Bodee Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 For Ballard to move up he has to outperform Edler offensively or Hamhuis defensively. Neither is ever likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I would rather Grabner and Howden and have used the cap for resigning Mitchell. MG's biggest blunder, he's pretty good otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Agreed but what if either was injured? Look at the effect even Ballard's injury had on the defence (and Sami's) I f we are going to do well in the SC we must have talented depth to our team. There is no point mentioning Gragnani or Connauton as they will not be in Ballards class for at least 2 years.............in fact I suspect Yann Sauve will beat both of them in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 For Ballard to move up he has to outperform Edler offensively or Hamhuis defensively. Neither is ever likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Would you rather have a $4.2m depth d-man or a $7m top two d-man to pair with Edler? That's what Ballards cap space could be used towards. Last season when Edler was injured they tried Ballard in his spot. He was terrible holding the line and was guilty of attempting pinches he had no hope of winning. The result was Ballard was put back to the third pairing and Samuelsson took Edlers spot on the pp and Rome filled in even strength and short handed. I like Ballard but that money could be better spent. I'd rather see a top two d-man than a $4.2m backup plan whose play has been all over the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 A bit gracious in your praise, but yes Ballard did play well. And cudo's to him for it; coming directly off 25 games on the IR and off substantial criticism. But we have three bonafide left side D who can play Top 4 roles, and then Bieksa & Salo on the right side. Bieksa is multi talented, but not top class in any arena. It makes him a fantastic role player, but not a headliner. And while Bieksa is tough as nails in a fight, he's still not in a league like Seabrook at 225 lbs where he can move bodies in front of the net. Neither Salo or Bieksa is a big hitter or particularly physical. A left side guy needs to be sacrificed because we are weak on the right side! Then it becomes desperate if Salo retires or does not sign with us. In my mind, it would be incredibly smart to trade Edler while his contract makes him a bargain. I was on record pre-season this year, and knocked around by some on CDC for it, saying Edler would be an all star but not the never the Norris candidate people were gushing over him becoming. I only wish we still had Hodgson, a blue chip prospect who with Edler might have attracted the Weber type guy we need. So that probably wont happen either. Gillis is conservative, except where he gets abused in a trade like with Hodgson. I would bet that we stay status quo on the left side & sign a journeyman defender; Scott Hanan or ??? It's not a bad plan B either, both him or Sheldon Souray would have helped us this year. What did you guys think of his post-season performance? I thought he looked absolute fantasic and did exactly what we thought he could do, all while getting 3rd pairing minutes. He was energetic, smart, and played with speed and power. Would you trade him in the offseason or try him out for the first 15 games or so with top 4 minutes? All opinoins are welcome:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 as far as im concerned it doesnt matter how good he plays as long as hes a third pairing d then he should be traded because the cap space is so valuable that it is wasted on someone not getting enough minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperReverb2 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Pretty sure Ballard is gone if AV returns as the coach. Who knows if AV is canned and the Canucks have a new coach next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowtownCanuck Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Fairly average for his cap-hit. But not as brutal as last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixteen W's Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I've always liked Ballard for some reason. Too bad about the cap hit, but it seemed like he was finally starting to play to his potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 He's too expensive for what he brings. I don't see him having a lot of trade value. And if you keep him, Edler, and Hamhuis, then what is the point of Gragnani? The one scenario where I can see him fitting in is if Edler was traded for an elite right-side defenseman (ie. Weber). Then there would be an obvious fit for him in the top-4, making his salary no longer obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 If we trade with Tampa Bay, you can almost rest assured that Ballard is going with Luongo as part of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 He's had too many ups and downs here in Vancouver. I say trade him and we all start fresh. But that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester@wraiths.ca Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Plus/minus stats are not exactly relevant stats, the underlying ones tell the real story. He played against the plugs (3rd and 4th) lines majority of his shifts, averaged the smallest icetime, and was still on the ice for 2 goals against at even strength (Tanev = 0). His useless penalty in gm 2 led directly to the GWG for LA. He was a -5 chance differential in the entire series, only Salo and Hamhuis were worse (and Hammer/Salo played more mins against toughest/tough competition). Given that he hadn't played hockey in months, they probably aren't horrible numbers - but he should have been replaced by Rome IMO (things I never thought I'd say). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
406281dylan Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 i love keith ballard but we need one more big d men and one guy who can put that puck in the net on defence and then we are set defensively bieksa-hamhuis schenn-edler diaz-ballard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenalian Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 MG has typically made one move too many. Hamhuis was a great acquisition, but we didn't need Ballard. Likewise, Pahlsson was a great addition but we didn't need Kassian. I wish Mitchell re-signed here and we had Hamhuis as well, Cup winning team right here: Sedin - Sedin - Burrows (great top line) Grabner - Kesler - Raymond (amazing speedy line, the 3 played great together) Higgins - Lapierre - Booth (ex-Habs chemistry, great forechecking and can score) Malhotra - Pahlsson - Hansen (shutdown line, all 3 are great defensively) Edler - Hamhuis Mitchell - Bieksa Salo - Tanev/Rome Alberts Luongo Schneider That team probably would have won a Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 If we trade with Tampa Bay, you can almost rest assured that Ballard is going with Luongo as part of the deal. They are desperate for D-men, and he has shown that even though he is a very good player... he just isn't fitting into the niche we need here. I suspect that his spot will be ripe for the "bigger, stronger" element that Gillis is looking for. With Tanev and Gragnani almost certainly spending the year up with the big club, his skills are a bit superfluous. Expect to see a meaner customer signed on defence in his stead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jma7 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Why would you trade him when he started to play the best hockey for the team? Even if you were to trade him, it likely wouldnt bring much since he has a long contract left on him right now and teams would know you are trying to deal him meaning less leverage in negotiations. It also means that we'll probably have Rome-Tanev on the 3rd pairing since I think the goaltender trade this summer is going to bring in a 2nd line or 1st line offensive player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronning4center Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Sorry to burst the bubble, but he was terrible. I've already posted the numbers in other forums, but he was one of the worst Canucks defenseman (other than Salo) in that series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 He looked okay but again were talking 3rd pairing minutes against the easier of the opposition. At 4.2 million he's a pretty big burden on the salary cap for a 3rd pairing guy. I can't possibly see us keeping him around unless nobody wants to touch that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.