Oskar Sundqvist is on pace for 20 goals. Is the Ryan Reaves trade JR’s worst?

[Shady Machine]

Gotta go with Brassard. Reaves is actually solid in Vegas too so it´s not like we were trading for a useless player there... Brassard is pure trash tho.. acoording eye-test, stats, charts, everything. And the price for him was pretty big.

Oh stop. Ryan Reaves was pure trash here, misused or not. By the same logic, when Brass is traded and goes back to being a 50ish point 2C, will your point of view change?

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Many players are misused and yet manage to not play as badly as he did. If Reaves had underperformed slightly, you can put in on the coach. He was downright useless except for a handful of games. You can only blame deployment so much. It's not like Reaves is playing with some world-beaters in Vegas now. Sometimes a player just doesn't work for a particular team. See Perron, David. Here it's always exclusively the coach's fault somehow.

... and sometimes, a player is misused. See Reaves, Ryan.

Oh stop. Ryan Reaves was pure trash here, misused or not. By the same logic, when Brass is traded and goes back to being a 50ish point 2C, will your point of view change?

Brass is playing in a role he doesn’t want to play in, and it’s had a negative impact on his game.

Apples to oranges with him and Reaves.

 

[Shady Machine]

If you're going to bemoan that trade for one of the assets going the other way, you're better off being upset about downgrading the first for a 2nd (which they wasted on Lauzon). IMO, Sundqvist isn't the big deal of the two assets given up.

I bemoan both!

 

[Peat]

Sprong-Petterson is a close 2nd??? How in the world?

I agree with your perspective on how to judge a trade, but geez no idea how Sprong vs Pettersson at the time of trade leads to that conclusion.

Quite.

If anything, given most of the proposed/hoped for trades involving Sprong that were posted up leading to that trade, it might actually be one of Rutherford's best as pretty much nobody expected to get back a young NHL ready player with upside.

 

[Shady Machine]

I think all of the Perron trade, the Reaves trade and the Brassard trade are contenders in here, assuming you're looking at the trades in hindsight. If you're just looking at the trades at the time, the Despres trade is the worst followed by the Reaves trade. The Brassard and Perron trades weren't bad at the time, they just didn't work here.

I'd probably put a higher emphasis on the trades at the time than how they panned out (I don't think Brassard and Perron not panning out means the original trade was horrible), so I'd rank them:

1. Reaves trade
2. Despres trade
3. Perron trade
4. Brassard trade
5. Pouliot trade (because they got literally nothing for him and Pouliot can play everyday)

Yup this is how I look at things too. Solid post.

Not sure I'd put Perron or Brassard trades that high on the list, but can't think of many others to put higher. I guess wasting picks on Winnik might be up there because I didn't think that team had a shot in hell of doing anything in the playoffs.

 

[Icarium]

... and sometimes, a player is misused. See Reaves, Ryan.

Yes, so? I didn't deny that he was misused. The point is you can't put his failure here to his misuse only. He showed nothing that could have forced any coach to give him more ice time, it's not like he was playing well and Sully stubbornly refused to play him more.

 

[Shady Machine]

Brass is playing in a role he doesn’t want to play in, and it’s had a negative impact on his game.

Apples to oranges with him and Reaves.

Sort of. Both players are being misused and it negatively impacted them. You can't on one hand say that Reaves trade was fine because Reaves is being totally misused, but on the other hand criticize the Brassard trade and only judge him based on his play here.

The reality is that both players didn't pan out and misuse has been a part of it. I'll agree that GM and Coach seemed on totally different wave lengths with Reaves and that may have been a bigger factor in his performance here. Having said that, I watched Reaves here and he deserves plenty of blame for his ineffectiveness. I can't quite figure out why but he just wasn't any good aside from lack of playing time. You know his game more than me though, so I won't make too big a deal out of it.

Anyway, in my view the price paid was high and the GM/Coach needed to be on the same page in his usage if JR was going to pay that price. Based on that, it was a total flop and one of the worst trades in JR's tenure.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yup this is how I look at things too. Solid post.

Not sure I'd put Perron or Brassard trades that high on the list, but can't think of many others to put higher. I guess wasting picks on Winnik might be up there because I didn't think that team hot a shot in hell of doing anything in the playoffs.

This was the other legit contender for the #5 spot for me, I went with Pouliot over the Winnik trade because they at least got a few games of competence at the NHL out of Winnik. They got nothing out of the Pouliot trade.

I think the only debate other than that would be Perron vs Brassard for 3 and 4. On one hand, the Perron trade was really good in value. It was a warm body LWer and a late 1st for a prime aged 2nd line LWer. That's good value on paper. I think you can definitely argue that the Penguins paid a lot for Brassard at the time, Cole, Gustavsson and a 1st for Brassard wasn't cheap and it bordered on overpaying. On the other hand, the Penguins flopped after the Perron trade and their pick ended up 16th overall, which was Matt Barzal. Brassard has been worse for the Penguins than Perron was and they gave up more for Brassard than Perron, but it hasn't had the negative consequences of trading a pick that ended up being a franchise center.

 

[Shady Machine]

Yes, so? I didn't deny that he was misused. The point is you can't put his failure here to his misuse only. He showed nothing that could have forced any coach to give him more ice time, it's not like he was playing well and Sully stubbornly refused to play him more.

True but it's clear that JR and Sully either 1.Didn't really know what they were getting with Reaves or 2.Weren't on the same page with how to utilize him.

The other issue for Reaves was our entire bottom 6 was trash last year until after they brought in Sheahan. They had McKegg-Rowney as bottom 6 centers and I don't even want to remember what other garbage was there. It's likely Reaves would have been better with a good center. Either way I agree Reaves wasn't good here and the trade was BAD.

 

[BHD]

I forgot about Winnik. That could be added.

 

[turd]

That wasn't even remotely the point of what I was saying. You said "why judge trades at the time instead of how they worked out?". I pulled up a horrendous trade right now that would have resulted in a positive because of a cup win and an insane run by Reaves. According to the argument you made, you shouldn't say it was horrible because it ended up a positive.

How about another example, let's say the Penguins traded Rust for a rental Ferland. They won the cup with Ferland having a strong run, but he walks after the year. Was that a good trade because the Penguins won the cup, or was it terrible because they traded an equivalent player with term and a good contract for a rental?

If my team makes a trade, and the player we get in return is an impactful player on a championship winning team, that’s a good trade. I don’t give a shit if he’s a rental or whatever. Championships are hard to come by. You don’t not make a trade that can put you over the top because you might lose a cost controlled player. Unless you’re the Pirates.

 

[Shady Machine]

Voted the Hunwick trade. Sacrificed a quality player to get rid of an overpaid one.

The combination of Hunwick + Sheary and then signing Johnson makes that one a doozy for me.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If my team makes a trade, and the player we get in return is an impactful player on a championship winning team, that’s a good trade. I don’t give a **** if he’s a rental or whatever. Championships are hard to come by. You don’t not make a trade that can put you over the top because you might lose a cost controlled player. Unless you’re the Pirates.

So trading an equivalent, cost controlled player for a rental is a fine trade as long as you win a cup? This wouldn't be a move that "can put you over the top", it's trading a middle-6, cost controlled winger for a rental middle-6 winger. There is no improvement there, just getting a player who has fewer years of control and you coincidentally win the cup.

And in your first sentence, that means you'd be happy with Crosby for Reaves if Reaves would have an insane playoff run then. That's literally what you're saying, you don't care what your team gives up as long as the player you acquire has an impact on a cup winning team.

 

[Pengwins]

if we had Ian Cole last year instead of Brassard we may have 3-peated

 

[Empoleon8771]

if we had Ian Cole last year instead of Brassard we may have 3-peated

 

[Andy99]

Sprong-Petterson is a close 2nd??? How in the world?

I agree with your perspective on how to judge a trade, but geez no idea how Sprong vs Pettersson at the time of trade leads to that conclusion.

Because the Pens just gave up a young goal scorer they drafted who had potential to get a 5-6 D man with a lower ceiling....again, maybe Sprong sucks and maybe Pettersson helps us to a Cup playing on the second or third pairing...but still, there was zero urgent reason to trade Sprong...worst case, hold on to him as the 13th forward...they have players they can send up and down for a roster space...there was no reason to make a decision right then on a 21-year-old player in his first NHL season—none...that makes the trade unnecessary and even if they like Pettersson and wanted to trade for him, there are other ways to go about getting him

 

[Don'tcry4mejanhrdina]

if we had Ian Cole last year instead of Brassard we may have 3-peated

No, if we had anybody not named Sid or Jake who could score, they may have 3-peated.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Because the Pens just gave up a young goal scorer they drafted who had potential to get a 5-6 D man with a lower ceiling....again, maybe Sprong sucks and maybe Pettersson helps us to a Cup playing on the second or third pairing...but still, there was zero urgent reason to trade Sprong...worst case, hold on to him as the 13th forward...they have players they can send up and down for a roster space...there was no reason to make a decision right then on a 21-year-old player in his first NHL season—none...that makes the trade unnecessary and even if they like Pettersson and wanted to trade for him, there are other ways to go about getting him

Okay, so it's a bad trade for reasons you're making up. Glad we cleared that up

 

[Shady Machine]

Because the Pens just gave up a young goal scorer they drafted who had potential to get a 5-6 D man with a lower ceiling....again, maybe Sprong sucks and maybe Pettersson helps us to a Cup playing on the second or third pairing...but still, there was zero urgent reason to trade Sprong...worst case, hold on to him as the 13th forward...they have players they can send up and down for a roster space...there was no reason to make a decision right then on a 21-year-old player in his first NHL season—none...that makes the trade unnecessary and even if they like Pettersson and wanted to trade for him, there are other ways to go about getting him

First off, what makes you think he has a lower ceiling? I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are stating it as fact. Both players were drafted around the same time in the draft (Sprong 46th overall in 2015; Pettersson 38th overall in 2014) and Pettersson was actually more proven as an NHLer with 22 games as a 20 year old and 27 games as a 21 year old prior to this season. The fact that he played that many games that young shows you the type of potential he has, especially on a team with a lot of good young dmen.

Just because there was zero urgent need to trade him (although one could say the need was getting urgent because you had a depreciating asset on your hands), doesn't mean it was a brutal trade.

Please tell me how they would have pried a promising proven and young NHL defender from Anaheim?

It's okay to have your opinion, I just have no idea how you can look at both players objectively and come to the conclusion that this was a brutal trade the moment it was made.

 

[turd]

So trading an equivalent, cost controlled player for a rental is a fine trade as long as you win a cup? This wouldn't be a move that "can put you over the top", it's trading a middle-6, cost controlled winger for a rental middle-6 winger. There is no improvement there, just getting a player who has fewer years of control and you coincidentally win the cup.

And in your first sentence, that means you'd be happy with Crosby for Reaves if Reaves would have an insane playoff run then. That's literally what you're saying, you don't care what your team gives up as long as the player you acquire has an impact on a cup winning team.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I’m more than thrilled to trade a middle 6 cost controlled winger for a rental if they win the Cup and that player was impactful in them doing so. I make that trade 10/10 times and never look back.

I’m not even addressing your Reaves-Sid goalpost shift, because we are talking about Despres and Lovejoy (or at least I was). Two players of relative equal value. I have no problem whatsoever trading players like that if you think it makes the team better. I am more concerned with them winning Cups than keeping players on friendly deals or whatever it is you’d prefer.

 

[BHD]

if we had Ian Cole last year instead of Brassard we may have 3-peated

Ian Cole played on part on those teams, but you're overrating him here. That's like saying this team repeats in 2010 if they still had Gill and Scuds.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Sort of. Both players are being misused and it negatively impacted them. You can't on one hand say that Reaves trade was fine because Reaves is being totally misused, but on the other hand criticize the Brassard trade and only judge him based on his play here.

The reality is that both players didn't pan out and misuse has been a part of it. I'll agree that GM and Coach seemed on totally different wave lengths with Reaves and that may have been a bigger factor in his performance here. Having said that, I watched Reaves here and he deserves plenty of blame for his ineffectiveness. I can't quite figure out why but he just wasn't any good aside from lack of playing time. You know his game more than me though, so I won't make too big a deal out of it.

Anyway, in my view the price paid was high and the GM/Coach needed to be on the same page in his usage if JR was going to pay that price. Based on that, it was a total flop and one of the worst trades in JR's tenure.

I think you can say Reaves being misused was on Sullivan, but Brassard not being used in the correct role isn’t really Sullivan’s fault.

I’ve gone over how poorly Reaves was used by Sullivan, and I feel that’s been proven to be spot on as he’s been successful everywhere else. Really don’t feel like reshashing it anymore though TBTH.

JR was also given a directive from high up to get protection for his stars. So I’m not going to blame him when he was told by his bosses get this done, and he gets the Crosby of enforcers only to have to watch Sullivan completely botch it.

At least he turned Reaves into some kind of asset in the Brassard trade, because Reaves was 100% walking last summer, and I wouldn’t have blamed him.

With the Brassard trade, many of us thought he pulled a major coup. It hasn’t worked out, but people here want to have their cake and eat it, which is stupid.

For years we pleaded for a GM that would take chances and go for it. Now we have that GM, and you have to expect some misses when he makes big deals like we’ve been clamoring for.

 

[Andy99]

First off, what makes you think he has a lower ceiling? I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are stating it as fact. Both players were drafted around the same time in the draft (Sprong 46th overall in 2015; Pettersson 38th overall in 2014) and Pettersson was actually more proven as an NHLer with 22 games as a 20 year old and 27 games as a 21 year old prior to this season. The fact that he played that many games that young shows you the type of potential he has, especially on a team with a lot of good young dmen.

Just because there was zero urgent need to trade him (although one could say the need was getting urgent because you had a depreciating asset on your hands), doesn't mean it was a brutal trade.

Please tell me how they would have pried a promising proven and young NHL defender from Anaheim?

It's okay to have your opinion, I just have no idea how you can look at both players objectively and come to the conclusion that this was a brutal trade the moment it was made.

I never said the trade was brutal...not sure where that’s coming from...I just gave my opinion that it was JR’s second worst trade...I view it as such because there was very little legit reason to trade Sprong (not cap, roster space etc)...we can disagree on his potential just like we can disagree on MP’s but you can’t say what he’s going to be as a nhl player after a handful of games in the nhl...MP had quite a few more games btw...if the trade was about getting MP in particular, he was an extra on Anaheim’s defense-stocked team....they likely could have gotten him for a pick or something other than their top prospect at the time...I view the trade as premature and unnecessary at the time, which makes it a bad trade imo

 

[Icarium]

How exactly is Brassard misused? All the opposition's attention is on Sid and Geno and he still can't produce much, even with Kessel on his line.

 

[Peat]

Just because there was zero urgent need to trade him (although one could say the need was getting urgent because you had a depreciating asset on your hands), doesn't mean it was a brutal trade.

I considered arguing to this effect. I'm not sure I'd consider it as having been urgent, but there's certainly something to it.

But in any case, it wasn't urgent to keep him. Not when he was slipping down the depth chart and didn't look like he had a development path that was easy for him to follow.