I wouldn’t want labanc if it was one for nothing. Not a good contract.

It will look better when you pair him with players who can actually play offensive game.
he's been forced to carry a line of zero offensive talent with Nieto and Bonino and it has destroyed his confidence and play.
swap him and smith and move Foligno to LW and now you have 3 legit lines!
I would bet big money in the end unless Debrusk comes alive in SJ for some reason Boston makes out on this deal.

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s not a gamble i would want to take at that cap hit and term.

if you watch his highlight from when we played him with Thornton you would. he has a lot of skill but he cant carry line, he needs to be on a line where he can thrive and the sharks refuse to utilize him and it frustrates the hell out of me!!

So how he played three years ago? If you watched highlights of debrusk from that season you’d think he was worth the world.

No interest in that player.

Labanc problem is since then we have had 2 really bad teams and now a defense first second and third with offense a side note coach that has stunted his abilities.
I get what your saying but I feel your misguided here. Labanc on a line with offensively gifted players will flourish. the only reason this one for one works is Debrusk is talented too but need a change as well.

See, when you say someone, “will flourish,” i just can’t take you seriously. How do you know? You don’t. Neither does don Sweeney. Neither does any NHL GM, which is why labanc simply is what he is. He’s an underperforming, overpaid winger that turns 26 in a week.

Zero interest.

I say he will flourish because I've watched every game. He still has his puck handling, speed, and shot. but the sharks are forcing him to play a style that does not compliment his skill in any way and he is suffering because of that. I knew Andres Johnson was better than what we saw in Tor and in NJ last year and he has rebounded just like I though he would and I have old posts to prove what I'm saying.
could I be wrong? absolutely!!! but if I was a betting man I would bet money he rebounds to a 40-50 point guy on a better team that can utilize his offensive gifts better.

“If I was a betting man,” is a way better line of reasoning than stubbornly saying, “he will!”

Still wouldn’t take him off waivers though. Negative value. Guy had one decent outlier season and nothing since. Pardon me if i don’t really care that you think he stick handles well.

if I were a scout and a GM I would look at Labanc's underlying stats and with the eye test and with those I would see a better player IMO. his Corsi has never been below 50% (2018 61.9, 2019 60.3, 2020 55.3 and this year 53.2) his Fenwick has also been above 50% at similar numbers ( 59.8, 59.3, 53.8, 53.2) and he is almost a .5 point per game guy in the playoffs (30 games 14 point) and a Corsi at or above 60% in the playoffs (65.4 & 60.4)
and I also looked ad Debrusk underlying stats and they are very similar to Labanc as well.
Labanc
career 358 GP 65 G 183 Pts Corsi 58.3
Debrusk
career 264GP 71G 141Pts Corsi 57.4

Both players are good Players who are a little snakebit in my opinion and need a change of scenery. because of the cap difference I could se the sharks adding like a 3rd to this deal.
but this isn't as bad a deal as your saying it is.

One is a one season gamble.
The other is a three season gamble at big money.

No thanks.

it’s NOT a gamble.

Lol. Are you serious right now? Can you see the future? He isn’t playing up to his contract. He hasn’t for a LONG time. Saying he isn’t a gamble is one of the most ridiculous homer comments I’ve seen in a long long time.

you seem to be able to see the future! i use stats and reasoning you just say he’s lousy and refuse to listen to anyone else.

I have made precisely zero comments about the future in terms of, “this will happen,” or “that will happen.” I said acquiring a player that’s drastically underperforming his contract is a gamble. You said its not a gamble. Sorry, you said, “it’s NOT a gamble.” You said he will flourish.

How do you know? Why hasn’t he played well? Why isn’t he thriving? Why should any team just assume that he will start to perform like his contract dictates he should?

I don’t think anyone can give an answer to those questions other than, “I’m a homer and I want it to be true.”

Debrusk isn’t playing well right now compared to his contract, his past performances, or his qualifying offer, and I don’t think anyone should assume he’ll play better elsewhere.

See how easy that was?

i detailed why he isn’t playing or thriving. our system is defense first and that’s our coaches only priority! and that’s not Labanc game. he needs to play with skill players where he can dish to snipers and get good passes to destroy. he’s too good a player to be stuck in the situation he’s in. on the power play he’s still been playing at a high level, and his underlying stats are still good even with the players he’s forced to play with (all his line mates have worse Corsi without him than with meaning he is better than the players around him and he is benifiting them more than they are helping him) i’ve said all of this but it’s silly you will refuse to look at what i’ve said or look deeper into this and change your mind so i give up!!! your right he’s garbage and your better off.

First off, you aren’t part of the team. It’s not your system.

So you think you know better than the sharks coaching staff regarding how to put him in a position to succeed? Don’t you think they would want him to do well?

Furthermore, he would be a third liner in Boston anyhow, so none of this really matters.

He only had one good year. It’s far more likely that’s the outlier, but that might be hard to see through the teal glasses.

you win! I’m stupid and your a senior scout! i bow to your superior opinion over my scouting. he does not play the sharks system and that’s why he’s on the 3rd and 4th lines. but again you never listen so why am i even talking to you

See the thing that you don’t seem to understand is one of us has tried to take the scout track and project the future, and one of us has looked at the following facts, and come to the natural conclusion:
Basic facts:
He’s kind of sucked.
He’s only had one good season.
He’s paid at a level far superior to his performance.

Conclusion:
He would be a gamble to acquire.

How can anyone with a brain capable of typing disagree with that level of simplicity?

dude what do you want? i’ll never agree with you.
your making a snap judgement without any real observation. i’m tired or posting statistics and explanation for you to just say “no he sucks” you don’t listen so i’m done talking. have a nice night

What is funny - Bruins might be better off if they traded Hall for Larsson one for one.

I haven’t made any judgments. I’ve just said it’s a gamble. You’ve claimed you can see the future.

never said i can predict the future i just said based on eye test and underlying stats he’s better then the numbers would suggest and i would expect or even bet on him thriving on a team like boston. your saying he has zero value.

Saying he WILL flourish, and that he is NOT a gamble is akin to saying you can see the future. It’s a declarative statement about something that hasn’t happened yet.