Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Unpopular take, I never got the Ballard hate.

Rate this topic


CanadianRugby

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

Yeah, he really misread the fact that his $4.2m salary would help the team when in fact all it did was hinder us because for some reason he and AV weren't on the same page and AV didn't play him as a guy he relied on.

 

That's on the GM newbie, you are right. You can't just bring in random players, it has to be part of a plan.

 

He didn't fit in with our overall skill game. We didn't need or want another Aaron Rome. Gillis just figured it would be great to have another top 4 d guy in the system without calculating or even apparently talking to AV about it.

Maybe blame Salo.   Hard to plan a team around a very good player who couldn’t keep out of the infirmary.   But yeah it’s definitely on MG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Where did you hear this? I can't see it. Gillis would have had no idea Hamhuis would be willing to take the discount he did to come here. Banking on it would have been stupid. So I don't think his rights being traded played any factor at all in Gillis dealing for Ballard. Mitchell on the other was still a possibility at that point. Gillis said he was still interested in re-signing Mitchell after acquiring Ballard. But that died July 1st when Hamhuis signed here. So I don't believe Mitchell or Hamhuis was a factor at all in trading for Ballard but do believe signing Hamhuis was the deciding factor for Mitchell.

 

 

It's speculation on my part. I just feel like if we wanted Mitchell back, he would've signed here. So clearly Gillis wanted to wait on Hamhuis and see if he would accept the offer given before deciding on Mitchell. With Hamhuis' rights being dealt twice, they could've been in a spot where they lose Hamhuis, Mitchell walks and we are short a top 4 LD. What would have been the intention of having Ballard with Mitchell/Hamhuis and Edler? There just wouldn't be enough minutes to go around. It just seems they wanted to secure a "top 4" LD in case they didn't get the target they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Bieksa was interviewed a few years back and was asked which Canuck during his time was misunderstood or given a bad rep.  Juice quickly said it was Keith Ballard, was one of of the players that was extremely popular in the room...except for AV, media, and fans.

 

Was always a fan of him.

 

 

Being popular "in the room" has little to do with on ice performance. Daniel said in an interview Kassian was one of his favorite guys "in the room" because he was so funny. On the ice he was inconsistent and of course there was also his substance abuse issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It's speculation on my part. I just feel like if we wanted Mitchell back, he would've signed here. So clearly Gillis wanted to wait on Hamhuis and see if he would accept the offer given before deciding on Mitchell. With Hamhuis' rights being dealt twice, they could've been in a spot where they lose Hamhuis, Mitchell walks and we are short a top 4 LD. What would have been the intention of having Ballard with Mitchell/Hamhuis and Edler? There just wouldn't be enough minutes to go around. It just seems they wanted to secure a "top 4" LD in case they didn't get the target they wanted.

Again, he had no idea on Mitchell or Hamhuis at the time of the trade. As to Mitchell, he said he wanted to be certain he could take contact BEFORE he would re-sign him. He wasn't cleared for contact until pre-season started. Both Hamhuis and Mitchell were huge question marks when he traded for Ballard. Again Mitchell hadn't even been cleared to work out yet. His career was in question. That's why I don't believe either factored into the trade. Ballard was a certainty the others were not. Contenders are less likely to roll the dice on hopes and dreams, they tend to go with what they know. He was facing the possibility of two holes on the left side when he traded for Ballard. He wanted to fill both those holes and Ballard, unlike Hamhuis and Mitchell, was at least a certainty for one of them. It was a smart move at the time considering the situation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Again, he had no idea on Mitchell or Hamhuis at the time of the trade. As to Mitchell, he said he wanted to be certain he could take contact BEFORE he would re-sign him. He wasn't cleared for contact until pre-season started. Both Hamhuis and Mitchell were huge question marks when he traded for Ballard. Again Mitchell hadn't even been cleared to work out yet. His career was in question. That's why I don't believe either factored into the trade. Ballard was a certainty the others were not. Contenders are less likely to roll the dice on hopes and dreams, they tend to go with what they know. He was facing the possibility of two holes on the left side when he traded for Ballard. He wanted to fill both those holes and Ballard, unlike Hamhuis and Mitchell, was at least a certainty for one of them. It was a smart move at the time considering the situation.

Yes I've alluded that health concerns were likely the reason why we didn't have Mitchell return. We had signed Hamhuis and Rome and traded for Ballard by July 1st and signed Shane O'Brien on July 6th that we had as an RFA I believe so he would've been insurance for the bottom LD spot. Even if Gillis would have liked to sign Mitchell if he got healthy, he likely had his mind made up that he wasn't going to re-sign already at this point if not earlier. Mitchell may have been a back up plan had Hamhuis signed elsewhere. So I can buy the idea that he may have targeted Ballard as a sure thing, but where we differ is that I believe he was acquired as an insurance for if we could not get Hamhuis.

 

I doubt the plan was to have both Hamhuis and Ballard. Neither player was planned to be a bottom pairing guy with Edler being on the top pair (the price paid for Ballard would suggest that was not the intention of acquiring him). The reason I believe they had some connection was the timing of trades. Hamhuis' rights were traded on June 19th and I believe that is likely when we starting shopping for an LD. Then the rights are traded again for a 3rd pick which seems like a high price that they were going to be aggressive in trying to sign him. Soon after we pull the trigger on the trade.

 

We really only had one top 4 LD spot open, yet we acquired two. I just don't believe that was the intention. So I get the security thing, but I think that was triggered with Hamhuis being moved twice for early negotiations. We can agree to disagree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2020 at 3:03 AM, CanadianRugby said:

Watching the 2011 playoffs.  Daaaaamn that team was good.  Anyway, watching Ballard play.  I think he's playing his role ok, and he's physical.  

 

Only later, when Kesler, Erhoff and Edler were messed up.  Rome suspended, Maholtra and Hamhuis out, that guys like Ballard were asked too much defensively.  

 

Update: wow I thought everyone was gonna disagree.  I guess it was mostly just AV that hated him. 

AV was full of himself, it wasn't until the Sedins and Kesler took over the dressing room after Sundin showed how, that the team started playing better. I remember Naslund complaining about the dump in system, saying then the game was changing to puck retention.

 

I know it is a long time ago to some fans but I always thought AV's statement that he went and asked Luongo if he wanted to play was a twofold dumb statement. One he put the loss on Luongo and two he showed his lack of coaching confidence. What answer did he expect Luongo to say? No, I don't want to play? After Luongo was lit up like that Schiender should have been a no brainer, they had won the Jennings trophy so giving Luongo a break should not have been a consideration at all especially with all the travel.

 

On the Ballard front, that was baffling, Ballard was the top PP defenceman on two teams. Defence was not his strength, it was almost like AV was slapping Gillis in the face saying you can sign whoever you want but I will play who I want, that was the structure of the team back then, AV was in charge of ALL on ice decisions, including trades after the Ballard deal.

 

But then Mr. Ego also stated that Hodgson was slacking off and using his back injury as a poor excuse and it was not really all that bad. He also stated that Mitchell was not much of a hockey player because hockey players play through injuries, he was so old school that was moss on the top of his head. He was popular with the media because he leaked so much too them. Things like Shane O'Brien not wanting to fight and even though it wasn't made public, Kassian's problems.

Edited by Lazurus
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard was on the decline when we got him. IIRC he had concussion questions coming in too, all this after Mitchell was let go for the same reason. /sigh

 

He was alright in my eyes for what he brought, and to put his salary in perspective, Stecher is likely to get a raise to around Ballard money via arbitration this coming season.


I can't believe they wasted a buyout on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, xereau said:

Ballard was on the decline when we got him. IIRC he had concussion questions coming in too, all this after Mitchell was let go for the same reason. /sigh

 

He was alright in my eyes for what he brought, and to put his salary in perspective, Stecher is likely to get a raise to around Ballard money via arbitration this coming season.


I can't believe they wasted a buyout on him.

He wasn't let go ala Dan Hamhuis here though.  He was offered a contract, just not a multi-year deal he was looking for.  Ballard was cleared to play (unlike Mitchell).  Big difference.  The failure was the professional scouting failure to take into account who was the head coach here (Ballard, even fully healthy, would never be able to fit in under a systems coach like AV).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lazurus said:

AV was full of himself, it wasn't until the Sedins and Kesler took over the dressing room after Sundin showed how, that the team started playing better. I remember Naslund complaining about the dump in system, saying then the game was changing to puck retention.

 

I know it is a long time ago to some fans but I always thought AV's statement that he went and asked Luongo if he wanted to play was a twofold dumb statement. One he put the loss on Luongo and two he showed his lack of coaching confidence. What answer did he expect Luongo to say? No, I don't want to play? After Luongo was lit up like that Schiender should have been a no brainer, they had won the Jennings trophy so giving Luongo a break should not have been a consideration at all especially with all the travel.

 

On the Ballard front, that was baffling, Ballard was the top PP defenceman on two teams. Defence was not his strength, it was almost like AV was slapping Gillis in the face saying you can sign whoever you want but I will play who I want, that was the structure of the team back then, AV was in charge of ALL on ice decisions, including trades after the Ballard deal.

 

But then Mr. Ego also stated that Hodgson was slacking off and using his back injury as a poor excuse and it was not really all that bad. He also stated that Mitchell was not much of a hockey player because hockey players play through injuries, he was so old school that was moss on the top of his head. He was popular with the media because he leaked so much too them. Things like Shane O'Brien not wanting to fight and even though it wasn't made public, Kassian's problems.

AV may have his shortcomings, but he was part of why we got to the Finals, then gone on to the Rangers and also got them to the Finals. The Flyers went from 11th in the East last season to 4th in the East this season with him at the helm. He's got to be doing something right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Gillis acquired Ballard first before we got our hands on Hamhius as a UFA.

 

We shipped out Michael Grabner and a 1st rounder in 2010 for Ballard, at the time a 28  year old. He's played 5 full seasons including 4 straight 82 game seasons prior to joining us.  He was literally a top pairing dman his entire career at that point, however it would be top pairining dman on struggling team.  He has speed, physical play and known as an offensive dman, despite being on the short side as a dman.    

 

This was a damn good trade since Ballard also came with a 4 year contract and at 4.1 million per year.  

 

Mike Gillis knew we were close to being a cup contender and adding a top 3 dman to our team will really help. we were uncertain at this point if Hamhius was even available at this point.  

 

It's just too bad for whatever reason A.V didn't like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2020 at 4:04 PM, theo5789 said:

AV may have his shortcomings, but he was part of why we got to the Finals, then gone on to the Rangers and also got them to the Finals. The Flyers went from 11th in the East last season to 4th in the East this season with him at the helm. He's got to be doing something right.

AV has always been a great regular season coach and a great systems coach but he was horrific when he needed to adjust in a series. Just way too stubborn, but overall a very good coach. If he could get out of his own way we would have had some amazing runs in the playoffs with some of those stacked teams. Should have beaten Chicago at least one more time in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard wasn't bad. He just ended up with injuries and fell behind in my opinion. Injuries will do that both physically and mentally. When we first traded for him I was excited to get a player like him.

Edited by The Lock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...