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

What's the real deal with Keith Ballard?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read what I said? I never said to supplant anyone to put Ballard in. I simply said he was never once in 3 years given a reasonable opportunity (he was actually given none to be honest) in an offensive role that was more suited for his strengths as a player. I don't think anyone can deny that as fact.

There were enough injuries and inconsistent play from others along the way that would have provided ample opportunity to see what Ballard could have done with an expanded role. My point was he was never even tried when he was hands down the best option available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what exactly are those concrete examples of TOMapleLaughs? Your paranoid schizophrenia disorder? I mean what can you possibly think that all adds up to? I am not crazy so I can honestly not say and you don't even bother to allude to anything, you just list a bunch of events and don't even attempt to draw a connection between them other than they can all be listed in your deluded ramblings. Pro tip bro: turn off the computer and go outside and get a life, being a shut in with an internet connection is not good for your mental state lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Ballard not seeing jack squat for icetime.

Rome's suspension length.

'The officiating.'

Various mysterious decisions made by our gm and coach.

The Hodgson trade and the prelude to it.

Mystery injuries.

Leagueview of the Canucks.

Alleged PED use by our playoff opponents.

Lack of significant development by any of our young players, despite this apparent amount of money we're sinking into it, relative to how other teams can get peak performance levels from their young players.

Non-trades where there should be.

Being just on the outside of various signings, where we were favorites for months.

Our reputation around the league has been horrible, no matter what we accomplish. (Doesn't help that our own media knocks this team more than outside media.) The hate has at times being inexplicable.

Rumour-spreading by other gm's about our operations or potential trades.

Targeting Luongo's contract as cap circumvention while Zetterberg's and Franzen's are good to go.

Ridiculous boneheaded draftpicks.

Endless talk about how we're so respected by players who want to come here, only for no difference-makers to actually do so.

D. Sedin robbed of mvp trophy.

Sedins in general disrespected league-wide, no matter how great they were.

Constant conflicts with players on the outs over petty garbage.

'AV's favorites.'

One mistake and you ride the pine, rookie.

Manny out, we can't buy a goal, but Coho doesn't get a sniff of the finals vs. Boston.

Etc. etc. etc.

Do they think i'm not noticing all these things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you're simply blowing hot air.

erhoff was a bad trade? you want daniel rahimi and patrick white back?

roy is a bad trade? a prospect that will never get a shot in the NHL with us (behind Tanev, Corrado, Andersson in the depth chart) a second pick for a second line centre?

How about getting Lapierre and Higgins for low picks?

David Booth for aging, invaluable assets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to the fact that Ballard is in no way worth anywhere near his $4.2-million salary. I would be okay with him if he was making around $2-million but he was brought to Vancouver to be a top 4 D-man not a consistent scratch. I don't mind his play at times but in the end he has consistently been outplayed by other cheaper players on our roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you make good points so does the other guy. However, why is Ballard given Edler's role and Hamhuis' role. What about Ballard's role? How about developing him to his strengths and giving him a position in which he can play well rather than bouncing him around the roster and just telling him to "fit in". Most players would look like garbage if you just threw him in the mix in a different spot every week. I'll agree Ballard often looked ate up out there but AV made that soup sandwich. Players need roles, they need to know them, and they need to practice what that role entails in practice. That creates chemistry, that's what makes a good line great, a playoff team a cup team.

Ballard is paid too much to be an injury fill in, we have cheaper guys for that. Point being, we need to develop him in to something deserving of his salary to get our money's worth rather than look at him like a cap anchor and waste of money. It's a matter of getting a new coach in so everyone has something to prove and he can evaluate everyone equally rather than play favorites and ignore the efforts of some. I assume Ballard is demoralized due to treatment received from the coaching staff, a new face would most likely rectify that for him and some others as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We lost a 2nd in a deep draft for a one month loan. We could have moved Conn as part of any Lu/Schneider deal to increase the payback.

Firstly Lapierre and Higgins are only 4th liners anyway...........who we show our incompetence and lack of quality by constantly promoting.

David Booth came with injury issues, a large, long contract and another addendum Reinprecht (boy I would be unhappy if I was the owners on that one)

We could have jettisoned Sammy and Sturm at the end of the season and signed an asset from UFA. (Gillis loss of focus) And don't forget Sturm was another ludicrous Gillis rehab in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High risk/high reward. The reason a guy like Rome or Alberts was getting into the lineup ahead of him was because they were lower risk, even if the return wasn't as good as Ballard is at his best. If he was here at $2M, it obviously wouldn't be as big of a deal but he was acquired to be a top 4 guy before we signed Hamhuis. Just a trade that didn't turn out, and probably a casualty of the cap going down which sucks because he seems to love it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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