HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 09:03 AM
  #676
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
There's so much wishful thinking here. Ballard and/or Luongo traded without having to take any salary back?

Ballard for 3rd rounder? Not seeing that happening.

Also lot of people confusing "reported" and "rumored".



Call me a wishful thinker then. I do believe both can be traded without having to take salary back. Remains to be seen who is right. Actually, the Canucks sent salary back to FLA in the Ballard deal (Bernier), but it was balanced by adding Grabner and a 1st. So in that context, what is his value sans Bernier in that deal? A 1st alone? Drop that 2 rounds because of his shaky play and it's not outside the realm of reason.



Reported vs rumoured comes down to the content of the article. For instance, if said reporter refers to anything but a direct quote, he is passing on a rumour/innuendo/exposition.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Actually there is a provision in the currently proposed CBA that players in another professional league (including AHL) would still count against the cap but not against the players share. That would eliminate that option from the Canucks.

That said, one option for the Canucks could be, without actually taking a salary back, would be to trade Ballard while keeping a portion of his cap hit. That may make it palatable for a team to trade for him. There will be a few teams that will need to reach the cap floor and if the the new proposal goes thru, teams that previously used rookie bonuses to reach the floor will no longer be able too. One such team is the Islanders but I think there may be others. If the Canucks absorb say $1 million of his cap hit, he becomes more valuable and easier to trade.


Source: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412383



Fully aware. However, without a defined threshold... that is _agreed_ upon, this has no teeth. Further, is it applicable to existing contracts? If so, what happens to NYR and Redden?



This is the problem with discussing non-concrete CBA elements. The two sides haven't agreed, and so everything remains circumstantial... even a 60m cap. No point really.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:13 AM
  #677
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
You can't just say Ballard was worth a 1st a few seasons ago, therefore his current value can only drop a little bit. It just doesn't work that way.

Right now he is a 2nd-3rd pairing defenseman getting paid like a 1st pairing D-man. IF the cap drops to 60 million, you aren't going to have many teams lining up to acquire him.

You would probably be the first person in line to laugh at leafs fans for wanting a top prospect like yakupov, galychenyuk, or Huberdeau in exchange for Kessel

Beezeral is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:15 AM
  #678
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I believe Kuzma has said this before, can't remember where. In any event, he's wrong in his assertion. Kesler was expected to be out half the year, but then with the lockout, it has allowed him the time to recover without needing a fill-in. If the play again soon, how much longer could he be out? This puts the Bozak inquiries in doubt IMO.


Do they really need him anymore? They have Schroeder in-house, so why not just run him with Lapierre taking the 3rd line C spot, followed by Malhotra as the 4C? This should tide them over for enough time that it takes Kesler to come back. So interest in Bozak should be dwindling.


There's no room for Franson either.


The larger interest should be in futures. The Canucks couldn't sustain anything else beyond this year anyways, with the cap crunch looming.
At this point there iss room for franson. If one of ballard or edler don't return there is even more room.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:34 AM
  #679
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,712
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Fully aware. However, without a defined threshold... that is _agreed_ upon, this has no teeth. Further, is it applicable to existing contracts? If so, what happens to NYR and Redden?

This is the problem with discussing non-concrete CBA elements. The two sides haven't agreed, and so everything remains circumstantial... even a 60m cap. No point really.
Yeah but this proposal probably is pretty close and I doubt the players care that much about the provisions I mentioned. Specifically, the provision of demoting a player counting against the cap but not against the players share...that would be good for the players in that they would still be paid regardless and makes it more difficult for a team to bury a player in the minors (so players stay in the NHL where benefits are better, like travel). If they seem to want to apply the back-diving contract situations to current players via the provision regarding a player retiring, I think they will apply it to existing contracts to with regard to the sending a player to the minors.

The Rangers & Redden are fairly easy. They currently have just under $60M committed to payroll this season without Redden included (factoring out performance bonuses). They just have to re-sign Del Zotto and should be able to easily do that for $3.5M cap hit IMO. That means that could absorb Redden and his $6.5M cap hit this yr in the minors and he would be their 1 compliance cap buyout in the offseason. With the removal of re-entry waivers as well, if the Rangers were hit with a lot of injuries in a short season, they would be able to recall Redden without any fears too (though they are already at 8 d-men on Cap Geek without Redden) of a team claiming him for half his salary and the Rangers being on the hook for that.

If we believe the rumor that the owners have taken the loss of a season off the table, then that means this deal is probably pretty close to being what will be signed. Most likely the things that will change will be the salary variance and maybe the contract length but the rest probably will stay the same.

Coolburn is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:58 AM
  #680
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
You can't just say Ballard was worth a 1st a few seasons ago, therefore his current value can only drop a little bit. It just doesn't work that way.

Right now he is a 2nd-3rd pairing defenseman getting paid like a 1st pairing D-man. IF the cap drops to 60 million, you aren't going to have many teams lining up to acquire him.

You would probably be the first person in line to laugh at leafs fans for wanting a top prospect like yakupov, galychenyuk, or Huberdeau in exchange for Kessel



I dunno what the last statement is meant to apply but whatever...



I'm using Ballard's trade value, two seasons ago, to reason what he is worth now. That's a great deal better than what others are doing by throwing out supposition and porous arguments like "he was scratched" etc... No comparison IMO.



Dmen I don't consider 1st pairing guys making Ballard money: Hansey 4.5m, Carle 5.5m, Martin 5m, Michalek 4m, Meszaros 4.2m, Volchenkov 4.25m, Zidlicky 4m... You were saying? His money is directly in-line with 2nd pairing salaries.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Yeah but this proposal probably is pretty close and I doubt the players care that much about the provisions I mentioned. Specifically, the provision of demoting a player counting against the cap but not against the players share...that would be good for the players in that they would still be paid regardless and makes it more difficult for a team to bury a player in the minors (so players stay in the NHL where benefits are better, like travel). If they seem to want to apply the back-diving contract situations to current players via the provision regarding a player retiring, I think they will apply it to existing contracts to with regard to the sending a player to the minors.



You are welcome to assume it's "pretty close" or that the players will "care that much about the provisions". I will respectfully disagree. There is _NO_ deal in place. Nor is the threshold known. This is the latest NHL offer that is extremely likely to be rejected/tweeked. What would be the point in investing in an argument about a completely fictitious CBA? No point I would imagine.



Quote:
The Rangers & Redden are fairly easy. They currently have just under $60M committed to payroll this season without Redden included (factoring out performance bonuses). They just have to re-sign Del Zotto and should be able to easily do that for $3.5M cap hit IMO. That means that could absorb Redden and his $6.5M cap hit this yr in the minors and he would be their 1 compliance cap buyout in the offseason. With the removal of re-entry waivers as well, if the Rangers were hit with a lot of injuries in a short season, they would be able to recall Redden without any fears too (though they are already at 8 d-men on Cap Geek without Redden) of a team claiming him for half his salary and the Rangers being on the hook for that.

If we believe the rumor that the owners have taken the loss of a season off the table, then that means this deal is probably pretty close to being what will be signed. Most likely the things that will change will be the salary variance and maybe the contract length but the rest probably will stay the same.



Taken the loss of a season off the table? What do you mean?



Again, for the new CBA: I'll believe it when I see it. The PA are countering today, let's see what happens.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:08 AM
  #681
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,712
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You are welcome to assume it's "pretty close" or that the players will "care that much about the provisions". I will respectfully disagree. There is _NO_ deal in place. Nor is the threshold known. This is the latest NHL offer that is extremely likely to be rejected/tweeked. What would be the point in investing in an argument about a completely fictitious CBA? No point I would imagine.

Taken the loss of a season off the table? What do you mean?

Again, for the new CBA: I'll believe it when I see it. The PA are countering today, let's see what happens.
Then I assume you havent seen the rumored report that NHL owners have told Bettman that cancelling this season is "not an acceptable option"?? If you take that off the negotiating table, the PA knows they can get a slightly better deal and get something done by the league's deadline of Jan 11th to have a 48 game season. The league cant threaten to cancel the season if that report is true and makes a deal coming about pretty soon.

Sure there is not definitive deal in place now but I think its fair to say most would agree we have a majority of the structure of one in place already (50-50 revenue split, no changes to free agency, etc). The things the players have been caring about have always been limiting length of player contracts, length of the CBA and the salary variance. So lets see what the counter proposal is but I doubt they change anything to do with back diving contracts or burying guys in the minors. Thats gonna have an impact on the Canucks and what they do in regard to Luongo.

Source: http://nesn.com/2012/12/report-nhl-o...ptable-option/

Coolburn is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:29 AM
  #682
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Then I assume you havent seen the rumored report that NHL owners have told Bettman that cancelling this season is "not an acceptable option"?? If you take that off the negotiating table, the PA knows they can get a slightly better deal and get something done by the league's deadline of Jan 11th to have a 48 game season. The league cant threaten to cancel the season if that report is true and makes a deal coming about pretty soon.


I hadn't seen that rumour... Not sure how much stock I put into it. But let's entertain it for a minute. Let's say Gary is now being pushed to being far more agreeable to PA demands, does this make a 60m cap more or less likely? Does it make the NHL's version of applying salary against the cap despite waivers, more or less likely? Think about it for a minute. What does the PA want in both instances?



Quote:
Sure there is not definitive deal in place now but I think its fair to say most would agree we have a majority of the structure of one in place already (50-50 revenue split, no changes to free agency, etc). The things the players have been caring about have always been limiting length of player contracts, length of the CBA and the salary variance. So lets see what the counter proposal is but I doubt they change anything to do with back diving contracts or burying guys in the minors. Thats gonna have an impact on the Canucks and what they do in regard to Luongo.

Source: http://nesn.com/2012/12/report-nhl-o...ptable-option/



They will change the 60m cap limit. Players have a problem with it. It is referenced by LeBrun in TSN video also... This makes all cap-crunch arguments that much weaker. For the Canucks, if there is no regulated need to dump Ballard... why do it? Luongo wants to leave so it's a different case, but AFAIK Ballard wants to stay. So if the cap is 64m+... why not keep him? /argument?



In fact, let's suppose the cap is 64m, dropping from 70m in the current year. Is this equaled by a similar 5-6m needed increase from cap floor teams now needing to "pay" actual salary in lieu of the rookie bonuses they could take advantage of before? If not, how far off are the two numbers really? If they average out to be the same net decrease/increase, then it doesn't really change the landscape much at all...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:13 AM
  #683
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I dunno what the last statement is meant to apply but whatever...



I'm using Ballard's trade value, two seasons ago, to reason what he is worth now. That's a great deal better than what others are doing by throwing out supposition and porous arguments like "he was scratched" etc... No comparison IMO.

.
Ballard's value 2 years ago is irrelevant. Is Phil kessel still worth 2 first round picks from A bottom feeder team? Is Jay Bouwmeester still worth an arm and a leg? Heck. Look at Jeff carter. He fetched a top prospect and a top ten pick before last season then got moved for a late 1st rounder and scraps later that season. Past value means absolutely nothing.

Beezeral is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:21 AM
  #684
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Ballard's value 2 years ago is irrelevant. Is Phil kessel still worth 2 first round picks from A bottom feeder team? Is Jay Bouwmeester still worth an arm and a leg? Heck. Look at Jeff carter. He fetched a top prospect and a top ten pick before last season then got moved for a late 1st rounder and scraps later that season. Past value means absolutely nothing.
I 100% agree with your overall point. However, Jack Johnson is not "scraps". He is a big 25 year old d-man who can log huge minutes and score at a .5 PPG pace. He's also signed at a pretty solid contract.

blankall is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:22 AM
  #685
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
I 100% agree with your overall point. However, Jack Johnson is not "scraps". He is a big 25 year old d-man who can log huge minutes and score at a .5 PPG pace. He's also signed at a pretty solid contract.
Fair enough. I went off the top of my head. My mistake.

Beezeral is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:32 AM
  #686
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Ballard's value 2 years ago is irrelevant. Is Phil kessel still worth 2 first round picks from A bottom feeder team? Is Jay Bouwmeester still worth an arm and a leg? Heck. Look at Jeff carter. He fetched a top prospect and a top ten pick before last season then got moved for a late 1st rounder and scraps later that season. Past value means absolutely nothing.



Ballard's value 2 years ago is _far_ more relevant than anything posted here. 2 years ago trade value vs. complete supposition and conjecture... Hmmm tough call there. Do you think a GM like Gillis so easily forgets what he gave up for a player, as if that has nothing to do with his decision making process on dealing said player? Please. Think it through.



I don't know what Kessel or Bouwmeester are worth now (not privy to GM talks), but you can be damned sure Burke and Sutter know what they paid for said player. This will factor (not so much CGY because Sutter isn't there anymore) into said GM's perception of the player, and what's value if not perception? Perception landed Burke a 1st rounder for Shane O'Brien. Perception also made him miss a bunch of times on goalies of the future. It's all in the eye of the GM.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:33 AM
  #687
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeridAl View Post
Who reported it, or was it a bunch of wishful thinking. Anyone with half a brain would know neither team would do a trade involving Luongo. Vancouver wouldn't do it. because Luongo could hurt them in the playoffs, and the Oilers wouldn't do it because of the cost and that crazy contract of Luongo's.

That brain fart Stauffer at onetime started a buzz about a WOW-trade and everyone assumed it dealt with Luongo. If anything it's all be hearsay by the media.
Source? Or are you claiming to be more connected/knowledgeable than professional reporters?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:34 AM
  #688
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Ballard's value 2 years ago is _far_ more relevant than anything posted here. 2 years ago trade value vs. complete supposition and conjecture... Hmmm tough call there. Do you think a GM like Gillis so easily forgets what he gave up for a player, as if that has nothing to do with his decision making process on dealing said player? Please. Think it through.



I don't know what Kessel or Bouwmeester are worth now, but you can be damned sure Burke and Sutter know what they paid for said player. This will factor (not so much CGY because Sutter isn't there anymore) into said GM's perception of the player, and what's value if not perception?
Noone cares what Gilis gave up or whether he forgets that. Ballard's value will be 100% determined by what teams are willing to pay for him. He's spent the last two years looking like a #6 d-man but being paid as a #2/3. His value has plumetted no matter how you look at it.

blankall is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:39 AM
  #689
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Noone cares what Gilis gave up or whether he forgets that. Ballard's value will be 100% determined by what teams are willing to pay for him. He's spent the last two years looking like a #6 d-man but being paid as a #2/3. His value has plumetted no matter how you look at it.


Incorrect. Ballard's value is only set by what teams are willing to pay _IF_ Gillis decides to deal him for said price. Until he does, Ballard's value is not set in any fashion whatsoever. Further, Gillis's thought process weighs into _when_ he deals Ballard, and for what. So while _other_ GMs may not care, Gillis absolutely does, and it takes two to make a deal.



GMs don't also have the memory of gnats. They will take his entire body of work when evaluating him, not just the last two years. Oh, and he was looking pretty good at the tail end of last year so I guess we'll see...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:58 AM
  #690
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Incorrect. Ballard's value is only set by what teams are willing to pay _IF_ Gillis decides to deal him for said price. Until he does, Ballard's value is not set in any fashion whatsoever. Further, Gillis's thought process weighs into _when_ he deals Ballard, and for what. So while _other_ GMs may not care, Gillis absolutely does, and it takes two to make a deal.



GMs don't also have the memory of gnats. They will take his entire body of work when evaluating him, not just the last two years. Oh, and he was looking pretty good at the tail end of last year so I guess we'll see...
This from the guy who berates Burke? At least Burke admits his mistakes...Beauch,Armstrong and Versteeg were all shipped out after Burke realised they didn't work here. I think Gillis will move Ballard for much less than he paid for the same reason.....unless his ego gets in the way.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:08 PM
  #691
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
This from the guy who berates Burke? At least Burke admits his mistakes...Beauch,Armstrong and Versteeg were all shipped out after Burke realised they didn't work here. I think Gillis will move Ballard for much less than he paid for the same reason.....unless his ego gets in the way.



What does Burke have to do with it? Oh, and Burke admitted the Kessel trade was god awful? Where's the video? Further, didn't Burke wrangle Gardiner for Beauchemin? After ripping off CHI for Versteeg, he dealt this struggling player for a 1st and 3rd... seems he made out pretty well there. Armstrong is the only outlier, and that because of repeated injury. Your cases seem highly suspect LL...




When you say Ballard will move for much less, without quantifying how much the value drops from a 1st and Grabner, you aren't saying anything at all. He was injured, but not anymore, so scratch the Armstrong comparable. Next, he's playing well now (last 20games of season + playoffs) so scratch Versteeg and Beauchemin). So how does it really compare? And we haven't gotten to Gillis's ego yet lol.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:11 PM
  #692
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Incorrect. Ballard's value is only set by what teams are willing to pay _IF_ Gillis decides to deal him for said price. Until he does, Ballard's value is not set in any fashion whatsoever. Further, Gillis's thought process weighs into _when_ he deals Ballard, and for what. So while _other_ GMs may not care, Gillis absolutely does, and it takes two to make a deal.



GMs don't also have the memory of gnats. They will take his entire body of work when evaluating him, not just the last two years. Oh, and he was looking pretty good at the tail end of last year so I guess we'll see...
4.2 million good?

2 years of bad play is enough to tank anyone's value, and it'll now be three years sicne Ballard had a good year. To put this in perspective. Gomez had 59 points three seasons ago. Are potential suitors going to look at that performance or are they going to focus on the last two years?

Edit:

And also just looked....In what way did Ballard look good in the "tail end" of last year. He put up 3 points in his last 20 games and rarely beat out guys like Alberts for ice time. He then suffered a major concussion in February of 2012. A history of concussion does not add to a player's trade value.

You received Ehrhoff (who was playing much better than Ballard is now) for a song, when the Sharks needed to clear space. How much value do you think Ballard will have when the cap drops?


Last edited by blankall: 12-31-2012 at 12:18 PM.
blankall is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:24 PM
  #693
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
4.2 million good?

2 years of bad play is enough to tank anyone's value, and it'll now be three years sicne Ballard had a good year. To put this in perspective. Gomez had 59 points three seasons ago. Are potential suitors going to look at that performance or are they going to focus on the last two years?



You have to take it _all_ into account. The entire body of work. Not just the most recent sample, although you have to weight it more. How much more depends on how you evaluate the effects of the environment, injury, ice time etc... GMs think this way. They have to because the alternative is to constantly fluctuate the roster with trades as soon as a player starts performing poorly. We know that doesn't happen.



Ballard isn't 4.2m good to the _Canucks_. I can readily admit that, but I do so knowing this team is loaded with good contracts. Booth and Ballard have the worst deals. Even then, they stack up to other deals league wide. I can readily find comparables for Booth. I can do the same for Ballard, but bias and current perception won't allow people to admit that those comparables are valid.



There will be a season this year, and I look forward to the Ballard-Tanev pairing. I'm confident he will be able to carry over what he was doing at the end of last year. Which should put this issue to bed, hopefully.




Quote:
Edit:

And also just looked....In what way did Ballard look good in the "tail end" of last year. He put up 3 points in his last 20 games and rarely beat out guys like Alberts for ice time. He then suffered a major concussion in February of 2012. A history of concussion does not add to a player's trade value.

You received Ehrhoff (who was playing much better than Ballard is now) for a song, when the Sharks needed to clear space. How much value do you think Ballard will have when the cap drops?




Oh perfect, you stat-watched Ballard's progress. For the people who _watched_the_games_, Ballard impressed the last 20 games and was very reliable in the playoffs. At an advanced stat level, he did better than Salo during this time period. So that's where the optimism comes from.



We would have to know the severity of the cap drop, what Ballard plays like this year, and how much salary cap floor teams need to determine Ballard's value. But saying all that, a 2nd rounder sounds reasonable - similar to what Meszaros pulled from PHI.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 12-31-2012 at 12:29 PM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:34 PM
  #694
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SufferingCatFan View Post
Actually, you showed me a 20 man roster after you manufactured a fictional trade of Ballard for a 3rd rounder. In a $60 million dollar cap world, I doubt that any team would trade a 3rd in order to take on Ballard's $4.5 million contract, but you could amnesty him so the Nucks can enjoy the benefit of tying up about 10% of their cap space paying a second string goalie to sit on the bench.
Like I said Ballard for a 3rd is realistic. Nyi fans have been okay with that deal and after all are we not creating a fictional roster anyways right now for what the team may look like in 2 years? so where is the harm in using a fictional trade that the opposing fan base has been okay with?

worst case scenario we dump him for a 7th or future considerations not hard to do with so many teams below 50M right now for this season.

And I'm sure gillis and gillman can find ways around the cap if I can make a complete team that can be iced seeing how the last 2 years they have spent over the cap by 3-5M each season.

That's also worst case scenario if we don't find a deal for Lou. Once teams see we aren't going to sell low as we have set a roster with both goalies their either going to have to risk going with what they have or pony up more than what they have been offering. We can take any cap dump player back still and amnesty him to help get better value and create cap space to open up more trading partners

U seem to cherry pick at little details which I fully explained on both posts if u read the entire posts. I advise next time u read the entire post because I could easily cherry pick flaws in your posts that you go on to explain shortly after


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 12-31-2012 at 12:47 PM.
Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:46 PM
  #695
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You have to take it _all_ into account. The entire body of work. Not just the most recent sample, although you have to weight it more. How much more depends on how you evaluate the effects of the environment, injury, ice time etc... GMs think this way. They have to because the alternative is to constantly fluctuate the roster with trades as soon as a player starts performing poorly. We know that doesn't happen.



Ballard isn't 4.2m good to the _Canucks_. I can readily admit that, but I do so knowing this team is loaded with good contracts. Booth and Ballard have the worst deals. Even then, they stack up to other deals league wide. I can readily find comparables for Booth. I can do the same for Ballard, but bias and current perception won't allow people to admit that those comparables are valid.



There will be a season this year, and I look forward to the Ballard-Tanev pairing. I'm confident he will be able to carry over what he was doing at the end of last year. Which should put this issue to bed, hopefully.










Oh perfect, you stat-watched Ballard's progress. For the people who _watched_the_games_, Ballard impressed the last 20 games and was very reliable in the playoffs. At an advanced stat level, he did better than Salo during this time period. So that's where the optimism comes from.



We would have to know the severity of the cap drop, what Ballard plays like this year, and how much salary cap floor teams need to determine Ballard's value. But saying all that, a 2nd rounder sounds reasonable - similar to what Meszaros pulled from PHI.
Hmm...In what way is Meszaros comparable? Mezsaros was 24 at the time of his trade. He was a former calder candidate who wasn't living up to his potential on an awful Tampa team. Ballard is 30 and coming off a concussion. At the time of the Meszaros trade, the cap was also increasing, so a 4 million gamble on a top 4 defenceman was realistic. Meanwhile, now the cap is significantly decreasing and Ballard has become a 6/7 d-man.

If Ballard is able to rebound and put up good numbers for the rest of the season, then yes, his trade value will singficantly increase. However, as it stands now, he's coming off a major concussion. Concussions, currently, are the value killer, and the norm is for players to come back much worse than prior to their concussions.

And no...I didn't just stat check him. I live in Vancovuer and see 20+ Canucks games a year. You rarely see Ballard contribute, as he's just no on the ice that much.

blankall is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:02 PM
  #696
SufferingCatFan
Registered User
 
SufferingCatFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fort lauderdale
Country: United States
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
Hmm...In what way is Meszaros comparable? Mezsaros was 24 at the time of his trade. He was a former calder candidate who wasn't living up to his potential on an awful Tampa team. Ballard is 30 and coming off a concussion. At the time of the Meszaros trade, the cap was also increasing, so a 4 million gamble on a top 4 defenceman was realistic. Meanwhile, now the cap is significantly decreasing and Ballard has become a 6/7 d-man.

If Ballard is able to rebound and put up good numbers for the rest of the season, then yes, his trade value will singficantly increase. However, as it stands now, he's coming off a major concussion. Concussions, currently, are the value killer, and the norm is for players to come back much worse than prior to their concussions.

And no...I didn't just stat check him. I live in Vancovuer and see 20+ Canucks games a year. You rarely see Ballard contribute, as he's just no on the ice that much.

Please stop making intelligent use of actual "facts" regarding Ballard. it really distracts from all of the wishful thinking on these Boards.

SufferingCatFan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:03 PM
  #697
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,639
vCash: 50
Ballard sucked in 10-11, sucked for a month or so in 11-12 but he was good after that. However the improved play won't get him much in value, if we dumped him for some weak pick or meh player on a cheaper salary we'd have to take it. In a reduced cap world nobody is going to pay much. In all probability we just buy him out.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:27 PM
  #698
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SufferingCatFan View Post
[/COLOR]
Please stop making intelligent use of actual "facts" regarding Ballard. it really distracts from all of the wishful thinking on these Boards.
Yes because outside of hamhuis hell even arguable with hamhuis he was our best d-man down the stretch and in the playoffs. Stats don't always translate to show that.

But not let's just look at stats and a small sample size on how he was before the concussion while ignoring what he did after the concussion. Yep intelligent logic when discussing how players more often than not become worse after a concussion. But seeing how his play actually improved lets ignore it.

I'm guessing Brian Elliot is the 2nd coming of Patrick Roy too I mean I looked at his stats and he lead the league watched a few games and he played lights out

Once again are u a NYI fan? So if they were fine with giving up a 3rd some said 4th for Ballard why exactly can't we use that as a basis here?

Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:19 PM
  #699
SufferingCatFan
Registered User
 
SufferingCatFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fort lauderdale
Country: United States
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverback91 View Post
Yes because outside of hamhuis hell even arguable with hamhuis he was our best d-man down the stretch and in the playoffs. Stats don't always translate to show that.

But not let's just look at stats and a small sample size on how he was before the concussion while ignoring what he did after the concussion. Yep intelligent logic when discussing how players more often than not become worse after a concussion. But seeing how his play actually improved lets ignore it.

I'm guessing Brian Elliot is the 2nd coming of Patrick Roy too I mean I looked at his stats and he lead the league watched a few games and he played lights out

Once again are u a NYI fan? So if they were fine with giving up a 3rd some said 4th for Ballard why exactly can't we use that as a basis here?
My recollection is that Ballard had something like 1 goal and 5-7 assists in around 50 games. With or without a concussion, these are not heady stats for a PMD.

By way of an imperfect comparision, Jovo had 3 goals and 10 assists in about 65 games for the Panthers. Given his salary, age and declining skills, I freely admit that, with a $4.5 million cap hit, he has negative trade value no matter how much I admire him as a person and leader in the locker room.

BTW Coolburn provided a very insightful post regarding the impact of the new CBA, which apparently allows teams to retain salary in connection with player trades. If true, in the event that the Nucks are willing to retain substantial salary then Lou and Ballard could both traded with the return probably dependent on how much salary is retained.

SufferingCatFan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 04:20 PM
  #700
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SufferingCatFan View Post
My recollection is that Ballard had something like 1 goal and 5-7 assists in around 50 games. With or without a concussion, these are not heady stats for a PMD.

By way of an imperfect comparision, Jovo had 3 goals and 10 assists in about 65 games for the Panthers. Given his salary, age and declining skills, I freely admit that, with a $4.5 million cap hit, he has negative trade value no matter how much I admire him as a person and leader in the locker room.

BTW Coolburn provided a very insightful post regarding the impact of the new CBA, which apparently allows teams to retain salary in connection with player trades. If true, in the event that the Nucks are willing to retain substantial salary then Lou and Ballard could both traded with the return probably dependent on how much salary is retained.
Again stat watching. Just because a player isn't putting up points doesn't mean he isn't playing well

Ballard is a square trying to fit into a circle hole. Take him even at his best and he isn't better than edler or hamhuis. He can't play the right side (coach tried it and he failed) so that means no matter what the guy is stuck on the 3rd pairing here.

Now our coach isn't the brightest. All he wants from his 3rd pairing is a simple chip along the boards game. Do something else you get benched or scratched. I recall situations where Ballard went end to end and right after it he would be benched for a long period of time in the game whether the rush worked or didn't work. Kind of hard to adjust when your used to 20+ min playing time and the coach doesn't want you using one of your best traits.

This is a coach that stuck with the stupid drop pass which every team had figured out last playoffs after Boston up until over half way through the season and then brought it back in the playoffs where it didn't work and just kept using it until game 4ish. The coach finally started letting Ballard rush the puck that game onwards as well as I noticed he was doing it more often and was not getting benched for it as our coach finally clued in that it was working fine and he was getting desperate.

Knowing him though he'll go back to benching Ballard for the things he does best this coming season.

This is a coach that can't figure out the obvious from game 1 against Boston I told anyone and everyone all the canucks need to do is work the pick around and use a lot of slap passes to beat Thomas. Especially utilize edler ehrhoff and salo as they have bombs and Thomas will aggressively challenge them think shot leaving a tap in for the pass reciever. Game 7 they finally try it where tanev slap passed it to a 4th line scrub who whiffed on the empty net he had. Even though he whiffed i hoped it meant the team would be doing it more often with a more skilled player recieveing the pass but nope. I acrually shouted finally when this happened as every game i had been pleading for coach av to recognize the type of goalie Thomas is and use it against him

Also little nitpick Ballard actually makes 4.2M not 4.5 and most #3-4 d-men make that today if not more. I strongly believe on another team or with a different coach Ballard could be worth that under the 70M cap although still a little pricey for the canucks but not by much. Under the 60M cap on another team i think he could easily be a 3-4 guy unless of course he gets stuck with a coach trying to change his game and takeaway some of his strongest traits

Only thing I see Ballard is not too good at which a #3 guy needs is consistency defensively. He had that back in Phoenix I remember him being a rock against the canucks back then and I don't know how he was in Florida besides being a top pairing guy. I'm sure with a confidence boost and benign allowed to play his game can bring that consistency back as well


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 12-31-2012 at 04:31 PM.
Ched Brosky is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:07 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.