Keith Ballard for Our First

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:39 pm

Bob McKenzie just mentioned this deal could well happen on TV.

Thoughts? I'm in favour of this because I think we're basically attempting to win soon and anyone we get out of this draft will be a non-factor in this generation's best shots at it. I don't really think this pick is THAT valuable.

I like Ballard, and for those wanting physicality and "intensity" I think he possesses both of those things. And next time I want to decapitate Luongo for a lousy goal... well there's a better chance than ever it might happen.

* Still a rumour of course, but from a credible source

Cornuck · Post by **Cornuck** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:48 pm

I'd work with that - 4.2 cap hit until 2014-15 and could play some big minutes with us.

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:00 pm

Woman on the TV just said Bernier and 1st for Ballard... which is actually a better deal in my books.

Good work by Gillis I would say, and it frees up my evening because I now have little interest in the telecast.

Cornuck · Post by **Cornuck** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:09 pm

This one looks done:

Unconfirmed reports that the Vancouver Canucks have sent their 1st round pick (25th overall) Steve Bernier and former 1st round pick Michael Grabner to the Florida Panthers for Keith Ballard (he had a no-trade clause that kicked in July 1.) and Victor Oreskovich (6'3/215).

It is also rumored that Canucks defenseman Kevin Bieksa could be on the move.

One of the rumours is that the Vancouver Canucks and Philadelphia Flyers are talking about a trade for the rights to defenceman Dan Hamhuis.

DonCherry4PM · Post by **DonCherry4PM** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:48 pm

Do NOT like this trade. Getting rid of Grabner for such a small return is total junk. Would have been fine with Ballard for Bernier and 1st, but Grabner for Oreskovich is not good value. What the Hell?

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:57 pm

Do NOT like this trade. Getting rid of Grabner for such a small return is total junk. Would have been fine with Ballard for Bernier and 1st, but Grabner for Oreskovich is not good value. What the Hell?

It's a win now move, whereby the long-term value might in fact swing in their favour, but we fill (or help fill) a hole that will allow us to make a run at the cup. Losing Grabner is saddening, but with Schroeder and Hodgson we do still have some very promising young forwards.

I don't even consider Bernier an asset, to me ditching him is a plus on our side of the ledger.

As for the other rumours: the Bolland move would be great and he would be a perfect 4th and occasional 3rd line center. Don't give anything for Hamhuis, if he's coming here, he's coming here anyway.

As for Bieksa, I do think he becomes slightly expendable, although I wouldn't move him for no return.

I'm not sure why the PM thinks the return is small, I really like Ballard and consider him a meaner Mitchell with better offense and lower age.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:05 pm

This is a horrible trade. I can't begin to start expressing how much Gillis would overpay for a pint-sized defender who has had more minus seasons than plus seasons and who's best season had 39 points (to go with his -18 rating), and who has never scored more than 8 goals. Left-hand shot. For what? Two 1st round picks (2010 and Grabner) and Bernier? Oh yeah, and $4.2 million for 28 points and -7.... Where is Gilman's capology now???

Anyone singing Oreskovich's praises? Because unless this guy outscores both Grabner and Bernier in the next two seasons, what is Gillis thinking?

I am hoping, praying and ready to sacrifice my first-born if it means Gillis' targeted player remains at 25....

Cornuck · Post by **Cornuck** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:05 pm

Just saw a profile on Victor Oreskovich, a defenseman on the Florida Panters playing this second NHL game tonight.

Anyway, he was a 2nd rounder for Colorado in 2004, cut from the team at camps in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and so he quits hockey after playing out his final year in Kitchener.

He completely quits playing and doesn't even skate for 18 months. [edit: and returns to school]

At some point in the past few months, he decides he wants to play hockey again so he calls up his old coach, Pete DeBoar, who's now with Florida.

DeBoar decides to give him a try-out and then sends him to the AHL (Rochester). After five games in the minors he gets called up.

He's 6'3", 215 and has thrown two huge hits in his four periods of play so far.

Makes 625K next season

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:10 pm

I am hoping, praying and ready to sacrifice my first-born if it means Gillis' targeted player remains at 25....

Deal still goes, but if the guy Gillis wants is there, we give them next year's pick. I think that's what I heard.

5'11'' 200 lbs. wouldn't be considered pint-sized by me. Size is only important if you're prohibitively small or towering in today's game, and Ballard is neither of those. It's what you do with it, and Ballard plays a pretty physical game from what I've seen. I like him a lot, although I do agree Grabner could develop into a good player and who knows what could have been had @ 25.

DonCherry4PM · Post by **DonCherry4PM** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:14 pm

Ballard is not the answer to our defensive woes. Hence, I don't really see this as going for win now. Rather it is more sacrificing future (both a near certain top six speedy winger and whatever the 1st would proffer) and adding a nice fat limiting cap hit - 4.2 Million for another 5 years for Ballard. Sure he is physical, sure he is better than a concussed Mitchell, but he does not give us the guy we need to cornerstone the defense. He is another top four guy that is good but not great. I would not have been adverse to Ballard for Bernier and our first. Oreskovich is whatever - a big guy with not nearly as much upside as Grabner. So now GMMG swings from skill and speed to size. Great.

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:18 pm

Ballard is not the answer to our defensive woes. Hence, I don't really see this as going for win now. Rather it is more sacrificing future (both a near certain top six speedy winger and whatever the 1st would proffer) and adding a nice fat limiting cap hit - 4.2 Million for another 5 years for Ballard. Sure he is physical, sure he is better than a concussed Mitchell, but he does not give us the guy we need to cornerstone the defense. He is another top four guy that is good but not great. I would not have been adverse to Ballard for Bernier and our first. Oreskovich is whatever - a big guy with not nearly as much upside as Grabner. So now GMMG swings from skill and speed to size. Great.

He's not the answer, but our defense is more than one player away anyway - to that end I think Ballard fills a hole on this team, and at this point, the team is better than last year's because of it. Grabner will be a nice speedy guy, but we have a surplus of that and a deficiency of the other. Look if Michael Grabner is a 20 goal guy (which is what I think) then this move is probably a wash or worse for us on paper - but in practice I think it makes us a better team in the immediate future, which is a priority because we think we have a chance to win.

Cornuck · Post by **Cornuck** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:24 pm

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)

Sid Dithers · Post by **Sid Dithers** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:51 pm

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.

I'm so-so on Grabner. He's a project player and I don't know how he'll settle in as an NHLer. I think MG may have given up a bit much here, but to get the player you want, you've got to pay. None of the losses here are crippling for the Canucks, especially if Ballard does the job. Overall, it's a reasonable trade. And I do think this greases the skids to move Bieksa.

the toucan kid · Post by **the toucan kid** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:17 pm

I take that back about next year's pick. Sorry, Draeger butchered his attempt at explaining the codicil to the deal. Miller explained it more understandably just now. So, who wants to bet MG is hoping for Tinordi?

nucklehead_88 · Post by **nucklehead_88** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:20 pm

hey everyone long time no see

well, this is an odd one, im not gunne lie its alot we're giving up, but i really dont mind saying goodbye to grabner. its not exactly like we are in desperate need of offence. i wish we could have gotten more. thats all i gotta say about the trade

Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Keith Ballard for Our First

Keith Ballard for Our First

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First (?)

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First

Re: Keith Ballard for Our First