Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Jake DeBrusk to 7-Year, $5.5M AAV Contract

[Regal]

Fantastic deal. Looks good now and as the cap goes up will only look better.

I don't understand the people freaking out about term. He has a winning pedigree, fits the identity we are building to a tee, and is 27 years old. If he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years you would call it a smart deal, so why is 7 at 27 any different?

While it’s a fair question I don’t think it’s quite the same. While both deals end at the same age, our knowledge of the years leading up to 30 are different. It’s possible DeBrusk slowly regresses until 30, while the guy you’d sign at 30 would presumptively be coming off a season worth of the deal. There’s less risk in the first year or two after signing the deal at 30 than there is in year 4 or 5 after signing this deal at 27 and hoping he hasn’t regressed by 30.

There’s also the possibility that injury causes regression early in the contract rather than just age, but not enough to go on LTIR. If Mikheyev for example never regains his skating enough to be a decent player again, the fact that his deal was 4 years instead of 7 is a huge plus, either in terms of swallowing it or trading it.

Obviously these are factors in every long term contract but I think it’s worse for non-star players because I think there’s always more chance that something happens to make them no longer a contributor. I think in general it’s not ideal to go more than 4 or 5 years to anyone who isn’t on the Pettersson, Hughes or Miller level unless it’s a situation of banking on a young player reaching that level and trying to get them cheaper (say Willander looks like he’s going to be a top pairing guy his first year or two and you want to get him locked up long term for a top 4 rate instead of too pair to save money in the future).

And part of that is there’s the possibility that he just doesn’t fit the team very well and he ends up hindering the ability to make other moves to improve. 7 years is a long time and you never know who is going to become available in that time frame.

Not to say that it makes it a bad deal. I just don’t think it’s an ideal scenario for this level of player.

 

[F A N]

I don't understand the people freaking out about term. He has a winning pedigree, fits the identity we are building to a tee, and is 27 years old. If he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years you would call it a smart deal, so why is 7 at 27 any different?

Regal explained it. But to put it in another perspective, all else being equal (same AAV no penalties etc.), if the team has a choice between a 7 year deal or 1 year deal + successive team options over the next 6 years the team should always pick the team option.

 

[biturbo19]

Honestly, i love it. DeBrusk is a guy who i've been mentioning as a target for a long time now. Maybe even back to last summer as a trade target. To get him "for free" as a UFA is great. Helps offset the "expended assets" of acquiring a rental like Lindholm.

DeBrusk is exactly the sort of player that this team has been needed to add more of. Size+Speed with the ability to get in on the forecheck, get to the net, cap off plays. While still being defensively responsible as well. They took a swing and a miss on Mikheyev trying to bolster that glaring weakness on a very small, slow team...but he has never shown anything like DeBrusk's hands and touch around the net. Nor has he ever been as much of a presence on the forecheck, or even shown the particular willingness or intent to get to the net and score those sort of goals with any regularity. But that's exactly what DeBrusk's game is built around.


In theory, a perfect complement to what Pettersson needs in a winger. And is actually a very smart hockey player who has demonstrated that he has the hockey sense and wherewithal to play a very effectively complementary role with better, more skilled players (like Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci, etc.) That's a hugely important quality that guys like Mikheyev were missing, Garland and Hoglander don't have it either.

It's kind of funny...i actually went back and double-checked if i was remembering right, but my Comp for DeBrusk in his draft year was actually...Alex Burrows. And i think that there's real potential for DeBrusk to be to Pettersson, what Burrows was to the Sedins.

But the absolute "worst case" i can see here, is that DeBrusk doesn't "click" with Mercurial Pete for whatever inexplicable reason...and we've got a Super Rich Man's PDG who can actually finish to play with JT+Boeser.


The term is certainly on the long side...but far less egregious than a lot of deals signed during the frenzy. Especially as mentioned, from Canadian teams looking to get around the tax situation in "total dollars" without driving up a stupid cap hit. Which is successful here, as $5.5M feels plenty fair in this market and with the cap set to go up in the coming years as well. He's also on the young side for UFAs, so i think it's reasonable to believe that we'll get more of those 7 years as "good ones" than if he were already a few years older like other typical UFAs.



I'm excited. Now...hopefully it's not one of those weird things that doesn't jive with Pettersson for some reason, and maybe one day we can even get a third guy for that line too!

 

[biturbo19]

Reading about him, profiles almost like Hoglander.

Maybe in the abstract of reading a profile as a "tenacious forechecker" who "scores around the net". But they are very very different players in actuality.

DeBrusk is bigger and significantly faster among other things. But the most important thing is, DeBrusk is a player who has shown that he can actually play with smart, skilled players effectively.

Hoglander is great at what he does, but he plays a super disjointed game that always seems totalyl out of sync with guys like Pettersson/Miller/Boeser. It's all about broken plays and turnovers with him. DeBrusk is a guy who forechecks well, can free the puck up to more creative linemates...and has more of a knack for reading off them to jump into soft areas around the net or just mash pucks in (a lot like Burrows used to excel at).

DeBrusks speed also gives him the ability to be much more of a factor through the neutral zone. Which is something this team really needed.

couple questions - who were his linemates for the most part last year, and what spot does he play on the power play. We need a bumper guy that can hit the net, unlike Boeser.

Last year he played a lot with Coyle/Marchand, or Zacha/Pasta. Year before that he was mostly with Bergeron/Marchand. I it that speaks positively to his ability to play effectively with good, smart, "top line" type players.

As for the Powerplay thing...well...if there's any real margin for a lot of potential "surplus value" in this contract, it's probably in seeing what he can do with a bigger Powerplay role. He's just never really been a big powerplay guy. More of a "2nd afterthought unit" guy for the most part.

Some of that is personnel and opportunity ahead of him in priority in Boston. The real question is going to be...how much of that is just an "ability" or "aptitude" thing? For all the things DeBrusk does well...he is absolutely not a very creative player. North-South directness can be really effective and is much needed here at even strength, but can become a liability on the powerplay.

But to me, it's something that i think is at least worth giving a bigger look here. He's got all the attributes for it to work on paper. But there are plenty of good players who just don't have the natural "creativity" offensively to thrive on the Powerplay. Never know 'til you put it to the test.

Whether he works out as a potential component of that top Powerplay Unit though, is basically the difference between being a 20-30G - 40-50Pt predominantly ES scoring winger...and more of a 30G+ 65Pts sort of winger.

This guy isn't mikheyev. He's scored 27 goals in 86 playoff games. Mikheyev has 2 goals in 30 playoff games.

Debrusk is a good bet to pop in 20-30 goals and 40-50 points in the regular season. More importantly is that you can expect him to chip in some goals in the playoffs.

Exactly. Similar vein to Mikheyev in what they're trying to add here...but Mikheyev was a far bigger reach. Both bigger, speedy two-way guys who can add that dimension. Neither is going to give you much in the way of creative playmaking (and that's reflected in Goal-skewed lower point totals overall). But DeBrusk is a noticeably more physically involved, and a far more natural goal-scorer. Better shooter, way better hands around the net, and just far better instincts for it.

There's a reason DeBrusk in a "down year" as a goal scorer (with a gimpy hand for part of the season) still potted 20G which is more or less the fluky "high water mark" for Mikheyev's career. It's why in a "good year" DeBrusk has multiple seasons under his belt with 27G, pacing at a 30G+ rate. It's basically the difference between a "20-30 Goal Scorer" in DeBrusk...vs a "10-20 Goal Scorer" in Mikheyev. They might slightly overlap sometimes, but the upper and lower bounds are very different. Even before he busted up his knee, ain't nobody would've ever dreamed of any scenario where Mikky would manage to score 27G in a season. That's not a pipe dream with DeBrusk...it's something he's actually done. Multiple times.



And the Playoff goals thing is not something to dismiss either. It's not leaning on one of those Sean Bergenheim type runs or whatever, of lucky, unsustainable performance. With DeBrusk, it's a bigger track record for one thing. But more importantly, it's the way that he tends to score his goals. He can and does score off the rush...but more importantly, he thrives in getting to the inside and scoring from there. Which is the area that especially against Nashville...the Canucks struggled mightily to break into. Those are the "playoff goals".

He’s the kind of player that is useful, coaches will love him, and his cap hit will be fine going forward. The term doesn’t bother me as he’ll be 34 when it’s over. There’s a good chance he actually provides full value. He also seems to be a good locker room guy and wants to be in Western Canada.

My main complaint is I’d rather use that cap space on an actual true goal scorer.

You me, and everyone else too. Problem is exactly that though. Everyone would love to just add "true goal scorers" all over the place. So they almost never really come available. Best you're gonna find is deeply, sometimes catastrophically flawed ones. Very old ones. Traded for ones (with what capital?). Or you draft and develop them, and then try to trade them away ones (like Boeser).

Or you settle for the next best thing...which is a guy like DeBrusk who has demonstrated the ability to reach from that "20G echelon" into the territory of that "30G range".

The biggest thing really missing from DeBrusk's arsenal is a boatload of PP One Timers ripped from the circle or whatever. To put it in context, i think most would call Stamkos a "Actual True Goal Scorer" of the first order. Yet...at even strength over the last couple years:

Stamkos = 41 EVG in 160 Games.
DeBrusk = 36 EVG in 144 Games.


*and DeBrusk has also started to add a shorthanded scoring trick to his bag.

So if what we really need is a guy to stand on the dot and rip powerplay onetimers...well, maybe he ain't our guy. But at even strength over the last 2-4 years...DeBrusk has been one of the top70-80ish "real actual even strength goal scorers" in the entire league. Which isn't perfect, but it's a pretty decent start imo.

 

[VanJack]

The most encouraging thing about DeBrusk last season is that he took his game to another level in the playoffs. He had five goals and six assists in the two series the Beantowners played in.

By comparison, J.T. Miller and Brock Boeser were the leading scorers for the Canucks with 12 points. Any time a player steps it up in the playoffs, it gets my attention. It's just so hard to score in the post-season.

Although he was plagued by bouts of inconsistency early in his career in Boston, I think he'll be a legitimate top-six winger for Vancouver.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

from limited viewing, i’ve always seen debrusk as a kind of a less lethal pacioretty on the offensive end. a lot of speed, jam, crashing the net and corners.

but thinking of the kind of winger that petey historically has thrived with (kuz, boeser), does he also have it in him to find holes and play the give and go, kind of like a james neal to petey’s malkin? or the way jt surprised us initially on the 649 line?

 

[Nuckles]

Someone made a highlight package of all his primary points last season + playoffs

 

[biturbo19]

from limited viewing, i’ve always seen debrusk as a kind of a less lethal pacioretty on the offensive end. a lot of speed, jam, crashing the net and corners.

but thinking of the kind of winger that petey historically has thrived with (kuz, boeser), does he also have it in him to find holes and play the give and go, kind of like a james neal to petey’s malkin? or the way jt surprised us initially on the 649 line?

It's not an outlandish comparison. I'm not sure DeBrusk even has the same sort of "puck protection" cycle game the same way prime Patches did. But there are a lot of similarities.

Certainly remains to be seen how his chemistry with Petey pans out. I think DeBrusk's ability to time up when he jumps into openings is pretty underrated. That bodes well. But it's all just "on paper" until we actually get a chance to see it on the ice.


I think the other aspects he brings are also still potentially very important to working with Pettersson though. That speed, forechecking, and getting to the net stuff is all crucial to finding a successful winger fit with Pettersson. Someone who can drag him along and get him the puck, while also providing opportunities to put the puck toward the net, rather than the perimeter.

As much as Pettersson has found success with guys like Kuzmenko, Boeser...he's also always sort of needed that "spadework" guy just as much. It's why say...the Lotto Line works so much better than just Pettersson+Boeser alone. It's why he needed a straightline plugger like Mikheyev to make things work with Kuzmenko. Needs that guy with speed and a straightline game to apply pressure, turn over pucks, get to the inside to create a credible scoring threat, etc.

I think the biggest hope with DeBrusk...is that he can bridge that gap and be a little bit of both. And then you just have to find a third amigo to complete the line with whatever is missing. Whether that's Heinen/Podkolzin/Suter/Sherwood or...uggghhh...it's not Hoglander, but it'll probably get yet another look.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not an outlandish comparison. I'm not sure DeBrusk even has the same sort of "puck protection" cycle game the same way prime Patches did. But there are a lot of similarities.

Certainly remains to be seen how his chemistry with Petey pans out. I think DeBrusk's ability to time up when he jumps into openings is pretty underrated. That bodes well. But it's all just "on paper" until we actually get a chance to see it on the ice.


I think the other aspects he brings are also still potentially very important to working with Pettersson though. That speed, forechecking, and getting to the net stuff is all crucial to finding a successful winger fit with Pettersson. Someone who can drag him along and get him the puck, while also providing opportunities to put the puck toward the net, rather than the perimeter.

As much as Pettersson has found success with guys like Kuzmenko, Boeser...he's also always sort of needed that "spadework" guy just as much. It's why say...the Lotto Line works so much better than just Pettersson+Boeser alone. It's why he needed a straightline plugger like Mikheyev to make things work with Kuzmenko. Needs that guy with speed and a straightline game to apply pressure, turn over pucks, get to the inside to create a credible scoring threat, etc.

I think the biggest hope with DeBrusk...is that he can bridge that gap and be a little bit of both. And then you just have to find a third amigo to complete the line with whatever is missing. Whether that's Heinen/Podkolzin/Suter/Sherwood or...uggghhh...it's not Hoglander, but it'll probably get yet another look.

Yeah, I feel like Hoglander is best utilized on the fourth line., despite his high production. He has an uncanny ability to generate a ton by himself without much concern for others. I also feel like Sherwood's the TYPE of player who can complement him best.

Feels like something like this would work:

Suter/Podkolzin - Miller - Boeser
Heinen - Pettersson - DeBrusk
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Hoglander - Aman/Suter - Sherwood

 

[biturbo19]

Yeah, I feel like Hoglander is best utilized on the fourth line., despite his high production. He has an uncanny ability to generate a ton by himself without much concern for others. I also feel like Sherwood's the TYPE of player who can complement him best.

Feels like something like this would work:

Suter/Podkolzin - Miller - Boeser
Heinen - Pettersson - DeBrusk
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Hoglander - Aman/Suter - Sherwood

Yeah. This is pretty much exactly the sort of framework i'd expect, and roll out with to at least try first. I think on paper at least, it puts everyone in the best positions to maximize what they can provide.

Including Hoggy on the "4th line" like that. Seems to be where he's most at home. Just get in and be disruptive and cash on those broken plays off the forecheck, where Sherwood does seem like a potentially good complement. Same way Lafferty was early last season when he was hustling.

 

[TruGr1t]

Yeah, I feel like Hoglander is best utilized on the fourth line., despite his high production. He has an uncanny ability to generate a ton by himself without much concern for others. I also feel like Sherwood's the TYPE of player who can complement him best.

Feels like something like this would work:

Suter/Podkolzin - Miller - Boeser
Heinen - Pettersson - DeBrusk
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Hoglander - Aman/Suter - Sherwood

I can't see them not running Suter at centre, Aman is just such a big downgrade from running Miller/Pettersson/Suter/Blueger at pivot. Similarly, unless Podkolzin has the summer of his life I don't see any way he starts in the top six. The player we saw last year shouldn't be there. He'll have to beat out PDG and Aman just to have a roster spot.

I still think you may have to break-up Joshua/Garland to fill-out the top six, but this is mainly because I would like to see Garland as the other winger on the Pettersson-DeBrusk line. I'm not sure how else Hoglander isn't in the top six, he's obviously better than Podkolzin and PDG.

This gives you an actual top six (without any bottom six plugins), a third line with some offense, and a more traditional fourth checking/energy line. This is also basically the depth chart, IMO, except you're swapping DeBrusk and Joshua so the former can play with Pettersson.

Joshua-Miller-Boeser
DeBrusk-Pettersson-Garland
Hoglander-Suter-Heinen
PDG/Podkolzin-Blueger-Sherwood

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's not an outlandish comparison. I'm not sure DeBrusk even has the same sort of "puck protection" cycle game the same way prime Patches did. But there are a lot of similarities.

Certainly remains to be seen how his chemistry with Petey pans out. I think DeBrusk's ability to time up when he jumps into openings is pretty underrated. That bodes well. But it's all just "on paper" until we actually get a chance to see it on the ice.


I think the other aspects he brings are also still potentially very important to working with Pettersson though. That speed, forechecking, and getting to the net stuff is all crucial to finding a successful winger fit with Pettersson. Someone who can drag him along and get him the puck, while also providing opportunities to put the puck toward the net, rather than the perimeter.

As much as Pettersson has found success with guys like Kuzmenko, Boeser...he's also always sort of needed that "spadework" guy just as much. It's why say...the Lotto Line works so much better than just Pettersson+Boeser alone. It's why he needed a straightline plugger like Mikheyev to make things work with Kuzmenko. Needs that guy with speed and a straightline game to apply pressure, turn over pucks, get to the inside to create a credible scoring threat, etc.

I think the biggest hope with DeBrusk...is that he can bridge that gap and be a little bit of both. And then you just have to find a third amigo to complete the line with whatever is missing. Whether that's Heinen/Podkolzin/Suter/Sherwood or...uggghhh...it's not Hoglander, but it'll probably get yet another look.

that’s a good point. we are praying for a daniel to score the goals, but we need a burrows to retrieve the puck too

that said, the $9 million question is can jake do enough of both to just need one of our many plug and play depth wingers across from him, or are we going to have to bring in a poor man’s guentzel/reinhart at the deadline? ie, this year’s version of toffoli?

Yeah, I feel like Hoglander is best utilized on the fourth line., despite his high production

agree. not despite, because

15-odd ES goals from the fourth line over a season goes a long way

 

[Shareefruck]

I can't see them not running Suter at centre, Aman is just such a big downgrade from running Miller/Pettersson/Suter/Blueger at pivot. Similarly, unless Podkolzin has the summer of his life I don't see any way he starts in the top six. The player we saw last year shouldn't be there. He'll have to beat out PDG and Aman just to have a roster spot.

I still think you may have to break-up Joshua/Garland to fill-out the top six, but this is mainly because I would like to see Garland as the other winger on the Pettersson-DeBrusk line. I'm not sure how else Hoglander isn't in the top six, he's obviously better than Podkolzin and PDG.

This gives you an actual top six (without any bottom six plugins), a third line with some offense, and a more traditional fourth checking/energy line. This is also basically the depth chart, IMO, except you're swapping DeBrusk and Joshua so the former can play with Pettersson.

Joshua-Miller-Boeser
DeBrusk-Pettersson-Garland
Hoglander-Suter-Heinen
PDG/Podkolzin-Blueger-Sherwood

I really don't like the fit of that second line, personally, despite putting all your eggs in one basket, I see it as a less-than-the-sum-of-its-parts option. Plus, I really like having a 3-4 line wave of all around play/offense, and this doesn't give you that.

Garland, like Hoglander are tough to fit with offensive players, IMO (or at least, the ones that we have). They were in no-man's land looking out of place on the top 6 for so long (it always looks like a square peg in a round hole) before finally finding something that works. I would not break that up. The fact that they're able to individually carry their own offensively productive and somewhat dominant lines is a very big strength and rarity worth capitalizing on, IMO. There's a reason why Garland didn't get moved up to the top 6 even when Joshua was injured.

I agree that there's no ideal silver bullet with the Aman/Podkolzin spots in my line-up, but I think the rest of how everything falls into place is so strong that it's worth experimenting with the question-marks. Aman was typically not what you would ideally want as a full-time player last season EXCEPT when it was the Hoglander - Aman - Lafferty line, IMO-- because of the fit, he was great in that role (Hoglander's tenacity all over the ice seems to enable Aman to be a big contributor to that identity-- I suspect it even could work better than Suter on that line, despite the latter being so superior generally). Podkolzin is a complete enigma that can go in either direction, IMO. I think his simplistic game could fit/be useful and be elevated with Miller - Boeser, who like to carry the bulk of the play themselves.

I feel like at least one of those options can possibly work out (and of course, Suter is reliable in whichever other spot he lands), which is all you need.

Feels like we have different philosophies in general, though. A roster exactly reflecting the order of the depth chart doesn't sound like a good thing to me, personally.

agree. not despite, because

15-odd ES goals from the fourth line over a season goes a long way

I would adjust that to despite AND because. Despite the expectation/convention/meritocratic reward, but because of the optimization, like you say.

 

[TruGr1t]

I really don't like the fit of that second line, personally, despite putting all your eggs in one basket, I see it as a less-than-the-sum-of-its-parts option. Plus, I really like having a 3-4 line wave of all around play/offense, and this doesn't give you that.

Garland, like Hoglander are tough to fit with offensive players, IMO (or at least, the ones that we have). They were in no-man's land looking out of place on the top 6 for so long (it always looks like a square peg in a round hole) before finally finding something that works. I would not break that up. The fact that they're able to individually carry their own offensively productive and somewhat dominant lines is a very big strength, IMO.

I agree that there's no ideal silver bullet with the Aman/Podkolzin spots in my line-up, but I think the rest of how everything falls into place is so strong that it's worth experimenting with the question-marks. Aman was typically not what you would ideally want as a full-time player last season EXCEPT when it was the Hoglander - Aman - Lafferty line, IMO-- because of the fit, he was great in that role. Podkolzin is a complete enigma that can go in either direction, IMO. I think his simplistic game could fit/be useful and be elevated with Miller - Boeser, who like to carry the bulk of the play themselves.

I feel like at least one of those options can possibly work out (and of course, Suter is reliable in whichever other spot he lands), which is all you need.


I would adjust that to despite AND because. Despite the expectation/convention/meritocratic reward, but because of the optimization, like you say.

Hoglander-Pettersson-Garland actually had a good run during a three-game win streak in March (Garland 2+2, Hoglander 2+0, Pettersson 2+3). Tocchet didn't really stick with it since Joshua returned shortly after that and he reunited him with Garland, but that may have been Pettersson's best three-game stretch post-all-star break. A little later, in early April, was coincidentally also when Tocchet tried Joshua-Miller-Garland, which also generated good on-ice results. This was when Boeser was briefly moved to try to "jump-start" Pettersson.

I am easy, but I would hope they would at least give Joshua/Garland ice with Pettersson and Miller in some capacity, as it's tended to generate good on-ice performance when tried.

For example, I'm also not opposed to the following being trialed:

DeBrusk-Pettersson-Boeser
Joshua-Miller-Garland

OR

DeBrusk-Miller-Boeser
Joshua-Pettersson-Garland

In my mind, Suter/Blueger are already penned in as 3/4C.

 

[sting101]

Maybe in the abstract of reading a profile as a "tenacious forechecker" who "scores around the net". But they are very very different players in actuality.

DeBrusk is bigger and significantly faster among other things. But the most important thing is, DeBrusk is a player who has shown that he can actually play with smart, skilled players effectively.

Hoglander is great at what he does, but he plays a super disjointed game that always seems totalyl out of sync with guys like Pettersson/Miller/Boeser. It's all about broken plays and turnovers with him. DeBrusk is a guy who forechecks well, can free the puck up to more creative linemates...and has more of a knack for reading off them to jump into soft areas around the net or just mash pucks in (a lot like Burrows used to excel at).

DeBrusks speed also gives him the ability to be much more of a factor through the neutral zone. Which is something this team really needed.



Last year he played a lot with Coyle/Marchand, or Zacha/Pasta. Year before that he was mostly with Bergeron/Marchand. I it that speaks positively to his ability to play effectively with good, smart, "top line" type players.

As for the Powerplay thing...well...if there's any real margin for a lot of potential "surplus value" in this contract, it's probably in seeing what he can do with a bigger Powerplay role. He's just never really been a big powerplay guy. More of a "2nd afterthought unit" guy for the most part.

Some of that is personnel and opportunity ahead of him in priority in Boston. The real question is going to be...how much of that is just an "ability" or "aptitude" thing? For all the things DeBrusk does well...he is absolutely not a very creative player. North-South directness can be really effective and is much needed here at even strength, but can become a liability on the powerplay.

But to me, it's something that i think is at least worth giving a bigger look here. He's got all the attributes for it to work on paper. But there are plenty of good players who just don't have the natural "creativity" offensively to thrive on the Powerplay. Never know 'til you put it to the test.

Whether he works out as a potential component of that top Powerplay Unit though, is basically the difference between being a 20-30G - 40-50Pt predominantly ES scoring winger...and more of a 30G+ 65Pts sort of winger.




Exactly. Similar vein to Mikheyev in what they're trying to add here...but Mikheyev was a far bigger reach. Both bigger, speedy two-way guys who can add that dimension. Neither is going to give you much in the way of creative playmaking (and that's reflected in Goal-skewed lower point totals overall). But DeBrusk is a noticeably more physically involved, and a far more natural goal-scorer. Better shooter, way better hands around the net, and just far better instincts for it.

There's a reason DeBrusk in a "down year" as a goal scorer (with a gimpy hand for part of the season) still potted 20G which is more or less the fluky "high water mark" for Mikheyev's career. It's why in a "good year" DeBrusk has multiple seasons under his belt with 27G, pacing at a 30G+ rate. It's basically the difference between a "20-30 Goal Scorer" in DeBrusk...vs a "10-20 Goal Scorer" in Mikheyev. They might slightly overlap sometimes, but the upper and lower bounds are very different. Even before he busted up his knee, ain't nobody would've ever dreamed of any scenario where Mikky would manage to score 27G in a season. That's not a pipe dream with DeBrusk...it's something he's actually done. Multiple times.



And the Playoff goals thing is not something to dismiss either. It's not leaning on one of those Sean Bergenheim type runs or whatever, of lucky, unsustainable performance. With DeBrusk, it's a bigger track record for one thing. But more importantly, it's the way that he tends to score his goals. He can and does score off the rush...but more importantly, he thrives in getting to the inside and scoring from there. Which is the area that especially against Nashville...the Canucks struggled mightily to break into. Those are the "playoff goals".





You me, and everyone else too. Problem is exactly that though. Everyone would love to just add "true goal scorers" all over the place. So they almost never really come available. Best you're gonna find is deeply, sometimes catastrophically flawed ones. Very old ones. Traded for ones (with what capital?). Or you draft and develop them, and then try to trade them away ones (like Boeser).

Or you settle for the next best thing...which is a guy like DeBrusk who has demonstrated the ability to reach from that "20G echelon" into the territory of that "30G range".

The biggest thing really missing from DeBrusk's arsenal is a boatload of PP One Timers ripped from the circle or whatever. To put it in context, i think most would call Stamkos a "Actual True Goal Scorer" of the first order. Yet...at even strength over the last couple years:

Stamkos = 41 EVG in 160 Games.
DeBrusk = 36 EVG in 144 Games.


*and DeBrusk has also started to add a shorthanded scoring trick to his bag.

So if what we really need is a guy to stand on the dot and rip powerplay onetimers...well, maybe he ain't our guy. But at even strength over the last 2-4 years...DeBrusk has been one of the top70-80ish "real actual even strength goal scorers" in the entire league. Which isn't perfect, but it's a pretty decent start imo.

Agree with most of what you are saying regarding Debrusk especially the last paragraph because we have the top of our umbrella already and need some guys who can get to the inside and push back defenses probably more than we need a huge financial ticket that doesn't have a primary role in our PP1.

But im not sure why you and others here want to put Hoglander into a box and think he cant develop his game. Just got his first real respectful taste of being a top9 contributor and playoff exposure to conclude the season. His biggest remaining hurdle is learning how protect the puck a little better and be able to get his passes through when under pressure. It's not a given that he's able to take that step but he's really close to being a top6 contributor if he does.

Having Mikhayev playing like a no hands 4th liner with little room creation and net drive plus EP40 during his stretch of poor pay is not a very fair evaluation period for a young player who had just been tasked to push more chance creation and more minutes against stiffer defenses.

While he could struggle this year he also could break out with a fired up duo out to prove something

 

[Shareefruck]

Hoglander-Pettersson-Garland actually had a good run during a three-game win streak in March (Garland 2+2, Hoglander 2+0, Pettersson 2+3). Tocchet didn't really stick with it since Joshua returned shortly after that and he reunited him with Garland, but that may have been Pettersson's best three-game stretch post-all-star break. A little later, in early April, was coincidentally also when Tocchet tried Joshua-Miller-Garland, which also generated good on-ice results. This was when Boeser was briefly moved to try to "jump-start" Pettersson.

I am easy, but I would hope they would at least give Joshua/Garland ice with Pettersson and Miller in some capacity, as it's tended to generate good on-ice performance when tried.

For example, I'm also not opposed to the following being trialed:

DeBrusk-Pettersson-Boeser
Joshua-Miller-Garland

OR

DeBrusk-Miller-Boeser
Joshua-Pettersson-Garland

In my mind, Suter/Blueger are already penned in as 3/4C.

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in experimenting with Joshua in the top six than Garland. We haven't seen it tried enough yet and there's no indication the fit would be frustrating like has frequently been the case with Garland.

From what I've seen, throwing Pettersson with two straight-line forecheckers who do all the heavy lifting can work in short spurts (mainly on the strength of the other two players), but it doesn't really utilize Pettersson's strengths very well. I could see it being a baseline okay/solid line, but I think it has a limited ceiling long term.

I become a lot more open to trying that when Pettersson has one of his miserable stretches and can't seem to do anything himself (those two would help keep him afloat), but when he's firing on all cylinders, I prefer having some guys who think and process the game closer to his wavelength (those two are like the complete opposite of him). ONE of them on the Pettersson line would also be more useful if DeBrusk wasn't already occupying a similar role, IMO.

Something like this I'm way more open to/curious about, though, if you want to get a little closer to the depth chart order.

Heinen/Joshua - Miller - Boeser
Joshua/Heinen - Pettersson - DeBrusk
Hoglander - Blueger/Suter - Garland
Podkolzin - Suter/Blueger - Sherwood

 

[MS]

Fantastic deal. Looks good now and as the cap goes up will only look better.

I don't understand the people freaking out about term. He has a winning pedigree, fits the identity we are building to a tee, and is 27 years old. If he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years you would call it a smart deal, so why is 7 at 27 any different?

It’s because 7 years is so long and so much can happen.

Think about Mikheyev who was signed at the same age as Debrusk. Then imagine we signed Mikheyev for 7 years and he had the same injury. There’s no way we could have moved him. The longer the contract, the greater the odds that you’re going to eat bad years as a result of injury/drop in play. And the harder it is to move on from that contract if those issues happen in years 1-4.

Also if he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years I would not call it a smart deal. Debrusk is basically the exact profile of those 50ish point 2nd liners who always turn into disaster signings when teams give them term around age 30-31. The sort of deal you’re talking about is what I was massively against when people were talking about it for Toffoli.

When it comes to these 2nd line types, you want to sign them for their age 27-31 type years and then get the hell away from them before they start heading toward their mid-30s since the vast majority hit a wall at age 31-32.

 

[Jerry the great]

It’s because 7 years is so long and so much can happen.

Think about Mikheyev who was signed at the same age as Debrusk. Then imagine we signed Mikheyev for 7 years and he had the same injury. There’s no way we could have moved him. The longer the contract, the greater the odds that you’re going to eat bad years as a result of injury/drop in play. And the harder it is to move on from that contract if those issues happen in years 1-4.

Also if he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years I would not call it a smart deal. Debrusk is basically the exact profile of those 50ish point 2nd liners who always turn into disaster signings when teams give them term around age 30-31. The sort of deal you’re talking about is what I was massively against when people were talking about it for Toffoli.

When it comes to these 2nd line types, you want to sign them for their age 27-31 type years and then get the hell away from them before they start heading toward their mid-30s since the vast majority hit a wall at age 31-32.

different positions, so obviously not a perfect comp, but we're getting DeBrusk at the same age (heading into draft+10 season) as we got Miller, but with a far better body of work CTD, particularly at ES where he put up .434 PPG & .227 GPG vs Miller's: .406ppg/.161gpg. DeBrusk has been a much better penalty killer and defensive player over his career, Miller is more physical. Miller plays the more important position.

it doesn't seem completely farfetched to think that there could be another level to JDB's game.

all else being equal, it still makes more sense IMO to go down this road than spending almost 2x on Guentzel, a more one dimensional scorer (not that we were ever really in the running) heading into his draft+12 season.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Feel better about signing DeBrusk over Lindholm..Lindholm is a bit of a wildcard imo,and has the potential to be Louie Eriksson relived.

Who knows for sure though,for some reason a lot of players seem to elevate their play in the black and yellow.

 

[Jerry the great]

Feel better about signing DeBrusk over Lindholm..Lindholm is a bit of a wildcard imo,and has the potential to be Louie Eriksson relived.

Who knows for sure though,for some reason a lot of players seem to elevate their play in the black and yellow.

his play in the playoffs was better than the regular season, but there wasn't anything about his game that looked dynamic to me. good at lots, but great at nothing. lots of risk in that contract.

 

[sting101]

Bottom line is any big dollar long term commitment has gone bad the minute the player is in your btm6 and btm pairing defense or should be

 

[alternate]

You can't attract top end UFAs if you're not willing to go to 7 years. And DeBrusk was one of the top forwards available July 01. It's great (and necessary) to be cautious with handing out term, but you also have to be careful about getting into Nonis territory where fear of the imperfect keeps you from pursuing improvements.

And at $5.5m in a raising cap environment, it's a good gamble. He plays the type of game that should translate to an effective bottom 6 player during the twilight of this contract. I get having some concerns about a 7 year deal, but refusing to give max term to a UFA means you're only going to be signing bottom of the roster guys (Heinen, Sherwood) or guys on their last legs (who still require multiple years, so there's still risk).

It's hard to build a roster through UFA, but it's also hard to build a contender without complementary UFA pieces. That means there's going to be some long term deals. Just have to offer them to the correct targets, and structure the contract in a way that gives you some flexibility to get out of it of necessary over the last 2-3 years.

 

[F A N]

You can't attract top end UFAs if you're not willing to go to 7 years. And DeBrusk was one of the top forwards available July 01. It's great (and necessary) to be cautious with handing out term, but you also have to be careful about getting into Nonis territory where fear of the imperfect keeps you from pursuing improvements.

And at $5.5m in a raising cap environment, it's a good gamble. He plays the type of game that should translate to an effective bottom 6 player during the twilight of this contract. I get having some concerns about a 7 year deal, but refusing to give max term to a UFA means you're only going to be signing bottom of the roster guys (Heinen, Sherwood) or guys on their last legs (who still require multiple years, so there's still risk).

It's hard to build a roster through UFA, but it's also hard to build a contender without complementary UFA pieces. That means there's going to be some long term deals. Just have to offer them to the correct targets, and structure the contract in a way that gives you some flexibility to get out of it of necessary over the last 2-3 years.

If teams didn't prefer buyouts to retaining salary, I wonder if targeting 29/30 year olds with 3-5 years left on their contracts might be a strategy. Kind of like Thomas Hertl. Of course, it's akin to buying a German car that is about to go out of warranty.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

It’s because 7 years is so long and so much can happen.

Think about Mikheyev who was signed at the same age as Debrusk. Then imagine we signed Mikheyev for 7 years and he had the same injury. There’s no way we could have moved him. The longer the contract, the greater the odds that you’re going to eat bad years as a result of injury/drop in play. And the harder it is to move on from that contract if those issues happen in years 1-4.

Also if he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years I would not call it a smart deal. Debrusk is basically the exact profile of those 50ish point 2nd liners who always turn into disaster signings when teams give them term around age 30-31. The sort of deal you’re talking about is what I was massively against when people were talking about it for Toffoli.

When it comes to these 2nd line types, you want to sign them for their age 27-31 type years and then get the hell away from them before they start heading toward their mid-30s since the vast majority hit a wall at age 31-32.

I mean, injuries can happen. I guess your argument is only sign superstars to long-term contracts? But DeBrusk is a good add and I would rather do 5.5x7 than 7.5x5.

I also think Toffoli is a bad comparison for two reasons.
1. He hasn't been bad on this contract yet, so it's comparing your opinion to your opinion.

2. Toffoli never had great legs and seems to be getting slower. DeBrusk is a powerful skater and contributes on both sides of the puck.

Finally, if you want to get bargains, you gotta make bets. Somewhat like the Atlanta Braves.

If DeBrusk plays as well as he can (or even jumps up a level) then you will have him at an incredible bargain as the cap goes up. Conversely, if we signed him for 7x4 or something, you're paying him more than he will probably deserve, and as the cap goes up and perhaps his worth matches his cap hit, he's a ufa again.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Also if he was 30 and we signed him for 4 years I would not call it a smart deal. Debrusk is basically the exact profile of those 50ish point 2nd liners who always turn into disaster signings when teams give them term around age 30-31. The sort of deal you’re talking about is what I was massively against when people were talking about it for Toffoli.

holy moly so i looked up toffoli’s age

i had no idea toffoli was only 31 last season. i thought he was something like 29 when we had him and would have just turned 34 now.

feels like he’s been around forever