Confirmed with Link: TRADE: Penguins acquire LW Andreas Martinsen, 7th Round Pick from Ducks for Erik Gudbranson

[Shady Machine]

I am a fan of fighting when it is a natural spill over. The staged fights where guys had them planned days in advance and would completely undress before were dumb and pointless. I say this because I cannot ever see a league where teams don't employ ****heads that like to start trouble and start ****. I also like the momentum shift a fight can have on a game, and I also believe that fights are a natural tension release. Let two guys throw fists and it's over, or let things fester and get worse and worse, because that is more than likely what would happen.

Yeah I'm not saying I want fighting outright banned, but eventually I can see it happen. Either way, it's frequency will continue to decline.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

the only problem with Brassard is that his career magically turned into a pumpkin the second he got here. And thats the only problem with that trade.

Brassard had never done the job he was going to be asked to do in Pittsburgh. There was plenty of evidence that suggested he would be a flop here. The trade was ill-conceived and overkill from the beginning.

JR should get some props for how it ended up though.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Yeah I'm not saying I want fighting outright banned, but eventually I can see it happen. Either way, it's frequency will continue to decline.

It will, surely. But it probably won't for the foreseeable future.

 

[Night Shift]

It will, surely. But it probably won't for the foreseeable future.

I feel as though if you take fighting completely out, guys may be apt to head hunt each other. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[NMK11]

Gee, if 20 point 4th liners aren't good at hockey, what does that say about 20 point bottom 6er Matt Cullen?

Huh? You literally picked Reaves best year and equated it with Cullen's worst year as a 42 year old? You're actually going to try and compare Reaves' career average of 7 pts/season even including the outlier that was last season to Cullen, who's literally scored at least 20 pts in all but one season? Do I need to bring up that Reaves couldn't even PK as a fourth liner?

Dude, plenty of arguments to make for Reaves, trying to cherry pick his one good season and compare him to Cullen's worst season is just ridiculous.

 

[Gurglesons]

Brassard had never done the job he was going to be asked to do in Pittsburgh. There was plenty of evidence that suggested he would be a flop here. The trade was ill-conceived and overkill from the beginning.

JR should get some props for how it ended up though.

Never will understand this argument and it is about effective as claiming Gudbranson was going to be a top four D based on his 20 games sample. That being said if your argument is Sheahan was a legitimate 3C.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

When i was researching him pre-deal he just seemed like a suitable 2C who got softer minutes. Certainly not the type to be THE checking C needed here.
Wasn't the greatest skater either so that wasn't a fit too.

he didnt need to be a checking line center. This isnt NHL 97. All he needed to do was play well, he disnt.

 

[Peat]

Never will understand this argument and it is about effective as claiming Gudbranson was going to be a top four D based on his 20 games sample. That being said if your argument is Sheahan was a legitimate 3C.

Turned out to be right though

Tbh it sounds like the main issue might have been his ego and not buying into the lesser role. But role does matter. Wasn't the first to struggle with a lesser role and won't be the last.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Huh? You literally picked Reaves best year and equated it with Cullen's worst year as a 42 year old? You're actually going to try and compare Reaves' career average of 7 pts/season even including the outlier that was last season to Cullen, who's literally scored at least 20 pts in all but one season? Do I need to bring up that Reaves couldn't even PK as a fourth liner?

Dude, plenty of arguments to make for Reaves, trying to cherry pick his one good season and compare him to Cullen's worst season is just ridiculous.

Nah, you're missing the point, but I'll be damned if you're worth the time to explain things to.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I mean, I even spelled it out in the next post, but perhaps I should have used bigger fonts and more colorful charts?

 

[Peat]

Nah, you're missing the point, but I'll be damned if you're worth the time to explain things to.

I think the point that Reaves only hit 20 points once and looks unlikely to ever do it again is pretty fair.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I think the point that Reaves only hit 20 points once and looks unlikely to ever do it again is pretty fair.

Which, fair or not, is absolutely inconsequential to my point- there are lots of forwards who play a whole season and put up less than 20 points. So, using that to bring down Reaves is silly- there's plenty more valid arguments for why he didn't work for the Pens. Sheahan, for example, played all 82 games here and in Florida and only managed 19 points.

Edit: Hell, look at Lucic! And there's no way anyone would argue that Reaves is the superior offensive player.

The larger point is, of course, it's fair to say that Reaves didn't produce enough here to fit in with the Penguins' plan to run 4 lines. That's absolutely fine and a fair cop. But to act like every fourth line in the league has to be the Pens (and that it's easy peasy to hit 20 points on any team in the league) is disingenuous at best.

And to think I get accused of cherry-picking!

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I think maybe a semi-fair nutshell of this whole... thing... is that it's probably better to have at least one valuable and specialized (see: Hornqvist and his familiarity with the net front) attribute as a player in order to distinguish yourself. I think maybe that's why it's so easy to beat on guys like ZAR, Bjugstad, Spaling, Sutter, etc. Maybe they could be considered well-rounded players. But they rarely seem to make a noticeable impact. Which is where, I assume, advanced stats junkies step in and say "AH! But you see..."

EDIT: Wrong thread. Kinda. Oh well.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I think maybe a semi-fair nutshell of this whole... thing... is that it's probably better to have at least one valuable and specialized (see: Hornqvist and his familiarity with the net front) attribute as a player in order to distinguish yourself. I think maybe that's why it's so easy to beat on guys like ZAR, Bjugstad, Spaling, Sutter, etc. Maybe they could be considered well-rounded players. But they rarely seem to make a noticeable impact. Which is where, I assume, advanced stats junkies step in and say "AH! But you see..."

EDIT: Wrong thread. Kinda. Oh well.

This is a great idea in the wrong place, like Korean BBQ in a fireworks factory.

 

[Peat]

Which, fair or not, is absolutely inconsequential to my point- there are lots of forwards who play a whole season and put up less than 20 points. So, using that to bring down Reaves is silly- there's plenty more valid arguments for why he didn't work for the Pens. Sheahan, for example, played all 82 games here and in Florida and only managed 19 points.

The larger point is, of course, it's fair to say that Reaves didn't produce enough here to fit in with the Penguins' plan to run 4 lines. That's absolutely fine and a fair cop. But to act like every fourth line in the league has to be the Pens (and that it's easy peasy to hit 20 points on any team in the league) is disingenuous at best.

And to think I get accused of cherry-picking!

It is fair to point out that 20 points on a 4th line is really good and doesn't happen everywhere in the league, or even to all 4th liners on good 4th lines.

But in Reaves' case, where his previous high was 13 points and he's only got double figures in 4 of his 7 full NHL seasons, I think pointing out that the 20 points was a massive anomaly and that he's not a good player (at least if judging by points production), is also fair. Its not just that he's failed to produce here.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

This is a great idea in the wrong place, like Korean BBQ in a fireworks factory.

If Geno is allowed to have a prison themed restaurant I'm allowed to have that genius thing you just said.

 

[HandshakeLine]

It is fair to point out that 20 points on a 4th line is really good and doesn't happen everywhere in the league, or even to all 4th liners on good 4th lines.

But in Reaves' case, where his previous high was 13 points and he's only got double figures in 4 of his 7 full NHL seasons, I think pointing out that the 20 points was a massive anomaly and that he's not a good player (at least if judging by points production), is also fair. Its not just that he's failed to produce here.

Which would be a better point if his only skill set was scoring, yes. But it's not, for better or worse.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I eagerly await a reasoned statistical response to how Lucic's 19 points in 80 is proof that Reaves' 20 in 82 is somehow invalid.

(I'm mostly just kidding here, I get the difference, but I'm just trying to highlight how STUPID this argument is, @Peat .)

 

[Peat]

Which would be a better point if his only skill set was scoring, yes. But it's not, for better or worse.

I mean, I hate grading players mainly on production. But that was the argument used, so only fair to work within those parameters.

 

[NMK11]

Nah, you're missing the point, but I'll be damned if you're worth the time to explain things to.

Not really sure where this vitriol is coming from. My initial post was responding specifically to someone looking at Reaves production in LV. I pointed out that season is an anomaly for him. I've said that there are arguments for Reaves as a player but points isn't one of them. So not sure what youre so angry about.

I'd say that anyone who averages just over 10 points per season and can't play on either special teams is not a good hockey player within the subset of nhl players. Do you disagree?

 

[NoMessi]

Gee, if 20 point 4th liners aren't good at hockey, what does that say about 20 point bottom 6er Matt Cullen?

You mean Cullen who had 30+ both seasons before his last as an old man taking defensive matchups and winning faceoffs?

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

he didnt need to be a checking line center. This isnt NHL 97. All he needed to do was play well, he disnt.

NHL 97 was the first game I ever bought on the original Playstation

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

NHL 97 was the first game I ever bought on the original Playstation

96 for sega is still one of my all time favorites

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

96 for sega is still one of my all time favorites

Wasn't that the first edition where they introduced the spinorama on the start button?
I remember just going up and down the ice spin o rama -ing the entire time lol

 

[HandshakeLine]

Not really sure where this vitriol is coming from. My initial post was responding specifically to someone looking at Reaves production in LV. I pointed out that season is an anomaly for him. I've said that there are arguments for Reaves as a player but points isn't one of them. So not sure what youre so angry about.

I'd say that anyone who averages just over 10 points per season and can't play on either special teams is not a good hockey player within the subset of nhl players. Do you disagree?

Sorry, got up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday and was just pretty much waspish all day.

I disagree with the qualifier "good", because there's several well-regarded role players who produce in the low double digits who are not involved in the discussion, yet we focus on Reaves as if he's the only one we could say that about. I mean, we talk about penalty killing, but not every 4th liner on the Pens has or will PK too, and hell, some of the top 9 don't do it either. And as far as production, while Reaves outscoring Lucic definitely is an anomoly, does it take away from the accomplishment that he was able to do something a much more talented player was not? No.

The fact of the matter is, as much as we may or may not like it, fighting and physicality are skills that have places in the modern game. Reaves is easily one of the best fighters in the league, and he's not a liability as a regular shift. He's capable of absolutely destroying players with a hit. And he can pot a few points as a bonus. If a GM wants to build a 4th line that requires that kind of player (and several do), then Reaves is the best in the league in his position. It does not mean he is a bad player, he's just not the kind of player we have a role for on our roster.