Has your opinion changed on the Reaves deal?

[ColePens]

I think it's maybe a tad too early to revisit this, but I also think it's safe to say he's had some good games and some very poor games. I want to be as true to myself as I possibly can, so i'll throw out some pros/cons.

+ He definitely plays well with Sheahan and has looked like an NHLer when not with Kuhn/Rowney. I think it's not even a debate that he's a better hockey player than Kuhn/Rowney.

+ There are about 2-3 games where I can really recall his physicality playing a big role.

+ I'm so anti-enforcer it's unreal, but watching NJ and seeing how those guys got cheap shot, I would at least make the argument that this season is NOTHING like last year in terms of the cheapshots we took night in/night out. Is it luck? Is it Reaves? It's hard to tell but it really has changed from last year. (please no jinx)

+ All around he's a damn class act and a great teammate. I know a lot of people will call shenanigans on this comment, but when you are in a locker room 24/7 with the guys, it pays huge dividends to have players like this. I know it's not reasonable to keep players just for that reason, but it really can make a work environment livable and boost the culture.


- He still can't keep up with the pace that we want to play and does not fit our identity. Being that he can't play more than 4-6 minutes a night, I would say my worries came true.

- He's not offensively gifted at all and I completely understand why he has 1 single point in 36 playoff games.

- I don't think the payment was justified. You can say we "moved down" but we kept our 1st rounder for a reason and then did that. Made no sense. Move up if anything and get a guy you really want.

- I do not want to re-sign this guy. Not even for league min.



Overall I can say he hasn't been as big of an issue as I thought he'd be. He's actually been okay and I think with 2 skilled players, he wouldn't be as horrific as he was all year with Rowney/Kuhn. So my opinion went from absolutely hating it to realizing it wasn't as bad as we all made it seem. What do you think?

Click to read more...

 

[Gurglesons]

No. We’d likely have to have Sprong or another prospect up if he wasn’t on the roster.

 

[Doogle]

No, but I liked the move from the out set. I got really tired of guys like Wilson and Dubinsky cheap shotting our stars. So far this season it doesn't seem like they're taking as much abuse. It's hard to quantify the deterrent factor, so a lot of people don't seem to believe in it, but I do.

Also, we traded basically nothing. We traded back some spots, and still got a worthwhile prospect in Lauzon. And Oskar Sundqvist is a fringe NHLer at best.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

No, except for one thing. It has to be pointed out that it was bad for Reaves, too. A 31 year old enforcer hitting free agency in this offseason was traded from a team where he fit to one where he’s had...what, 10 good games to be generous? They’ve spent a lot of this season deliberately icing worse 4th liners than they had to.

JR was met with the league giving zero f***s and made a knee jerk trade when Sestito probably would have been fine for situational use. Genius. No Cullen made it worse if he was planning on Cullen dragging crap around.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Didn’t like it at the time. Still don’t.

Maybe who we picked with the 1st could have been used in a trade already or have made it easier for us now.

I mean whatever we are still in a good spot. I don’t think Reaves has been a positive on the ice though.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The thing that I loved about when JR came on board was that for the first time in forever it seemed like the Pens had a clear understandable plan and worked together towards filling that plan. From analytics to development in the minors, for the first time you could say that a team played 'Pens' hockey' and people would know exactly what you meant. It was my biggest criticism of the Shero/Bylsma era.

And God help them they went against the grain, against conventional wisdom. They looked to their team and built around their strength and went out and got a certain type of player. Why, they questioned, why do you need to have a grinder fourth line and even third line? Why have some enforcer who enforces and stops nothing? No we will be all speed and skill, four lines coming at you constantly and you will run out of defenders before we run out of players who will light you up. You can keep up with line one. You can maybe keep up with line two. But your bottom six will never come close to keeping up with ours and you will break.

It was a revelation and everyone was amazed and tried to copy it.

And then we went out and threw it in the toilet with the Reaves trade among other moves.

I have nothing against Reaves as a player, I never thought that he was simply some useless goon.

I have a HUGE issue with the entire change of philosophy which won them two cups in a row. A change that was completely unnecessary as they had speed skill wingers to burn and build around.

So you ask the wrong question. I am not against Reaves as a player. I was at the time and remain against what Reaves represents and how he hamstrings what the Pens had been, and should be, doing.

 

[Pancakes]

I don't mind having him for the regular season. It's hard to measure statistically what he does. Maybe he's a deterrent. Maybe he's not at all. But I do know our stars are more comfortable with him around. Does that affect their play in a positive way? Again, I have no way to know. But I know Sid has always appreciated having an enforcer around. If it makes him happy, I'm all for it.

When push comes to shove he won't get a lot of minutes (or maybe even be dressed at all) in the playoffs anyways so hardly a big deal to keep him around. Sully isn't Bylsma. He'll remove Reaves from the lineup in key situations if needed.

 

[Peat]

I still hate the price and probably always will. I still wonder a little what discussions Rutherford had with other GMs about a 1st + Sundqvist for their 3C and how far he got.

As for Reaves himself...

Enforcing, well, he certainly hasn't failed. I'm not sure he's massively succeeded, there's still games that get out of control where he does nothing. But he was never going to stop everything. But I'd have thought those games he'd do more.

Play wise... the guy can play. But my worry at the start of the season that he simply wasn't able to keep up with our team has, personally, been proved correct. Which isn't a big issue on a line with a couple of other guys who'll get there quick and keep the puck and allow Reaves to get in the zone. But is on Kuhnhackl-Rowney-Reaves. None of the three should be judged on that line though.

So... I dunno, the move is, like, whatever to me. Its a thing, you know. Not good, not bad, just a thing. I'd probably lean towards good for sheer entertainment value at this point.

 

[NMK11]

Nope, hated it then, still think it was a waste now.

He costs over a million to play 6 minutes a night on our fourth line while playing bad defense and adding next to nothing on offense.

Still doesn't PK, doesn't take faceoffs, so now we have to keep people on the roster for those reasons .

Thinking that we could have spent the same assets and cap space adding someone who has more than 5 good games a year makes this worse.

Also don't really give him a lot of credit when he looks passable, because if he only looks good playing with a third line center and a third line LW, well, that's not really a plus. Kuhn only looks good next to Sheahan and Rust, I don't know why that's a mark against him but some ignore the same thing with Reeves.

I won't touch the enforcer thing, because I admit there's a lot of personal preference there and people value that very differently. But ignoring that, I don't think how you could say this was a good acquisition .

But to end on a positive note, he really does seem like a good guy and great teammate . His interviews are gold, and he's up there if you were to vote for the player you'd most want to get a beer with.

 

[Will Hunting]

Not a good deal, but I am not crazy about it as some others here. I don´t mind Reaves at all. He´s a capable 4th liner and can have a positive psychological impact on a team and also on the other team in a way. I just think with a strong team like the Pens, he needs to be in and out of the lineup, based on opposition. On the other team, he is definitely a legit full time NHLer, but with our ambitions, we can also do better than him in some particular matchups. So, all this said, I have no big problems with Ryan Reaves.

 

[brewski420]

Was not happy with the deal at the time mainly because Sundqvist was involved, not that picks were swapped. I now am not that upset about losing Sundqvist still on the fence about Reaves.

I liked what was said about him from HF Blues fans but his play just doesn't translate well for the Pens As far as a deterrent I liked the idea of it but not sure he really is one.

I am certainly not as upset about it as some and get irritated when someone says we traded a 1st for him (which is false) but still rather that deal not happened

 

[wej20]

I wouldn't bring him back. If we want an enforcer next year just sign someone at the minimum and insert him as needed, or sign someone like Chris Stewart.

 

[AverageJoeFan]

I guess I will be a dissenter amongst the group and say I like his personality and prescience on the ice. At times recently he has looked like legit hockey player. More than I can say for most enforcers. Not sure I would resign him but think he has some talent. Overpaid for him, yes.

 

[BHD]

It was and still is a bad deal. Sundqvist hasn't done anything (and maybe management expected that), but they traded a 1st for an enforcer. That said, he's made me not hate the trade as much. He's made his presence felt in some games. He knows his role and doesn't go outside of it. The only problem is that he's dressed for almost every game, but that's on Sullivan.

 

[The Greatest 101]

Well, he has been OK lately.I mean, he's a NHL player unlike the likes of Rowney, Kuhnhackle etc. Still not worth a first though.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I dont think its great or horrid. Just is what it is. Wasnt big on Sundqvist so that does bother me. We reduced the4 value of our first pick which is not the end of the world.

I wish tht we got to see him play with actual NHL players instead of Rowney and Kuhnackl. If we get the big fish 3C I think Sheahan/Reaves will work out well. But to this point he hasnt been worth it. Unless he is actually reducing cheap shots. So i dont know.

So i guess incomplete is really my answer.

 

[Peat]

It was and still is a bad deal. Sundqvist hasn't done anything (and maybe management expected that), but they traded a 1st for an enforcer. That said, he's made me not hate the trade as much. He's made his presence felt in some games. He knows his role and doesn't go outside of it. The only problem is that he's dressed for almost every game, but that's on Sullivan.

Is it?

Because it looks an awful lot to me like Sullivan has had that selection foisted on him.

 

[BHD]

Sullivan has led this team to back-to-back Cups. Wouldn’t he have final say on who plays?

 

[Peat]

Sullivan has led this team to back-to-back Cups. Wouldn’t he have final say on who plays?

You'd assume so, although I have no idea to what extent head coaches usually have the final say on who goes on the ice any given night.

But you'd also assume a coach who'll cheerily scratch just about anyone and who has majored on fast disciplined hockey would be happy to scratch an enforcer who he's only playing for about six minutes a night.

Something doesn't add up there and my guess is the unknown part of the equation is a direct order/pressure amounting to a direct order to dress an enforcer. I would guess further that this disappeared once fear of missing the play-offs really set in through the organisation.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

As mentioned previously, I think his linemates have had more of an impact on him than most people realize.

If Matt Cullen were centering him, I think we'd see a different and more effective Reaves. Heck RS made the 4th line passable at times.

With this year's roster, Reaves just wasn't a fit. Magically graft him on the previous 2 Cup teams and we still win back to back

 

[Shaffer]

+Good with Sheahan

-Sucks with Rowney

-Kostin is better

 

[Shwag33]

I'm meh... on it. However, can we still stop saying we traded a first and sundqvist? We moved down 20 spots, which the quality of players in those ranges overlap probably 10-15 spots depending on which team is evaluating. It's not nothing, but it's not a huge jump either.

Also everyone was so high on sundqvist because everyone slotted him in as our 3rd line center. The org obviously knew he wasn't going to be able to fill that role.

 

[madinsomniac]

My opinion remains about the same... the guy is Tanner glass with a bit more skill and physicality...
Is he a legit NHL 4th liner... Sure....
Is he the best option we had on the fourth line at wing, nope...
Would I move lower in the draft when a premium talent was available to get one year of him.. absofreakenlutely not.

The only real surprize positive may be that the guy is a heck of a locker room guy on a team that lost quite a bit there....


But he is here so you have to root for the guy...

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

My opinion has not changed much
I don't mind the acquisition however we overpaid to get him.
I'm sure we could have dealt a lower pick and the Blues would have done the deal anyways
Would have added a good prospect had we kept our 1st last summer

 

[Tender Rip]

I'm probably better with it than what I was, and I wasn't anyway near as negative as most. But that is also down to Sundqvist showing himself not to be much at all.
What JR wanted to get with Reaves, he got. If people find that too unquantifiable.... so be it. I would not be at all surprised to see us re-sign him.

The only problem with Reaves hockey-wise is that we didn't get our 4th line C sorted at any point of the season. He was never going to give us great possession stats or numbers, but with Rowney and Dea etc? Please.