NHL's 10 worst contracts, 2025 edition: Jonathan Huberdeau, Ivan Provorov and more

New York Times

6 days ago

In the NHL, contracts matter. For better or worse, every player is judged based on the money he makes and whether he's worth the price.
This piece is about the players who aren't worth the money — the worst deals in the league. It's when you ask yourself, 'How is this guy making that much?' but in a bad way.
There are a number of player-friendly deals out there. According to each player's projected value over the remainder of their deals, these are the league's 10 worst contracts.
The goal here is to grade contracts empirically with the same context being applied to each player across the league: how much value does each player bring to the table per year and over the life of the contract? The way that's measured comes from comparing a player's Net Rating and the expected salary that comes with it to a player's current contract.
Advertisement
What players have already done holds no merit; this is about the future value of the deal with age effects based on player comps taken into account while accounting for expected salary growth. Contract clauses and bonus structure are important, but not considered with this assessment. Players on LTIR were not considered.
Contract: $10.5M x six years
Surplus Value: -$32M
Positive Value Probability: 1 percent
It's difficult not to feel bad for Jonathan Huberdeau at this point. Immediately after he was moved, his former team went on to three straight Stanley Cup finals with back-to-back wins — all while he languishes on a Flames team with minimal upside. It's a tough beat for the former superstar. He's spent the last two seasons struggling to live up to a massive cap hit, one that expects a level of stardom that he no longer looks capable of reaching.
At $10.5 million, the expectation for Huberdeau is a Net Rating of plus-12.6 for the 2025-26 season. That's 8.5 goals above what he's projected to deliver next year. While it's not impossible that Huberdeau can bounce back toward a high-end first-line level, it is very unlikely. Especially with Calgary, a team devoid of much capable offensive help.
The problem isn't just the cap hit, but also the term. There are still six years remaining on Huberdeau's deal and while that gives him a lot of runway to mount a turnaround, the more likely scenario is that the 32-year-old's game only degrades further. For now, Huberdeau is still a solid top-six option worth over $6 million. In Year 4 and beyond, when Huberdeau is 35 or older, however, his value is expected to take a turn for the worse.
It wasn't supposed to be like this and Huberdeau's immense drop-off remains mystifying. While his deal looked a little pricey at the time (his market value was $9.9 million) and there was a good chance he wouldn't find the same success away from Florida, the degree to which he fell off was still hard to imagine.
Advertisement
Huberdeau is still a good player. And in the right situation, it's possible he can still be a great player. Still, it's unlikely he'll ever be a $10.5 million player again. For now, he's nowhere close and, for the second straight year, carries the league's worst contract as a result.
Contract: $8.5M x seven years
Surplus Value: -$33M
Positive Value Probability: 3 percent
It should come as no surprise that Ivan Provorov's freshly inked deal lands here, considering what I already wrote about it when it was signed. Provorov is a fine defenseman, but his new deal is just way too much and way too long for what he currently brings to the table and how he likely ages. Provorov had all the leverage and used it to his full advantage, immediately netting one of the league's most player-friendly deals.
Even in a rising cap world, $8.5 million will still likely be top-pair money for the entirety of Provorov's deal. Though Provorov plays big minutes, the actual quality of those minutes is closer to second-pair caliber, with Provorov's inability to drive play. And while Provorov should age better than most at his age, his play will still likely decline further over the back half of the deal. The chances of him suddenly blossoming into a genuine top-pair option are slim, and the price tag he managed to command is even harder to fathom given the deals signed for Evan Bouchard, Noah Dobson and Vladislav Gavrikov this summer.
Columbus had a lot of cap space and not a lot of options to replace Provorov. From that perspective, it's understandable why the Blue Jackets did what they felt like they had to do — but that still doesn't make this deal any easier to swallow.
Contract: $6.3M x six years
Surplus Value: -$29M
Positive Value Probability: 0.2 percent
One year removed from Seattle's big bet on Chandler Stephenson, it is still mystifying that the Kraken ever gave a 30-year-old declining center $6.25 million per year for the next seven years. One year into the deal, nothing has changed on that front. It was a poor decision at the time and that's played out on the ice.
Advertisement
A surface-level analysis of Stephenson's game might view that sentiment as incredibly unkind. Stephenson scored 51 points last year and was second on the team in scoring. He was the team's top faceoff man, led all forwards in ice-time playing nearly 20 minutes per game and took on some of the team's toughest matchups. On the surface, Stephenson seems like a fine player. Dig deeper, though, and a lot of Stephenson's production rings hollow. He's an empty-calorie scorer.
For starters, much of his production hinges on the opportunity he would not get elsewhere. Of Stephenson's 51 points, 18 were thanks to playing on the team's top power play, where 11 were secondary assists. At five-on-five, he scored just 1.57 points-per-60, ninth among forwards and directly behind recent salary dump Andre Burakovsky. On a bad team, someone has to score, but it doesn't mean they're actually adding much to the team's bottom line — they're just getting a lot of minutes. It's the Mikkel Boedker Rule.
The bigger issue, though, is Stephenson's five-on-five play. That was a red flag going into free agency, where it looked like he would struggle without Mark Stone. Lo and behold, Stephenson managed just a 37 percent xG last year, seven percentage points lower than the next-worst Kraken forward. The gap between the 13th and 14th being that large is difficult to comprehend, a matter of Stephenson being incredibly porous without the puck. With him on the ice, the Kraken gave up 0.45 more xGA/60, the sixth-worst mark in the league and one that is consistent with his last season in Vegas. Stephenson is a defensive black hole, and that showed up on the scoresheet, too, where the Kraken gave up a lot of goals against with him on the ice.
Some of that can be explained by usage and easing Stephenson's burden can allow the Kraken to squeeze more juice out of his minutes. He's not a bad player, but it is highly debatable whether he's a true top-six player anymore. Paying $6.25 million for a likely third-line center is not ideal. Even less ideal is Stephenson's age and the term remaining, where things are only likely to get worse from here on out. His age profile does not suggest he will age gracefully either.
At his price tag, Stephenson needs to be a capable second-line center for the next six years for Seattle. In Year 1, he already doesn't look like one — even if he's used like one.
Contract: $7M x six years
Surplus Value: -$26M
Positive Value Probability: 5 percent
Last summer, it looked like the Predators 'won' free agency. One year later, it looks like a catastrophe with Brady Skjei's deal immediately looking like the worst of the bunch.
While the Predators did overpay to nab three of the biggest free agents, it wasn't nearly to this current degree at the time. Was Skjei a $7 million defenseman (for the next seven years) at this time last summer? Probably not, but something close to $5-6 million range would've made sense (his market value then was $5.7 million using current methods). Just one year later, he's not even worth half of that.
Advertisement
That's a result of a nightmare first season where Skjei's defensive game took a steep drop-off in Nashville. He struggled to bring over the elements of his game that made him a defensive stalwart with Carolina, bleeding chances and goals against on a nightly basis.
While there's a chance of a bounce-back, Skjei's age is fairly prohibitive toward expecting him to live up to the remainder of his deal. The Predators need Skjei to be a solid No. 2/3, and while he's far from a bad defender, he's closer to a No. 4 after last season. Even if Skjei's game does make a return over the next year or so, it's the six years remaining that really hurt. Given his comps, it's unlikely that Skjei can remain a difference-maker into his mid-30s — not after struggling to be that in Year 1.
Things can change if he can get back on track in Year 2, but it's Years 5, 6 and 7 that remain the scariest.
Contract: $5.5M x four years
Surplus Value: -$16M
Positive Value Probability: 4 percent
This contract feels like a tribute to the legend Bob McKenzie. 'That's per year.'
Has Nicolas Hague ever played in the top four? No.
Has Nicolas Hague ever shown top-four upside? Not really.
Did Nicolas Hague have leverage as a UFA? No.
Is Nicolas Hague a big, massive guy? Yes.
And that's all there is to it. It seems there's a growing trend for teams to pay defensemen per inch rather than per win lately, and that's how Hague was paid to be a No. 3 defenseman despite a career being a third-pair guy. Is it possible he breaks out in a larger role with the Predators? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he should be paid for the unlikelihood rather than what he currently is.
I understand that size is at a premium for defenders and that Hague is worth more than the market value shown above because of it. But if a smart team such as Vegas is getting rid of him, there's probably a good reason.
Advertisement
Hague could be the next Brenden Dillon, one of his top comps, who did become a solid second-pair defenseman at the same age. But the more likely scenario is that Hague is what he's always been: the next Andrej Sustr, Ben Harpur or Shane O'Brien. Bigger doesn't always mean better — especially not when a team is paying a hefty price for it.
Contract: $7.8M x five years
Surplus Value: -$17M
Positive Value Probability: 6 percent
When Sean Couturier signed his big extension, he was one of the best two-way centers in the world, a perennial Selke Trophy threat. Unfortunately, serious injuries took that away from him and though he's been solid in his return to action, Couturier is still not quite at the level necessary for a $7.8 million player.
That's mostly a result of his offensive game. Defensively, Couturier has remained a strong shutdown force, but what made him top-line material before his injury was his ability to produce on top of that. He's gone from a 70-point option to a 45-point guy and that's not going to cut it at the top of the lineup. It's the difference between what Couturier needs to be in order to live up to his salary and what he is now, which is a strong shutdown second-line center.
The bigger trouble lies in his age. At 33 (in December), with five years left, the clock is likely ticking on Couturier's top-six upside. Over the final few years of his deal, it's more than likely that Couturier will slip further into third-line territory. It's possible that another summer to recover and the wisdom of Rick Tocchet can turn things around, but it'll take a large and unexpected leap for Couturier to be a $7.8 million player in the short term — let alone for the remainder of his deal.
Contract: $6.2M x five years
Surplus Value: -$16M
Positive Value Probability: 8 percent
At the peak of the most recent Islanders era, Ryan Pulock was one half of one of the league's best shutdown pairs. Even if the production wasn't there, Pulock looked like a true top-pair stud with his ability to win difficult matchups with Adam Pelech. It's what made it seem like an eight-year deal at $6.2 million could be a great deal. Today, it looks anything but.
Advertisement
In two of the last three seasons, the Islanders have struggled a lot more with Pulock on the ice at both ends of it. Last season was especially dismal with a 45 percent xG rate and a minus-0.49 relative xG rate per 60. The latter was one of the league's worst marks. Pulock struggled greatly to help the team offensively in any way and it's what dropped his standing from capable No. 2/3 to a low-end No. 4. If that.
There might still be a bounce-back in store for Pulock, but at 30, last year's effort might be a sign of things to come — and it may only get worse. If that is the case, there's going to be a massive gap between the value he delivers on the ice and what he's paid for.
Contract: $8.0M x eight years
Surplus Value: -$20M
Positive Value Probability: 20 percent
No one who knows puck cares that Sam Bennett is on this list. His presence here is merely a formality, one based entirely on his modest regular-season stats. Big whoop — that's not what he's paid for.
No one cares after Bennett won back-to-back Stanley Cup titles with Florida. No one cares after Bennett won the Conn Smythe. When it matters most, Bennett is a winner, a big-game player who elevates better than almost anyone else. He may be a $5.5 million regular-season player (a figure based almost entirely on his age), but in the playoffs, he becomes something else and is a lot closer to a $10.5 million player. Consider $8 million splitting the difference.
Most importantly, though, no one cares that Bennett is here within the context of the Florida Panthers. The team is already saving more than enough on Sam Reinhart, Aleksander Barkov, Matthew Tkachuk, Anton Lundell, Gustav Forsling and Aaron Ekblad that they can easily afford a luxury contract such as Bennett's.
In a vacuum, $8 million for Bennett is too much and so too is an eight-year term that will take up most of his 30s. In a vacuum, this deal may not age very well and it's on this list for that reason (the first 3-4 years are fine).
Advertisement
But we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world where Bennett is a key championship piece for a franchise with dynastic hopes. That's all that matters. Signed by another team, Bennett's new deal would've been incredibly risky. For the Panthers, and the Panthers only, it's a risk they can easily afford.
Contract: $4.5M x four years
Surplus Value: -$14M
Positive Value Probability: 1 percent
I'm going to say something that may come across as controversial from someone who primarily focuses on analytics: Cody Ceci got a bad rep throughout most of his career.
I know, I know, we're all trying to find the guy who did this. But after diving further into quality of competition data during the analytics era, it's become more and more apparent just how much context was missing from my previous analysis for a lot of tough-minute defenders. Ceci certainly qualifies.
Ceci wasn't one of the league's absolute worst defensemen; he was just grossly overused. A No. 4 who is played like a No. 2 is often going to look like a No. 6 — and that's Ceci's career in a nutshell. After accounting for how difficult Ceci's minutes have been throughout his career, he ends up grading out at a No. 4 for the majority of his career. Some years have been uglier than that, yes, but for the most part, he's just been an over-utilized second-pair guy.
That's what the Kings are paying him to be and it's possible Ceci can be that if he's actually used appropriately. But in his 30s, the math has probably changed for Ceci and that all started with Edmonton's run to the final in 2024. Even after accounting for usage, Ceci looked much rougher than usual. That carried over into the 2024-25 season, where he was predictably dismal on a bad team, but also struggled to find top-four form on a contender, too. The Stars used him too much, yes, but you'd still expect stronger numbers even in that role.
The difference for Ceci is that he's gone from playing tough minutes to a draw while being fairly worse than teammates, to losing tough minutes badly while being significantly worse than teammates. There's a big difference between his 2023-24 season with the Oilers (54 percent xG, minus-0.3 relative) to his 2024-25 work with the Stars (46 percent xG, minus-0.5 relative).
Advertisement
That's a dramatic falloff, one that suggests Ceci is probably a lot closer to third-pair territory these days. The Kings are paying for what Ceci once was and the Stars made the same mistake trading for him, expecting the same. It's possible he makes a complete return to form playing behind Drew Doughty, but the more likely scenario is that Ceci, at his age, is no longer a player who can handle top-four minutes for any extended period.
For the next four years, the Kings have a very expensive third-pair defenseman.
Contract: $3.4M x five years
Surplus Value: -$13M
Positive Value Probability: 5 percent
Four years ago, Tanner Jeannot had 24 goals and 41 points in 81 games, a year removed from lighting up the AHL with 10 goals and 21 points in 13 games. Jeannot looked like someone who was going to be a problem for years to come as a menacing power forward with a scoring touch.
Turns out the problem was expecting Jeannot to replicate that ever again, first fooling the Lightning out of an entire draft class and now the Bruins out of $17 million. Since that magical season, Jeannot has 20 goals and 45 points over 198 games, an eight-goal and 19-point pace. Woof.
Jeannot is a replacement-level player making third-line money. Maybe he finally regains the spark that made his 2021-22 season so alluring, but the chances of that happening feel seriously slim.
In a summer filled with weird deals as a result of teams having more money than they knew what to do with, Jeannot's deal was one of the weirdest.
Honorable Mentions: Will Borgen, Brad Marchand, Darnell Nurse, Brandon Montour, Mikael Granlund
(Top photo of Jonathan Huberdeau and Ivan Provorov: Aaron Doster / Imagn Images)