Reaves can handle handle Wilson as good, if not better than anyone in the league. When Wilson found out the Rangers traded for Reaves, he probably realized for the first time that there will most certainly be ramifications for his actions. How many times do the Rangers play the Capitals this year? Because Wilson is not going to look forward to any of those matchups if Reaves is in the lineup.

Tinordi could hold his own with Wilson. I’d say they’re evenly matched combatants. The only other Ranger able to hold his own with Wilson like Tinordi is Geertsen, but he probably doesn’t yet have the skill to play in the NHL.

Players like Kreider, Goodrow, Blais, Rooney, Trouba, Lindgren, Hunt, and maybe Barron, might be able tie Wilson up until the linesmen could break up the altercation, but none pose any real threat of distracting Wilson from performing his goonery.

They probably can handle Wilson. The question is whether they can win enough games with a 1.75 mil fighter on he first line, or any line at all...

My thoughts exactly.

Ridiculous TMZ hot takes. We've been getting rag dolled for decades. We had Lindgren and Smith for grit!! Now have Goodrow, Barron, Blais, Nemeth, Tinordi as filler, Reaves, the toughest guy in the league that is good in the room and add 10lbs to every player. Not questionable at all

Yeah but was it worth it? Are these guys downgrades on skill to upgrade on toughness?

I don't know whoever created has Reaves on the first line, he will be on the fourth line. That's where Vegas has had him during all their success

We tried the 20 softies, it DOESN'T work. Who is going anywhere like that?

He was a 13th forward, he isn’t a net positive on the ice but if there’s a physical team then he’s a good asset otherwise he sits on the bench. The problem with Wilson is he’s getting top 6 minutes so Reaves will need to be handled appropriately by NYR.

Lindgren and Kreider are softies?

Regardless it's a notorious mistake thinking that making ones bottom 6 and depth defenseman tough makes the team tough

the 13th forward thing is just false, apart from last year where he had a few injuries and suspensions, he played almost every game since 2016-17 and averaged about 10 minutes on all those teams. By the way, in those years he has only not made it to at least the second round once. yeah he doesn't provide a ton offensively but saying that he is a detriment to the team and hurts their chances is stupid

As someone whose watched Reaves a fair bit he would be a prime scratch depending on the opponent and was never out there in critical moments. Everyone likes to say X about him but at the end of the day he provides one component (physicality) which he does really well to keep people in check. My point being he isn’t going to get 17-18 mins a night like Wilson and if he does you will soon see the flaws in his game. The only value you will get is limited 5v5 physicality. He also didn’t average 10 min in a season until VGK, he is what he is a 4th liner to 13th forward. You attributing the teams success to a guy that plays limited minutes is not a good look nor do analytics back your statement. As someone who has watched him in Vegas I feel pretty comfortable with my assessment of him.

This seems to exemplify what you're saying

https://mobile.twitter.com/jfreshhockey/status/1420938602058502145?lang=en


I think a key thing to notice is his quality of competition. He plays against other weak competition so it's not like he's playing against the Wilson's of the world.

I will say that Reaves does provide some value that analytics won’t capture in terms of keeping some players in check. I say that with an asterisk because it’s easy to do a quick line change when Reaves is out there. I can’t comment on Reaves early on in his career but I’ve watched a ton of VGK since I lived there until the last few months and was a season ticket holder. So the analytics just confirms my eye test. Thanks for posting.

I made a point not to attribute the team success to him and also who tf is saying that he will be playing 17+ minutes a night?? every practice lineup I've seen has him on the 4th line. I feel like you miss read a bit of what I've said, all I've said is that he isn't a detriment to his teams in a limited role. And only the guy who created these lines put him on par with Wilson, nobody else thinks that. the concern that Reaves will be handled badly by the coach that has handled him the best during his career is ridiculous, he will be a 4th line guy who won't get much action and will lay a hit here or there. I don't really disagree with most of what you said I just think there is an unrealistic concern with how Reaves will be used

You didn’t make a point to attribute team success to how he played. You literally said



It’s completely disingenuous. Further, analytics say he’s a drag and years of watching him say he’s a drag. He doesn’t provide any special teams contribution and like I said can easily be a dud if they line change which I’ve seen Wilson do routinely against him which is why I said he’d need more ice time to neutralize Wilson.

how is that last quote attributing success to him? I'm just responding to someone saying he is a negative on the ice and could prevent them from making the playoffs. I literally say " yeah he doesn't provide a ton offensively but saying that he is a detriment to the team and hurts their chances is stupid" that's not saying he is the reason they made it there, its saying that he doesn't hurt a teams chances of making it

You start by saying his team has at least made the second round in Vegas. What is the point of saying that if you don’t believe he had a material impact in that series? It’s the same logic of saying if you switched a fourth liner on Tampa/Colorado would they still be a contender? The impact that player has is minimal.

I can tell you from watching all of those games that whether Reaves was out there or insert a 4th liner plug the outcome wouldn’t have been worse. Analytically he is a detriment to stats such as Corsi but like I mentioned earlier he may add value in keeping some players in check. How do you quantify that impact though and how much would it cost to obtain a competent 2 way bottom six gritty guy? You seem to like Reaves and that’s great but from an analytic standpoint he lives a ton to desire and more importantly doesn’t live up to my eye test.