In hockey circles, fans and even some media members often oversimplify contract discussions, leaning on the narrative, “The cap is going up, so just pay him.” While this might sound logical on the surface, it fails to account for critical nuances in player valuation and long-term team planning. No one is in a better position to know that better than the Montreal Canadiens’ GM, Kent Hughes, a former players’ agent.
Jake Evans: A Case Study
Jake Evans, a pending UFA, has been the subject of much debate. Comparisons to players like Brett Howden (VGK), Evan Rodrigues (FLA), and Ridly Greig (OTT) frequently surface to predict Evans’ next contract. However, these comparisons are deeply flawed for several reasons:
- Position Misrepresentation: While all three players are listed as centers on NHL.com, they primarily play on the wing and take very few faceoffs—a critical distinction for contract negotiations.
- Age and Contract Structure: Ridly Greig, for instance, is just 22 years old, and his recent extension keeps him an RFA at its conclusion, covering no UFA years. This drastically impacts his valuation compared to Evans, who is entering UFA status.
These nuances highlight why surface-level comparisons can mislead fans and pundits alike.
What Agents Consider
Players’ agents are methodical in assessing value, leveraging a range of factors to secure the best possible deal for their clients.
Player-Specific Factors
- Performance Metrics: Points-per-game, advanced analytics (e.g., Corsi, WAR), and role-specific contributions.
- Position and Demand: Centers and top-pair defensemen typically command premium salaries.
- Age and Career Stage: Younger players in their prime often secure higher-value deals.
- Health and Durability: A history of consistent availability boosts a player’s market value.
- Leadership and Intangibles: Contributions to locker room culture and on-ice leadership.
- Achievements: Stanley Cups, All-Star appearances, and individual awards.
Market Comparisons
- Comparable players’ contracts based on role, production, and age.
- Importance within the team—key contributors earn more than depth players.
- UFA vs. RFA status—contracts that buy UFA years are more expensive.
- Draft pedigree—higher draft picks often carry additional leverage.
League and Economic Factors
- Salary cap trends, focusing on cap percentage at the time of signing, rather than absolute dollars.
- Escrow and revenue sharing impacts.
- NHL revenue projections, including media deals, ticket sales, and expansion fees.
Contract Structure
- Length of the deal—balancing security for the player with cap flexibility for the team.
- Signing and performance bonuses for financial stability.
- No-move or no-trade clauses to provide additional player security.
The “Cap Going Up” Fallacy
The argument that a rising cap justifies higher spending ignores practical considerations. While the NHL salary cap is projected to increase, teams face significant internal challenges.
In Montreal’s case, several key players are approaching contract renewal:
- Pending RFAs: Emil Heineman (tied for 3rd in team goals) and Jakub Dobeš.
- One Year Remaining: Patrik Laine, Lane Hutson, Arber Xhekaj, Mike Matheson, and Kirby Dach.
- Two Years Remaining: Sam Montembeault, Alexandre Carrier, Alex Newhook, Logan Mailloux, Joshua Roy, David Reinbacher, and Adam Engström.
Even if the Canadiens let some of these players walk, replacements—especially top-tier talent—will still command significant salaries as the cap climbs, particularly when sourced from the UFA market.
Lessons from the Past
The Canadiens’ prior management has been often criticized for emotional decisions, such as Brendan Gallagher’s contract. These deals, often made under the assumption of a rising cap, can hamstring a team’s long-term flexibility. With a hard salary cap, from a team’s perspective, every contract must be negotiated with strategic foresight, not sentimentality.
Conclusion
Jake Evans’ situation exemplifies why context and nuance are crucial in contract discussions. Surface-level comparisons and cap-increase assumptions fail to capture the complexities of player valuation. Ultimately, smart management requires a balance of data-driven analysis and strategic planning to ensure long-term success.