Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[proposal] vancouver - detroit


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

to van - todd bertuzzi

to det - keith ballard




do you think they would do it with their decimated blue line?


I love ballard but we have to get rid of him next year to get under the cap, why not trade him for some secondary scoring and increase our grit and toughness in the top six even more. Bert puts up several multi goal games a year so theres one more guy that can come up big if the sedins get shut down in the playoffs.

thoughts?
  • 0

#2 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,693 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

I actually see no reason for us to do this.
  • 4
Posted Image

#3 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:46 PM

Bertuzzi coming back would cause way too much mayhem.

No reason for us to make this trade.
  • 0

105uyog.jpg

 

Thanks to KhalifaWiz for the incredible sig!


#4 Patrick Jane

Patrick Jane

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 12

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:36 PM

Ballard for Tomas Jurco
  • 0
Posted Image
Drouin#27 Halifax Mooseheads Star

Credit to Canucks Top Scorer

#5 Caboose

Caboose

    Marlies Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,893 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 10

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

Ballard for Tomas Jurco


This is a joke, right?
  • 0

Posted Image

 

Vintage Canuck's #1 Supporter


#6 Yotes

Yotes

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:05 PM

ballard for tatar or detroits 1st?

Ballard is an imporvement over, Ian White, Colaiacovo, Huskins, lashoff maybe quincey. THey have some younger blueliners like kidl and smith, but I think Ballard could easily fit in their top 4 paired with Ericsson or Kronwall

detroit drafts well and they seem to have some young forwards on the time and a few in the minors that dont have much of a chance to crack the line up like tatar.

thoughts?
  • 0

#7 Mookie Wilson

Mookie Wilson

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 09

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Would we be comfortable with Barker or Alberts playing every night?

EDIT: that is to say, yes, Ballard is over-payed for his role. But we would be worse off without him.

Edited by Mookie Wilson, 27 January 2013 - 01:16 PM.

  • 1

#8 Yotes

Yotes

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:17 PM

yes i think so, We have invested millions in our top 4. Time for them to play top minutes.

Playing tanev with barker/alberts/vandermeer for 8-14min a night isnt an issue to me

We have good 2 way forwards who help backcheck aswell
  • 0

#9 Burlinbert

Burlinbert

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 13

Posted 27 January 2013 - 02:10 PM

I would love it if Bert came back BUT to much drama i think the steve moore case is still going on
  • 0

#10 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:01 PM

i think the past is the past. bert is producing just fine now a days and i think he would be a huge addition to our secondary scoring. He's not just a chris higgins type guy that will chip in here and there. He's a more dominant player that has the ability to come up with several multi goal games a season and take charge of games when our top guys get shut down.

i think he would be a great veteran add for a cup run and we can manage playing alberts, barker or vandermeer. taking out ballard and ebbett and inserting bertuzzi and vandermeer makes us one of the toughest teams in the league to play against. that seems to be winning cups these days
  • 0

#11 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,634 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:18 PM

Kassian would have his idol in the same locker room as him. Wonder if that would do anything for his production and game.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#12 c00kies

c00kies

    Cookie Monster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,260 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:27 PM

Bertuzzi could mentor and shape Kassian. However, this leaves a void in our defense that would need to filled via a free agent (who's available?) or a separate trade. Maybe if a signing or trade happened that left Ballard extendable could this trade happen, but it still doesn't seem likely.
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to Blueberries for the sig :)

#13 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:33 PM

Bertuzzi could mentor and shape Kassian. However, this leaves a void in our defense that would need to filled via a free agent (who's available?) or a separate trade. Maybe if a signing or trade happened that left Ballard extendable could this trade happen, but it still doesn't seem likely.


I don't see it as big of a void as you. Our defense has been fine the last couple years playing Ballard as a depth guy. I like the idea of having vandermeer and Alberts being a big physical presence on the 3rd pairing.

Furthermore, we are going to have to buy out Ballard next year. This move saves ownership 3mill or so and addresses our biggest concern every year in the playoffs, secondary scoring.

I think it's a good hockey trade for both teams and we have more than enough depth to cover KB, especially when you consider the youngsters waiting in the wings.

Thing that makes it hard for me is how well Ballard is playing right now. I'm willing to sacrifice an area of strength to boost an area of need
  • 0

#14 Gooseberries

Gooseberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,531 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:40 PM

I don't see it as big of a void as you. Our defense has been fine the last couple years playing Ballard as a depth guy. I like the idea of having vandermeer and Alberts being a big physical presence on the 3rd pairing.

Furthermore, we are going to have to buy out Ballard next year. This move saves ownership 3mill or so and addresses our biggest concern every year in the playoffs, secondary scoring.

I think it's a good hockey trade for both teams and we have more than enough depth to cover KB, especially when you consider the youngsters waiting in the wings.

Thing that makes it hard for me is how well Ballard is playing right now. I'm willing to sacrifice an area of strength to boost an area of need

I get what your saying about it being hard to trade ballard now since hes been one.of.our.most poised defenceman so far this season, but would you rather trade him now while he has a little value or lose him for nothing in the summer
  • 0

20u7nh3.jpg

Credit to Vintage Canuck

The Sig lord


#15 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

I get what your saying about it being hard to trade ballard now since hes been one.of.our.most poised defenceman so far this season, but would you rather trade him now while he has a little value or lose him for nothing in the summer


yeah thats exactly what im saying. Not only do we get something for him now but adding another power forward gives us a different look in the playoffs for another 2 years. as opposed to going into the playoffs this year with essentially the same team that couldnt get it done the last couple years. we tried that last year and got bounced in the first round.

i think bert lets us add a productive player with the ability to be dominant. Lots of contending teams end up doing trades to shake things up. For example, we could trade kesler for another top center and see if that does anything in changing the dynamic and getting a cup. Doing a trade like this lets us change the dynamic without swapping core players.

i was only saying its hard to trade him to point out a con and not be the guy that says "we need to do this and fire the coach, raymond sucks blah blah"lol . I think this is a good hockey trade that makes us a better and tougher team

Edited by thad, 28 January 2013 - 03:20 PM.

  • 0

#16 Salo'sBomb

Salo'sBomb

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 13

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

While I agree he'd be a great mentor for Kassian as Bert was his fav player growing up, I think the media would screw with his head about the Moore hit and I think he just wants to move on from it. I personally couldn't see him coming to Vancouver.
  • 0

#17 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:57 PM

Create a huge hole to add unnecessary depth?

I don't see how this improves us, at all.
  • 0

zackass.png


#18 James van Riemsdyk

James van Riemsdyk

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:04 PM

I think Betuzzi would benefit us by having veteran leadership on the team as well as coaching Kassian, although this seems great. We would be dropping off Ballard who has been great with Tanev and is by far our best defensive pairing right now. I can see Ballard and Tanev putting up at least 15 points each this season if they continue to play this way.

A reason why it would be bad to have bertuzzi is because we got rid of him because of his Moore fiasco, if he came back it would cause people to hate the Canucks more and have people hating on him for what he did to the poor guy. Secondly I'm scared how our defense will do without Ballard, yes he's our bottom six pairing but our depth behind him is Vandermeer and Barker and I don't think they'll do very well with Tanev as they have no chemistry, then after this year they'll be gone and Tanev will have to find a new defensive partner. I think the best thing is to hold onto Ballard for now and trade him if we can't hold onto him next season due to salary cap issues.
  • 0
Posted Image
Edmonton Oilers CHL AGM
Edmontion Oilers SRHL Commissioner/GM

#19 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

We don't really need Bertuzzi. Besides, if Bertuzzi fails to play well, the cost of getting rid of him will be high, since he is an old player.
  • 0
Posted Image

#20 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

Create a huge hole to add unnecessary depth?

I don't see how this improves us, at all.


huge hole? i agree ballard is playing good but he's never going to pass our core guys on the depth chart long term. Secondary scoring and grit is our issue in the playoffs every year. A guy making 2 million that can put up 40-50 points and be physical is not unnecessary depth.

Ballard will be bought out next year and we've gotten by the last 2 years just fine barely playing the guy at all. I dont see this "huge hole" you speak of
  • 0

#21 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,798 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:58 PM

Google "Steve Moore," and "court case." :picard:

We're not ever seeing big Todd back in Vancouver again unfortunately! Other than that it would be a great hockey trade!


edit;

make it easy for ya

http://sports.nation...ord-settlement/

to van - todd bertuzzi

to det - keith ballard




do you think they would do it with their decimated blue line?


I love ballard but we have to get rid of him next year to get under the cap, why not trade him for some secondary scoring and increase our grit and toughness in the top six even more. Bert puts up several multi goal games a year so theres one more guy that can come up big if the sedins get shut down in the playoffs.

thoughts?


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 29 January 2013 - 01:04 PM.

  • 0

#22 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,798 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:12 PM

Would we be comfortable with Barker or Alberts playing every night?

EDIT: that is to say, yes, Ballard is over-payed for his role. But we would be worse off without him.


Actually; we still have Garrison, Hamhuis and Edler, all left D, locked up long term. Moving Ballard for a top 6 RW makes HUGE sense. We would remain, simply, still needing the subsequent trade for a right D we already need right now. But at least it gets us off Hansen as 2knd on our depth chart for right wingers. (Burrows is a LW playing his off side btw) It also solves some fairly notable size match up problems, and provides a big guy with the soft hands to play our skill game.

It would be a GREAT hockey trade. But again, too bad...



Create a huge hole to add unnecessary depth?

I don't see how this improves us, at all.


  • 0

#23 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:50 PM

Google "Steve Moore," and "court case." :picard:

We're not ever seeing big Todd back in Vancouver again unfortunately! Other than that it would be a great hockey trade!


edit;

make it easy for ya

http://sports.nation...ord-settlement/


Oh crazy, i didnt know the canucks were actually suing bert. I remembered something about him and crawford but not the canucks organization.

Actually; we still have Garrison, Hamhuis and Edler, all left D, locked up long term. Moving Ballard for a top 6 RW makes HUGE sense. We would remain, simply, still needing the subsequent trade for a right D we already need right now. But at least it gets us off Hansen as 2knd on our depth chart for right wingers. (Burrows is a LW playing his off side btw) It also solves some fairly notable size match up problems, and provides a big guy with the soft hands to play our skill game.

It would be a GREAT hockey trade. But again, too bad...


Yeah thats exactly the way i was looking at the trade. Some people seem to think Ballard is the heart and soul of this team and losing him would destroy our blue line.


on another note, raymond and ballard have both been playing well. wouldnt it be funny if they were actually packaged with a 1st for something at the deadline this year lol
  • 0

#24 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

Actually; we still have Garrison, Hamhuis and Edler, all left D, locked up long term. Moving Ballard for a top 6 RW makes HUGE sense. We would remain, simply, still needing the subsequent trade for a right D we already need right now. But at least it gets us off Hansen as 2knd on our depth chart for right wingers. (Burrows is a LW playing his off side btw) It also solves some fairly notable size match up problems, and provides a big guy with the soft hands to play our skill game.

It would be a GREAT hockey trade. But again, too bad...

huge hole? i agree ballard is playing good but he's never going to pass our core guys on the depth chart long term. Secondary scoring and grit is our issue in the playoffs every year. A guy making 2 million that can put up 40-50 points and be physical is not unnecessary depth.

Ballard will be bought out next year and we've gotten by the last 2 years just fine barely playing the guy at all. I dont see this "huge hole" you speak of


With the way Ballard and Tanev have played (Easily our best pair) and the way the rest of the pairs are playing (Absolutely terrible) do you really have confidence trading away one of the biggest parts of our defense right now, destroying that pairs ability to play 20+ while adding depth that isn't necessary?

I just don't see how it improves the team, it weakens the defense and adds unnecessary depth.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 29 January 2013 - 04:09 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#25 Kubrick

Kubrick

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:21 PM

Detroit: Luongo, Raymond

Vancouver: Franzen
  • 0
Posted Image

#26 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

With the way Ballard and Tanev have played (Easily our best pair) and the way the rest of the pairs are playing (Absolutely terrible) do you really have confidence trading away one of the biggest parts of our defense right now, destroying that pairs ability to play 20+ while adding depth that isn't necessary?

I just don't see how it improves the team, it weakens the defense and adds unnecessary depth.


Lol I agree they have been a great pairing but I have a lot of confidence that our defense is going to be just fine. So yes I am comfortable trading him for the imo necessary secondary scoring depth we seem to be missing every year in the playoffs.

If you are going to keep trying to discredit my opinion, maybe try elaborating on why you feel our secondary scoring is more than adequate to get a cup. It hasn't been in the past few years. Why is it all the sudden ok now?

I think we've already tried the beefed up defense thing. lets load up the offense this year while we have cap space and see how we do. We have a ton of depth on defense. One of vandermeer, Alberts or barker will be solid enough to hold the 6th spot.





  • 0

#27 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,196 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:17 PM

Lol I agree they have been a great pairing but I have a lot of confidence that our defense is going to be just fine. So yes I am comfortable trading him for the imo necessary secondary scoring depth we seem to be missing every year in the playoffs.

If you are going to keep trying to discredit my opinion, maybe try elaborating on why you feel our secondary scoring is more than adequate to get a cup. It hasn't been in the past few years. Why is it all the sudden ok now?

I think we've already tried the beefed up defense thing. lets load up the offense this year while we have cap space and see how we do. We have a ton of depth on defense. One of vandermeer, Alberts or barker will be solid enough to hold the 6th spot.


Okay, here's the difference though. (And sorry if I have come across as overly rude or anything)

Last year we missed Daniel and had Max Lappierre on our 2nd line, this year when healthy we have Chris Higgins on our 4th line. There are some major differences we didn't had in prior years:

- Raymond has shown he brings secondary scoring again (finally)
- Zack Kassian has emerged
- Jordan Schroeder has emerged

That's an entire line of secondary scoring that we didn't have before.

Like look at our line-up when healthy:

Daniel - Henrik - Kassian
Booth - Kesler - Burrows
Raymond - Schroeder - Hansen
Higgins - Malhotra - Lappierre

Now where does Bertuzzi fit? He doesn't bring much more than Hansen or Higgins. And the thing is, to bring him in on the 4th line. That's not a big enough role for him, that's not enough ice time for him to show his value, for him to be able to apply that secondary scoring to make the trade worthwhile.

Now on the flip side, with Ballard and Tanev they give us 3 pairs that we can have confidence in to play 20+ minutes. In the 2011 playoffs, the 3rd pair with Ballard was averaging anywhere from 8 - 13 minutes a game, and 13 minutes on a good night. Having 3 reliable pairs (Or as I say, 3 top 4 pairs) it gives up a major advantage over the season in that we don't get worn down as much, and in the playoffs that with injuries we have the guys to fill in, and can keep everyone fresh, that is a major advantage.

How much confidence do you have in Barker, or Alberts or Vandermeer playing 13-20 Minutes? I don't have much, great depth guys but nothing more as we saw in the finals.

Making that deal would much bigger hole to the line-up than you can see at face value and especially now when everyone is struggling.

That's kinda where I stand on it. Can't express how much depth we have now at every position, more than I have ever seen, no reason to ruin that IMO.
  • 0

zackass.png


#28 Teemu Selänne

Teemu Selänne

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,199 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 06

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:14 AM

LOL, why would Gillis bring Bertuzzi back? He simply couldn't choose a player with more baggage in Vancouver in the entire NHL.

He should sign Steve Moore instead!
  • 0

#29 Kulikov

Kulikov

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 10

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

It ???? disgusts me to say this but Ballard is our 3rd best d-man this season, after Hammer and Tanev.,
  • 0

#30 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

It ???? disgusts me to say this but Ballard is our 3rd best d-man this season, after Hammer and Tanev.,


Why would that disgust you? Isn't it a good thing, that it justifies that contract?
  • 0

/=S=/





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.