Unpopular take, I never got the Ballard hate.

[IBatch]

10 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

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.

I hold zero ill will towards Ballard - at the time was stoked we added him and Hamhuis to an already solid defensive core.   That said I also wanted Mitchell back once he was better and didn’t have any doubt he still had three-four more good years in him.   Sure anyone under 30 who keeps in shape will be surprised at how easy it is to keep it up right to and past 40.    A lot less reps and the same results.   Howe had his best season at 40.  

 

  Since people are pretty much sensitive about anything these days - if it was current events you could say ageism played into it ha ha.    Mitchell was a warrior class athlete a leader (he was the obvious choice for our next captain when Naslund left) and played the game the right way.   Felt a little miffed when Babych left too (career cut short for being forced to play on a broken foot in PHI playoffs)... still had it right until the rnd

 

Back to Ballard.   Didn’t like that we never got to see what he really could do either.   But do understand that our  depth at the time was awesome - and who do you take out?    If you don’t like what I have to say then perhaps read a bit about what the experts thought about it...THN writes that they believe with Mitchell in the lineup instead of Ballard the cup would have been ours ... I agree with that statement.   Sure the circumstances at the time make sense.   But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.   Maybe JB will make the same mistake and sign someone else instead of Edler next year who knows.  Or even Tanev this year.   

[IBatch]

37 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Hopefully Tryamkin will be that guy for us.

No doubt.   Have high hopes he’s better then he was (which he should be) if that happens.   Have watched maybe 2 hours of footage but it’s hard to gauge given they are highlights or just someone analyzing his play.   The eye test while he was here was good.  Very fast for a big guy.    With him and Myers in the lineup the right side would be monster sized.   Figure he could be another Hall Gill type with better skating ... nothing wrong with that at all.   5789 all good - all was hoping to do was put some perspective into the what if? universe.  Was a big fan of Willie Mitchell and was the only thing that didn’t mind about losing to LA.   His picture of holding the cup in his fishing boat is pretty epic/cool.  He didn’t want to leave Vancouver... that’s part of my button on it.   Hamhuis and Mitchell would have made one heck of a top six together...

Edited July 6, 2020 by IBatch

[theo5789]

47 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I hold zero ill will towards Ballard - at the time was stoked we added him and Hamhuis to an already solid defensive core.   That said I also wanted Mitchell back once he was better and didn’t have any doubt he still had three-four more good years in him.   Sure anyone under 30 who keeps in shape will be surprised at how easy it is to keep it up right to and past 40.    A lot less reps and the same results.   Howe had his best season at 40.  

 

  Since people are pretty much sensitive about anything these days - if it was current events you could say ageism played into it ha ha.    Mitchell was a warrior class athlete a leader (he was the obvious choice for our next captain when Naslund left) and played the game the right way.   Felt a little miffed when Babych left too (career cut short for being forced to play on a broken foot in PHI playoffs)... still had it right until the rnd

 

Back to Ballard.   Didn’t like that we never got to see what he really could do either.   But do understand that our  depth at the time was awesome - and who do you take out?    If you don’t like what I have to say then perhaps read a bit about what the experts thought about it...THN writes that they believe with Mitchell in the lineup instead of Ballard the cup would have been ours ... I agree with that statement.   Sure the circumstances at the time make sense.   But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.   Maybe JB will make the same mistake and sign someone else instead of Edler next year who knows.  Or even Tanev this year.   

I don't disagree that having both Hamhuis and Mitchell (along with Edler and assuming Rome as well) at LD would've been a force to reckon with given what we know now. A healthy Mitchell (in which he wasn't quite there yet in 2010-2011 and who knows if he would've lasted a long run) and Hamhuis not being out of the finals may have taken us to the promised land. A couple of major what ifs.

 

I just don't think Mitchell would've wanted a lesser role and because of our concern with Mitchell's health and age (yes some players excel, but some players don't and I guess there's a risk factor to that), management decided to replace him with a similar defense first type dman in Hamhuis who was younger/healthier and also a local BC boy. I just don't think it was ever in the cards to have both of them. Nor do I think the intention was to have both Ballard and Hamhuis. I think the plan was to go with one of them and have Rome and O'Brien split the bottom pairing duties. RD was set with Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa. I believe we had Andrew Alberts as well.

 

I agree that Tanev should be re-signed this year and it would be costly to try and replace him. While many are dead set in making Toffoli a more important signing (many suggesting to save face from the trade, which I also disagree with), I view him more as a luxury while Tanev would be more integral to the team. Edler will hopefully be at the point where he signs 1-2 year deals to fit into our cap to stay here and also help along with our pursuit of the Cup. Edler wants to be here and is likely willing to make that happen.

 

A more mobile Hal Gill is a good comparison to Tryamkin. Potentially a larger Willie Mitchell could be another (utilizing the stick reach and playing the physical game and Mitchell was a decent skater). Either way, hopefully he's watching their game tapes rather than the expectation for him to be a Pronger. I am perfectly fine with him being a solid defensive and physical shut down dman.

[IBatch]

17 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I don't disagree that having both Hamhuis and Mitchell (along with Edler and assuming Rome as well) at LD would've been a force to reckon with given what we know now. A healthy Mitchell (in which he wasn't quite there yet in 2010-2011 and who knows if he would've lasted a long run) and Hamhuis not being out of the finals may have taken us to the promised land. A couple of major what ifs.

 

I just don't think Mitchell would've wanted a lesser role and because of our concern with Mitchell's health and age (yes some players excel, but some players don't and I guess there's a risk factor to that), management decided to replace him with a similar defense first type dman in Hamhuis who was younger/healthier and also a local BC boy. I just don't think it was ever in the cards to have both of them. Nor do I think the intention was to have both Ballard and Hamhuis. I think the plan was to go with one of them and have Rome and O'Brien split the bottom pairing duties. RD was set with Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa. I believe we had Andrew Alberts as well.

 

I agree that Tanev should be re-signed this year and it would be costly to try and replace him. While many are dead set in making Toffoli a more important signing (many suggesting to save face from the trade, which I also disagree with), I view him more as a luxury while Tanev would be more integral to the team. Edler will hopefully be at the point where he signs 1-2 year deals to fit into our cap to stay here and also help along with our pursuit of the Cup. Edler wants to be here and is likely willing to make that happen.

 

A more mobile Hal Gill is a good comparison to Tryamkin. Potentially a larger Willie Mitchell could be another (utilizing the stick reach and playing the physical game and Mitchell was a decent skater). Either way, hopefully he's watching their game tapes rather than the expectation for him to be a Pronger. I am perfectly fine with him being a solid defensive and physical shut down dman.

Good post.  I hope the murmurs that Tanev has a one year deal on the table and that he’s willing to play ball are true. Would make us well positioned for the Seattle draft defense-wise.     Both those guys on one-two year deals makes a lot of sense for both parties going forward.   
 

The team has forward depth the next two years miles deep.  I’m also ok with ten games of TT and that’s it.  JVs stats this year wouldn’t be much different if he spent the entire time on the top line and top PP unit.  TT is better for sure - especially defensively- and agree he’s a luxury - but JV is 23...( now im ageist ha ) JB has a lot of work to do.  One thing is for sure he will surprise us ... and I will hold my tongue (or try to) when it happens.   IMO he’s made only a couple of mistakes given the parameters of what was happening.  The Re-tool was doomed...but he made sure if it failed that the back-up plan was ready to go which it most definitely is.  Getting a solid defensive defenseman back in Tree would be a boon.    Really hope he comes back, wins a spot and becomes that guy who keeps the bet clear and makes players coming into our zone pay...

[c00kies]

4 hours 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.

I also remember Mitchell giving the puck away on Havlat's late game-tying goal in game 4 that the Hawks won in OT. We were up 2-1 in the series and that led to a tied series in which the Hawks took over from there (including the infamous Hatrick Kane game 6). Up 3-1, we might have beaten the Hawks and then played Detroit in the next round, and maybe we could have won a Cup that year.

 

I definitely don't pin the series loss on that one play, but it did play a factor in the Canucks losing to the Hawks in 09, so just showing he wasn't a perfect player by any means.

[EP Phone Home]

Nothing against Ballard and his injuries

here unfortunately never gave us the proper value that we went out to trade him for. I will also say to the posters who said how Grabner wasn’t anything special at the time. It is true Florida gave up on him during training camp but does anyone remember that before we traded him he had gotten a hat trick that very year in 2010 even on the very few minutes that AV gave him. He had 34 goals in the 10/11 season with the islanders and I think back to this trade had we kept Grabner and went with Hamhuis, Mitchell rather than Ballard, Hamhuis. The story and end result might’ve been different as in the SCF, it was goals that we sorely needed and that year Grabner did provide. So people forget that line of Raymond Kesler and Grabner as a line that created speed and headaches for the opposition. Anyways looking back I see why GMMG did what he did to ensure we would have an additional defenseman for the push for the cup. He didn’t expect hammer to sign after the fact.

 

Also Fun Fact:

 

had Sami Salo not had that Achilles heel injury in ball hockey that 2010 summer, it would’ve cost the Canucks to move a defenseman (rumor was Bieska) to make room to get under the cap. Thankfully Balls of Steel helped out our cap situation to make it all fit. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by EP Phone Home

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, c00kies said:

I also remember Mitchell giving the puck away on Havlat's late game-tying goal in game 4 that the Hawks won in OT. We were up 2-1 in the series and that led to a tied series in which the Hawks took over from there (including the infamous Hatrick Kane game 6). Up 3-1, we might have beaten the Hawks and then played Detroit in the next round, and maybe we could have won a Cup that year.

 

I definitely don't pin the series loss on that one play, but it did play a factor in the Canucks losing to the Hawks in 09, so just showing he wasn't a perfect player by any means.

Steve Smith was ranked 17th best Oiler all-time not that long ago   by THN.   Ahead of Hemsky, Fogolin, Jason Smith, Arnott, Curtis Joseph, Richardson, Krushelnyski, Roloson and every single one of the recent players - although maybe McDavid would move up and have surpassed him by now.  Point is that was the biggest gaffe possibly ever (if you don’t know what I’m talking about google it) ... Maybe McSorely’s stick fowl too as they’d have almost certainly been up 2-0 (LA in 93 - google that too if you want) .   How many other Canucks have made mistakes during the regular season and or playoffs?  Virtually all of them - of course no player is perfect.  (And McSorley led the league with plus 48! around that time ..)
 

Edler  went from a decade of constantly getting beat on by the CDC to “wow he’s actually pretty great” this year because he had some help.  Instead the CDC focussed their angst mostly on Myers (who played his best hockey when Edler was out but still didn’t matter much - even though it was mostly him and Hughes giving Tanev and Edler some much needed rest).    Can think of many times Murzyn coffed the puck up and it ended up in our net yet he routinely had a higher plus minus then his partner Lumme  (who also screwed up too).   Saw Borque do it same with Lidstrom too - in big games as well.  
 

Of course he wasn’t a perfect player only - Orr - Howe and maybe Potvin were and they  stopped playing a long time ago.   Only those three guys could be considered  perfect hockey players.   Maybe Eddie Shore but can’t comment given wasn’t alive back then.  If Mario had a mean bone in his body he’d be included.   Wayne Gretzky too if he wasn’t just very good defensively, oh nevermind - he was for sure about as a perfect hockey player as they come.  He made hyperbole seem understated.   

Edited July 6, 2020 by IBatch

[Sell.the.team]

Ballard sucked....

[buddyguy]

On 7/1/2020 at 8:03 PM, CanadianRugby said:

Watching the 2011 playoffs.  Daaaaamn that team was good.  Anyway, watching Ballard play.  I think he's playing his role ok, and he's physical.  

 

Only later, when Kesler, Erhoff and Edler were messed up.  Rome suspended, Maholtra and Hamhuis out, that guys like Ballard were asked too much defensively.  

 

Update: wow I thought everyone was gonna disagree.  I guess it was mostly just AV that hated him. 

When he got traded here I bought his jersey lol

[Baggins]

10 hours ago, EP Phone Home said:

Nothing against Ballard and his injuries

here unfortunately never gave us the proper value that we went out to trade him for. I will also say to the posters who said how Grabner wasn’t anything special at the time. It is true Florida gave up on him during training camp but does anyone remember that before we traded him he had gotten a hat trick that very year in 2010 even on the very few minutes that AV gave him. He had 34 goals in the 10/11 season with the islanders and I think back to this trade had we kept Grabner and went with Hamhuis, Mitchell rather than Ballard, Hamhuis. The story and end result might’ve been different as in the SCF, it was goals that we sorely needed and that year Grabner did provide. So people forget that line of Raymond Kesler and Grabner as a line that created speed and headaches for the opposition. Anyways looking back I see why GMMG did what he did to ensure we would have an additional defenseman for the push for the cup. He didn’t expect hammer to sign after the fact.

 

Also Fun Fact:

 

had Sami Salo not had that Achilles heel injury in ball hockey that 2010 summer, it would’ve cost the Canucks to move a defenseman (rumor was Bieska) to make room to get under the cap. Thankfully Balls of Steel helped out our cap situation to make it all fit. 

If only Gillis had a crystal ball. Mitchell still hadn't been cleared to workout when free agency started. He wasn't cleared for contact until preseason started. His career was in question at the time of the Ballard trade. That's the reason Mitchell was such a late ufa signing. Saying we should have gone with Mitchell and Hamhuis is pure hindsight. The risk was too great for a contender given the circumstances at the time. Also the Ballard trade occurred before the draft. Meaning they had no idea Hamhuis would sign here at that time. It was signing Hamhuis July 1st that ended any thought of re-signing Mitchell.

 

Grabner had talent, his big problem was never showing up to camp in good shape and ready to compete. The trade should have been a wake up call, yet he did the same thing in Florida. The Panthers didn't "give up" on him, they gave him every opportunity to make the team and as usual he didn't make the cut out of pre-season. He squandered golden opportunities here before Raymond had his 40+ point season. Once that happened he was out the door regardless as our entire top 6 all had a career year. He would have had to clear waivers here just as did in Florida. Which is why he was traded. What a waste of talent. If he had the desire and commitment in the offseason to go to camp ready he could have been a star. 

[Baggins]

On 7/5/2020 at 7:09 AM, 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.

After trading for Ballard Gillis said he was still interested in re-signing Mitchell but he'd have to show he could take a hit before he signed him. There was concern his career could be over as he still hadn't even been cleared to workout when free agency started. He wasn't cleared for contact until pre-season started. LA took a big gamble. But when Gillis said that he had no idea Hamhuis would be interested signing here at a reasonable price. It was signing Hamhuis July 1st that put an end to any talk of re-signing Mitchell. In hindsight Mitchell/Hamhuis would have been far better. But with what was actually known at the time, the trade was a good move that made complete sense.

[Baggins]

On 7/5/2020 at 9:54 PM, 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.

At that time you couldn't talk to ufa's before free agency opened July 1st. That clause was put in the CBA in the shortened 12/13 lockout season. Gillis had no idea Hamhuis wanted to sign here and was willing to take a discount to do it. He would have been blinding rolling the dice ignoring the Ballard offer and hoping for a good free agency deal.

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

At that time you couldn't talk to ufa's before free agency opened July 1st. That clause was put in the CBA in the shortened 12/13 lockout season. Gillis had no idea Hamhuis wanted to sign here and was willing to take a discount to do it. He would have been blinding rolling the dice ignoring the Ballard offer and hoping for a good free agency deal.

Yes I know, but his plan was to bank on him hitting UFA. His rights getting traded twice before he got to UFA probably concerned him that he would ever make it there and thus made the trade. Pretty sure Mitchell was never part of the plan moving forward despite many suggesting in hindsight that we should've done so ignoring his age and health concerns.

[nux_win]

When I first saw this thread, I thought you meant Harold Ballard.  Y'know the old cantankerous owner of the Leafs.  Not many hockey people are confused about why they didn't like that guy.  Even as a lifelong Canucks fan I kind of felt sorry for Leafs' Nation with that guy at the helm.  Go Canucks Go!

[lmm]

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

If only Gillis had a crystal ball. Mitchell still hadn't been cleared to workout when free agency started. He wasn't cleared for contact until preseason started. His career was in question at the time of the Ballard trade. That's the reason Mitchell was such a late ufa signing. Saying we should have gone with Mitchell and Hamhuis is pure hindsight. The risk was too great for a contender given the circumstances at the time. Also the Ballard trade occurred before the draft. Meaning they had no idea Hamhuis would sign here at that time. It was signing Hamhuis July 1st that ended any thought of re-signing Mitchell.

 

Grabner had talent, his big problem was never showing up to camp in good shape and ready to compete. The trade should have been a wake up call, yet he did the same thing in Florida. The Panthers didn't "give up" on him, they gave him every opportunity to make the team and as usual he didn't make the cut out of pre-season. He squandered golden opportunities here before Raymond had his 40+ point season. Once that happened he was out the door regardless as our entire top 6 all had a career year. He would have had to clear waivers here just as did in Florida. Which is why he was traded. What a waste of talent. If he had the desire and commitment in the offseason to go to camp ready he could have been a star. 

Grabner was like the cross between Goldobin and Vey

like Goldy, he was a high draft pick and had talent that was never realized 

Like Vey, he was traded (from  LA) before he hit waivers

[Gawdzukes]

On 7/5/2020 at 1:47 PM, lmm said:

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

Whatever. This isn't a hate JB thread. Frack, some people are so transparent.

 

It was a misread. He was brought in to play a top 4 role at over $4m. He didn't get used by AV as a bone crushing puck escaper the way he was with Florida and Phoenix. he was relegated to a third line role and was even a regular scratch. In fact, after signing Burrows and Edler he was the biggest reason our team couldn't sign a top 6 winger to compliment Kesler.

 

Pay attention boy.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Gawdzukes

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Whatever you meatball. This isn't a hate JB thread. Frack, some people are so transparent.

 

It was a misread. He was brought in to play a top 4 role at over $4m. He didn't get used by AV as a bone crushing puck escaper the way he was with Florida and Phoenix. he was relegated to a third line role and was even a regular scratch.

 

Pay attention boy.

That's more on the GM (Gillis) than AV.  GIllis knew the type of coach he had (a systems coach).  AV didn't particularly like a player he essentially 'free styled' it on the ice (especially on defense).  Ballard, for whatever his faults, needed to play with a coach like Crawford coached us during the WCE days  (run & gun).  This isn't so much a knock against Ballard, but it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  AV isn't going to change his "system" for one player (well, I suppose if that one player was generational player like EP.....).

Edited July 7, 2020 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Gawdzukes]

21 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

That's more on the GM (Gillis) than AV.  GIllis knew the type of coach he had (a systems coach).  AV didn't particularly like a player he essentially 'free styled' it on the ice (especially on defense).  Ballard, for whatever his faults, needed to play with a coach like Crawford coached us during the WCE days  (run & gun).  This isn't so much a knock against Ballard, but it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  AV isn't going to change his "system" for one player (well, I suppose if that one player was generational player like EP.....).

Yeah, he really misread the fact that his $4.2m salary would help the team when in fact all it did was hinder us because for some reason he and AV weren't on the same page and AV didn't play him as a guy he relied on.

 

That's on the GM newbie, you are right. You can't just bring in random players, it has to be part of a plan.

 

He didn't fit in with our overall skill game. We didn't need or want another Aaron Rome. Gillis just figured it would be great to have another top 4 d guy in the system without calculating or even apparently talking to AV about it.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Gawdzukes

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Bieksa was interviewed a few years back and was asked which Canuck during his time was misunderstood or given a bad rep.  Juice quickly said it was Keith Ballard, was one of of the players that was extremely popular in the room...except for AV, media, and fans.

 

Was always a fan of him.

 

 

[Baggins]

9 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Yes I know, but his plan was to bank on him hitting UFA. His rights getting traded twice before he got to UFA probably concerned him that he would ever make it there and thus made the trade. Pretty sure Mitchell was never part of the plan moving forward despite many suggesting in hindsight that we should've done so ignoring his age and health concerns.

Where did you hear this? I can't see it. Gillis would have had no idea Hamhuis would be willing to take the discount he did to come here. Banking on it would have been stupid. So I don't think his rights being traded played any factor at all in Gillis dealing for Ballard. Mitchell on the other was still a possibility at that point. Gillis said he was still interested in re-signing Mitchell after acquiring Ballard. But that died July 1st when Hamhuis signed here. So I don't believe Mitchell or Hamhuis was a factor at all in trading for Ballard but do believe signing Hamhuis was the deciding factor for Mitchell.