NHL’s Top-20 Current Worst Contracts

Market. Competition. Desperation. Self-preservation. All factors dictating, justifying and/or describing NHL General Managers’ actions during the summer months, but mostly in the early days of July when free agents hit the market. All of which contributing, in one way or another, in bidding wars bumping up the so-called market value of a player, or players within the same category, numbers used at a later date by other players’ agents in justifying the new bar for their clients in future negotiations. The best General Managers are those who can resist succumbing to the temptation of getting into betting wars, by simply sticking to their plans going in… but “simply” just isn’t that simple as it’s often easier said than done.

The irony of this whole phenomena is that the NHL imposed a hard salary cap in an attempt to stop that process, in a way to protect GMs from… themselves. But as we’ve witnessed over and over again, it hasn’t worked. All it has done is kill GM’s abilities to “fix their mistakes” by trading their bad contracts, making it less exciting for fans as in-season trades are few and far between.

“If you look at history in the NHL, the biggest mistakes are made in early July. Worst contracts, guys who underperform. The biggest mistakes are July first. You have to be careful.” ~ Marc Bergevin

As the July 1st Free Agents’ Frenzy is once again upon us, let’s take a look at the NHL’s current worst contracts. Taken into consideration are factors such as cap hit, production, games played, no trades protection, protection against buyouts (signing bonus), age and number of years remaining to the contract. In order to understand the buyout protection, signing bonuses don’t count in the case of a buyout, only the player’s salary. For example, for every year of his contract, Andrew Ladd’s base salary is $1M. The rest is all signing bonus. So the Islanders would still be left with $4.833M of his $5.5M counting against their cap.

20. Antti Raanta (G) 30 – 12 GP – 2.88 GAA – 0.906 SV%

19. Scott Darling (G) 30 – 8 GP – 3.33 GAA – 0.884 SV%

18. Ryan Johansen (F) 26 – 80 GP – 14G – 64 PTS

17. Brandon Dubinsky (F) 33 – 61 GP – 6 G – 14 PTS

16. Cory Schneider (G) 33 – 26 GP – 3.06 GAA – 0.903 SV%

15. James Neal (F) 31 – 63 GP – 7 G – 19 PTS

14. Justin Abdelkader (F) 32 – 71 GP – 6 G – 19 PTS

13. Erik Johnson (D) 31 – 80 GP – 7 G – 25 PTS

12. Ilya Kovalchuk (F) 36 – 64 GP – 16 G – 34 PTS

11. Bobby Ryan (F) 32 – 78 GP – 15 G – 42 PTS

Keep in mind that with the upcoming expansion draft, only those with No-Trade Clauses (NTC) can be left unprotected for Seattle. A player with a No-Movement Clause (NMC) MUST be protected by their team. This has a huge impact on how bad the contract is considered.

10. David Backes (F) 35 – 70 GP – 7 G – 20 PTS

9. Niklas Hjalmarsson (D) 82 GP – 0 G – 10 PTS

8. Karl Alzner (D) 30 – 9 GP – 0G – 1 PT

7. Corey Perry (F) 34 – 31 GP – 6 G – 19 PTS

6. Ryan Kesler (F) 34 – 60 GP – 5G – 8 PTS

And now down to the nitty-gritty, the five worst contracts in the NHL.

5. Nikita Zaitsev (D) 27 – 81 GP – 3 G – 14 PTS

4. Andrew Ladd (F) 33 – 26 GP – 3 G – 11 PTS

3. Kyle Okposo (F) 31 – 78 GP – 14 G – 29 PTS

2. Loui Eriksson (F) 33 – 81 GP – 11 G – 29 PTS

1. Milan Lucic (F) 31 – 79 GP – 6 G – 20 PTS

With the news that Erik Karlsson just signed a contract extension with the San Jose Sharks giving him a $11.5 million cap hit, we might have to wait a few years but that contract might eventually find its place amongst the NHL’s worst contracts… particularly if he can’t stay healthy. Either way, desperate GMs are likely to fall, as they do every year, to the peer pressure of getting a much desired free agent but as you can see, the notion that teams “get them for free” is as far as it gets from accurate. Here’s hoping that Marc Bergevin doesn’t pull another Alzner. Could Matt Duchene be a good fit? We’ll find out soon enough. Go Habs Go!


NHL Must Stop Trying to Reinvent The Wheel


British writer and lay theologian Clive Staples Lewis was a smart man. He once said: “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” The NHL isn’t run by very smart men, and hasn’t for quite some time. Or if they are smart, they are also experts at hiding it, as actions speak louder than words. Those actions – and sometimes lack of thereof – are quite telling.

Apparently, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is good for the league. At least, that’s what the Governors are saying. In a league where coaches and players are fined for telling the truth in post game interviews, one can wonder if they would speak up if they felt differently. Of course, let’s not forget that they’re looking at the bottom line: money in the owners’ pockets! But does that mean that what’s good for 31 owners (soon to be 32 with the addition of Seattle) is good for the entire league, including general managers, coaches, players and fans alike? I’m not so sure of that.

Instigator Rule

The first and most obvious example of NHL’s governors’ lack of foresight is when, in their wisdom, they tried to address something that wasn’t even a need. When they altered the Instigator rule, they said that they wanted to prevent so-called goons from going after star players into fighting. Yet, when you talk to players involved in the NHL in those days, enforcers where there to prevent such things from happening.

“But I believe there’s still a role for fighting and I shudder at the idea of the game without it. Because I think we have a rat problem now because of the instigator penalty, and if you take the big dogs off the ice, now it’s overrun with rats.” ~ Brian Burke

As we’ve explored on this very blog, there are multitudes of examples of the negative effect the change has created in the league. Has the number of concussions diminished since the amendment to this rule was done under Bettman? No, quite to the contrary. Players are targeting the head more than ever and the respect amongst players in the game seems to be all but gone. Rats are running the place and there is simply no accountability anymore, which is why many people around the NHL want to rule to revert back to what it used to be… and I’m with them 100%. ratmarchand

Composite Sticks

In 1981, aluminum sticks were made legal in the NHL. They were even more durable and lightweight than their wood and fibreglass counterparts, and blades were separate from the shaft, making replacements easy and reducing cost.

Sticks made with carbon fibre as the main material came out in the early 1990’s. These sticks allowed players to adjust their own blade, however, they were not very cost effective.

In 1995, the first composite blade was introduced, and today it is this very stick that dominates the game. By allowing composite sticks, they now have to call penalties for slashing the stick… because they break! In the good ol’ days, if someone slashed your stick out of your hands, the coach would give you a hard time for not hanging onto it tighter! Now, if a player gets the stick knocked out of his hands, he gets a penalty. You know how ridiculous that is? Guys break their sticks making a pass!

Bernard “Boom Boom” Geoffrion, Bobby and Dennis Hull, Al Iafrate, Adrian Aucoin and Al McInnis were said to be shooting at over 100 mph… all with wooden sticks. Now that’s something to brag about!

Everything is interrelated. By allowing composite sticks, the goaltenders need to better protect themselves with bigger, better equipment. By doing so, they cover more of the net, making it harder to score. They tried to solve that by making the neutral zone smaller and making more room behind the net. Now, some have been talking about making the nets bigger. When will they understand that every time they change something, it creates another problem.

Think about this: ever since it’s very first game ever in 1871, baseball has been using wooden bats. As a matter of fact, Major League Baseball still has wooden bats. The NHL instead, is trying to change the rules and reinvent the game… but at what cost?


The game is faster than ever. The players are bigger and in better shape than ever. You now provide them with an armour and protect them against the pain suffered for delivering a hit and there’s no more fear. Today’s players are now dressed like tanks and what used to be a hit that would “tenderize” the opponent, now has the potential to seriously injure him instead.

Whether you like Don Cherry or not is irrelevant. What he’s showing there is totally relevant… and that was in 1999. Imagine today! Further, players today are trying to play goal and shot blockers are seen as semi gods for putting their body at risk. And that’s not counting on countless injuries due to the make up of today’s equipment! The NHL wants more offense and more goals? They want fewer head injuries? There’s a rather simple remedy folks. Simply regulate the equipment worn by the players. Why were there more goals scored when Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy were playing? Yes, goalie equipment is one reason but do you honestly think that players will keep blocking as many shots with equipment worn by Gretzky or Bossy? Think again!

Two Referees System

Four words: It is NOT working! Those who follow me on Twitter have certainly noticed that the Instigator rule and the two referees system are sort of my pet peeves in today’s NHL.


When the NHL, in their “wisdom”, decided to go to a two-referees system, they not only killed consistency by putting two different judgments on the ice, but they added incompetent people in places where they have no business being in. Worse, it created a ripple effect in every single league below. Guys who shouldn’t be in the AHL are now officiating in that league, at a level over their head, creating a dangerous situation for players down there. And it ripples back to Junior and College hockey as they all followed suit with the NHL by having two referees. It’s putting guys who are not ready or just plain incompetent for that level in a position of failure, creating frustration for everyone around the league.

When you had Andy Van Hellemond, Kerry Fraser or Ron MacLean as your referee, they would each have their own style. Stuff they would let players get away with and other things they were more stingy about. Players knew, by seeing who was refereeing, what to expect. Today, you have two judgments on the ice. How many times have we seen the referee 20 feet from the play, looking right at it, shake his head judging it wasn’t a penalty, only to see the one 70 feet away raise his hand to call that penalty? Players, coaches, fans… nobody knows what to expect in a game, let alone from game to game!

In conclusion, the NHL should look at other sports. It’s okay to have traditions and more often than not, there are reasons why rules were a certain way. Of course, some change is needed as the game progresses. But several changes have proven to have very negative side effects, ultimately creating problems that are bigger than the initial one. Think, NHL… Think and think again.