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
09-24-2012, 12:29 PM
  #76
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 1,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
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.
This. He was arguably our best Dman in against LA.
Its like Staal behind Crosby-Malkin.
We have a log-jam of LD. None of these guys switch over to the right side.

hockeywoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:38 PM
  #77
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeywoot View Post
This. He was arguably our best Dman in against LA.
Its like Staal behind Crosby-Malkin.
We have a log-jam of LD. None of these guys switch over to the right side.
It's not even close to being like Staal behind Crosby and Malkin. I get what your trying to say but terrible comparison.

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:10 PM
  #78
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
It's not even close to being like Staal behind Crosby and Malkin. I get what your trying to say but terrible comparison.
Any other ones he really could have used?

I think we all agree Malkin & Crosby are miles ahead of Staal, kind of like Edler & Hamhuis being miles ahead of Ballard.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:14 PM
  #79
jpchabby
Registered User
 
jpchabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,650
vCash: 500
Considering that Columbus already has Wisniewski, Johnson, Nikitin and Murray on defense, which I think is pretty good, and that they don't have so many good productive forwards, I guess they would be a lot more after a good forward than a good defenseman. Though a good defensive D wouldn't do them any wrong. And like many have said, Bobrovsky seems to be the guy they want to rely on in the ne net. So I don't think this trade really makes sense for Columbus.

jpchabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:24 PM
  #80
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,117
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpchabby View Post
Considering that Columbus already has Wisniewski, Johnson, Nikitin and Murray on defense, which I think is pretty good, and that they don't have so many good productive forwards, I guess they would be a lot more after a good forward than a good defenseman. Though a good defensive D wouldn't do them any wrong. And like many have said, Bobrovsky seems to be the guy they want to rely on in the ne net. So I don't think this trade really makes sense for Columbus.
Tyutin's got that suggested "good defensive D" slot filled alongside Nikitin; another would be nice, but would be a bit of a luxury that we can potentially afford to do without (there's just so many kids to swap in and out in case of problems...). And Bobrovsky isn't necessarily the only guy we're focused on; it's just that if we're getting someone different, we want someone who's more proven as a starter than he is.

Those two nitpicks aside, tho this is fairly accurate.

__________________
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
09-24-2012, 01:39 PM
  #81
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Any other ones he really could have used?

I think we all agree Malkin & Crosby are miles ahead of Staal, kind of like Edler & Hamhuis being miles ahead of Ballard.
Like I said, I get what he was saying. It was just a bad comparison.

Edit: A dman like Edler would have to be stuck behind a defensive tandem like Weber/Suter for a comparison like that to work


Last edited by nhlfan9191: 09-24-2012 at 01:44 PM.
nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:40 PM
  #82
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Like I said, I get what he was saying. It was just a bad comparison.
Like I said: Are there any better ones he could have used?


Why even mention it not being the perfect example? You got his point.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:56 PM
  #83
BannedFromCDC
Registered User
 
BannedFromCDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New Westminster
Country: Canada
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Canucks arn't trading Schneider. They should just force Luongo to waive his NMC for Columbus

BannedFromCDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:10 PM
  #84
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
Like I said, I get what he was saying. It was just a bad comparison.

Edit: A dman like Edler would have to be stuck behind a defensive tandem like Weber/Suter for a comparison like that to work
no it wouldnt
its about relative value

a great center behind two superstar centers does not make him less than great
a pretty good Dman behind two very good dmen does not make him less than pretty good

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:15 PM
  #85
Co Ho*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
no it wouldnt
its about relative value

a great center behind two superstar centers does not make him less than great
a pretty good Dman behind two very good dmen does not make him less than pretty good

Exactly, and wasn't Edler like top 15 in Norris votes? Pretty sure people don't consider Staal a top 15 centre.

Co Ho* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:30 PM
  #86
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
no it wouldnt
its about relative value

a great center behind two superstar centers does not make him less than great
a pretty good Dman behind two very good dmen does not make him less than pretty good
I'm not sure what your point is. Staal is a much much better forward then Ballard is defender. And Vancouver's top D pairing is not even close to Crosby and Malkin level as forwards.

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:35 PM
  #87
Co Ho*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
I'm not sure what your point is. Staal is a much much better forward then Ballard is defender. And Vancouver's top D pairing is not even close to Crosby and Malkin level as forwards.
I don't think you understand how an analogy works. They don't have to be the same, it's just used as an abstract comparison to help elaborate on why Ballard's TOI is lower than it used to be.

Co Ho* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:37 PM
  #88
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,990
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
To Columbus: Cory Schneider plus maybe a top four defenseman like Keith Ballard or even Alex Edler if the Canucks can't re-sign him to a decent contract.

I'm not sure what Columbus would offer Vancouver in return, but Gillis has maintained that he is looking for youth, size and would expect at least one roster player, one prospect and one draft pick in return if either Cory or Luongo was traded. If Ballard, Edler orr any other Canuck player or draft pick was added, I'm sure the Canucks would want more. The Canucks are looking to win now, but Gillis has also said he wants to build a team that can be considered a contender year after year.

Suggestions?
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.
don't tell canuck fans that. Some are convinced he is still a top 4 d-man and any fan base that disagree is a hater. Ballard is their number 6 d-man who can no longer play 20+m a game, which a top 4 d-man needs to be able to do. The fact he was a healthy scratch and they played AHL d-men in front of him sometimes was not a good sign


Last edited by jumptheshark: 09-24-2012 at 02:45 PM.
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:45 PM
  #89
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
don't tell canuck fans that. they are convinced he is still a top 4 d-man and any fan base that disagree is a hater
really?
is that really what canuck fans think?

i mean at least read the thread first

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:51 PM
  #90
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
don't tell canuck fans that. they are convinced he is still a top 4 d-man and any fan base that disagree is a hater
Of all the fan bases, wouldn't we know best? Of our 7 defensemen that played over 40 games last season, Ballard was 5th in TOI/G. Considering he only received 12 seconds of PP TOI/G and the majority of his starts were in the defensive zone I'd say he was relatively trusted at ES and on the PK. Quit looking at stats, Ballard was not given ANY chance whatsoever to flourish offensively, so how could anyone expect him to do so?

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 02:58 PM
  #91
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
don't tell canuck fans that. Some are convinced he is still a top 4 d-man and any fan base that disagree is a hater. Ballard is their number 6 d-man who can no longer play 20+m a game, which a top 4 d-man needs to be able to do. The fact he was a healthy scratch and they played AHL d-men in front of him sometimes was not a good sign
Kind of hard to do that when you've got Edler & Hamhuis playing the same side... no? If we needed to play him 20 mins we could but we don't because the 2 players that are ahead of Ballard on our defensive depth chart just happen to be our 2 best dmen.

You guys need to get this through your skulls because it has been said numerous times:

BALLARD WAS NOT A HEALTHY SCRATCH LAST YEAR! THE ONLY GAMES HE MISSED WERE DUE TO INJURY.


In fact if you guys actually paid attention you'd realize he played quite well last year compared to his first year in Vancouver.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 03:56 PM
  #92
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,990
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Kind of hard to do that when you've got Edler & Hamhuis playing the same side... no? If we needed to play him 20 mins we could but we don't because the 2 players that are ahead of Ballard on our defensive depth chart just happen to be our 2 best dmen.

You guys need to get this through your skulls because it has been said numerous times:

BALLARD WAS NOT A HEALTHY SCRATCH LAST YEAR! THE ONLY GAMES HE MISSED WERE DUE TO INJURY.


In fact if you guys actually paid attention you'd realize he played quite well last year compared to his first year in Vancouver.
did I say last year. the fact he got injured hurts the the canucks fans case, during the cup run he was a healthy scratch and AHLERS played in front of him..Tanev and Alberts say hello for this case

BTW

capital letters make you look silly, immature and just help reinforce the view that many fan bases have that canuck fans are unable to discuss a point without acting like a two year old. The facts are only SOME (done only because I know not all canucks fan believe it) Ballard is no longer a top 4 d-man and he has a bad contract. Ballard when he played was the whipping boy for many canuck fans in the fact when the pressure was on he made bad passes and could not see the ice that well. Ballard has 3 y at 4.25m left. The fact the canucks went so hard at Garrison in the off season tells you a lot about how the canucks view him and his potential. In two season he has been a healthy scratch and injured. Vancouver (some) can put up the argument, but back it up with facts and not opinion.

fact

http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/gamelo.../keith-ballard

question: How many times did Ballard play 20+minutes in a game last year? How many times did Ballard crack double digits in pts in his two years with the Canucks?--I believe the answer is zero.

Fact

3 years at 4.25m for a player playing under 20minutes a game and not scoring pts is not a good thing. No one will pay 4.25mill for a 5-6 d-man who has both been injured and healthy scratch for two years

Fact/opinion

Fact: Canucks shopped heavily to get another top 4 d-man on their roster and signed Garrison Opinion: If Ballard was still a top 4 d-man why did the canucks go so hard for another top 4 d-man when they had Ballard. Canuck fans have a love in with Tanev and a few other guys on the farm who will be pushing for minutes on the ice and Ballard is most likely to suffer from this


feel free to rebut this facts with your facts and not opinions

two requests:
1) No caps for complete sentences please (make you look silly)
2) Argue the facts and not opinions


Last edited by jumptheshark: 09-24-2012 at 04:01 PM.
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 03:57 PM
  #93
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
Tell me which top-4 dman in the league that can only play the left side and isn't as good overall as Edler or as good a shutdown guy as Hamhuis would be a top-4 in Vancouver?

Certainly there are top-4 left side dmen in the league that aren't as good as Edler or Hamhuis but are legitimate top-4 guys. Would these players stop being top-4 talents if they were in Vancouver? Or do people really believe that Edler and Hamhuis are just borderline or barely top-4 guys that any dman that couldn't jump ahead of them on the depth chart are automatically bottom pairing dmen?

Take Gardiner for example - a popular dman on these boards. If he was a Canuck, and wasn't able to switch to the right side, he'd also be playing behind Edler and Hamhuis. Does that mean he's a bottom pairing talent? Look at the top-2 left side guys on your own teams - how many of them would be forced to slide to the 3rd pairing playing on the same team as Edler and Hamhuis? Would that make them bottom pairing talents overall?

Ballard had a terrible 1st season in Vancouver and couldn't adapt playing his off-side. He adjusted very well last season and showed a measurable improvement overall as he adjusted to the system. He is still the team's #3 option on the left side as none of their left side dmen could make that transition to the right side. Doesn't make Ballard useless though. Just means he's not as good as either Hamhuis or Edler. There are a ton of quality 2nd pairing dmen in the league who would be in that same situation in Vancouver. This whole concept seems lost on people here though.

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 04:29 PM
  #94
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
did I say last year. the fact he got injured hurts the the canucks fans case, during the cup run he was a healthy scratch and AHLERS played in front of him..Tanev and Alberts say hello for this case

BTW

capital letters make you look silly, immature and just help reinforce the view that many fan bases have that canuck fans are unable to discuss a point without acting like a two year old. The facts are only SOME (done only because I know not all canucks fan believe it) Ballard is no longer a top 4 d-man and he has a bad contract. Ballard when he played was the whipping boy for many canuck fans in the fact when the pressure was on he made bad passes and could not see the ice that well. Ballard has 3 y at 4.25m left. The fact the canucks went so hard at Garrison in the off season tells you a lot about how the canucks view him and his potential. In two season he has been a healthy scratch and injured. Vancouver (some) can put up the argument, but back it up with facts and not opinion.

fact

http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/gamelo.../keith-ballard

question: How many times did Ballard play 20+minutes in a game last year? How many times did Ballard crack double digits in pts in his two years with the Canucks?--I believe the answer is zero.

Fact

3 years at 4.25m for a player playing under 20minutes a game and not scoring pts is not a good thing. No one will pay 4.25mill for a 5-6 d-man who has both been injured and healthy scratch for two years

Fact/opinion

Fact: Canucks shopped heavily to get another top 4 d-man on their roster and signed Garrison Opinion: If Ballard was still a top 4 d-man why did the canucks go so hard for another top 4 d-man when they had Ballard. Canuck fans have a love in with Tanev and a few other guys on the farm who will be pushing for minutes on the ice and Ballard is most likely to suffer from this


feel free to rebut this facts with your facts and not opinions

two requests:
1) No caps for complete sentences please (make you look silly)
2) Argue the facts and not opinions
We have a coaching staff that believes in playing defenders, and wingers, on a set side. This is why Ehrhoff, and Bieksa, and Salo, and Rome, and now Garrison are getting tons more ice time then they would normally, compared to players like Edler and Ballard, who are behind the Mitchells and Hamhuis's on our team because they play left, and according to our coaching staff, can only play left.

Also, when comparing alleged top 4 defenders and saying one of 5 gets fewer then 20 minutes a night is just....bad logic. With 3 lines, and 5 top 4 defenders, of course one of them will get fewer then 20 minutes unless all three pairings are rotated equally.

As for the shopping for a new D/signing Garrison....we needed a healthier, faster, right side defender due to AV's insistance that Ballard/Edler/Hamhuis are worse on the right side then Rome.

Circumstances play into Ballard not getting the time he's earned, it wasn't his play last year.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 04:56 PM
  #95
Oates2Neely
Registered User
 
Oates2Neely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BeanTown
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,625
vCash: 500
Ballard is a 3rd pairing dman. Im not saying he's horrible, but dont sell us Ballard as a mid-pairing dman.. He probably gets a bad wrap because he's being paid like a top-4 dman, but he is a 5/6.. (overpaid)

Oates2Neely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:01 PM
  #96
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,234
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oates2Neely View Post
Ballard is a 3rd pairing dman. Im not saying he's horrible, but dont sell us Ballard as a mid-pairing dman.. He probably gets a bad wrap because he's being paid like a top-4 dman, but he is a 5/6.. (overpaid)
Most Canucks fans view him as such, an overpaid #5 defenseman on a contending team, with potential to bounce back. Calling him a healthy scratch more often than not, and worse than AHLers is what gets us annoyed.

Vankiller Whale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:13 PM
  #97
Oates2Neely
Registered User
 
Oates2Neely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BeanTown
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Most Canucks fans view him as such, an overpaid #5 defenseman on a contending team, with potential to bounce back. Calling him a healthy scratch more often than not, and worse than AHLers is what gets us annoyed.
Thats just b.s.

He's a solid 5/6 guy. Nothing spectacular, but dependable. If he was making $2m to $2.5 we wouldn't be having this conversation, for THAT price every team would like Ballard on their 3rd pairing.

Oates2Neely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:44 PM
  #98
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,473
vCash: 500
You seem to be ignoring my response. You want to get into a real conversation about Ballard regarding facts? Fine. Let's do it. You seem to be blatantly ignoring any facts offered up by Canuck fans, instead you're dodging around them and throwing out irrelevant facts which poorly back up your argument. Let's break down your "facts"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post

fact

http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/gamelo.../keith-ballard

question: How many times did Ballard play 20+minutes in a game last year? How many times did Ballard crack double digits in pts in his two years with the Canucks?--I believe the answer is zero.
Well first off, you're wrong. Go check the ESPN page again. But anyways that's irrelevant and is not the basis of my argument. Both Hamhuis and Edler are superb defenders, they were 10th and 15th in Norris voting the past season. Both of these guys play the left side, and both of these guys have proven to be far less effective playing on their off side. Ballard also plays the left side, and he too is not nearly as effective on the right. There are 60mins in a normal hockey game, both Edler and Hamhuis are guaranteed to get over 20minutes per night, why don't you explain to me with your "facts" how exactly the Canucks are supposed to give Ballard 20+ mins per night too?

Quote:
Fact

3 years at 4.25m for a player playing under 20minutes a game and not scoring pts is not a good thing. No one will pay 4.25mill for a 5-6 d-man who has both been injured and healthy scratch for two years
Ballard has not been a healthy scratch this past season, but yes, he has been injured. He missed 6 games with a sprained knee, 2 games with a back injury, and 3 games with back spasms. Then, the big one, he missed 27 games with a concussion. It isn't as if Ballard is injury prone, so get that idea out of your head. A concussion can happen to any player at any time, Ballard would have played 71 games last season if it weren't for a concussion.

In terms of his salary, most would agree he is overpaid. How much he is overpaid is up for debate. Personally, I feel he is about 1mil overpaid for what he brings to the table. If we signed him to a 3 year deal at 3.2mil per season I'd be happy, as I feel he's excellent top 4 insurance should there be an injury to Edler or Hamhuis. Grossman just signed for 3.5mil a year for 4 years. Personally I feel Ballard is a better player, I don't think many would argue that they are at least very comparable. Check the stats if you'd like, since this seems to be the basis of your argument. Ballard will not be able to score points when he gets 12 seconds of PP time per game, makes primarily defensive zone starts, and plays the majority of his time playing with the 3rd/4th line in a defensive roll. A portion of this you may consider to be opinion, but I've tried to be as unbias and logical as I can here.

Quote:
Fact/opinion

Fact: Canucks shopped heavily to get another top 4 d-man on their roster and signed Garrison Opinion: If Ballard was still a top 4 d-man why did the canucks go so hard for another top 4 d-man when they had Ballard. Canuck fans have a love in with Tanev and a few other guys on the farm who will be pushing for minutes on the ice and Ballard is most likely to suffer from this
See my first argument. Ballard cannot play the right side and therefore we cannot use him next to Hamhuis or Edler. Instead, we use him to anchor our 3rd pairing. Garrison can play either side effectively, most Canuck fans have him pencilled in as a Salo replacement next to Edler. How will Tanev pushing for time negatively effect Ballard? The two of them play together on opposite sides. There is no other player in the system that will push Ballard for ice time this season, call-ups will be made purely as a result of injury.

Now please, don't respond back with critisizing fact vs. opinion. If you ask me, much of what you've posted above is purely opinion or speculation on your part.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:49 PM
  #99
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Of all the fan bases, wouldn't we know best? Of our 7 defensemen that played over 40 games last season, Ballard was 5th in TOI/G. Considering he only received 12 seconds of PP TOI/G and the majority of his starts were in the defensive zone I'd say he was relatively trusted at ES and on the PK. Quit looking at stats, Ballard was not given ANY chance whatsoever to flourish offensively, so how could anyone expect him to do so?
There was a big gap between 4th and 5th defenceman. You're also excluding Gregani, who averaged more time than Ballard, but wasn't on the Canucks for long enough to play 40 games.

Getting slightly more ice time than Rome and Alberts is not an accomplishment for a "top 4 defenceman". Especially one with Ballard's salary of 4.2 million/year.

blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 06:14 PM
  #100
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
There was a big gap between 4th and 5th defenceman. You're also excluding Gregani, who averaged more time than Ballard, but wasn't on the Canucks for long enough to play 40 games.

Getting slightly more ice time than Rome and Alberts is not an accomplishment for a "top 4 defenceman". Especially one with Ballard's salary of 4.2 million/year.
I understand that. The following was taken from my post above, this reasoning should satisfy you I'd think. Keep in mind, I'm in the camp that wants to keep Ballard rather than sell him off.

Quote:
Both Hamhuis and Edler are superb defenders, they were 10th and 15th in Norris voting the past season. Both of these guys play the left side, and both of these guys have proven to be far less effective playing on their off side. Ballard also plays the left side, and he too is not nearly as effective on the right. There are 60mins in a normal hockey game, both Edler and Hamhuis are guaranteed to get over 20minutes per night, why don't you explain to me with your "facts" how exactly the Canucks are supposed to give Ballard 20+ mins per night too?

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 04:41 PM.

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.