The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL's top 10 best and worst contracts

Episode Date: July 31, 2025

Jesse Granger and Dom Luszczyszyn take a closer look at the NHL's best valued contracts, led by Jack Hughes, Brandon Hagel and Seth Jarvis, and the NHL's top 10 worst valued contracts, with Jonathan Huberdeau, Igor Provorov and Tanner Jeannot leading the way.Host: Jesse GrangerWith: Dom LuszczyszynExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Jeff Domet Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show. Welcome into another episode of The Athletic Hockey Show. I'm Jesse Granger in Las Vegas, and I'm joined today by Dom Lucision in Toronto. And we are going to talk, this is a special edition, not our normal daily weekdays. We're going to talk Dom's 10 best contracts in the NHL and 10 worst contracts in the NHL. I'm always fascinated by this stuff. It projects way out into the future. How you doing, Dom?

I am doing pretty great aside from how unbearably hot it is outside. How hot is it up there? Vague is hot with humidity, so pretty bad. Brutal. Yeah, we're having a very cool July down here. It's like just barely over 100, so no complaints. Let's start this conversation, because I feel like a lot of people don't understand what you're doing exactly when you project these contracts. So can you give us just the bare bones, like what, how exactly this works and how you come up with these numbers?

And it's not just your opinion of which players suck and which players are awesome. Yeah. So as a lot of people know, I have a model that is beloved and hated to extremes, which is what you want. You don't want someone who's indifferent. And I think that's great. So, yeah, I project how good each player is with how many points they score, which everyone loves. and then how good they are at driving play, which some people are a bit more iffy on,

but I think I've come around a bit over the past few years. And I account for how difficult their minutes are, so whether the teammates are good or not, whether the players they play against are good or not. And I come up with how valuable each player is to each team, and then sort of translate that to how much that is worth in a contract. And it generally lines up with how a lot of players are paid.

There are definitely some times where a player gets paid a lot less than I expect and maybe a lot more than I expect. And usually that's because contracts for forwards are determined by generally how many points they score. And for a defense minutes, how many minutes they play. And you can get into a lot of disruptancies there where someone's like an empty calorie score, like Mikhail Granlan gets $7 million. And I think he scored.

a lot because he played for a bad San Jose team and maybe cheats a lot on defense or someone like Prove Robb who played a lot of minutes for Columbus and was really steady and I think there's value in that but what he actually did in those minutes not as effective as some other players is I think the charitable way to put it and I do that for next year and then I apply an age curve for every year after that and I look at how the cap is expected to grow and And then I get projections for every following year. I look at player comps as well. So someone like Nathan McKinnon, his best comp is Cindy Crosby at the same age.

So I look at how Crosby age is. I look at how McKinnon's next best comps also age I put together to get like a range of like what to expect. And then it just goes from there where I have a project cap hit for every player in the next eight years and how likely they are to hit that cap hit based on their comps. Awesome. And I think that so your top 10 came out on Tuesday. And one thing that I noticed based on just reading the article itself and the people in the comments, they're like, hey, where's this guy?

Where's this guy? It's important that these players have a lot more contract remaining, right? Like that's, I think people are going to wonder. Like, I think the number one question is, well, where's this guy? He's making no money. But if it's only one or two years left on his deal, it's not going to add up to be as much value. because there's just not enough years for him to add that up, correct? Yeah.

So the way I rank them is in two ways. The first is total surplus value. So we'll use Jack Hughes as an example because he's the top guy, even though people were complaining that he plays only 60 games from what are seemingly freak injuries, but I digress. So his cap it is $8 million. And next year, I think he is a $13 million player, which seems fair, I think. for the caliber of player he is.

So the surplus value for that is 5.5 million. If a player only has a one-year contract, that's obviously very valuable that year, but it doesn't compound as much as someone who has a longer term. So you multiply that 5.5% by six years, and you have 30 million of value. And that doesn't account for the cap growing. So let's say Hughes is the exact same player for the next six years.

13.5 million now is 17.5 and 5.5. years. So that cap growth makes the surplus value grow even more. And it also makes it more likely that he'll be more valuable than $8 million where right now that is first line money. In five years, that might be high in second line money. So it's those two things where someone like, I got a lot of messages about Alexei Protash on Washington, who has a great contract. 3.4 million. He establish himself as a bona fide top six player last year. But there's a difference between someone making that for four years versus someone doing that for seven years.

And everyone on this list has at least five years of term left. And that allows teams to maximize the total value where a lot of people will look at just next year and maybe like Quinn Hughes, great deal. There's only two years left. Whereas 28, 29, 29, 30, Jack Hughes is still playing for eight, million dollars. Yep. It's it's I think that this recent surge in cap growth is really affecting this type of thing because you look at like I feel like we all got so used to the flat cap that we were like, well, this is what a top player is worth. It's whatever. It's 10 million and anything above that is

ridiculous. And I think that like when you project Jack Hughes for 13, I think that might raise some eyebrows because people haven't adjusted to this rising cap and how much these contracts are actually going to go up. It seems to me like if you just signed your superstar player right before the flat cap ended, that's the best case scenario possible. You're getting a player for a ridiculously low, like Jack Hughes is the best example right off the top. I think the best example might be Seth Jarvis at number three. Okay. Yeah, let's talk about him. He, so he got a little less because he didn't score as many points as some of his comps, right? And so a lot of his value was on the defensive side, his ability to drive play. To me, he reminded me of

Mark Stone around the same age, where he's going to have that incredible two-way ability, and he'll get a discount just because he doesn't score as many points as some of his peers and whatnot. So immediately off the bat, it seemed like a great deal to only get him for 7.4, and now the cap has gone up so much. He's got seven years left. It's going to be an unbelievable deal, a player of his caliber probably gets 12, 13, 14 million going forward, where he, I think is going to be a franchise winger. We just saw Marner and Ranton go for 12 million, where I think that will account for some aging, whereas Jarvis is going to be, that's his entire prime, where you can expect he can,

he's not as good as Marnan and Rattan and now, obviously, but at some point he's going to pass those players over the next seven years, just from him. being younger and then being older. And it's going to create this incredible value where in seven years, seven million is going to be just a random second line guy. And Jarvis is going to be probably one of the best wingers in the league. Definitely. Another guy that comes on this list right below Jarvis is Sam Reinhardt on Florida. And it seems like this team has got a ton of great contracts. And obviously the tax situation in Florida probably helps that a little bit. The winning players just want to keep signing there because they're winning so much. But it really seems.

like especially the year he just had, it seems like, and you wrote it in the story, they almost ignored that that season even happened when they signed this deal. And they're getting him, usually a player has a monster year. And he's like, okay, I want to be paid at that level. Reinhardt was fine signing with the level that maybe he like something fair for what he had done prior to that year. Yeah. If you look at the chart and where he was at in 22, 23, and then look at the curve for

what's expected. You're like, okay, yeah, that makes sense. That's probably the level they expected for him. And then you see the monstrous leap in 23, 24, when we scored a million goals and was a defensive monster. And I get how Florida could have argued, we can't give you this much, this was one year, all this stuff. We'll give you a bunch of signing bonuses.

You get to live here. You just won. I get how they were able to get that cap hit. And a lot of us expected some regression from that season. But it is incredible that he followed up with finishing second and Salky voting and still being a point per game player and still being unbelievably good and

you compare that to the two big contract signed that year Neelander and Pedersen both went for 11.5-ish. That is probably what would have been fair for Reinhardt at the time and it's still been a good deal but they just ignored that insane jump

that he had and then he stayed at that level which is what puts him on this list is he establish that he's that guy now. For sure. Right below him, Nathan McKinnon at five, I think that's a name that most people probably would have expected to be on this list just because he signed that deal and the cap keeps going up and he's still one of the top five, top three players in the NHL. Right below him, Leon Drysiddle. And then at number seven is a guy I want to talk about

Dylan Gunther in Utah is a guy that I think maybe people who aren't watching Utah hockey super closely or Arizona hockey closely prior to that don't realize how good this guy is. And the mammoth now have him locked up $7.1 million a year for eight years. How much value are they going to get, do you project them to get out of that contract? A whole lot. And he is a great example of why signing a player one year early for as much term as possible is usually going to be a good bet. obviously there are times where it doesn't pan out or there are times where you pay a player a bit more than he's worth, hoping he'll grow into the deal. I think Carolina made that mistake with Yaspiri-Kotkinami, but they make up for it with Seth Jarvis, and they're probably going to make up for with Stankovin and Blake as well, where there is risk because sometimes these players don't develop as expected, and the team does take that on.

But a lot of the time, it's a very calculated one where what they saw with Gunther and his first, 45 games was special enough. And he had the pedigree where they could say, all right, seven million, that is probably going to be first line, second line money. We think he'll be that good. And we think he'll be better than that. So you put that in front of a 21-year-old kid, he's like, yeah, I'll take that. And the team is the one that's going to get the benefit probably,

where last year he established himself as a 65-sadventy-point player. And it's a good chance that he'll be worth more than that. going forward where he's already a very gifted goal score, incredible on the power play. And there's still just so much upside for him as a 22-year-old where he's getting $7 million for eight years. Like that is going to be with the cap growing second-line money. Because the other thing is they did this before the cap growth was announced,

same as Seth Jarvis. And they get the extra eighth year because they did it a year in advance. And I think they're going to benefit a lot where he is going to be potentially a star. our franchise piece for them as well. It seems like that's a trend around the league of paying these players before they get to their UFA years. And I don't know if that's a product of players are just getting to play more as younger players. So I do think teams are giving younger players bigger responsibility, more minutes, and then

therefore they're more confident in projecting them forward because they've got a bigger sample of what this player is. But it definitely seems like in the past teams were more, they wanted to keep that player cheap for their RFA years, not sign them to the big long-term deal and wait until it's closer to those UFA years. How do you view that dynamic league-wide? I think it like depends team to team. There's still teams that are doing the bridge deals and maybe they're uncomfortable with the risk because this is to some extent a risk for the teams because you're projecting so far out and all that time you are paying for future production. But if you look at age curves, if you look at

player comps. A lot of times it's going to be a good deal compared to UFAs where you're paying for the past a lot of the time and you're paying for prior production and you can hope that they can hold on to it for as long as possible. But it doesn't compare to these RFA deals. And a lot of the best deals since I've been doing this for like last seven, eight years have always been these massive RFA deals. Like we talked about McKinnon being on this list. He was a staple this list when he was signed for 6.3, where when he signed, he might have been that. But he was also a first overall pick, and you can expect at some point he's going to take a big jump, and he did. Same with David Posternak, who is also on a decent deal because he signed before this

cap growth. But when he was an RFA, he was also making six or seven million or whatever. And then he became a superstar. I don't know if Gunther will become Posternak, but the chance is there compared to someone like Marner, where I believe he's worth 12 million. I believe he's that caliber player. I believe he's currently a superstar. But there is a higher chance that he could regress and become a little lesser each year where someone like Gunther, I don't even know if he'll ever be as good as Marner, but he has the upside where it makes it a more interesting bet.

Another guy you got on the list at number nine, Matt Boldie in Minnesota. I got to watch him. They obviously Vegas and Minnesota in the first round. He was sensational. Minnesota's got him for seven more years at five or sorry, five more years at seven million. Positive value probability, 97% seems like a good deal for the wild.

He's, I feel like he still has another level to be taken. Like I think we saw another level out of him in the playoffs with Caprisov. And I still think there's another tier that he could jump into as far as, I mean, he's already a really good player. But I feel like there's more for the week you guys. gets on him. Yeah, it seems like every year he just like slowly bumps up. Like I think we see some

players take massive leaps at some point where they have a breakout season. And Boldie hasn't really had a breakout, but he's just steadily gotten better each year to the point where he made the Four Nations team and probably makes the Olympic team. But he's still not a bona fide point per game player. And I think that's the next level he can jump to where he is. an 80 point guy or 90 point guy. And if you combine that with his ability to drive play, his ability to play Minnesota wild defensive hockey, I think is an underrated aspect of his game. Like he can be one of the best wingerers in the league in a franchise guy if he just needs to get to 85 points instead of 75. Right. Makes a lot of sense. All right. Last guy on the list,

Tim Stutzland in Ottawa. He's at number 10. They've got him signed for six more years at 8.4 million. And it's, again, continuing the trend of teams locking up their young stars early and getting a lot of perceived value out of it. Yeah, not even just Stutzla, they have Jake Sanderson, honorable mention on this list as well. And they locked up both guys early to what seemed like big cap hits. But if you look at how they probably grow, like those seemed like good bets at the time. And it's paying off for them now where if Stutzer was a UFA, next year he makes 10 million like no problem and he probably makes more than that just because of his age and he's turned into a very strong center where i think two or three years ago he had 90 points

but like the defensive game wasn't there and he's taking some really big steps the last year last two years to get that and become a franchise caliber center and when you have him for 8.4 million that's a obviously huge value it's sort of comparable to hughes i think Hughes is like a level above him for sure where Hughes is number one for a reason. But Sucl, I think is still young enough that he could take that step himself. And if he becomes a 90-point guy with the defensive value he's shown the last year, he can get to that level and I think rise up this list in future years. To kind of veer off of just this specific subject, I want to, what are your thoughts on Ottawa? Like they bring in Lena Solmark. They take that step. The step we've

been saying they're going to take for what feels like forever and they finally make the playoffs. I thought they showed decent enough in the playoffs. Obviously didn't get out of the first round, but that was a tough opponent. Do you think this team is going to continue taking strides forward? Or are you worried that that was it and they could take a step back next year? So I don't think they'll take a step back. I'm worried that they might stagnate a bit. Like Stozel and Sanderson are young, but they're still at an age where the growth sort of slows down, right? I think both of them have another step they could take, but it's not something I would

like immediately bounce. These guys are going to be superstars next year. So I want to see one or both those guys take a leap towards like superstar status. And I'd be a lot more confident in what Ottawa can do going forward if they can do that. But right now I think they're still missing a number three forward. Like you have Stutzlow, you have Brady Kachuk. and then there's a very big drop-off after that. And you look at all the top contending teams in the league.

The teams that are like bona fide playoff teams, they have a big three up front that I think Ottawa lacks, where they'll be in the playoff race. They should probably make it, but it's like a very competitive east. And I don't know if they're as safe as they should be. Unless Southe's-Sanderson, Kach, take a massive step, or maybe Batherson becomes that number three.

I would have liked them to grab something off at the same time who was available, right? It's not like Eilers was ready to go to another Canadian team after what happened with Winnipeg as well. So that would have been a great get for them. Other than that, it's hard to see. I don't know. The last thing I want to talk about on the most valuable contracts list is, and I know, like, goalie contracts are so different and it's a totally different model. and I assume that that's why there are no goalies on this list.

Is there a goal, like Connor Hellebuck, to me, stands out because he signed that deal for less in Winnipeg. He took, he knew he was taking less when he signed it. He's obviously been the best goal in the league every year since that contract in the last two years. But is there is, is Helibuck's clearly the most valuable to you? Are there any other goalie? Like, I know it doesn't fit into the model the same way, but when you look across the, the NHL, are there goalie contracts that you look at and say that's an excellent deal for that team? So the reason that goalie contracts weren't included is partly because I forgot.

That is the secret of it is I forgot to do that part. But also, so when you look at a great player contract, like Hughes, for example, I can say with 99% certainly, like he's going to be an 8 million player. That is an easy bet. Whereas for a goalie who is similarly above his cap hit, like let's say he's 5 million above his cap hit. I'm not 99% sure because he's a goalie. And so it's a lot more difficult to get that positive value percentage

despite maybe a similar surplus value. But for, so the last part of this series is I look at every contract of league and I grade every team. So for that, I did have to get in there and figure out goalies. So I do have a list in that vein. and the two that stand out for me are Helibuck and Audinger. Helibuck because he is making 8.5 and is the best goal in the world. And obviously a little bit older,

but at that price, he's getting Audinger money, but is way better than him, right? So that is a obviously fantastic deal. Arnjur is pretty young for a franchise goalie already. And the fact he's signed for eight years at eight, million way less than Shisterkin, for example. And the numbers he's had the last few years, I think puts him in the top five for league-wide.

Like, would you agree with that? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Especially considering his age. Yeah. And so, like, his age, I think he'll have staying power in that top five where you might be less sure about hell of buck four or five years from now or even three years from now or even next year considering how he plays in the playoffs. I don't know.

Goleys are weird. Goleys are weird. To me, to me, it's just the fact that their stats are more a product of their environment than it is. Like a player can, a skater can play on a terrible team and still put up his great numbers and still show you his value. Lucas Dostall was a top five goalie in the NHL last year to me. None of his numbers say that because he's playing behind the Anaheim Ducks. And like Igor Shisterkin is a great example too. There was, there were already complaints in New York about the contract he's making because he's playing behind an awful team.

I thought Chesterkin was amazing. I watch him every night. I'm like, it should have been nine to one. It was four to one and the fans are pissed at Igor. Yeah. It's, it is. And to me, that's why I like, Ottinger. Like I, like that you were saying like 99% certainty.

If you told me like you've got to pick a goalie that you know is going to be good, it's Ottinger for me. And it's because of his age. And it's because the team he's playing behind is young and deep and seems to be set up to be very good for a long time. And if the team in front of you is going to be good for a long time and you're a talented goalie like Ottinger, to me, that's like where the certainty comes. in for goalies, obviously much harder to get than for skaters. Yeah.

And you mentioned Jostell. I do have him with exceptional value on $6.5 million, just because he was that good last year. I think he was really good the year before. And he, again, is young where I think when I did goalie age curves, they peak a fair bit later than players when you account for the start volume, where I think a lot of people will look at a 24-year-old doing unreal and 20 games. and a 24-year-old doing good in 50 games.

And all people will say the guy doing well in 24 games is better, but I would give more credit to the guy who is showing he can do that at a starter's rate. And so Dostal doing that last year, playing, what do you play, like 45 or so games, something along those lines? Maybe he got to 50 with Gibson's injury. But like, that proves a lot more to me that he's able to do it at, at volume, which I think is what separates the best goleys from some of the

goalies that are maybe more okay. And so I think he's got a great value deal. The start volume thing is something I do consider for goalie contracts that I think is helpful separating someone last year like Anthony Stolars who was amazing playing 25 games, but maybe not as valuable as his per game numbers, where he had to prove it a bit. And now he's done it for two years and up that to like 35 games. I do think he's a very good goalie.

But I would love to see what he can do playing 50 games. That's the big question for him. I could not agree more with you. I like we don't have great statistics for goalies. Goals saved above expected is the best we've got. The one I hate seeing used is goal saved above expected per 60. Oh my God. You have got you have guys with small samples putting up good numbers.

And like I've been screaming that from the rooftop. for a while that like it's playing 60 games is not a joke like like you are not going to just take like I think even with skaters it's the same thing too you can't just take a guy that scored a bunch of goals in 20 games and extrapolated over 82 but for goalies specifically like it it will go down like if you if you're this good in 20 games if you play that goalie 50 games it's almost a certainty that the numbers will get worse yeah it's just it's just harder to do it night in and night out there are going to be bounces it's going to be tough to maintain that level uh over a bunch of games so yeah i totally agree with you um anything else you want to mention before we take a break and

come back for the worst contracts yes uh the sam montaubo deal two more years 3.2 that is a nice one um yes it is they it's it's not ideal that it's only two years but like he is like made like not under level but like a step below that like i think is i think fair for what he's shown not just last year, but like the two before that, he's also just been unreal for the for the habs. He's been top 10 in goal stage of expected most seasons. And I like, I remember when they came out with the rosters for four nations and there was a bunch of like people were upset that he was one of the Canada goalies. And they were saying, oh, it's because he's from Quebec. It's like, I don't think you guys have been watching him play behind a really bad defensive team. Like they,

they got better last year and that's why they made the playoffs. But that team has been bad defensively. And he still put up good numbers behind them. They're set up really well in goal for the current and the future in Montreal. Like, just real quick, how do you feel about them compared to Ottawa? Like, I feel like they're in a similar situation. They've got maybe some younger star power that's kind of just breaking in.

How do you feel about Montreal moving forward? I think next year, I would view the two teams similarly. But, like, future-wise, I like Montreal's upside more because I think there is potentially more top-end talent, especially with Lane Hudson. And they have Demadov and I think Slavkosy really great to Suzuki coffee.

Like the core group, I think, is larger than Ottawa's. And I think there's more upside as well. We're like, I think Stucle. Yeah. I think Stucle is probably going to be the best forward between the two teams. But like Hudson is unbelievable. And I think takes the cake for that. That team's fun.

Just as like neutral observer, that's the team I'm like excited to watch this upcoming season. and I hope they all keep taking those steps. All right, that was, that was fun. Let's take a break and we'll come back with the 10 worst contracts in the NHL. All right, we're back and we're going to talk to worst contracts. These ones, we got to get everybody on your side. All the, all the hockey fans listening, love you, Dom. So now we're going to, we're going to go the other way and see if they still love you after this segment.

Let's start it off by just when you started analyzing these and started putting this list together and started collecting which were the worst contracts. What stood out to you from a big picture perspective? I think what stood out to me was how many were just signed. Usually there's a newcomer on the list every year. I was a bit surprised that it was like almost half the list. And I think that's a byproduct of everyone just having way more money than they've ever had. And the players being available being not that great.

So there's a lot of demand, maybe not great supply. And so you get deals that if they were signed at the same cap hit percentage a year ago or two years ago, they would have been unbelievably bad. But because everyone has cap space, they really only look bad on paper, but it might not be as affecting as it might have been in recent seasons where, like even the trade market, We saw so many cap dumps go for positive value, where in past years you'd have to put a sweetener, like a very nice sweetener to get rid of some of those deals.

And it's been wild to see that change. And I think because it's the first year that this happened, everyone had a lot of money spent and they had to spend it in some way. I wonder how it gets rained in, perhaps, over the next few years, where some good young players have to get paid and some contracts are coming up where if they keep spending at the rate they did this summer, like the money is going to run out and they're going to lose the flexibility that they had this summer because of the big jump. What is, how do you view this just from like a philosophical perspective?

Because you're a guy who loves, you love the numbers. You love the game of trying to get value out of contracts and stuff like that. And like I remember when the cap first, when they first announced the cap was going up, There were a few GMs. I think Doug Armstrong said that, like, they're not totally for it. They think that it actually, like, if you're a better GM and you think you're the best at this, you actually want the flat cap because it makes GMs have to make tough decisions and have to be kind of careful with their money and try to get value.

Whereas when everybody's got money, maybe a GM who's not as skilled can just spend his way into winning. Like, I guess, how do you view it? Do you like, did you, did you enjoy the flat cap and the squeeze that that put on teams? I'm from Toronto, so I hated it. They probably got screwed more than anyone, yeah. Yeah, and they'll spend to 150 million, $20 million if they have to. So I think it's fine for a big market team. I am worried about, like part of the reason the stockap happened was to create parity

and make sure the small market teams don't get left behind. And I'm a bit worried about what the league landscape will look when a lot more teams have internal caps. and you have Toronto and New York just spending as much as possible to get a winner. And I don't think it's going to work out like that because a lot of times solving your problems with unrestricted free agency is not the way to go. But it will create a divide that hasn't been there, I think, because of just how exorbitant the cap might go up. But I think the interesting thing is you look at a team like Florida that has always been,

about cap efficiency first and foremost. And they still are to an extent with the Eklad deal. But on paper, the Sam Bennett and Brad Marchand deals are not great deals. Marchand, until he's 43, like that is an unprecedented contract where I think 5.3 is a great price for him for the next three years. And I think that's what they had in mind. And then I think when he's 41, there's going to be a. dead cap hit where I think they probably saw the risk in that and said it's worth it for the

next three years where we're entering an era where just getting the best possible roster means more than being cap efficient whereas cap efficiency used to be the avenue to make that happen where if you saved a lot of money you can start squeezing more into the roster now there's so much space that you can take those chances and try to secure the core that they have, which is massive at this point. Like back in the day, Chicago, Tampa, Pittsburgh had to make sacrifices because of the cap. Florida, partly because they were so cap-efficient for so long, didn't have to make any.

They're running it back, which is a terrifying thought for everyone. And in four or five years, they'll probably pay the piper for that because I don't know if the ban it and Marchionan contracts will age. well, over the next three years, they are golden. When you project that Marshan contract, you can't, you're, you have to project it as if he's going to play till he's 43, right? Like, it's like, because there, there is the, like, I don't know, when I saw that deal, the first thing I thought was, well, the back half of that, he's probably just going to spend

on LTIR and like, it's going to be a quiet retirement. And then you get the benefit of that. He still gets his money and you don't have that cap hit on your, on your team. Like, obviously there are, there are some restrictions if that. were to happen if your team's on LTIR, but do you think that teams are going to play that game more often? Like it feels like a game worth playing in terms of once a guy gets to a point where he can't play instead of just announcing his retirement,

he's just unable to play and he's on LTIR and that cap hit no longer counts. Yeah, that is definitely a loophole that it is interesting that the league, like I remember when Leifes tried to sign Chris Tandup until he was 41 and the league said, no, no, that's not happening. And then Florida signs Bradmarshaw until he's 43, and they're like, this is fine. This is okay now. It's just a weird dynamic where, like, I think the same issue applied to DeVars as well, where they were like saying, what about an eight-year term is like, what is happening

to this league? Like, there used to be a semblance of decorum where I think everyone figured, like, as long as it's until 40, like, that's okay. 40 seem to be like the barrier where people are like, okay, come on, let's be serious right now. Marchant's contract is in age 35 plus contract. Does like if he's on LTR does still count? Like I don't know the specific rules for that where I think maybe part of the reason it was okay is that the cap it is there no matter what because he's over 35. I am not 100% sure.

Probably looks bad on my end that I don't know that right now. I don't know it either. And I feel like, I feel like I've become an LTIR expert covering the Vegas Golden Knights because they use it more creatively than any team in the league. I, I don't know the answer to that either. They haven't, they haven't, the Golden Knights haven't had a play a 35 and over contract that with LTIR. So I'm, I'm honestly not sure about that either. But it, it, it certainly feels like a way to give a player a bunch of money to, to, to keep him for the last couple years of his like being a good player like his last couple good years while also not screwing yourself down the road like it does feel like teams are going to try to use that but like you said maybe maybe that

loophole's closed if it's if it's the 35 and over messes it up yeah but if if that is the case they're just pushing the problem to a time where they probably will have too much money to spend anyway well they won't care because yeah exactly and they'll be five time cup champions in a row so like what does it matter if they're they got five million in a dead Marshawn camp when he's 42 or whatever. But yeah, it does feel like a bit of a loophole. And I credit any team that takes a loophole, good for them. All right.

So let's actually get to these specific contracts. And the first one on the list, number one, he's not a newcomer. We have been talking about how bad this contract is for a few years now. And it's funny to transition from the Florida Panthers and how efficient their contracts have been to this huge trade that is one of the biggest, trades we've seen in the NHL. It was obviously Jonathan Hubertow goes to Calgary and things have not gone as well as they had hoped while the Panthers are winning Stanley Cups down in Florida. The Huberto contract still number one on your worst list? Unfortunately, yeah, because he seems like a good guy

was a fantastic player before he came to Calgary. And I think it's just hard to, I think a lot of fans underrate how difficult it is to live up to such a big number. Obviously, it is, they're getting $10 million a year, so it's hard to feel bad for them. But I think there's like a psychological thing where you go from getting being underpaid, getting $6 million to being paid 10.5 million, highest paid player on the team, one of the highest paid peers in league. there's like a mental thing where you're like, I have to do everything to live up to this.

At an age where your body stops being as effective as it was two or three years ago, and it's a perfect storm for disappointment, unfortunately, where a lot of people will like a player more based on how much better he is than their contract. So if you get two nine million players, one's being paid 10 million, one is being paid 8 million, you will like the $8 million dollar player, every time. Even if they're the exact same guy. It's just the nature of the sport,

unfortunately. And that sort of pressure can make a player less effective, especially for Huberto, where the argument during his career year was he wasn't the guy, Barkov was. Barcov was soaking up these tough minutes. He was making life easier for Huberto, and that wasn't going to happen in Calgary, where he suddenly the focus was all on him as a top guy. I wonder, just based on how decent he's been on a really bad offensive team, if you put him back in a situation where he doesn't have to be the guy, he can anchor a second line and not play tougher minutes and just focus on offense, whether he could be that 10 million guy again. Obviously, his age is difficult, but I wonder how much of it is just this really poor situation he's in.

100%. I view everything through the goalie lens. And when you were talking about the expectations of that. It reminded me so much of Sergey Babrovsky. And we've obviously been Florida heavy in the show, but I'll keep it up. When he signed that deal in Florida, and he was the highest paid goalie, and it was such a massive contract at the time. And he was expected to be the savior. And at the time, Florida wasn't a great team. They weren't a horrible team, but they weren't a great team. And he was kind of expected to, okay, this is the guy who's going to bring us to the promised land. And those expectations, I mean, he played poorly. Like it wasn't just the team around him. He played poorly for a couple years. And then through the trade to get Kachuk and through building that Florida got good.

And all of a sudden it was like, oh, Sergey Bobrovsky's still awesome. Like yes, he was bad. And those expectations, I think made it worse. Hubertoe, like you kind of mentioned it, like maybe we could see a similar arc for Hubertoe. If he gets put in a better situation, it's not like he's a terrible hockey player now. Like he's still a good hockey player. And I totally agree with you that under the right circumstances in the right environment,

we could see a resurgence to maybe the player we remember seeing in Florida. Obviously not at that level because he's older now. But I do think that there's a chance we could see him go back up in production. Yeah. Like imagine him as a not a Marner replacement for the Leaps because he doesn't have a defense ability. But imagine him playing on the second line and Austin Matthews is taking the tough minutes of the top line. Like I think that's a situation he could thrive in.

be an 8 million player. Like I don't think it'll be at 10-5, but it'll be higher than a 6 million player. Where I do think the situation is part of the reason it's a bad contract, and that is that's not on him. It is on the situation create around him

where some of the onus is on the Calgary Flames where I think some of it, like it is situational for a few of these players where they're thrust into a role they can't fulfill their contractual needs to, I guess. For sure. All right.

Number two on the list, Ivan Proverov. You mentioned a lot of these are newcomers. This is obviously one of the newest contracts signed. And you mentioned it was sort of the combination, the perfect combination of all the teams have money to spend. It's probably one of the weakest free agent classes we've seen in a while. So the guys that were at the top of that list got paid quite a bit compared to their value. How do you see that Proverov contract in Columbus?

I feel bad talking about it again. it up and beating a dead horse because a lot of Columbus fans are very upset that I keep bringing it up. But like it's just, it is a bit of a baffling deal given his age, given his effectiveness. I think he was a very steady defender for Columbus. He eight minutes. I think that has value. But at like this is a contract that covers his 30s. I don't think he's a top hair defenseman. And that's what he's being paid to do. You see immediately the Gavrakov, contract. Someone who actually played at top pair level last year gets 1.5 million less. You see Noah Dobson, who has been a number one defenseman, get 9.5 million. You see

Bouchard get 10 and a half. The difference between Bouchard and Proverab is not 2 million. And that's sort of the difficulty with this deal is that it's going to be very hard for Proverob to be worth 8.5 million. And for this team, I think it's fine. The short term. They have a lot of cap space, but you look at some of the excellent deals they have for Marchenko, Kent Johnson, Dimitri Foronkov, and even you or Chinakov, even though you ask for a trade, like, those deals are up in two years for the guys that want to be here. Adam Fantili is on ELC. They're going to have flexibility, but maybe not as much as they would have without this Proverob deal on the books. And that makes things a little tricky. Zacharensky's deal is up in

three years. He is going to need a raise on 9.6 million. These are incredible deals that the Blue Jackets have for the next two years. And I want to see some very nice things about that. Like Marchanko, 3.9. Incredible. For Ronkov, they just signed that 4.2. Also incredible. Fantilli's deal, he'll probably have one of the better deals once he ages and becomes the first line center. Many think he'll be. But like, will they have the flexibility to make all of that happen with this anchor on the blue line with ProVrov because they already have an anchor with the Severson deal for 6.25 for the next six years where he's maybe a four or five now and you're now paying almost 15 million for two guys that are probably number fours and they still

need someone who is a number two and they're lacking I think the flexibility to do that and I think that's the big problem with Provrob and just throwing money at someone is I don't know if he's the right guy to throw money to. Yeah, it seems like they, because of the cap going up, they've got a lot of money because they have some of these good contracts. It just seemed like, it almost feels like, okay, we realize we're overpaying, but we're going to just do it anyways because it doesn't hurt us that bad and we just want to keep this guy. It just, it does feel like two things I don't think a GM or franchise should exhibit,

which is desperation and impatience. Whereas I think ProVrov had all the leverage. year he can ask for whatever you want and Columbus was desperate not to lose a key piece of their top four but they showed that in the negotiation where they overpaid paying a number four

like he's the number two and I don't think he is at the level and that's we brought this up at the beginning where defensemen are often paid by ice time and there's inefficiencies there based on how they play in those minutes pro Rob eats a lot of minutes and is being paid like a 23 minute guy

when he probably should only be playing 20. I think he's more effective at that level. Makes a lot of sense. All right. Number three, Chandler Stevenson, but I want to talk about four and five because the National Predators are doing something down there. If I told everyone listening that we've, we've got two contracts on the predators that are overpaid, I think most people would probably go to Stamcoast and Marsha so since they were the huge signings. Those aren't even the contracts we're talking about here. They've got Brady Shea and they've got Nick Haig, who they just traded for and signed to a long-term deal out of Vegas this offseason. Brady Shea was obviously last summer along with Marcia So and Stamcoast.

How much trouble are the Nashville Predators in? A lot. So Stamcoast was fairly close to being there. They are lucky it's only three years. And I think he'll bounce back a bit. I think a lot of predators will bounce back a bit. The problem is they're all so old that you wonder how much they actually can bounce back. And for a player like Shea, who has six years left, even he bounces back next year and the next year after that, what is he in year four, five, and six?

I don't think it's going to be a $7 million defenseman. And I don't think Nicholas Hague is the answer to their top four issues when you saw him a lot. over the last several years. He is probably a five and maybe a four at best. Yeah, I mean, he played top pair minutes with Petrangelo quite a bit, but it was, but it was Petrangelo driving the bus. Like he was able to manage, like he was able to manage those minutes and he's not a disaster. He's not hurting your team. But he's only able to do it because Alex Petrangelo is just playing out of his mind on the other side. So I agree with you that he is not a top pair defenseman. At least he hasn't shown to this point. No. I'm,

I think best case is he's a four, and that's still an overpay. I think last year, his numbers were not strong enough in, I would say, an easy rule. Like, even if he played with Petrangelo, he's playing with Petro Angelo. So that has to be account for in the tough minutes that he gets. And generally, like, he was closer to the third pair, right? Like, he was mostly with White Cloud on the third pair. And that pair wasn't as effective as previous years. and I see the vision where you might want to put him with Roman Yossi

as someone who can be a steady presence in that way. The issue, like they had that with Dante Fabro and they said, no thank you. And I think a lot of it is that Nicholas Hague is a big, huge guy. And they paid for that size rather than paying for, like, how he actually plays, where I think five and a half is probably going to be a little rich for, for what he brings the table in terms of of puck skills and even just defending. I don't,

I don't know how great he is a defending. On the subject of Nashville, you can question that for sure. Like, I'll allow it. On the subject to Nashville and you brought up goalie contracts that didn't make the cut on the best contracts list. UC Soros is coming off a really tough year.

He is going to be in his 30s for the next eight years for this deal. I am worried about that deal. what about you that's fair i i'll say this i give sorrows a break for last year because specifically when you break it into splits early in the year i thought he was great and he was putting up good underlying numbers but eventually it's you break like eventually as a goalie like you can only hold the dam for so long it's spider man with the train and he's got the thing like he can only hold it for so long and eventually your numbers are just going to go to crap and then yeah but i will say that projecting forward it's a bit i i worry about him

him with age more than I would worry about a player like Hellebuck with age because because Soros is undersized, he is elite because his skating is on another level and he's so quick. And he has to be because he's got to play at the top of his crease to cover enough net to not give shooters spots to shoot. So if he slows down a step, it could be problems. Like Saros has to be at his elite game. Like he's got to be at the top of his game in order to be a good goalie, whereas I think Hellebuck can, because he's so big and he relies more on his brain, reading the play, being in the right spots. If he's a step slower, I don't think you're going to see that big of a drop off, whereas because Sorrow has, Saros has to play farther out,

he's relying on athleticism a lot more than a goalie like Hellebuck. I do think that the age could, now you could argue, you could also argue, well, he's younger and more athletic, so he's not going to lose a step as fast. Like, there are some skaters that, like, I watched Brandon Sade here in Vegas. The dude's old. I can't believe how fast he still is. Some guys just don't lose their skating as they get older. Soros could be, he could be a unicorn in that. But I totally agree with you that he is the type of goalie because he's undersized and relies so much on the speed and athleticism that if he loses a step, it could go like in the blink of an eye. Quickly with Soros, other issue, last four seasons, 58 games, 64 games, 64 games, 67 games.

Not great. It's a lot. It's a lot. It's a lot. especially behind a team that doesn't defend particularly well. It's not like he's got an easy job back there, just chilling. He's facing high dangers at a crazy rate. So, yeah, it's, it's, he, I do not envy his job. He's got a tough job. Anyone else on this list that you'd like to hit on? We've got Ryan Poolock, Cody C, C, and Tanner, you know, wrap up the list.

Is there one that sticks out to you that you'd like to mention here? Let's, let's wrap it up with the last two contracts, which were signed this summer. which immediately anyone who watches hockey said, what the hell just happened? C.C. So I think Cici gets a bad rep from the analyst community for much of his career because he did play extremely tough minutes and he was not great in them.

But the fact he played them, there was a degree of difficulty that I think people don't account for where I do believe for most of his career he was probably a fine number four. I don't think he was the worst defense in the league. He was probably fine. And I understand that I was the ringleader for most of that. And I apologize to the Cody C.C. family for most of that.

I've improved the way I measure defensemen, I think, over the last two years, where there's a larger, I think, more accurate focus on how difficult minutes are. C.C. I think you could see that there was a tipping point in the playoff run with Edmont two years ago where he just lost it. where even if he was playing tough minutes, he was at least being passable, that cup run, he was, there was a new level of,

he can't cut it. And that showed in San Jose, as expected, but even when he came to Dallas, he just wasn't effective to any degree in that role, to the point that I am not sure he can be a number four anymore. And I wonder what he can do in a third pair role. I do think he'll probably play a top four role for L.A. And I don't think that he is at a second pair level anymore to be worth $4.5 million.

And I don't know, what is your opinion on C.C. as a Western conference watcher? Yeah. I mean, I agree with pretty much everything you said there. And I was surprised. I will say that I think L.A., sometimes systems can help players can, like, shield them. And I do think that because L.A. is so buttoned up defensively, and so structured and they they don't let teams attack their defensemen with speed.

Like to me, when I watch LA, that's what I, like, they, they do not let guys fly through the neutral zone and attack their defensemen with speed. So I wonder if they see the way they play and they watch Cody Cici and they say, you know what, that guy is more valuable in our system than he is in a, in, in, on another team. But I, I had the same reaction that you mentioned. I was like, what? Cody, like, what's happening? And it's, it's very surprising.

It seems like, like, L.A., I thought L.A. was going to beat Edmonton this year. I was like, I thought I picked him in five. I thought L.A. was, I thought this was it. This was the best L.A. was ever looked. I thought Edmont, L.A. was better than Vegas and Edmonton. Like, I thought they were the best team that are, that are really hitting their stride, Quentin Byfield, obviously leading the way. And they just, that team. And then it seems like they took a step back this off season. And like it's, we'll see how it plays out. But to me, it sure feels like they took a step back after they were, it seemed to me like they were just on the precipice of finally. breaking through and being that team in the Pacific. Yeah, completely agree. I, the point about slowing teams down the neutral zone, I think is a fantastic one. They probably have one of the best defensive forward groups where like from like their top nine, just everyone is really strong defensively. So I think that'll help CC out a lot. The like the issue is like, who is he going to be paired with?

Because if it's Joel Edmondson on a second pair, like, who's doing the the work to get the puck up to the forwards. And I think that's going to be the issue where they're going to be stuck in their own zone a bit too much. Yeah, and then the Tanner-Jonaut deal. What happens there? Like, there was a bidding war, obviously, for this man. Like, it is not 2021 anymore.

And, like, what happened that season? Because that Janat has not showed up for the next three years after that. So, I don't know. It was a magical year. Wild. Like everything went in and they're like, this guy's a 20 goal score. And I think he has like 20 goals combined since in like 170 games. I,

that's bought. That's the current era of Boston though. They overpaid for Lindholm last year. They were paid for Zedorov and they needed to add Tanners, or not to that mix. It usually takes a year for us to feel like a contract is bad. Like usually they all look fine on July 1st. And then the next year,

you're like, oh my God, I can't believe they did that. That one was one where everyone as a unanimous, maybe we're all wrong. We'll see, but everyone in the hockey community immediately was like, wait, what? We already think that contract's bad and he hasn't even played a game on it. We'll see how it plays out. Well, let's close on this thought.

We're obviously talking a lot of smack about these contracts. As hockey fans, we are both hoping that they live up to this money. And they, and the Jeanotte has a great season. in plays like the third liner he's paid to be. Cece bounces back from a tough year and he plays like the four he has usually been. We hope that stuff happens. It's just it doesn't feel like a good bet. And that's what we're talking about is we,

there's no hate for any of these players. We want them to succeed. We want them to prove us wrong. It's just that right now it's a tough bet. That's the best way to put it. It's all probabilities. I'm out here in Vegas. poker, it's all probabilities.

You're going to lose a bunch of hands that you played the correct way. You're going to win some hands that you maybe didn't play the right way. But if you play the probabilities, the vast majority of the time, in the long run, you're going to end up winning. And some of these just don't seem like good probabilities, like good bets to make, like you said. Yeah. And when you play the probabilities like Florida has for so long, you can make those bets where no one cares that Sam Bennett is on this list because you can easily make up

that value with one contract. If you just combine the cap hit for Reinhart and Sam Bennett, you're like, yeah, that's a good amount to pay for both those players. You're just paying a little more for Bennett, a little less for Reinhart. And it's fine. Because they're so well managed for so long, they can afford, for them, it's a luxury contract for another team. It's an albatross.

Like, that's a difference between the philosophies where you just have to be very good elsewhere to afford that. And there are a lot of teams who just aren't good enough to make those bad bets. All right. Well, that'll do it for us today. This was a very fun talk down the contract lane. Thanks so much for joining us and breaking down all the contracts with us, Dom. Always fun.

I look forward to being right about a lot of these and wrong about some of them. And I'm sure I know which one will be brought up most. I can't wait to see the comments. Thank you, everyone who does comment. Thanks for listening to the athletic hockey show. That's it for us today. Sean and Sean will return next week. Monday, Mack and Doe welcomes Matt Fairburn as the boys try to solve the Buffalo Sabres issues.

And then on Wednesday, Gentilly and Josh Yohe will fix the penguins or at least try to you. Have a good one.