Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Inquire About Jake DeBrusk Following Trade Request from Bruins


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

is it possible to waive/bury debrusks contract in hartford without any cap hit? if so I'd say Hajek is worth it. no risk, potentially high reward

 

this is all a moot point though because there's no way they just give him to use 1 for 1 for Hajek anyway

No. He requires waivers, first of all, which he wouldn't get through, and even if he did, you can't stash large deals like this anymore (Redden rule). You only get a fraction of the savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I don't want DeBrusk but people keep saying this...I just want to point out that Hunt at 26 has played 110 games and scored 9 goals and 28 points, so figure that pace at 220 games he'd have 60 points.

In 262 games DeBrusk has 140 points.

Hunt just isn't close, he's filler. 

Again, I don't want him, but not because we have Hunt. 

You could have said the same thing about Blackwell last year.  If Hunt stays with Bread and Butter his previous point pace is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Long live the King said:

You could have said the same thing about Blackwell last year.  If Hunt stays with Bread and Butter his previous point pace is irrelevant.

And if Debrusk was with bread and butter he'd probably score more than Hunt.

He's just a better player, I don't know why anyone would debate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

And if Debrusk was with bread and butter he'd probably score more than Hunt.

He's just a better player, I don't know why anyone would debate that.

he once had potential to be a better player.

 

Right now, he's invisible, doesnt go to the dirty areas, a detriment on d, doesnt kill penalties, doesnt take faceoffs, doesnt play physical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, josh said:

he once had potential to be a better player.

 

Right now, he's invisible, doesnt go to the dirty areas, a detriment on d, doesnt kill penalties, doesnt take faceoffs, doesnt play physical.

 

 You could say all this about Hunt. And the box car and fancy stats don't support that Debrusk is a detriment on D, also his PDO is in the low 90s last few seasons, suggesting he's quite unlucky.

That said, I don't want DeBrusk because he's not a LW. I'm not going to debate more about a player I don't want. His stock has fallen and he's not producing but he's still much better than Hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

 You could say all this about Hunt. And the box car and fancy stats don't support that Debrusk is a detriment on D, also his PDO is in the low 90s last few seasons, suggesting he's quite unlucky.

That said, I don't want DeBrusk because he's not a LW. I'm not going to debate more about a player I don't want. His stock has fallen and he's not producing but he's still much better than Hunt.

 

 

debrusk-xgar-this-year.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunt plays a fast, physical forechecking role that gets in position to shoot. He'll go to the corners, to the front of the net, muck it up, hit people. That's what the Rangers need. The lack of which is exactly when Boston scratched DeBrusk.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, josh said:

 

 

debrusk-xgar-this-year.png

All that and still a 54 Corsi to Hunt's 46 (this year, that card you have there is last season). Show us Hunt's card...Because that's the debate. Not if DeBrusk is good, it's if Hunt is better.

Hint: He's not.

spacer.pngspacer.png

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunt/DeBrusk is as simple as this:

Hunt isn't a better player, head-to-head, but relative to his price, he is. I'd rather pay $750K for 17 points than $3.675M for 27. Ten points isn't worth an extra $2.95M for a player with arbitration rights who's due another deal immediately.

  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Hunt/DeBrusk is as simple as this:

Hunt isn't a better player, head-to-head, but relative to his price, he is. I'd rather pay $750K for 17 points than $3.675M for 27. Ten points isn't worth an extra $2.95M for a player with arbitration rights who's due another deal immediately.

Right. And like I said, I don't want Debrusk, but the idea that it's because we have Hunt is...no. I don't think anyone sees Hunt as a long term solution on that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

All that and still a 54 Corsi to Hunt's 46 (this year, that card you have there is last season). Show us Hunt's card...Because that's the debate. Not if DeBrusk is good, it's if Hunt is better.

Hint: He's not.

spacer.pngspacer.png

dont matter. @Drew a Penalty already posted stats saying the 4th line was unlucky defensively.

 

but again, youre missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah, you're caught up in a slight difference in advanced stats, and ignoring why Hunt has been successful (in a short period) on that line. DeBrusk has none of those characteristics.

 

"but Hunt's defense is slightly worse!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Pete said:

Right. And like I said, I don't want Debrusk, but the idea that it's because we have Hunt is...no. I don't think anyone sees Hunt as a long term solution on that line.

Agreed. Though I do agree with Josh in that they're not the same style of player. Hunt is the poorest man's version of Fast. DeBrusk is like a shitty Brock Boeser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, josh said:

nah, you're caught up in a slight difference in advanced stats, and ignoring why Hunt has been successful (in a short period) on that line. DeBrusk has none of those characteristics.

 

"but Hunt's defense is slightly worse!"

Right, so we agree that he's not a long term solution...Hence when I say "We don't need DeBrusk, but it's not because of Hunt", where is the disconnect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
26 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

DeBrusk is listed as a LW everywhere. Is this a Laf replacement? Because it isn't solving our RW issue.

 

Yup, this has been the problem since the first time he was mentioned. Unless he can play RW, or they're moving Lafreniere to the right, this is a waste of time.

  • TroCheckmark 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...