canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I called you out for your weak response because posts like this proves it. You danced around the issue and said Ballard is not hurt so the only logical explanation is that we are looking to trade Ballard. so to change this into an if then statement analysis and a view into formal logic... you're comment is If we sit Ballard, then we are most likely trying to trade him. so then you take the contra-positive of that argument and it would mean If we are not most likely trying to trade him, then he would not be sitting That means you and I are in the same opinion that if we were to just dress the best lineup for the Flames game, Ballard would be in. Don't make life overly complicated by tippy toeing. Just say whats on your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I do agree Ballard black and white answer on paper is the best option. You fail to understand what goes on behind the scenes with player decisions for each game. We can only speculate why, I'm not going to say AV hates Ballard and won't play him until I see solid proof of that. As of right now I see a player who has underperformed due to injury, moving to a new team and had a handful of solid games. Ballard is just as responsible for the hand he's dealt as management is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I can agree with that. Ballard gave us a much better option against Cagary than Alberts and Barker. The rest of the behind the scenes stuff? We will never know. For instance, if Ballard gets traded tomorrow, is it because he was pissed about sitting the last 2 games or was this in the works for a long time? My hope would be that it was in the works otherwise AV has ridiculously bad talent analysis. However, if it was sitting the last 2 games that forced MG's hand to make the trade, MG should look at firing AV because the trade was forced due to AV's poor roster decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You are looking for something that is not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Couldn't agree more with that, that would truly show AV is playing favorites and that is or if not will be the downfall of any team. And a capable replacement is available, not saying he's better but Ruff wouldn't be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Way to brush it aside rather than give an answer. Since you don't want to admit it was a dumb decision by AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I gave an answer read post #701, I realized my answer was very vague and went back to finish it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I agree, merely posted at the sight of your first post, reading further into the conversation I saw you gave a better answer. and I gave you kudos for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I even +'d you which I was still unsure I'd ever do progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_devil Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Looks like Av's lame coach decisions are starting to bite back. Who can blame Ballard? Av has no idea what's he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 In order for AV to go....MG has to go also....as long as MG has AV as a scapegoat...MG will have a job lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 But AV clearly came out and said it wasn't because of size, it was because he felt Ballard wasn't playing well enough, which is a load of crap and every knows since he has been better than most our defenseman this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Ballard has played well overall this season, however he was minus 4 in the two games leading up to his benching. The only other defenseman who was even close to that was Alberts at minus two, but he was making his first two starts of the season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Kassian was -4. Hamhuis was -2. Raymond was -2, Weise was -2. I understand he wasn't at peak preformence, but most of the team wasn't. If he was out playing bad and was the only one, and stood out like a sore thumb in that regard, then I understand and I can accept it easily, I just can't understand how he can scratch Ballard when he wasn't the only one not playing well, and when other guys have played for worse for far longer and have stayed in the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Well to start we can't sit Kassian to put Barker in and Ebbett isn't an improvement over any of our forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Barker and Alberts aren't an improvement on Ballard either, your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 The defense clearly needed a shakeup that is the only consistent part of the last few games. Hopefully Ballard responds well to the wake up call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Yeah. I'm hoping Barker stays in and Alberts is out, Alberts has been solid but I want to see more of what Barker can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Kassian was -4. Hamhuis was -2. Raymond was -2, Weise was -2. I understand he wasn't at peak preformence, but most of the team wasn't. If he was out playing bad and was the only one, and stood out like a sore thumb in that regard, then I understand and I can accept it easily, I just can't understand how he can scratch Ballard when he wasn't the only one not playing well, and when other guys have played for worse for far longer and have stayed in the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 So we're comparing forwards to defensemen? Do you have an actual point, or are you just going to deflect as usual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.