Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Ryan Reaves and Calle Jarnkrok

shaner8989

Registered User
Aug 6, 2005
23,588
5,757
Cut the dead weight. Jarnkrok is absolutely garbage in the playoffs and Reaves doesn’t play.

Why they are even on the team is beyond me
 
Skullz

Skullz

Registered User
Jul 5, 2013
676
947
Leafs87 said:
Don’t get the Reaves hate. He started off slow last year due to injury but came back strong and did the exact job he was brought here to do as a 4th liner for 1.35 mill. Jarnkrok I agree needs to go
Click to expand...
My problem with Reaves is that the only place to play him on is the fourth line. If we do that, then we neutralize that line's ability to act as a primary shutdown weapon. If we played something like Lorenz - Kampf - Holmberg, you could throw them out in their own end and not worry so much about it. Reaves needs to be sheltered, and he doesn't provide anything offensively.

If he had league min it would be okay, but we can't even afford the 1.35
 
  • Like
Reactions: Da Mash and Dog
keonsbitterness

keonsbitterness

Registered User
Sep 14, 2010
36,580
20,201
south of Steeles
Leafs87 said:
Don’t get the Reaves hate. He started off slow last year due to injury but came back strong and did the exact job he was brought here to do as a 4th liner for 1.35 mill.
Click to expand...
50 regular season games should probably be the limit for Reaves. He made a big playoff blunder vs the Bruins, which isn't good for a guy whose career playoff contribution has been close to non-existent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Da Mash and Leafs87
Leafs87

Leafs87

Mr. Steal Your Job
Aug 10, 2010
15,200
5,333
Toronto
keonsbitterness said:
50 regular season games should probably be the limit for Reaves. He made a big playoff blunder vs the Bruins, which isn't good for a guy whose career playoff contribution has been close to non-existent.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. He’s very unlikely to play in the playoffs but overall in that series he was pretty impactful. That being said I stick to my point that for his cap and role he does what he was expected. If you prefer to go into the season without this type of player that’s a different story, but I personally don’t. Even if he doesn’t play every game, having him around to loop in to rivalry games helps us. We’re pretty soft team all things considered.
 
keonsbitterness

keonsbitterness

Registered User
Sep 14, 2010
36,580
20,201
south of Steeles
Leafs87 said:
Yes he did. He’s very unlikely to play in the playoffs but overall in that series he was pretty impactful. That being said I stick to my point that for his cap and role he does what he was expected. If you prefer to go into the season without this type of player that’s a different story, but I personally don’t. Even if he doesn’t play every game, having him around to loop in to rivalry games helps us. We’re pretty soft team all things considered.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with him on the team as long as he can play like he did in the last part of 23-24.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leafs87
Menzinger

Menzinger

Kessel4LadyByng
Apr 24, 2014
42,081
34,587
St. Paul, MN
keonsbitterness said:
50 regular season games should probably be the limit for Reaves. He made a big playoff blunder vs the Bruins, which isn't good for a guy whose career playoff contribution has been close to non-existent.
Click to expand...

That's probably the right number for him.

Problem is he complained to the media last season when he was kept on IR for a couple days longer than he liked. If he's here he expects to play
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leafs87
Leafs87

Leafs87

Mr. Steal Your Job
Aug 10, 2010
15,200
5,333
Toronto
Smif said:
Jarnkrok is the most replaceable player there is. At least Reaves provides something unique.
Click to expand...

It’s funny cause I kinda like playoff Jarnkrok but factoring in all 81 plus playoffs, his cap could defiantly be better served to improve the team. Maybe someone like when we had Acciari as a rental
 
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,406
59,041
Smif said:
Jarnkrok is the most replaceable player there is. At least Reaves provides something unique.
Click to expand...

Jarnkrok is versatile and pretty smart out there but yeah, he makes Alex Kerfoot look dynamic in comparison.
 

sxvnert

Registered User
Nov 23, 2015
12,802
7,989
Only useful as a center and the leafs have enough of those at cheaper cap hits.
 
Smif

Smif

Registered User
Jan 23, 2008
10,289
4,261
Hamilton
AcerComputer said:
I can confidently say Jarnkrok played better than Marner. That said Leafs can trade him because he has value, Reaves and Kampf would cost them assets to move.
Click to expand...
Wow. Ok...5 goals in 93 playoff games. 0 points in the last 7 games last series. Guy was invisible. I won't be surprised if we have to pay to get rid of him. Hopefully not but I could see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz
Puckstuff

Puckstuff

Registered User
May 12, 2010
11,492
3,759
Milton
Jarnkrok is below Robertson and McMann on the depth chart, so if Pacioretty is sticking around, Jarnkrok is on the outside of the top 9. $2.1 million is a lot for a small winger who probably isn’t good enough to make our top 9 anymore and brings no physicality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz

darrylsittler27

Registered User
Oct 21, 2002
7,389
1,575
Puckstuff said:
Jarnkrok is below Robertson and McMann on the depth chart, so if Pacioretty is sticking around, Jarnkrok is on the outside of the top 9. $2.1 million is a lot for a small winger who probably isn’t good enough to make our top 9 anymore and brings no physicality.
Click to expand...
No, it gets worse. We are 1 million over cap. I have bad news. Berube Reeves yes. Jarnkrok no. It makes no sense to keep him and stifle cheap young. Might get a 4th rounder after camp.
 

IronHookem

Registered User
Nov 8, 2023
233
253
Puckstuff said:
Jarnkrok is below Robertson and McMann on the depth chart, so if Pacioretty is sticking around, Jarnkrok is on the outside of the top 9. $2.1 million is a lot for a small winger who probably isn’t good enough to make our top 9 anymore and brings no physicality.
Click to expand...
According to who? You? I guess that's why they put him in the top 6 for those pre-season games...
Unlike most people on this board, the players and the coaches on the team value Järnkrok and his abilities.

"but he disappears in the playoffs!", Yes he does, just like 90% of our roster, but go ahead and give everyone else a free pass.

"he is soft and not very physical!" I don't know why so many people believe everyone has to be physical in order for this team to succeed, because its just not true.
 
namttebih

namttebih

Registered User
Dec 11, 2010
4,900
995
East York
Puckstuff said:
Jarnkrok is below Robertson and McMann on the depth chart, so if Pacioretty is sticking around, Jarnkrok is on the outside of the top 9. $2.1 million is a lot for a small winger who probably isn’t good enough to make our top 9 anymore and brings no physicality.
Click to expand...
Ok, my counter to this would be that he is sound defensively.

He Kampf and Dewar at close to $7M is an expensive 4th line.

4 forwards making 8 figures is also not great.

There would however be 4 players in the top 9 making $1.35 or less - 3 of which make less than a mill.

Having a 4th line that you can trust - although over payed is comforting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X