Nice revisionist history. Ballard was traded for before the team signed Hamhuis, we all knew we needed to upgrade the D, and Mitchell hadn't played since January of that year. At the time, as far as anyone knew, Mitchell was one step away from being in Lindros territory if he got another knock on the head.[/QUOTE]
Truth in what you say here but also have to recognize that the Canuck management could have handled this better.
I think many realized that in picking up Ballard we were picking up a possible bad contract. There is little doubt that Florida saw the move as salary dump. Prior to the acquisition of Hamhuis maybe that was simply a chance we had to take.
However, once we got Hamhuis then the Canucks might well have been looking to move Ballard along. I know, at the time, this was suggested. I know this was a minority opinion but it had some value since it seemed apparent that Ballard would be playing in bottom pairing and his salary was too high for this position on the team.
Moreover, once the season began, it became quickly clear that Ballard was playing no where near up to his salary. At the time, I and others said that there should be serious consideration of dumping Ballard one way or another. I know I got lambasted for suggesting that Ballard should have been waived and moved (like Redden) to the minors. This would have opened up some serious cap space to get the kind of player needed for more success in the playoffs. In addition, given Ballard's injury problems and his play there was little chance he was going to get picked up so he might have remained available for the playoffs. As it turned out, the team stuck with Ballard and the possibly of using his cap space more wisely was lost. And in the playoffs, Ballard was non-existent.
In the end, the team is probably going to have to buy out Ballard and get nothing for him. If they have moved him quickly there is a chance they could have got something for him (maybe a mid round draft). Moreover by getting him out of here early they could have used his cap space.
You are right about the Mitchell situation. That is totally hindsight. But, there were some as early as the acquisition of Hamhuis who were worried about the Ballard situation. And not long into Ballard's first season some of us very much wanted the Canucks to correct the situation. Thus I don't think you can say this is all revisionism and just hindsight.
Truth in what you say here but also have to recognize that the Canuck management could have handled this better.
I think many realized that in picking up Ballard we were picking up a possible bad contract. There is little doubt that Florida saw the move as salary dump. Prior to the acquisition of Hamhuis maybe that was simply a chance we had to take.
However, once we got Hamhuis then the Canucks might well have been looking to move Ballard along. I know, at the time, this was suggested. I know this was a minority opinion but it had some value since it seemed apparent that Ballard would be playing in bottom pairing and his salary was too high for this position on the team.
Moreover, once the season began, it became quickly clear that Ballard was playing no where near up to his salary. At the time, I and others said that there should be serious consideration of dumping Ballard one way or another. I know I got lambasted for suggesting that Ballard should have been waived and moved (like Redden) to the minors. This would have opened up some serious cap space to get the kind of player needed for more success in the playoffs. In addition, given Ballard's injury problems and his play there was little chance he was going to get picked up so he might have remained available for the playoffs. As it turned out, the team stuck with Ballard and the possibly of using his cap space more wisely was lost. And in the playoffs, Ballard was non-existent.
In the end, the team is probably going to have to buy out Ballard and get nothing for him. If they have moved him quickly there is a chance they could have got something for him (maybe a mid round draft). Moreover by getting him out of here early they could have used his cap space.
You are right about the Mitchell situation. That is totally hindsight. But, there were some as early as the acquisition of Hamhuis who were worried about the Ballard situation. And not long into Ballard's first season some of us very much wanted the Canucks to correct the situation. Thus I don't think you can say this is all revisionism and just hindsight.
