Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

What to do with Keith Ballard


This topic has been archived.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

#121 Sugar baby watermelon

Sugar baby watermelon

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:33 AM

Keep Ballard playing with Tanev. Tanev acts as the stay at home defenceman, while Ballard can roam a little, like he already does. They already have good chemistry. Like someone already said, if he can be packaged in a trade to free up cap space in the future then maybe that. I love his feistiness on the ice, he does not take crap and he can back up his talk.

#122 gopher canuck

gopher canuck

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:46 AM

Play him. He will make mistakes as all of our defensemen do save Hamhuis. Bieksa can make 4 boneheaded mistakes in a game and Ballard 1 and it will be Ballard that sees his ice time reduced. He is used to playing and being utilized. Show some confidence in him and he will produce.

#123 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,680 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:22 AM

any team that considers Keith Ballard its 'sixth' dman on the depth chart is a fantastically well stocked team. That is all.

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#124 hockeywoot

hockeywoot

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:57 AM

I don't think he'll ever "fit" in a 3rd pairing role.
He simply won't be able to put out his best, if he's going to get so few minutes.

I've been surprised he hasn't really gotten a look on PP2.

I believe the Ballard-Tanev should get more minutes/game.
There's no real need to overplay the top-2 pairings.

If Ballard-Tanev got more minutes rushing the puck up with the top-line, instead of the bottom-6,
I'm sure they'd put up better numbers.

#125 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:57 AM

I'm good with Ballard as a 5th d-man. Paired with Tanev he has been good. The only on ice negative I see with them is a bit of a lack of size/weight. Assuming there is a trade and the Canucks pick up a big, stay at home d-man to play the right side, then we could see a whole lot more from Ballard.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#126 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:06 PM

The reason Ballard "struggles" here is the same reason Hodgson, Grabner, Shirokov, Wellwood, etc. "struggled"... they are being used incorrectly by a stubborn coach.

He likes pluggers or two-way players... may god help you if you aren't a grinder or a Sedin.

I hope Ballard gets a fair chance this year, at least on the PP. I am perfectly happy with a Ballard - Tanev 3rd pairing.

Not like he has much trade value anyways, and we don't have anybody who can eat ~15-17 minutes in his place.


I concur.
Posted Image

#127 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and make a suggestion that probably sounds completely whacked and will get me flamed for the rest of the summer....

Ok.....everybody ready......here goes......

We wait and see what he does in Training camp and how he fits with the new revamped group!

:shock:


How dare you make such a reasonable statement on the CDC! For shame!!!!!
Posted Image

#128 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

That depends on what you consider equitable and fair. As far as I'm concerned Ballard got the ice time he earned in his first season here and played his way to the pressbox in the playoffs. He was a disaster for most of the season. He'll never outproduce Edler, nor will he ever be better defensively than Hamhuis. That means he'll be third pair with third pair ice time.

Now onto Raymond. People seem to have really short memories around here. When Raymond first came up he was moved down the lines and often benched. Sound familiar all you Hodgson, Grabner and Shirokov fanboys? I can tell you what gets AV's "favoritism" among forwards. Defensive responsibility. Raymonds defensive game was not very good when he came up and he frequently lost ice time as a result. Just as AV has done with Kesler, Burrows and Hansen as they've developed. Just as he did with Hodgson, Grabner and Shirokov. So where's the favoritism? Raymond has gotten to the point that he will get some slack for not producing because he has in the past and doesn't hurt the team defensively. AV has shown time and time again he'll give players "some time" to get out of a slump as long as they are defensively responsible. When Raymond didn't come out of it what happened? Has was moved to the 3rd line. Then the fourth line. Then spent a few in the pressbox. So where's the "favoritism"?

How about Rome over Ballard? Lets see, Ballard was a disaster while Rome played a safe simple game. Well now, I can't understand why Rome would get the ice time. It took Ballard almost half the season just to get up to speed from his hip surgery. When Edler injured his back opportunity came knocking and Ballard was awful on the PP and was a disaster with Ehrhoff. In comes Mr safe, simple Rome. Opportunity came knocking again when Hamhuis got his concussion. Again Ballard was awful with Bieksa in a shutdown role. In comes Mr safe/simple Rome again. Then came Ballards knee injury and he was just not very good in any role the rest of the season. So where's the favoritism? Rome may not be a star and he'll likely never be a regular above the bottom pair. But he plays a safe simple physical game. Which is what you need from a bottom pair guy.

The only favoritism is in your head. The favoritism towards your own chosen ones that haven't earned their ice time yet.


Rome was a turnover machine. Oh and let's not forget his timely check to Horton's head. You favoritism is blatant and dated
Posted Image

#129 canadiangunner

canadiangunner

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:19 PM

Trade Ballard and Raymond to the Islanders for Matt martin and a 2nd rounder!

#130 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:43 PM

any team that considers Keith Ballard its 'sixth' dman on the depth chart is a fantastically well stocked team. That is all.

How do you compare the canucks defence with LA's? Do we have the puck movers (Doughty, Voynov), do we have the big bodies that can handle any forwards (Mitchell, Green), do we have the in between guys that can play it any way (Scuderi, Martinez). And do we have defencemen that can all go every game for four rounds of playoffs.

#131 Jester13

Jester13

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,819 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:52 PM

What are Keith Ballard’s greatest attributes and flaws?

CDC used to say that Keith Ballard was poorly used by AV and was more upset at AV and his love affair for Rome than Keith Ballard. Somewhere along the way, this idea changed and people are leaning towards trading Ballard and throwing him in all types of trade proposals from Luongo to Raymond, etc. Has this change come from the realization that AV will never play him so we might as well get something for him? OR, is his play actually poor where we don’t want him on the team anymore?

I feel that his upside is so much more than his current value that trading him might not be in the best interest of the team.

If used correctly, I see Ballard as a good skating , puck moving d-man who is probably the best Canuck d-man to skate the puck up the ice. (Much like Ehrhoff)
He has a great ability to throw timely hip checks. Defense wise, he is a poor man’s Salo. His positioning is usually solid but he is not the best at handling a big man along the boards. Gets caught on random dekes (Like Edler).

His contract might not be a bargain but it’s not bad either.

Am I missing something?

I think the only reason why we should trade him is if we can get a significant upgrade on defence via trade. He shouldn't be a throw in on a deal or a cap dump.


We should be playing him with Edler and the Sedins is what we should be doing. He can back check with his speed and stick up for the Sedins at the same time. I bet he'd be better defensively playing with them too because he would be forced to be more aware of his surroundings and ready at all times. He's a good defenseman, he's just been under utilized by our coach IMO. If played in a proper role ie. power play he could have a break out year at any time. In the end we will all just have to wait for hindsight to enlighten us.

"Education is the inoculator for ignorance."


#132 Moonshinefe

Moonshinefe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:14 PM

We should be playing him with Edler and the Sedins is what we should be doing. He can back check with his speed and stick up for the Sedins at the same time. I bet he'd be better defensively playing with them too because he would be forced to be more aware of his surroundings and ready at all times. He's a good defenseman, he's just been under utilized by our coach IMO. If played in a proper role ie. power play he could have a break out year at any time. In the end we will all just have to wait for hindsight to enlighten us.


Ballard and Edler are both left sided D. They tried using Ballard if I recall correctly on the right side and it was a disaster. And AV is certainly not going to put Edler on his off-side and hurt his production just to appease Ballard.

#133 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:47 PM

Ballard and Edler are both left sided D. They tried using Ballard if I recall correctly on the right side and it was a disaster. And AV is certainly not going to put Edler on his off-side and hurt his production just to appease Ballard.

Ballard played nothing but well when paired with Edler. Ballard's mobility worked well with him and there were sustaining good pressure in the offensive zone.

#134 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,243 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:12 PM

Trade Ballard to the Oilers for Colten Teubert.

6'4", 195 lbs, Right Handed Shot, From White Rock.


Edited by Ghostsof1915, 26 July 2012 - 07:16 PM.

GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#135 Moonshinefe

Moonshinefe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:40 PM

Ballard played nothing but well when paired with Edler. Ballard's mobility worked well with him and there were sustaining good pressure in the offensive zone.


We must have been watching different games then. It's a wonder AV didn't keep them as a pair if they were supposedly playing "nothing but well". Ballard plays relatively well with Tanev and I think our D lineup will be great as:

Hamhuis / Bieksa
Edler / Garrison
Ballard / Tanev

Of course, only time will tell if that works out well, but I think Garrison will give Edler the defensively responsible partner he needs to excel as an offensive D-man. On paper I think that defensive lineup is among the most balanced in the NHL.

Edited by Moonshinefe, 26 July 2012 - 07:41 PM.


#136 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,061 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:15 PM

Rome was a turnover machine. Oh and let's not forget his timely check to Horton's head. You favoritism is blatant and dated

The only favoritism is in your own head.

0/11 Season:
Ballard = 65 games, 28 giveaways, 9 takeaways
Rome = 56 games, 21 giveaways, 13 takeaways

Rome averaged 1:30 more ice time per game and was utilized in a shutdown role when Hamhuis or Bieksa were out. Tougher minutes. Rome will never be a star, but he was never as bad as people here made out.

Btw, the giveaway machine among d-men was Ehrhoff with 47 in 79 games.


The simple truth is Rome outperformed a guy making 6 times his salary that season. Injuries played a large part in Ballards first season here but it doesn't mean his poor performance should be completely ignored. Mid-season when he was playing better his ice time went up but after the knee injury his play took another nose dive and his ice time went with it. I've defended the trade for Ballard from the beginning and continue to do so. But that season he got the ice time he deserved.
Posted Image

#137 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,846 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 27 July 2012 - 03:03 AM

Making the first pass out of the defensive zone is one of the most crucial plays a d man makes.

If the wingers can not adeptly pick up a pass or are afraid to get pasted ,as many wingers are,then the d man has to carry it out or risk being hemmed in for another minute by the opposition.

Which d man is capable of carrying the puck out of his own zone more effectively -the fastest skater on the Canucks (Ballard) or one of the slowest (Rome).?

If the d man has a partner that cannot pass or carry the puck out of his end effectively,the remaining d man must do it for him.

On many teams one d man barely ever carries or passes the puck out,allowing the more capable d man to do this important task,

Finally,giveaway. stats are highly flawed and cannot be counted on for any major deductions regarding d man competence with the puck.

Obviously, this kind of discrepancy in how frequently a scorer records a giveaway causes problems, but if we look just at road giveaways, we get around this issue to some extent. (We can do this various other scorer biases too -- all scorers charge the home team with a lot more giveaways than the road team, some scorers ding defensemen more while others ding forwards more, etc.)
Yet even after we make that correction, I'm still not crazy about giveaway totals. The best players will be on the ice the most and will have the puck the most, and so they will also have the most chances for giveaways. The leading forwards in giveaways are Ilya Kovalchuk, Ryan Getzlaf, Joe Thornton, Phil Kessel, and Jason Spezza -- not exactly a group of chumps. Erik Karlsson, PK Subban, Keith Yandle, Dion Phaneuf, Brent Burns, and Zdeno Chara are among the top 10 defensemen in giveaways. Until someone also tracks how many times each player touched the puck without turning it over, I'm going to be hesitant to read much into the giveaways.

http://www.sbnation....ers-goaltenders

Giveaway stats are misleading at best and highly inconclusive in defining a d man's capabilities to both defend and then effectively transition the play forward into the opposition's end of the rink.

Edited by nuck nit, 27 July 2012 - 03:46 AM.


#138 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,061 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 July 2012 - 04:54 AM

Making the first pass out of the defensive zone is one of the most crucial plays a d man makes.

If the wingers can not adeptly pick up a pass or are afraid to get pasted ,as many wingers are,then the d man has to carry it out or risk being hemmed in for another minute by the opposition.

Which d man is capable of carrying the puck out of his own zone more effectively -the fastest skater on the Canucks (Ballard) or one of the slowest (Rome).?

If the d man has a partner that cannot pass or carry the puck out of his end effectively,the remaining d man must do it for him.

On many teams one d man barely ever carries or passes the puck out,allowing the more capable d man to do this important task,

Finally,giveaway. stats are highly flawed and cannot be counted on for any major deductions regarding d man competence with the puck.

Obviously, this kind of discrepancy in how frequently a scorer records a giveaway causes problems, but if we look just at road giveaways, we get around this issue to some extent. (We can do this various other scorer biases too -- all scorers charge the home team with a lot more giveaways than the road team, some scorers ding defensemen more while others ding forwards more, etc.)
Yet even after we make that correction, I'm still not crazy about giveaway totals. The best players will be on the ice the most and will have the puck the most, and so they will also have the most chances for giveaways. The leading forwards in giveaways are Ilya Kovalchuk, Ryan Getzlaf, Joe Thornton, Phil Kessel, and Jason Spezza -- not exactly a group of chumps. Erik Karlsson, PK Subban, Keith Yandle, Dion Phaneuf, Brent Burns, and Zdeno Chara are among the top 10 defensemen in giveaways. Until someone also tracks how many times each player touched the puck without turning it over, I'm going to be hesitant to read much into the giveaways.

http://www.sbnation....ers-goaltenders

Giveaway stats are misleading at best and highly inconclusive in defining a d man's capabilities to both defend and then effectively transition the play forward into the opposition's end of the rink.


As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers.

Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain.
Posted Image

#139 Moonshinefe

Moonshinefe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:08 AM

As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers.

Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain.


I agree that Ballard is over paid for what he brings to this team, but why specifically don't you think he'd be a good third pairing D-man? Besides the over paid part, it seems like it'd be a luxury having a supposed top-4 caliber D-man that far down the depth chart.

And you mention a big, crease clearing D-man, who did you have in mind?

Edited by Moonshinefe, 27 July 2012 - 05:08 AM.


#140 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,846 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:11 AM

Rome is twenty pounds heavier than Tanev and is much more of a physical force around the net than Tanev may ever become.

Rome has ten times the pro level experience over Tanev.

Tanev can position himself and transition the play forward in a much more efficient manner.

The Canucks organisation have decided Tanev's attributes are more important than just being able to clear the crease well,as Rome could.

The Canucks had a big,physical crease clearing D man and let him go for nothing.

"Aaron is a physical defensive defenseman who adds size and grit to our blue line," said Nieuwendyk. "He competes at a very high level and helps make our team harder to play against. We're very pleased to add Aaron to our team for the next three years."

#141 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,061 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

Rome is twenty pounds heavier than Tanev and is much more of a physical force around the net than Tanev may ever become.

Rome has ten times the pro level experience over Tanev.

Tanev can position himself and transition the play forward in a much more efficient manner.

The Canucks organisation have decided Tanev's attributes are more important than just being able to clear the crease well,as Rome could.

The Canucks had a big,physical crease clearing D man and let him go for nothing.

"Aaron is a physical defensive defenseman who adds size and grit to our blue line," said Nieuwendyk. "He competes at a very high level and helps make our team harder to play against. We're very pleased to add Aaron to our team for the next three years."


I'd prefer somebody his size with more skill.
Posted Image

#142 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers.

Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain.


I agree with you completely. I think Keith is a good player but honestly wonder why we let Rome go and kept Ballard? I dont understand it
Posted Image

#143 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:06 AM

As Rome is subjected to the very same "system flaws" as Ballard one could still draw a conclusion there from the numbers.

Anybody that believes Ballard played well throughout his first season here had to be completely blinded by his occasional hip check. He wasn't very good. I wrote that season off to his injuries. This past season he was better. But was he $4.2m worth better? No. I just don't think he's suited to that bottom pairing role which isn't going to change anytime in the near future on this team with Edler and Hamhuis ahead of him. Which is why he should be replaced by a physical defensive hulk that's good at clearing the crease. Which is one of Ballards weakest areas and we'd gain some cap space in the bargain.


Astutely put .. as much as I like Ballard he does not fit our team ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#144 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,061 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:13 AM

I agree that Ballard is over paid for what he brings to this team, but why specifically don't you think he'd be a good third pairing D-man? Besides the over paid part, it seems like it'd be a luxury having a supposed top-4 caliber D-man that far down the depth chart.

And you mention a big, crease clearing D-man, who did you have in mind?


He just doesn't fit the role. One of the reasons he had such a difficult first season here (along with injuries). The third pairing isn't out there much behind the top 6 forwards. Which means he needs to keep his game safe and simple. That's not the way Ballard is use to playing. When it comes to points, d-men tend to be assist heavy. Playing behind the bottom six forwards you're not going to pick up a lot of assists. This rather nullifies the reward side of Ballards accustomed risk/reward style. Ballard is good at blocking shots but he's not particularly strong when it comes to board battles and clearing the front of the net. Tanev is excellent positionally but isn't very physical. But he plays the safe simple game that fits the bottom pair role. A physical crease clearer is what would compliment Tanev most as a pairing. It's not that Ballard doesn't have skills, he does. But they are wasted in a bottom pairing behind bottom six forwards. Ballards cap hit is heavy for a guy stuck in a position he's not suited to. What's needed as far as I'm concerned is a guy in between Rome and Mitchell skill wise. A guy around a $2-2.5m cap hit. Better than just decent but not quite top four. The ability to play either side would also be a big bonus for a bottom pair d-man.
Posted Image

#145 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:22 AM

Astutely put .. as much as I like Ballard he does not fit our team ..


I have been saying this since he got here. I like him though and feel bad this isnt the right situation for him.
Posted Image




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.