Ballard on waivers

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: Ballard on waivers

Postby black ace » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:18 pm

I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??

Then he gets here and he has a bad back ??? The entire deal with FLA was so bad you had to think there was more to it. Then we enter the draft with our first pick being in round 4 ??? Seriously ??? Then we use our first pick on a American high school kid who didnt play hockey last year ???? Seriously ????

It baffles me that some people blame the coach for his struggles. The coach who's job it is to win thought we were better of going with a kid from jr then with the 30 year old with the 4 million $ contract. I think it really boils down to some people dont like AV so they criticize him for everything even if it doesnt make sense.

In 3 seasons here he had 16 points TOTAL !!!! And yet people think he is a "puck moving defenceman". Seriously ???

Even in this thread some people think Ballard was worth his contract. WTF ??? He was probably 3 million $ overpaid during his time here and took a 2.7 mill paycut. So Minny has a 1.5 mill bottom pairing defenceman that they didnt need to give up anything for. Thats probably about right.

Good riddance and Good Luck.
2011 BC Sports Central CFL Pool Champion
black ace
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:20 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:25 pm

black ace wrote:I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??

Then he gets here and he has a bad back ??? The entire deal with FLA was so bad you had to think there was more to it. Then we enter the draft with our first pick being in round 4 ??? Seriously ??? Then we use our first pick on a American high school kid who didnt play hockey last year ???? Seriously ????

It baffles me that some people blame the coach for his struggles. The coach who's job it is to win thought we were better of going with a kid from jr then with the 30 year old with the 4 million $ contract. I think it really boils down to some people dont like AV so they criticize him for everything even if it doesnt make sense.

In 3 seasons here he had 16 points TOTAL !!!! And yet people think he is a "puck moving defenceman". Seriously ???

Even in this thread some people think Ballard was worth his contract. WTF ??? He was probably 3 million $ overpaid during his time here and took a 2.7 mill paycut. So Minny has a 1.5 mill bottom pairing defenceman that they didnt need to give up anything for. Thats probably about right.

Good riddance and Good Luck.

You do remember that at the time of the trade, Salo had a torn Achilles and his return was in question, Erhoff was leaving for big cash ( huge contract it turns out) and Hamhuis was a UFA and garnering mucho offers and was not a lock to grab that July?

Maybe there was another way to go I don't know but people seem to have selective amnesia when rating that trade...

Moreover if I were Gillis I would be suggesting to AV that he start working with the players I provide as GM or maybe he might start photocopying his résumé

AV totally makes that trade and Gillis look like shit, and the proof is how quickly he got snapped up after the buyout...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby black ace » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:34 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
black ace wrote:I hated this t...nd Good Luck.

You do remember that at the time of the trade, Salo had a torn Achilles and his return was in question, Erhoff was leaving for big cash ( huge contract it turns out) and Hamhuis was a UFA and garnering mucho offers and was not a lock to grab that July?

Maybe there was another way to go I don't know but people seem to have selective amnesia when rating that trade...

Moreover if I were Gillis I would be suggesting to AV that he start working with the players I provide as GM or maybe he might start photocopying his résumé

AV totally makes that trade and Gillis look like shit, and the proof is how quickly he got snapped up after the buyout...


If Gillis saw Ballard as a top 4 guy then he had lots of opportunity to trade someone to make room in the top 4. Even after they signed Hamhuis. He had 3 years.

Yeah he was quickly snapped up....for 1.5 mill. LOL.

And the fact that even after Gillis fired the coach Gillis decided he would rather pay Ballard 5.6 mill to not play here then keep him here.
2011 BC Sports Central CFL Pool Champion
black ace
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:20 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Jovocop » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:40 pm

black ace wrote:I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??

Then he gets here and he has a bad back ??? The entire deal with FLA was so bad you had to think there was more to it. Then we enter the draft with our first pick being in round 4 ??? Seriously ??? Then we use our first pick on a American high school kid who didnt play hockey last year ???? Seriously ????

It baffles me that some people blame the coach for his struggles. The coach who's job it is to win thought we were better of going with a kid from jr then with the 30 year old with the 4 million $ contract. I think it really boils down to some people dont like AV so they criticize him for everything even if it doesnt make sense.

In 3 seasons here he had 16 points TOTAL !!!! And yet people think he is a "puck moving defenceman". Seriously ???

Even in this thread some people think Ballard was worth his contract. WTF ??? He was probably 3 million $ overpaid during his time here and took a 2.7 mill paycut. So Minny has a 1.5 mill bottom pairing defenceman that they didnt need to give up anything for. Thats probably about right.

Good riddance and Good Luck.


As much as you hate the Ballard trade, hindsight is 20/20. Ballard scored 33g 116a in 397 games played for both Phoenix and Florida (0.38 ppg). Besides that, he only missed 13 games in one of his five seasons before being a Canuck. At the time of the trade, the Canucks were looking for a YOUNG and DURABLE puck moving defenseman. Nobody knew Hamhuis was available as a free agent at the time. The Predators traded his rights to the Flyers. The Flyers could not sign Hamhuis and they traded him to the Penguins. Eventually, Hamhuis turned down every offer and signed with the Canucks.

Without knowing Hamhuis was available, MG chose to trade for Ballard. His contract was not bad because it provided cost certainty for a top-four defenseman. I don't think anyone would have thought that his number would dropped from 0.38 ppg to 0.11 ppg in the three seasons here.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby dbr » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:51 pm

black ace wrote:I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).


Just because a team has $4.2m to spend on a free agent defenseman does not mean they're going to get one.

If the team had passed on Ballard because they thought they would get two top four defensemen in free agency and then failed to sign two it would be a setback, if they failed to sign any it would have been a catastrophe.

None of that justifies failing to move Ballard once it became evident that there was not a fit here, but at the time it was a reasonably prudent move.

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??


Well I would think the idea was to hedge against injuries to our top four, which had been an annual tradition come playoff time for this team.. and which continued after Ballard was acquired - I don't think we had all of our "top four" guys (and we had six of them.. Hamhuis, Bieksa, Ehrhoff, Edler, Salo, Ballard) in the lineup more than once or twice all year.

So yeah.. hard to find fault with the whole having extra "top four" guys around.. although again Ballard was clearly not a "top four" guy on this team at any point.

Then he gets here and he has a bad back ??? The entire deal with FLA was so bad you had to think there was more to it. Then we enter the draft with our first pick being in round 4 ??? Seriously ??? Then we use our first pick on a American high school kid who didnt play hockey last year ???? Seriously ????


So now you're just venting, right?

The McNally kid looked like a gem before this past season, tearing up the NCAA offensively in his first year.. then he got caught cheating on some exam and sat out the penalty instead of turning pro (probably for the best given he is still a major project player). He should be playing again this year and while the lost season might permanently affect his chances at being an NHL player, I'd say an NCAA star with a lost year of development probably still has decent odds for a fourth round pick.

But I guess since he traded for Keith Ballard, Mike Gillis should have foreseen this... :eh:
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby black ace » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:00 pm

Jovocop wrote:
black ace wrote:I hated this trade fro...Luck.


As much as you hate the Ballard trade, hindsight is 20/20. Ballard scored 33g 116a in 397 games played for both Phoenix and Florida (0.38 ppg). Besides that, he only missed 13 games in one of his five seasons before being a Canuck. At the time of the trade, the Canucks were looking for a YOUNG and DURABLE puck moving defenseman. Nobody knew Hamhuis was available as a free agent at the time. The Predators traded his rights to the Flyers. The Flyers could not sign Hamhuis and they traded him to the Penguins. Eventually, Hamhuis turned down every offer and signed with the Canucks.

Without knowing Hamhuis was available, MG chose to trade for Ballard. His contract was not bad because it provided cost certainty for a top-four defenseman. I don't think anyone would have thought that his number would dropped from 0.38 ppg to 0.11 ppg in the three seasons here.



I think your missing a couple of my points. There is no point in giving up assets for a player with a contract that you can get as a UFA. The Canucks panicked and Tallon took advantage. He was so happy to get rid of Ballard that he waived Grabner before he played a game for them. Its not just that he played poorly (he did) its also terrible asset management right before various other players were to be available for nothing.
2011 BC Sports Central CFL Pool Champion
black ace
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:20 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Vader » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:21 pm

ukcanuck wrote:You do remember that at the time of the trade, Salo had a torn Achilles and his return was in question, Erhoff was leaving for big cash ( huge contract it turns out) and Hamhuis was a UFA and garnering mucho offers and was not a lock to grab that July?

Maybe there was another way to go I don't know but people seem to have selective amnesia when rating that trade...



Like you for example. You have selective amnesia

Salo tore his achille's on July 20, 2010 - nearly a month after the Ballard trade. Had Salo not torn his Achille's, Bieksa would've been shown the door and the Nuck's don't go to the SCF.

Erhoff left the following year... and Ballard was not brought in to replace Erhoff so erally don;t know what that has to do with anything.

Bottom line: Ballard was brought in to perform like a top 4 d-man and he was woefully behind Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa, Old Man Salo, and Erhoff. He never at any point was a real threat to take those guys ice times. Ballard has no one to blame but himself
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Meds » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:23 pm

black ace wrote:I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??


Gillis' MO at the time was depth on the blueline. He wanted a top 4 guy in the #5 spot. Seriously, how could you not be happy with a blueline that looked like.....

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Ehrhoff
Ballard-Salo
Alberts
Rome

Well, I suppose Vigneault would rather have Ballard as the 7th or 8th man behind Rome and Alberts.

At the outset of the 2010-11 season, that was far and away the deepest and best blueline in the NHL. It didn't have a legitimate stud like Chara or Weber, but the only better top 2 punch out there was Weber and Suter. After that Vancouver had 5 guys that could all slot into the top 2 on any team. Ballard didn't pan out for multiple reasons, the first probably being that he just can't seem to play on the right-side. The second was starting off the year with an injury. The third was Vigneault.

ukcanuck wrote:You do remember that at the time of the trade, Salo had a torn Achilles and his return was in question, Erhoff was leaving for big cash ( huge contract it turns out) and Hamhuis was a UFA and garnering mucho offers and was not a lock to grab that July?


Dude, you seriously need to get your facts straight on this kind of shit. Ehrhoff was NOT leaving that July. Both Ehrhoff and Ballard were on the team the following spring when we lost in 7 to the Bruins. Ehrhoff departed for Buffalo in July of 2011. We acquired Ballard at the 2010 entry draft.

Dan Hamhuis almost certainly was a lock when you see that Nashville traded his right to Philly, and Philly then traded his rights to Pittsburgh. I think it was pretty clear that Hamhuis wanted to come home to Vancouver, and it was no secret that Gillis and the Canucks had serious interest in him. I have a feeling that if Gillis had been at all uncertain of Hamhuis' wanting to sign in Vancouver as an UFA then he would have offered up a couple of mid-late picks to Philly in order to secure him. Hamhuis signed here the day free agency opened. He was just waiting for a contract, and rumor has it he took less here than he was offered by all three of Nashville, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.

The whole point of Ballard was Gillis stocking the blueline with depth because of the injury problems our defense core had sustained over the last few seasons, it seemed like we were always playing a man or two short in the playoffs. The forward group was essentially locked up and he had a bit of room.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Meds » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:34 pm

Vader wrote:Bottom line: Ballard was brought in to perform like a top 4 d-man and he was woefully behind Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa, Old Man Salo, and Erhoff. He never at any point was a real threat to take those guys ice times. Ballard has no one to blame but himself



Disagree with this point. There were several games after he returned from injury where Ballard was playing very good hockey through the first two periods. Then he would make a mistake in the third period and end up stapled to the bench. He was often a scratch the next game. I don't think he was brought in to take the ice time of those guys. He was brought in to be a top 4 defenseman who played on the bottom pairing and could move up should one of the other guys get hurt. I'm pretty sure that Gillis was going for a blueline where the minutes were more evenly distributed so as to prevent fatigue and injury. The core that we had, barring injury, should have been able to have the "top" pairing log around 21 minutes a game, the "second" pair 20 minutes, and the "bottom" guys 19. It didn't happen that way, obviously.

We watched plenty games over the last few seasons where Ballard and Edler were both dressed and Edler was making the same mistakes that Ballard was making. Edler would continue to get his minutes and dress the following game only to continue to struggle. Ballard would be benched and scratched. This is all on Vigneault. Ballard's mistakes are his own, but when he's not being treated the same way as other players that's not his fault. Ballard handled his time in Vancouver like a true professional. He never griped, he never spoke out and tried to cast the coach or the team in a negative light, he showed up, he was a team player through and through. I hope he does very well with the Wild.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Jovocop » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:45 pm

black ace wrote:
Jovocop wrote:
black ace wrote:I hated this trade fro...Luck.


As much as you hate the Ballard trade, hindsight is 20/20. Ballard scored 33g 116a in 397 games played for both Phoenix and Florida (0.38 ppg). Besides that, he only missed 13 games in one of his five seasons before being a Canuck. At the time of the trade, the Canucks were looking for a YOUNG and DURABLE puck moving defenseman. Nobody knew Hamhuis was available as a free agent at the time. The Predators traded his rights to the Flyers. The Flyers could not sign Hamhuis and they traded him to the Penguins. Eventually, Hamhuis turned down every offer and signed with the Canucks.

Without knowing Hamhuis was available, MG chose to trade for Ballard. His contract was not bad because it provided cost certainty for a top-four defenseman. I don't think anyone would have thought that his number would dropped from 0.38 ppg to 0.11 ppg in the three seasons here.



I think your missing a couple of my points. There is no point in giving up assets for a player with a contract that you can get as a UFA. The Canucks panicked and Tallon took advantage. He was so happy to get rid of Ballard that he waived Grabner before he played a game for them. Its not just that he played poorly (he did) its also terrible asset management right before various other players were to be available for nothing.


Only if MG knew that Hamhuis was available. At the time of the trade, nobody knew Hamhuis' intention to play for the Canucks. The other two UFA young top-four defensemen at the time were Zbynek Michalek (0.28 ppg) and Paul Martin (0.41 ppg). Both ended up with a $20m for 5 years and $25m for 5 years respectively. Also, they were UFAs, meaning that they can sign anywhere they WANT. Unlike Hamhuis, Vancouver might not be one of the top choices to begin with.

The package that MG sent for Ballard + Oreskovich was Grabner + Bernier + 1st rounder. Grabner was outplayed by Raymond. Bernier could not get the job done. The 1st rounder was only traded because MG could not get the player that he wanted. It might be a bit of an overpayment but at the very least, MG got a defenseman that he "wanted" for sure.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby darren » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:36 pm

black ace wrote:I think your missing a couple of my points. There is no point in giving up assets for a player with a contract that you can get as a UFA.


And you're missing one of his. I'll repeat it: at the time, Gillis didn't KNOW he could get an equivalent player as a UFA.

Anyway, this has been done to death. Trade looked so-so at the time, and looks worse in hindsight.
User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Hockey Widow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:47 pm

I loved the trade at the time. Bieksa was almost run out of town and not one of us knew if he would be traded or be back. As others pointed out no one knew we would get Hamhuis. I hated seeing Grabner go but at the time he could not crack our line up, whether that be by his playing or AV. Grabner admitted after being waived that he didn't take advantage of opportunities he had been given and hand't yet learned to be a pro and get ready for camp. He had two years in a row where the job was his and he did not impress at camp or early int he season. His potential was always there but he was never able to seize the opportunity, until he landed in NYI.

But at the time Ballard was heralded as a top 4, smooth skating puck moving defence man with a great hip check. He had also showed durability .

He hit the injury bug the moment he arrived and never recovered, never earned AV's trust. So at the time I think it was a great trade. But I do agree MG should have found a way to dump him for anything before it came to a buyout. But he was always kept around for playoff depth. Too bad we didn't use him the year we went to the finals, it may have made a difference. I'll never forget watching game seven with both Edler and Ehrhoff unable to hit or shoot and yet a healthy Ballard sat. Tanev played with broken ribs and couldn't hit, yet Hodgson sat. So I'm not bitter at the trade but I am still bitter at the line up decisions that were made for game 7.

The Ballard deal, in hindsight, was a bad deal. For those that hated it from day one, they were vindicated. But without the benefit of hindsight I still say the deal gets done again. But I also think MG has learned. Players coming out of inferior systems have all struggled on Vancouver. It will be interesting to see how Weiss does in Detroit.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:16 pm

Meds wrote:
black ace wrote:I hated this trade from the beginning. My problem with it started with the contract. You cant give up a prospect like Grabner and a 1st rounder for a bad contract. Everyone knows free agents get over paid and the problem with Ballard's contract has been you could have signed a free agent for the same money (Much like the Canucks did with Hamhuis the same off season).

Regardless of how well he played the Canucks were going to have 5 top 4 defencemen. So even if he had come in and played well we would have had a 4 million $ defenceman playing in the 3rd pairing. What the fuck is the purpose of that ?? If Gillis had seen Ballard as a top 4 guy then why didnt he make another move to open a top 4 spot ??


Gillis' MO at the time was depth on the blueline. He wanted a top 4 guy in the #5 spot. Seriously, how could you not be happy with a blueline that looked like.....

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Ehrhoff
Ballard-Salo
Alberts
Rome

Well, I suppose Vigneault would rather have Ballard as the 7th or 8th man behind Rome and Alberts.

At the outset of the 2010-11 season, that was far and away the deepest and best blueline in the NHL. It didn't have a legitimate stud like Chara or Weber, but the only better top 2 punch out there was Weber and Suter. After that Vancouver had 5 guys that could all slot into the top 2 on any team. Ballard didn't pan out for multiple reasons, the first probably being that he just can't seem to play on the right-side. The second was starting off the year with an injury. The third was Vigneault.

ukcanuck wrote:You do remember that at the time of the trade, Salo had a torn Achilles and his return was in question, Erhoff was leaving for big cash ( huge contract it turns out) and Hamhuis was a UFA and garnering mucho offers and was not a lock to grab that July?


Dude, you seriously need to get your facts straight on this kind of shit. Ehrhoff was NOT leaving that July. Both Ehrhoff and Ballard were on the team the following spring when we lost in 7 to the Bruins. Ehrhoff departed for Buffalo in July of 2011. We acquired Ballard at the 2010 entry draft.

Dan Hamhuis almost certainly was a lock when you see that Nashville traded his right to Philly, and Philly then traded his rights to Pittsburgh. I think it was pretty clear that Hamhuis wanted to come home to Vancouver, and it was no secret that Gillis and the Canucks had serious interest in him. I have a feeling that if Gillis had been at all uncertain of Hamhuis' wanting to sign in Vancouver as an UFA then he would have offered up a couple of mid-late picks to Philly in order to secure him. Hamhuis signed here the day free agency opened. He was just waiting for a contract, and rumor has it he took less here than he was offered by all three of Nashville, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.

The whole point of Ballard was Gillis stocking the blueline with depth because of the injury problems our defense core had sustained over the last few seasons, it seemed like we were always playing a man or two short in the playoffs. The forward group was essentially locked up and he had a bit of room.

Serves me right for not double checking my facts...however, my point was that at the time defensive depth was an issue and it was certainly not a lock that Hamhuis would sign here, any kind of inside information to that affect would have been tampering, and as for Erhoff, the scuttle butt all season that year was that no hometown discount was forthcoming. So yeah he was leaving that July but it was predicted that he would not resign and Gillis had to know what kind of money he would want.

I admit I thought Salo was already hurt by draft day though, my bad on that one ...
Last edited by ukcanuck on Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:17 pm

I think we agree though Meds, Ballard was worth the gamble at the time as depth or insurance policy.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Ballard on waivers

Postby Meds » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:03 pm

ukcanuck wrote:I think we agree though Meds, Ballard was worth the gamble at the time as depth or insurance policy.


Yes.

And as for the tampering......well we all know that "never happens". :look:
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigTuna, Island Nucklehead, Lancer, TDA Rum and 1 guest