Confirmed with Link: Keith Ballard bought out

Jack Tripper

Vey Falls Down
Dec 15, 2009
7,250
64
Perth, WA
really liked him as a person, and at the beginning really liked him as a player...i remember an early preseason game in edmonton his first year where he was all over the ice and looked to be a dynamite acquisition

he still has the tools, hopefully he can regain his confidence in minnesota (which i think he will)...he's easily a bottom pairing d-man on an average nhl team and can move up to play top-4 minutes when injuries dictate
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,419
Vancouver, BC
Who cares about his Corsi numbers? At $1.5M, I'm sorry, Keith Ballard is a total steal. He's going to hit, he's going to block shots, and he's probably going to be given some room to join rushes, maybe even play on the PP in Minnesota.

Seriously?

"Who cares if he's an atrocious possession player, because when they're constantly pinned in their zone when he's on the ice, he'll BLOCK LOTS OF SHOTS!"

As well, given that every other Canuck defender was allowed join the rush in what's been a very offense-oriented team over the past 3 seasons, the notion that for some reason Ballard wasn't allowed to is ludicrous. And he did rush the puck plenty - it just never led to anything because the rest of his skills are so poor.

And if he plays on the PP, well, that sucks for the Wild.

he still has the tools, hopefully he can regain his confidence in minnesota (which i think he will)...he's easily a bottom pairing d-man on an average nhl team and can move up to play top-4 minutes when injuries dictate

Not picking in you in particular, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts. You see it written all the time, but what on earth is it based on?

A guy like Booth who has had struggles over the past couple years, yeah, this is true. You can see the skills, you can see him have great games, you can see him have stretches of games when he's productive. Even though we haven't been getting value, you can still have some degree of optimism that he can come back and score 20-25 goals, because, yes, his skills are still there.

But Ballard? This guy has been *consistently* undersized, ineffective, and chasing the play since he's been here. Looked like nothing other than a marginal NHL defender. Rarely had standout games, never had a productive 5-game or 10-game stretch. Showed few legitimate tools that would make you think he could be productive again.

Exactly what makes him different from Mike Komisarek and Colby Armstrong? Because nobody says 'oh, they've still got the tools' for those guys - it's obvious that they're just guys who burned out early and can't compete at a high level anymore.
 

Wilch

Unregistered User
Mar 29, 2010
12,224
487
he still has the tools, hopefully he can regain his confidence in minnesota (which i think he will)...he's easily a bottom pairing d-man on an average nhl team and can move up to play top-4 minutes when injuries dictate

Like Booth, Ballard is a toolbox without tools.

Both seem to be in above average to great physical condition, both are decent skaters (not great due to average agility), but just don't have the hockey sense or vision to put it all together.
 

Castle1*

Guest
Like Booth, Ballard is a toolbox without tools.

Both seem to be in above average to great physical condition, both are decent skaters (not great due to average agility), but just don't have the hockey sense or vision to put it all together.

Fair enough. But those who compare Barker's skill with Ballards and state Barker was better are complete idiots. AV, for whatever reason, threw common sense out the window when he played plugs ahead of Ballard. Very bizarre decision making imo.
 

Alexistheman

Registered User
Jun 28, 2007
1,480
2
Surrey
Good luck to Mr.Ballard, all the best, and I hope he can prove all the haters wrong. Playing in his hometown might give him the extra something he needs.
 

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,017
2,854
victoria
I doubt it. There were zero signs in 3 years here that he was a good player.

He and Tanev were our best pairing for an good chunk of games to start the season. He has had some good stretches, you've just chosen not to see them.

End of the day, AV's system unfortunately played to Ballard's weaknesses and away from his strengths. Not uncommon for players to be "system players" in that they require a certain system or philosophy to really thrive. We need the cap space and Ballard is the obvious choice, but he's still a useful NHL player. How quick he was picked up testifies to that.

I thought he handled him self with class and hope he re-finds his game.

As for "make AV look stupid"...pretty hard to argue with the results of AV's tenure even if it ultimately came up short.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,419
Vancouver, BC
He and Tanev were our best pairing for an good chunk of games to start the season. He has had some good stretches, you've just chosen not to see them.

End of the day, AV's system unfortunately played to Ballard's weaknesses and away from his strengths. Not uncommon for players to be "system players" in that they require a certain system or philosophy to really thrive. We need the cap space and Ballard is the obvious choice, but he's still a useful NHL player. How quick he was picked up testifies to that.

I thought he handled him self with class and hope he re-finds his game.

As for "make AV look stupid"...pretty hard to argue with the results of AV's tenure even if it ultimately came up short.

Ballard and Tanev was never our best pairing.

You hear about this from the LA series as well, where Ballard played 13 sheltered minutes/game without really hurting the team and would get one scoring chance and was suddenly our 'best defender'.

Guys playing 25 minutes are going to make more mistakes than guys playing 15 because they're out there so much more, and against better players instead of scrubs.

Playing decently well in 15 minutes doesn't make you the 'best pairing'. If you gave Edler that icetime against those players, he'd absolutely destroy those minutes.

And I agree that he handled himself with tons of class, and would have really liked for him to have turned it around here and play well. Good for him if he does elsewhere.
 

arsmaster*

Guest
Ballard has never been part of our best pair, ever.

He looked impressive with Tanev to start the year against sheltered competition. Not a good player, he was our 9th defensman this past year.

Blocked shots are a stupid reason to think a players good at defense....we masked it while he was here, but most of Ballard's blocks are due to his ineptitude to clear the puck and his own giveaways.

Ballard isn't a steal, unless he's making the league minimum. Ballard at $1.5m isn't a steal, it's about in line with what players like him get in free agency after scoring 17 points in his last 162 games.

He's an 8 point defensman over the course of a season, who has barely scraped by winning his matchups against lesser competition.

Time to move on and be happy for both the Canucks and Keith Ballard.


edit ^^^^^^^

LOL!
 

Jack Tripper

Vey Falls Down
Dec 15, 2009
7,250
64
Perth, WA
Not picking in you in particular, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts. You see it written all the time, but what on earth is it based on?

it's based on his play as a top pairing d-man while he was injury-free in phoenix and florida and stretches of play last season

like another poster said (and analagous to the booth thread), i never claimed he had the toolbox, but i don't see his problems being as serious as flameouts like komisarek, armstrong, or other players who simply can't compete at a nhl level anymore...

in the right situation, if he played like his did for the first 25 games for the canucks in 2013 he's fine as a 1.5 million depth d-man...you can repeat like a broken record that there's nothing to base this on but you only have to look back at stretches of last season where he logged more than serviceable minutes when he was healthy
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
at a certain point, i think you just have to accept that other people saw a different player in ballard than you did.

and i think you maybe also would be better off just let people say their goodbyes without trolling the thread with the same laundry list like a certain someone with the sedins, or a certain someone else with luongo, or a certain someone else with burke (where did that guy go, anyway?), etc. etc.
 

LolClarkson*

Guest
Fair enough. But those who compare Barker's skill with Ballards and state Barker was better are complete idiots. AV, for whatever reason, threw common sense out the window when he played plugs ahead of Ballard. Very bizarre decision making imo.
Its hard not to agree with this.

Even some of my freinds who are not huge hockey fans made comments about Barkers bad play.
 

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,017
2,854
victoria
Ballard and Tanev was never our best pairing.

You hear about this from the LA series as well, where Ballard played 13 sheltered minutes/game without really hurting the team and would get one scoring chance and was suddenly our 'best defender'.

Guys playing 25 minutes are going to make more mistakes than guys playing 15 because they're out there so much more, and against better players instead of scrubs.

Playing decently well in 15 minutes doesn't make you the 'best pairing'. If you gave Edler that icetime against those players, he'd absolutely destroy those minutes.

And I agree that he handled himself with tons of class, and would have really liked for him to have turned it around here and play well. Good for him if he does elsewhere.

Okay, fair enough, so let me rephrase: Ballard-Tanev handled their minutes better than the other pairings did to start the season. Sure they were easier minutes, but all teams have those easy minutes and need defenders that can win them.

You're making it sound like he doesn't even belong in the league. He's a solid player, but isn't very schematically versatile.

Blocked shots are a stupid reason to think a players good at defense....we masked it while he was here, but most of Ballard's blocks are due to his ineptitude to clear the puck and his own giveaways.

"most"? C'mon.

Ballard isn't a steal, unless he's making the league minimum. Ballard at $1.5m isn't a steal, it's about in line with what players like him get in free agency after scoring 17 points in his last 162 games.

He's an 8 point defensman over the course of a season, who has barely scraped by winning his matchups against lesser competition.

Time to move on and be happy for both the Canucks and Keith Ballard.
[/QUOTE]

IMO he'd be good value at $3 - $3.5m by the end of the season.
 

denkiteki

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
3,767
6
If nothing else, Ballard defines being a professional NHL player. Despite being treated unfairly (at least in my opinion and probably opinion of quite a few other 'nucks fan) by AV, he never once complained to the public (or for that matter, there wasn't any news of him complaining at all... and its pretty hard to hide anything when it comes to Canucks + hockey).
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,419
Vancouver, BC
at a certain point, i think you just have to accept that other people saw a different player in ballard than you did.

and i think you maybe also would be better off just let people say their goodbyes without trolling the thread with the same laundry list like a certain someone with the sedins, or a certain someone else with luongo, or a certain someone else with burke (where did that guy go, anyway?), etc. etc.

Probably fair enough.

The opinions posted here on Ballard really blow my mind because so much of it is so obviously incorrect. It's like having everyone you talk to tell you the sky is green and the earth is flat.

Okay, fair enough, so let me rephrase: Ballard-Tanev handled their minutes better than the other pairings did to start the season. Sure they were easier minutes, but all teams have those easy minutes and need defenders that can win them.

You're making it sound like he doesn't even belong in the league. He's a solid player, but isn't very schematically versatile.

I've said several times that he's probably an OK #6-7 defender. He's very marginal, and after his play for the past three years, I'm at a loss as to how that's a controversial opinion. 'Solid player' is *really* over-stating it, IMO. He's quite simply not solid defensively at all, and if he's scoring at the rate he's scored at for the last 3 seasons, he's an exceptionally marginal asset. At any price.
 

Rotting Corpse*

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
60,153
3
Kelowna, BC
I did not think much of Ballard as a player but I do think perhaps AV went a bit far at times. I took no issue with playing Aaron Rome over Ballard, because I think Rome was pretty decent here overall (fans seemed to mostly dislike him for not being a name-player than any sort of rational reason, IMO,) but I can't really justify AV playing Cam Barker over Ballard as he did at some points near the end of last season. That is quite the stretch. And playing Corrado was a gamble as well (although I heard AV always prefers bad veterans and doesn't give chances to rookies! What an odd dichotomy...)
 

Outside99*

Guest
I really wish for Ballard that his career gets back on track as he maintained a pro attitude here despite struggling to fit into AV's way. I recall him talking passionately about watching game tape with Tanev and I thought dayum (probably got benched by AV 2 games later), its not for a lack of effort.
 

yoss

Registered User
May 25, 2011
3,006
37
Never thought he got a fair shake from AV during his time here, but without wanting to get into that I wish him well wherever he ends up going. I personally was a fan, stood up for teammates and thought he played really solid overall for the first half of this last season.

I could see a fresh start somewhere else being good for him and his career after his time in Vancouver.
 

Rotting Corpse*

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
60,153
3
Kelowna, BC
I really wish for Ballard that his career gets back on track as he maintained a pro attitude here despite struggling to fit into AV's way. I recall him talking passionately about watching game tape with Tanev and I thought dayum (probably got benched by AV 2 games later), its not for a lack of effort.

I can imagine how frustrating it must be to constantly try to figure something out and not be able to get there. We certainly should not conflate performance with personality; Ballard is by all accounts a great individual and grade-A teammate, and he ought to be commended for that. It does not make him a great player nor does it mean we should feel sorry for him; for all the whining about his "mistreatment" he is handsomely compensated and his positive attitude will lead him to having a longer leash than a combination of similar performance and worse attitude likely would.

I think that fans want him to be a good player so badly because they liked his character and attitude. While fair, a want of something does unfortunately not make it so. Irrespective of his best heart and desires, Keith Ballard was simply not a good player for us and is another indictment of our pro scouting department, who perhaps made the same mistake.

Too often fans want to attribute poor performance to "lack of effort" or some sort of character flaw. Sometimes poor performance is just poor performance. There is no reason to read any sort of personality problem into poor performance, nor is there any reason to read good performance into good personality.
 
Last edited:

Outside99*

Guest
I can imagine how frustrating it must be to constantly try to figure something out and not be able to get there. We certainly should not conflate performance with personality; Ballard is by all accounts a great individual and grade-A teammate, and he ought to be commended for that. It does not make him a great player nor does it mean we should feel sorry for him; for all the whining about his "mistreatment" he is handsomely compensated and his positive attitude will lead him to having a longer leash than a combination of similar performance and worse attitude likely would.

I think that fans want him to be a good player so badly because they liked his character and attitude. While fair, a want of something does unfortunately not make it so. Irrespective of his best heart and desires, Keith Ballard was simply not a good player for us and is another indictment of our pro scouting department, who perhaps made the same mistake.

Too often fans want to attribute poor performance to "lack of effort" or some sort of character flaw. Sometimes poor performance is just poor performance. There is no reason to read any sort of personality problem into poor performance, nor is there any reason to read good performance into good personality.

Sometimes it is lack of effort, sometimes its apparent lack of effort but I agree that wasn't his problem. But the coach and player were oil and water (nothing wrong with either?) and I agree its on pro scouting for not recognizing this.
 

member 202355

Guest
Finally. Too bad Francesco Aquilini is too greedy to buy out Luongo.
 

member 202355

Guest
How much would it have cost him to buy him out? I hated the situation/result, but probably too much to be considered "greedy" for it.

Luongo would've cost many millions of dollars but the Aquilini family are billionaires. Can't they help the franchise they own become a better team?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->