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

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Fred » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:42 am

You don't have to out and out beat up an opponent to dissuade them form what any part of your action. He will fight and that's enough for most opposition. As long as they know you're going to turn up
cheers

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

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by DonCherry4PM » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:19 pm

trouble wrote: Ya when he is playing on the PP with the Sedins.. and take away he one hat trick he did Sqaut... The soft hands quote made me piss my pants..Dude you have no clue what your talking about. Go back to bed
Easy there buddy. Smack talk is what the other forums are for.

One, I am not the only prognosticator who has Grabner pegged as having very good potential. Take a look at some descriptive bios such as The Hockey News etc. and you will see others that see him with high potential to become a scoring forward.

As per a hat trick meaning nothing, I would argue it just shows he is a streaky player. Quite a few pure goal scorers are. We have only a 20 game sample size - not that much. But in those 20 games we do know that he got 11 points. That is what we have, and it isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

trouble

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by trouble » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:55 pm

DonCherry4PM wrote:
trouble wrote: Ya when he is playing on the PP with the Sedins.. and take away he one hat trick he did Sqaut... The soft hands quote made me piss my pants..Dude you have no clue what your talking about. Go back to bed
Easy there buddy. Smack talk is what the other forums are for.

One, I am not the only prognosticator who has Grabner pegged as having very good potential. Take a look at some descriptive bios such as The Hockey News etc. and you will see others that see him with high potential to become a scoring forward.

As per a hat trick meaning nothing, I would argue it just shows he is a streaky player. Quite a few pure goal scorers are. We have only a 20 game sample size - not that much. But in those 20 games we do know that he got 11 points. That is what we have, and it isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
Grabner plays a soft game and is not good defensively. He is not a third line player and we have better players in the system that can be alot better then Grabner in the top 6. His best season in the Ahl was 30 goals in a league where if you are a top player you should dominate. Anyways it's water under the bridge. I'm happy with the trade. It takes pressure off Gillis having to spend stupid money on a UFA d-men. I think you all will be surprized by Ballard and will end up loving him as a Canuck. I think we got the best player in this deal

This was a hockey trade where both teams got what they wanted. I don't think there was a winner or loser in this trade
The trade helps both teams

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

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by DonCherry4PM » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:15 pm

Still disagree, but we can both argue until we are blue in the face and we are obviously not going to come to a consensus; the only thing that is going to resolve this is a year or two to look back and see who was right. So until then. :drink:
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

Farhan Lalji

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Farhan Lalji » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:42 pm

Slightly off-topic here, but I'm wondering if the Canucks could get Kaberle out of Toronto? (a package involving Bieksa and O'Brien perhaps?). Maybe not that exact deal, but atleast something along those lines. Nonis is very high on Bieksa.


p.s._______On the subject of Grabner, I actually think that he would've blossomed well had he stayed in Vancouver. In a weird way, he reminded me of the 2007/08 Alex Burrows in that way that he had those flashes of brilliance (i.e. Burrows had a hattrick a few seasons ago against the Kings I believe).

Having said that, I think Grabner will be pissed away in Florida. Unless Florida themselves become a good team, I don't see Grabner doing much with the Panthers.

User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Lancer » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:17 pm

I'm not so much hung up on who we gave up (though I would hate to see Grabner's game take off in Florida) so much as what we got for what we gave up.

That said, upon further review my opinion of Ballard has softened but the part that kills me is still taking on a guy who may not be a top-2 defender yet making $4.2 million/yr. If Ballard was making $3.5-$3.75/yr (ie-the going rate for the top 4 in Vancouver) it would be one thing but paying $4+/yr for a 2nd-pairing Dman - to me - doesn't bode well for signing other Dmen - UFAs and extending the ones we want down the road.

It's good to hear the Ballard really wants to play in Vancouver and wants to improve his game (ie-not just satisfied with what he already brings to the ice). In the end, I look forward to seeing what $4.2 mill/yr brings Vancouver in this guy and, deep inside, I would love to be proven wrong.

As for Oreskovich... well it seems that he was a guy Gillis insisted on having in there so he must see something in the guy other than a burning desire for a university degree. That said, how many gems has Eric Crawford ever found for us? Not saying he hasn't but none come to mind.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.

trouble

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by trouble » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:41 pm

Lancer wrote:I'm not so much hung up on who we gave up (though I would hate to see Grabner's game take off in Florida) so much as what we got for what we gave up.

That said, upon further review my opinion of Ballard has softened but the part that kills me is still taking on a guy who may not be a top-2 defender yet making $4.2 million/yr. If Ballard was making $3.5-$3.75/yr (ie-the going rate for the top 4 in Vancouver) it would be one thing but paying $4+/yr for a 2nd-pairing Dman - to me - doesn't bode well for signing other Dmen - UFAs and extending the ones we want down the road.

As you are about to find out come July 1st the price for a top 4 d-men has gone up and will contiune to go up as the Cap goes up..Mitchell signed when the cap was about 20 million below what it is now and we had to pay him 3.5 million

What are you guys gonna be saying when D-men are signing for 5 to 6 million per and Gillis doesn't go for it.. Here we are again about to start a new season with the same D-men. This was a great move getting a d-men that is signed for 5 years at 4.2

trouble

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by trouble » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:33 pm

On another note... Why did Gillis decide not to pick at 25th and give up next years 1st, I know he said the players he wanted were not there. But he could have still taken the best player available. I have heard that next years Draft is not a good one

I'm thinking he wants all his picks in next years draft so he can table an offer sheet to a RFA after July 1st

Ladd maybe?

Something to watch out for after July 1st

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 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:25 am

Gillis' opinion is next year's draft is far deeper than this year's. Who knows, a year ago I heard what a strong draft this year's was and then leading up to the draft we heard how it was weak after 15. MG says they'd like to add additional picks for next year and load up on prospects then.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Fred » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:17 am

Next year the Canucks will end up with another low draft position, so they hope the draft maybe doesn't have star power but has good depth. So I suppose if you're the Laefs you want a draft with the stars if you're the Canucks to heck with the stars let's have depth
cheers

Arbour
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Arbour » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:42 am

As far as the Canucks go, isn't this a matter of logistics. Small speedy wingers they've got, NHL ready defenceman they don't. While Ballard's contract vis a vis his team mates is steep, if past deals are an indication any UFA defenceman is going to cost Gillis a premium and still produce the same, if not worse, perceived contractual disparity.

I would assume that Gillis took into account the UFA market and after having considered what was available thought trading for a younger defenceman the more prudent course even if it meant giving something up in return. Gillis can more readily target the type of player he wants with the added assurance of what that player will cost without the risks inherent in a bidding war for a UFA, the least of which is not getting the asset you wanted and then having to overpay for leftovers.

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8246
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Cornuck » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:59 am

Just read this on The Sun online:
At the insistence of Canucks' pro scouting director Eric Crawford, the team demanded that intriguing Panther prospect Victor Oreskovich be included in the deal.
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 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:01 pm

Cornuck wrote:Just read this on The Sun online:
At the insistence of Canucks' pro scouting director Eric Crawford, the team demanded that intriguing Panther prospect Victor Oreskovich be included in the deal.
I like things like this. If there's a young guy somewhere around the NHL or AHL that you like and think might be a sleeper, go get him. If someone sees a role for a guy like Oreskovich, great. Looks like somebody doing their job. You never know what can happen when you show confidence in a young guy.
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!

User avatar
Doyle Hargraves
CC Legend
Posts: 16254
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Doyle Hargraves » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:42 pm

Count me as someone who likes the trade. I like Ballard. he is a good skater, can move the puck, likes to block shots, play both special teams and he's a prick to play against. The Canucks have been too easy to play against for way too long.

I get a kick out of the naysayers whining about his contract, but they compare his deal to deals guys signed three or four years ago when there was a 40 million dollar cap. He is a 4 million dollar D-man and if guys like Mitchell, Erhoff etc were healthy and signing their next contracts they would be cashing in for 4 - 5 per. Not every contract is a bargain ffs.

Add another nasty prick who plays with a brain and wave goodbye to SOB and KB.

Keep up the good work Gillis.
“ROR IS OVERRATED, MACKINNON IS A BUM, TAVARES IS DONE”

Jelly
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:20 am

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Post by Jelly » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:51 pm

Oresk kid is well known to Dave Gagner apparently, and honestly, a kid that works his way from 2 years out of the league onto a NHL roster is nothing to sneeze at, even though it was the Panthers. At worst, we know he'll give 110% every night as a fourth line checker, not bad for a 675k cap hit. Remember Glass and Rome? People were ready to fire MG on the spot when those two were signed, and after seeing them in training camp and pre-season games, I knew they would step up and contribute last year.

Btw, the kid is a Canadian kid, just have a whacked out last name.



Ballard is a great 2nd pairing dman, for those saying 4.2 is too much, the cap ceiling is at 59.4, he's at 7.07% of the total cap. When Willie was signed at 3.5, the cap was at 50.3, 6.96%.

Pretty much the same amount, and considering Willie took a home town discount, the current deal for Ballard isn't that bad, and the cap is only going to go up from now anyways.

We need to take a step back, and realize that we got a very good defensemen who played on a very poor team and still manage to produce. Erhroff was said to be a total bust and look at what happened this year!

I have enough faith in GM MG, and this deal will be proven to be the 3rd deal we have ripped the Panthers off in a row.
This signature hates SOB as much as the guy who wrote this signature.

Post Reply