Salo plays the right side. Something Ballard isn't comfortable with by his own admission. The only way he moves to the top four is taking Hamhuis or Edler out. He can't replace Edlers production or Hammers defense. That leaves him in the bottom pair with 15 minutes or less per game. A spot that just isn't worth his cap hit.
  • 0
Posted Image

#82 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 10 May 2012 - 03:38 AM

He hasn't? Ballard was a screw up last season. Period. He got the ice time and pressbox time he earned. This season he played better. As a result he was tried on the right side with Edler. He failed. He even said himself he wasn't comfortable on the right side. That puts him behind Edler and Hamhuis on the left side. Which = 15 minutes or less per game. Your top offensive d-man and top shutdown d-man will always, I repeat, ALWAYS get the most ice time. I don't know why that's so tough for you ice time whiners to figure out.

I said last summer if he can't adapt to the right side to fill Ehrhoffs spot he should be moved. He couldn't. It's time to move him.


I think that's unfair. You don't pay all that money and then handicap a guy by playing him on his "wrong" side. Would Bieksa change sides, or Hamhuis? No they wouldn't. Ballard is a thoroughbred D on the left..........and mediocre at best D on the right.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#83 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:02 AM

I think that's unfair. You don't pay all that money and then handicap a guy by playing him on his "wrong" side. Would Bieksa change sides, or Hamhuis? No they wouldn't. Ballard is a thoroughbred D on the left..........and mediocre at best D on the right.


How is it unfair? Some guys can play either side. Look no further than Salo who prefers right side but also plays well on the left side. If Ballard wants more minutes he has to play right side and was given that opportunity. He failed. If anything it was giving him a fair shot at the top four. Obviously if Ballard can't play right side he has to play left side. He can't replace Edlers offense or Hammers defense on the left side. That leaves the bottom pair. Again, how is that unfair? He's on the bottom pair because that's where his ability in comparison to the rest of our D puts him. There's nothing unfair about that. It's also the reason he should be traded. His $4.2m cap hit is wasted in a bottom pairing d-man playing 15 minutes or less per game. That's $4.2m that could be spent on a right side top d-man to pair with Edler.

Edited by Baggins, 10 May 2012 - 05:03 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#84 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:07 AM

How is it unfair? Some guys can play either side. Look no further than Salo who prefers right side but also plays well on the left side. If Ballard wants more minutes he has to play right side and was given that opportunity. He failed. If anything it was giving him a fair shot at the top four. Obviously if Ballard can't play right side he has to play left side. He can't replace Edlers offense or Hammers defense on the left side. That leaves the bottom pair. Again, how is that unfair? He's on the bottom pair because that's where his ability in comparison to the rest of our D puts him. There's nothing unfair about that. It's also the reason he should be traded. His $4.2m cap hit is wasted in a bottom pairing d-man playing 15 minutes or less per game. That's $4.2m that could be spent on a right side top d-man to pair with Edler.


Well all of what you say is fair enough but there was no doubt in my mind who turned up in the playoffs, despite coming back off a concussion. It certainly is a dilemma.

Maybe Ballard should be tried further up the lines. It might be the case that we would have more success getting a Weber type D for Edler than Ballard at present.

It's the same problem as Raymond. If you demonstrate so clearly that he is not wanted and can't get in the team you end up getting nothing back in a trade. I would much rather show some (in MR's case some "more") faith in both these players and once they show what they are capable of and if we still wanted to trade, get something good back.

I rate Ballard highly but we would be almost giving him away just now, especially as he is not long off a concussion.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#85 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,167 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:11 AM

How is it unfair? Some guys can play either side. Look no further than Salo who prefers right side but also plays well on the left side. If Ballard wants more minutes he has to play right side and was given that opportunity. He failed. If anything it was giving him a fair shot at the top four. Obviously if Ballard can't play right side he has to play left side. He can't replace Edlers offense or Hammers defense on the left side. That leaves the bottom pair. Again, how is that unfair? He's on the bottom pair because that's where his ability in comparison to the rest of our D puts him. There's nothing unfair about that. It's also the reason he should be traded. His $4.2m cap hit is wasted in a bottom pairing d-man playing 15 minutes or less per game. That's $4.2m that could be spent on a right side top d-man to pair with Edler.

I found it interesting that the Yotes had only one d-man who played over 20 minutes in their last game against the Preds. Sharp contrast to the nearly 30 minutes that Suter and Weber played. Signing a UFA like Suter is like getting 2 for 1 but at what cost to the team concept? I like a team where their bottom pairing are still getting 13 to 15 minutes a game. Overloading your top pairing raises injury concerns and fatigue issues come playoffs.

I also do not like teams who identify their core players even if it is obvious. It does nothing to promote the team concept as it potentially minimalizes the rest of the roster.
  • 0

#86 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:41 AM

I like Ballard but it does come down to the question of where do you play him and the cap hit. Maybe the Canucks should try him on wing like they did Rome. His speed and passing ability and grit would probably worked on the 2nd line with Kesler and Booth as nothing else worked, Raymond seemed a little to gun shy coming back from his injury. If you cant trade Ballard why not try it.
  • 0

#87 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,323 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:44 AM

Well Ballard knows how to skate when he has the puck
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

#88 darkpoet

darkpoet

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,381 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 05

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:31 PM

There are two things wrong with Ballard:

1. AV
2. Rick Bowness

He is a great hockey player but just does not gel with the system Bowness/AV are laying out.

If he were cheaper I'd say definitely keep him, but at 4+Mill, he needs to be playing more important minutes, and that's not going to happen here.

UNLESS by some chance AV is let go and MacT comes in. Ballard is MAcT's type of player.
  • 0

#89 FrancoL

FrancoL

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:21 PM

Perhaps the Predators would be interested in his services? If Ryan Suter, Francis Bullion and Hal Gill leave Nashville during the offseason, and if Weber seems likely to part, then Keith Ballard could help reinforce the Predator's defense corp.

A multiplayer/pick trade for RFA Colin Wilson would be intriguing since he has good offensive skills and can play 2C/LW while Kesler recovers from injury.

He was a healthy scratch for 10 of the final 12 games of regular season (apparently for defensive lapses) and 9 of the Preds' 12 playoff games. He performed well offensively, but was penalized for his defensive play. I suspect that he may face similar scrunity under A.V. though.
  • 0

#90 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,323 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:43 PM

Why didn't we leave Ballard in florida
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.