What's the real deal with Keith Ballard?

[Baggins]

That's one way to look at it. What about Grabner's chemistry with Kesler? They were lighting it up for the short stint that they were playing together and there's no doubt Grabner brought game-breaking speed. And who's to say that we would've drafted Quinton Howden with that pick? We could've got Emerson Etem who looks to be a really solid player. I understanded the trade at the time but it's annoying that when you gave up potentially two 2nd line players for someone who's sitting in the pressbox because of the coach it's frustrating.

[DarthNinja]

Lets look at AV's track record with this, just for fun.

People tout AV's success with:

Sedins (very obviously manage themselves)

Kesler (who, himself, has creditted Sundin and shown signs of strife with AV)

Burrows (more likely the Sedins)

Edler (no consistency)

Bieksa (no consistency)

Raymond (no consistency)

Hansen (just works hard, results may vary)

Schneider (hellooo... goalie coach? AHL? not AV...)

And let's see where AV has shown problems:

Naslund and Linden left because of AV

Bernier and Pyatt... AV has no ability to coach and develop power forwards. RE: Kassian

Shirokov benched after two games in which he scored his first point, and then his first goal... sent down after that...

Grabner was "redundant". How is a player redundant because he and another are fast and not so physical? Maybe AV should have adapted his system to use his assets...

Hodgson... yeah...

Ballard....

Booth, though often injured, has never had consistent linemates.

Kassian, another mismanaged power forward, is apparently not allowed to make mistakes. EVER. Because making mistakes isn't a part of a learning process, right? Right?

Then there is the long-forgotten Matthiew Schneider... what a debacle that was.

Then there was the favoritism towards undeserving players: Pyatt, Bernier, Raymond, Rome, Ebbett

It's not the players. It's not even the system. It's the coach.

[Baggins]

Gillis specifically built the defence so that this was not the case - so that the 3rd pairing was essentially another 2nd pair that year.

Any coach would have run away with a defensive setup like that. But instead, AV predetermined how each and every role was to be filled in his "system" and tried to slot players in. Some fit, some didn't.

AV was the one who couldn't adapt his system. Ballard was an established NHLer, why should he have to completely overhaul the way he plays when a SIMPLE change to the system could be made by the coach?

Are you going to answer that, or are you going to write off everything I say as BS just because my username is Joe_Shmo?

[riffraff]

What's the deal with airplane peanuts?

[Bananas]

So MG designed the club for the bottom pairing to be offensive risk takers behind the offensively gifted fourth line? Sure. I'll buy that great piece of property you have in the Florida everglades as well. How hard is it to change your style to play safe? That's actually simplifying your game. It's one hell of a lot easier than to tell your 4th line to adapt their play to offense first, high risk play I would think. For the bottom pair you take opportunities when they present themselves. You don't try to force them. Hence the playing safe part of the role. Yet AV should change the teams entire system because a bottom pair d-man just doesn't have it in him to simplify his game? Salo had no problem at all making that adjustment. Salo adapted his risk/reward according to the line he played behind. He took more chances behind the top two lines and played it safe behind the 4th line. That's not reinventing your game, it's just playing smart. Garrison managed to adapt without a camp, preseason, and with less practice time during the shortened season and did very well. Perhaps the problem is Ballard instead of AV,

I write off what you say because some is fiction and most is idiotic.

[wallstreetamigo]

Ballard was NEVER given a fair shake on this team (to suggest otherwise is asinine). And for those who say he has trouble handling the rough stuff:

Clean your corrective lenses people, Ballard is more qualified to handle players in front of his own net than anyone else on our defense. A coach who sits a player like that in the playoffs (especially one who has a history of playing tough against said opponent) is asking to get pushed around.

[wallstreetamigo]

This is a perfect example of AV's inability to be a dynamic coach. He is provided a player that does not fit in the small range of his gameplan, so rather than adjusting to the tools he has in his arsenal, he adjusts the tool itself. You can't pound nails with a Phillips head and you can drive screws with saw.

[Salmonberries]

I don't understand why he didn't ask out a long time ago.

[wallstreetamigo]

Gillis told us it took 3 years of dealing with Hodgson's "issues" to trade him......and he said that was more than all other players combined.

At that rate, it would take Ballard and his team first attitude and approach 12 years to get traded.....

[wallstreetamigo]

Even with all that he has gone through, Ballard is still pure class.

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/668020/not-playing-the-blame-game-canucks-defenceman-keith-ballard-reflects-on-time-in-vancouver/

Keith Ballard was candid, he sounded confident and he displayed class.

The Vancouver Canucks defenceman held court with reporters at Rogers Arena on Thursday, two days after the team was swept in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs and Ballard watched it all unfold from the press box as a healthy scratch.

It’s a scenario Ballard has been through numerous times during the last three seasons.

Related:

• Vancouver Canucks’ power play shut out in shootout loss to San Jose Sharks

• No record night for Henrik Sedin, but Canucks hang on to defeat Wild

• Chris Tanev and Keith Ballard showing ‘natural chemistry’ on Canucks blue line

Injuries have disrupted his playing time in Vancouver, but when healthy, he never been able to fully break out of head coach Alain Vigneault’s doghouse.

With microphones and cameras in his face, Ballard was honest and open when discussing his time in Vancouver. But not once did he lay blame with anyone, including the coach.

“I get along with him actually really well,” said the 30-year-old Ballard of Vigneault.

“I don’t always agree with his decisions but that’s life, right?”

The Canucks acquired Ballard, and forward Victor Oreskovich in a trade with the Florida Panthers in exchange for Steve Bernier, Michael Grabner and a first-round pick in June of 2010.

Since coming to Vancouver, Ballard has yet to play all 82 games of a regular season.

He suffered through a concussion last year, and has previously battled knee injuries, as well as a minor foot fracture and stiff back in 2013.

And when healthy, Vigneault has never shown much trust in him on the blue line, moving him in and out of the bottom pairing on defence.

On two separate occasions this season, Ballard was moved up to play wing, primarily on the fourth line.

Through this all, Ballard has not once complained, at least not publicly. He’s also proud of how he’s handled the ups and downs he’s faced in Vancouver.

But having that positive outlook hasn’t always been easy.

“I don’t think it’s hard to be a good teammate,” he said.

“I don’t think it’s hard to support the guys that are playing and be happy for them and be happy that they’re doing well. That’s not hard for me. It’s separating personal disappointment when you’re at the rink, when you’re in a team setting that…you just have to be conscious of it.”

And when these NHL post-season rolled around, Ballard sat in favour of 20-year-old rookie defenceman Frank Corrado, a right-handed shot who began the month of April still competing in the Ontario Hockey League playoffs.

No surprise this was high up on Ballard’s list of personal disappointments as a Canuck.

“It’s not No. 1, but it’s up there,” he said.

“I was disappointed for sure, but this has all happened so fast, right. It’s…only been two days since we’ve been done so I haven’t really had a chance to take a step back.

“When you’re in the mix, you’re just trying to be a good teammate and be there and do what you can and work hard in the skates. You try to get through it just by being positive and being excited for being here.”

Ballard has been bantered around in the media as a candidate for one of the two compliance buyouts the Canucks have.

He still has two years remaining on a six-year deal that is a $4.2 million cap hit.

With the salary cap going down to $64.3 million for next season, it seems Ballard is a likely choice to get bought out during the off-season.

General manager Mike Gillis said during his 38-minute press conference Thursday that no decision has been made about possible buyouts.

“There’s a lot of moving parts here,” said Gillis.

“Like I said…there’s very little supply out there. We have to see how things turn out before we’re going to commit to making any decision like that.”

With the future of his hockey career in the balance and after the difficulties of the past three years, it would be easy for Ballard to be jaded and sound defeated.

Not the case.

“There’s been ups and downs, yes,” he said.

“As far as my belief in myself and my belief in my abilities…it’s probably gotten better.”

[wallstreetamigo]

People talk about how Luongo has been treated or Malhotra. Both have been treated like complete crap by Gillis and the Canucks. I think how Ballard has been treated is just as bad though. From the minute Hamhuis signed on he was basically forgotten. A GM who gives a crap about his players would have dealt him after season 1 in Van when it was obvious he was never going to get a shot.

As for Corrado in the playoffs over Ballard? The kid should have a good future but he really did nothing to help the Canucks at all and burning a year off his ELC was stupid.

[wallstreetamigo]

I'm not convinced that Ballard's poor play has anything to do with AV or the team's system. It will be interesting to see how he does on another team.

[wallstreetamigo]

So MG designed the club for the bottom pairing to be offensive risk takers behind the offensively gifted fourth line? Sure. I'll buy that great piece of property you have in the Florida everglades as well. How hard is it to change your style to play safe? That's actually simplifying your game. It's one hell of a lot easier than to tell your 4th line to adapt their play to offense first, high risk play I would think. For the bottom pair you take opportunities when they present themselves. You don't try to force them. Hence the playing safe part of the role. Yet AV should change the teams entire system because a bottom pair d-man just doesn't have it in him to simplify his game? Salo had no problem at all making that adjustment. Salo adapted his risk/reward according to the line he played behind. He took more chances behind the top two lines and played it safe behind the 4th line. That's not reinventing your game, it's just playing smart. Garrison managed to adapt without a camp, preseason, and with less practice time during the shortened season and did very well. Perhaps the problem is Ballard instead of AV,

I write off what you say because some is fiction and most is idiotic.

[ocnucksfan]

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?

[Salmonberries]

No, Gillis designed the team to have alot of defensive depth so there would be flexibility and that the offensive load could be more shared than most teams have. You need a coach who will do it though and AV won't. There is no reason why a 3rd pairing has to be all safe. When you have a 3rd pairing with that much talent the wise thing to do is utilize it to gain an advantage over your opponent. But that takes creative coaching and AV is all about his 3 line, 2 dpair strategy.

Salo was NEVER a true 3rd pairing dman on the Canucks. His ice time was managed to prevent injuries but he was never asked to fundamentally change his game at all. In fact, no defenceman on the team has ever been asked to do that other than Ballard.

Garrison is the same thing. He was never expected to convert his play style. And Garrison adapted because of continual opportunity in the top 4 until he did adapt.

Ballard has had such a short leash that he has never even had a chance to fail in the top 4 or on the PP as you suggest. He has played top 4 minutes (5 on 5 as he gets no PP time) I believe 8 times in 148 games. So 5% of his games. He has gotten a grand total of 33 total minutes on the PP in 148 games. That is what you consider a fair chance to see what he can do as a top 4 dman?

Cody Franson says hi by the way in terms of a 3rd pairing 5 on 5 guy that can help on the PP. It is not unheard of except in AV's world where the top 4 guys that he has pre-ordained are the only ones who can get any PP time. Limiting things that way without even trying a guy in a role is just bad coaching. Maybe that is why the Canucks are 1-10 in their last 11 playoff games and why their offense dries up at key times.

Maybe the problem is AV rather than Ballard. I guess we will find out once Ballard gets bought out and goes elsewhere, won't we?

[Salmonberries]

Vigneault and Gillis have taken away millions of dollars in earning power from Ballard by not either trading him or utilizing him properly.

[wallstreetamigo]

Or perhaps these career stats might offer us a clue beforehand?!?!

http://www.hockeydb....y.php?pid=61770

[Drakrami]

Ballard just isn't that good. He's not very strong on opposing forwards. I've rarely seen him rush te pck which is what people claim he was brought in for. Clearly he's had success under different systems but it just didn't work out for him here. His play this season was vastly overrated on these boards. He was a liability.

[canuck73_3]

Exactly.

I watched a lot of Ballard and he was a game changing type of dman before Vancouver. Sometimes that was in a bad way defensively....lol. But his ability to influence a game with a big hipcheck or an end to end rush was undeniable. We have even seen him expand his game to become a better fighter and even more willing to stand up for his teammates. He has learned how to mentor young guys like Tanev. He has learned how to face adversity and stay positive about himself and his game.

The biggest joke in all of it is that the team who gets him is going to benefit from AV trying so hard to tear him down. He is a better, more mature, and more well rounded defenceman now than he was previously. And we as Canucks fans only end up seeing the bad. Another team will reap the benefit of his time here.

[cdubuya]

Maybe its because hes benched half the games, and when he plays he gets 10 minutes of ice time and coaching staffs telling him if he makes a mistake hes bench again next game. Maybe....