What's the real deal with Keith Ballard?

[wallstreetamigo]

I honestly think it's simply a case of Ballard being unable to adapt. He's a risk/reward type of d-man and in the bottom pair risk doesn't work. Safe and simple is better suited to the role. There's no place for him other than the bottom pair either. He can't play right side, he can't produce like Edler and he's not as good defensively as Hamhuis. Where does that leave him? Bottom pair left side in a position he's not suited to. Signing Hamhuis combined with Ballards inability to play right side sealed his fate here. Add in his inability to adapt to a bottom pair role and he's likely going to need to be bought out. He'll be impossible to move now that it's clear that he's very limited in what role he can provide.

[Baggins]

MG paid a riduculous price for Ballard -- a first round pick AND a former first round pick who was about to become a 30-goal scorer when all Florida was doing was dumping a salary. One of the worst moves a Canuck GM has ever made.

[insomniac604]

I wouldn't put much blame on Ballard. MG has a habit of trading with non-playoff teams. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Ballard had plenty of points in Phoenix and FLA but it wasn't winning them games. He got traded to a team that had their top 4 loaded and thus never got a real chance.

He gets no PP time and always has a partner that isn't very offensive. Combined with 3rd & 4th line ice time - his lack of points isn't surprising.I believe he could have done well but without a hole in our top 4, he doesn't get the proper training during practices. Bringing him in for that salary to a team that has no room in their top 4-5 was a huge mistake.

[Edlerberry]

I wouldn't put much blame on Ballard. MG has a habit of trading with non-playoff teams. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Ballard had plenty of points in Phoenix and FLA but it wasn't winning them games. He got traded to a team that had their top 4 loaded and thus never got a real chance.

He gets no PP time and always has a partner that isn't very offensive. Combined with 3rd & 4th line ice time - his lack of points isn't surprising.I believe he could have done well but without a hole in our top 4, he doesn't get the proper training during practices. Bringing him in for that salary to a team that has no room in their top 4-5 was a huge mistake.

[Bananas]

Ballard shows a lack of coordination between MG and AV.

MG paid a riduculous price for Ballard -- a first round pick AND a former first round pick who was about to become a 30-goal scorer when all Florida was doing was dumping a salary. One of the worst moves a Canuck GM has ever made.

However, Ballard did have an upside. He was an excellent skater and liked to carry the puck. MG liked the fact that he had been healthy for his whole careers and he had a positive plus-minus on a weak team. And he was known for throwing some tough hip checks.

But in Vancouver AV slotted him into a third pairing role -- a low risk guy who would be physical in his own end. This neutralized Ballard's biggest strengths -- skating and puck carrying. It also highlighted his weaknesses --he is not that big and gets pushed around by big forwards.

Given what AV wanted from a third pairng guy, Rome and Alberts were both better fits. For Ballard to be useful the Canucks would have needed to play a different system.

[Baggins]

lol.

There are not many players who actually can completely change their game at the NHL level so the fact that Ballard did so to fit in is a testament to him. If there is one thing you cannot accuse him of, it is not being able to adapt.

Do you think that if Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, or Edler were given Ballard's same role that any of them would do much better in it than Ballard has? I doubt it. Opportunity is an important consideration and Ballard has never been given any real opportunity to see if he can be a better option than Edler or Hamhuis.

Edler produces because he gets PP time with the Sedins and all the prime 5 on 5 minutes with the top 6 as well. Since we have never seen Ballard in that same role with that kind of ice time in his time in Vancouver it is actually impossible to say for certain that he cannot produce as well or better than Edler.

I think it is safe to say he does not fit in AV's system but that is more due to not being out in any position to do so. I give him full credit for sitting here for 3 years knowing he will never get a chance although he has been promised them every summer. Many players would have demanded a trade already.

[Baggins]

I wouldn't put much blame on Ballard. MG has a habit of trading with non-playoff teams. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Ballard had plenty of points in Phoenix and FLA but it wasn't winning them games. He got traded to a team that had their top 4 loaded and thus never got a real chance.

He gets no PP time and always has a partner that isn't very offensive. Combined with 3rd & 4th line ice time - his lack of points isn't surprising.I believe he could have done well but without a hole in our top 4, he doesn't get the proper training during practices. Bringing him in for that salary to a team that has no room in their top 4-5 was a huge mistake.

[CookieCrumbs]

I would put money on it that him and AV simply clash behind the scenes.

[Baggins]

Name one hockey trade Gillis made that worked. HOCKEY TRADE, not rental turned re-sign or cap dump.

[Bananas]

I honestly think it's simply a case of Ballard being unable to adapt. He's a risk/reward type of d-man and in the bottom pair risk doesn't work. Safe and simple is better suited to the role. There's no place for him other than the bottom pair either. He can't play right side, he can't produce like Edler and he's not as good defensively as Hamhuis. Where does that leave him? Bottom pair left side in a position he's not suited to. Signing Hamhuis combined with Ballards inability to play right side sealed his fate here. Add in his inability to adapt to a bottom pair role and he's likely going to need to be bought out. He'll be impossible to move now that it's clear that he's very limited in what role he can provide.

[wallstreetamigo]

Salo moved from bottom pair to top pair and could also play left side without problem. Garrison struggled when he arrived and was moved to bottom pair while he learned the system. He was then moved to left side and also adapted. Bieksa has played from bottom pair to top in his time here. Edler came in playing right with Ohlund on the left side but he prefers playing left. He's never had to play bottom pair here. Ballard hasn't shown the same adaptability. Ballard has never broken 40 points nor scored 10 or more goals in his career. Why would you move Edler (who has) out of the role he's proven himself in to see if a new guy can achieve just comparable results?

Ballard had to know his first season he wasn't going to be ahead Edler or Hamhuis on the left side. It was up to him to adapt (whether to right side or a new role) and he just couldn't seem to. If he could adapt he wouldn't have been in the pressbox watching instead of playing. His own limitations made him a bad fit here. I'd like to see him traded but at this point I can only see him being a buyout.

[Bananas]

Salo was never a 3rd pairing guy. People here on CDC considered him a 3rd pairing guy because of his injury problems. In reality, he was almost always on our 1st pairing.

Salo was also here for a very long time.

Additionally, Baggins only outlined a list of players who played on different pairings in spite of the fact that never were these players forced to reinvent their game when these changes were made. Also, note that these changes were a result of AV's mindless line juggling, and had nothing to do with player development.

As far as Garrison goes, AV was trying to figure out where to fit. It was well known before Garrison arrived that he could play either side, on either end of the ice. The fact that AV was squirming in his shoes when trying to fit him into the line-up is a testament to how terrible AV is at evaluating a player. Garrison is very versatile, and it is quite embarrassing that AV had such a headache fitting him in.

AV even went as far as to attempt to force Edler to reinvent his game, and play on the right side. Not all defensemen are capable of playing either side.

Evidently, Ballard IS capable of playing either side. He even DID play both sides here. The difference is, it was always the 3rd pairing.

The real problem with AV-Ballard is the fact that AV took our smallest D-man and told him -- of all our D -- to be the physical presence. Meanwhile, Alberts spent almost the entire season on the bench while the likes of Edler and Bieksa spun chaotically in circles before him.

Realistically, what should have happened is Ballard should have been used in the role that AV wanted from Edler/Bieksa, and that is some skating, passing, and puck movement. Ballard happens to be the most well-equipped to do so, as he's shown in the past.

At the end of the day, it is clear that AV has a crap attitude. He doesn't do the "hiring", so he doesn't read the resumes. He doesn't care who shows up to the rink, he puts them all through the same routine -- and while certain individuals flourish, others are severely handicapped. AV has exhibitted absolutely no ability to evaluate a player's skill set and utilize it to the team's fullest benefit.

AV is an idiot, and needs to go.

At this point, the salary cap is the only reason Ballard needs to go.

Evidently, Booth is in an IDENTICAL situation, and the only reason Kassian isn't on buy-out radar is because he is fortunate enough not to be overpaid right now.

[Baggins]

With all due respect, none of those players were permanently cast as a 3rd pairing guy for 3 years with no opportunity to work their way up.

Guys like Bieksa played bottom pairing their rookie season if that. I am not sure Salo was ever a 3rd pairing guy here. If so it would have been a long time ago. Garrison was not on the 3rd pairing early this season. He simply did not get as much PP time. He was still playing with either Edler or Hamhuis the majority of the time.

Don't you think you might be cherry picking numbers to use as a benchmark? I mean, that is a huge coincidence that they are coincidentally right above what Ballard HAS achieved in his career? I mean, he has twice hit 8 goals and his career high is 39 points. He also hit 34 one season. And unlike Edler, he did not have the Sedins or anyone close to them to help him generate those points in Phoenix and Florida. 1 point makes him out of the same league as Edler? Come on. I would actually also say that Ballard played a more complete role prior to coming to Vancouver than Edler and is sure as hell better defensively.

I find it hilarious that people can see the injuries we have had on our defence in the past 3 years and still defend AV's ridiculous usage of him to say that Ballard in all that time did not deserve even one opportunity in the top 4. I mean, the player he was before coming to Van alone should have afforded him at least an extended look in the top 4 when key guys were injured.

[Bananas]

For two years on the right side:

Ehrhoff

Bieksa

Salo (3rd pairing)

Edler two seasons with 10+ goals and three 8 goal seasons (two of those with 51 games played or less). A 42 and 49 point season. During Edlers 49 point season only one Canuck (Henrik) had more than 70 points, Daniel was the only other player over 60 points, and Burrows rounded it out as the only other player over 50 points. You can't say Edlers 49 points was riding coattails. He was only 3 points behind Burrows. Proven in his position. But you would take the proven player out of his position to give a new addition (who played absolutely awful in his first preseason here) just to see if he was as good as the guy who was already there? What coach in his right mind would do that?.

As I said in another thread, by the time Ballard got even remotely up to speed his first season the top four was established. He's not as good offensively as Edler. He's not as good defensively as Hamhuis. He can't play right side. He can't adapt to the safe simple role of bottom pairing. Where does that leave him coach?

[wallstreetamigo]

For two years on the right side:

Ehrhoff

Bieksa

Salo (3rd pairing)

Edler two seasons with 10+ goals and three 8 goal seasons (two of those with 51 games played or less). A 42 and 49 point season. During Edlers 49 point season only one Canuck (Henrik) had more than 70 points, Daniel was the only other player over 60 points, and Burrows rounded it out as the only other player over 50 points. You can't say Edlers 49 points was riding coattails. He was only 3 points behind Burrows. Proven in his position. But you would take the proven player out of his position to give a new addition (who played absolutely awful in his first preseason here) just to see if he was as good as the guy who was already there? What coach in his right mind would do that?.

As I said in another thread, by the time Ballard got even remotely up to speed his first season the top four was established. He's not as good offensively as Edler. He's not as good defensively as Hamhuis. He can't play right side. He can't adapt to the safe simple role of bottom pairing. Where does that leave him coach?

[wallstreetamigo]

It leaves him in a position where it is the coach's job to make sure he utilizes the asset that his GM has provided him with. MG's philosophy entailed a belief that it should have been possible to have 3 pairings that were worthy of top 4 roles. He built the defense to do exactly that.

However, the coach refused to alter his system to utilize his players.

MG and AV are clearly not on the same page.

AV is trying to build a cookie cutter team, by taking players and sticking them into defined roles. In reality, what this team needed, and still needs, is a coach who will build his system around his players. AV builds his players around his system, and shows no ability to bend or show balance. Stubborn and selfish.

[Bananas]

Of all the insanity that has been our choice of powerplay defensemen, Ballard was NEVER given a fair opportunity. Not even when the coach was digging so deep that he even opted to put forwards on the point who were unsuited to the role.

And why the hell, if Ballard was on your third pairing, would you tell him to do keep it simply if he is a high-risk/high-reward player?

AV needed to change his philosophy on the 3rd pairing -- which, in and of itself, is no major change in the big picture. The fact that AV was so stubborn over something so trivial is disgusting. It was nothing but a control freak power trip. The only reason AV did it was to prove a point.

In the end, it harmed the team and killed Ballard's value. In this one, small situation involving one player, which could have been avoided if AV could adapt his system, AV managed to disrespect his players and his GM, all to simply maintain such a small fraction of his already diminutive pride.

I can't believe anybody still defends this clown.

[wallstreetamigo]

I would actually be interested to see if anyone could come up with a firm quote anywhere in the past 3 years where AV praised Ballard. I am willing to bet there are none to be found.

[wallstreetamigo]

In going forward:

Ballard + Return for Edler >>>>>>>>> Edler

[Bananas]

THIS

And Ballard is just one example of how this limited type of coaching costs us come playoff time especially.