aGENT Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Ballard is a good player with no role on this team. He's not going to push any of the top 4 out and he's not a bottom pairing guy. The writing was on the wall when we signed Hamhuis, Ballard was merely an expensive insurance policy in case we couldn't get him. That was compounded by injuries and stretches of play that weren't up to his standards. He needs a fresh start. The best fit for him would be a second pairing guy on a mid-tier team in the East paired with someone responsible IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley2012 Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 you obviously haven't seen ballard play.....he does well with tanev because tanev can cover his mistakes....AV wants to win and plays the players, he feels gives the team the best chance to win,,,your just pissed that he doesn't coach the way that you like.... if AV is fired, this team will lose the best coach this franchise has ever had...i for would rather gillis go, not AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 You did say none of those guys were in a bottom role for any length of time. Which as I pointed out is incorrect. When Edler injured his back Ballard was moved up to his spot with Ehrhoff. He had a terrible time holding the line and was going after pinches he had no chance of winning. It's one thing to lose a pinch, it's quite another to go after one you have no chance of winning. What he showed in Edlers spot was he was more likely to give up an odd man rush than create offense. Not particularly good when considering defense wasn't Ehrhoffs strong point. He was replaced by Rome. That in itself is an indicator of how badly Ballard was playing his first season here. There's a difference between inconsistent and bad. The only time Ballard has even been decent here is playing limited minutes in a limited role with the defensive minded Tanev. Ballard failed miserably when given Edlers role. He failed when put on the right side. He failed when put in Hamhuis' role. Where does that put him? It's about winning games. To win games you go with your best options. If you need to score Edler is your best option. If you need to defend a lead Hamhuis is your best option. Again, where does that put Ballard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 I would take Ballard over Edler. Edler should provide good trade value in return. Provided AV isn't at the helm, otherwise, any of MG's trade will be pointless under AV anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Actually AV completely mishandled both Lu and Ballard. With Ballard, he was made a healthy scratch for most of the playoffs and then AV dumped him right into the top-pairing in the SCF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Or they haven't traded him because they thought he was more valuable than what they were offered for him. That actually seems more likely for Gillis. He never wants to give guys away unless he gets his asking price. The Canucks could have bought him out before the season started if they were so desperate to get rid of him yet they chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Trade him for a like a third round pick. But I'm sure the players love him, but AV has been frustrating me with his choices now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linden53 Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Ummm.....are you being purposely sarcastic or are you just prone to speaking without knowing what the hell you are talking about. Research is your friend man. Ballard is not a converted forward. He was drafted a defenceman and other than being used at forward a few times to fill in when needed, has always been a defenceman at the NHL level. Ballard was consistently a top 4 (including top 2) dman who played 23+ minutes per game on both special teams and was a key guy on both his previous teams. He had never scored less than 5 goals in a season and hit over 30 points twice as a dman. He was most certainly worth the contract he got at the time. 4.2 million for a top pairing guy is pretty reasonable. Why talk if you don't actually know anything about the player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.