Keith Ballard

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Reefer2 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:04 pm

BurningBeard wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote:I think we would be better off right now with Aaron Rome, especially given Rome can play both sides.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Alain?

:lol:


Thats it, I knew Pot reminded me of someone, he is AV, who would of thunk that? 8-)
User avatar
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby the Dogsalmon » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:05 am

there is no doubt in my mind that Gillis will fuck this up...
User avatar
the Dogsalmon
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:12 am
Location: in the ainus

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:21 am

Ah, k. So I guess even though his salary is only $3.5, his salary against the cap would still count as $4.5. Well, if the deal actually takes place, we save some real money and his contract expires 1 year quicker than Ballard. :P


Island Nucklehead wrote:Unless things have changed since the last CBA, his cap hit is still $4.5M (total salary divided by years of contract). So a team trying to reach the floor might find that attractive (making less money but counting for more...), but a team like the Canucks would probably prefer the cap space.

The point is, Komisarek COUNTS for $300K more than Ballard.
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:07 am

Whoever thinks AV is holding ballard, booth and schroeder back simply have no ability to judge hockey talent. These guys are simply not good enuff. They're either too small, not talented enuff, a liability or not smart enuff as a player. In other words, to make it easier for your pea brain to understand, they suck! Bottom line, AV plays the players who he thinks will help his team win, it's nothing personal against those guys.

I'll agree Alberts has some defeincies out there, but at least he brings some much needed size and muscle to the back end. As much as I like Lappy, I think he's a great 3rd or 4th liner playing 7-14 mins a game. If he starts getting like 15+ mins, it maybe asking too much from him; however, right now he's our 2nd best natural centreman. Schroeder is too small and inexperienced; Raymond isn't even a centre. News flash einstein, with Kes out, AV has no choice but to lean on Lappy a heck of a lot more.

Some ppl are such tards. They think they're so smart and they are so full of themselves. All they do is criticize the opinions of others and use vulgar language cuz they're a smarty pants and everyone else are a bunch of stupid ants that don't know anything. Seriously buddy, if u can't disagree with someone's opinions respectfully and with some intelligence, just don't come to this board. Just go back to your little pedastal and your own little drug induced world where your opinons are everything and no one will disagree with u. Actually, u know what? U should go to a bar during a game, talk hockey with some doods and if they disagree with u, use your smart alec remarks and take some shots at them. They'll punch your ugly face in and beat the crap out of your stupid ass.


Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Lancer wrote:
Even so, I'm in the 'Ballard looked better on a crappy team' camp. I give Ballard credit in that he did play pretty good the first couple of games... just like Kassian... I wonder if it's a trend where certain players in the league (either by playing during the lockout or some kind of lockout training regimen) got a head start against the competition but the market is correcting itself - guys who looked good early on are not so noticeable in a good way anymore.


what does Kassian have to do with Ballard ? Ballard, Kassian, Booth and Schroeder have now been sandbagged by the fat frog......is that what they have in common ? But hey Alberts and Lappy will thrive


Blob Mckenzie wrote:"Balltard" has been mismanaged since he got here and that is on AV. Doh I said " Balltard " on a message board.Tee hee Mrs Grundy . As for anyone wanting Komisarek or questioning why we didn't get Kadri or Van Reimsdyk .... I swear these people need to chip the feces off their domes with an air chisel , remove their heads from their colons and come up for some fucking air.
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:04 am

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Bersnoozi's drivel


Learn how the use the quote feature .

Nice little rant there buds. Not much substance but it was kinda cute. :lol:
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby wafflecombine » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:45 am

After reading the various posts here I have to agree with the analogy - round peg vs. square hole.

I still think Ballard is a decent player and would make a decent contribution on another team... but not us. The system doesn't seem to work for him and AV definately doesn't work for him. About the only thing that really went well was his pairing with Tanev. Lots of people are saying that Tanev makes Ballard better. I disagree slightly, they make each other better. Their pairing has worked well and they have been very reliable to date.

Either way, its clear Ballard is frustrated and has reached his limit. Guess we will see if MG can find a new home for him.
wafflecombine
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Island Nucklehead » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:28 am

wafflecombine wrote:After reading the various posts here I have to agree with the analogy - round peg vs. square hole.

I still think Ballard is a decent player and would make a decent contribution on another team... but not us. The system doesn't seem to work for him and AV definately doesn't work for him. About the only thing that really went well was his pairing with Tanev. Lots of people are saying that Tanev makes Ballard better. I disagree slightly, they make each other better. Their pairing has worked well and they have been very reliable to date.

Either way, its clear Ballard is frustrated and has reached his limit. Guess we will see if MG can find a new home for him.


I think what we could really use on the third pairing is a stabalizing presence. An Orpik, Mitchell type. A bigger, cheaper version of Hamhuis if you will. A guy that doesn't have to play a lot of minutes, but plays safe minutes and gives the top-4 a chance to rest and recover without hurting the team, a PK kinda guy.

I think Gillis has been going after point-producing d-men in the hope it will cover up our lack of offense up front. It works, but only to a point. I think Ballard is being miscast here, as he's NEVER been the kinda guy to play "safe" hockey.

If Buffalo continues to shit the bed, I wonder what a guy like Robyn Regehr would cost as a rental? We dump Ballard for whatever, 4th round pick, and (if he waives his NMC) pick up ol RR.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Potatoe1 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:53 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
I think Gillis has been going after point-producing d-men in the hope it will cover up our lack of offense up front. It works, but only to a point. I think Ballard is being miscast here, as he's NEVER been the kinda guy to play "safe" hockey.


Except Ballard doesn't bring any offence either. He has 1 point in 19 games this year and has 16 points in 145 games as a Canuck.

That would be fine if he were a really good defensive player, or perhaps a tough as nails physical beast type, but he's neither of those things.

What we have is a smaller player who doesn't produce any offence, and is merely ok in his own zone.

Yes he is better then Alberts but it isn't such a drastic difference that it should be causing the uproar that it is.

And again, I think we would have been better off with Rome.

Rome's defensive game was relativity similar, he's more physical, and most importantly he can play both sides which would allow the teams top5 d-men to all pay on their natural sides.
Last edited by Potatoe1 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Island Nucklehead » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:00 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:
I think Gillis has been going after point-producing d-men in the hope it will cover up our lack of offense up front. It works, but only to a point. I think Ballard is being miscast here, as he's NEVER been the kinda guy to play "safe" hockey.


Except Ballard doesn't bring any offence either. He has 1 point in 19 games this year and has 16 points in 145 games as a Canuck.

That would be fine if he were a really good defensive player, or perhaps a tough as nails physical beast type, but he's neither of those things.

What we have is a smaller player who doesn't produce any offence, and is merely ok in his own zone.

Yes he is better then Alberts but it isn't such a drastic difference that it should be causing the uproar that it is.

And yes I think we would have been better off with Rome.

Rome's defensive game was relativity similar, he's more physical, and most importantly he can play both sides which would allow the teams top5 d-men to all pay on their natural sides.


He hasn't brought US any offence. He was averaging nearly 30 points/year prior to joining the Canucks. Hence the "miscast here" comment...

Ballard went from playing 22:25/night in Florida to 15:54 his first year in Vancouver. Anyone that expects point production from a d-man playing 15 minutes/night is right out of 'er.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby herb » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:14 am

The bottom line is that the Ballard trade was a horrible one. It looked OK at the time, but now it's as clear as day that Ballard is not ever going to work out here. I like what I saw from Ballard in the bits I saw him in Phoenix, but he is not that player right now. Hopefully he can regain that form somewhere else.

The question then is, why is he still here? Has Gillis not tried to move him? Is he totally immovable?

Put me in the camp that thinks he'd be worth something on the trade market. Not a first round pick and young player like we gave up, but surely somebody somewhere is looking for a fleet of foot defenseman.

Potatoe is right. We'd be better off with Aaron freaking Rome, Sami Salo or any other defenseman who can play the right side.

Next to Rome, Andrew Alberts is actually one of the better depth defensemen we have had over the years. A big guy who throws punishing hits.


Edit: baltard lololol
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:22 am

Ballard is way overpaid for what he brings. Likely no disagreement from anyone there. He doesn't fit here so ship his ass out. He is a better player than Alberts or Barker but there is obviously something else at play here. Get a pick or a cheap plug back for the guy and call it a day. That way they will have some cap space in order to upgrade the bottom pairing when the times is right.

If Alberts and Barker are anything higher than 8 and 9 on the depth chart this team is in trouble heading into the playoffs. I don't like the way the guy has been handled but Ballard has not reponded well to the adversity either . I had high hopes for this player when we aquired him but they need to move him. His agent is popping off and KB4 does not appear to be happy. With the goaltending conundrum this is not what the team needs.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Potatoe1 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:46 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:He hasn't brought US any offence. He was averaging nearly 30 points/year prior to joining the Canucks. Hence the "miscast here" comment...



Meh,

I don't see him bringing much offence to a good team. I guess if you let him run around all over the place he might be able to get something done, but he does not have the type of tools that typically lead to offensive production in a system with any type of defensive structure.

He doesn't shoot the puck very well, he isn't much of a play maker, and his passing is well behind our current top 5 D. Sure he can play in transition and drive the net, but playing that way typically results in as much going the other way.

I also think he's regressed somewhat since getting his big contract.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby herb » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:55 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Get a pick or a cheap plug back for the guy and call it a day. That way they will have some cap space in order to upgrade the bottom pairing when the times is right.


My issue with this player at this time is that he should have been moved out an off season or two ago. Honestly, when the coach wouldn't play the guy in the freaking Stanley Cup Finals ahead of two guys who were injured and needed surgery, he should have been moved. His stock was likely higher then too.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby Meds » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:39 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:He hasn't brought US any offence. He was averaging nearly 30 points/year prior to joining the Canucks. Hence the "miscast here" comment...



Meh,

I don't see him bringing much offence to a good team. I guess if you let him run around all over the place he might be able to get something done, but he does not have the type of tools that typically lead to offensive production in a system with any type of defensive structure.

He doesn't shoot the puck very well, he isn't much of a play maker, and his passing is well behind our current top 5 D. Sure he can play in transition and drive the net, but playing that way typically results in as much going the other way.

I also think he's regressed somewhat since getting his big contract.


I haven't looked yet, but I would be interested to see what his point production on the PP vs 5-on-5 was in Florida and Phoenix.

He gets zero PP time here. A couple years ago he got a look on the PP and I remember liking what he brought, he generated some chances with his skating, and he does have a pretty good sense on offense, he just lacks that overall hockey sense under pressure in his own end, it seems as though he just wants to get it out of there and go on the attack but forgets about the need for a safe transition.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3305
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Keith Ballard

Postby herb » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:48 am

http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2013/3/4/4064920/the-keith-ballard-drama-unfortunately-continues

I do have to say this though, I have heard from a Canucks player that Keith Ballard is probably the most gifted defenceman with his offensive game and skill. The team sees it in practice but it disappears as soon as he plays in a game. You can see his skills when he rushes the puck up the ice. He has terrific speed. In Florida and Phoenix he played a bigger role in the offence.


I suspect Bowness tells Ballard to "stop it!" when Ballard starts rushing the puck up ice with confidence.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Lancer, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests