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

[biturbo19]

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

He also skates like he's about 41 too. Which can be misleading.

 

[RobertKron]

He also skates like he's about 41 too. Which can be misleading.

He also kind of has been around forever. Something of a contributor for the Kings on the way to the conference finals eleven years ago, and then a cup win with them the next year.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

This is the irony to you coming around to the DeBrusk deal, eventually. It is effectively the Toffoli deal for the majority, which we were on opposite sides on. They just got more of the better years up front.

If we're being fair, DeBrusk may even fail to hit Toffoli's scoring efficiency by age 30, which would make the back half even more onerous... But I still really like this deal. Management made the right decision to go long to keep the AAV down. The next 2-3 years, given their quick retool, are paramount.

Guentzel made for a great target despite being older, going to 37~ years of age, because he's got a lot further to fall off to become valueless. That same principle applies to Toffoli/DeBrusk relative to Mikeheyev. They're just in a different class/not comparable. Mik wouldn't get the 7 years in the first place.

As the cap rises, I think your fears will subside. More and more players of this quality will have their salaries inflate. DeBrusk will look like a bargain.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He also kind of has been around forever. Something of a contributor for the Kings on the way to the conference finals eleven years ago, and then a cup win with them the next year.

second shocker, pearson is the same age as toffoli, also 31

 

[archangel2]

While I like the cap hit--I think it is two years too long

 

[HairyKneel]

While I like the cap hit--I think it is two years too long

It's total money the players are looking for. He would laugh at 5.5 x 5. He's 27. If he scores 20-25 goals, plays with pace, can pk and defend and not be shy to go to the net, why is this not a solid deal?

 

[LandfiII]

second shocker, pearson is the same age as toffoli, also 31

third shocker, benning thought linden vey was the same thing as tyler toffoli and tanner pearson

 

[LordBacon]

I can understand not wanting to pay for the extra 2 years for JDB but this is just the compromise you have to endure for UFA deals.

Either that or have fun holding onto all that capspace for nothing and waste your cup window.

And 5.5mil for a player of his calibre isnt really that bad tbh, plus he's pretty young. When compared to the rest of the UFA signings this one is considered medium risk at worst imho.

 

[MS]

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.

Of course injuries can happen. And drops in play can happen. That's the point. And when you go to 7 years on non-star level players, in the majority of cases they do happen.

The lower the level of player and the longer you sign them into their 30s the more risk the contract takes on. Giving Connor McDavid 8 years from age 21-29 : great. Giving Loui Eriksson 6 years from age 31-36 : bad.

Fans perceive that most players play well into their mid-30s but that's simply not the case. By the team you get to age 34-35, it's really only star players that are still playing well.

Take a look at the 2010-11 Canucks and when the forwards on that team had their last quality/productive year :

Sedins : 35
Kesler : 32
Burrows : 31
Samuelsson : 33
Raymond : 28
Higgins : 31
Torres : 31
Hansen : 30

Only the Sedins continued as productive players into their mid-30s and if any of those other guys were given 7-year contracts at age 27 the team is eating a ton of shit in the last few years. And this is the pattern around the league over the last decade. Careers are *way* shorter now than in the 1990s/early 2000s.

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.

Drop-offs for 2nd line players tend to be pretty consistent across the board regardless of skating ability.

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

The contracts Atlanta signed were more in line with the Slafkovsky contract in Montreal - jump the gun on signing young guys long-term and hope to get a bargain through their prime.

This isn't really the same thing.

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.

Debrusk is 27 and has never really exceeded a $5.5 million sort of level of performance in his career.

Could he pull a Hyman/JT Miller? Maybe, but realistically in the range of potential outcomes that's a relatively unlikely scenario. Most likely he'll continue to be a streaky 25-goal ish sort of player for the first half of this deal and then start a decline.

And again : I don't really have a problem with the Debrusk deal. The AAV is fine and at least the last few years probably don't line up with our contending window. But the term is still pretty terrifying for this level of player.

 

[MS]

This is the irony to you coming around to the DeBrusk deal, eventually. It is effectively the Toffoli deal for the majority, which we were on opposite sides on. They just got more of the better years up front.

If we're being fair, DeBrusk may even fail to hit Toffoli's scoring efficiency by age 30, which would make the back half even more onerous... But I still really like this deal. Management made the right decision to go long to keep the AAV down. The next 2-3 years, given their quick retool, are paramount.

Guentzel made for a great target despite being older, going to 37~ years of age, because he's got a lot further to fall off to become valueless. That same principle applies to Toffoli/DeBrusk relative to Mikeheyev. They're just in a different class/not comparable. Mik wouldn't get the 7 years in the first place.

As the cap rises, I think your fears will subside. More and more players of this quality will have their salaries inflate. DeBrusk will look like a bargain.

That's the whole point!

The Debrusk deal is palatable because you're getting 3-4 prime years before the expected dropoff. Toffoli you're paying even more for *only* non-prime years. It's a COMPLETELY different contract and I'm not sure how you're comparing them.

Moreover, the prime years for Debrusk line up with our contending window and the likely 'dropoff' years don't. Toffoli if/when he drops off is a $6 million albatross right in the middle of our window.

Based on the history of this level of player from age 31-35, the last 3 years of the Debrusk contract are very unlikely to look like a bargain. The first few years *might* if he can establish chemistry with Pettersson or Miller.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That's the whole point!

The Debrusk deal is palatable because you're getting 3-4 prime years before the expected dropoff. Toffoli you're paying even more for *only* non-prime years. It's a COMPLETELY different contract and I'm not sure how you're comparing them.

Moreover, the prime years for Debrusk line up with our contending window and the likely 'dropoff' years don't. Toffoli if/when he drops off is a $6 million albatross right in the middle of our window.

Based on the history of this level of player from age 31-35, the last 3 years of the Debrusk contract are very unlikely to look like a bargain. The first few years *might* if he can establish chemistry with Pettersson or Miller.

If the contention window is paramount, the DeBrusk deal is great value, not simply palatable. You're lending far too much weight to the part of the deal that is least relevant. Makes no sense. Apply the same logic used for Guentzel to DeBrusk: If he had signed it would have been excellent because the next 2-3 years are what matter most.

The same logic applies to Toffoli. In the next 2-3 years, he would have been a surer bet to score than even DeBrusk, and he would have gotten less AAV and term here (A more moveable contract per your criteria). There is a greater risk he declines within the window, yes, but he's got further to fall in the scoring/points/player chemistry department too.

The Toffoli and DeBrusk deals are similar in that they are both locking in 2nd line players from years 31-34~. The prime years only favour DeBrusk if he can match Toffoli's current performance. If he can't, then there's actually more downside risk in the back half of DeBrusk's deal than there is downside risk in Toffoli's current deal.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

This is the irony to you coming around to the DeBrusk deal, eventually. It is effectively the Toffoli deal for the majority, which we were on opposite sides on. They just got more of the better years up front.

Not the majority. The Debrusk deal will end when he is 34. Toffoli is 32 - it's the equivalent to signing Toffoli to a two-year deal.

 

[MS]

If the contention window is paramount, the DeBrusk deal is great value, not simply palatable. You're lending far too much weight to the part of the deal that is least relevant. Makes no sense. Apply the same logic used for Guentzel to DeBrusk: If he had signed it would have been excellent because the next 2-3 years are what matter most.

Debrusk is a 25-20-45 guy for his career getting paid $5.5 million. It might be 'good value' but barring a massive breakout it's hardly 'great value' and the value is brought down by the last few years of the deal.

The same logic applies to Toffoli. In the next 2-3 years, he would have been a surer bet to score than even DeBrusk, and he would have gotten less AAV and term here (A more moveable contract per your criteria). There is a greater risk he declines within the window, yes, but he's got further to fall in the scoring/points/player chemistry department too.

Toffoli 2-3 years from now is absolutely *NOT* a surer bet to score than Debrusk.

And you have zero evidence that he would have taken less term or AAV to come here. Your previous projections about what he'd cost were totally wrong.

The Toffoli and DeBrusk deals are similar in that they are both locking in 2nd line players from years 31-34~. The prime years only favour DeBrusk if he can match Toffoli's current performance. If he can't, then there's actually more downside risk in the back half of DeBrusk's deal than there is downside risk in Toffoli's current deal.

Debrusk is locking down a player's prime years and then having an ugly last 2-3 years to the contract.

Toffoli is paying more to only get ugly years of a contract.

And the timing on those ugly years is far worse.

It's not the same.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Debrusk is a 25-20-45 guy for his career getting paid $5.5 million. It might be 'good value' but barring a massive breakout it's hardly 'great value' and the value is brought down by the last few years of the deal.


Toffoli 2-3 years from now is absolutely *NOT* a surer bet to score than Debrusk.

And you have zero evidence that he would have taken less term or AAV to come here. Your previous projections about what he'd cost were totally wrong.


Debrusk is locking down a player's prime years and then having an ugly last 2-3 years to the contract.

Toffoli is paying more to only get ugly years of a contract.

And the timing on those ugly years is far worse.

It's not the same.

DeBrusk's deal is great value for the present Canucks. You're using a league-wide metric to judge the deal through the lens of the Canucks. It makes no sense. They are most concerned with AAV and quality now, not age related decline later.

Toffoli took a retirement deal in SJ. If you want assert that this is roughly what good teams/contenders were offering him, be my guest. He chose lifestyle over winning.

Toffoli is at present a surer bet to score than DeBrusk because his performance over the past 2 years suggests this. Prime years matter less than actual performance. He's hit marks DeBrusk simply hasn't.

What you're worried about with DeBrusk is what you were worried about with Toffoli: Age related decline. With DeBrusk, you're using prime years to assuage your fears, but I'm using Toffoli's current performance to compare. In both cases, however, you're overvaluing age related decline because Toffoli is likely a top6er for at least 2-3 years, as is DeBrusk.



Edit: Seravelli, noted Canucks fan, just reiterates this on Sekeres and Price: The front half of the deal is all that matters for the Canucks.

 

[credulous]

And again : I don't really have a problem with the Debrusk deal. The AAV is fine and at least the last few years probably don't line up with our contending window. But the term is still pretty terrifying for this level of player.

he's the same age as pearson was when the canucks acquired him and has less career success

i don't hate the signing but imagine if the canucks had given a 7 year deal to pearson in 2019

 

[Bleach Clean]

he's the same age as pearson was when the canucks acquired him and has less career success

i don't hate the signing but imagine if the canucks had given a 7 year deal to pearson in 2019

By less career success, do you mean a cup?

Their production rates up to 27 years of age are different.

 

[credulous]

By less career success, do you mean a cup?

Their production rates up to 27 years of age are different.

scoring is way up. you can't just compare raw numbers

pearson was a key top six performer on that kings team

 

[Bleach Clean]

scoring is way up. you can't just compare raw numbers

pearson was a key top six performer on that kings team

That was Pearson's rookie season. (25 regular season games while finishing 7th in LA forward scoring in the playoffs)

For DeBrusk, you're talking about a player that is 37th in G/GP over the last 5 years...

I mean, they're both bigger defensive forwards I suppose?

 

[TruGr1t]

he's the same age as pearson was when the canucks acquired him and has less career success

i don't hate the signing but imagine if the canucks had given a 7 year deal to pearson in 2019

What do you mean? Pearson was more of a 10-15 goal guy most of his career, only broke 20 goals twice in 13 seasons. DeBrusk has three 25+ goal campaigns over seven seasons. There are some similarities in their profile in terms of being heavier forwards that are above-average defensively, but DeBrusk is a better skater and has had materially higher goal output earlier in his career.

And I liked Pearson the first couple years he was here, complimented both Horvat and Miller (when he switched to centre) quite well. Problem was he was already on decline when the Canucks signed him and had already had issues staying healthy. Pearson only played over 60 games twice in his last eight seasons.

 

[MS]

DeBrusk's deal is great value for the present Canucks. You're using a league-wide metric to judge the deal through the lens of the Canucks. It makes no sense. They are most concerned with AAV and quality now, not age related decline later.

It's only 'great value' if he improves to a level we haven't seen him hit before in his career.

If he duplicates last year's performance it's iffy value. If he duplicates 22-23, it's good value.

Per the bolded - of course this is the case, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be trying to avoid high-risk mid-30s years to players wherever possible and that they aren't a concern when they're given. Or that they don't impact the overall value of the contract.

Toffoli took a retirement deal in SJ. If you want assert that this is roughly what good teams/contenders were offering him, be my guest. He chose lifestyle over winning.

Toffoli is at present a surer bet to score than DeBrusk because his performance over the past 2 years suggests this. Prime years matter less than actual performance. He's hit marks DeBrusk simply hasn't.

What you're worried about with DeBrusk is what you were worried about with Toffoli: Age related decline. With DeBrusk, you're using prime years to assuage your fears, but I'm using Toffoli's current performance to compare. In both cases, however, you're overvaluing age related decline because Toffoli is likely a top6er for at least 2-3 years, as is DeBrusk.



Edit: Seravelli, noted Canucks fan, just reiterates this on Sekeres and Price: The front half of the deal is all that matters for the Canucks.

Toffoli wasn't signing here for the numbers you were presenting. Your valuation was just flat-out wrong, which I tried telling you.

Toffoli's current performance (last season) showed all kinds of red flags even though the raw numbers still looked solid (mostly based off a red-hot October next to Jack Hughes).

Debrusk is a much better bet to provide value in his age 27-30 years than Toffoli is in his age 31-34 years, especially given the substantially lower AAV.

 

[VanJack]

I noted that earlier another poster wondered if there was any comparison between Jake DeBrusk and J.T. Miller early in their careers. And the poster could be on to something.

Miller was wildly erratic early in his career with the Rangers, and at times drove Alain Vigneault to distraction. Not unlike DeBrusk, who vacillated between being very good to being benched and having his name brought up in trade rumors.

But with maturity, comes consistency. And like J.T before him, the Canucks might be inheriting DeBrusk as just the right moment in his career.

 

[Flik]

I really do feel like we'll extract surplus value out of DeBrusk in the next 3-4 years.

This team's playstyle seems perfect for him, we have two high impact centres for him to try and find chemistry with, and a coaching staff that has already shown an apt ability to help players of his ilk level up.

I think he's going to pleasantly surprise us once he settles in.

 

[TruGr1t]

This stuff about DeBrusk's stalker from Boston is pretty wild, I'd recommend not going down the rabbit hole on that one.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

This stuff about DeBrusk's stalker from Boston is pretty wild, I'd recommend not going down the rabbit hole on that one.

I just stumbled across that on Twitter. Big time "yikes".

 

[lawrence]

Apparently “unconfirmed” reports says she’s gonna move to Vancouver. (Yea right, good luck getting a place) and if she does, Canucks twitter ready to do their thing on her.