Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Ballard's agent to talk to management


  • Please log in to reply
658 replies to this topic

#211 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

Ballard is good, but you guys are dreaming if you think Ballard can play against the other teams top lines as well as Edler or Hamhuis


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
  • 0

#212 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

Ballard is good, but you guys are dreaming if you think Ballard can play against the other teams top lines as well as Edler or Hamhuis


Who has said he should?

Not one post in this thread that I see.
  • 0

#213 Sestito29

Sestito29

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Joined: 29-September 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:44 PM

Poor Bally. He has been nothing but a patient class act.

I really don't know how anyone can defend this sorry excuse for a coach anymore.

GIllis please pull in an LA a la Sutter and bring in Ruff for a much needed shake up.
  • 0

#214 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,973 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:45 PM

Watch which player on the pairing is tasked with carrying the puck or moving the puck when transitioning......Tanev is the one on their pairing that is being given the opportunity to move the puck, not Ballard.

Top 4 guys playing with the top 6 will get more ES points just by default...

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!

Yes. Yes, they can. And they have.

What I continue to say is that the coaching staff has certainly not used every tool in their arsenal.

If they were receiving the desired results from all sectors then there is no need to do anything different, as it was in 2011. Ballard did not deserve any more PP time or offensive free reign. That is not true of the last two years.

Ballard does not need to be getting more minutes than our top 4 to be given chances to produce offensively. This is a disconnect in our discussion. He could still be getting 2+ minutes of PP time and be around 18 minutes average.

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.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#215 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:48 PM

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!


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.


That's all fine and dandy but is Alberts and Barker a better option over Ballard?
I understand that it's hard to displace guys like Hamhuis, Bieksa, and Edler. It's debatable whether Tanev and Garrison are better than Ballard
But I think there's no denying that Ballard is better than Alberts or Barker

Edited by CanucksJay, 04 March 2013 - 03:48 PM.

  • 0

#216 RBCanucks

RBCanucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:51 PM

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.

Edited by rbcanucks87, 04 March 2013 - 03:53 PM.

  • 0

#217 Ginu

Ginu

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:51 PM

Feels like mismanagement once again... why have 4.2 mil$ investment sit out as a healthy scratch?
  • 0
Posted Image

#218 c00kies

c00kies

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,803 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:53 PM

Why not trade Ballard for Komisarek (and a pick)? If we're going to buy Ballard out (at the end of the year), not play him, get no serious interest in him, and he demands a trade, we may as well get something for him. We can buy-out Komisarek at the end of the year, so cap is not a problem. Now if there is interest, we could trade for something else...
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to Blueberries for the sig :)

#219 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,909 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:53 PM

Ballard is good, but you guys are dreaming if you think Ballard can play against the other teams top lines as well as Edler or Hamhuis


lol...Edler? Really? The guy gets walked around like a pylon....on a regular basis. Edler is great at a lot of things but playing D against top lines is most definitely NOT one of them.
  • 2

#220 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:53 PM

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.


Ballard doesn't need to be bought out at the end of the season. There are plenty of teams that will trade for him.
  • 1


#221 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,463 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:54 PM

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.


Better top pay him $4M to pay bottom pairing than to pay him that to sit in the press box.

This isn't about his contract.
  • 0

#222 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:55 PM

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.

Feels like mismanagement once again... why have 4.2 mil$ investment sit out as a healthy scratch?


Yeah I understand 4.2 on a 3rd pairing D-man is too much.
But what's worse, a 4.2m 3rd pairing d-man or 4.2 in the press box? And on top of that, 4.2 in the pressbox when he's clearly better than his replacements Alberts and Barker?

And 4.2 on 3rd pairing COULD work if the team strategy changed and 3rd pairing was given more freedom to jump in to the rush. God forbid, our secondary scoring could go up...
  • 0

#223 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,382 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:55 PM

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.

Tanev's been jumping up in the play a bit, actually. But he's not getting a lot of shots off. So i guess that makes him a stay at home defenseman. Meanwhile Ballard has no goals and one assist. Top-flight?


Partially because Ballard has been such a good mentor.

Hee-heee. Good one.

You are joking, right?
  • 0
Posted Image

#224 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,909 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

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!


Talking about speed bumps........why not look at the post of mine you quoted and then tell me what that has to do with your response?

I said if you watch closely you will see that Tanev is the one moving the puck most of the time so it stands to reason he is the one who will pick up 2nd assists if they score off the rush.....
  • 0

#225 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,553 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

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.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#226 RBCanucks

RBCanucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:57 PM

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


AV and MG are trying to assess our assets (much like they did last year prior to the trade deadline) to see what pieces we should keep and which will need to be moved in order to stay under the cap next season. Right now we're in a tight spot with respect to unloading unwanted contracts without taking on access salary ourselves. An impact player is tricky to get without taking on a massive contract or the expectation of re-signing a UFA to a larger contract than the Canucks can afford given the cap constraints we're under.

Ballard is unfortunately a victim of the new CBA. I'm sure MG would love to keep him but unfortunately we need to shed a lot of salary in order to re-sign players like Raymond, Higgins, Lapierre, Tanev, ect. while staying under next season's lower salary cap.

Edited by rbcanucks87, 04 March 2013 - 03:59 PM.

  • 0

#227 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:57 PM

Schneider, Ballard.

Hamonic, Nelson, Cizikas, Nabokov.


corrected.

Edited by мцт вяздк чф, 04 March 2013 - 03:57 PM.

  • 0

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#228 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,057 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:58 PM

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.


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?

Edit: My point on the bold... it may not be malicious but it may be incompetence.

Edited by theminister, 04 March 2013 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0

#229 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,382 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:58 PM

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?
  • 0
Posted Image

#230 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,909 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:59 PM

Hee-heee. Good one.

You are joking, right?


Actually, there was an article about it not too long ago where they talk about how Ballard discusses things with Tanev all the time, reviews their shifts on video, talks about doing things differently, etc. I will see if I can find it for you. But you really believe that he has not mentored Tanev at all? That is just blind Ballard hate, plain and simple.
  • 0

#231 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:59 PM

Ballard doesn't need to be bought out at the end of the season. There are plenty of teams that will trade for him.


No there is not a gluttony of teams who want to pay 4.2M for a huge question mark.

Well unless we get an overpaid question mark in return.

Do you guys really think that the other GM's out there are that stupid.
  • 0

#232 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:00 PM

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.


I agree with your point but I look at it another way.
Why do we keep needing to change players that fit the coaches style when we can switch the coach and actually utilize the immesne amount of talent we have on this team?

Why does Ballard need to change his game and play a defensive stay at home style when we can find another coach that can fully utilize his skills and involve him in the offence which could potentially add to secondary scoring?

Same can be said for players like Shroeder and Kassian.

The only players that have freedom on this team are the Hank and Dank.
For everyone else, its AV's way or the highway except the problem is, when the team make up is completly different from AV's style, maybe its the coach that needs to be replaced, not the players

Edited by CanucksJay, 04 March 2013 - 04:03 PM.

  • 0

#233 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,753 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

Feels like mismanagement once again... why have 4.2 mil$ investment sit out as a healthy scratch?


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.
  • 0

#234 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

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?



Ballard got his whopping one assist this season while on the PP, not hard to actually look..
  • 0

#235 Bring_Back_Bertuzzi

Bring_Back_Bertuzzi

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

i heard he was named alternate caption but thats not true
  • 0

luo_sig_with_words.jpg


#236 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,675 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:02 PM

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?


Most of those benchings were supposedly because he needed time to get up to speed from his surgeries or whatever. I don't see any reasoning to bench him now, they could have scratched Alberts and given Barker a try, the Flames aren't a big tough team anymore.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#237 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,973 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:02 PM

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.

Partially because Ballard has been such a good mentor.

I was going to get to this one, but I'm behind! Typing too much as is and working at the same time. Tanev has been good and gotten deserved minutes as a result, and Ballard has helped to an extent with that (they talk a lot I think and work on things together and overall). I like Ballard in particular for what he does in the room and to help the team, but I still have yet to see him being more deserving than others for what some are recommending.

It's a fair enough point from our (TOML and others) side that he hasn't deserved clearly over anyone else, just as you guys (wallstreet, minister and others) are welcome to your opinion he should get better minutes in place of other players.

just ask Cody Franson of the Leafs..........16 min per game but over 2 on the PP......and producing like crazy with it.

Also

Marek Zdlicky - 19:40 TOI, 3:54 PP TOI - 7 of 8 points on PP
Nick Leddy - 16:02 TOI, 3:05 PP TOI - 4 of 8 points on PP

There have been many players, some who helped their team to championships, who were used in this role. It's not a new invention.

There are many ways to get production out of different players. There's no reason in my mind not to try this model with Ballard at least for a bit, especially when the PP is executing poorly.

Franson is hardly producing like crazy, he has 3 PP points this year. Some teams have players who are better overall than others at certain areas and can be used in a more specialized role to be effective. Franson is being used like that (he's 9th on the team in 5 on 4 minutes, but 13th in even strength and 15th at 4 on 5) and every team does it to some extent. The others are also good examples of players that can play more specialized roles.

I don't think anyone disputes that Ballard could play a more specialized role with increased PP minutes, but we're saying is he better than our other options and if not, should he get those minutes regardless just to spread out the workload. I say he's not and shouldn't. No one's convinced me yet otherwise.

That's all fine and dandy but is Alberts and Barker a better option over Ballard?
I understand that it's hard to displace guys like Hamhuis, Bieksa, and Edler. It's debatable whether Tanev and Garrison are better than Ballard
But I think there's no denying that Ballard is better than Alberts or Barker

And I don't disagree with that. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see I've only said that I'm fine with them playing because they have to at some point. They can't just sit the whole year and expect to be ok if they have to come in for an injury. They'll get time for that alone as a result. Alberts getting time as a bigger body against LA makes sense to me as well. Ballard's been offensively our weakest D-man, so I can see that playing a large part into why he was chosen to sit over other players to make room.

Edited by elvis15, 04 March 2013 - 04:06 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#238 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:03 PM


  • 0

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#239 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

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.


10 mill in cap space, thats like 2 more David Booths!

Mats Sundin anyone?

lol
  • 0

#240 BedBeats2.0

BedBeats2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

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???!!!!!!!!
  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.





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.