Unpopular take, I never got the Ballard hate.

[D-Money]

On 7/2/2020 at 10:46 PM, boziffous said:

I'll always remember this Ballard hit on Jamie McGinn.

 

That was sweet.

 

My favourite Ballard moment was when Hordichuk went to the Oilers, and was trash talking in the media before his first game against us. Then on his very first shift, this happens:

 

 

But overall, it’s pretty hard to like the Ballard deal. I chalk it up to a guy who just never fully recovered from injury. Kind of like that other $4+ mil guy we got from Florida - David Booth. It would have been interesting to see what else Gillis could have added with that cap space.

[IBatch]

For me it’s more about not being happy with MG at all.   We had Mitchell, we could have re-upped him and instead let him walk (which he did straight into two cups) despite winning Pratt awards for us .... and then traded a first plus plus for Ballard - at over 4 million in cap space and eventually buy him out ha ha.. terrible idea (enough to say - hey why don’t we sign Mitchell? - he’s our best defenseman after all).   To me this was by far the worst move MG made - and the Ballard trade is connected to it given the gaping hole in the locker room without him.   Erhoff and Hamhuis were great though .... but still I don’t think Boston would have won if we had a healthy Mitchell instead of Rome ... or Ballard. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by IBatch

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, D-Money said:

That was sweet.

 

My favourite Ballard moment was when Hordichuk went to the Oilers, and was trash talking in the media before his first game against us. Then on his very first shift, this happens:

 

 

But overall, it’s pretty hard to like the Ballard deal. I chalk it up to a guy who just never fully recovered from injury. Kind of like that other $4+ mil guy we got from Florida - David Booth. It would have been interesting to see what else Gillis could have added with that cap space.

See above.  More about what we lost - Willie Mitchell.   One of the best defensive defenseman in the entire league at the time and for many more years to come.  Defenseman like that aren’t done at close to 30.    Idiotic idiotic idiotic. 

[IBatch]

On 7/2/2020 at 11:31 PM, skategal said:

Showing my age, thought this thread was about Harold Ballard.  

The guy that drove his own Zamboni around naked with two giggling naked Epsteinish young lady’s?   Famously frugal same  guy that didn’t re-up Vaive their best goal scorer three years in a row with over 50 goals?  That Ballard?  The one that laid praises on players face to face but then talks  sh!t about them right after to the guy behind them on the plane often racially?   He’d be slaughtered in today’s  media ... absolutely murdered. 

[Gollumpus]

Ballard was blamed for a number of things which weren't his fault. 

 

A number of fans didn't like what Vancouver gave up in order to get Ballard. For what Ballard (potentially) was bringing to the table, the Canucks won that deal. Grabner was given lots of opportunity (others may argue the point), and aside from a few flashes, never amounted to much while he was here (or in Florida). Bernier was supposed to be the next Bertuzzi, which never happened. The Canucks also unloaded the last year of Bernier's $4 million contract. The 1st turned out to be a bust (Howden). Pointing out that the Panthers blew that selection by taking Howden doesn't escape the fact that the Canucks might indeed have used that pick to take a different prospect who may have turned out better (eg. Kuznetsov, Nelson, etc)... but how was that Keith Ballard's fault?

 

Ballard played as well as he could under the physical circumstances listed by others - eg. hip injury. There was also a concussion issue, if I recall correctly. If Vancouver was unhappy about Ballard's physical condition, then that is on the Canucks, not Keith Ballard. 

 

Ballard was also in the coach's doghouse (for whatever reason(s), but if the coach was unhappy with the team getting Ballard, then that is on Gillis (and AV, assuming he was consulted on the deal) and not Keith Ballard.

 

Ballard's contract/cap hit wasn't his fault. He signed a deal which was negotiated with Florida. Vancouver acquired that contract in trade. If the Canucks were unhappy with what they were paying Ballard, then that is their fault, not Keith Ballard's.

 

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

See above.  More about what we lost - Willie Mitchell.   One of the best defensive defenseman in the entire league at the time and for many more years to come.  Defenseman like that aren’t done at close to 30.    Idiotic idiotic idiotic. 

In the 2010 off-season, Gillis made a decision based on cap hit, what the team needed by way of players and the potential for team success in 2010 - 11.

 

Mitchell was on the wrong side of "close to 30" (he was 33?). Ballard was 27/28 yrs old when he was acquired by the Canucks. 

 

There was a significant concern over Mitchell and a history with concussions. Even Mitchell was concerned that his career may have been over after the 09 - 10 season. He had played only 48 games in his final season with Vancouver, and maybe people in the Canucks' head office were bringing up Marek Malik's name when discussing a new contract for Mitchell. Wasn't there also something about the Canucks having to eat Mitchell's cap if he was re-injured? Ballard had played three consecutive 82 game seasons with Florida so perceived durability was perhaps a factor. Mitchell did play in only 57 games in 2010 - 11, going out with a wrist injury (12 games) and a knee injury (11 games), but not a concussion which had been the Canucks' concern.

 

Ballard had a cap hit around what the Canucks had being paying Mitchell. Chances are that Mitchell would likely be wanting more than that amount (and yes, he would have been worth it assuming he was injury free). As it turned out, Mitchell signed in LA for $3.5 million and they likely got him for cheap due to the concussion concerns. Vancouver was also very close to the cap in 10 - 11 (if I recall) and a choice was made to get a d-man who it was hoped would help push the Canucks to the Cup. The Canucks passed on Mitchell in favour of Ballard... and how was this decision Keith Ballard's fault? 

 

                                                      regards,  G.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Gollumpus

[Gawdzukes]

15 hours ago, lmm said:

there is a whole lot of "if" in that statement

Counting on Willie in 2010 is like counting on Ferland right now

If Ferland was our 1-2 LW that is a really big "if" for our chances.

Willie was not really ready to return until 2011 season.

He played 57 games in 2010-11 but did not return to his old self until the next season,

Ballard played 65 games for us in 2010-11.

Also moving Stone Cold Steve and Grabner gave us room to sign Manny, Tambellini and Raffi 

Likewise we are overstocked with forwards right now, Bernier and Grabs may have prevented some of the signings that worked out for us in 2010-11

If we could package Loui, Virt/Ferland and a 1st for a middling D man we might make that trade today, this time it allows us to sign Toffoli, Marky and Tanev

 

Its kind of funny to say a deal made before July 1, the summer before we win the Pres trophy is a terrible deal

A complete misread by Gillis though. Got a player that the coach didn't really use in the fashion intended.

[lmm]

4 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

A complete misread by Gillis though. Got a player that the coach didn't really use in the fashion intended.

A complete mis-read?

Worse that Ericksson, Sutter, Ferland or Myers?

it was a deal involving spare parts

Ballard played 3 fewer games than Myers on a stacked D that won the Presidents trophy and made the playoffs

[Pears]

On 7/1/2020 at 8:08 PM, Kevin Biestra said:

I thought he was good enough to not be scratched that often, and I thought it was worth it to try him out as a winger if he wasn't going to get used on the blueline anyway.

He was a decent defenseman don’t get me wrong, but that was such a ridiculous price Gillis paid to get him. 

[MikeBossy]

Always loved Ballard - unlike AV

 

Especially when he did things like this:

 

https://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/106635

 

 

[Law of Goalies]

On 7/3/2020 at 12:13 AM, ruilin96 said:

I don't hate Ballard, just didn't like the deal in general. We traded a 1st round pick, a depth roster player and a decent prospect for a player we eventually use the compliance buy-out on. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he never got out of AV's doghouse, which made it a lot worse. I would've prefered resigning Willie Mitchell and the bring in Dan Hamhuis instead. The first round pick should've been packaged to get another top 6 scoring winger.

Really? Grabner got cut after camp and Howden isn't even in the NHL....hmmm

[theo5789]

14 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Ballard was blamed for a number of things which weren't his fault. 

 

A number of fans didn't like what Vancouver gave up in order to get Ballard. For what Ballard (potentially) was bringing to the table, the Canucks won that deal. Grabner was given lots of opportunity (others may argue the point), and aside from a few flashes, never amounted to much while he was here (or in Florida). Bernier was supposed to be the next Bertuzzi, which never happened. The Canucks also unloaded the last year of Bernier's $4 million contract. The 1st turned out to be a bust (Howden). Pointing out that the Panthers blew that selection by taking Howden doesn't escape the fact that the Canucks might indeed have used that pick to take a different prospect who may have turned out better (eg. Kuznetsov, Nelson, etc)... but how was that Keith Ballard's fault?

 

Ballard played as well as he could under the physical circumstances listed by others - eg. hip injury. There was also a concussion issue, if I recall correctly. If Vancouver was unhappy about Ballard's physical condition, then that is on the Canucks, not Keith Ballard. 

 

Ballard was also in the coach's doghouse (for whatever reason(s), but if the coach was unhappy with the team getting Ballard, then that is on Gillis (and AV, assuming he was consulted on the deal) and not Keith Ballard.

 

Ballard's contract/cap hit wasn't his fault. He signed a deal which was negotiated with Florida. Vancouver acquired that contract in trade. If the Canucks were unhappy with what they were paying Ballard, then that is their fault, not Keith Ballard's.

 

In the 2010 off-season, Gillis made a decision based on cap hit, what the team needed by way of players and the potential for team success in 2010 - 11.

 

Mitchell was on the wrong side of "close to 30" (he was 33?). Ballard was 27/28 yrs old when he was acquired by the Canucks. 

 

There was a significant concern over Mitchell and a history with concussions. Even Mitchell was concerned that his career may have been over after the 09 - 10 season. He had played only 48 games in his final season with Vancouver, and maybe people in the Canucks' head office were bringing up Marek Malik's name when discussing a new contract for Mitchell. Wasn't there also something about the Canucks having to eat Mitchell's cap if he was re-injured? Ballard had played three consecutive 82 game seasons with Florida so perceived durability was perhaps a factor. Mitchell did play in only 57 games in 2010 - 11, going out with a wrist injury (12 games) and a knee injury (11 games), but not a concussion which had been the Canucks' concern.

 

Ballard had a cap hit around what the Canucks had being paying Mitchell. Chances are that Mitchell would likely be wanting more than that amount (and yes, he would have been worth it assuming he was injury free). As it turned out, Mitchell signed in LA for $3.5 million and they likely got him for cheap due to the concussion concerns. Vancouver was also very close to the cap in 10 - 11 (if I recall) and a choice was made to get a d-man who it was hoped would help push the Canucks to the Cup. The Canucks passed on Mitchell in favour of Ballard... and how was this decision Keith Ballard's fault? 

 

                                                      regards,  G.

I think I remembered a slightly different sequence of events. I agree that I believe we didn't want to extend Mitchell due to his concussion/age and he was likely told that he wouldn't be extended an offer. I think Gillis wanted to put in a bid on Hamhuis who was going to hit UFA. A wrench was thrown in when Philly acquired his rights which left the Canucks unknowing if Hamhuis would even make it to UFA. Gillis panicked and went to look for another top 4 LD option with what was available.

 

But yes, Ballard got undeserved "hate" and was an easy scapegoat. His teammates loved him which says enough for me.

[Gollumpus]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I think I remembered a slightly different sequence of events. I agree that I believe we didn't want to extend Mitchell due to his concussion/age and he was likely told that he wouldn't be extended an offer. I think Gillis wanted to put in a bid on Hamhuis who was going to hit UFA. A wrench was thrown in when Philly acquired his rights which left the Canucks unknowing if Hamhuis would even make it to UFA. Gillis panicked and went to look for another top 4 LD option with what was available.

 

But yes, Ballard got undeserved "hate" and was an easy scapegoat. His teammates loved him which says enough for me.

I think Gillis gambled a bit on three connected objectives, and they mostly paid off. He wanted to sign Hamhuis, get another d-man in trade (Ballard) and somehow keep Mitchell but with a lower cap and less term contract, and he succeeded in two out of the three objectives. As a side objective Gillis was probably also looking to free up other assets which could have been moved in other trades in order to increase the flexibility of the Canucks' cap space (Bieksa's name was mentioned a lot at this time).

 

There had been a lot of *talk* that Hamhuis was only interested in signing with the Canucks. While Gillis couldn't absolutely bank on this, meaning Hamhuis would actually remain unsigned, I think there was a very high expectation around the NHL that the rumours of Hamhuis wanting to play with the Canucks were very reliable. On July 1st. Hamhuis signed here, and for less than what was reported that he could have gotten from Philadelphia, which tends to support the view that waiting for Hamhuis was a low risk gamble (the gamble being should the Canucks try to acquire Hamhuis' rights in order to sign him before he hit free agency). 

 

Gillis got Ballard for peanuts (Bernier and Grabner) and a 1st. The Canucks got Ballard (who had been a very good d-man in Florida), and they also dumped the last year of Bernier's contract (which paid for the first year of Ballard's time here). Even if Florida wasted the pick, who knows what the Canucks would have done with it? Heck, Howden might even have been the guy that they would have taken...

 

Gillis took his biggest risk hoping that no other team would offer Mitchell a contract, or at least not offer a better deal than what he had put on the table (reportedly 1 year at about $2 million, or halfish the money per year of what his last deal paid). I suspect that Gillis was looking to wait him out as Mitchell wanted to stay here, but he also wanted more in term and dollars (and rightly so), which was (likely) why he remained unsigned until August of that year, when LA offered more, in both term and money. Had Mitchell signed with the Canucks, there was a very good chance that Bieksa would have been moved (for cap reasons and his play had dropped off the previous season). Had Bieksa been moved before Mitchell signed, then maybe Gillis ups the offer to Mitchell with some of the money saved from Bieksa's contract.

 

Gillis was planning on acquiring Ballard (or someone like him) regardless of what happened with Hamhuis. If Hamhuis had decided to sign elsewhere then the Canucks still  had Ballard, they could also improve on the deal to Mitchell to try and sign him, and there was still room for Bieksa or maybe someone else could have been picked up in trade.

 

                                               regards,   G.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Gollumpus

[WeneedLumme]

On July 5, 2020 at 4:04 AM, IBatch said:

See above.  More about what we lost - Willie Mitchell.   One of the best defensive defenseman in the entire league at the time and for many more years to come.  Defenseman like that aren’t done at close to 30.    Idiotic idiotic idiotic. 

He had a major concussion. It was impossible to know if he would recover to his pre-concussion self or not. If Ferland was a UFA this summer, how enthusiastic would you be to sign him to a new contract right now without knowing if or when his play would fully recover?

[theo5789]

5 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

I think Gillis gambled a bit on three connected objectives, and they mostly paid off. He wanted to sign Hamhuis, get another d-man in trade (Ballard) and somehow keep Mitchell but with a lower cap and less term contract, and he succeeded in two out of the three objectives. As a side objective Gillis was probably also looking to free up other assets which could have been moved in other trades in order to increase the flexibility of the Canucks' cap space (Bieksa's name was mentioned a lot at this time).

 

There had been a lot of *talk* that Hamhuis was only interested in signing with the Canucks. While Gillis couldn't absolutely bank on this, meaning Hamhuis would actually remain unsigned, I think there was a very high expectation around the NHL that the rumours of Hamhuis wanting to play with the Canucks were very reliable. On July 1st. Hamhuis signed here, and for less than what was reported that he could have gotten from Philadelphia, which tends to support the view that waiting for Hamhuis was a low risk gamble (the gamble being should the Canucks try to acquire Hamhuis' rights in order to sign him before he hit free agency). 

 

Gillis got Ballard for peanuts (Bernier and Grabner) and a 1st. The Canucks got Ballard (who had been a very good d-man in Florida), and they also dumped the last year of Bernier's contract (which paid for the first year of Ballard's time here). Even if Florida wasted the pick, who knows what the Canucks would have done with it? Heck, Howden might even have been the guy that they would have taken...

 

Gillis took his biggest risk hoping that no other team would offer Mitchell a contract, or at least not offer a better deal than what he had put on the table (reportedly 1 year at about $2 million, or halfish the money per year of what his last deal paid). I suspect that Gillis was looking to wait him out as Mitchell wanted to stay here, but he also wanted more in term and dollars (and rightly so), which was (likely) why he remained unsigned until August of that year, when LA offered more, in both term and money. Had Mitchell signed with the Canucks, there was a very good chance that Bieksa would have been moved (for cap reasons and his play had dropped off the previous season). Had Bieksa been moved before Mitchell signed, then maybe Gillis ups the offer to Mitchell with some of the money saved from Bieksa's contract.

 

Gillis was planning on acquiring Ballard (or someone like him) regardless of what happened with Hamhuis. If Hamhuis had decided to sign elsewhere then the Canucks still  had Ballard, they could also improve on the deal to Mitchell to try and sign him, and there was still room for Bieksa or maybe someone else could have been picked up in trade.

 

                                               regards,   G.

Willie Mitchell signed with LA on August 25. Could Gillis have been waiting him out and hoping to sign him on a dirt cheap deal? Maybe so, but I find it unlikely. We had Edler already and after adding Hamhuis and Ballard as well on LD, was Mitchell going to be signed as supposedly their press box depth option? Don't forget we had Shane O'Brien at the time as well and we ended up trading him for cap space and because we didn't have the roster space for him either. O'Brien was making 1.6 million, so Mitchell would've been offered a dirt cheap deal without term too if that was the case. I could see why if we didn't already commit to not signing him that he wouldn't want to sign here with an embarrassing offer (contract and role) like that. Also we had signed Aaron Rome on July 1st, so all of this leads me to believe we were never intending on re-signing Mitchell.

 

I think with Shane O'Brien, he would've been a serviceable and cheaper bottom pairing option than Ballard and splitting duties with Rome if O'Brien could keep his off ice issues in check. So I can't see them needing Ballard in that case. So Ballard must've been acquired with the intention of playing top 4 (he was a 22+ min all situations dman in Florida when we acquired him) considering what they gave up and his contract. This is why I think we made a desperation move worrying that Hamhuis wouldn't make it to UFA, but we still locked up our target given that he was available. Gillis probably thought we would have one of the best d cores with the acquisition of Ballard as well, but unfortunately AV didn't feel that way (although Ballard had his injury issues as well).

Edited July 6, 2020 by theo5789

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

He had a major concussion. It was impossible to know if he would recover to his pre-concussion self or not. If Ferland was a UFA this summer, how enthusiastic would you be to sign him to a new contract right now without knowing if or when his play would fully recover?

Didn’t seem to bother LA.   Yeah Malkins hit was dirty too.   It was still a major screw up IMO, consecutive Pratt awards and the Captaincy should have gone to him instead of Luongo, Mitchell was the guy most people thought would get it after Naslund left.   One of the better 4 year players we’ve had and a leader (he did all the talking on ice ref talking as i re-call not Luongo)...  - JB and all the other GMs knew about Ferlands concussion history and he really rolled the dice - especially on 4 years.  That said Ferland could come back and not miss a game who knows.   Two years at 3.5 for LA - what did Ballard get again?  Over 4 and we had to buy him out - a major mistake ... they were negotiating for months ... just bad luck really, if Malkin didn’t do that we could have won a cup or two - that defense would have been unreal - all six defenseman legit 2-3 guys. 
 

Edit: JT  Miller in my mind is going to have a similar impact Mitchell had on our club over a four year period...these types of players are gold - and necessary on cup winning teams. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by IBatch

[D-Money]

I loved Willie Mitchell back in the day. But there were serious concerns over his health at the time. He missed half the season, and the entire 2010 playoffs. It’s tough to commit to a player who is in and out of the lineup. (FWIW, Mitchell also missed the 2013 playoffs with the Kings.)

 

Not only that, but he seemed to be regressing a bit before the concussion as well. He simply wasn’t very effective in the 2009 playoffs. In 10 games played, he had only a single shot on net, and his defensive presence wasn’t enough to contain the speedy Blackhawks.

 

So there were many signals that it was time to move on from him. Sure, in hindsight he had a few solid years left in him, and re-signing him would have been better than Ballard... But at the time it looked to be a significant upgrade in production and dependability.

 

Even then, I’m not even sure Mitchell would have fit the Canucks’ new system that well. He fit perfectly in LA’s soul-crushing defensive gauntlet though. I’m happy that he had a great run there. But saying it was an obvious mistake to let him go at that time is revisionist history.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

He had a major concussion. It was impossible to know if he would recover to his pre-concussion self or not. If Ferland was a UFA this summer, how enthusiastic would you be to sign him to a new contract right now without knowing if or when his play would fully recover?

They negotiated throughout that period ...  we didn’t have anything like him in our lineup and that type of player is gold come playoff time.   Someone else mentioned his age - well he’s right about where Edler was when he signed his last deal - guess 32-33 is over the hill these days.   A massive list of defenseman have/had their best seasons in their 30’s - including Willie Mitchell.     Lidstrom didn’t win his first Norris until he was in his 30’s...how many did he get again?  If we had Mitchell in our lineup instead of Ballard or maybe even Hamhuis - I’d say our odds of winning would have gone way up (Ballard) or up enough (Hamhuis).    The Sedins were peaking at the time and also around 30...MG made a mistake.   It happens.   But for me at least (and some hockey writers/historians) it turned into  the biggest one he made as far as getting the club over the top as far as contending goes.   Not only did we not have Mitchell for our peak years - we also had to play against him and a team in our own division beat us as an 8th seed and went on to win the cup on a defense first system.   Go figure. 
 

Edit:  as far as Ferland goes it might end up becoming one of JB bigger mistakes too.  He had worse concussion issues then Mitchell did historically.   OR he could come back and do what Mitchell did for LA (be a huge part).  We need cap space to sign TT, Pearson is one of the best options, his stock is high - only a year left before he cashes in and we likely won’t have to funds for both.   Even if we don’t sign TT, Pearson could be too expensive for us next off season. He’s a cap dump that should give back, especially at the TDL.  The best possible thing is Ferland can come back and take that role or go back on LTIR for the duration.   There  is always Bear too, trade Pearson, and see if one or two or both Ferland and Bear can get back into NHL relevance again.      

Edited July 6, 2020 by IBatch

[IBatch]

25 minutes ago, D-Money said:

I loved Willie Mitchell back in the day. But there were serious concerns over his health at the time. He missed half the season, and the entire 2010 playoffs. It’s tough to commit to a player who is in and out of the lineup. (FWIW, Mitchell also missed the 2013 playoffs with the Kings.)

 

Not only that, but he seemed to be regressing a bit before the concussion as well. He simply wasn’t very effective in the 2009 playoffs. In 10 games played, he had only a single shot on net, and his defensive presence wasn’t enough to contain the speedy Blackhawks.

 

So there were many signals that it was time to move on from him. Sure, in hindsight he had a few solid years left in him, and re-signing him would have been better than Ballard... But at the time it looked to be a significant upgrade in production and dependability.

 

Even then, I’m not even sure Mitchell would have fit the Canucks’ new system that well. He fit perfectly in LA’s soul-crushing defensive gauntlet though. I’m happy that he had a great run there. But saying it was an obvious mistake to let him go at that time is revisionist history.

Mitchell’s play was always solid and dependable so I disagree that there was any signs of regression.   He was on his way to his third Pratt in a row when Malkin head hunted.   Very hard guy to play against.    IMO one of the better four year contracts we’ve ever had - Miller is a good comparable for the forward group at the moment.   Watching our defense now it would sure be nice to have a guy like him 22-24 minutes a game.   Our goals against would go way down.   Always made guys pay for coming into our zone along the boards or infront of the net.   We need something like that pretty bad.  

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

They negotiated throughout that period ...  we didn’t have anything like him in our lineup and that type of player is gold come playoff time.   Someone else mentioned his age - well he’s right about where Edler was when he signed his last deal - guess 32-33 is over the hill these days.   A massive list of defenseman have/had their best seasons in their 30’s - including Willie Mitchell.     Lidstrom didn’t win his first Norris until he was in his 30’s...how many did he get again?  If we had Mitchell in our lineup instead of Ballard or maybe even Hamhuis - I’d say our odds of winning would have gone way up (Ballard) or up enough (Hamhuis).    The Sedins were peaking at the time and also around 30...MG made a mistake.   It happens.   But for me at least (and some hockey writers/historians) it turned into  the biggest one he made as far as getting the club over the top as far as contending goes.   Not only did we not have Mitchell for our peak years - we also had to play against him and a team in our own division beat us as an 8th seed and went on to win the cup on a defense first system.   Go figure. 
 

Edit:  as far as Ferland goes it might end up becoming one of JB bigger mistakes too.  He had worse concussion issues then Mitchell did historically.   OR he could come back and do what Mitchell did for LA (be a huge part).  We need cap space to sign TT, Pearson is one of the best options, his stock is high - only a year left before he cashes in and we likely won’t have to funds for both.   Even if we don’t sign TT, Pearson could be too expensive for us next off season. He’s a cap dump that should give back, especially at the TDL.  The best possible thing is Ferland can come back and take that role or go back on LTIR for the duration.   There  is always Bear too, trade Pearson, and see if one or two or both Ferland and Bear can get back into NHL relevance again.      

I don't think the decision came down to Ballard vs Mitchell. It was Mitchell vs Hamhuis. Both are defensive stalwarts. Gillis rolled the dice on getting a younger/healthier version in Hamhuis. Philly acquired his rights to get early negotiating in. And I almost forgot that his rights were traded once again on draft day to Pittsburgh when Philly couldn't get a deal done. It was a massive unknown whether we would even be able to get him signed, so I think Gillis wanted to ensure he had a top 4 LD in which Ballard was at the time of the time and pulled the trigger on draft day as well. When Hamhuis made it to UFA, we simply acquired our primary target. In hindsight, letting go of Mitchell may have been a bad decision as he did still have a couple more years left in him that could've made a difference, but I don't think we add Hamhuis (and unlikely Ballard) as well if we did re-sign Mitchell early on. The minutes simply wouldn't be there despite on paper it looking like an incredible roster (although it should've still looked good even with Ballard considering he was supposedly a top 4 guy playing as the 3LD).

 

LA rolled the dice on Mitchell in August, so I think they wanted to ensure he was healthy enough to play and didn't throw him a contract offer immediately on July 1st. The concussion issue was certainly an issue for GMs. Ferland would've garnered a 6 million dollar contract if he didn't have his concussion concern. We likely rolled the dice in hopes that he would bounce back (we also didn't sign Ferland immediately and wanted to check on his status) and got him potentially on a bargain contract for a potential top 6 player. Despite Ferland having concussions in the season prior, he was still able to play in 71 games and some of the playoffs unlike Mitchell who missed nearly half the season and the playoffs altogether. If Ferland had the season he had this year on his contract year, I doubt JB gives Ferland a contract offer.

 

I think the sequence of events is very important in the context of this and this is what is causing the undeserved extra "hate" towards Ballard even though he didn't pan out as well as we would've liked. This is similar to when Hamhuis walked later on and we got nothing in return. There is more to it than us simply letting him go, but yet there is a lot of criticism towards this when the context of events prior is ignored.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Mitchell’s play was always solid and dependable so I disagree that there was any signs of regression.   He was on his way to his third Pratt in a row when Malkin head hunted.   Very hard guy to play against.    IMO one of the better four year contracts we’ve ever had - Miller is a good comparable for the forward group at the moment.   Watching our defense now it would sure be nice to have a guy like him 22-24 minutes a game.   Our goals against would go way down.   Always made guys pay for coming into our zone along the boards or infront of the net.   We need something like that pretty bad.  

Hopefully Tryamkin will be that guy for us.