Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

A question about Ballard


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,033 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:16 PM

Most of us would likely agree on the fact that 4.2M is too much to spend on a third pairing defencemen. People have speculated that the Canucks intend to buy out Keith Ballard at the end of the season, and I wouldn't be against that. But I've got a question.

Ballard has been one of our steadiest D men this season, and has pretty good chemistry with Tanev. He seems to be a good teammate and a good fit in the locker room. He hasn't put up anything close to the numbers he put up in Phoenix or Florida, but he's been used differently here in Vancouver when he's been put in the lineup.

If we do end up buying Ballard out would you be against re-signing him to a cheaper contract and keeping him around?
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#2 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,524 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:18 PM

Teams won't be allowed to re-sign players they buyout.
  • 2

Posted Image


#3 BobHo

BobHo

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:19 PM

Teams won't be allowed to re-sign players they buyout.


Not for a year, right?
  • 0

#4 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,033 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:22 PM

Teams won't be allowed to re-sign players they buyout.


Aye? I had no idea.

Bummer..
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#5 CanKnucklehead89

CanKnucklehead89

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

Either way it would just be kinda sh***y to buy him out and then resign him, I know I wouldn't want to resign with a team that just bought me out anyway, it's a bit of a slap in the face.
  • 1

#6 Zoolander

Zoolander

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:58 PM

*
POPULAR

I'm fine with paying Ballard 4.2m if he continues to shut down opposing teams like he has
  • 10
My 2014 Draft wishlist: 1st rd: Draisaitl, Virtanen, Scherbak. 2nd rd: Brendan Lemieux, Thatcher Demko (Goalie)
Posted Image
Future Canucks top 6:
Shinkaruk-Draisaitl-Scherbak
Virtanen-Horvat-Jensen

#7 nucks_rule1

nucks_rule1

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 07

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:59 PM

for 4.2 and the cap coming down it will be very hard to keep him around.
  • 1
Posted Image
my thread!


100th post on September 9th 2008
1000th post on june 24th 2010

THANK YOU MIKE GILLIS FOR GREATEST OFF SEASON EVER!

HANK= H(ART ROSS)

#8 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:05 PM

*
POPULAR

Right now he is worth every penny.......I mean nickel.
  • 17
Posted Image

#9 cdubuya

cdubuya

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:13 PM

Ballard has been OK this year. TBH I actually thought today was the best game I saw him play. Having said that, I think hes still been vastly overrated this year. He seems a lot more comfortable. I've noticed a few ballsy moves hes made that could have paid huge dividends, but for every one of these plays theres an errant in front of the net pass that gets picked off and could prove costly. He seems to be a high risk- high reward type player. But he hasn't produced. Hes not worth 4.2 in cap space with the defensive pool we currently have and considering the fact that no team would give up much for him he's a candidate to get bought out. Looking forward to next year, I'm sure we could keep him on but I think the best move would be to trade him for scraps, if not buy him out. I don't really see this happening. IMO we could do much more with his savings and fill his current void for less. For arguments sake, even if hes been one of our top dmen this year, that doesn't really say anything. Hammer, Edler, Juice, Garrison and even Tanev all seem to be better guys to go with at the moment. Who cares if they haven't played their best hockey yet? He wont be a top 4 on our team in the forseeable future and theres no point keeping him on the next few seasons at 4.2 million. Next year with the cap lowering it will be a numbers game for the top teams and even if we lose him for nothing I'd rather see him get a fresh start elsewhere. Especially when his replacement could be making under a million dollars and probably not cost us all that much for productivity. What really does this guy bring to the table? Looking at this year alone, he seems to be prone to defensive lapses and doesn't add much to our offense. He works hard and he's tough, but for the cap space he's taking up I think we could do better.
  • 0
Posted Image

#10 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:22 AM

That would be circumventing the system...Also if they did end up buying him out, how bad does that trade look now? MG gave up a 25-30 goal guy in Grabner and a 1st round pick that could've been Howden or Kuznetsov for an over-paid 3rd pairing d-man who was barely used for anything. One of the worst trades in Canucks history imo.
  • 3

#11 VicNuckleHead09

VicNuckleHead09

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:49 AM

That would be circumventing the system...Also if they did end up buying him out, how bad does that trade look now? MG gave up a 25-30 goal guy in Grabner and a 1st round pick that could've been Howden or Kuznetsov for an over-paid 3rd pairing d-man who was barely used for anything. One of the worst trades in Canucks history imo.


don't forget that bag o pucks they threw in.
  • 0
Posted Image
"Louuuuuuuuuu!" - Last game Attended: Vancouver vs. Penguins
Email me

#12 rawkdrummer

rawkdrummer

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:03 AM

That would be circumventing the system...Also if they did end up buying him out, how bad does that trade look now? MG gave up a 25-30 goal guy in Grabner and a 1st round pick that could've been Howden or Kuznetsov for an over-paid 3rd pairing d-man who was barely used for anything. One of the worst trades in Canucks history imo.


You're WRONG!
Not even close, Grabner won't ever Grabner the cup he's way too soft! He's got soft hands but overall he's just plain fluffy like toilet paper.

Trading a young Cam Neely (from Maple Ridge) was the worst ever, nothing ever will come close to that one (freakin' Bruins)!
?
  • 0

#13 Maninthebox

Maninthebox

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:11 AM

I like Ballard and agree he's played well this season in his role. I see no reason he can't be traded for a mid-low round pick to a team like NYI in the off season. No reason to buy him out. Waivers next season, maybe. Here's hoping one last kick at the can proves beneficial for him. Good guy.
  • 0

#14 Danthecanucksfan

Danthecanucksfan

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 12

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:22 AM

Right now he is worth every penny.......I mean nickel.


lol nice.
  • 0

#15 kingleysniper

kingleysniper

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:35 AM

Ballard is a good dman but he needs to be given some pp time to gain more confidence and his offensive side, why not try him on the second unit with Garrison
  • 1

#16 marleau_12

marleau_12

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,286 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 04

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:40 AM

Either way it would just be kinda sh***y to buy him out and then resign him, I know I wouldn't want to resign with a team that just bought me out anyway, it's a bit of a slap in the face.

I think even Keith Ballard understands he is making far too much money.
  • 2
Posted Image

#17 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:58 AM

He's worth the 4.2 if he continues the way he's been playing.

Bieksa, on the other hand...
  • 4
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#18 kmotamed

kmotamed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,014 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:17 AM

It's also too much to spend on a back-up goalie (a.k.a. Schneider)... But we're doing THAT too!
  • 0

#19 icycold

icycold

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:35 AM

I think people are tending to forget that, at worst ballard then a number of the ufa's due up next year for us can be trade bait along with Lou could possibly pay out huge dividends and we're still in the wait and see mode as a lot of other team evaluate what their going to need and as each game passes it will get closer.
Fortunately for us MG is waiting it out as anyone who is wise would do since trying to make a desperate sale usually blows up in your face right away or somewhere down the line in losing out.
I agree with Cam Neely being our worst ever mistake in trading and it's good to know MG was no part of that lol If Cam Neely wanted out then MG would be doing the exact same thing he's doing right now, waiting..............

Edited by icycold, 08 February 2013 - 06:36 AM.

  • 0
HABS SUCK!!!

#20 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:54 AM

It's also too much to spend on a back-up goalie (a.k.a. Schneider)... But we're doing THAT too!

Schneider is not a backup goalie, once you realise that you will be in a much happier place.
  • 0

#21 Kesler's Nose

Kesler's Nose

    Comets Star

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

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:20 AM

We aren't going to be able to keep him at that price, he hasn't scored any points but he has played solid defensively. Might as well get used to the idea of him being here only for this season, doesn't mean we can't enjoy it while it lasts though right? B)

Stupid cap going down, I hate the NHL but I love hockey.
  • 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


#22 icycold

icycold

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:09 AM

I've kind of been out of the loop for awhile as per some of the details of the strike and when people said our cap is going down, i just assumed by 2 million or something... but ouch!!! down to 64.3 mill? I didn't think by that much, i can now see why MG is taking his time and possibly trying to work out details of the cap issues at the same time.
I now hope he works out certain trades so we don't simply let go of guys like raymond for nothing but rather for draft picks, this is a lil more complicated than i thought. I for one am glad we have MG as a GM since he's smart enough to deal with a potential problem before it gets down to the nitty gritty.
Ballard? Hmmmmm i'm glad he's playing better and almost up to the way he can but if we have to let him go or trade him then i'm sure MG will do what is necessary to fill his spot with a quality player. Seems to me that although for injury reasons etc he hasn't played to where we needed him to be up to now but i'm sure tanev's development has been all that much better because of playing with a veteran like Ballard. Too bad about the strike happening this year instead of next year which if we're forced to deal Ballard, tanev would have had another full year and been able to maybe have a younger rookie beside him as per Sauve or connaughton and not a worry but i guess that could be easily rectified by a pairing switch perhaps.
Man that cap hit was nasty!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! !
  • 0
HABS SUCK!!!

#23 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:53 AM

Either way it would just be kinda sh***y to buy him out and then resign him, I know I wouldn't want to resign with a team that just bought me out anyway, it's a bit of a slap in the face.


Actually not...he then would get his buyout PLUS whatever new salary they negotiate.  Hard to be angry when you are getting paid twice. But as noted, this isn't possible anyhow.

Edited by dorrcoq, 08 February 2013 - 09:55 AM.

  • 0

#24 JamesB

JamesB

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 10

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

Ballard and Tanev are playing well together. It is hard to call them a third pairing. AV is dividing up the ice pretty evenly and look who was on the ice late in overtime against Edmonton. Right now, Tanev and Ballard are probably slightly more reliable than Garrison and Bieksa, but the entire D is playing well.

Still, the Canucks will not be be able to keep Ballard next year when the cap goes down by about 6 million -- and Edlers salary goes up due to his new contract. Both Ballard and Louongo (or possibly Schneider instead of Luongo) will have to go.

Ballard has trade value. He would be top 4 on a lot of teams. His cap his is on the high side but the Canucks will get some takers. The will get a lot in return but they will get something.
  • 0

#25 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

Either way it would just be kinda sh***y to buy him out and then resign him, I know I wouldn't want to resign with a team that just bought me out anyway, it's a bit of a slap in the face.

It would be a slap in the face to pay him more money? (buyout + new contract)
  • 0

#26 jono2009

jono2009

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 08

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

He has been more reliable than some of our "Top D" this year
  • 0

#27 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:35 PM

I dont know why most assume it has to be Ballard going?
I think he has more Tools than Bieska

The 1st year took some adjustment with injuries,a new team,new system,different partners (much like Garrison now)
He is almost the same $ as Bieska and 1 yr younger.
He doesnt have to remain on the 3rd line IMO
  • 0

#28 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

I think the Nucks keep him until the offseason as they need the depth at D this year. Ballard has improved mightily, so will not be bought out. He has value to other teams (yes folks, decent D-men are at a premium these days). A low cap team will gladly trade for Ballard.
  • 0

#29 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,941 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:22 PM

You're finally seeing what a healthy Ballard with a complementary partner looks like. Were it not for an unpredictable cap drop, who the hell in their right mind would complain about the balance the Canucks have throughout their pairings. The extra million that Ballard may be making over a steal at 3.2 is easily made up in the contracts in the top 4. Right now the Canucks essentially have a third pairing playing top 4 quality hockey. Buyout talk is nonsense. Ballard easily brings back a good young asset if the Canucks decided to move him, but I highly doubt that happens before the offseason, because with that blueline depth and the goaltending the Canucks have, they have as good a shot as anyone this year.
  • 0

#30 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,361 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

According to the CBA you can't buy out a player and then re-sign him (for one year). And I highly doubt Ballard would sit out for a year waiting for the Canucks to come back and lowball him...lol....CDC astounds me sometimes.....what exactly does he owe Vancouver anyway? He has been treated like crap since the day he got here. You would never hear him say it as he is a good teammate and puts the team needs first, but I bet he would be thrilled to be traded or bought out in order to get a real chance elsewhere.

If Ballard got bought out - which will never happen anyway - I bet he would sign on with another team for a minimum of 3 mil per season and probably more.
  • 1




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.