Key? that's giving him a little too much credit I'd say. We ended up giving up cole, a goalie prospect, and a 1st round draft pick. At best Reaves was the 4th best asset we gave up, and it didn't even go to ottawa, it went to Vegas. Regardless if he was key or not, it likely remains Reaves could have been acquired for less. Even if we flipped him, doesn't mean the original trade was any less puzzling. I really didn't mind Reaves, I recall a few games where he picked up goals and had good checking, but he only played 10 minutes a night with the rest of the 4th line. I think that tired out the big guns quicker.
- Thrill81

What would the Pens have given instead if it wasn't Reaves? Vegas was trying to load up for their Cup run & wanted a player. The Pens needed the salary retained otherwise no deal - I'd call that a key part of a trade. Regardless of who it was, it was key to the trade as the initial proposal without Vegas was rejected by the league (my memory has it that the league wouldn't allow a salary retention from Ott to go to Vegas without a player involved).

In regards to his play. He was never given a proper chance by Sully. When he played more than 4 minutes a night he played well. Not a that the haters would agree.

What would the Pens have given instead if it wasn't Reaves? Vegas was trying to load up for their Cup run & wanted a player. The Pens needed the salary retained otherwise no deal - I'd call that a key part of a trade. Regardless of who it was, it was key to the trade as the initial proposal without Vegas was rejected by the league (my memory has it that the league wouldn't allow a salary retention from Ott to go to Vegas without a player involved).

In regards to his play. He was never given a proper chance by Sully. When he played more than 4 minutes a night he played well. Not a that the haters would agree.
- Aussiepenguin

I'm sure a player like kunahckl or rowney would have done the trick seeing as teams now have the impression those two guys are "stanley cup depth" and got some decent deals. My main stance on Reaves was regardless of whether he played well or not, with such little ice time it put more strain on our stars. If Sully couldn't trust Reaves, then I think it's a positive to ditch him for a player that Sully doesn't mind playing more minutes too.

If Sully couldn't trust Reaves, then I think it's a positive to ditch him for a player that Sully doesn't mind playing more minutes too.
- Thrill81

- VeryModernMan

I just hope that doesn't end up being Cullen. No disrespect to Cullen obviously, he was a beast the first time here, but looked cooked in Minnesota and is only getting older.

Cullen.
- Thrill81

We will see what trainings-camp unveals, but i expect a good final year of him! Guy has character, and 3 demanding sons...

I'm sure a player like kunahckl or rowney would have done the trick seeing as teams now have the impression those two guys are "stanley cup depth" and got some decent deals. My main stance on Reaves was regardless of whether he played well or not, with such little ice time it put more strain on our stars. If Sully couldn't trust Reaves, then I think it's a positive to ditch him for a player that Sully doesn't mind playing more minutes too.
- Thrill81

No I don't agree with that. Pretty sure I read in 1 of Sheng's blogs he interviewed McPhee who said he wanted Reaves for his hitting & dare I say 'character'. So I doubt Knuckles or Rowney could have got it done with the 'cup depth'. Imagine playing Knuckles or Rowney over Tatar!

Where's everyone? Boring

Where's everyone? Boring
- Barnaby36

My lounge room watching TV, soon to be my bed. Where are you?

No I don't agree with that. Pretty sure I read in 1 of Sheng's blogs he interviewed McPhee who said he wanted Reaves for his hitting & dare I say 'character'. So I doubt Knuckles or Rowney could have got it done with the 'cup depth'. Imagine playing Knuckles or Rowney over Tatar!
- Aussiepenguin

Oh boy, that Tatar trade would look even worse.