HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Keith Ballard bought out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2013, 01:00 AM
  #201
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,702
vCash: 50
The issue, again, is cost and term. It's too much and too long. Gillis is trying to shed a guy that has been benchmeat for three years. His value is ruined. Canucks ruined this asset and now will pay him out.

Ballard as a free agent might get three million?

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 01:17 AM
  #202
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
So, last years team, minus crucial depth at forward, defence and especially goalie. The Canucks big advantage over every other team during the regular season was running a very good goalie out there every game.

That's the bad news.
Same ingredients more or less, different chef. I'm choosing to hold on to that win we had vs CHI late in the season. We're back to being underdogs, probably a place this franchise is more comfortable.

On Ballard, I thought he looked very good at times last year, especially with Tanev. Maybe a new system would bring Ballard back. No way I'd have been okay losing Edler to keep Ballard (short of a redonkulous return obv) but Bieksa I could have lived with, NTC notwithstanding. Not worth the drama though, so not something that should be explored.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 01:33 AM
  #203
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gradin123 View Post
He just said that is the only option they have left if he goes unclaimed, he didn't say they would use that option. He implied he might but he didn't out right say he would. He did talk later about having to get under the cap. But letting Tanev walk might also be something he is considering if ownership refuses to finalize the Ballard buyout.
I think you did not hear the first time he asked, GIllis straight out said, after this waivers, they WILL put him on buy out waivers.

Lucbourdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 01:49 AM
  #204
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern_Canuck View Post
Ummm... what? A Vancouver team that won the President's Trophy twice, and the Northwest Division three times in Ballard's three years is a bad team?

Ballard has been a mediocre defenceman on a good team.

The telling moment was in 2011 in the Stanley Cup Finals against Boston - the very reason that Ballard was acquired - depth - and Ballard was sat out in favour of Tanev because Tanev gave the Canucks a better chance to win.

It was all over after that.

Good defenceman on a bad team - nice one - hahaha!

S_C
Getting to the truth here.

Pity is that the Canucks could have dearly used that cap space to acquire the talent to put them over the top. I believe it was evident early that Ballard and his contract had to be moved (and said so at the time) Trade if possible but if that wasn't happening then they should have waived him a long time ago. That cap space would have been so valuable going into situation like the 2011 playoffs. Might have got a critical forward piece. Instead we had Ballard who could provide nothing during the playoffs.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 01:49 AM
  #205
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post

Ballard as a free agent might get three million?
hell no. Under a million like Redden got.

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 01:51 AM
  #206
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
That cap space would have been so valuable going into situation like the 2011 playoffs. Might have got a critical forward piece. Instead we had Ballard who could provide nothing during the playoffs.
It was a good gamble by MG. Imagine if Ballard played like a #2/3 he was in PHX/FLA.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Salo
Edler - Ehrhoff

With Luongo, Manny and Kesler up front.

That team defense would've been the best since ANA '07.

kthsn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 02:04 AM
  #207
mrbitterguy
Registered User
 
mrbitterguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: san francisco
Country: Canada
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Just another example in which we failed to properly evaluate an asset in the last three years. If we had utilized him properly we'd be looking at a guy who has some trade value.

Heck, in this type of market a 30 year old defenceman with his tools should be commanding a pretty good return. If we had pumped his tired even a little instead of playing Alberts, Barker and Rome constantly over him, we probably could have traded him before this. Instead everyone in the league knows our salary cap situation and we're basically forced into this move.
the really interesting bit from the bmac interview with gillis today was the part where gillis said that ballard was a great guy with lots of good qualities, mentioned his long time to acclimate and injuries and said that he just didn't get the opportunities. (gillis bit is 23 mins in, ballard discussion starts at 28:00) gillis was fumbling around with his words while saying this and eventually said that he couldn't get into more specifics because it would be improper.

i don't like ballard as a dman, i think he's borderline retarded with the puck, but i do think the coaches pretty much ****ed him over. listening to the clip again i think there might be something else there though, the last time gillis was that evasive and tongue tied was when he was addressing the rypien leave of absence.

mrbitterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 02:20 AM
  #208
gradin123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbitterguy View Post
the really interesting bit from the bmac interview with gillis today was the part where gillis said that ballard was a great guy with lots of good qualities, mentioned his long time to acclimate and injuries and said that he just didn't get the opportunities. (gillis bit is 23 mins in, ballard discussion starts at 28:00) gillis was fumbling around with his words while saying this and eventually said that he couldn't get into more specifics because it would be improper.

i don't like ballard as a dman, i think he's borderline retarded with the puck, but i do think the coaches pretty much ****ed him over. listening to the clip again i think there might be something else there though, the last time gillis was that evasive and tongue tied was when he was addressing the rypien leave of absence.
Well clearly he was hinting AV hated Ballard. But as a GM that is your responsibilty to have a coach that meshes with your players. If he doesn't then fire AV or trade Ballard earlier.

I'll guarantee you now there will be players Torts doesn't mesh with.

gradin123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 02:27 AM
  #209
gradin123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
I think you did not hear the first time he asked, GIllis straight out said, after this waivers, they WILL put him on buy out waivers.
I know it kind sounds that way but you have to think about the question that was asked by BMAC and the question was what other options would the Canucks have if Ballard clears waivers and the answer to that procedurely is that the only option they have left is to buy him out besides keeping him.

It certainly sounds from that interview that he will be bought out but a couple of questions still put that in doubt.

Gillis was never asked directly if he will 100% for sure buyout Ballard if he clears waivers. The other thing is why wasn't Ballard simply put on unconditional waivers now if the final decision to buy him out has already been made? A team could still pick him up if they wanted to on unconditional waivers. No other teams that have bought out players have put them on conventional waivers first. I have a feeling that if it were up to Gillis he would buyout Ballard but that ownership may still not have given their final approval to a buyout and right now I'm not sure Gillis is running the show.


Last edited by gradin123: 07-02-2013 at 03:21 AM.
gradin123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 02:33 AM
  #210
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,202
vCash: 500
does ownership not realize that the nucks need cap space to fill at least a few roster spots.? so ballard getting brought out is the only viable option... theres the trade route but do the nucks retain half his salary or his full salary comes off the books. if e ownership doesnt want to buy him out then they are stupid

David71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 02:47 AM
  #211
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbitterguy View Post
the really interesting bit from the bmac interview with gillis today was the part where gillis said that ballard was a great guy with lots of good qualities, mentioned his long time to acclimate and injuries and said that he just didn't get the opportunities. (gillis bit is 23 mins in, ballard discussion starts at 28:00) gillis was fumbling around with his words while saying this and eventually said that he couldn't get into more specifics because it would be improper.

i don't like ballard as a dman, i think he's borderline retarded with the puck, but i do think the coaches pretty much ****ed him over. listening to the clip again i think there might be something else there though, the last time gillis was that evasive and tongue tied was when he was addressing the rypien leave of absence.
http://www.gophersports.com/genrel/020604aad.html

Quote:
It still was enough for Coach Guentzel, a man who has been around college hockey since 1981 and seen many a tough competitior, to call him psycho. Ballard was a highly-touted national recruit, a defenseman who had offensive skills that would make any forward jealous. But while his hockey talent was well developed, Guentzel recalled Ballard's inability to let the negatives of the game go. As a self-admitted highly competitive person, Ballard would get caught up in everything that went wrong on the ice and let all the imperfect plays cloud his vision of the game.
The article talks about him toning it down, but IIRC there were reports of similar things in Vancouver, too.

RobertKron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 03:23 AM
  #212
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
hell no. Under a million like Redden got.
Ballard will get a deal at 2.5 or more. Florida will be all to quick to give him a chance.

Petes2424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 03:24 AM
  #213
gradin123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
does ownership not realize that the nucks need cap space to fill at least a few roster spots.? so ballard getting brought out is the only viable option... theres the trade route but do the nucks retain half his salary or his full salary comes off the books. if e ownership doesnt want to buy him out then they are stupid
That I 100% agree on. Let's see how this all plays out before July 5th. Keep in mind if the Canucks do keep Ballard it probably means Tanev will go via offer sheet or trade. Another move that would be horrible in the longrun for the Canucks but would save ownership money in the shortrun.

I am very interested right now to see if the Canucks sign Tanev before the free agency period begins on July5th because if they don't they really leave themselves vunerable to losing him on a offer sheet they simply can't match capwise.

gradin123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 03:34 AM
  #214
Lonny Bohonos
Kassian = P.A.G.A.N
 
Lonny Bohonos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertKron View Post
http://www.gophersports.com/genrel/020604aad.html



The article talks about him toning it down, but IIRC there were reports of similar things in Vancouver, too.
Yes Ive posted that several times.

There was one situation a few years back where one of the reporters mentioned they heard yelling in a room or something to that effect and it was Ballard yelling at himself.

Also during the finals when he bailed behind the net he got up and gave Bieksa an earful which to me seemed like a bit too much.

I think with his trade history one has to assume theres some issues there.


Last edited by Lonny Bohonos: 07-02-2013 at 04:43 AM.
Lonny Bohonos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 04:01 AM
  #215
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverback91 View Post
He is on regular waivers. Gillis did this to see if any team will claim him for free. If he isn't claimed by tomorrow 12pm est gillis will then have up until July 4th I believe to decide whether he will place Ballard on unconditional waivers for a buy out or not.

Unconditional waivers is the same 24 hour period where a team can claim him.
July 3rd I think, as he needs to be on unconditional waivers for 24 hours before he can be bought out. Buyout deadline is 5pm July 4th.

Yossarian54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 04:02 AM
  #216
Respect Your Edler
Thank You 52
 
Respect Your Edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 500
This should have happened a long time ago. He didn't fit on this team. Gillis should have cut his losses a lot sooner.

Respect Your Edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 04:40 AM
  #217
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respect Your Edler View Post
This should have happened a long time ago. He didn't fit on this team. Gillis should have cut his losses a lot sooner.
When? do you mean some time before the buy out period?

Stories Tales Lies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:07 AM
  #218
Finkle is Einhorn
Registered User
 
Finkle is Einhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,735
vCash: 500
Cleared per McKenzie.

Finkle is Einhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:17 AM
  #219
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,070
vCash: 500
so now what?
buyout for sure, or might they bury him in the minors? (and does that count vs the cap? ...i forget)
also, might burying him send a bad signal to other potential acquisitions..?

NYVanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:22 AM
  #220
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,674
vCash: 500
Buy him out!

EpochLink is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:22 AM
  #221
Orca Smash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 50
Buyout is all, we cant bury big contracts in minors anymore

We have until thursday I think.

Orca Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:27 AM
  #222
Finkle is Einhorn
Registered User
 
Finkle is Einhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
so now what?
buyout for sure, or might they bury him in the minors? (and does that count vs the cap? ...i forget)
also, might burying him send a bad signal to other potential acquisitions..?
Burying him only gets you 900k in cap relief as per the new CBA.

Finkle is Einhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:37 AM
  #223
Kickassguy
Registered User
 
Kickassguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,497
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Kickassguy Send a message via MSN to Kickassguy
Buyout is inevitable. Probably place him right back on unconditional waivers today or tomorrow.

Kickassguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:50 AM
  #224
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,713
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Don't know why anyone would claim a guy like Ballard from waivers when they could just wait until he's bought out and get him for way less.

Free Torts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2013, 11:52 AM
  #225
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedTheTerror View Post
Ballard was just overpaid, at 3 mil he is ok.
Ballard is a $1 million 6th defender at best. Anyone giving him more than that is out to lunch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
If we had pumped his tired even a little instead of playing Alberts, Barker and Rome constantly over him, we probably could have traded him before this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denkiteki View Post
yet somehow Aaron Rome got PP time before him in Vancouver... Not to mention how Rome/Alberts often got playing time ahead of him...
Aaron Rome played ahead of Keith Ballard because Aaron Rome is a better player than Keith Ballard. If anything, Rome should have played more and Ballard less, but - contrary to popular belief - the coaching staff actually tried pretty damn hard to give this awful player a big chance to stay in the lineup. Instead he was an undersized non-entity who was rubbish at both ends of the ice. Rome can actually play defense and actually contributed more offensively than Ballard as well.

The Ballard apologists still boggle my mind. This guy was basically Marc Chouinard here. He stunk. He was given long stretches of playing time every year where he was in the lineup every day, and he stunk. It wasn't the coach. It was Ballard.

I honestly have no idea what people expected the coaching staff to do. At the start of all 3 of his seasons here, he was given a regular shift on the blueline, every night, for the first half of the season. He was rolled over every three shifts, same as everyone else. If he would have played well and/or built confidence, he would have played more and been given more special teams icetime. Instead he was colossally ineffective, and one of the worst offensive defenders in the NHL - basically a black hole of suck. If this guy is killing your team when he's on the ice, why on earth do you play him more? How on earth does this make sense to people?

Some guys lose the plot at a young age. Same deal with Mike Komisarek and Colby Armstrong. It isn't the coach with them, either.

Anyhow, it's a relief to hear we're going to buy him out. Restores a small degree of faith in ownership.

MS is online now   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 01:15 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.