Player Discussion Jake DeBrusk VII

[Ladyfan]

I think the biggest downside is DeBrusk is a much better player than Heinen . I think he might be even more in consistent than Jake. I think Heinen for the money he as been a good pickup, but overall he is not even close to Jake as a player.....Those stats you put up are meaningless, Heinen never has put up a goal season to start with.

To me they are just too different as players. You have to look at everything including their cap hit.

I don't know what will happen with Jake. I am glad he is playing well but it needs to continue. Most players go through a slump, but it cannot be for 20 games. I am just worried about overpayment or too many years. I trust management to get it right.

Heinen will get a raise next contract. If it isn't too much, I would like it to be from the Bs.

 

[NDiesel]

I think it would be ill advised to make a decision like that based on a 40-50 games sample size. Over the last 2.5 seasons....

Heinen - 182 GP / 35G / 73P
DeBrusk - 188 GP / 64G / 117P

DeBrusk has nearly has many goals over the last 2.5 season than Heinen has total points.

It's relevant where Heinen plays in the lineup...last time he played with Bergy-Marchand he nearly matched Debrusks totals from last year playing with those two, though in more games played. Since then he likely played bottom 6 elsewhere.

The other part of the equation is we're really discussing is the lineup better with Lindholm/Hanifin + Heinen vs Debrusk + Heinen

I think the biggest downside is DeBrusk is a much better player than Heinen . I think he might be even more in consistent than Jake. I think Heinen for the money he as been a good pickup, but overall he is not even close to Jake as a player.....Those stats you put up are meaningless, Heinen never has put up a goal season to start with.

I do agree Debrusk is better, but would you rather have Debrusk at let's say 6 years 6.5 mil, or Heinen at 4 years for 3 mil (I'm not sure if that's what Heinen would get for a contract). He's better, but is he double the player?

 

[Hookslide]

It's relevant where Heinen plays in the lineup...last time he played with Bergy-Marchand he nearly matched Debrusks totals from last year playing with those two, though in more games played. Since then he likely played bottom 6 elsewhere.

The other part of the equation is we're really discussing is the lineup better with Lindholm/Hanifin + Heinen vs Debrusk + Heinen


I do agree Debrusk is better, but would you rather have Debrusk at let's say 6 years 6.5 mil, or Heinen at 4 years for 3 mil (I'm not sure if that's what Heinen would get for a contract). He's better, but is he double the player?

DeBrusk easy choice

 

[ON3M4N]

It's relevant where Heinen plays in the lineup...last time he played with Bergy-Marchand he nearly matched Debrusks totals from last year playing with those two, though in more games played. Since then he likely played bottom 6 elsewhere.

The other part of the equation is we're really discussing is the lineup better with Lindholm/Hanifin + Heinen vs Debrusk + Heinen


I do agree Debrusk is better, but would you rather have Debrusk at let's say 6 years 6.5 mil, or Heinen at 4 years for 3 mil (I'm not sure if that's what Heinen would get for a contract). He's better, but is he double the player?

But if you're CGY and your about to move Hanifin & Lindholm, you're blowing it up. Why do you want DeBrusk? He's a pending UFA that likely would want to test the market because he doesn't want to be part of a team that's re-tooling.

As to where each plays. Heinen gets better match-ups in the bottom 6. In the top 6 he's going to draw team better lines. Just because he produced 5-6 years ago playing with a pair of future HOFers doesn't mean he would today.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

It's relevant where Heinen plays in the lineup...last time he played with Bergy-Marchand he nearly matched Debrusks totals from last year playing with those two, though in more games played. Since then he likely played bottom 6 elsewhere.

The other part of the equation is we're really discussing is the lineup better with Lindholm/Hanifin + Heinen vs Debrusk + Heinen


I do agree Debrusk is better, but would you rather have Debrusk at let's say 6 years 6.5 mil, or Heinen at 4 years for 3 mil (I'm not sure if that's what Heinen would get for a contract). He's better, but is he double the player?

I’m not sure why we’re comparing the two.

DeBrusk should be a staple on your top six. Heinen could be a healthy scratch. They play entirely different roles.

I like what Heinen has brought to the team, but you can get a reasonable facsimile on (say) a PTO in the offseason. A player like DeBrusk is much more difficult to find. The more rare the commodity, the more one has to pay.

 

[Hookslide]

I’m not sure why we’re comparing the two.

DeBrusk should be a staple on your top six. Heinen could be a healthy scratch. They play entirely different roles.

I like what Heinen has brought to the team, but you can get a reasonable facsimile on (say) a PTO in the offseason. A player like DeBrusk is much more difficult to find. The more rare the commodity, the more one has to pay.

You said it all, nice job, give Heinen, 3 mil next year and read the how the posts will change.

 

[NDiesel]

I’m not sure why we’re comparing the two.

DeBrusk should be a staple on your top six. Heinen could be a healthy scratch. They play entirely different roles.

I like what Heinen has brought to the team, but you can get a reasonable facsimile on (say) a PTO in the offseason. A player like DeBrusk is much more difficult to find. The more rare the commodity, the more one has to pay.

Some fair points all around from you and others - I'm not saying Heinen is the route I'd go, but thought it was worth a discussion given their similar numbers so far this year

 

[NDiesel]

But if you're CGY and your about to move Hanifin & Lindholm, you're blowing it up. Why do you want DeBrusk? He's a pending UFA that likely would want to test the market because he doesn't want to be part of a team that's re-tooling.

As to where each plays. Heinen gets better match-ups in the bottom 6. In the top 6 he's going to draw team better lines. Just because he produced 5-6 years ago playing with a pair of future HOFers doesn't mean he would today.

All good points. I'd argue Heinen today is much better than Heinen of 5-6 years ago though, no reason to think he wouldn't be able to put up similar numbers with some better players.

Only reason I could see Debrusk signing in Calgary is proximity to home - although at that point he likely just hits UFA and signs in Edmonton to put up some career numbers with McDavid or Drai.

 

[wintersej]

All good points. I'd argue Heinen today is much better than Heinen of 5-6 years ago though, no reason to think he wouldn't be able to put up similar numbers with some better players.

Only reason I could see Debrusk signing in Calgary is proximity to home - although at that point he likely just hits UFA and signs in Edmonton to put up some career numbers with McDavid or Drai.

I'm pretty sure the first year Heinen was in Pittsburgh he got a lot of time with Malkin, played his way out of the top 6, and by the end of his second year in PGH was the team whipping boy.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

If we had gotten a reasonable offer for Jake DeBrusk, he'd have been traded. We didn't, and he didn't.

I don't think Sweeney has ever gotten a good offer for Jake but even if he did I'm not convinced he would've traded him. Fluto wrote a column a few years ago basically saying that Sweeney and company were afraid of trading him. I suspect the biggest reason is they're afraid that Jake would be another young-ish player that would come back to bite them if they moved him. Neely even went on the radio years back and said that they were tired of sprinkling their young talent (Kessel, Seguin, and then later Dougie Hamilton) around the league. If true, I disagree with that line of thinking because Jake is nowhere near as talented as those players when they were dealt, but I can understand it. I think another possibility is that Sweeney has an attachment to the player. Friedman mentioned a few years ago that the reason why Brad Treliving held on to Sam Bennett for so long was that Bennett was his first draft pick and he had an attachment to the player. Although Jake wasn't Sweeney's first draft pick, he was in his first draft, so perhaps something similar is going on.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I don't think Sweeney has ever gotten a good offer for Jake but even if he did I'm not convinced he would've traded him. Fluto wrote a column a few years ago basically saying that Sweeney and company were afraid of trading him. I suspect the biggest reason is they're afraid that Jake would be another young-ish player that would come back to bite them if they moved him. Neely even went on the radio years back and said that they were tired of sprinkling their young talent (Kessel, Seguin, and then later Dougie Hamilton) around the league. If true, I disagree with that line of thinking because Jake is nowhere near as talented as those players when they were dealt, but I can understand it. I think another possibility is that Sweeney has an attachment to the player. Friedman mentioned a few years ago that the reason why Brad Treliving held on to Sam Bennett for so long was that Bennett was his first draft pick and he had an attachment to the player. Although Jake wasn't Sweeney's first draft pick, he was in his first draft, so perhaps something similar is going on.

Could also be that Jake is a good player and has been signed to a reasonable contract.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

Could also be that Jake is a good player and has been signed to a reasonable contract.

As I said yesterday, I think it's obvious that Sweeney views him as a core player. I disagree with him but I can understand why he thinks that.

 

[AngryMilkcrates]

Easy, talk term and aav. If you are no where close you move him for a replacement. If you are close, work it out and lock him up. Same with Swayman. Don't want either to leave, but if they price themselves out of Boston then that's their choice.

6-6.5 is what I am wanting to see. Doubt it will be a long term.

 

[goldnblack]

Easy, talk term and aav. If you are no where close you move him for a replacement. If you are close, work it out and lock him up. Same with Swayman. Don't want either to leave, but if they price themselves out of Boston then that's their choice.

6-6.5 is what I am wanting to see. Doubt it will be a long term.

You think Jake doesn't want term?

 

[AngryMilkcrates]

You think Jake doesn't want term?

Not at what Don may offer.
I have no clue what Don would, has, IS offering.
But, if Don offers 6m does Jake take that for 6-8 years?
I don't think he does. I think he would bet on himself again and take 2-4 so he could get a big payday after. It is what he has done so far.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[CellyHard]

I do agree Debrusk is better, but would you rather have Debrusk at let's say 6 years 6.5 mil, or Heinen at 4 years for 3 mil (I'm not sure if that's what Heinen would get for a contract). He's better, but is he double the player?

Everyone loves Heinen at a minimum contract but oh man he would get eaten alive here at 3 million. I think our 3rd line next year will feature mostly Freddy, Poitras, Geekie and maybe Heinen rotating in at times. I think for someone we envision spending time mostly rotating between bottom six lines, I wouldn't want him to be paid the most.

Debrusk seems like he is going to be trickier sign but how about that Brandon Hagel contract as a comp? 6.5 x 8 after putting up 30 goals and 60+ points. Even though Debrusk has gotten close, he's never had a season like that....IMO that should be the absolute ceiling for him

 

[NDiesel]

Everyone loves Heinen at a minimum contract but oh man he would get eaten alive here at 3 million. I think our 3rd line next year will feature mostly Freddy, Poitras, Geekie and maybe Heinen rotating in at times. I think for someone we envision spending time mostly rotating between bottom six lines, I wouldn't want him to be paid the most.

Debrusk seems like he is going to be trickier sign but how about that Brandon Hagel contract as a comp? 6.5 x 8 after putting up 30 goals and 60+ points. Even though Debrusk has gotten close, he's never had a season like that....IMO that should be the absolute ceiling for him

I could see @AngryMilkcrates being right in that he signs here for maybe 3-4 years and hopes he can cash in on one more raise when he's around 31/32 - prime for players these days seems to be extending later and later.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I could see @AngryMilkcrates being right in that he signs here for maybe 3-4 years and hopes he can cash in on one more raise when he's around 31/32 - prime for players these days seems to be extending later and later.

I tend to disagree here - 3-4 years is the no man’s land. It would be 2 in that scenario or he’s looking for 6+. This is the contract players get set for life with.

 

[NDiesel]

I tend to disagree here - 3-4 years is the no man’s land. It would be 2 in that scenario or he’s looking for 6+. This is the contract players get set for life with.

I suppose 2 years would make sense too - unless Jake stays hot though I'm not sure this will be the contract to get him set for life, his ice cold start really hurt his numbers so far.

My thinking was 3-4 years provides some nice security while potentially setting him up for another 3-4 year contract afterwards.

 

[Dr Hook]

I tend to disagree here - 3-4 years is the no man’s land. It would be 2 in that scenario or he’s looking for 6+. This is the contract players get set for life with.

He's already set for life if we are talking money- he's made more to this point that 99+% of the people in the world make in a lifetime. In NHL terms, true, he's the prime age to cash in big, so I think you're right, 2 years to set up a much bigger payday (with some risk) or 6+ and potentially leave some money on the table for security.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

He's already set for life if we are talking money- he's made more to this point that 99+% of the people in the world make in a lifetime. In NHL terms, true, he's the prime age to cash in big, so I think you're right, 2 years to set up a much bigger payday (with some risk) or 6+ and potentially leave some money on the table for security.

Yeah I mean when we’re talking about pro athletes it’s all relative. No one wants to be looking for their big payday at 31-32.

 

[UncleRico]

Going to point out he has 0 points in his last 7 games to ensure he breaks that streak next game

 

[BruinDust]

After 7 seasons I'm ready for the Bruins to move on from this player. I'm just tired of watching him and his inconsistent effort.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

After 7 seasons I'm ready for the Bruins to move on from this player. I'm just tired of watching him and his inconsistent effort.

Sweeney isn't, which is what matters.

 

[NeelyDan]

The bruins build and pride themselves on consistency, systems and methodical approach - Jake has some game-breaking ability, but I see him as the antithesis of the team's DNA

I'm fine with him staying at a reasonable number - my guess is an 8 year deal around 6.5 to 6.75, and given cap trajectory, i'd be "okay" with that all things considered