Player Discussion Jake DeBrusk VII

[Dr Hook]

I think when you talk about cores, you're talking about the guys you want to stick with and build a team around for the forseeable future. It's usually the elite players that are on a team's roster.

That kind of evolves as some of the older core get older and get moved out as a young core emerges.

I want the team to build around Swayman, McAvoy, and Pasta. To me, that's the main core and everyone else, while good players that add value to the team, aren't elite and can be moved for the right price ( not that I'm advocating for it ).

I agree with your definition here. I think the term gets overused or thrown around too much to where it starts to lose meaning. Your core of Swayman, Mac, and Pasta sounds about right, and on the current roster, obviously Brad. Those are four players you keep come hell or high water and build around. Brad will have 2-3 years left in him, most likely, and there may be a young player that really emerges to become core: a player like Frederic, perhaps (not saying he will, just that idea). The rest of the regulars, like Carlo, Lindholm, Ullmark, who are good players for us are guys you can move for the right deal, they price themselves beyond their skillsets, or when/if you have a better option available. Jake falls into that category.

 

[MattFromFranklin]

Do you think they have him pegged as a core player going forward?

100%. The lengths to which Sweeney has gone to keep him on the roster by not trading him and re-signing him 2 years ago show that Sweeney views him as a core player. Now, I don't think the rest of the league thinks highly of Jake but that's another topic. I disagree with Sweeney but I can understand why he has gone to great lengths to keep him on the roster.

 

[Dr Hook]

100%. The lengths to which Sweeney has gone to keep him on the roster by not trading him and re-signing him 2 years ago show that Sweeney views him as a core player. Now, I don't think the rest of the league thinks highly of Jake but that's another topic. I disagree with Sweeney but I can understand why he has gone to great lengths to keep him on the roster.

They certainly did not treat him like a core player in his last contract. Core players are like Mac and Pasta, where you pay them and make the cap work. I believe it's more of a case of Sweeney A) not wanting to give up on Jake because the talent is obvious and B) wanting to get what he thinks is proper value for him in any deal while he was still and RFA.

If Jake is a really a core player, then I guess well see a 7 or 8 year deal at 6-7m on the table this Spring. Until we do, I don't think he is a core player nor do I think the Bruins feel that way. Again, core is different to me from a valuable roster player (like Coyle, Lindholm, Carlo).

 

[PB37]

I agree with your definition here. I think the term gets overused or thrown around too much to where it starts to lose meaning. Your core of Swayman, Mac, and Pasta sounds about right, and on the current roster, obviously Brad. Those are four players you keep come hell or high water and build around. Brad will have 2-3 years left in him, most likely, and there may be a young player that really emerges to become core: a player like Frederic, perhaps (not saying he will, just that idea). The rest of the regulars, like Carlo, Lindholm, Ullmark, who are good players for us are guys you can move for the right deal, they price themselves beyond their skillsets, or when/if you have a better option available. Jake falls into that category.

I left him out but you're correct. Brad is part of the current core but obviously not when you're projecting 5 years out.

 

[Evgeny Oliker]

So what’s this injury he got now? Any news on that?

 

[Over the volcano]

They certainly did not treat him like a core player in his last contract. Core players are like Mac and Pasta, where you pay them and make the cap work. I believe it's more of a case of Sweeney A) not wanting to give up on Jake because the talent is obvious and B) wanting to get what he thinks is proper value for him in any deal while he was still and RFA.

If Jake is a really a core player, then I guess well see a 7 or 8 year deal at 6-7m on the table this Spring. Until we do, I don't think he is a core player nor do I think the Bruins feel that way. Again, core is different to me from a valuable roster player (like Coyle, Lindholm, Carlo).

That's it from my perspective too. The only difference I see is the way Sweeney approached Coyle and Lindholm and Zacha's contracts as an indication that they were going to be here a while and the team would be built around them.

Is DeBrusk a guy you build around or a guy you add to a line to see what he can produce? IMO it's the latter.

 

[Dr Hook]

That's it from my perspective too. The only difference I see is the way Sweeney approached Coyle and Lindholm and Zacha's contracts as an indication that they were going to be here a while and the team would be built around them.

Is DeBrusk a guy you build around or a guy you add to a line to see what he can produce? IMO it's the latter.

Right on JDB I think- but again valuable roster players that are important parts of a team (Carlo, Coyle, Zacha) are not in that category of core to me. Your mileage may vary on the definition as its pretty fluid. If I am Sweeney, I listen to offers on important players like Zacha, Carlo, Ullmark, Coyle, while I hang up if it's about Pasta, Mac, or Swayman (unless they feel Ullmark is their guy: we'll find out soon). To me that is a big difference in defining core vs not. But again, lots of room for different points of view.

 

[Mione134]

So what’s this injury he got now? Any news on that?

I'm assuming it's the wrist. Never got an answer from anyone as to what was on his right hand a few games ago. Looked like KT tape or a brace to me. Whatever it is, hopefully he'll be okay. He's been dominant

 

[MattFromFranklin]

They certainly did not treat him like a core player in his last contract. Core players are like Mac and Pasta, where you pay them and make the cap work. I believe it's more of a case of Sweeney A) not wanting to give up on Jake because the talent is obvious and B) wanting to get what he thinks is proper value for him in any deal while he was still and RFA.

If Jake is a really a core player, then I guess well see a 7 or 8 year deal at 6-7m on the table this Spring. Until we do, I don't think he is a core player nor do I think the Bruins feel that way. Again, core is different to me from a valuable roster player (like Coyle, Lindholm, Carlo).

Keep in mind that Sweeney went to great lengths to not trade him and fired the coach so that Jake would rescind his trade request. Sweeney chose Jake over Cassidy. I don't think Sweeney would bend over backwards for a player he didn't view as being a core player.

 

[Mione134]

Keep in mind that Sweeney went to great lengths to not trade him and fired the coach so that Jake would rescind his trade request. Sweeney chose Jake over Cassidy. I don't think Sweeney would bend over backwards for a player he didn't view as being a core player.

Wasn't just Jake that complained about Cassidy. Bergeron, Frederic, Coyle and Carlo did too.

 

[Dr Hook]

Wasn't just Jake that complained about Cassidy. Bergeron, Frederic, Coyle and Carlo did too.

True, he rubbed a few guys the wrong way.

Keep in mind that Sweeney went to great lengths to not trade him and fired the coach so that Jake would rescind his trade request. Sweeney chose Jake over Cassidy. I don't think Sweeney would bend over backwards for a player he didn't view as being a core player.

Sure, and as I said, there is room for multiple viewpoints on this one. I think we'll truly know when we see what Jake's next deal in Boston (if there is one) looks like.

 

[The Murph]

Keep in mind that Sweeney went to great lengths to not trade him and fired the coach so that Jake would rescind his trade request. Sweeney chose Jake over Cassidy. I don't think Sweeney would bend over backwards for a player he didn't view as being a core player.

He went to great lengths? He bent over backwards?

Pretty sure all Sweeney did was not listen to the knee-jerking rabid fans and so didn't give his asset away for less than he's worth. He probably would have traded him if he was offered a fair return, because from what was reported, DeBrusk was on the block. Seems to me, Sweeney was just thinking what was best for the team. Couldn't trade him for what he was worth right up to the deadline, so signed him, and things just worked out from there. Cassidy firing seemed much more complex than the thing with Jake.

 

[UncleRico]

He went to great lengths? He bent over backwards?

Pretty sure all Sweeney did was not listen to the knee-jerking rabid fans and so didn't give his asset away for less than he's worth. He probably would have traded him if he was offered a fair return, because from what was reported, DeBrusk was on the block. Seems to me, Sweeney was just thinking what was best for the team. Couldn't trade him for what he was worth right up to the deadline, so signed him, and things just worked out from there. Cassidy firing seemed much more complex than the thing with Jake.

Well, the whole reason Debrusk was on the block and it was a discussion at the time is because Debrusk himself requested to be traded.

So it had nothing to do with Sweeney ignoring rabid fans requests. It was Debrusks own request.

 

[The Murph]

Well, the whole reason Debrusk was on the block and it was a discussion at the time is because Debrusk himself requested to be traded.

So it had nothing to do with Sweeney ignoring rabid fans requests. It was Debrusks own request.

Well, he ignored many fans requests of trading him for a pair of socks. Many just wanted him gone for whatever. And don't see this as a sign Sweeney going to great lengths and bending over backwards for DeBrusk. He didn't give in to Jake's request of trading him no matter what the return, just to please Jake and the some fans. He thought of the team. Seems sound thinking to me.

 

[UncleRico]

Well, he ignored many fans requests of trading him for a pair of socks. Many just wanted him gone for whatever. And don't see this as a sign Sweeney going to great lengths and bending over backwards for DeBrusk. He didn't give in to Jake's request of trading him no matter what the return, just to please Jake and the some fans. He thought of the team. Seems sound thinking to me.

Well doesn’t look like you understood what I said so I’ll just move on

 

[The Murph]

Well doesn’t look like you understood what I said so I’ll just move on

I did.

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. I just tired to reiterate it for you. Not sure what my reply has to do with DeBrusk requesting the trade. What difference does that make with how Sweeney dealt with the request? How did he bend over backwards and go to great lengths to keep DeBrusk?

 

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

Feel the issue here is if Sweeney doesn’t sign Jake before he hits ufa he’s 10000% gone.

He's a solid all around player. Some team will overpay him & he’d be silly not to take that money

 

[RoccoF14]

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

Teams were hoping to get him on the cheap, after he asked to be moved. Sweeney stayed firm on his valuation and didn't take the bait. That's what good GMs do.

Feel the issue here is if Sweeney doesn’t sign Jake before he hits ufa he’s 10000% gone.

He's a solid all around player. Some team will overpay him & he’d be silly not to take that money

I agree with you. I also think there's a good chance he gets packaged in a move at the deadline.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

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

Teams were hoping to get him on the cheap, after he asked to be moved. Sweeney stayed firm on his valuation and didn't take the bait. That's what good GMs do.


I agree with you. I also think there's a good chance he gets packaged in a move at the deadline.

Yes, exactly

 

[wintersej]

That's it from my perspective too. The only difference I see is the way Sweeney approached Coyle and Lindholm and Zacha's contracts as an indication that they were going to be here a while and the team would be built around them.

Is DeBrusk a guy you build around or a guy you add to a line to see what he can produce? IMO it's the latter.

He has been a better player than Zacha this season.

 

[Over the volcano]

He has been a better player than Zacha this season.

Really believe that?

 

[wintersej]

Really believe that?

One of them is force fed PP1 and time with Pasta and the other isn’t. Their production is only 5 points apart despite Zacha getting the Pasta time and twice as much PP time. When they have been on the same line, DeBrusk has been the more impactful player. If Zacha was a maestro defensively or on the dot, the positional difference would matter, but that isn’t the case.

 

[NDiesel]

I am generally on the side of re-sign Debrusk, but for the sake of discussion:

Debrusk: 47GP 12G 13A 25P ATOI 16:42

Heinen : 41GP 9G 9G 18P ATOI 14:08

One generally plays top 6 the other bottom 6. Is the smart play here to use Debrusk in a package at the deadline for a center such as Lindholm or a LD like Hanifin and consider Heinen as the "Debrusk replacement" past this year at a cheaper price?

My thinking is we applaud Debrusk for his 200 ft game these days, but hasn't that been Heinens bread and butter since day one here? Is Debrusk worth the more money that he is likely to get compared to Heinen?

I think some downsides are the loss of speed that Debrusk brings and generally he has been a much better goal scorer in his career

 

[Hookslide]

I am generally on the side of re-sign Debrusk, but for the sake of discussion:

Debrusk: 47GP 12G 13A 25P ATOI 16:42

Heinen : 41GP 9G 9G 18P ATOI 14:08

One generally plays top 6 the other bottom 6. Is the smart play here to use Debrusk in a package at the deadline for a center such as Lindholm or a LD like Hanifin and consider Heinen as the "Debrusk replacement" past this year at a cheaper price?

My thinking is we applaud Debrusk for his 200 ft game these days, but hasn't that been Heinens bread and butter since day one here? Is Debrusk worth the more money that he is likely to get compared to Heinen?

I think some downsides are the loss of speed that Debrusk brings and generally he has been a much better goal scorer in his career

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.

 

[ON3M4N]

I am generally on the side of re-sign Debrusk, but for the sake of discussion:

Debrusk: 47GP 12G 13A 25P ATOI 16:42

Heinen : 41GP 9G 9G 18P ATOI 14:08

One generally plays top 6 the other bottom 6. Is the smart play here to use Debrusk in a package at the deadline for a center such as Lindholm or a LD like Hanifin and consider Heinen as the "Debrusk replacement" past this year at a cheaper price?

My thinking is we applaud Debrusk for his 200 ft game these days, but hasn't that been Heinens bread and butter since day one here? Is Debrusk worth the more money that he is likely to get compared to Heinen?

I think some downsides are the loss of speed that Debrusk brings and generally he has been a much better goal scorer in his career

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.