Player Discussion Alex DeBrincat
- Thread starter RAFI BOMB
- Start date
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,687
- 16,863
Act like what, he said he wants to see if he is a good fit on team.
playasRus
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2009
- 9,308
- 2,068
He's probably also a realist, you see ~35M dedicated long term to forwards in the last two years? He probably realises he may be the odd man out.
We'll see how things go!
Sensmileletsgo
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2018
- 5,095
- 4,359
Sensmileletsgo
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2018
- 5,095
- 4,359
I don’t think that’s fair to say just based off that sentence. He hasn’t even played a game yet, it’s to early to discuss a contract.
It wasn't too early for Fiala, Tkachuk or Huberdeau, despite not having played a game for their new teams.
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
Different situations.
Tkachuk and Fiala both knew that they were not going to re-sign with their former teams, were up front about it, and essentially navigated their way to their preferred destinations by limiting who they would talk extension with.
Huberdeau got a contract offer that he and his agent knew would not be matched in free-agency.
DeBrincat, from all reports, wanted to stay in Chicago and was not involved in any trade discussions. And we're not going to come in with a way over the top offer of $10.5M per.
Definitely our best forward
Nah dude it’s terrible
Huh
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,079
- 39,562
So we're Tkachuk and Fiala supposed to retire when they got traded, because they either needed to sign something with a team they never played for, or not play since their contracts were up.
Huberdeau is a bit better example, except that he's 29 years old and got offered a retirement deal that pays him like he's in his prime till he turns 37.
What's different about the situations is that Tkachuk and Fiala were willing to re-sign with their new teams without playing a single game with them because they are very attractive destinations.
Huberdeau re-signed in Calgary because he got a massive contract from a desperate team looking to remain a contender. That's the kind of contract we'll probably need to give DeBrincat to keep him in Ottawa.
If it comes to it I'd rather trade DeBrincat for assets than throw a 10-11M x 8YR contract at him. Not sure why he'd take any less when Tkachuk just got 9.5M x 8YRs in sunny tax-free Florida.
coladin
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2009
- 11,869
- 5,039
Is that $14.1 taking into account what may be coming off the books as well? I know after 23-24, they are getting 5M back from buyouts being done
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
Who knows what kind of contract we'll need to offer DeBrincat to stay in Ottawa. Maybe he'll love playing with Stützle, the team starts contending, and his wife makes great friends in the community, so he falls in line with the other guys and takes 8x$8.5M.
"Not sure why he'd take any less when Tkachuk just got 9.5M x 8YRs in sunny tax-free Florida" is no different than "Not sure why [insert Tkachuk, Norris, Stützle] would sign long-term now when they can just take a bridge and choose their destination plus make more money when the cap goes up."
Isn't that what everyone was saying for the last 2 years? And then what happened?
Who knows what DeBrincat is thinking, or will be thinking after this season. At this point, we have control of him for 2 years, so let's just enjoy watching him score some goals. The doomsday "he won't want to stay!" narrative is lame.
*Footnote: Matthew Tkachuk is also a better, more valuable player than DeBrincat, and he should be paid more. He's not the comparable. Neither is Huberdeau. Both are a tier above.
Last edited:
Ottawa has a pretty poor rep around the league
I think it is changing with Melnyk gone. Still there is damage and not surprised Debrincat wants to wait and see. Also the city itself....it takes time
I've always been consistent in saying that we won't have issues re-signing the RFAs long-term, nor should we be hesitant to do so, but upcoming UFAs will be far more difficult to keep and for most of them it's not worth overpaying to keep them in Ottawa since big UFA contracts rarely work out for the teams that give them out.
People are acting like it was some kind of big accomplishment to re-sign Tkachuk, Norris and Stutzle to deals worth around 8M a year for 7-8 years, when they were RFAs that would have had to accept far less money on bridge deals for 4 years to get out of Ottawa and get to choose their destination. That's significantly different from DeBrincat's situation where he can pick his ideal destination via UFA in 2 years, possibly earlier via a sign and trade next off-season.
Every major upcoming UFA this team has had in recent years has chosen to not re-sign, and we're extremely fortunate that is the case. We're sure glad right now that Karlsson, Stone, Duchene and Dzingel didn't take our offers of long-term extensions, and trading Turris and Pageau instead of throwing big UFA contracts at them also look like great moves right now.
Last significant UFA we re-signed was Bobby Ryan, another American star forward that we had to overpay to keep in Ottawa to save face after giving up a lot for him. Would have been better off trading him after his first year instead of extending him. Might be the same with DeBrincat.
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
The situation the team is in today is significantly different than the situation the team was in in 17/18 and 18/19. There's one key person who's no longer involved in any negotiations. And the competitive window is opening instead of closing.
So who knows what will happen with Debrincat, but assuming he won't re-sign because of what happened with Karlsson and Stone is a very poor argument.
For all we know, DeBrincat regresses slightly from an offensive perspective due to less PP time on not being spoonfed by Kane on a team that didn't care about defense, scores 35+35, and happily takes 8x8.
Last edited:
Sensmileletsgo
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2018
- 5,095
- 4,359
Those guys didn’t have contracts, they had to sign. Aside from Huberdeau, and Calgary gave him a massive contract.
I’ve said it before, DeBrincat has a contract that is very favorable for him. He can sign a QO next year for 9 mill that takes him to free agency. He has a lot of leverage on his side so I’m sure he’s willing to play it out.
Masked
(Super/star)
Calgary tried to sign their Tkachuk long term and it turned into a bridge deal.
Sure DeBrincat could hope he can choose his destination in 2 years. But he's also taking a chance on a serious injury. If he leaves in 2 years, the Sens will then have more cap space and left wing is the easiest position to replace in the league. But getting 2 years out of him is fine. Next year the team could easily be in Cup contention depending upon what happens at right defense.
Assen na yo!
Which of Fiala, Tkachuk or Huberdeau was two years out from UFA?
Their situations weree different and there's no way for you to negatively spin this around not wanting to sign.
We don't have to sign him now. Both sides saying wait and see. The end.
Last edited:
Sun God Nika
Palestine <3.
Loach
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2021
- 2,797
- 2,977
Sweatred
Erase me
- Jan 28, 2019
- 13,408
- 3,328
I don’t think that’s accurate …
How could Huberdeau know what would be offered in UFA next season?
So technically you're right, how could he know? He couldn't. He doesn't have a crystal ball.
But I think the general point is that Huberdeau was offered an incredible amount of money and there's far more downside risk than money potentially left on the table risk.
I think you understood the general point and your observation is a little eye rolling.
DylanSensFan
BEESHIP: NBH
I mean, next year's deadline. In year two of his time in Ottawa.
My perspective is that he seems a lot like Matthew Tkatchuk. So if by next year he plays cat and mouse with us regarding a contract, then we trade him. I didn't mean this years.
