HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Vancouver - Columbus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-22-2012, 05:18 PM
  #51
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,915
vCash: 500
Ballard hasn't played like a mere #6/healthy scratch guy since the season before the last one. Do we just label players as something and then assume they stay there forever?

Ballard has played like at least a #5 guy, and on a good night, he looks like a low-end #4.

This is kind of sad, but he was our best defenseman in the playoffs.

You'd think if he were to earn a reputation and then be stuck with it, it would be as the player he was before that one awful year.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:36 PM
  #52
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
Brassard and Schneider are somewhat comparable as far as their potentials and stages of their careers. Brassard had something like 25 points in his last 32 games or so (don't have time right now to look it up) after Arniel was fired and was given free reign to be creative. He's always had potential to be a #1 center. Similarly, Schneider only has around 65 games in the NHL and looks to be a solid option as a starting goalie, but he's played behind an elite team and has only proven so much.

I wouldn't deal Brass straight up for Schneider, but it has more to do with team needs. We have little in the way of a #1 center, and guys like Dubi or AA seem to be better wingers. Johansen is still a ways out too. However, I believe Schneider currently has a hair more value to his name over Brassard if traded in a vacuum.
This, pretty much. Brass for Schneider is not fair value for Columbus, and we're not interested in the wave of theoretical claptrap about how Schneider would make us so much better. We'd love starting goaltending... but that's not what Schneider is. He's not "a starter". He's "a VERY strong maybe." We already have "a maybe" and "a strong maybe". We want "a starter."

We do not want Schneider unless y'all are giving him away. Y'all aren't giving him away. There is nothing Vancouver has that would induce us to give valuable assets for yet another "but he'll probably be a star real soon now!" goaltender. Throwing in defensemen won't help, we have plenty.

If you want to talk to us about goaltending, the only thing we want is an upgrade. An upgrade explicitly means a proven, experienced starter. Not your "the grass is greener on our goaltender's side" prospect.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:39 PM
  #53
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,961
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
This, pretty much. Brass for Schneider is not fair value for Columbus, and we're not interested in the wave of theoretical claptrap about how Schneider would make us so much better. We'd love starting goaltending... but that's not what Schneider is.

We do not want Schneider unless y'all are giving him away. Y'all aren't giving him away. There is nothing Vancouver has that would induce us to give valuable assets for yet another "but he'll probably be a star real soon now!" goaltender. Throwing in defensemen won't help, we have plenty.

If you want to talk to us about goaltending, the only thing we want is an upgrade. An upgrade explicitly means a proven, experienced starter. Not your "the grass is greener on our goaltender's side" prospect.
Luongo+ for Murray?

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:01 PM
  #54
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Then why not trading Edler or Hamhuis instead to allow Ballard to step up in a role of a top 4 defenseman and shine in Vancouver?
Personally I would have no objection about trading Edler and allowing Ballard to slide down into the 4th D spot provided the compensation we got for Edler improved the team overall. Though I think Edler is a strronger defenseman with higher upside, I personally feel Ballard capable of filling a solid 4th D (left side) position on the Canucks. I do agree with the other poster though that it would be harmful to the team to trade Hamhuis and re[lace his position with Ballard. Ballard is an agresive offensive minded 4th NHL level D very similar to Bieksa. Hamhuis is a defensive level #2D and plays a completely different role. As far as I'm concerned the Canucks do not have a legitimate #1 NHL level defenseman (a defenseman who's individual play can sometimes control the outcome of a game), but the Canucks do have six defensemen who can play at an NHL #4 D level or better.

As far as I'm also concerned, the one player on the CBJ's I would love to see the Canucks acquire as he would fill a weakness (not a hole, just a weakness) in the Canucks right side defensive depth is Cody Goloubef. He is not the most skilled or talented defenseman with the CBJ's (more mid level who may get pushed aside due to the team having too many other talented defensemen) but even as a #6 or #7 on the Canucks, he could bring the team balance.

If Columbus is actually looking for forwards, Anton Rodin might be a good trade for Goloubef. An agressive winger who plays either wing and who has speed normally should easily make the Canucks bottom six as an NHL ready prospect except the Canucks are loaded on either wing. Chances are that unless a roster spot opens up due to injury, Rodin will never get the chance to prove he can play in the NHL. The same thing could happen to Goloubef with Columbus.

Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:04 PM
  #55
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Luongo+ for
Maybe...
Quote:
Murray?
Not a snowball's chance in hell.

* * *
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
As far as I'm also concerned, the one player on the CBJ's I would love to see the Canucks acquire as he would fill a weakness (not a hole, just a weakness) in the Canucks right side defensive depth is Cody Goloubef. He is not the most skilled or talented defenseman with the CBJ's (more mid level who may get pushed aside due to the team having too many other talented defensemen) but even as a #6 or #7 on the Canucks, he could bring the team balance.

If Columbus is actually looking for forwards, Anton Rodin might be a good trade for Goloubef. An agressive winger who plays either wing and who has speed normally should easily make the Canucks bottom six as an NHL ready prospect except the Canucks are loaded on either wing. Chances are that unless a roster spot opens up due to injury, Rodin will never get the chance to prove he can play in the NHL. The same thing could happen to Goloubef with Columbus.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Nicely done.

I especially appreciate your not going crazy and asking for like Savard or something

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:12 PM
  #56
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,961
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Maybe...

Not a snowball's chance in hell.
What would you be willing to give for Luongo anyways? Something around Savard + LA's 1st, maybe?

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:23 PM
  #57
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
What would you be willing to give for Luongo anyways? Something around Savard + LA's 1st, maybe?
It kind of depends. Bobby Lou's whole "Florida Florida Florida I Want Florida" thing suggests that he might not be all that willing to come here. And while I would expect him to be more of a professional about it than He Whose Name Has Been Excised, other CBJ fans might be less willing to experiment.

Your best bet w/r/t doing goaltending business with us is to get us in a three-way with Florida in which we get Theodore.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:26 PM
  #58
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,961
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
It kind of depends. Bobby Lou's whole "Florida Florida Florida I Want Florida" thing suggests that he might not be all that willing to come here. And while I would expect him to be more of a professional about it than He Whose Name Has Been Excised, other CBJ fans might be less willing to experiment.

Your best bet w/r/t doing goaltending business with us is to get us in a three-way with Florida in which we get Theodore.
Well Luongo has a NTC, same as Theodore. Luongo has said Florida makes the most sense, but there are always other options. If he's willing to waive to Columbus(which I'm taking for granted, for discussion's sake), then I doubt he would pull a Jeff Carter after the fact.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:28 PM
  #59
Byrral
Registered User
 
Byrral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Have no interest in a soon to be 34 year old Luongo with nine years left on his contract. I would not trade one asset for him. Not Savard, not a draft pick and especially not any of our young prospects (I'm not saying he's worthless either just that I wouldn't if I was managing the CBJ).

I like Schnieder but we are in a rebuild and I wouldn't give up any prospect with the potential of Ryan Johansen or Ryan Murray for him, no way no how. And we don't need Ballard. As Viqsi stated, you're better off keeping Schnieder and sending Luongo to FLA. We'll keep our prospects, roll the dice with Bob and look to add some offensive talent with three firsts in next years deep draft.

Byrral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:59 PM
  #60
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrral View Post
Have no interest in a soon to be 34 year old Luongo with nine years left on his contract. I would not trade one asset for him. Not Savard, not a draft pick and especially not any of our young prospects (I'm not saying he's worthless either just that I wouldn't if I was managing the CBJ).

I like Schnieder but we are in a rebuild and I wouldn't give up any prospect with the potential of Ryan Johansen or Ryan Murray for him, no way no how. And we don't need Ballard. As Viqsi stated, you're better off keeping Schnieder and sending Luongo to FLA. We'll keep our prospects, roll the dice with Bob and look to add some offensive talent with three firsts in next years deep draft.
I think you will find that Gillis would prefer to keep both Luongo and Cory rather than trade either. I tend to agree with that concept as the two get along together well and there is no stronger goalie pairong in the NHL when they are together.

I will point out that for NHL goalies, Luongo is just entered his prime and Schneider would be considered young. Many don't like Luongo's long contract, but to the Canucks if they keep Luongo it is blessing. The Canucks consider Luongo a franchise goalie and built the team around him and the Sedins. Canuck management beleive Luongo will be a strong goalie right up to his late 30's and into his 40's. If that is true, then the long contract benefits the Canucks as his cap hit is fixed at what already has become low for a top 10 goalie and the team does not have to worry some other team might out bid the Canucks for Luongo's UFA status. The only time Luongo's contract should be considered bad is if you feel he isn't a good goalie or if he is rapidly going down hill physically. If you actually saw how hard he trains and works out, the latter would not enter your mind.

As for the CBJ rebuilding your team primarily through the draft, it can work sometimes but can also easily end in disaster. Other posters have pointed out how some players and goal tenders, if brought on too quickly, peak early and then degrade. Much of how young prospects develop on a team is often less about the skill they bring, but instead how they are mentored by the team's older players. Players who when they first entered the NHL were similar stars for their era as those entering today. To be a good team, Columbus needs more older players then younger. In a perfect world, the suggested influx was 1 rookie per year.

Another concern teams GM's have is having too many contracts end in the same year. Having multiple draft picks means those players become RFA's and UFA's at the same time. Not only does this become a budget nightmare for the GM, it leaves the team vulnerable to lose some of those picks, now fully developed, to other teams.

Again, I'm not saying it is bad to have lots of draft picks, but don't be surprised if your GM trades one or two of your extra picks for similar picks in later years to spread things out a bit or for experienced players the team needs.

Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 09:40 PM
  #61
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
I think you will find that Gillis would prefer to keep both Luongo and Cory rather than trade either. I tend to agree with that concept as the two get along together well and there is no stronger goalie pairong in the NHL when they are together.

I will point out that for NHL goalies, Luongo is just entered his prime and Schneider would be considered young. Many don't like Luongo's long contract, but to the Canucks if they keep Luongo it is blessing. The Canucks consider Luongo a franchise goalie and built the team around him and the Sedins. Canuck management beleive Luongo will be a strong goalie right up to his late 30's and into his 40's. If that is true, then the long contract benefits the Canucks as his cap hit is fixed at what already has become low for a top 10 goalie and the team does not have to worry some other team might out bid the Canucks for Luongo's UFA status. The only time Luongo's contract should be considered bad is if you feel he isn't a good goalie or if he is rapidly going down hill physically. If you actually saw how hard he trains and works out, the latter would not enter your mind.

As for the CBJ rebuilding your team primarily through the draft, it can work sometimes but can also easily end in disaster. Other posters have pointed out how some players and goal tenders, if brought on too quickly, peak early and then degrade. Much of how young prospects develop on a team is often less about the skill they bring, but instead how they are mentored by the team's older players. Players who when they first entered the NHL were similar stars for their era as those entering today. To be a good team, Columbus needs more older players then younger. In a perfect world, the suggested influx was 1 rookie per year.

Another concern teams GM's have is having too many contracts end in the same year. Having multiple draft picks means those players become RFA's and UFA's at the same time. Not only does this become a budget nightmare for the GM, it leaves the team vulnerable to lose some of those picks, now fully developed, to other teams.

Again, I'm not saying it is bad to have lots of draft picks, but don't be surprised if your GM trades one or two of your extra picks for similar picks in later years to spread things out a bit or for experienced players the team needs.
If Luongo was an elite goaltender entering his prime, Vancouver would be fools to get rid of him and teams would be rushing to acquire his services.

It leads to a more obvious fact.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:28 PM
  #62
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
I think you will find that Gillis would prefer to keep both Luongo and Cory rather than trade either. I tend to agree with that concept as the two get along together well and there is no stronger goalie pairong in the NHL when they are together.

I will point out that for NHL goalies, Luongo is just entered his prime and Schneider would be considered young. Many don't like Luongo's long contract, but to the Canucks if they keep Luongo it is blessing. The Canucks consider Luongo a franchise goalie and built the team around him and the Sedins. Canuck management beleive Luongo will be a strong goalie right up to his late 30's and into his 40's. If that is true, then the long contract benefits the Canucks as his cap hit is fixed at what already has become low for a top 10 goalie and the team does not have to worry some other team might out bid the Canucks for Luongo's UFA status. The only time Luongo's contract should be considered bad is if you feel he isn't a good goalie or if he is rapidly going down hill physically. If you actually saw how hard he trains and works out, the latter would not enter your mind.

As for the CBJ rebuilding your team primarily through the draft, it can work sometimes but can also easily end in disaster. Other posters have pointed out how some players and goal tenders, if brought on too quickly, peak early and then degrade. Much of how young prospects develop on a team is often less about the skill they bring, but instead how they are mentored by the team's older players. Players who when they first entered the NHL were similar stars for their era as those entering today. To be a good team, Columbus needs more older players then younger. In a perfect world, the suggested influx was 1 rookie per year.

Another concern teams GM's have is having too many contracts end in the same year. Having multiple draft picks means those players become RFA's and UFA's at the same time. Not only does this become a budget nightmare for the GM, it leaves the team vulnerable to lose some of those picks, now fully developed, to other teams.

Again, I'm not saying it is bad to have lots of draft picks, but don't be surprised if your GM trades one or two of your extra picks for similar picks in later years to spread things out a bit or for experienced players the team needs.
Goalies usually enter their prime at 29. Not 33. Luongo is close to leaving his prime years but his play and numbers will dictate when he's actually on the decline. Considering last year looked like the dead puck era, Luongo's numbers weren't as impressive as they would have been in other years which will leave people skeptical on if he has already started declining.

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:15 PM
  #63
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
If Luongo was an elite goaltender entering his prime, Vancouver would be fools to get rid of him and teams would be rushing to acquire his services.

It leads to a more obvious fact.
There aren't really any facts here... At least not with us. It's all speculation.

Based on the rumors, which were reported on real media outlets, I believe Gillis has been called by at least 8 teams for Luongo but his asking price was something like Luke Schenn + 1st (5th overall) which is why a deal hasn't been done.

A lot of people on this board have assumed that Luongo hasn't been moved because nothing of value has been offered but there's just as good a chance that a deal hasn't gotten done because the asking price is sky high.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 12:39 AM
  #64
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Goalies usually enter their prime at 29. Not 33. Luongo is close to leaving his prime years but his play and numbers will dictate when he's actually on the decline. Considering last year looked like the dead puck era, Luongo's numbers weren't as impressive as they would have been in other years which will leave people skeptical on if he has already started declining.
I must admit my information on this goes back a few years and of course such a study is subjective and statistical rather than individual specific. The information I saw at the time was

NHL forwards began enter into their prime years around age 26
NHL defensemen began to enter into their prime years around age 29
NHL goalies began to enter into their prime years around age 32

For the most part forwards averaged 3 years before they started to decline. Offensive defensemen and goalies stayed at their peak for an average of 5 years.
Defensive defensemen, goons and any player that fought alot or whose role included a lot of body checking only generally lasted 2 years after entering prime and they also declined much more rapidly than the others.

Since I first saw that information, the physical fitness of players has dratically improved so it is likely all players could reach their prime sooner, but the same physical fitness would likely extend the players prime years

Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 12:48 AM
  #65
BlueJacket2
Registered User
 
BlueJacket2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 429
vCash: 500
Goalies at 32? Is this a joke??

BlueJacket2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 12:51 AM
  #66
BlueJacket2
Registered User
 
BlueJacket2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 429
vCash: 500
I totally misread your post. I disagree. Prime defenders should hit around 25-26 as well as goalies. I might bump the forwards up a couple years though to 24 (depending on the position AND style)

BlueJacket2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 12:52 AM
  #67
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
I must admit my information on this goes back a few years and of course such a study is subjective and statistical rather than individual specific. The information I saw at the time was

NHL forwards began enter into their prime years around age 26
NHL defensemen began to enter into their prime years around age 29
NHL goalies began to enter into their prime years around age 32

For the most part forwards averaged 3 years before they started to decline. Offensive defensemen and goalies stayed at their peak for an average of 5 years.
Defensive defensemen, goons and any player that fought alot or whose role included a lot of body checking only generally lasted 2 years after entering prime and they also declined much more rapidly than the others.

Since I first saw that information, the physical fitness of players has dratically improved so it is likely all players could reach their prime sooner, but the same physical fitness would likely extend the players prime years
I won't disagree with you because you make good points. But I think you see a dip in goaltenders when they hit 34. That's not to say they can't still play at a very high level when their older. It just means that their best play has come and gone. I think Luongo hit his prime very early. His first year in Vancouver was his peak. He's put up great years after that, but I truly think he was was the best goalie in the world that year. Despite Brodeur getting the Vezina.

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:08 AM
  #68
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
I won't disagree with you because you make good points. But I think you see a dip in goaltenders when they hit 34. That's not to say they can't still play at a very high level when their older. It just means that their best play has come and gone. I think Luongo hit his prime very early. His first year in Vancouver was his peak. He's put up great years after that, but I truly think he was was the best goalie in the world that year. Despite Brodeur getting the Vezina.
Prime being defined that the player primarily has attained pretty well most of the knowledge needed to play the position that he ever will and that he applies that knowledge in conjunction with the natural hockey talents he has. In short, for the rest of his career, what you see is what you get. He has reached the maximum in smarts and how best to play his position. How much better or worse he plays that position compared to others in their prime is now based on each individual's physical skill.

It is easier for a forward to learn how to play that position at an NHL level than a defenseman or goalie so they reach their prime earlier. Their prime years would be longer then other positions if it wasn't that their position also receives the most physical abuse and physical health is important to play that position well.

It takes a goalie longer to learn the skills to play that position to the best of his ability, but once he reaches his prime, he has the best chance of staying in that grove for years because he is in a position that has much less physical contact and so physically he can play longer. The killer for a goalie's career generally isn't age, but mental confidence or being required to take on a role he's not suited for (being forced into playing above his skill level< a backup forced to play a first string role long term> or being forced to play beyond his development <a young goalie pushed into a bigger role too soon >). Few goalies actually reach their prime in the HNL because of those three reasons. Those that do generally have long careers.

As for Luongo developing early but being beat out by Brodeur. To be considered an elite goalie doesn't mean that goalie has to be the best during any particular year. There will always be goalies that have a fantastic year or two then slip back into mediocraty. To be considered an elite goalie means to consitantly, over a long period of time, give your team a chance to win. To alsways be in the top group of goalies each year. Brodeur has been that. So has Luongo. Luongo may have had better years then some over the long term, but even though he wasn't the top NHL goalie the last two seasons, he just helped the team win the President's trophy two years in a row.


Last edited by Hi-wayman: 09-23-2012 at 10:27 AM.
Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 11:31 AM
  #69
rockinghockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,540
vCash: 500
Another proposal where fans won't agree because we all over value our players and prospects.

rockinghockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 11:41 AM
  #70
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockinghockey View Post
Another proposal where fans won't agree because we all over value our players and prospects.
Isn't the definition of a fan someone that believes in their team and the players on that team?

Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 01:58 PM
  #71
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Apparently your team feels the same way because he's scratched more often then not.
You think after being in SO many Canuck threads & hearing about Ballard enough you would learn to read it & memorize it. Ballard wasn't a scratch last year! The only time he didn't play was when injured.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 05:29 PM
  #72
Royal Canuck
Go Canucks Go!
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Keith Ballard is not a top 4 defenseman. He's an overpaid 6th defenseman. Trading Schneider and Ballard together would have the same value as trading Schneider and a 7th round draft pick.
c'mon, at least a 4th or a 3rd.

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
PSN - TBennz
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:06 AM
  #73
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
I'd rather keep Ballard, see if he gets back into the swing of it unless we get something reasonable in return.

Edler I'd like to re-sign, but if not, c'est la vie.

Schneider moved instead of Lu? Sure, but like a lot of BJs fans are saying, we probably won't be staring down a larger return at this point in time from their club.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:56 AM
  #74
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
I'd rather keep Ballard, see if he gets back into the swing of it unless we get something reasonable in return.

Edler I'd like to re-sign, but if not, c'est la vie.

Schneider moved instead of Lu? Sure, but like a lot of BJs fans are saying, we probably won't be staring down a larger return at this point in time from their club.
Gee, it looks like the Canucks are just going to suffer having the best goalie pairing in the league. Well I guess someone has to bear the cross.

On top of that Vancouver fans have to suffer having to put up with the Lions too! How ironic. Will Vancouver sports ever recover?


Last edited by Hi-wayman: 09-24-2012 at 01:02 AM.
Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:21 AM
  #75
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Hahah.. All these Ballard haters are such trolls. I swear, I've seen posters get blatantly corrected and then they just turn around and spew the exact same garbage in the next thread regarding Ballard. The fact that Ballard hasn't been scratched since the 10-11 season is a prime example.

Ballard hasn't played like a #6 defenseman since that season. He easily played like our #5 last season on a very deep blueline of the team that won the President's Trophy. He'd easily be a #4 guy on most teams in the league, I don't see why people don't get that. Ballard was 5th in OZone starts less than 1% ahead of rookie Chris Tanev. Couple that with his whopping 12 seconds of PP time per game and the fact that most of his shifts are with the 3rd or 4th line and you can see why his offensive stats aren't good. I think it's fair to say that Ballard has some untapped offensive upside, he just isn't used in that regard in Vancouver since we have better options.

People need to stop living in '10-'11 and cut Ballard some slack. He had one injury riddled season on a brand new team where he underachieved, so what? He's played very solid hockey since then. Now that Doan isn't signing here, Ballard isn't available anyways. We have no interest in moving our valuable defensive depth. It would be nice if people could just stop talking about the guy.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.