Confirmed with Link: Pens trade 1st (No. 31) + Oskar Sundqvist for Ryan Reaves and Blues 2nd (No. 51)

[Ziggyjoe21]

The Pens need a tough guy in the top 9. Reaves and his 8 minutes a game do nothing to stop Dubinsky running Sid 10x a game.

Reaves isn't the answer. Wish we got Jenner from CBJ.

 

[JTG]

For as stupid as I think fighting's become, and as useless as I think a protection guy is, I do love that video of Reaves blowing a kiss to the Stars' bench after embarrassing that dude who tried to pick a fight with him.

We need that type of swagger. Guys like Reaves pump up the boys.

 

[Dr Frasier Crane]

The most frustrating part of this trade is people's disingenuous description of the parameters. The gap in value by moving down from 31-51 is roughly a 6th round pick.

Granted this is one statistician's chart (with assigned numeric values), but there are plenty of others in the link below that illustrate how quickly value drops.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/5/1/is-it-worth-it-to-trade-up-in-the-nhl-draft

 

[Terrapin]

So he's almost as good as a fourth liner? Meaning he's not as good.


That's why we're against it.

What a pathetic post. Maybe you should post the rest of what I wrote? Nah, that doesn't fit your pacifist narrative does it?

 

[HandshakeLine]

Professional hockey players are not afraid of their opponents. There's just no way I'm ever going to believe that. You can't play hockey that well and be afraid of some no-talent clown who throws his body around. No way.

It's fitting that the example you used was kids who had virtually no experience in American-style hockey. I'm sure a lot of kids are afraid of their opponents. They either get over it (like Ovi and Malkin clearly and obviously did...those guys don't back down from anyone) or they wash out somewhere along the line.

This is patently untrue. We saw that when Cooke and Ruutu were in the lineup and when Armstrong and Kunitz were known for leveling people on the forecheck.

It might not be the system we want to play, but having one or two guys on the team who can absolutely lay out someone means that you always have to have your head on a swivel during retrieval and breakouts.

 

[HandshakeLine]

If that's the case, fantastic. We've been missing that kind of presence since like 2009 Kunitz.

I'm not upset about getting that aspect. I just don't want Reaves to be some guy that undermines Sully's "just play" mantra, or a guy that puts us in a hole all the time by taking stupid, chest-thumping penalties to try and fill a quota.

Honest question, Coach. How much have you seen Reaves play? Because he's not a Tom Wilson type at all, IMO.

 

[Don'tcry4mejanhrdina]

This is patently untrue. We saw that when Cooke and Ruutu were in the lineup and when Armstrong and Kunitz were known for leveling people on the forecheck.

It might not be the system we want to play, but having one or two guys on the team who can absolutely lay out someone means that you always have to have your head on a swivel during retrieval and breakouts.

Teams would try to avoid zone entries on Stevens' side of the ice in the playoffs. Unfortunately for them Neidermeyer had a knack for funnelling them towards Stevens.

Anybody with an ounce of self preservation reacts differently to when they're getting hammered as opposed to when they think they're safe from being hit, whether it's just tensing up and bracing more for a hit or flat out bailing on a play. Except Letang but he doesn't have an ounce of self preservation.

 

[MrBrightside]

I guess the upside is that there's really nowhere for Kunitz to play now. Figure your 9 wingers (8 and an extra) will be:

Kessel
Rust
Guentzel
Sheary
Hagelin
Hornqvist
Reaves

And then 1 of 2 guys who can kill penalties - Archibald, Wilson, Kuhnackl, Rowney.

Downside is that this even further decreases the chances that Sprong has a spot.

 

[rintinw]

Reaves holds Dubinsky accountable by dumping pucks in and putting Werenski through the glass. Send the message, if you do it to my players, I will do it to yours. Dubinsky isn't going to write checks that Werenski has to cash.

That would do it if he was on ice to get those hits often enough. And having someone being effective at that playing say 12 minutes a game would do the trick. But here is the problem. Reaves was averaging in POs 7:46, 7:30, 6:08, 8:43, 6:10, 9:34 TOI/gp. So questions are: Is that enough time to 'punish' them? Or would you be okay for him to play more, like 11+ minutes a game in POs? Would he be productive enough, defensively responsible enough to justify that TOI?

Keep in mind that last two POs guys on the PIT 4th line were good enough to chip in 1 pt every 3-6 games. And only two guys on PIT with under 11 minutes per game were
- Sundqvist (2 gp, 9:17/gp)
- Archibald (4 gp, 7:51/gp)
In other words they were injury call ups, not someone penciled there if the roster was fully healthy.

What a pathetic post. Maybe you should post the rest of what I wrote? Nah, that doesn't fit your pacifist narrative does it?

Since when is 1 pt in 36 PO games (Reaves) almost as good as 7 pts in 35 PO games (Kuhnhackl) or 3 pts in 20 PO games (Rowney)? Don't get me wrong, I do think that physical play can be extremely effective. But for me being able to score at a rate of 1 pt per 4-5 games or better along with that physical game would be prerequisite. Otherwise I just do not see a justification for playing him enough for that physical aspect of his game to be effective in any way.

This is patently untrue. We saw that when Cooke and Ruutu were in the lineup and when Armstrong and Kunitz were known for leveling people on the forecheck.

Cooke was also able to score 1 pt every 2.5 games, Armstrong 1pt every 3 games (and yes, he managed to do that even without being on line without Crosby) and Ruuttu 1 pt every 4-5 games. And I think there is no one who would be pissed off if they traded for Kunitz (during 2009-2014) like player.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Except, we traded Sundqvist who has been, frankly, trending along a less impressive path the last season than Reaves to get him.

We didn't trade our secondary scoring, we didn't trade our puck moving defense, we swapped picks and traded a prospect who, while we had high hopes for him, seemed to have stalled, for a physical presence that can actually play regular shifts. I don't care if he ever drops the gloves for us ever, it's worth having some more grit on the 4th line for next year.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

We need that type of swagger. Guys like Reaves pump up the boys.

Speaking from a point of necessity, I don't agree that we need that. We won two Cups without it, and the Hawks have won 3 without any real "tough guys."

But I'd welcome Reaves going all 2009 Kunitz and driving guys like Werenski, Subban, Ellis, Eckholm and Karlsson into the third row on the forecheck. That's the kinda toughness we lack, if we can even say we "lack" anything as back to back Cup champs.

As long as he's disciplined, and doesn't let some macho stupidity rub off on guys who *need* to keep their noses outta that ****, I'm down with Reaves. I still don't like the price, but whatever.

Honest question, Coach. How much have you seen Reaves play? Because he's not a Tom Wilson type at all, IMO.

Not much. Every time I've ever seen/read about him, it involves a fight.

 

[froods]

I live on the west coast

And she believes it?

 

[66871]

As far as overpayment goes. It seems clear to me that the mindset of the FO is focused on the opportunity that's there for this team. In the history of the league, only three franchises have won 3 SCs in a row. Only two have won 4 in a row. I think there is a real appetite (starting with Mario) to, at the very least, get the third one next year. I'm going to take a wild guess that one of Mario's biggest regrets is that the Pens weren't able to string together a dynasty lasting more than two seasons given that winning in 93 would have put the Pens in very elite company.

So all that said, I'm guessing there is tolerance for sacrificing a little bit of value down the road to make the roster adjustments they think are best right now.

I see this move as the end for Kunitz. There was, I guess, a chance he would be back as a 4th liner next year but this almost has close the door on that.

 

[HandshakeLine]

The more I think about the deal, the less it bothers me. Reaves is good on the forecheck, he's tough, and he's a well-liked lockerroom guy. Sundqvist has some potential, but looks like he's not going to be ready to take that bottom 6 C role that we need when we need it, so might as well use him as a chip to acquire something else we need.

 

[The Old Master]

Please explain in detail exactly what we gave up.

we will know in 3 yr's.

 

[froods]

Isn't the fact that he is 30, only has one year left on his deal, but St. Louis protected him in the expansion draft say everything?

 

[UnrealMachine]

Something that I haven't seen brought up is the absolute lack of PK minutes by Reaves. It looks like he hasn't even logged *any* PK minutes since the 2011-2012 season?!? That's insane. If he is a liability on the PK then that seriously hampers our ability to sneak a skilled guy (Sprong?) into the bottom 6 without putting additional pressure on the others bottom 6 to PK. Our PK sucked last season and might be even worse next season. He needs to go to PK camp over the summer, or something?

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The more I think about the deal, the less it bothers me. Reaves is good on the forecheck, he's tough, and he's a well-liked lockerroom guy. Sundqvist has some potential, but looks like he's not going to be ready to take that bottom 6 C role that we need when we need it, so might as well use him as a chip to acquire something else we need.

I'm kinda in the same boat. The more I process it, the less I am worried about Reaves the player, and more ticked at the price. I still think Sundqvist might have turned out to be a solid player for us, but it's more about passing on the 31st overall pick. We've had a ton of guys graduate to NHL duty, and the prospect pool is thinning out because of it. We really could've used a kid like Kostin--who by all accounts has top-3 talent in an already gigantic frame, and plays LW or C. I'm more bummed about missing out on that kinda kid, or someone like that, than losing Sundqvist or getting Reaves.

 

[Terrapin]

Cole, we won a Cup with Carter Rowney, Josh Archibald, and Scott Wilson playing key roles on that 4th line as a physical, tough along the boards, line quite a bit this run. Why would Reaves suddenly change that when he's basically Rowney on steroids?

I mean, everyone loved what Rowney and Archibald brought to the lineup in the playoffs. But suddenly Reaves ruins the 4th line's effectiveness?

The difference is, Reaves can and will actually fight someone. And that's simply something that some people on this board cannot tolerate. Because remember that time, 7 years ago, when some of our guys got into shenanigans with the Flyers? Having a guy on the team that will occassionally drop the gloves will automatically cause the remaining players from the 2012 team (all 3 of them) to revert back to that same mentality.

 

[UnrealMachine]

Isn't the fact that he is 30, only has one year left on his deal, but St. Louis protected him in the expansion draft say everything?

It says that JR sent them a "he's our guy" note before the lists were submitted. They knew they'd get more value from JR than what they'd lose elsewhere.

 

[froods]

It says that JR sent them a "he's our guy" note before the lists were submitted. They knew they'd get more value from JR than what they'd lose elsewhere.

https://bleedinblue.com/2017/06/16/st-louis-blues-protecting-ryan-reaves-makes-sense/

It wasn't a suprise

 

[Shrimper]

I guess the upside is that there's really nowhere for Kunitz to play now. Figure your 9 wingers (8 and an extra) will be:

Kessel
Rust
Guentzel
Sheary
Hagelin
Hornqvist
Reaves

And then 1 of 2 guys who can kill penalties - Archibald, Wilson, Kuhnackl, Rowney.

Downside is that this even further decreases the chances that Sprong has a spot.

Is Reaves a PK'er?

 

[Terrapin]

That would do it if he was on ice to get those hits often enough. And having someone being effective at that playing say 12 minutes a game would do the trick. But here is the problem. Reaves was averaging in POs 7:46, 7:30, 6:08, 8:43, 6:10, 9:34 TOI/gp. So questions are: Is that enough time to 'punish' them? Or would you be okay for him to play more, like 11+ minutes a game in POs? Would he be productive enough, defensively responsible enough to justify that TOI?

Keep in mind that last two POs guys on the PIT 4th line were good enough to chip in 1 pt every 3-6 games. And only two guys on PIT with under 11 minutes per game were
- Sundqvist (2 gp, 9:17/gp)
- Archibald (4 gp, 7:51/gp)
In other words they were injury call ups, not someone penciled there if the roster was fully healthy.



Since when is 1 pt in 36 PO games (Reaves) almost as good as 7 pts in 35 PO games (Kuhnhackl) or 3 pts in 20 PO games (Rowney)? Don't get me wrong, I do think that physical play can be extremely effective. But for me being able to score at a rate of 1 pt per 4-5 games or better along with that physical game would be prerequisite. Otherwise I just do not see a justification for playing him enough for that physical aspect of his game to be effective in any way.



Cooke was also able to score 1 pt every 2.5 games, Armstrong 1pt every 3 games (and yes, he managed to do that even without being on line without Crosby) and Ruuttu 1 pt every 4-5 games. And I think there is no one who would be pissed off if they traded for Kunitz (during 2009-2014) like player.

I'd bet that going from a slow plodding team like St Louis to the highest scoring team in the league will cause his point totals to increase.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Isn't the fact that he is 30, only has one year left on his deal, but St. Louis protected him in the expansion draft say everything?

Sure. It says JR had already approached St. Louis about the deal, and they agreed to it in principle.

 

[The Old Master]

The most frustrating part of this trade is people's disingenuous description of the parameters. The gap in value by moving down from 31-51 is roughly a 6th round pick.

Granted this is one statistician's chart (with assigned numeric values), but there are plenty of others in the link below that illustrate how quickly value drops.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/5/1/is-it-worth-it-to-trade-up-in-the-nhl-draft

there may not be a huge drop in talent this yr. (trying to give the benefit of doubt) but we had our choice of all 20. now we are picking the scraps.
edit; and I like the guy.