Ballard's agent to talk to management

[Nino]

Actually its MG that deals with the roster, who plays, and who does not.

[Barry_Wilkins]

I would root for any player who has been put in such a tough position and still handled himself like a pro and a teammate for this long. Wouldn't you? And that makes you a bigger Canucks fan than me how?

If this is what you are resorting to then I guess you must be running out of arguments it seems, eh? Not that you had any to begin with as it is pretty obvious you don't even watch the guy play.

[shazzam]

Actually its MG that deals with the roster, who plays, and who does not.

[BedBeats™2.0]

Ahhhh... NO it's AV that has the call on who plays. It's MG that signs and trades players.

[oldnews]

People that are saying we should just trade Ballard obviously don't realize how bad this team would be with the D the way it is.

We're lucky we played Calgary and weren't embarrassed icing that D. If we go with the same guys against San Jose, we're gonna get lit up unless Cory stands on his head.

[Barry_Wilkins]

As he should. Vancouver has killed his career completely. He went from a top pairing defensemen on a lot of teams to a dud. It's very tough to provide evidence for this, and I like AV and nothing against the other coaches, but I suspect coaching is largely to blame. How can one account for such a drop off in production and in his game overall? That isn't natural.

[wallstreetamigo]

Then you've just revealed yourself to be all about your fave player or players, over and above your desire to see your "favourite" team succeed.

By the way, let's not get carried away. In 20 games this year, how many hip checks has ballard thrown? Two? Three? And out of those, how many are effective, as in intimidating the opponent, or obliterating a meaningful scoring chance. I'd put the number at 0.

[BedBeats™2.0]

Nonsense. He got equal minutes to three other Dmen on Florida. He certainly would not be on the top pairing on any team, except perhaps the abysmal Edmonton Dcore. (Scratch that. Smid, and both Schultzs, would be ahead of him, too.)

The "Saint Ballard" hype is getting to be too much.

[Tearloch7]

Just saw this response to a poster who also objected to your post.

First off, you're assuming that we're all on board with you about Ballard's "disgraceful" treatment. Gimme a break. I, and many others on this board, bust our a$$es to make a living, and just get by. Perhaps you are in a different situation (I won't make wild speculations, but your handle/name doesn't do you any favours in today's political/economic reality). The point is that Ballard, however unfairly you think he has been treated by AV and perhaps Gillis, is damn lucky to be getting over 4 large ones a year for playing a boy's sport for a few hours a day, with several months off a year (more with Florida). When he's benched (or injured) he stills collects the big payola.

It's not like a boss is dumping down his neck to "produce, or else!" Or else what? Ballard has all the leverage. He gets paid no matter what happens. I don't work for bosses any more, but when I did, I'd LOVE it if, after I was perceived to be not doing a good job, my boss would, instead of firing me or laying into me, instead send me home with full pay for a week or two. What a life!

To shed tears over a hockey player getting sent to the TV set to collect his paycheque is laughable. "Oh, but it hurts his future earnings", some will say. Yah, well I'd say, first, he's already collected the large coin, and if AV is as clueless as you and others say, I'm sure other GMs and coaches will find out the error of their ways, and Ballard'll be producing 27 points per year for a team with no leash and structure so that he can get his next big contract.

[Pears]

Considering that probably 50-70% of the folks in this thread hated Bally for a good few years.

[wallstreetamigo]

Just saw this response to a poster who also objected to your post.

First off, you're assuming that we're all on board with you about Ballard's "disgraceful" treatment. Gimme a break. I, and many others on this board, bust our a$$es to make a living, and just get by. Perhaps you are in a different situation (I won't make wild speculations, but your handle/name doesn't do you any favours in today's political/economic reality).

[Nino]

I am afraid that is not the case.

There have been many recent docs that illustrate this perfectly. GM's decide on who plays, of course with the coaches input, but the choice falls directly on MG

Furthermore, watch the Gillis After Hours interview. He is full control of that roster.

Certainly was not AV that removed Manny from his spot on the team.

[canuck73_3]

I like Ballard - I think he's a lot better than he generally gets credit for - but If his agent is going to go public with his discontent, it's probably a precursor to being moved.

Personally, I think it's always a bad card to play - imo his agent would be better off lying publicly and saying his client has a case of influenza, and then speaking privately with management. Going public with a rift between player and coach/management makes it harder to move the player (if that's what he wants), it devalues the player, and it also could potentially set off red flags for GMs regarding dealing with that particular agent. I don't see how it effectively improves a player's leverage in any way.

I'm not keen to move Ballard - I think he's excellent depth and I don't care much about his cap hit at present - imo MG has made him affordable by signing the top 4 to very reasonable terms -- but if things are going to get dramatic, the Canucks could achieve better balance by acquiring a comparable right side talent. The option of moving Ballard and not bringing in extra quality depth, but relying on Barker as a 7th man - I'd have to agree with you - that's not so attractive an option.

[Tearloch7]

Seriously man, my username that I have had for over 10 years on sites long before I was here offends you or somehow discredits my opinion?

That is probably the stupidest thing that has ever been said to me on any site anywhere.

If this is really something you focus on then you are not worth responding to at all on any other points you make.

Seriously man, you have said some idiotic things before to try to discredit me but this is just hilarious.....

[wallstreetamigo]

One must always consider the source, Mr. Amigo ..

[BedBeats™2.0]

Ahhhh... NO

Although your right about Manny I'm talking about the heathy scratch, and that is AV's call. MG has control of player movement but AV calls who will play the game.

Edit: within the group that MG has for him "the roster".

[Nino]

I am afraid that is not the case.

You are misinformed.

[Hyzer]

Hopefully Ballard just had the flu or something, and not just the doghouse. He's played well this season, arguably won of the top Canucks defensemen, but he just has no points to show for it (much like Tanev).

[wallstreetamigo]

I am afraid that is not the case.

You are misinformed.

[Barry_Wilkins]

After re-looking at the Detroit/Phoenix games, it's fairly easy to determine why Keith got spanked.

-On the pk he was a goalie-screening pylon. So he got taken off the pk. With Bieksa out we should've been able to rely a bit on Keith to pk. Then our tired pk got blitzed.

-He was slow to react on various 5-on-5 plays.

-He lazily stuck his stick out on a shot going wide, deflecting the puck into his own net.

Next game...

-Bad reads on 4th line types

-Looks sluggish again, even though he played a defense-low 12mins

-Nail in the coffin: Makes a strange decision to chase an arbirary, uninvolved player around the back of his own net, resulting in a guy being left wide open in the slot. HIS guy. This is a mega no-no and doing so isn't acceptable in bantam, let lone the bigs. This was Phx's go-ahead goal.

AV sees enough by then. And even though Alberts and Barker aren't a lot better, they are a bit less ridiculous than Ballard played in the last two games.

Simply, Ballard was well-covered by Tanev, when it should be the other way around. And without Tanev by his side, he's awful. He also can't handle more minutes, while Tanev so far has.

It's disappointing that Ballard has not progressed enough to become trusted by the coach here, but part of this lack of progress might be lack of motivation. Tanev is playing for a new contract, while Ballard is comfortably signed for a couple more years. Why SHOULD Ballard 'tolerate this crap' when his salary dictates he's a proven vet? Instead, just wait for the inevitable trade.

In Ballard's defense, maybe he's hurting again. Because he appears to be a step slow recently.

But more likely it's just that he's not a fit. More like a stop-gap until our prospects start arriving. More like a serviceable depth vet for when Salo was predictably injured. But NEVER a decent top-4 fit.

Now...Somebody suggested that he play forward. Hell, Ballard even suggested that he play forward. IS that such a bad idea? We're depleted up front. Turn him into a banger? But even this move carries risk as he won't know what to do there either.

It would be hunky-dory if Ballard panned out on defense where we need him. But you can't keep your hopes up after season upon season of failure. We needed him to get better. He has shown that he can play with Tanev, but that pairing isn't permanent. We need him to play a MUCH safer and smarter game when he's not paired with Tanev. So far no go.

His agent can whine all he wants. The benching is plainly justified at least until our top-6 is fully healthy. And he can demand a trade all he wants. What GM out there is going to trade for an unreliable bottom-pairing d-man with commitment issues. It's not impossible to work a trade, but we'd essentially be giving him away. So you might as well keep him unless somebody else becomes available.

My personal prayer is that Andersson or K-Con is ready for the bigs sooner rather than later. (Likely Andersson)