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

[Mr Jiggyfly]

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.

He’s not misused. He’s not playing over Malkin or Crosby, but he’s not suited to be a third line pivot, nor does he want to be.

Unfortunately, these are things you don’t find out until after a trade has happened.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

Worst without knowing the results or worst after having some perspective of how it turned out?

I think the Brassard trade made sense at the time it just hasn't worked out. The Sheary trade's problem is the Hunwick signing. The Perron trade didn't work out initially at the time (it led to HBK, so...), but seemed fine at the time. I thi k the Despres for Lovejoy trade sucked, but Despres was not liked by management, so at least there is some rationale for it. Reeves + 50 for Sundqvist +30 just is a poor trade. I think that's the answer. Good question.

 

[Shady Machine]

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

I guess we have different views of some of JR's other trades then if you think it was 2nd worst trade.

Again, you are inventing that MP could have been had for a pick. There is no evidence this is the case.

Anyway, agree to disagree.

 

[Peat]

I'm surprised at how many people seem to be (or are explicitly) only judging on values and needs on the day of the trade itself rather than on results. I get only wanting to judge the GM for what they can actually control, but surely making a correct judgment on whether whether the guy is actually a good fit or not is something the GM is partially responsible for?

 

[BigEezyE22]

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 Rust for Ferland landed cup #6, it's absolutely worth it.

Parades are held for winning, not stockpiling reasonable depth contracts.

 

[Peat]

If Rust for Ferland landed cup #6, it's absolutely worth it.

Parades are held for winning, not stockpiling reasonable depth contracts.

But it is extremely unlikely that that would be the trade that made the difference. And also that it would be the only way you could get Ferland, meaning the price paid would be easily criticized.

 

[The Old Master]

in most of these trades you can find a line of reasoning. bad reasoning but still reasoning. so I had to vote for the lovejoy for fatty trade. there was no reasoning what so ever.

 

[Shady Machine]

I'm surprised at how many people seem to be (or are explicitly) only judging on values and needs on the day of the trade itself rather than on results. I get only wanting to judge the GM for what they can actually control, but surely making a correct judgment on whether whether the guy is actually a good fit or not is something the GM is partially responsible for?

Fair point. GM's obviously need to think about cost to acquire, fit, how a coach will use the player, and the player's interest in said use.

I'm having trouble putting a ton of blame on JR or Sully for the Brass thing though. Yes they paid a premium price and yes Brass has always been a 2C, but he was a solid 200 foot player and the preferred model was always to have Kessel on line 3. xxx-Brass-Kessel as a 3rd line sounds good to most reasonable minds.

I chalk that one up to lessons learned, but I want my GM taking those kind of calculated risks.

So at least for me, that one wasn't horrible because the price paid was fair for the player and I thought the fit would have worked better.

 

[BigEezyE22]

But it is extremely unlikely that that would be the trade that made the difference. And also that it would be the only way you could get Ferland, meaning the price paid would be easily criticized.

And anyone criticizing the move afterba Cup win would be nuts. Whether it's THE move that put the Pens over the top or one of a dozen moves that gets them there, it doesn't matter. Think about how many teams HAVEN'T won the Cup in Rust's lifetime, let alone his career. A win in 19 would be the 5th Pens cup since he was born, the 6th in Pens history and would put them in sole possession of most championships of any non-Old 6 team.

Putting a couple seasons worth of a very good, not even great, winger at a reasonable price above THAT prize is insane.

 

[Peat]

Fair point. GM's obviously need to think about cost to acquire, fit, how a coach will use the player, and the player's interest in said use.

I'm having trouble putting a ton of blame on JR or Sully for the Brass thing though. Yes they paid a premium price and yes Brass has always been a 2C, but he was a solid 200 foot player and the preferred model was always to have Kessel on line 3. xxx-Brass-Kessel as a 3rd line sounds good to most reasonable minds.

I chalk that one up to lessons learned, but I want my GM taking those kind of calculated risks.

So at least for me, that one wasn't horrible because the price paid was fair for the player and I thought the fit would have worked better.

I want my GM to take risks, but if he takes one that doesn't pay off, the blame's on him. If he takes the credit when they go well, he should be taking the blame when it goes bad - no matter how much people might have expected it to work. The only exoneration I buy is the injury that happened at the worst time - maybe things went differently without it.

And anyone criticizing the move afterba Cup win would be nuts. Whether it's THE move that put the Pens over the top or one of a dozen moves that gets them there, it doesn't matter. Think about how many teams HAVEN'T won the Cup in Rust's lifetime, let alone his career. A win in 19 would be the 5th Pens cup since he was born, the 6th in Pens history and would put them in sole possession of most championships of any non-Old 6 team.

Putting a couple seasons worth of a very good, not even great, winger at a reasonable price above THAT prize is insane.

Its not putting it above, its acknowledging a potentially very sketchy level of causation and therefore the things being two different things.

And also acknowledging that bad trades can be made in seasons where great things happen.

 

[BigEezyE22]

Fair point. GM's obviously need to think about cost to acquire, fit, how a coach will use the player, and the player's interest in said use.

I'm having trouble putting a ton of blame on JR or Sully for the Brass thing though. Yes they paid a premium price and yes Brass has always been a 2C, but he was a solid 200 foot player and the preferred model was always to have Kessel on line 3. xxx-Brass-Kessel as a 3rd line sounds good to most reasonable minds.

I chalk that one up to lessons learned, but I want my GM taking those kind of calculated risks.

So at least for me, that one wasn't horrible because the price paid was fair for the player and I thought the fit would have worked better.

My bigger issue with that trade was that it never felt like the Pens had it last year and maybe were in greater need of a recharge/regroup than spend big to draw out a mediocre finish.

In fact, that's almost what it felt like in '17...a couple 3rd rounders for depth D seemed more like, "oh well, we'll see what happens" than Go Big or Go Home.

 

[Shady Machine]

I want my GM to take risks, but if he takes one that doesn't pay off, the blame's on him. If he takes the credit when they go well, he should be taking the blame when it goes bad - no matter how much people might have expected it to work. The only exoneration I buy is the injury that happened at the worst time - maybe things went differently without it.

Being consistent is good so I'm fine with that. I just don't think it ranks highly in his worst trades.

 

[Shady Machine]

My bigger issue with that trade was that it never felt like the Pens had it last year and maybe were in greater need of a recharge/regroup than spend big to draw out a mediocre finish.

In fact, that's almost what it felt like in '17...a couple 3rd rounders for depth D seemed more like, "oh well, we'll see what happens" than Go Big or Go Home.

The difference was that Brass was here for this year so that's what made it okay with me. Having said that, Brass is struggling this year and apparently asked for a trade, so yeah, it was a flop.

I'll put it this way, if my GM is trading 1sts, I want them packaged for talented impact players with term vs over achieving rentals.

 

[BigEezyE22]

The difference was that Brass was here for this year so that's what made it okay with me. Having said that, Brass is struggling this year and apparently asked for a trade, so yeah, it was a flop.

I'll put it this way, if my GM is trading 1sts, I want them packaged for talented impact players with term vs over achieving rentals.

That is true, as well as Vegas holding $1m plus in salary. All those together made it seem like a sound deal that just didn't pan out.

 

[Will Hunting]

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?

Yeah, maybe it will. But there is a significant difference between what we gave up for Brassard and Reaves. Significant. And they are/were performing very similarly here. Brassard is shockingly bad by every metrics. It´s a fact. And we gave up a LOT for him.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yeah, maybe it will. But there is a significant difference between what we gave up for Brassard and Reaves. Significant. And they are/were performing very similarly here. Brassard is shockingly bad by every metrics. It´s a fact. And we gave up a LOT for him.

Is there?

I guess it just comes to the fact we swapped pick positions and gave up a progressing prospect for a UFA 4th liner that averages eight minutes versus a couple UFAs, a first and a prospect that was a couple years away for a player that was supposed to balance our center depth and had a year more on his deal.

 

[Peat]

Is there?

I guess it just comes to the fact we swapped pick positions and gave up a progressing prospect for a UFA 4th liner that averages eight minutes versus a couple UFAs, a first and a prospect that was a couple years away for a player that was supposed to balance our center depth and had a year more on his deal.

Sundqvist was a prospect who hadn't progressed fast enough, didn't fit the system and had hit waiver eligibility. Giving him up was nowhere near as important as you seem to be saying.

 

[Will Hunting]

Is there?

I guess it just comes to the fact we swapped pick positions and gave up a progressing prospect for a UFA 4th liner that averages eight minutes versus a couple UFAs, a first and a prospect that was a couple years away for a player that was supposed to balance our center depth and had a year more on his deal.

Yeah, we downgraded 31st pick to 50th in a weak draft.. It´s not really giving up a 1st rounder. While we gave up a clean 1st rounder, Cole and Gustavsson for Brassard. That IS a significant difference if you ask me.

 

[Gurglesons]

Sundqvist was a prospect who hadn't progressed fast enough, didn't fit the system and had hit waiver eligibility. Giving him up was nowhere near as important as you seem to be saying.

When you’re walking away from Bonino and Cullen I think it is. Granted I don’t think JR knew Cullen would walk at that point.

Not to mention he was also moved for a player that didn’t fit the system.

 

[JackFr]

If Rust for Ferland landed cup #6, it's absolutely worth it.

Parades are held for winning, not stockpiling reasonable depth contracts.

Rust for Ferland is at best a sideways move in the short term, and a loss in the long term.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yeah, we downgraded 31st pick to 50th in a weak draft.. It´s not really giving up a 1st rounder. While we gave up a clean 1st rounder, Cole and Gustavsson for Brassard. That IS a significant difference if you ask me.

I guess, but there is a significant difference between that package and the player we thought we got versus the Sundqvist + for a Reaves deal.

 

[Peat]

When you’re walking away from Bonino and Cullen I think it is. Granted I don’t think JR knew Cullen would walk at that point.

Not to mention he was also moved for a player that didn’t fit the system.

Sundqvist hadn't reached the level where the identity of the bottom 6 centres were relevant as they were pretty much guaranteed to be better than him regardless. There's a reason he was passed by Rowney.

 

[tom_servo]

I'll stand by the Brassard trade as a coup at the time, but I'm not really digging how Oskar freakin' Sundqvist is outpacing him.

 

[cheesedanish87]

Sunny is having a nice year, but hes a bottom 6 player, hes not some big loss, i'm definitely not losing any sleep over losing him.

The Brass trade has been by far the worst trade.

We lost a 1st round pick, arguably our best prospect, Cole and Reaves and got nothing out of Brass.

 

[BigEezyE22]

Rust for Ferland is at best a sideways move in the short term, and a loss in the long term.

The specific argument centered around if the Pens traded Rust for Ferland AND won a cup.

If that happens, and you're more concerned about where Rust is playing in 2022, you're more of a Rust fan than a Penguins fan.