Has your opinion changed on the Reaves deal?

[Jaded-Fan]

Now i can't confirm with any stats or any real information that Reaves is doing his job, but I can say the abuse the team takes (every player) is MUCH less this year than last. Maybe that's because the game is switching more to speed. Maybe it actually is Reaves. Maybe it's just luck. Maybe it's Sully telling Sid/Geno to stay out of the corners for the time being. Maybe it's Sid/Geno just playing a softer game the first half of the season. I have no clue.

But i've noticed a lot of the post whistle stuff is gone. It seems like the whistle blows and the players move on about their way. Last year it was punches, shoves, crosschecks, etc. If anything Oleksiak/Reaves are doing that to other teams as opposed to us getting it. When I watched the Flyers/Jackets the other day it was brutal. And then the Devils were getting abused the entire game.

Now that could all change in the next 20 games. The only game that stood out all year where our stars took punishment is the Dallas game. Dallas targeted Kessel/Geno hard. They really knocked those 2 off their game and Oleksiak/Reaves had a bad game.

Pittsburgh Penguins, 26.5% power play percentage, 1st in the NHL.

2017-18 NHL Team Special Teams Stats

I am guessing that is more effective than anything to make teams think twice about taking liberties.

 

[NMK11]

I didn't. If you want to talk about career points production, Reaves and Adams are almost neck and neck, Adams have had a few better seasons when he entered the league, but tempered by the fact that he played more games over his long tenure than Reaves has:

Reaves P/GP : 0.124
Adams P/GP: 0.168

That 4% seems like a lot now, but it really doesn't amount to a whole lot over the course of the careers (should Reaves play as long).

Other relevant career offensive stats:
Shooting % : Reaves 11.2, Adams 6.0
Point share : Reaves 3.3, Adams 1.9
CF% : Reaves 47.9, Adams 45.9
Takeaways: Reaves 0.151/GP, Adams 0.112

Hits
Adams 1.25/GP, Reaves 3.11

So on and so forth.

Reaves is also hampered by way less ice time (since he doesn't PK here and saw his ES TOI drop a minute since he was traded to the Pens). So again, it's really hard to judge Adams as the superior offensive player, unless we're really splitting hairs and being specific about what criteria we're making that judgement call on. We can say that Reaves is definitely the more physical player with some certainty, though.

But that's not what I'm trying to do. Using some stats language, I'm saying Adams is non-inferior to Reaves. And honestly that's enough for me, if you're trying to make his production a toss up to one of the worst regular players we've had the past decade, that looks really bad. That's what I was trying to do with Kuhn earlier with jiggy but in not sure he got my point. Saying Reaves is no better on the ice than Adams or Kuhn is damning in my mind. But still, people defend his play.

And no argument on the physical aspect of his game, Reaves has been good from a hitting standpoint, by no means is he a new Orpik (except from his point totals the past few years. Sorry, I can't help myself)

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

As a player, I loved guys like Reaves on my team.

I'm guessing a lot of people who hate it, haven't or don't play the actual sport on actual teams with actual refs and actual plays.

I'm surprised stronger, skilled players are so rare--necessitating the trade of assets to acquire.

You hate to play the “have you ever played the game” card, but when posters start spouting off no one is intimidated by Reaves my eyes roll hard. I can’t imagine anyone who has played pretending like Reaves wouldn’t give them cause for self preservation when he is on the ice.

NHLers just conveniently short stride to pucks when he’s coming because they forgot how to skate for a moment....

 

[XanderCrews34]

Ok, fine, forget sestito. Just brought him up as another fighter. I'm in no way saying sestito is better than Reaves, as I stated in my previous post. But I think it's telling that your harping on one admittedly poor comparison I made and ignoring the Adams comparison from a production standpoint.

I won't jump on the Adams comp too much because I'm assuming it's already been covered but Reaves of '17-'18 exceeds Adams' averages for the entirety of his Penguins tenure (including when he was actually useful) in almost every single advanced metric and if you take away '11-'12 from Adams (which was farrrrrrr and away his best year) it shows really no comparison.

Adams was getting 11-12 minutes a night for 5 YEARS STRAIGHT. Of course he'll have a couple extra points here and there to artificially boost numbers.

Wow, in '08-'09 Adams got over 70% oZS%. That's insane.

The main point is that Adams did have some usefulness when he was at his peak. But even his peak production lags behind Reaves on a per/minute basis and leaves Adams as only very slightly better defensively (some years) and a significantly worse offensive player nearly every season. Any advantage Adams holds statistically boils down entirely into usage.

 

[HandshakeLine]

But that's not what I'm trying to do. Using some stats language, I'm saying Adams is non-inferior to Reaves. And honestly that's enough for me, if you're trying to make his production a toss up to one of the worst regular players we've had the past decade, that looks really bad. That's what I was trying to do with Kuhn earlier with jiggy but in not sure he got my point. Saying Reaves is no better on the ice than Adams or Kuhn is damning in my mind. But still, people defend his play.

And no argument on the physical aspect of his game, Reaves has been good from a hitting standpoint, by no means is he a new Orpik (except from his point totals the past few years. Sorry, I can't help myself)

But taking out the thing he's expressly good at to comparing him to someone who was no better and then saying they're even is disingenuous, no?

Essentially, when that happens, it's basing an argument on the 4th line solely as a point producing entity so as to avoid anything that might complicate or disprove the original assertion. No personal offense intended, but it drives me nuts because this board can have much better discussions than that.

Edit: God, I hate switching between Czech and English, I always leave out prepositions and my word order goes all weird. Hope this post makes sense!

 

[HandshakeLine]

You hate to play the “have you ever played the game” card, but when posters start spouting off no one is intimidated by Reaves my eyes roll hard. I can’t imagine anyone who has played pretending like Reaves wouldn’t give them cause for self preservation when he is on the ice.

NHLers just conveniently short stride to pucks when he’s coming because they forgot how to skate for a moment....

I mean, hell, even fighting aside, who would you rather take a hit from? Kuhn or Reaves?

I still feel that if given more ice time and a better center, we'd be seeing a lot more of that from Reaves like we did over the last few games (barring the last one), but that comes down to Sullivan, not Reaver.

 

[XanderCrews34]

I mean, hell, even fighting aside, who would you rather take a hit from? Kuhn or Reaves?

I still feel that if given more ice time and a better center, we'd be seeing a lot more of that from Reaves like we did over the last few games (barring the last one), but that comes down to Sullivan, not Reaver.

Exactly. I mean if Reaves got 3rd line minutes and an odd shift here and there with Malkin and Crosby it's practically a guarantee his per minute scoring would increase. And even if it stayed about the same scoring rate per minute at 11-12 minutes, he'd easily be somewhere in the 12-15 point range. He'll still probably hit his career high in points this season (if he keeps playing well enough to stay on the ice) even with his minutes being lower than his career average.

So when you consider that's what JR wanted when he went out and made the trade...and if you consider that it's likely he's had something to do with the reduced amount of abuse Malkin and Crosby are taking this season...I'd say it's worth it overall even if it wasn't necessarily a home run trade. But saying "worth it" is enough for me.

 

[ColePens]

Pittsburgh Penguins, 26.5% power play percentage, 1st in the NHL.

2017-18 NHL Team Special Teams Stats

I am guessing that is more effective than anything to make teams think twice about taking liberties.

That's a very very very good point. But the difference from last year to this year is pretty astonishing, IMO.

 

[Shady Machine]

That's a very very very good point. But the difference from last year to this year is pretty astonishing, IMO.

I guess I'm just seeing what I want to see, because I haven't noticed anything materially different in that department. Most of the incidents people have pointed out were in the playoffs.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I mean, hell, even fighting aside, who would you rather take a hit from? Kuhn or Reaves?

I still feel that if given more ice time and a better center, we'd be seeing a lot more of that from Reaves like we did over the last few games (barring the last one), but that comes down to Sullivan, not Reaver.

Reaves would scare the piss out of me. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

I could certainly handle myself on the ice when I was younger. However, I was keenly aware of certain guys I knew that would put me in a mayonnaise jar if I set them off.

Just seems absurd that some posters want to speak for every player in the entire NHL and say none of them are intimidated by Reaves.

Intimidation exists, and so does pain and injuries.

Ask Dubinsky's face all about that, and Kassian can't throw the kind of bombs that Reaves can when he's lit.

 

[NMK11]

But taking out the thing he's expressly good at to comparing him to someone who was no better and then saying they're even is disingenuous, no?

Essentially, when that happens, it's basing an argument on the 4th line solely as a point producing entity so as to avoid anything that might complicate or disprove the original assertion. No personal offense intended, but it drives me nuts because this board can have much better discussions than that.

Edit: God, I hate switching between Czech and English, I always leave out prepositions and my word order goes all weird. Hope this post makes sense!

To an extent, yes, only looking at production from a fourth liner is unfair. But to me, the deterrent/fighter point is something people fundamentally disagree on, and I see both sides as valid so I don't get into that. The other things fourth liners do are things like PK, faceoff specialist, sometimes PP specialist, and Reaves does none of that. And if we're being honest, we aren't looking to roll a stereotypical fourth line like old time hockey anyway.

Its the same thing I've said over and over, if you want him as a deterrent, fine, just say that and I won't take exception or argue. But he doesn't produce points, PK, or take faceoffs like other fourth liners so let's stop trying to pretend otherwise or I'm going to keep pointing out that you're trying to defend someone who produces at the same rate as Craig f***ing Adams.

And no worries on your English, it's probably better than mine.

 

[HandshakeLine]

So, you don't want anyone to hit on your fourth line? I think that's silly, and it's even crazier that you keep dancing around that. But while I may think that's an odd definition of a fourth line, I commend you for at least spelling it out.

 

[NMK11]

So, you don't want anyone to hit on your fourth line? I think that's silly, and it's even crazier that you keep dancing around that. But while I may think that's an odd definition of a fourth line, I commend you for at least spelling it out.

I think anyone can hit on any line and doesn't need to be a reason to keep anyone. And after the past few years of watching us vs the blue jackets or the caps how can you prioritize hitting vs being able to roll four good lines? He's good at hitting, absolutely, but enough to make up for everything else? Nope. I'm not dancing around it, I actually addressed it a few posts ago.

And those are just the stereotypical fourth line "roles" that people bring up other than fighting that people use to justify not scoring, ala Kuhn and Rowney. Was there something I missed? What would you define as a fourth liner?

 

[HandshakeLine]

I think anyone can hit on any line and doesn't need to be a reason to keep anyone. And after the past few years of watching us vs the blue jackets or the caps how can you prioritize hitting vs being able to roll four good lines? He's good at hitting, absolutely, but enough to make up for everything else? Nope. I'm not dancing around it, I actually addressed it a few posts ago.

And those are just the stereotypical fourth line "roles" that people bring up other than fighting that people use to justify not scoring, ala Kuhn and Rowney. Was there something I missed? What would you define as a fourth liner?

But that's patently untrue, no offense. Hitting takes a certain combination of size, skill and strength. It's tough to blow people up and Reaves can do that, like Kunitz and Orpik used to. It's not the only way to build a 4th line, but to deny that it's even a consideration is weird and goes against the experiences of anyone who's had any time in the game at all. You do NOT like going into the corner against a good hitter. You do NOT like playing 7 games against a team that can do that.

Here's what the issue is, and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting: you're inflexible about what a 4th line needs to be because you either don't like the idea of physical hockey or because if it worked last year, it has to work this year. For you, it's just scoring, primarily. On the other hand, I'd like to see a 4th line that has the potential to be physically damaging, decently defensively sound, and pop in goals, but we have a stacked top 9, so I'm not expecting L4 to carry the weight.

And again, you misunderstand my point- I'm not saying that Reaves is necessarily the best player for that position or that line. Just that you minimize anything physical in order to make the point that Reaves is unnecessary when there's better ways of making the same point that don't rely on weird assumptions like "anyone can hit."

 

[Jaded-Fan]

People are turning this issue, like most get turned, into a black or white question with no room for in between.

Reaves is not useless, I never thought that he was. He brings things to the table, including hitting and yes, intimidation to keep the idiots in check somewhat.

The question is not if he is a completely useless waste of humanity.

The question is whether what good he brings to the team outweighs what bad he brings. And by bad I am talking about both the messing up of the bottom six composition which got away from players like Reaves as well as the misguided notion that he cost a first (yeah I know that he actually did not but most of the fan base seems to believe that) so needs to be used more than he should be used. His salary also could have been used to find that center.

If he were used in a very very limited situational way and as a bottom of the barrel depth role then I doubt that many would have had a problem with him. If he cost what guys like Jamie Oleksiak or Sheahan cost then I think most would be thrilled with the pickup assuming that he would be used properly.

So it is not really that Reaves is a bad player, or that he cost too much, or that he has no use for this team. It is that he is not a great fit and should be used sparingly and situationally and is not because on another team who is made up in a different way he could play a much larger role.

 

[NMK11]

But that's patently untrue, no offense. Hitting takes a certain combination of size, skill and strength. It's tough to blow people up and Reaves can do that, like Kunitz and Orpik used to. It's not the only way to build a 4th line, but to deny that it's even a consideration is weird and goes against the experiences of anyone who's had any time in the game at all. You do NOT like going into the corner against a good hitter. You do NOT like playing 7 games against a team that can do that.

Here's what the issue is, and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting: you're inflexible about what a 4th line needs to be because you either don't like the idea of physical hockey or because if it worked last year, it has to work this year. For you, it's just scoring, primarily. On the other hand, I'd like to see a 4th line that has the potential to be physically damaging, decently defensively sound, and pop in goals, but we have a stacked top 9, so I'm not expecting L4 to carry the weight.

And again, you misunderstand my point- I'm not saying that Reaves is necessarily the best player for that position or that line. Just that you minimize anything physical in order to make the point that Reaves is unnecessary when there's better ways of making the same point that don't rely on weird assumptions like "anyone can hit."

So first, when I said anyone can hit, I meant that it's not a "fourth line" thing. There are top 9 players who hit well, it's not something that only fourth liners can be good at.

Second, I want my fourth line to be the best hockey line it can be, not filled with people who only play because they fight (Reaves), PK (Kuhn), or take faceoffs (Rowney). It's not just scoring, but if your going to tell me that Reaves is good in his own end too then I'm just going to stop because he's just lost more times than not in his own zone. And yes, I'd rather have more possession and scoring over more hitting any day of the week. I don't think I'm inflexible on my fourth line, but Reaves brings nothing to it except that he can hit. I'm sure we could have traded a decent prospect (at the time) and down the draft for someone who could throw some hits and contribute more in either zone. I feel like the way the NHL is now being fast, skilled, and maintaining possession is more important than hitting and being big.

But now we've moved the goal posts yet again to saying he should play because he's physical and is a good hitter rather than trying to defend his production. So I think I'm done with this for a bit.

 

[cassius]

I guess I'm just seeing what I want to see, because I haven't noticed anything materially different in that department. Most of the incidents people have pointed out were in the playoffs.

Yep... and it's doubtful Reaves even dresses in the playoffs. Or if he does, he might play 3 min a game vs. his current 6:45

So much Jay Caufield logic around here.. making my head hurt.

That logic may have been fine in the 90's, but it's 2018. Enforcers are going the way of beta-max, CD's, and DVD's - that is just the reality of the situation.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

People are turning this issue, like most get turned, into a black or white question with no room for in between.

Reaves is not useless, I never thought that he was. He brings things to the table, including hitting and yes, intimidation to keep the idiots in check somewhat.

The question is not if he is a completely useless waste of humanity.

The question is whether what good he brings to the team outweighs what bad he brings. And by bad I am talking about both the messing up of the bottom six composition which got away from players like Reaves as well as the misguided notion that he cost a first (yeah I know that he actually did not but most of the fan base seems to believe that) so needs to be used more than he should be used. His salary also could have been used to find that center.

If he were used in a very very limited situational way and as a bottom of the barrel depth role then I doubt that many would have had a problem with him. If he cost what guys like Jamie Oleksiak or Sheahan cost then I think most would be thrilled with the pickup assuming that he would be used properly.

So it is not really that Reaves is a bad player, or that he cost too much, or that he has no use for this team. It is that he is not a great fit and should be used sparingly and situationally and is not because on another team who is made up in a different way he could play a much larger role.

I don't get this "Reaves doesn't fit" argument people keep bantering about.

The Pens are tearing up the league, so his presence doesn't prevent them from winning. I think that has been more than proven at this point.

He also played a big hand in helping them win a couple of the last several games as well by scoring a huge goal and setting one up. So he has proven quite capable of helping out with big plays at times.

So where is he hurting or not fitting in, exactly? He's a better player than Kuhn and Rowney, and they won cups with them in the lineup.

The only legit argument is all of them together on the same lineup... especially the same line. However, that's not Reaves fault that Sullivan does dumb shit like that.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Nah, I hate fights. Hate goons. Always have.

What I don't like is following a league that refuses to protect its stars, and there are plenty of people in this thread:

- living in denial about what Malkin and Crosby went through last season and trying to pretend this season is similar... or they admit the abuse isn't nearly as bad, but think it's the PP.

- that don't understand what it's like to be a GM with two generational talents that were fed up with the abuse.

- that have have trouble wrapping their heads around what asset mgmt is. Keeping your two generational talents as safe as can possibly be expected with zero help from the league, is the best asset mgmt possible.

Can't help but shake my head at posters who would rather have seen JR sit on his hands and draft some prospect they wanted, and trade off Crosby and Malkin's health.

I don't think you'll ever convince those against the Reaves trade.

In the summer it was "Reaves' presence won't change anything. Sid and Geno will take just as much abuse because players aren't scared of Reaves glaring at them from the bench".

Then as the season wears on and Sid and Geno are getting abused much less, the narrative becomes, "Oh, uh, it's because of the PP, not Reaves".

I'm convinced some folks won't give him any credit for what he's done unless he literally follows Sid and Geno around the ice and mauls anyone who even comes within five feet of them.

 

[cassius]

I don't get this "Reaves doesn't fit" argument people keep bantering about.

The Pens are tearing up the league, so his presence doesn't prevent them from winning. I think that has been more than proven at this point.

He also played a big hand in helping them win a couple of the last several games as well by scoring a huge goal and setting one up. So he has proven quite capable of helping out with big plays at times.

So where is he hurting or not fitting in, exactly? He's a better player than Kuhn and Rowney, and they won cups with them in the lineup.

The only legit argument is all of them together on the same lineup... especially the same line. However, that's not Reaves fault that Sullivan does dumb **** like that.

So Reaves 6 minutes of ice time per night is clearly the driver of the Pens recent success? And if we removed him from the lineup - we would start losing games?

I'm sorry - that is just really bad logic. Contributions from key players like Malkin, Kessel, Letang, Murray, and others are the driver behind the success - not a guy who has an insignificant impact on every game. It is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

That is tantamount to suggesting that the Pens don't win the cup without Craig Adams in the lineup. We all know that isn't true.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Calling Reaves an enforcer is pretty disingenuous to him.

Also, if we can play Georges Laraque for three rounds in 2008, why can't we play Ryan Reaves for four?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I don't get this "Reaves doesn't fit" argument people keep bantering about.

The Pens are tearing up the league, so his presence doesn't prevent them from winning. I think that has been more than proven at this point.

He also played a big hand in helping them win a couple of the last several games as well by scoring a huge goal and setting one up. So he has proven quite capable of helping out with big plays at times.

So where is he hurting or not fitting in, exactly? He's a better player than Kuhn and Rowney, and they won cups with them in the lineup.

The only legit argument is all of them together on the same lineup... especially the same line. However, that's not Reaves fault that Sullivan does dumb **** like that.

We are back to the black and white argument. I never, even at the time of the trade, claimed that he was a bad player per se. Or useless to the Pens. Etc.

I am not going to state again what I did above as my reasons for believing at the time of the trade, and even more so now, that he is not a good fit. Or to reiterate my concerns which remain. Reread what I posted above for that.

So yes, you are right. The Pens are on a tear, Reaves has contributed some, I will even grant the minor benefit of holding the morons of the league in check. It does not change my opinions on him on the team or how the bottom six should be constructed for the best chance to win a third cup.

 

[cassius]

Calling Reaves an enforcer is pretty disingenuous to him.

Also, if we can play Georges Laraque for three rounds in 2008, why can't we play Ryan Reaves for four?

Dude.. what should we call him? Lol.. A big physical guy who fights often, has 32 goals and 800PIM in 500 career games is LITERALLY definition of an enforcer.

It's not 2008 anymore. The game has changed a lot in 10 years. Enforcers are just a dying breed at the end of the day.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

We are back to the black and white argument. I never, even at the time of the trade, claimed that he was a bad player per se. Or useless to the Pens. Etc.

I am not going to state again what I did above as my reasons for believing at the time of the trade, and even more so now, that he is not a good fit. Or to reiterate my concerns which remain. Reread what I posted above for that.

So yes, you are right. The Pens are on a tear, Reaves has contributed some, I will even grant the minor benefit of holding the morons of the league in check. It does not change my opinions on him on the team or how the bottom six should be constructed for the best chance to win a third cup.

Constructed, in terms of what, exactly? Speed? Skill?

2016 - Fehr and Kuhnhackl were the wingers on the 4th line. Neither were burners.

2017 - We won the Cup with Carter friggin' Rowney playing 20 of the 25 games, taking a regular shift when he did play.

Both years, the Pens played a winger (Kuhnhackl and Rowney) who aren't better than Reaves. Yet it didn't exactly hurt the Pens from playing "their game". Why is Reaves suddenly going to prevent the team from doing so when Kuhn and especially Rowney didn't?

 

[Jag68Sid87]

People are turning this issue, like most get turned, into a black or white question with no room for in between.

Reaves is not useless, I never thought that he was. He brings things to the table, including hitting and yes, intimidation to keep the idiots in check somewhat.

The question is not if he is a completely useless waste of humanity.

The question is whether what good he brings to the team outweighs what bad he brings. And by bad I am talking about both the messing up of the bottom six composition which got away from players like Reaves as well as the misguided notion that he cost a first (yeah I know that he actually did not but most of the fan base seems to believe that) so needs to be used more than he should be used. His salary also could have been used to find that center.

If he were used in a very very limited situational way and as a bottom of the barrel depth role then I doubt that many would have had a problem with him. If he cost what guys like Jamie Oleksiak or Sheahan cost then I think most would be thrilled with the pickup assuming that he would be used properly.

So it is not really that Reaves is a bad player, or that he cost too much, or that he has no use for this team. It is that he is not a great fit and should be used sparingly and situationally and is not because on another team who is made up in a different way he could play a much larger role.

Ryan Reaves does not mess up the bottom six, and never has. Carter Rowney ruins the fourth line. If Matt Cullen were still here, playing WITH Reaves and Dominik Simon (for example), we probably would have the best fourth line in the NHL right now. When Greg McKegg was centering the fourth line, we were fine.

The Reaves haters have turned the issue of the fourth line into a Reaves issue, when it has never been that. Reaves is not the reason Cullen left, nor is he the reason our fourth line has struggled at times this year. And it has nothing to do with the change in fourth line philosophy. It has everything to do with the fact Rowney is about as bad as a fourth-line center gets.

The moment we get a better fourth center for this team, this whole issue will no longer exist. Even Sullivan will want to keep Reaves in the lineup at that point. But the key is getting rid of Rowney.