Player Discussion Jake DeBrusk III: Signs 2 Years 3.675 AAV

[BruinDust]

His last 36 NHL games:

5 goals, 2 assists, 7 points and a minus 11. Projected over 82 games, that's a 11 G, 5 A pace. That's 4th line winger type numbers.

In his last 23 regular season games, he's got 1 G and 2 A and is a minus 8. That's Jimmy Hayes/Matt Beleskey type numbers.

Ironically, the Bruins regular season record over these 23 games is pretty darn good at 16-6-1. Imagine if Debrusk wasn't a ghost on the stat sheet. They would probably be close to undefeated over that time if this guy was going like he's expected and paid to.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

His last 36 NHL games:

5 goals, 2 assists, 7 points and a minus 11. Projected over 82 games, that's a 11 G, 5 A pace. That's 4th line winger type numbers.

In his last 23 regular season games, he's got 1 G and 2 A and is a minus 8. That's Jimmy Hayes/Matt Beleskey type numbers.

Ironically, the Bruins regular season record over these 23 games is pretty darn good at 16-6-1. Imagine if Debrusk wasn't a ghost on the stat sheet. They would probably be close to undefeated over that time if this guy was going like he's expected and paid to.

In fairness to Jake, I think most people weren't fans of the Hayes/Beleskey contracts, especially the latter. Jake's contract was very fair and he is also more skilled. Jake only has 1 year left and if he continues to stink up the joint for the majority of the season he will either be moved or Seattle will take him.

 

[BruinDust]

In fairness to Jake, I think most people weren't fans of the Hayes/Beleskey contracts, especially the latter. Jake's contract was very fair and he is also more skilled. Jake only has 1 year left and if he continues to stink up the joint for the majority of the season he will either be moved or Seattle will take him.

I didn't have an issue with Debrusk's current contract, fell right where I thought he would end up for term and AAV.

All I am saying is this guy needs to get going, far too long a stretch of indifferent play (taking into the account the break, RTP, etc.) and if the Bruins can ever get him going again, look out, because even during his 36-game ghosting, the Bruins have won a lot of hockey games.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In fairness to Jake, I think most people weren't fans of the Hayes/Beleskey contracts, especially the latter. Jake's contract was very fair and he is also more skilled. Jake only has 1 year left and if he continues to stink up the joint for the majority of the season he will either be moved or Seattle will take him.

I'm honestly questioning now if he is more skilled than those guys.

 

[ODAAT]

is there a clause in the contract that the team who is paying him to demand a refund for horrific play?

 

[Greek_physique]

If Bjork played with any sort of confidence, he could easily replicate what Debrusk has done. They both play a similar style, but its a shame Bjork hasn't done more with this opportunity.

 

[DitClapper]

Thankfully the emergence of Ritchie has made this not as big of a deal as it could be. The Bruins need more from DeBrusk. He was excellent in that Rangers game.

The best place for him when all the dust settles is on the third line with Smith and Coyle. That's a dangerous line any possible way you look at it.

 

[ON3M4N]

His last 36 NHL games:

5 goals, 2 assists, 7 points and a minus 11. Projected over 82 games, that's a 11 G, 5 A pace. That's 4th line winger type numbers.

In his last 23 regular season games, he's got 1 G and 2 A and is a minus 8. That's Jimmy Hayes/Matt Beleskey type numbers.

Ironically, the Bruins regular season record over these 23 games is pretty darn good at 16-6-1. Imagine if Debrusk wasn't a ghost on the stat sheet. They would probably be close to undefeated over that time if this guy was going like he's expected and paid to.

Why 36 games? Seem like such a random sample size.

Oh, I see now....funny if you look just past those 36 games, he had 14pts in 13gp and 28pt in 36 games.

I don't even need to look at the 23 regular season games, because I know you did the same exact thing. Flat out the definition of cherry picking stats.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Why 36 games? Seem like such a random sample size.

Oh, I see now....funny if you look just past those 36 games, he had 14pts in 13gp and 28pt in 36 games.

I don't even need to look at the 23 regular season games, because I know you did the same exact thing. Flat out the definition of cherry picking stats.

Ok, last 73 games (last season + this one):

19-18-37 in 73 games
0.51 ppg
-3

Gets worse if you include last year's playoffs: 4-0-4, -3 in 13 games.

Not to mention looking at his last 3 seasons as a whole, he is clearly declining each season rather than improving like you'd expect a young player to do:

27-15-42 in 68 games
19-16-35 in 63 games
0-2-2 in 9 games

That is a Beleskey/Hayes type of drop off. And it's not because of ice time or utilization.

- He has been stapled to the 2nd line with occasional 1st line time over those 2+ seasons
- He has o-zone starts of 64.7%, 59.1%, 79.4%
- He has PK time of 0:13/gm, 0:00/gm, 0:00/gm
- He has PP time of 2:39/gm, 2:33/gm, 1:21/gm

He has literally been protected and given every possible opportunity to succeed and has failed to. He never gets held accountable for his lack of effort, and keeps getting handed prime offensive minutes without producing.

 

[Dr Hook]

Jake is not the player he once was. The last 36 games might be a random sample size, but you could make it the last 41, or half a season's worth and it doesn't look any better. The point is not the sample size here. We all know he was productive at one time. He just hasn't been for a long lately. Last season he was not good for the most part, disappeared in the playoffs, and looks like baked ass this season. Not the trendline you want to see in a young player.

 

[BruinDust]

Why 36 games? Seem like such a random sample size.

Oh, I see now....funny if you look just past those 36 games, he had 14pts in 13gp and 28pt in 36 games.

I don't even need to look at the 23 regular season games, because I know you did the same exact thing. Flat out the definition of cherry picking stats.

It's not random. Game 1 of 36 is where his production starts to drops off. Significantly.

 

[ON3M4N]

It's not random. Game 1 of 36 is where his production starts to drops off. Significantly.

But you ignore the prior 36 games where is production was significantly better?

 

[ON3M4N]

Ok, last 73 games (last season + this one):

19-18-37 in 73 games
0.51 ppg
-3

Gets worse if you include last year's playoffs: 4-0-4, -3 in 13 games.

Not to mention looking at his last 3 seasons as a whole, he is clearly declining each season rather than improving like you'd expect a young player to do:

27-15-42 in 68 games
19-16-35 in 63 games
0-2-2 in 9 games

That is a Beleskey/Hayes type of drop off. And it's not because of ice time or utilization.

- He has been stapled to the 2nd line with occasional 1st line time over those 2+ seasons
- He has o-zone starts of 64.7%, 59.1%, 79.4%
- He has PK time of 0:13/gm, 0:00/gm, 0:00/gm
- He has PP time of 2:39/gm, 2:33/gm, 1:21/gm

He has literally been protected and given every possible opportunity to succeed and has failed to. He never gets held accountable for his lack of effort, and keeps getting handed prime offensive minutes without producing.

Oh I'm not defending DeBrusk at all and I give you credit for not cherry picking stats. Out of curiousity I wanted to see DeBrusk vs his LW peers since last season.

Goals: T-46th
Assist: T- 59th
Points: T-58th
Shots: T-33rd
iXG: 32nd
iSCF: 38th
iHDCF: 23th

As frustrating as he's been, he's still one of the better producing LW's since last season. He does need to start producing more consistently though.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

It's not random. Game 1 of 36 is where his production starts to drops off. Significantly.

I get why people criticize DeBrusk. But lately I've had the thought that maybe some people look at his 27 goal season and think that's what he should be every year, but maybe that was just a career year and he's a 20-ish goal 3rd liner? I'm not even saying that I know for certain that is the case, I'm just listing that as a possibility. If that is the case, is that a player you build around and do whatever you can to keep him from free agency, expansion draft, etc? Absolutely not, but a 15-20 goal 3rd line is pretty good, and most teams would take that. On a great team (think the 2010 Blackhawks) he'd be a 3rd liner putting up 20 goals. I just think some posters think he's something that he might not be. And look, I completely get it that he doesn't really bring anything to the table when he's not in front of the net tipping in shots and putting home rebounds. It's not his fault that he doesn't have the size of Lucic and constantly throw hits and that he's not elite defensively like Bergeron. Very few players are. He is what he is: a quality, albeit streaky player who is better suited for the 3rd line the way the team is currently constructed. It's not his fault. From all accounts he is well-liked and he wants to win.

 

[scorpiorising]

I watch bruins games 60% and listen about 40% on the radio.

On the radio all I ever hear is "debrusk has the puck coming down the wing with the puck and gives it away..."

Watching him is very frustrating. He's constantly floating around, tripping all over the ice, and I've noticed his turning radius is that of a semi truck. He's doing the bare minimum to stay on the team. Every 10 game or so ill see him use his skill and effort and I get excited, just to see him regress back to zilch.

I'm hoping he can get engaged and be what he is capable of but realistically I think he is showing what he's going to be.

 

[Dr Hook]

I get why people criticize DeBrusk. But lately I've had the thought that maybe some people look at his 27 goal season and think that's what he should be every year, but maybe that was just a career year and he's a 20-ish goal 3rd liner? I'm not even saying that I know for certain that is the case, I'm just listing that as a possibility. If that is the case, is that a player you build around and do whatever you can to keep him from free agency, expansion draft, etc? Absolutely not, but a 15-20 goal 3rd line is pretty good, and most teams would take that. On a great team (think the 2010 Blackhawks) he'd be a 3rd liner putting up 20 goals. I just think some posters think he's something that he might not be. And look, I completely get it that he doesn't really bring anything to the table when he's not in front of the net tipping in shots and putting home rebounds. It's not his fault that he doesn't have the size of Lucic and constantly throw hits and that he's not elite defensively like Bergeron. Very few players are. He is what he is: a quality, albeit streaky player who is better suited for the 3rd line the way the team is currently constructed. It's not his fault. From all accounts he is well-liked and he wants to win.

The problem has been that he isn't even that right now. The dropoff that @BruinDust pointed out is severe and it's real.

 

[RoccoF14]

Oh I'm not defending DeBrusk at all and I give you credit for not cherry picking stats. Out of curiousity I wanted to see DeBrusk vs his LW peers since last season.

Goals: T-46th
Assist: T- 59th
Points: T-58th
Shots: T-33rd
iXG: 32nd
iSCF: 38th
iHDCF: 23th

As frustrating as he's been, he's still one of the better producing LW's since last season. He does need to start producing more consistently though.

I don't like the trajectory he is currently on, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it will change any time soon. This has dragged on more than long enough where you can't just chalk it up to him being a "streaky player" anymore. Hopefully moving him to the first line will help stop the bleeding here.

In my opinion, we should be looking to trade him while he still has some value. Packaging him in a deal to get a consistent goal scoring winger is looking more and more appealing to me.

Nashville keeps circling the drain, and I see a rebuild in their near future. If you could package DeBrusk + additional assets in a trade for someone like Arvidsson or Forsberg, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Trouble is, DeBrusk's trade value is declining by the day right now and that window is closing, if it hasn't already closed......

 

[Dr Hook]

Oh I'm not defending DeBrusk at all and I give you credit for not cherry picking stats. Out of curiousity I wanted to see DeBrusk vs his LW peers since last season.

Goals: T-46th
Assist: T- 59th
Points: T-58th
Shots: T-33rd
iXG: 32nd
iSCF: 38th
iHDCF: 23th

As frustrating as he's been, he's still one of the better producing LW's since last season. He does need to start producing more consistently though.

Yes, that is true, and I think we all hope he can get back to that, but it isn't cherry picking to point out a long dry spell and when it started. Because right now, and for the last good while, he isn't anywhere close to what those averages might indicate. It's great that the previous 36 game before the most recent 36 were good, but it really is starting to look less like a slump and real regression. I hope I am wrong.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

I don't like the trajectory he is currently on, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it will change any time soon. This is has dragged on more than long enough where you can chalk it up to him being a "streaky player". Hopefully moving him to the first line will help stop the bleeding here.

In my opinion, we should be looking to trade him while he still has some value. Packaging him in a deal to get a consistent goal scoring winger is looking more and more appealing to me.

Nashville keeps circling the drain, and I see a rebuild in their near future. If you could package DeBrusk + additional assets in a trade for someone like Arvidsson or Forsberg, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Trouble is, DeBrusk's trade value is declining by the day right now......

I agree, but I doubt Sweeney will trade him this season. I still think he'll get protected, but things can change. Maybe Sweeney's working on something behind the scenes and wants DeBrusk to produce for a few games on the top line with the hope of upping his trade value?

 

[RoccoF14]

I agree, but I doubt Sweeney will trade him this season. I still think he'll get protected, but things can change. Maybe Sweeney's working on something behind the scenes and wants DeBrusk to produce for a few games on the top line with the hope of upping his trade value?

That's EXACTLY what I think is going on right now.

Best case scenario for us is that he pots a few goals on the top line, jacks up his trade stock a little bit, and we ship him off in a package deal for someone who is a proven goal scorer.

I know there's nothing to suggest Nashville is looking to rebuild, but I got to believe you could get Forsberg from them if the offer was right. He's got one year left on a $6mil annual contract and he'd be just what the doctor ordered.

 

[bp13]

His last 36 NHL games:

5 goals, 2 assists, 7 points and a minus 11. Projected over 82 games, that's a 11 G, 5 A pace. That's 4th line winger type numbers.

In his last 23 regular season games, he's got 1 G and 2 A and is a minus 8. That's Jimmy Hayes/Matt Beleskey type numbers.

Ironically, the Bruins regular season record over these 23 games is pretty darn good at 16-6-1. Imagine if Debrusk wasn't a ghost on the stat sheet. They would probably be close to undefeated over that time if this guy was going like he's expected and paid to.

Or, imagine if we'd have moved him for someone who produced.

 

[ON3M4N]

Yes, that is true, and I think we all hope he can get back to that, but it isn't cherry picking to point out a long dry spell and when it started. Because right now, and for the last good while, he isn't anywhere close to what those averages might indicate. It's great that the previous 36 game before the most recent 36 were good, but it really is starting to look less like a slump and real regression. I hope I am wrong.

Yes and no, but we'll agree to disagree. I personally would have done the current + previous 36 for more context in my post, but to each their own.

 

[smithformeragent]

Posts deleted.

Stay on topic and take the personal snipes elsewhere.

 

[Dr Hook]

Yes and no, but we'll agree to disagree. I personally would have done the current + previous 36 for more context in my post, but to each their own.

Well can we at least agree that DeBrusk has fallen off in his play pretty dramatically over the last several weeks of game action? Because I think that is the real takeaway whatever numbers you want to look through.

 

[The don godfather]

Debrusk will be a 30 goal guy. Book it.