DIBdaQUIB Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 As well as Ballard has been playing of late and as deserved/undeserved his stay in AV's doghouse has been, the fact remains that the Canucks are not paying Ballard $4+ million a year to be a bottom pairing defenceman. Right now he is the no. 1 candidate for our compliance buyout come the off-season. Not because he isn't a solid player but because of his contract. Ballard is the right player for us with the misfortune of having a horrible contract. I personally think a trade is the best option for him as well at the team because come the offseason the Canucks will be paying him not to play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 As well as Ballard has been playing of late and as deserved/undeserved his stay in AV's doghouse has been, the fact remains that the Canucks are not paying Ballard $4+ million a year to be a bottom pairing defenceman. Right now he is the no. 1 candidate for our compliance buyout come the off-season. Not because he isn't a solid player but because of his contract. Ballard is the right player for us with the misfortune of having a horrible contract. I personally think we should try to trade him and get as much as we can for him while we can because come the offseason the Canucks will be paying him not play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 AV loves stay the traditional stay at home defencemen and thats why Tanev gets ice time Same thing can be said for Shroeder as well. Why create offence? Just dump the puck in and go for a change. As long as he's not a defensive liability AV will continue to give him ice time. Here's AV's mentality, even though a player can create an opportunity to score, if by going for that opportunity there's a chance he risks being caught on a counterattack, that player is getting benched. He plays not to lose not plays to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 You mentioned it's like talking to a speedbump in another post, but then you mention Tanev in one point but ignore him in another point about Top 4 guys playing with top 6 players getting more points by default. Tanev has most of his points from when he was playing with Ballard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I think that folks that are talking about Ballard's subpar play are missing the point. He has been asked to play a different role than what he did when he was scoring and playing top 4 on other teams. It is pretty clear by now that he is not able to play that different role in our system and that there isn't a spot for him in the lineup. That means it is time to move him. If you ask a Sedin to play a 4th line checker... and he isn't great at it, where exactly does the problem lie? Ballard is a top 4 offensive defenceman, he has never gotten that shot on the team. We don't have to buy him out as there would be takers for him in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBCanucks Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I dont think that's the point of contention. I think the point is AV is hampering the team by playing Barker and Alberts over Ballard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
î мцšт вяздк чфµ Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Schneider, Ballard. Hamonic, Nelson, Cizikas, Nabokov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 So you're saying all 5 of the D I mentioned are seeing better minutes, with better team mates, and in better roles than Ballard? But doesn't at least one of them have to play alongside Ballard and share the same type of minutes, with the same team mates, and the same type of role at least 5 on 5? You haven't shown me anything to say that's not true, you're just saying it isn't true. However, it must be true at least to some extent when thinking logically, looking at the stats for how they've been deployed, and just by watching Ballard having played with Tanev for the majority of the start of the season. For the coaches to use Ballard in a role he's more accustomed too, or would succeed better in, they'd have to take those minutes from someone else. Who would you suggest he gets those 2+ minutes of PP time in place of? Should he take them from Hamhuis, who's had 4 PP points and 12 total? We've already talked about Edler, does his time get reduced on the PP? How about Bieksa, who admittedly hasn't got points to show for his time on the PP but does fit in well with the other players. Garrison was removed from the PP when he didn't produce but has since started to look good at finding his shot after adjusting initially. They've been trying a forward on the point as well, but then which do you remove? The Sedins are finding their form, Raymond and Burrows have been good there, Kesler, Kassian, Hansen and Schroeder have been used up front rather than the point. There are choices but I don't see any as a clear demotion compared to Ballard considering what they've done otherwise. We may have to agree to disagree on this (both you and wallstreet), but unless I see more information on who within our team Ballard deserves those minutes more than, I don't see it in my opinion. I think we can all three agree this isn't the coaches being malicious and penalizing Ballard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The 'agent complaining' story on the radio may very well be a prelude to a trade. We've seen this song and dance before. The benchings with Ballard have happened before. Where was the 'agent complaining' story then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Hee-heee. Good one. You are joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFTcan Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Ballard doesn't need to be bought out at the end of the season. There are plenty of teams that will trade for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I think that folks that are talking about Ballard's subpar play are missing the point. He has been asked to play a different role than what he did when he was scoring and playing top 4 on other teams. It is pretty clear by now that he is not able to play that different role in our system and that there isn't a spot for him in the lineup. That means it is time to move him. If you ask a Sedin to play a 4th line checker... and he isn't great at it, where exactly does the problem lie? Ballard is a top 4 offensive defenceman, he has never gotten that shot on the team. We don't have to buy him out as there would be takers for him in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Feels like mismanagement once again... why have 4.2 mil$ investment sit out as a healthy scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFTcan Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Tanev had exactly 1 more point than Ballard in the time they played together. Tanev's scoring and +/- have gone up since being moved up alongside Edler. wallstreetamigo was correct in saying that Tanev has been made the puck mover of the two when they were paired. Ballard knows he is looked poorly upon for being past the other team's blue line. As far as allocation of PP time goes, I would make the following changes for a handful of games without a 2nd thought. 1) Stop using 4 forwards on the 1st PP unit. 2) 1st PP unit - Ballard puck carrier, Edler offside D, Sedins & Kassian/Burrows 3) 2nd PP unit - Bieksa puck carrier, Garrison/Hamhuis offside D, Raymond, Booth, Schroeder I've answered that question from you. Tell me this, why has the coaching staff not even tried Ballard there? Ever? What is the most PP time he has received in a single game as a Canuck? Not a single PP in 2+ years.... this is the player's doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring_Back_Bertuzzi Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 i heard he was named alternate caption but thats not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The 'agent complaining' story on the radio may very well be a prelude to a trade. We've seen this song and dance before. The benchings with Ballard have happened before. Where was the 'agent complaining' story then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 If anyone would quietly notice, AV is not ruining Tanev's development. On the contrary, he's giving Tanev more responsibility instead of going with established vets. Even with Bieksa back, Tanev played 20mins in the LA game. Maybe he has a clue afterall. Tanev's been great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
î мцšт вяздк чфµ Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFTcan Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Exactly... 4.2m bottom pairing D and a 5m dollar goaltender sitting on the bench. Thats almost 10m of cap space that could be used to get a 3rd line center and one or two 2nd line wingers. With this team having bigs holes to fill, MG hasnt done much.... actually, i cant remember the last time MG has done anything since signing Garrison who wanted to be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I am loll'ing at you that think this is AV's call. It is not. You are mad at Gillis. This is his call. You really think that Bones, who has coached Bally before, and knows him well, on top of lobbying to get him here, would scratch Bally???!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.