Sanford Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 This management team has become an utter joke. The way they have treated the Ballard situation has been unfair, you have to imagine... did the Canucks even scouted Ballard before making a move for him? Or did Mike Gillis just go on hockeydb.com and traded for him based on stats? Judging by how hard it seems for Ballard to adjust to the system for a good 2-3 years now you gotta think that the Canucks did not scout him at all. Poor asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 We absolutely do not need another d-man to integrate to the core. Unless there is a healthy veteran that can plug and play and is a RH shot, even then, the Canucks have blueline options. Albie and Barker are clearly auditioning for a spot. You will see a center who wins face offs being brought in. That is the roster/depth issue with the Canucks. It is the one singular component missing from this team in order to play the way they usually play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 As I said in the post you quoted. If there isn't a spot for him, then you move him. Right now the team considers him to be the 5th or 6th best LD that we have (he is playing behind Hamhuis, Edler, Garrison, Alberts, Barker). Also, I think many people would say that he has outplayed both Edler and Garrison this year as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Yup, totally different players, and even if they both play some decent minutes, it's totally different kinds of minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 And Vis and Streit will both be on 35+ contracts if they re-sign with the Isles next year. I can see them keeping one and trading the other to a team on a playoff push if they don't get into a playoff spot themselves. They're well over the cap floor currently so they could afford to lose one, but would also love guaranteed cap dollars for next year and beyond. Ballard could well be an option for them and we could get back someone like Ty Wishart and a lower end pick, or go for a little better pick/prospect if we can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 BuretoMogilny, your long post was amazeballs. Wonderfully said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You are correct - no mention of skill... But saying Leddy=Tanev... when comparing depth.... is saying that they are equal... which they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 When Ballard was acquired to be an offensive d-man top 4 guy, yes. No, he was brought in to be a top 4 guy who is durable, blocks tons of shots, and moves the puck. Who pays 4.2 million for a defenceman who's mediocre defensively and horrible offensively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 And as if on queue, this just up on Canucks Army: FREE KEITH BALLARD For whatever reason, whether it's his relationship with headcoach Alain Vigneault or an inability to fit in with the Canucks' system, Keith Ballard's Vancouver Canucks tenure has been a blackhole. The fleet of foot defenseman with the marvelous hips was acquired prior to the 2010 NHL draft in exchange for Michael Grabner, Steve Bernier and the pick that became Quinton Howden. Since then Keith Ballard has gone from a steady tough-minutes top-four defenseman to a (probably) untradable asset and a likely buyout candidate. It has been a mind-boggling fall from grace, and a borderline inexplicable one. While Keith Ballard has handled the situation in gamely fashion publicly, it's clear that his latest stint in the pressbox (coming as it did on the heels of a steady first sixteen or so games to start this season) has frustrated the Canucks defenseman. Talking to the folks from News1130, Ballard's agent Ben Hankinson revealed as much on Monday morning, and said that he'd be talking to the Canucks about the situation... A couple of weeks ago the Vancouver media was singing Ballard's praises and calling him the "most consistent" of all of Vancouver's defenseman in the early going this season. While such high-falutin praise ignored the particular way Keith Ballard's matchups were being prescribed by Rick Bowness and the Canucks coaching staff, the boast that Vancouver's coaches were comfortable matching up their Keith Ballard, Chris Tanev third-pairing against any of the opposition's forward lines mostly held up under closer scrutiny. Yes, in mid-February it looked like Keith Ballard had turned the corner and might manage to stay in the lineup and be a useful, regular player for the Canucks this season. But then the Canucks got lit up in Detroit, and the Phoenix Coyotes rolled into town. Up until that fateful game last Tuesday, Ballard was playing sixteen or so minutes per game and performing pretty well against modest competition. In the latter half of that game, however, Ballard found himself stapled to the bench (where he's been all too often during his Canucks tenure). He hasn't been back in the lineup since. So what happened in that game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 So.. what part do you not like? The Sobotka part or the Redden part? Cause Redden is basically just a replacement an adequate replacement for Ballard. The real value for us comes in Sobotka who fills a hole, and with Redden atleast it isn't opening up another one as he is capable of playing in that 3rd pair role and be fine. Hes not ideal as he is a LH guy but deals don't always line up perfectly. This is just one idea that came to mind quickly however. (Along with the long speculated Visnovsky swap) I could probably come up with something better if I could really think about it a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Doughty Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 AV you idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 One major problem that we have with Ballard as a team is that our forward group is currently incomplete. Complete it and then you will take pressure off of Ballard. However, having $11-12mil scratched/benched every game isn't really allowing us to address our issues up front, is it? Cap waste has been a glaring issue since we faced the much more efficient Bruins in the finals. Waste less cap space and you'll find that your team can get over injuries a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I don't see much point in acquiring another left side guy from the Isles, particularly a young question mark like Wishart. If we're targetting an Isles blueliner, I say give what it takes to land Hamonic, or take Pokka as an add-in in a deal. I could see Hamonic in a Luongo/Ballard deal, or Ballard alone to the Isles for something like Cizikas and Pokka. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The trade fills our needs but I bet you dollars to pesos St. Louis doesn't take it if offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCanuck94 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Is it just me or have many players not been happy with this management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkSniper Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Luo, Ballard. Hamonic, Nelson, Cizikas, Nabokov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 omg wow ... You're overrating Leddy way to much, how was in his time with Minny? He gets to play with some of the best players in Chicago paired with a shutdown dman in Rozsival. You dont think that inflates his stats alittle bit? How about Tanev, he gets to play with Ballard and Alberts and all that time he makes them both look better. You're compring apples to oranges, Tanev is a defensive defenceman, Leddy is an offensive dman. get that through your head. The point im making is simple yet your making it bigger than it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFTcan Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Ouch! That doesn't look too good for Mike Gillis, does it? Player management 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 h Oh, absolutely. I'm not sure they'd give him without us greatly overpaying, but I'd prefer him too. I was just thinking from the perspective of moving Ballard on his own, and what the value might be. I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why wouldn't they? They need help on the left side badly. (They have one of Redden or Russel playing top 4 minutes, yikes) Ballard is a huge upgrade on Redden, and Sobotka is a 4th liner when healthy, they have tons of forward depth. Steen, Tarasenko and McDonald are all out and Sobotka is only on the 3rd line, when they come back he is on the 4th line. Its dealing from an area of strength for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.