Keith Ballard for Our First

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

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
nucklehead_88
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Maple Ridge B.C.

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Post by nucklehead_88 »

Cornuck wrote:Am I the only not sold on Grabner? Yes, he's fast - but I haven't seen him do much against NHL goalies. Sure, he had his hattrick, but only 2 goals in the other 19 games.

He should get a good chance to play in Florida, and I hope for the kid's sake, he does well. But I'm not going to cry because he's gone.

If Oreskovich is capable of being a 7-8 guy and can use his size - I'll welcome the trade.

We could also be in the hunt Hamhius, and could see Bieksa going to Philly for him. (or we just wait a week)

p.s. im not sold on him either, never seen why everyone was obsessed with him
"HE WILL PLAY, YOU KNOW HE'LL PLAY, HE'LL PLAY ON CRUTCHES...."

Jim Robson

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by DonCherry4PM »

Cornuck, Oreskovich is a RW not a defenseman. - may have been before but not now.

And I think grabner will prove to be a 30 goal scorer. Raymond didn't do much more than him in his first year.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by the toucan kid »

Alright apparently the pick does flip over to next year. Stupid TV.
And I think grabner will prove to be a 30 goal scorer. Raymond didn't do much more than him in his first year.
Not sure what one has to do with the other? I mean Grabner has a lot of gifts, but he'll have to score to have a career.

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8884
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Cornuck »

DonCherry4PM wrote:Cornuck, Oreskovich is a RW not a defenseman. - may have been before but not now.

And I think grabner will prove to be a 30 goal scorer. Raymond didn't do much more than him in his first year.
Oops - I saw him listed as a Dman on a salary page.
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

User avatar
Sid Dithers
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Sid Dithers »

Done deal. I suspect Tinordi was the guy Gillis was holding out for.
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!

Farhan Lalji

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Farhan Lalji »

I'm not sure what to think about this deal.

Ballard is actually a pretty decent defenseman, and someone that the Canucks could use, but I'm just not sure if he was worth what we gave up.

Contrary to what a few posters posted on here, I actually LIKED Grabner's upside....and thought he actually showed major flashes of brilliance throughout last season. I think Grabner could have been a major break out player for us within a couple years.

Having said that - Ballard feels a need for this team. It may not be the best deal, but beggers can't be choosers. If Gillis felt that none of the current UFA defensemen were attainable, then perhaps this was the best way to go.

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by the toucan kid »

Having said that - Ballard feels a need for this team. It may not be the best deal, but beggers can't be choosers. If Gillis felt that none of the current UFA defensemen were attainable, then perhaps this was the best way to go.
Gillis' post deal interview was interesting. He flat out said he wasn't done addressing the D, and said there's a couple players that "if they get to free agency" they will be in on. Never been more sure that Hamhuis is in the pocket. I'm not normally a proponent of listening to GM-speak, but Gillis isn't exactly slip-proof in front of the camera and that sounded a bit revealing.

Edler-Hamhuis
Ehroff-Ballard
Bieksa-Salo

Not great, but definitely better.

User avatar
woodhog
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:31 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by woodhog »

Farhan Lalji wrote:I'm not sure what to think about this deal.

If Gillis felt that none of the current UFA defensemen were attainable, then perhaps this was the best way to go.
Even better, if MG thinks he has a decent chance at Hamhuis or another top UFA Dman.

Hamhuis Salo

Ehrhoff Ballard

Edler Bieksa

Rome

Alberts

Baumgartner

Pretty good looking Defence, assuming they don't get too banged up.

Sorry, Toucan, almost the same post as yours. It's nice that we agree on something though :)

User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2357
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Lancer »

Almost a certainty that Tinordi was the guy Gillis was hoping for. Too bad, because I was hoping he'd draft Tinordi as well.

Still, Keith fucking Ballard.... Keith... fucking.... Ballard. The guy is a plug who couldn't even shine on a basement team. I don't know how 88 PIM equals rugged, especially when he's only 5'11". At $4.2 mill a year, he had better be laying people out, putting opposition players on IR, score at least 30 pts and be a plus player. Hands up who thinks he can do it? I thought not.

Victor Oreskovich, who was cut every time he went to a Colorado camp and doesn't even go to their minor pro team, quits hockey and then gets a gift job from his old junior coach. How many points did he score in 50 games? How many did Grabner have in fewer games? Can we say "C-H-A-R-I-T-Y"? DeBoer took pity on the goof and now, for some reason that baffles me, coming from an erstwhile smart guy, Gillis throws some charity at Dale Tallon. Unless Gagner can work wonders on somebody who's developmental window is close to over, WTF?

So let's recap: We take on a $4.2 mill/yr habitual minus defencemen with more weight than height, a $650k/yr charity case who Colorado never wanted after they drafted him and got to know him. We give a $2.5 mill/yr sizeable fwd who Gillis already gave away high draft picks for even though it seems he may never reach his potential. A speedy former 1st-round winger who (IMHO) will score 20+ goals a season in a couple of years and the only pick Gillis has before things become an absolute blind lawn-dart game.

If Gillis didn't care to pick in the first round after Tinordi got scooped up, why not trade down for later picks? Why take on useless salary? Don't give me that "this is a win-now' move. How does tying up $4.2 mill a year on a grossly-overpaid plug, which ties Gillis' hands either signing FAs or trading for someone else's untenable salary? Give me 5 minutes and I could think of better ways to spend $4.2 mill. Ballard has played with nothing but basement-dwelling losers and hasn't helped them be anything but. Can someone put him on a speed-bike in the rockies and get this contract off our hands?
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.

User avatar
woodhog
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:31 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by woodhog »

I think some of you are being a little harsh in your comments re Ballard.
He averages 30 pts/season. In the last 3 years he is a +14. He averages around 80 PIMs.
He plays on the PP. He kills penalties. He hits. What's not to like?
He's not 6'6" .... so what? A lot of good Dmen are his size.
Perhaps the reason he hasn't stood out in the past is BECAUSE he was on cellar dwelling teams.

Good riddance to Bernier .... he was frustrating to watch. Maybe Grabner will score 20 or 30 goals .... maybe not.
The guy MG wanted (Tinordi?) wasn't there, so no great loss in the pick.
Don't forget, Ballard was a first rounder too.
I like the move.

User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by levelheaded »

woodhog wrote: He's not 6'6" .... so what? A lot of good Dmen are his size.
Perhaps the reason he hasn't stood out in the past is BECAUSE he was on cellar dwelling teams.
I've been harping on this point for a while. The best defencemen aren't 6'5" 220lb monsters, Pronger is the exception not the rule. The three Norris trophy finalists this year were relatively small puck movers without much physicality to their game. This is not the pre-lockout era, there is no advantage to being big anymore. A defenceman who can pokecheck well while remaining positionally sound is far more valuable and better at shutting down the opposition than a bruiser. What's the best way to counter Byfuglien? Never let the other team touch the puck. Puck possession is so important, I like the trade from that perspective because our top-4 is now composed of 4 defenceman who move the puck very well and can play in both ends of the rink.

It's no coincidence that the three defencemen that people want traded are the only three that play with any sort of physical edge (Bieksa, Alberts, O'Brien). I'm not saying that toughness has no value, just that it's extremely overrated.

Is it the best trade ever? No, it's pretty fair value. We're dealing from a position of strength (fowards) to fill a need (big minute defenceman). I just hope we can deal Bieksa for a 2nd round pick or something so that we get at least one new prospect this year.

User avatar
WpgJets
CC Veteran
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:39 pm

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by WpgJets »

There was competition for Ballard, apparently, so perhaps that's why Gillis had to overpay (and I don't think by much).

I vaguely recall the strategy going forward was to sign players from teams that "know how to win".

User avatar
westvandal
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by westvandal »

What I like about him is his durability.
Hasn't missed a game in over 3 seasons.
(shit, knock on wood)
E1-E4 = I made it up.
E5 = Found it on tsn.

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by ClamRussel »

Lancer wrote:Almost a certainty that Tinordi was the guy Gillis was hoping for. Too bad, because I was hoping he'd draft Tinordi as well.

Still, Keith fucking Ballard.... Keith... fucking.... Ballard. The guy is a plug who couldn't even shine on a basement team. I don't know how 88 PIM equals rugged, especially when he's only 5'11". At $4.2 mill a year, he had better be laying people out, putting opposition players on IR, score at least 30 pts and be a plus player. Hands up who thinks he can do it? I thought not.

Victor Oreskovich, who was cut every time he went to a Colorado camp and doesn't even go to their minor pro team, quits hockey and then gets a gift job from his old junior coach. How many points did he score in 50 games? How many did Grabner have in fewer games? Can we say "C-H-A-R-I-T-Y"? DeBoer took pity on the goof and now, for some reason that baffles me, coming from an erstwhile smart guy, Gillis throws some charity at Dale Tallon. Unless Gagner can work wonders on somebody who's developmental window is close to over, WTF?

So let's recap: We take on a $4.2 mill/yr habitual minus defencemen with more weight than height, a $650k/yr charity case who Colorado never wanted after they drafted him and got to know him. We give a $2.5 mill/yr sizeable fwd who Gillis already gave away high draft picks for even though it seems he may never reach his potential. A speedy former 1st-round winger who (IMHO) will score 20+ goals a season in a couple of years and the only pick Gillis has before things become an absolute blind lawn-dart game.

If Gillis didn't care to pick in the first round after Tinordi got scooped up, why not trade down for later picks? Why take on useless salary? Don't give me that "this is a win-now' move. How does tying up $4.2 mill a year on a grossly-overpaid plug, which ties Gillis' hands either signing FAs or trading for someone else's untenable salary? Give me 5 minutes and I could think of better ways to spend $4.2 mill. Ballard has played with nothing but basement-dwelling losers and hasn't helped them be anything but. Can someone put him on a speed-bike in the rockies and get this contract off our hands?
Agreed about Tinordi, in fact my gut says MTL caught wind of who the Canucks were targeting and moved up to scoop him.

I'm disappointed in this trade because of a poor return, very poor for the value we gave up.

First of all, Grabner is fast, VERY fast and will only get better. This year was just a tease. He's not going to be a superstar, and he doesn't even have very good hands...but any guy who can generate upwards of 7 shots a game WILL score goals. 20 goal scorer? Thats worse case scenerio imo; he will eventually bag 30 even if it takes a few years. That is nothing to take lightly, he's a former 1st round pick that we've been very patient with...and now he's traded only when we're about to get some returns.

Bernier? We gave up our SECOND round pick in this year's draft to get him from Buffalo. I maintain his injury is the reason he had such a rough season this year. He would have been better next year and would have been a solid 2nd or 3rd liner possibly filling that RW slot w/ Kesler & Burrows.

Don't take our 1st pick lightly either; at worst we could have landed a decent prospect that would have added to our cupboard which has been a tad bare in recent yrs.

Ballard. This is a blueliner who is an intriguing package of skill and toughness...but strikes me as a tad dumb. First of all he's high risk much like Special Ed was and his limited offence comes w/ alot of giveaways. Last year I swear he scored more goals into his OWN net than he put up on the board for the Panthers. Lets not forget about him taking Vokoun's head off in his ultimate act of stupidity. Obviously it was accidental but it was beyond stupid...you can see in the video where Ballard realizes something went wrong, stares at Vokoun and then skates off. Anyone who's ever used a hockey stick knows the difference between a fiberglass mask and a post let alone hitting 2 objects instead of one. A blind man would know the difference. If anyone doesn't think these two incidents played a role in Florida trading him you're clueless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdyZFfFehc&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlW74VTq6yo

Now that said, I used to like Ballard alot early when he was a rookie w/ the Coyotes and I think he can still turn into a very good blueliner. Perhaps he needed a change of scenery and the chance to play for a team that doesn't suck. He won't be counted on to play roles he's not suited for so hopefully he can find a groove here. He's still young and full of upside; definitely improves our D core.

Oreskovich = WTF?!?!?

Was Gillis forced to take him? Sounds like a quitter to me, is that the character type guy MG talks about being a part of this organization? I have no idea what to think about this player, doesn't make me feel very optimistic about it.

Ultimately I wish we got more back....a 2nd or 3rd round pick would have been conceivable since they're getting 2 young players who were both 1st rounders plus the 25th...failing that I'd be much happier if the blueliner we were getting didn't have so many question marks surrounding him. If he was more of a sure bet I'd be more positive about it. That said we didn't give anything bluechip AND most importantly we got the best player in the deal. I generally agree w/ the theory that the team who gets the best player usually wins the deal so there ya go.

I'm not totally stoked about this trade and, while I don't mind that we traded them, do wish we got more in return for those assets. It depletes some of our forward depth...or is it making room for our top prospects like Schroeder & Hodgson? ...I'm ok with the fact MG is doing something and happy to see our blueline improving with his moves. In the end this is probably a fair trade and if we land another like Hamhuis I'll be impressed.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

trouble

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by trouble »

I have no problem with this trade.. You have to give stuff up to get something in return.

I'm happy we still have Hodgeson and Schroader. The Canucks have Lots of propects with skill up front

Grabner will be a good player but not as good as the two above.

Bernier was a salary dump. No one wants to have a player on the forth line or siting in the press box eating up 2 million.

As for the 25th Pick. For those who know hockey know that after the top 15 to 20 picks that there was not much there. It's time the Canucks go for it and try and bring a cup home. Giliis took that first step today

Gillis picked up a solid d-men in Ballard. He can play lots of minutes and has had a healthy carear so far. He hits hard can clear the net and can also make that first pass. Good allround D-men, But the Key is this is a team guy who hates to lose. Note: smashing his stick over the net after making a mistake (hiting the goalie by mistake)

I am glad we got a guy like Ballard then a guy who is gonna play in the minors for 5 years .. Losing Grabner sucks but thats life in hockey trades.


BTW... ballard can throw a mean hip check

http://www.nhlsnipers.com/keith-ballard ... ey-crosby/

Post Reply