Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VanGnome

[Proposal] VAN-PHI

31 posts in this topic

take hansen out of the deal and im on board. as for the 3rd pairing without ballard, let alberts and connaughton fight it out in camp.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revised proposal from a Flyers point of view.

VAN:

W Simmonds

3rd Round Pick, 2013

Matt Walker

PHI:

K Ballard

J Hansen

1st Round Pick, 2013

Much more interesting for Philadelphia. They can then flip the 1st and Hansen to find a worthy defenseman.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revised proposal from a Flyers point of view.

VAN:

W Simmonds

3rd Round Pick, 2013

Matt Walker

PHI:

K Ballard

J Hansen

1st Round Pick, 2013

Much more interesting for Philadelphia. They can then flip the 1st and Hansen to find a worthy defenseman.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people still think that Ballard has any value, or that other teams have any I retest in him.

Think about this deal from Philly's perspective:

- lose a 28-goal, young power forward

- lose a mid-round pick

- gain an overpaid, underachieving D

- gain a solid 3rd/4th liner

- gain a 25-30th pick in the next draft

Why would Philly do that deal? If they're losing Simmonds, they could get much better for him from elsewhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Hansen and Simmonds are neck and neck until it comes to offensive potential, I see Simmonds as being a lock for any teams T6 whereas Hansen could be a fringe 2nd liner/elite 3rd liner. Philly gets a similar player back to replace Simmonds and gains a defenceman who at only 29 is a solid T4 defenceman. Prior to coming to the Canucks, Ballard had no fewer than 21 points and no more than 39.

I'm thoroughly convinced that Ballards lack of offensive contribution here is a direct result of AV's utilization of him with the current roster. Bottom pairing minutes inherently means the situations he will play in on average lack in significance and has a completely different mindset from playing on the top 2 pairings.

Ballard isn't a bottom pairing defenceman, he's only being used as such. He has value, albeit at an all time low right now. I think more than anything you have to fault Gillis for even considering bringing him in, not because of the player he is but because of the knowledge of knowing who your coach is and the situation you're bringing the player into.

Gillis got romped on the Ballard trade, trading Bernier, Grabner and a 1st (Quinton Howden) for Ballard and Oreskovich, it was a poor trade from an asset management perspective, though I would say he made up for it with the Booth trade.

Point is, given a legitimate shot Ballard will regain his form. He hasn't lost a step or any of his skillset, he's just the type of player that needs to be surrounded by good players and play meaningful minutes, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I would think that Ballard, Hansen, 1st for Simmonds, 2nd is more than fair. It's a deep draft next year, so Philly essentially moves up, they get their T4 defensive help and a good checking winger with offensive upside.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Hansen and Simmonds are neck and neck until it comes to offensive potential, I see Simmonds as being a lock for any teams T6 whereas Hansen could be a fringe 2nd liner/elite 3rd liner. Philly gets a similar player back to replace Simmonds and gains a defenceman who at only 29 is a solid T4 defenceman. Prior to coming to the Canucks, Ballard had no fewer than 21 points and no more than 39.

I'm thoroughly convinced that Ballards lack of offensive contribution here is a direct result of AV's utilization of him with the current roster. Bottom pairing minutes inherently means the situations he will play in on average lack in significance and has a completely different mindset from playing on the top 2 pairings.

Ballard isn't a bottom pairing defenceman, he's only being used as such. He has value, albeit at an all time low right now. I think more than anything you have to fault Gillis for even considering bringing him in, not because of the player he is but because of the knowledge of knowing who your coach is and the situation you're bringing the player into.

Gillis got romped on the Ballard trade, trading Bernier, Grabner and a 1st (Quinton Howden) for Ballard and Oreskovich, it was a poor trade from an asset management perspective, though I would say he made up for it with the Booth trade.

Point is, given a legitimate shot Ballard will regain his form. He hasn't lost a step or any of his skillset, he's just the type of player that needs to be surrounded by good players and play meaningful minutes, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I would think that Ballard, Hansen, 1st for Simmonds, 2nd is more than fair. It's a deep draft next year, so Philly essentially moves up, they get their T4 defensive help and a good checking winger with offensive upside.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Hansen and Simmonds are neck and neck until it comes to offensive potential, I see Simmonds as being a lock for any teams T6 whereas Hansen could be a fringe 2nd liner/elite 3rd liner. Philly gets a similar player back to replace Simmonds and gains a defenceman who at only 29 is a solid T4 defenceman. Prior to coming to the Canucks, Ballard had no fewer than 21 points and no more than 39.

I'm thoroughly convinced that Ballards lack of offensive contribution here is a direct result of AV's utilization of him with the current roster. Bottom pairing minutes inherently means the situations he will play in on average lack in significance and has a completely different mindset from playing on the top 2 pairings.

Ballard isn't a bottom pairing defenceman, he's only being used as such. He has value, albeit at an all time low right now. I think more than anything you have to fault Gillis for even considering bringing him in, not because of the player he is but because of the knowledge of knowing who your coach is and the situation you're bringing the player into.

Gillis got romped on the Ballard trade, trading Bernier, Grabner and a 1st (Quinton Howden) for Ballard and Oreskovich, it was a poor trade from an asset management perspective, though I would say he made up for it with the Booth trade.

Point is, given a legitimate shot Ballard will regain his form. He hasn't lost a step or any of his skillset, he's just the type of player that needs to be surrounded by good players and play meaningful minutes, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I would think that Ballard, Hansen, 1st for Simmonds, 2nd is more than fair. It's a deep draft next year, so Philly essentially moves up, they get their T4 defensive help and a good checking winger with offensive upside.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes absolutley no sense. The OP made perfect sense as Philly got their top 4 D man in one trade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmonds just got signed to a new multi-year substantial deal, I highly doubt they would trade him.

I was all for getting him back when he was in LA, but people told me he didn't seem to have any upside and he was as good as he will get.. Right, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the guy is a 30 goal scorer in the peak of his career, which isn't too bad if I do say so myself. lol

But again with all these Hansen trade proposals, I like having him on our team. He's very versatile, I wouldn't wanna see him traded at all at this point.. Maybe if it involved something more of a block buster variety, but until then no way. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmonds just got signed to a new multi-year substantial deal, I highly doubt they would trade him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.