Welcome back to Cap Court, where we examine the dubious contracts of NHL stars to determine if they warrant the infamous “bad contract” designation.
As always, we’ll assess “bad” contracts from the perspective of the team that has to endure them, reflecting the viewpoint of fans. Of course, we would never fault a player for accepting a lucrative offer. It’s important to note that we’re only evaluating contracts from this point onward; a deal might have made sense initially and even provided value in earlier years, but our focus is solely on what remains on the books.
Having done this for a while, we’ve seen players like Jonathan Toews, Carey Price, and Jakub Voracek come under scrutiny. In fact, one of our earlier discussions included Ryan Suter and Oliver Ekman-Larsson—this was back when there were a combined five teams and three buyouts involved. Have all our evaluations been vindicated? We’ll leave that cross-examination to us, thank you.
This time, we are highlighting five additional players. Let’s begin with a key defenseman from a major market.
The details: Rielly is currently in the third year of an eight-year contract with a cap hit of $7.5 million.
The case for it being a bad contract: Is there any argument against it other than the fact that it was signed by the Leafs? (Pauses for raucous laughter and a round of applause.)
Primarily, the issue is that Rielly’s pay reflects that of a No. 1 defenseman, despite him not consistently fulfilling that role. To clarify, he has served as the No. 1 in Toronto, a team that prioritizes investments in elite forwards while considering the blue line as secondary. However, holding the title of No. 1 in one context doesn’t equate to being a true No. 1. Often, Rielly appears more suited to being a reliable No. 2 or an exceptional second-pairing defenseman. He excels at various aspects of the game, but lacks standout elite performance in any area. Additionally, just a few games into the season, he has already ceded his position on the Leafs’ top power play to Ekman-Larsson.
While his previous contract— a six-year deal at $5 million annually—was generally seen as a steal, this current contract feels like a stark shift in the other direction, particularly considering he will be 36 by the time it concludes.
The case for it possibly being acceptable: When compared to the forwards he plays alongside, $7.5 million seems relatively modest. This holds true when stacked against others in his age and salary bracket, like Thomas Chabot ($8 million), Vince Dunn ($7.35 million), Brandon Montour ($7.1 million), and Brady Skjei ($7 million). All these players are solid defensemen capable of holding high lineup positions on any competitive team, though they aren’t contenders for the Norris Trophy. If Rielly fits that description, then perhaps his contract is appropriately aligned.
Another point worth mentioning: While it’s valid to discuss the Leafs’ history of overpaying their stars, it’s equally important to recognize that Rielly has a reputation for stepping up his performance in the playoffs, making him one of the few core players with that distinction.
Key witnesses: Though the players referred to earlier offer somewhat favorable comparisons, some comparisons are less complimentary. For example, Rielly’s salary exceeds that of younger Noah Hanifin, who recently signed a deal with the Vegas Golden Knights worth $7.35 million. Additionally, Rielly’s salary is just shy of reigning Norris winner Quinn Hughes ($7.85 million) and perennial contender Victor Hedman’s recent extension ($8 million). It’s relevant to note that Hughes was still a restricted free agent when he signed, and Hedman will be 34 when his contract begins, but both players possess far more impressive credentials than Rielly within that salary range.
The verdict: It’s not entirely bad, at least not at this moment. However, it’s likely closer to being problematic than one might assume.
Morgan Rielly is compensated like a top-tier player in Toronto, but his performance may not correspond with that status. (Minas Panagiotakis / Getty Images)
The details: Scheifele is currently in the initial year of a seven-year contract extension he signed last year, with a cap hit of $8.5 million.
The argument for it being a poor contract: While Scheifele is a first-line forward, his minimal defensive contributions categorize him as a one-dimensional player in a league where elite centers are expected to excel in both ends of the ice. His offensive production has been around a point per game, which has not been the case for the last few seasons. He is a solid player but does not reach elite status, and while this may justify his cap hit at present, he is 31 and will turn 38 by the time this contract concludes. This contract favors Scheifele significantly but poses concerns for the Jets, a sentiment echoed at the time of signing.
The case that it may not be so bad: Scheifele ranks just outside the top 10 in scoring among centers since 2018, and during his “worst” statistical season in terms of points per game, he managed a career-high of 42 goals. Although he is not on the same level as Nathan MacKinnon, Leon Draisaitl, or Auston Matthews—who are changing market dynamics—Scheifele is established a tier or two lower. The contract’s longevity may raise concerns, yet such is the nature of the NHL, and an increasing salary cap could alleviate some of the financial strain.
Additionally, we cannot ignore the Winnipeg aspect. At the time he signed his extension, Scheifele was close to potentially becoming an unrestricted free agent, and Winnipeg does not typically appeal to star players in trade or free agency situations. His choice may have been different if made in Florida, but this is Winnipeg. If the Jets marginally overpaid to ensure a long-time star finishes his career in their city, it is a compromise worth considering.
Key pieces of evidence: Scheifele’s $8.5 million cap hit surpasses what fellow centers Steven Stamkos and Elias Lindholm recently received as unrestricted free agents and is closely trailing what a younger Sam Reinhart earned after a 57
-goal season. However, this places him on par with players such as Roope Hintz and Filip Forsberg. At the very least, he is a preferable choice compared to fellow $8.5 million player Pierre-Luc Dubois.
The verdict: Currently, the contract seems acceptable. Yet, the term raises some concerns, particularly with the risk of a significant decline for a player who contributes little when not generating offense. Considering the current state of the Jets, perhaps Kevin Cheveldayoff is not preoccupied with Year 7. Nonetheless, at Cap Court, we must be cautious, and the length of the term nudges this deal into the unfavorable category.
On the subject of centers in their 30s with an $8.5 million cap hit …
The details: Zibanejad is currently in the third year of an eight-year contract, which also carries an $8.5 million cap hit. By the time it expires, he will be 37.
The case for it being a bad contract: This situation would closely resemble the one outlined for Scheifele, owing to the similarities between their contracts. Zibanejad possesses a full no-move clause until the last year of his contract, whereas Scheifele only has a partial no-trade clause after 2027. Additionally, Scheifele’s contract involves fewer bonuses, making it easier to buy out.
The case for it potentially being acceptable: Zibanejad’s contract concludes one year earlier than Scheifele’s, and he has demonstrated stronger defensive skills while being slightly more productive (ranking one spot ahead in center scoring since 2018) while typically taking on tougher assignments. The distinctions aren’t monumental, but given how narrow the assessment of Scheifele turned out, these minor differences hold significance.
Key witnesses: Essentially the same as those for Scheifele, but it would be prudent to also consider Artemi Panarin and Adam Fox. Despite Scheifele being the highest-paid skater on the Jets by a notable margin, Zibanejad ranks third among the Rangers.
The verdict: Initially, I thought Zibanejad would narrowly avoid a “bad contract” classification, as I perceive him as a slightly superior player and his contract is marginally shorter. However, upon further investigation into the NMC and buyout features, I found myself reconsidering.
For what it’s worth, I queried my X followers regarding these players, and the feedback was clear, if not one-sided:
Quick survey for something I’m working on:
Factoring in age, cap hit, term, etc., which contract would you rather have on your favorite team, starting today?
— Down Goes Brown (@DownGoesBrown) October 11, 2024
So, it appears that you all would prefer Zibanejad over Scheifele. However, this doesn’t necessitate a different ranking; if there’s minimal distinction between his deal and Scheifele’s, we must assign the same verdict to both. Thus, Zibanejad receives a narrow “bad,” much to my surprise.
The details: Meier, at 28, is approaching the second year of an eight-year deal with a cap hit of $8.8 million.
The case for it being a bad contract: Meier has exuded a superstar vibe throughout his NHL career, entering the league as a top-10 pick and achieving a peak of 40 goals during the 2022-23 season, which also coincided with his trade from the San Jose Sharks to New Jersey for multiple high picks. Yet, he has surprisingly never recorded a point-per-game season in his eight years in the league, with his production sinking to 52 points last season. He is compensated as an elite winger, but can he be classified as one, despite his reputation? The Devils extended his contract shortly after that significant trade, which gives off a sense of Shiny New Toy.
The argument that it could be acceptable: While that 40-goal season may represent a maximum output, he recorded 35 goals the previous year, and the number of wingers capable of such scoring isn’t particularly extensive. Furthermore, last season’s performance was somewhat disappointing, but he was also reportedly battling an injury. Given that last season was largely a lost cause for the Devils from the get-go, it may not be wise to place too much emphasis on those outcomes.
Important testimonies: Among wingers in their late 20s, Meier is positioned behind Matthew Tkachuk ($9.5 million) and Kirill Kaprizov ($9 million) but ahead of Patrik Laine ($8.7 million) and Alex DeBrincat ($7.87 million). This ranking seems appropriate.
The conclusion: I have concerns regarding the contract, and I’m not alone in this sentiment. However, we can afford to give it some time before labeling it a bad deal. Meier is a top-line winger for a Cup contender, and his cap hit is reasonable for that position, provided he can generate the offensive numbers to complement it. He has proven capable in the past, and as long as he returns to that performance level this season, we should be in good shape.
The specifics: Jarry is 29 years old and in the second year of a five-year contract with a cap hit of $5.375 million.
The case against this contract: I intended to feature a goalie in this discussion, but it becomes complicated because many of the highest goalie contracts are either too new for assessment, already clearly poor, or on the verge of expiration. Thus, let’s consider Jarry, which seems like a closer evaluation.
The unfortunate reality for the Penguins is that they are bound to four more seasons (including the current one) with a goalie who hasn’t performed particularly well since the 2021-22 season. That year, he finished seventh in the Vezina voting, marking the second occasion in three years he achieved this rank, but he hasn’t garnered any votes since then due to a decline in his save percentage each season. Last year, his save percentage stood at .903, slightly below the league average, despite leading the league in shutouts with six.
Currently, he ranks 12th in the NHL for goalie cap hits among active players, yet few fans would include him that high on a list of goalies deemed ideal for building around. Even more concerning, seven of the goalies ahead of him have contracts ending by 2027, whereas Jarry’s deal extends beyond that.
<span class="table
Tristan Jarry provides a solid presence in net for the Penguins, who are no longer quite contending. (Charles LeClaire / Imagn Images)The Argument for Acceptance: Among the 11 goalies who earn more this season, only Jeremy Swayman and Igor Shesterkin are younger than Jarry. Thus, even with four years remaining on his contract, the Penguins did not acquire an excessive number of anchor years. Instead, they invested significantly to secure their undisputed starter during the remaining prime of his career. It’s worth noting that Jarry enjoyed some strong seasons when the Penguins were championship contenders. If the rest of the roster can return to that competitive level, he should perform well. Conversely, if they can’t, overpaying an experienced goalie may not matter. while this deal isn’t seen as a bargain, it’s not overly detrimental either.
Key Comparisons: The variety among goaltenders is what you might expect. Jarry’s salary is slightly below well-known names like Jacob Markström ($6 million) and Shesterkin (who has one more year at $5.67 million) and above Thatcher Demko ($5 million), all of whom have significantly outperformed him recently. However, you would likely choose Jarry over John Gibson ($6.4 million), Philipp Grubauer ($5.9 million), Elvis Merzlikins ($5.4 million), and Darcy Kuemper ($5.25 million). What this indicates is, well… it’s unclear. Goaltenders are unpredictable.
The Conclusion: The seemingly random assortment of goalies in a similar salary range suggests that this is not an advantageous position; lacking a reliable option in net, it may be wiser to pursue a budget-friendly alternative instead of committing to mediocrity and hoping for improvement. Given the considerable time left on this contract, I would categorize it as unfavorable, but with a caveat: if we eventually see the extensions for Swayman and Shesterkin as fundamentally reshaping the goalie market, Jarry could merit a review of this assessment in a year or two.
(Top photo of Mark Scheifele: Sergei Belski / Imagn Images)
Cap Court: Examining the NHL’s Most Questionable Contracts of Top Stars
The NHL’s Salary Cap System Explained
The National Hockey League (NHL) operates under a salary cap system that restricts the total amount of money that a team can spend on player salaries in a given season. Understanding the intricacies of this system is crucial for evaluating questionable contracts. The salary cap, which was introduced in the 2005-2006 season, is designed to promote competitive balance among teams. However, it also leads to some contracts that draw considerable scrutiny.
Understanding Questionable Contracts
Questionable contracts in the NHL often arise when teams overpay for players based on past performance rather than future potential. These deals can impact a team’s financial flexibility and overall performance, leading to a cascade of repercussions that affect roster decisions and on-ice success. Here are some key factors that define a questionable contract:
- Overvaluation: When a player receives a contract that exceeds their market value.
- Unrealistic Length: Contracts that extend too long for players approaching or in their decline years.
- Injury History: Players with a history of injuries can carry a significant risk when they sign lucrative deals.
- Performance Consistency: Players who have had only a few standout seasons might not deliver consistent results.
Top Stars with Questionable Contracts
Several high-profile NHL players have signed contracts that raise eyebrows among fans and analysts alike. Below are some notable examples:
| Player | Team | Contract Value | Length | Criticism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor McDavid | Edmonton Oilers | $100 million | 8 years | Cap hit too high for a team with depth issues. |
| Sergei Bobrovsky | Florida Panthers | $70 million | 7 years | Inconsistent playoff performances and age concerns. |
| Jack Eichel | Vegas Golden Knights | $80 million | 8 years | Injury history and limited games played. |
| Andrew Ladd | New York Islanders | $38.5 million | 7 years | Decline in performance and significant injuries. |
Connor McDavid’s Contract: A Double-Edged Sword
Connor McDavid, often hailed as one of the best players in the NHL, signed a monumental contract worth $100 million over eight years with the Edmonton Oilers. While his talent is undeniable, the hefty cap hit poses challenges for the team’s ability to build a competitive roster around him. Critics argue that while McDavid’s on-ice performance justifies the contract, the off-ice implications could hinder the team’s balance and depth.
Sergei Bobrovsky: The Goalie Gamble
Sergei Bobrovsky’s contract with the Florida Panthers, valued at $70 million over seven years, raised questions due to his inconsistent playoff performances. Goalies often have fluctuating seasons, and investing heavily in a goaltender can be a risky move. The Panthers’ front office faced scrutiny over whether this investment was wise, especially considering Bobrovsky’s age and any potential decline in performance.
Jack Eichel’s Risky Return
After a highly publicized trade to the Vegas Golden Knights, Jack Eichel secured an $80 million deal over eight years. However, his history of injuries and the implications of his recent surgery left many wondering if he could live up to the expectations set by such a significant contract. With a long recovery process, Eichel’s performance in the upcoming seasons will be critical in justifying the deal.
Andrew Ladd: A Contract That Haunts
Andrew Ladd’s $38.5 million deal with the New York Islanders is often viewed as a cautionary tale. While Ladd was a respected player when signed, injuries and a sharp decline in performance turned this contract into a significant burden for the team. As Ladd’s situation unfolded, it became a clear example of how risky long-term contracts can be for older players.
Benefits of Understanding Questionable Contracts
For fans, analysts, and even players, comprehending the nature of questionable contracts can lead to more informed discussions about team strategies and player evaluations. Here are some benefits of delving into this topic:
- Enhanced Fan Engagement: Understanding the financial dynamics allows fans to engage more deeply with their teams.
- Informed Discussions: Fans can participate in discussions about trades, contracts, and team strategies with a better understanding of the implications.
- Player Development Insights: Evaluating contracts can highlight the importance of player development and scouting in the NHL.
Case Studies of Successful and Failed Contracts
Examining both successful and failed contracts provides context for understanding the risks associated with high-value deals in the NHL. Here are two case studies that illustrate this dynamic:
Successful Contract: Nathan MacKinnon
Nathan MacKinnon, who signed a seven-year, $44.1 million contract with the Colorado Avalanche, is often pointed to as a successful deal. His production has far exceeded the expectations of his contract, solidifying his status as one of the premier players in the league. As a result, the Avalanche have enjoyed significant on-ice success, making this contract a win for both the player and the franchise.
Failed Contract: Milan Lucic
Milan Lucic’s contract with the Edmonton Oilers, worth $6 million annually for seven years, exemplifies a failed investment. After a few seasons, Lucic’s performance declined sharply, resulting in the Oilers needing to find a way to move him in order to regain financial flexibility. This case serves as a reminder of the risks involved in signing players based on past performance rather than current abilities.
Practical Tips for Evaluating Future Contracts
As teams prepare for the next wave of contracts, both analysts and fans can benefit from these practical tips:
- Analyze Advanced Statistics: Utilize metrics like Corsi, Fenwick, and expected goals to gauge player performance beyond traditional stats.
- Monitor Injury Records: Keep track of players’ health history, as injuries can significantly affect performance and longevity.
- Consider Age and Decline: Players over 30 may have shorter windows of peak performance, making long-term deals riskier.
- Evaluate Market Comparisons: Understand the market for similar players to determine if a contract is truly competitive.
First-Hand Experiences with NHL Contracts
Speaking with agents and players provides valuable insights into the contract negotiation process. Here are some common themes from these discussions:
- Negotiation Tactics: Players and agents often emphasize the importance of leverage and timing when negotiating contracts.
- Understanding Team Needs: Players who align their skills with the team’s needs tend to secure better deals.
- Emotional Factors: Many players express that emotional connections with teams can influence their decisions, sometimes leading to less-than-optimal financial choices.
Conclusion
Evaluating questionable contracts in the NHL involves a complex interplay of financial strategy, player performance, and team dynamics. By understanding the factors that contribute to these deals and learning from both successful and failed examples, stakeholders can navigate the intricate world of NHL contracts more effectively.
