Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Waive Ballard or Straight Trade For Komisarek?


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,044 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:43 AM

or we could fire AV...

How will that change anything? Unless Ballard magically finds a way to comfortably play right side, he's behind Hamhuis and Edler on the left side no matter who the coach is.
  • 0
Posted Image

#32 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,949 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:02 AM

Ballard may have had a rough couple of years, but he's still twice the defenseman that Komisarek is ...

We already have Andrew Alberts, why do we want a slightly bigger Andrew Alberts at 4 times the price?
  • 0

#33 Bang Bang Boogie

Bang Bang Boogie

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,054 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 06

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:05 AM

A misused Ballard > Komisarek. One can skate, the other is a pylon.
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:10 AM

Well, Vigneault utilizes Ballard as if he were Komisarek anyway so we we are truly wedded to Vig for life then why not trade for the real thing??!!
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#35 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,346 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:03 AM

How will that change anything? Unless Ballard magically finds a way to comfortably play right side, he's behind Hamhuis and Edler on the left side no matter who the coach is.

He would step up in the top 4 if Edler decides to leave and i think he would do well with Garrison. He was one of our best d-men against the Kings but you are right he does waste his talent and cap space on the bottom pairing.
  • 1

#36 Gooseberries

Gooseberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:11 AM

though i don't think ballard is as bad as.many think he is. it would be nice to ditch his contract to free up edler money.
  • 0

20u7nh3.jpg

Credit to Vintage Canuck

The Sig lord


#37 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,184 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:10 AM

Ballard for Teubert straight up.

Problem solved. We trade a mobile defenseman to a team that likes mobile defensemen, and we get young right handed d-man in return.

Did I mention Teubert is 6'4", 195 lbs. and from White Rock?
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#38 SergioMomesso

SergioMomesso

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:29 AM

How about give Ballard one injury free season to see how he performs. I thought he played very well until his injury last year. If Ballard's cap was only 2-3 million, everyone would love him. The guy can skate the puck out of our own end as good as any d-man in the league. He just needs more playing time. And unfortunately playing behind Edler and Hamhuis, he won't get it. I think he was brought here for plan B if MG couldnt rope in Hamhuis.
  • 0
[sharedmedia=core:attachments:5584]

#39 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,730 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:53 AM

How about we trade and s for a c and call it a day?
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#40 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined: 12-September 05

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

Grabner and Quiton Howden who looks like a promising prospect. It really sucks to think we could have grabners dynamic speed on this team he just needs to learn how to finish and he could become a similar player to gaborik but obviously not on his level..


Dead horse. Which ironically is about the same use Grabner would have here.
  • 0

#41 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

Give Ballard a right handed Hamhuis and he'll be just as good as Bieksa.

Give Komisarek a Hamhuis and watch it become a one man pairing
  • 2
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#42 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,730 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:06 PM

Dead horse. Which ironically is about the same use Grabner would have here.


Grabner sucks, the guy doesn't play for the team or anything resembling defence.
  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#43 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,319 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

How will that change anything? Unless Ballard magically finds a way to comfortably play right side, he's behind Hamhuis and Edler on the left side no matter who the coach is.

Ballard is a natural LD. IMO Tanev should be converted to the right side (if he's left defense) so Ballard could play his natural side. Who knows, it could work wonders.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#44 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:27 PM

How will that change anything? Unless Ballard magically finds a way to comfortably play right side, he's behind Hamhuis and Edler on the left side no matter who the coach is.


We get more playoff success? ::D

I think AV should go too, he seems to have issue's with motivation and I don't think he that good at getting the most out of his players like coaches like Sutter, Deboer, exc. Can.

That's a whole nother topic though.

though i don't think ballard is as bad as.many think he is. it would be nice to ditch his contract to free up edler money.


If we made this trade we would be taking back the exact same contract. Komisarek's actually might be a tad worse.

Give Ballard a right handed Hamhuis and he'll be just as good as Bieksa.

Give Komisarek a Hamhuis and watch it become a one man pairing


Absolutely, Bieksa is incosistent too, last year I thought Ballard was more consistent than he was, people just give Bieksa a free pass.

Ballard is a natural LD. IMO Tanev should be converted to the right side (if he's left defense) so Ballard could play his natural side. Who knows, it could work wonders.


That's what we have been doing, and when they play together they work well. Can't wait to see them when the season finally begins.
  • 1

zackass.png


#45 Rypien.4.Ever

Rypien.4.Ever

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

For all you people ragging on Komisarek, sure he may not be a good defenceman but even a world-class defenceman like Phaneuf is looking pretty bad playing on one of if not the worst defensive teams in the league.

To me our defence needs to become bigger, more physical and stronger. Look at all the Cup winning defences over the last few years - sure you need to be big up front, but more importantly you need big bruisers on the back end who punish opposing teams forwards. Ballard is nowhere near that guy, Komisarek is at least a bit closer to what Cup-winning defences are made of.

You look at Boston's defence, they had a great top 4 obviously but even their bottom pairing consisted of a guy like McQuaid - not great defensively but a physical monster who ground down forwards during a series. Now take a look at Los Angeles. Guys like Mitchell and especially Greene pounded forwards all series long. Our bottom pairing right now is Ballard and Tanev, two tiny guys who don't pose a threat to anyone.

For those of you who say Ballard is a great hip-checker, he WAS a good hip checker, but the worst thing is that hip checking does next to nothing in the playoffs. It's a one-hit-wonder that sends a forward flying, but doesn't appear to hurt or grind them down as much as consistently banging their bodies against the boards or down to the ice, which is how Los Angeles and Boston played in the playoffs. You don't tire out forwards by throwing one hip check a game in a 7 game series, you do it by riding them hard into the boards every single shift. That's how our forwards were destroyed against Boston, and that's what L.A did to every single team.

Of all of Komisarek's bad traits, this is one good thing about him that the Canucks desperately need if they want to start thinking about playoff hockey as opposed to regular season success. Komi's game is built for the playoffs, not the regular season, and would fit in perfectly in our bottom-4.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Komisarek - Tanev
Alberts

His size complements Tanev's lack thereof and just like the past 2 Cup winners have shown us, you don't need a small, fast, mobile defence to win a Cup, you need a strong stay-at-home type with maybe one or two puck movers. Even going back to Chicago, they had Keith and Campbell as their puck movers, the rest were strong stay-at-home guys. Boston had Chara and Kaberle as their offensive defencemen, the rest were all physical shut down guys (Chara included). Look at Los Angeles, Doughty and Voynov were the only real offensive defencemen. Now with Komisarek in the mix, we suddenly have that same magic formula that has worked time and time again. You win Cups with grit and size on the BACK END, not just forwards which is something that has been neglected by the Canucks over the last 3 or 4 years and has been IMO our biggest downfall.


I stopped reading there.
  • 0
The twins will get traded for this pick. You can quote me .

-Some idiot named Shredder talking about Connor McDavid.

#46 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

Ballard is a keeper but his contract is a doozy. It would be nice if you could renegotiate it to a more realistic term if he truly wants to stay a Canuck.
  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#47 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,006 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:54 PM

No thanks.

If we're going to trade Ballard I would like to see us trade him to Dallas for Morrow.

Then we can acquire a bottom pairing D-man by trading Luongo.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#48 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:58 PM

For all you people ragging on Komisarek, sure he may not be a good defenceman but even a world-class defenceman like Phaneuf is looking pretty bad playing on one of if not the worst defensive teams in the league.

To me our defence needs to become bigger, more physical and stronger. Look at all the Cup winning defences over the last few years - sure you need to be big up front, but more importantly you need big bruisers on the back end who punish opposing teams forwards. Ballard is nowhere near that guy, Komisarek is at least a bit closer to what Cup-winning defences are made of.

You look at Boston's defence, they had a great top 4 obviously but even their bottom pairing consisted of a guy like McQuaid - not great defensively but a physical monster who ground down forwards during a series. Now take a look at Los Angeles. Guys like Mitchell and especially Greene pounded forwards all series long. Our bottom pairing right now is Ballard and Tanev, two tiny guys who don't pose a threat to anyone.

For those of you who say Ballard is a great hip-checker, he WAS a good hip checker, but the worst thing is that hip checking does next to nothing in the playoffs. It's a one-hit-wonder that sends a forward flying, but doesn't appear to hurt or grind them down as much as consistently banging their bodies against the boards or down to the ice, which is how Los Angeles and Boston played in the playoffs. You don't tire out forwards by throwing one hip check a game in a 7 game series, you do it by riding them hard into the boards every single shift. That's how our forwards were destroyed against Boston, and that's what L.A did to every single team.

Of all of Komisarek's bad traits, this is one good thing about him that the Canucks desperately need if they want to start thinking about playoff hockey as opposed to regular season success. Komi's game is built for the playoffs, not the regular season, and would fit in perfectly in our bottom-4.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Komisarek - Tanev
Alberts

His size complements Tanev's lack thereof and just like the past 2 Cup winners have shown us, you don't need a small, fast, mobile defence to win a Cup, you need a strong stay-at-home type with maybe one or two puck movers. Even going back to Chicago, they had Keith and Campbell as their puck movers, the rest were strong stay-at-home guys. Boston had Chara and Kaberle as their offensive defencemen, the rest were all physical shut down guys (Chara included). Look at Los Angeles, Doughty and Voynov were the only real offensive defencemen. Now with Komisarek in the mix, we suddenly have that same magic formula that has worked time and time again. You win Cups with grit and size on the BACK END, not just forwards which is something that has been neglected by the Canucks over the last 3 or 4 years and has been IMO our biggest downfall.


I stopped reading the second I saw you call phaneuf a world class defenseman.

The only thing wrong with ballard is his salary, if he was making 3mil a year nobody would say a thing about the guy other than that hes doing a good job.
  • 0

Posted Image


#49 eretz canucks

eretz canucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:57 PM

Komisarek-No
  • 0

#50 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

I still am a fan of Ballard. I'm giving him this season to come back. And if we miss the season, then he should be done on our contract? Maybe he'll sign for 2 million a year, and that'd be great.
  • 0
Posted Image

#51 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

I still am a fan of Ballard. I'm giving him this season to come back. And if we miss the season, then he should be done on our contract? Maybe he'll sign for 2 million a year, and that'd be great.


hes still under contract for 3 seasons including this one.
  • 0

Posted Image


#52 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,205 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:20 AM

What a pleasure to read this page.

Phaneuf is vastly over-rated.
Ballard is better than the noobs think - he has dealt with injuries and has faced a tough set of circumstances in Vancouver, but he has a hell of a lot of tools and he has handled things professionally. Proposing that the Canucks waive him is ridiculous.
Komisarek is a downgrade - a downright bad idea.
The time to stop whining about Grabner has long since passed.
  • 0

#53 Kesler's Nose

Kesler's Nose

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:43 AM

Komisarek could definitely make our D tougher, considering that he would be playing on the bottom pairing as Ballard has been doing I don't see why that would be such a bad thing? I'd do it if he was cheaper, but over all Ballard is the better player so there's not much point really... lol
  • 0

"It's an opportunity, we don't look at it as a last chance... We look at it as an opportunity to do something great. We are going to take it period by period, shift by shift. You just have to be better than the guy across from you... Every guy in this locker room I can say believes we can do this." - Ryan Kesler

Posted Image


#54 kmotamed

kmotamed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,025 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:42 AM

I don't really mind Ballard, although I will admit his salary is unjustly high... But if keeping Edler means losing him, so be it. It won't be very fun to watch Edler walk away like Ehrhoff did!
  • 1

#55 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:23 AM

Both Ballard and Komisarek were decent top 4 guys on their previous teams. Ballard still looks like a top 4 guy in the wrong environment, whereas Komisarek has actually slowed down. I would much rather keep with Ballard, as Komisarek is similar to Alberts with a 4x greater cap hit.

If we trade Ballard I think he will be in a package OR it will be for a number 5, 16 minute per night defenseman making a couple million less.

Ian White, Hal Gill, Anton Stralman, Derek Morris, Matt Niskanen, Tom Poti, Jeff Schultz, John Erskine, Mark Stuart, Adam Pardy, Steve Montador, Andy Sutton are a few guys who could be swapped for Ballard. None of them are better but they all carry a smaller cap hit.
  • 0
Sig too big.

#56 hockeyking

hockeyking

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 22 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

Grabner and Quiton Howden who looks like a promising prospect. It really sucks to think we could have grabners dynamic speed on this team he just needs to learn how to finish and he could become a similar player to gaborik but obviously not on his level..

I am pretty sure grabner would not have made because he did make the crappy Florida team unless your saying we're worse than Florida and would have been claimed for nothing by the ils. Where would grabner go on the third line but he is defensively responsible. He doesn't hit enough for the fourth line he could replace raymond on the second line but do we actually want a guy on the second line that passes less than raymond on a line that struggles with passing. Burrows has the top line spot locked. Am I missing some thing on why he would do great in vancouver.
  • 0

#57 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,774 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:53 PM

let Edler walk if he won't resign for a deal and then move Ballard up with Mr. Garrison.
no need to let him go for a lower talent.
or for free.

as for AV... he picked Rome to play as a forward before Ballard i think Ballard would have been the obvious choice.

Edited by surtur, 22 December 2012 - 12:54 PM.

  • 1

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#58 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:56 PM

Anyone who thinks Keith Ballard has a future with Canucks organization is living in denial. His future with this team looks bleak. Like Shane O Brien I think Ballard will be on the move either by waiver wire or a trade. Coach AV really has no love for Ballard and Keith has underwhelmed himself as a Canuck.

Do we just waive Ballard and hope another team picks him up or trade him for another project Dman like Komisarek. Who know, maybe a change of scenery for both players might revitalize their careers.


Yes, lets get a much worst defenseman with a higher contract. That will solve any issues we have on defense. Thank god you aren't a Canucks GM, otherwise we would be worse than the Flames and Oilers.
  • 0

Posted Image


#59 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,062 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

Both Ballard and Komisarek were decent top 4 guys on their previous teams. Ballard still looks like a top 4 guy in the wrong environment, whereas Komisarek has actually slowed down. I would much rather keep with Ballard, as Komisarek is similar to Alberts with a 4x greater cap hit.

If we trade Ballard I think he will be in a package OR it will be for a number 5, 16 minute per night defenseman making a couple million less.

Ian White, Hal Gill, Anton Stralman, Derek Morris, Matt Niskanen, Tom Poti, Jeff Schultz, John Erskine, Mark Stuart, Adam Pardy, Steve Montador, Andy Sutton are a few guys who could be swapped for Ballard. None of them are better but they all carry a smaller cap hit.


Erskine out of that list please.
  • 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.

#60 AnInconvenienceBrah

AnInconvenienceBrah

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 12

Posted 22 December 2012 - 11:42 PM

Ballard was really good for us last season, might of been our best D man in the playoffs, Ballard starts turning it around and playing good and now we dump him for nothing or take on Komi?




Edited by AnInconvenienceBrah, 22 December 2012 - 11:45 PM.

  • 0




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.