Player Discussion Jake DeBrusk III: Signs 2 Years 3.675 AAV

[Dr Hook]

If Seattle's deciding between DeBrusk and Ritchie, they will take DeBrusk with little to no thought. And if it's between Ritchie and Lauzon, they take Lauzon.

Ritchie does fill an element, and right now, DeBrusk doesn't and they both occupy the same spot on the roster: third line complimentary left wing. But you protect DeBrusk as he'll have more trade value on his own.

DeBrusk's only future with the team is either displacing Ritchie for that 3LW or taking the off-season to convert to 2RW (I'm assuming Hall & Krejci return). He can't play 3RW because while having a different skill set, he's a complimentary player like Ritchie and they both can't be on the same line together.

That's a rational idea, but again, there is no way to state that unequivocally. Too much in play to be able to be so definite. Agree with the remainder of your post- Richie meets a team need that would be very conspicuous by its absence whereas Jake, well, not so sure you can say that.

 

[BruinDust]

Well for me its a no-brainer and its Jake and if the two were exposed I'd be willing to bet the Kracken scoop up Debrusk way before even giving Ritchie a thought.

Ritchie doesn't move the needle at all for me as far as potential or his value around the league compared to Debrusk.. Sure he brings an element this current Bruin team needs, but only when he wants to bring that.

Jake still has the potential to be a 30 goal scorer and his market value is worth more than a Ritchie imo, so if I had to choose on protecting one or the other its Jake.

Based on what though? A 27 goal season two years ago?

You do realize that the ages are essentially the same. That both were Top 15 picks in 2014 and 2015 drafts respectively. That on a one-year deal next year Ritchie and Debrusk will basically make the same, meanwhile one has produced recently (Ritchie) and the other has not (Debrusk). That one guy has been a healthy scratch now, more than once this year. The other guy hasn't been. One guy has produced, the other guy hasn't.

You don't think Seattle (or any other GM) notices this. Or notices that Debrusk's production has been in the tank for over a calendar year now. At least last year with Ritchie you could partially blame weight gain/fitness/conditioning.

I still don't know what Debrusk's excuse is, or why so many posters think he's light-years ahead of Ritchie when comparing their value around the league.

I'll put this out there. If Sweeney offered up both guys tomorrow, he gets better offers on Nick Ritchie than he does Jake Debrusk. No doubt in my mind. Ritchie simply brings more to the table, and a lot of other factors (age, contracts, etc.) are the same.

 

[TCB]

That's a rational idea, but again, there is no way to state that unequivocally. Too much in play to be able to be so definite. Agree with the remainder of your post- Richie meets a team need that would be very conspicuous by its absence whereas Jake, well, not so sure you can say that.

Ritchie does but he doesn't.

Sure he's big and strong but he's not always there for his teammates. His presence alone helps but I've seen too many Bruins get face-washed or mauled by opponents while Ritchie stands by and does nothing. That's an element he brings way to often

 

[MattFromFranklin]

DeBrusk can have zero points the remainder of the season and in the playoffs and he’ll still be protected. Sweeney is scared to trade him. He ain’t going anywhere. The last spot is Ritchie or Frederic.

 

[TCB]

Based on what though? A 27 goal season two years ago?


I'll put this out there. If Sweeney offered up both guys tomorrow, he gets better offers on Nick Ritchie than he does Jake Debrusk. No doubt in my mind. Ritchie simply brings more to the table, and a lot of other factors (age, contracts, etc.) are the same.

Id take those odds ten times over.

Nick Ritchie is a third liner at best, who can enforce, but only when he's in the mood which is far to little imo. Debrusk can become a top six and very possible could with a different team.
Ritchie has an element this team has lacked but for me he doesn't bring it enough, not nearly enough. He needs to realize his strengths and play that role, so far he hasn't as a bruin.

 

[Dr Hook]

Ritchie does but he doesn't.

Sure he's big and strong but he's not always there for his teammates. His presence alone helps but I've seen too many Bruins get face-washed or mauled by opponents while Ritchie stands by and does nothing. That's an element he brings way to often

Ritchie is just better on the walls and along the boards than DeBrusk and he goes to the front of the net regularly. He is more than just an enforcer type player and in his defense, while he can do the rough stuff, that has never been the biggest part of the game. And while he doesnt jump into scrums that much, how often does Jake do any of those things? Far less than Ritchie does.

 

[arider1990]

Based on what though? A 27 goal season two years ago?

You do realize that the ages are essentially the same. That both were Top 15 picks in 2014 and 2015 drafts respectively. That on a one-year deal next year Ritchie and Debrusk will basically make the same, meanwhile one has produced recently (Ritchie) and the other has not (Debrusk). That one guy has been a healthy scratch now, more than once this year. The other guy hasn't been. One guy has produced, the other guy hasn't.

You don't think Seattle (or any other GM) notices this. Or notices that Debrusk's production has been in the tank for over a calendar year now. At least last year with Ritchie you could partially blame weight gain/fitness/conditioning.

I still don't know what Debrusk's excuse is, or why so many posters think he's light-years ahead of Ritchie when comparing their value around the league.

I'll put this out there. If Sweeney offered up both guys tomorrow, he gets better offers on Nick Ritchie than he does Jake Debrusk. No doubt in my mind. Ritchie simply brings more to the table, and a lot of other factors (age, contracts, etc.) are the same.

Debrusk worse season he had 16 goals. Ritchies best he had 14 goals. I don't understand this whole Ritchie produces while Debrusk doesn't thing you keep pitching. Also for their careers Ritchie is a 0.38 PPG while Debrusk is a 0.55.

 

[BruinDust]

Debrusk worse season he had 16 goals. Ritchies best he had 14 goals. I don't understand this whole Ritchie produces while Debrusk doesn't thing you keep pitching. Also for their careers Ritchie is a 0.38 PPG while Debrusk is a 0.55.

Because I don't care about their overall careers. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean much. Nick Ritchie had multiple games as a rookie where he had 7-8-9 hits per game. You don't see that anymore. Should I give Ritchie all sorts of credit for his hit totals from a few years ago?

I'm mostly concerned when evaluating players about recent history. 12-18 months. Anything past that is fairly inconsequential.

Debrusk has produced at a 4th-liner rate the past 14 months (roughly 20 pts. per 82 games).I'm not sure what part of that is debatable.

 

[TCB]

Ritchie is just better on the walls and along the boards than DeBrusk and he goes to the front of the net regularly. He is more than just an enforcer type player and in his defense, while he can do the rough stuff, that has never been the biggest part of the game. And while he doesnt jump into scrums that much, how often does Jake do any of those things? Far less than Ritchie does.

Lol
For me that's what Ritchie needs to do and is expected to do. He's not a star, but he needs to protect them, because he's capable of doing so. Jake not so much.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Their two totally different players and we see them that way.

 

[BruinDust]

Id take those odds ten times over.

Nick Ritchie is a third liner at best, who can enforce, but only when he's in the mood which is far to little imo. Debrusk can become a top six and very possible could with a different team.
Ritchie has an element this team has lacked but for me he doesn't bring it enough, not nearly enough. He needs to realize his strengths and play that role, so far he hasn't as a bruin.

Seems to me you want Ritchie to embrace a certain type of role (3rd line enforcer type), meanwhile we don't know if his coaches even want him playing that role.

I don't get the notion that you have two players here that are basically the same age, but one you've pretty much pegged as "he is what he is" meanwhile the other "can become a top 6 guy" when the "is what he is" guy is outproducing the "potential top 6 guy".

 

[Dr Hook]

Lol
For me that's what Ritchie needs to do and is expected to do. He's not a star, but he needs to protect them, because he's capable of doing so. Jake not so much.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Their two totally different players and we see them that way.

Yes we'll disagree here and no problem- I hate an echo chamber. I suppose we will see come expansion draft time what happens.

 

[Jdavidev]

Based on what though? A 27 goal season two years ago?

You do realize that the ages are essentially the same. That both were Top 15 picks in 2014 and 2015 drafts respectively. That on a one-year deal next year Ritchie and Debrusk will basically make the same, meanwhile one has produced recently (Ritchie) and the other has not (Debrusk). That one guy has been a healthy scratch now, more than once this year. The other guy hasn't been. One guy has produced, the other guy hasn't.

You don't think Seattle (or any other GM) notices this. Or notices that Debrusk's production has been in the tank for over a calendar year now. At least last year with Ritchie you could partially blame weight gain/fitness/conditioning.

I still don't know what Debrusk's excuse is, or why so many posters think he's light-years ahead of Ritchie when comparing their value around the league.

I'll put this out there. If Sweeney offered up both guys tomorrow, he gets better offers on Nick Ritchie than he does Jake Debrusk. No doubt in my mind. Ritchie simply brings more to the table, and a lot of other factors (age, contracts, etc.) are the same.

Yes, he scored 27 goals two years ago. That's high end 2nd line production. And this is Ritchie's best year, but it's less productive than each of DeBrusk's previous three years. That potential and production make him more valuable.

And jeez, I like Ritchie and what he brings, but he has little to no stick handling skills, low impact skating, and doesn't bring the nasty every night. And I want to trade DeBrusk, because unless he transforms himself into a 2RW, he occupies the same spot on the team as Ritchie and he's the one they should move in the off-season.

 

[Dr Hook]

Seems to me you want Ritchie to embrace a certain type of role (3rd line enforcer type), meanwhile we don't know if his coaches even want him playing that role.

I don't get the notion that you have two players here that are basically the same age, but one you've pretty much pegged as "he is what he is" meanwhile the other "can become a top 6 guy" when the "is what he is" guy is outproducing the "potential top 6 guy".

Part of it I think is that Ritchie was not primarily developed here, so while he is practically the same age as Jake, he came with the perception that he was a finished product which isn't really true. JDB has been here the whole time and is still looked at as something of a prospect/young player with room to grow.

 

[TCB]

Seems to me you want Ritchie to embrace a certain type of role (3rd line enforcer type), meanwhile we don't know if his coaches even want him playing that role.

I don't get the notion that you have two players here that are basically the same age, but one you've pretty much pegged as "he is what he is" meanwhile the other "can become a top 6 guy" when the "is what he is" guy is outproducing the "potential top 6 guy".

Im not buying that.
Why wouldn't they want Nick Ritchie bashing in Brenden Dillon head when he mauls Patrice Bergeron or challenge Tom Wilson when he runs around taking shots at everyone wearing a spoked B.

As far as you not getting the notion. Its pretty simple I like Debrusk long term potential more than I do Ritchies, its pretty cut and dry, just a different opinion than yours.

 

[arider1990]

Because I don't care about their overall careers. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean much. Nick Ritchie had multiple games as a rookie where he had 7-8-9 hits per game. You don't see that anymore. Should I give Ritchie all sorts of credit for his hit totals from a few years ago?

I'm mostly concerned when evaluating players about recent history. 12-18 months. Anything past that is fairly inconsequential.

Debrusk has produced at a 4th-liner rate the past 14 months (roughly 20 pts. per 82 games).I'm not sure what part of that is debatable.

You said doesn't produce not hasn't produced lately. There is a big difference. Also I find your choice to be awful so I will tell you his stats in his last 82 games.
Debrusk 20-20-40
Ritchie 19-17-36
And if you decide you want the playoffs also here you go
Debrusk 19-13-32
Ritchie 19-16-35
So in their last 82 regular season games Debrusk is outproducing Ritchie. While in their last 82 total games you get 3 more points. If one is producing then so is the other.

 

[Dr Hook]

You said doesn't produce not hasn't produced lately. There is a big difference. Also I find your choice to be awful so I will tell you his stats in his last 82 games.
Debrusk 20-20-40
Ritchie 19-17-36
And if you decide you want the playoffs also here you go
Debrusk 19-13-32
Ritchie 19-16-35
So in their last 82 regular season games Debrusk is outproducing Ritchie. While in their last 82 total games you get 3 more points. If one is producing then so is the other.

That might as well be identical. So, outside of the same basic production, what does Jake bring to the team beyond that that is better than what Ritchie does?

 

[TCB]

That might as well be identical. So, outside of the same basic production, what does Jake bring to the team beyond that that is better than what Ritchie does?

Neither one of them brings enough as of today imo.

 

[Dr Hook]

Neither one of them brings enough as of today imo.

I can agree with that- I'd like to see a bit more out of big Nick at times as well.

 

[rocketdan9]

DeBrusk can have zero points the remainder of the season and in the playoffs and he’ll still be protected. Sweeney is scared to trade him. He ain’t going anywhere. The last spot is Ritchie or Frederic.

How did you come to this conclusion?

if anything DS would be glad to get rid of his 3.5M average salary per season. Use that money towards signing someone else (like Hall)

I'm not entirely sure if there is a window to trade Debrusk prior to the expansion draft. But if there is no window, I wouldn't be surprised if Jake is unprotected

There is still time between now and and offseason. Jake has to start playing better. Play a little nastier.

He should try to model his game after Marchand

 

[MattFromFranklin]

How did you come to this conclusion?

if anything DS would be glad to get rid of his 3.5M average salary per season. Use that money towards signing someone else (like Hall)

I'm not entirely sure if there is a window to trade Debrusk prior to the expansion draft. But if there is no window, I wouldn't be surprised if Jake is unprotected

There is still time between now and and offseason. Jake has to start playing better. Play a little nastier.

He should try to model his game after Marchand

Fluto wrote a column about a month ago saying they’re scared of trading him and don’t want to look bad.

 

[rocketdan9]

Fluto wrote a column about a month ago saying they’re scared of trading him and don’t want to look bad.

I mean

He is in Bruce doghouse (on and off for two seasons now). And the GM is not going to force Cassidy to play him.....rather will work with coaching staff to cut the excess fat, if you get what I mean

Debrusk value is probably at an all time low. I still wish they would have traded him (and a pick if need be) to the Flames for Sam Bennett.

 

[Dr Hook]

Fluto wrote a column about a month ago saying they’re scared of trading him and don’t want to look bad.

Yes but Fluto was speculating as a journalist for the sake of the story. He may have heard something off the record that it was a concern, but I would not take that article as the gospel truth.

 

[Number8]

Because I don't care about their overall careers. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean much. Nick Ritchie had multiple games as a rookie where he had 7-8-9 hits per game. You don't see that anymore. Should I give Ritchie all sorts of credit for his hit totals from a few years ago?

I'm mostly concerned when evaluating players about recent history. 12-18 months. Anything past that is fairly inconsequential.

Debrusk has produced at a 4th-liner rate the past 14 months (roughly 20 pts. per 82 games).I'm not sure what part of that is debatable.

Sadly, I don’t think any of that is debatable.

Young Jake needs a reset. How that comes, I don’t know. But if it were my business (and this is a business to him) I’d be bringing in some wisened old business vets, some young smart people, and whatever else it takes to help me figure out why my recent returns have been so poor and why my business has gone from a hot new entity to milk toast that will return pennies on the dollar if I sell.

Hope he (and the team) are taking innovative looks at what is not working for last year.

 

[Number8]

How did you come to this conclusion?

if anything DS would be glad to get rid of his 3.5M average salary per season. Use that money towards signing someone else (like Hall)

I'm not entirely sure if there is a window to trade Debrusk prior to the expansion draft. But if there is no window, I wouldn't be surprised if Jake is unprotected

There is still time between now and and offseason. Jake has to start playing better. Play a little nastier.

He should try to model his game after Marchand

I agree with this fully, but that is such a hard thing to teach. Not sure it’s possible.

I think we all agree that Carlo would be more effective with a bit of nasty. Not sure it’s in his makeup so it’s a huge ask.

On the other hand, something was working for Jake in the past. Where that is now, I don’t know. But I’d be getting some help to look for it — whether that be bulking up, sports psychology, whatever. I’m not a pro, but there are pros that can help. Surely?

 

[kthx]

Jake could thrive in a place like Seattle. I dont know the city and I dont know the difference to Boston. But a reset, new coach, new gm, new teammates can do wonders to some people. If Seattle pick him I'm rooting for him to do well there and I could see him scoring 30/35 goals at his peak.