Confirmed with Link: Pittsburgh claims Arcobello off Waivers

Status
Not open for further replies.

WheresRamziAbid

Registered User
Oct 31, 2013
7,240
2,092
The thing is, Arcobello isn't lacking physically. He's really small, but he throws his weight around all the time. I don't see why a line of Downie-Sutter-Arcobello can't work. Even though that line isn't big, both Downie and Arcobello are very gritty. Our 3rd line last year in the playoffs was Bennett-Sutter-Stempniak (most of the time IIRC). This 3rd line is much grittier than last year's 3rd line. Granted, I would much rather see someone like Matt Martin on the other wing with Arcobello, but I'm not going to be upset with a Downie-Sutter-Arcobello line if we go with that.

I also could see a Sundqvist-Arcobello combo working in the future, since Sundqvist is a hell of a lot more physical than Sutter and since both Sundqvist and Arcobello can play center or wing. We'll cross that bridge when we get there though.

He might play physically but he is still too small to make enough impact especially playing with a center that isn't know for boardwork. Maybe When Sundqvist comes over if Arco continues to produce points, but even that's questionable since he was putting up 3rd line numbers on a second line in Edm.
 

penguins2946*

Guest
He might play physically but he is still too small to make enough impact especially playing with a center that isn't know for boardwork. Maybe When Sundqvist comes over if Arco continues to produce points, but even that's questionable since he was putting up 3rd line numbers on a second line in Edm.

I mean, Perron was putting up 2nd/3rd line numbers in Edmonton as well, but that was a lot due to the cluster**** that Edmonton was. I don't really put any stock into negatives from Edmonton, I'm just impressed that he can produce that much in that **** storm.

The only think preventing him from being a legit top-9 forward is his size, and if he was 6'3" and 210 lbs, he'd be a 2nd line center.
 

WheresRamziAbid

Registered User
Oct 31, 2013
7,240
2,092
I mean, Perron was putting up 2nd/3rd line numbers in Edmonton as well, but that was a lot due to the cluster**** that Edmonton was. I don't really put any stock into negatives from Edmonton, I'm just impressed that he can produce that much in that **** storm.

The only think preventing him from being a legit top-9 forward is his size, and if he was 6'3" and 210 lbs, he'd be a 2nd line center.

That very well may be true but unless he magicall grows he will never be that. Im not doubting his hockey skills just how effective they will be here. I mean he was playing with Perron and only put up 3rd line numbers. Now playing in that ***** show didn't help but im just not convinced that he is good enough to put up consistent points on the 3rd line or that he is big enough for it to matter.
 

Quatro Quatro

Registered User
May 29, 2014
274
0
Yeah, I know they'll likely put him with Downie and Sutter for tomorrow and likely until both Comeau and Hornqvist are healthy. The only situation where I wouldn't want Arcobello on that 3rd line is if Kunitz and/or Bennett are on that 3rd line, because that would make the line Downie-Sutter-Bennett or Kunitz-Sutter-Downie.

We have a ton of options to run with right now though. Any of Perron, Hornqvist, Kunitz, Bennett, Comaeu and Downie wouldn't look out of place in the top-6 (I'd include Spaling, but I think he's doing so well due to being with beast mode Geno and Bennett). Any of Spaling, Downie, Arcobello and Comeau can play either on the 3rd or 4th line and still be effective. It's a really good problem to have. Personally, I'd go with:

Perron-Crosby-Hornqvist
Kunitz-Malkin-Bennett
Downie-Sutter-Arcobello
Spaling-Goc-Comeau

That's assuming Kunitz plays without his head being up his ass.

But why put Comeau on the 4th line when he was one of our better players before the injury? That's crazy to put him below Arcobello when Arcobello hasn't even played a game here yet.
 

penguins2946*

Guest
But why put Comeau on the 4th line when he was one of our better players before the injury? That's crazy to put him below Arcobello when Arcobello hasn't even played a game here yet.

Sutter needs a playmaker to be not completely inept offensively. Arcobello is our best playmaking winger after Perron and Bennett. It's not hard to understand. That line needs a playmaker like Arcobello more than it needs another grinder like Comeau.

Anyway, size is really overrated. A guy who's 6'4" and 220 lbs with 50 hits is no more physical than a 5'8", 170 lbs winger with 50 hits. And unless that line is going against Chara (since it's a 3rd line, it shouldn't be), that shouldn't be an issue. If he managed to put up 3rd line numbers on a cluster**** team in a bigger and more defensive conference, I don't see why he can't do that here.
 

Mr Jiggyfly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2004
34,306
19,380
That very well may be true but unless he magicall grows he will never be that. Im not doubting his hockey skills just how effective they will be here. I mean he was playing with Perron and only put up 3rd line numbers. Now playing in that ***** show didn't help but im just not convinced that he is good enough to put up consistent points on the 3rd line or that he is big enough for it to matter.

Well he is a third liner though. He's been waived from two teams because he's small, basically. Not because he can't play the game.

Every single NHL team wants big players. If a guy is small and produces well, they can over look a small stature. Arcobello produces, but not big enough numbers to force teams to ignore his size. So it kind of puts him in no mans land

If Arcobello was 4-5 inches bigger and 15-20 lbs heavier, he would be considered a pretty good young player. Just how it is.
 

UnrealMachine

Registered User
Jul 9, 2012
4,582
2,079
Pittsburgh, USA
Anyway, size is really overrated. A guy who's 6'4" and 220 lbs with 50 hits is no more physical than a 5'8", 170 lbs winger with 50 hits. And unless that line is going against Chara (since it's a 3rd line, it shouldn't be), that shouldn't be an issue. If he managed to put up 3rd line numbers on a cluster**** team in a bigger and more defensive conference, I don't see why he can't do that here.

I agree that size is overrated to some extent, but I'm quite certain you'd notice a distinct difference in physicality being hit by a 220 lb'r vs a 170 lb'r.
 

cassius

Registered User
Jul 23, 2004
13,560
706
Well he is a third liner though. He's been waived from two teams because he's small, basically. Not because he can't play the game.

Every single NHL team wants big players. If a guy is small and produces well, they can over look a small stature. Arcobello produces, but not big enough numbers to force teams to ignore his size. So it kind of puts him in no mans land

If Arcobello was 4-5 inches bigger and 15-20 lbs heavier, he would be considered a pretty good young player. Just how it is.
Yep.. you just explained the careers of guys like Jason Krog, Brett Sterling, Chris Conner, Brian Gibbons, Darren Haydar, Chris Bourque.. etc.

Amazing AHL'ers, just not any good at the NHL level for the reasons you outlined.
 

Hottubber

Registered User
Feb 9, 2010
2,713
77
I agree that size is overrated to some extent, but I'm quite certain you'd notice a distinct difference in physicality being hit by a 220 lb'r vs a 170 lb'r.

That actually depends. Ive played with some smaller guys who hit twice as hard as a guy 4-5" taller and more than 40lbs heavier. Hitting is a technique. Also, if you have a guy like Pyatt, who doesn't seem to like hitting, just kinda rubbing a player out, that doesn't do a lot
 

Mr Jiggyfly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2004
34,306
19,380
Yep.. you just explained the careers of guys like Jason Krog, Brett Sterling, Chris Conner, Brian Gibbons, Darren Haydar, Chris Bourque.. etc.

Amazing AHL'ers, just not any good at the NHL level for the reasons you outlined.

I think Arcobello has more than proven that he can play at the NHL level. It's just going to be a matter of prejudice working agt him and if he can keep overcoming that. He's more talented than the last couple of big guys the Pens had in here with Kinkhammer and Pyatt. However, it takes a lot for coaches and GM to see past size issues.

Bigger guys are given more leeway than the smaller guys and it's been that way since before most of us were born in this game and many other sports.

My wife's friend, her son is a hell of a hockey player, but he kept getting cut because he was too small. Eventhough he was better than most of the kids on the ice. He hit a big growth spurt last year, and now all of these coaches want him on their team. Sad, but just how it goes.
 

Bishop7979

Registered User
Sep 9, 2005
1,786
298
The way some people are reacting to a waiver wire pickup you'd think this kid played real life ****, marry, kill with their grandmother, mother and sister.
 

penguins2946*

Guest
Ebbett placed on waivers, i'm sure he will clear, i guess the pens are going to go with 12 forwards and 6 def for now.

It looks like our roster will basically be finalized once Comeau and Hornqvist get back then, maybe something small at the deadline to bring in a depth D. Sill and either Adams or Arcobello as the extra forward (I'm hoping Adams), with probably Bortuzzo as the #7.
 

ETA

Registered User
Aug 8, 2008
567
41
That actually depends. Ive played with some smaller guys who hit twice as hard as a guy 4-5" taller and more than 40lbs heavier. Hitting is a technique. Also, if you have a guy like Pyatt, who doesn't seem to like hitting, just kinda rubbing a player out, that doesn't do a lot

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared...
 
Last edited:

BlindWillyMcHurt

ti kallisti
May 31, 2004
34,321
28,315
I don't really get some of the distain.

Yeah, sure... I'd prefer they get bigger and meaner. But only if that big meanness is attached to players who can actually, you know... play the sport. That's rare. Arcobello is a midget... but is also a pretty decent hockey player. You don't have to be a hulking monster to derail the other team's shift.

It's hardly an earth shattering move. But I think it's good low risk one. If he doesn't pan out... oh well. No harm done -- it's not like he's holding anyone back and, in fact, MIGHT actually force a certain someone out if the dice fall favorably.
 

Magnum23

Registered User
Aug 24, 2012
2,476
2,185
Oilers fan here. Arco is more like 5'6 not 5'8. At his best he is a poor mans andrew shaw. If he doesn't play gritty he is pretty useless cuz he doesn't have an nhl shot and his skating is very average.
 

Penguinator

Kesselator
Sep 17, 2014
3,999
2
Space
Oilers fan here. Arco is more like 5'6 not 5'8. At his best he is a poor mans andrew shaw. If he doesn't play gritty he is pretty useless cuz he doesn't have an nhl shot and his skating is very average.

Aren't you downplaying him a LITTLE? (pun(ny) intended). He's got 8 goals, how much does Vanek has? For 10 times le$$ i'll take him over Thomas anyday, and there ain't any cap risk.

He'll get better support here.

And the goal i saw in this thread from him... Pure marksmanship.

But hey, if you don't like him... No problemo amigo.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,634
14,508
Pittsburgh
I understand the point. But for every St. Louis success story there are a few hundred washouts.

I have zero expectations of him being another St. Louis. Zero. That is a one in a million deal.

However I am addressing the size thing.

This guy is not a wild card, he already has shown that he can produce in the NHL. Like St. Louis? Of course not. But for nothing, we do not need him to.

The entire point is that he is what he is, and that is better than maybe 20% of our current lineup. And better than at least a couple of our completely healthy lineup.

Not speculation.

Not projection.

Not OMG, look what he did in the AHL.

Right now, as is.

He has proven to be a legit NHL player who will produce.

That really is all that needs to be said.
 

bigG

Registered User
Jan 18, 2010
795
65
That very well may be true but unless he magicall grows he will never be that. Im not doubting his hockey skills just how effective they will be here. I mean he was playing with Perron and only put up 3rd line numbers. Now playing in that ***** show didn't help but im just not convinced that he is good enough to put up consistent points on the 3rd line or that he is big enough for it to matter.

and Perron was putting up 3rd line numbers - what's your point
 

WheresRamziAbid

Registered User
Oct 31, 2013
7,240
2,092
and Perron was putting up 3rd line numbers - what's your point

My point is that im going to keep his production totals (which look ok for a 3rd liner) in doubt because he hasn't been getting those numbers on a third line.

As far as Perron goes with in that pairing im going to go out on a limb and say Perron probably inflated Arcos numbers and Arco probably held Perrons back. One is without question the superior talent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad