Pro Hockey Rumors Originals

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include what type of impact Jonathan Toews might have this season, if shorter-term contracts could become more prevalent moving forward, and more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in last weekend’s mailbag.

Emoney123: What’s the next move for Briere? Collect 2026 draft picks; is there anyone on the roster worth a first-round pick? Flyers hold two first-round picks in 2027 and the new arena is to open in 2030; will the team be winning by then?

They’re running out of veterans to sell, at least not without cutting into the perceived longer-term core group of this roster.  Christian Dvorak won’t fetch a first-round pick but with 50% retention, they can get something for him.  Considering the strong interest in Rasmus Ristolainen in the past, he’s someone I think could move this time and with teams always looking to add players like him, maybe they get a first-rounder if they’re willing to eat half the contract.  Maybe there’s a smaller depth move in there as well but that might be it for pick accumulation.

I think they might be sniffing around buying as well.  Not necessarily in the traditional sense of adding rentals and veterans but looking to buy low on a distressed asset, something along the lines of the Trevor Zegras move.  At some point, you have to emerge from the rebuild with some players capable of making an impact now.  That’s the next step for the Flyers so if there’s a chance to take a flyer on a player or two who might not be fitting in where they are, perhaps they can make a low-key move to get someone who might improve with a change of scenery.  Those are typically more offseason deals but if you’re like me and think there’s going to be a more pronounced race to the bottom of the standings, some of those types of deals could materialize in-season.

I would hope Philadelphia is back to being a playoff team by 2030.  They’re already a few years into this rebuild; if they’re still rebuilding five years from now, it’s probably not going to be Briere at the helm and something will have gone rather wrong.  While it happens periodically, rebuilds aren’t supposed to typically last a decade and at this point, I don’t think the Flyers are in a position to be doing one for quite that long.

Cla23: What type of impact will Toews have in Winnipeg?  Do you think it will be a one-and-done?

I like the Jets landing Jonathan Toews as he’ll add some much-needed depth down the middle.  But I’m not overly optimistic that he’s going to be overly impactful, at least offensively.  He was starting to slow down in terms of production over his final two years in Chicago and while some of that could have been affected by his lingering illness, he’s also now 37, not 33 or 34 as he was in those seasons.  One will likely offset the other.

But Toews has always been well above average at the faceoff dot and while he might be a bit rusty, he should still be on the happy side of 50%.  Winnipeg has finished below 50% as a team in that regard for three straight seasons.  He could be a faceoff specialist for them and late in the season and in the playoffs, that can be a big deal.  I also expect he’ll still be good defensively, though probably not at the level he was when he last played.  That long of a layoff will make a difference.

If Toews can get through this season healthy, my guess is that it wouldn’t be a one-and-done unless he really struggles.  If he can still help a contender, he’ll probably want to do so.  But if he’s in and out of the lineup and banged up or the struggles from the illness return, then the safe assumption is that he’ll hang up his skates, knowing he gave it an honest effort to come back.

frozenaquatic: Most UFAs are 29, and the good ones sign for seven or eight years, bringing them to their age-36 or 37 season, at which point, it’s exceedingly rare (Marchand notwithstanding) for a player to get much more than a one or two-year deal. There’s a lot of smoke these days about players signing NBA-style three or four-year deals on their UFA. Will that make any sense? It’ll be really interesting to see what happens with Panarin given that he’s had an unconventional career, having started so late, and he’s going to be a UFA at 34. Assuming he has a solid year this year, what do you think Panarin’s next deal looks like?

Part of the reason we see NBA players sign shorter-term deals is simply because those are the maximum term lengths of a deal in most cases.  Beyond a small group of players (either designated rookie extensions or veteran re-signings with Bird rights) eligible for five-year deals, four is the maximum so many players opt for that.  (There are also considerations for contracts of a specific length that get them to a specific amount of service time, increasing their maximum cap percentage but I don’t want to get too much into the nitty gritty.)  But that’s why NBA contracts are typically shorter.

Could NHL players follow suit?  Some might in the short term, thinking that another big jump could be coming to the cap.  But UFA-eligible players in your scenario (becoming eligible around 29) would then be setting themselves up to try to get a bigger deal in their age-33 year or so.  That could be tricky.

For most UFA-eligible players, I think the move is either short-term (two years) if you’re trying to set up for a bigger deal when there’s a bigger spending environment or aim for long-term and max out on what you can get now.  But if you’re still in the back end of your RFA eligibility, then a three-year deal or four-year pact becomes a bit more defensible.

With Panarin specifically, there are two options.  A max-term deal is unlikely at his age and even short-term doesn’t make a lot of sense as he’s at the age where a decline could come quickly.  I could see a four-year agreement around $11MM per season, basically close to an extension at where he is now.  Alternatively, if the signing team is a little more cap-strapped, they could tack on a couple of cheaper years which might get the AAV more around the $9MM to $9.5MM territory.  That would buy some short-term flexibility for the signing team but that could be a rough contract on the books over those last couple of years.  It’s a deep UFA market but Panarin still finds himself in good shape, assuming he’s once again the offensive leader for the Rangers.

kodion: Why are teams not more proactive with expiring “superstar” contracts when they get NOTHING in return if deals don’t get done and the guy bails in FA?

They will never get true, or even fair, value if they move them out with a year or less to go and fanbases will beat on management relentlessly, almost regardless of the return, but that would seem to be a better business practice than running the risk of a no-return departure.

I know it’s not as simple as that but what am I missing?

While this isn’t always the case, if you’re a team with a superstar player (or even a high-end one) that’s on an expiring contract, you probably have hopes of making a long playoff run.  As you noted, teams generally aren’t going to get top value for their services.  So, what’s better – salvaging some value for the longer term and hurting your chances of winning now or going for it now with a core group you think can win at the expense of the future?  Most of the time, teams feel the answer will be the latter.

If I’m a general manager, I have a hard time selling to my owner that we need to move a fan favorite top-end piece to get some pieces that should help us later.  That’s going to cost potential playoff revenue and anger a big chunk of the fan base and the dressing room.  That’s probably not going to help my cause for staying as GM, especially if I’m throwing in the towel on being able to sign the player.  That’s why you don’t see it happen too often.

Objectively speaking, you make a very valid point.  In the long run, teams would probably be better off moving out top expiring contracts for some value if they don’t re-sign quickly because, after all, only one team can win the Stanley Cup every year.  But the fear of ‘what if this was our year and I just sunk it by trading a star player’ will almost always put an end to it actually happening.

UncleMike1526: Hypothetical question. Say the Blackhawks show a marked improvement this year and some of the young talent starts to shine. With a boatload of draft picks in a deep 26 draft, name some FA’s or trade targets they could chase for 2026? I know big-time FA’s probably won’t go to a declining team just like last year but with some improvement who should they be chasing? Thanks.

For starters, I don’t see this happening.  I don’t think GM Kyle Davidson does either.  This year will be about getting some prospects some reps so that they can see how close (or far) they are from getting back into the thick of things.

I’ve said before when this question came up that they’re not in a spot to be too choosy.  They need a talent influx to help propel them into the postseason picture.  It could be a center, a winger, or a defenseman.  (I think they’re set in goal for now.)  I don’t think it necessarily matters what the combo is, just that there are upgrades coming.

Objectively, they probably need a couple of wingers and a top-six center up front and at least one top-four defenseman.  Here is the list of pending UFAs, per PuckPedia.  The center and defenseman could be tricky to get if the top guys re-sign or pass on Chicago but there are wingers out there.  I think Alex Tuch would be a perfect fit to play with Connor Bedard, Martin Necas would up their skill, and even someone like Mason Marchment could give them some extra grit in the middle six with some offensive upside.  How realistic those options are remains to be seen but those are some fits I like.

As for trade targets, the same idea applies.  Don’t be picky; if there’s an impact player who can be around for a few years, try to get him.  It’s way too early to start hypothesizing 2026 offseason trades but if there’s a talent upgrade available, Davidson should be looking.  And that applies even if this hypothetical scenario isn’t in place.  Win or lose, next summer is when they should be starting to build back up talent-wise.

Duke II: You’re drafting a Dynasty Team and are looking for future scoring studs; you get three of these forwards + two defensemen. GO!

Lysell, Nikishin, Savoie, Perreault, Snuggerud, Lekkerimaki, Turcotte, Howard, Parekh, Ritchie, Brunicke, and Levshunov.

Forwards: I’ll start with Jimmy Snuggerud.  A strong producer in college, he looks to be well on his way to being a top-six NHL piece, probably relatively quickly even; it wouldn’t shock me if he’s a top-six regular by the end of the season.  I think Gabriel Perreault will get there as well, but not quite as fast.  For the third player, Calum Ritchie might be the safest pick but if you’re swinging for offense, I’d go with Isaac Howard.  If he can work his way into a top-six spot over time he has a chance of playing with Connor McDavid (assuming he re-signs) or Leon Draisaitl.  That would be a nice way to pick up some points.

Defense: Zayne Parekh has a chance to be one of the more impactful offensive defensemen in the NHL if everything goes according to plan.  Granted, his defensive game is part of why he slipped in the draft but if you have the floor of an offensive-minded player who could rack up power play points, that’s generally a good player to have in a pool.  Alexander Nikishin might have to bide his time a little bit in Carolina this season but long-term, there’s a clear path for him to become their go-to player offensively on the back end.  They’re generally a solid team offensively so he has a chance to put up some points with them.

Photo courtesy of Wendell Cruz-Imagn Images.

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include breaking down one of the new CBA rule changes, fitting the Hughes brothers on the same team, and more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in next weekend’s column.

Gmm8811: I thought I saw somewhere that players that go on and clear waivers have to actually play at least one game with their AHL affiliate. Did I hear that correctly? Is that starting this year? Would you expand on that info, please? Do you foresee any drawbacks to that? Looking forward to the new season.

This isn’t actually a waiver-specific rule.  A player can clear waivers and not be sent down while remaining eligible to play for their team.  That doesn’t happen often but it does happen, especially around the trade deadline.

What the rule you’re mentioning speaks to is paper transactions.  Section 30 of the new CBA MOU adds a blurb to Section 13.12 of the CBA that basically says that a player who is sent to the minors needs to actually report to the minors and play in at least one game.  The exact rule is as follows:

A Player who has been Loaned to a minor league club, and was not credited with a day pursuant to (h) above for one (1) or more days since the Loan, must actually report to the club and play in one (1) or more games with such minor league club before he is eligible for Recall. Not withstanding the foregoing, a Goaltender on Loan who has played less than the required one (1) game may be Recalled if his NHL Club would otherwise have less than two Goaltenders available to dress in the Club’s next game.

This is one of the changes that the league and the NHLPA agreed would come into effect for the upcoming season.  As we saw in recent years, many teams would ‘paper’ a player to the minors on an off day, then recall him the following day to play in an NHL game.  The player never actually reported to the minors but didn’t receive his NHL salary for the day, giving the team a few thousand dollars extra in cap space.  This rule is designed to deter teams from doing this.  Now, if a team sends a player down to the minors (whether they cleared waivers or are waiver-exempt), they actually have to report to that team and play in a game before they can be brought back up.  Notably, there is a rewrite to another subsection in there that effectively says if an emergency recall situation presents itself (someone else gets hurt putting the team below the required minimum number of skaters), then the recently-assigned player can be recalled before actually playing in an AHL game.

I doubt this will actually change much, however.  Teams that need space are still going to churn their roster, it’s just going to involve multiple players now instead of one.  Player A gets sent down, Player B is recalled.  Player B gets sent down, Player A is recalled and so forth.  If waiver exemption is exhausted, then start with Player C and maybe Player D if needed (or re-waive Players A and B to give them another 30-day exemption window).  So now, the player who was getting papered will probably lose out on NHL money and ice time since the scheme, so to speak, will now require multiple players to pull off which will cause a different type of grumbling.  That’s the drawback that comes to mind.

It’ll stop Carolina from papering Jackson Blake down (something that probably happened 15 or more times last season despite the fact he played in 80 NHL games) but probably won’t change much else.

frozenaquatic: Hi! Thanks for doing these. Getting out the crystal ball: Are there any teams you think will underperform this year? Who is a shocking team that we could see having problems and dropping out of the playoffs?

For quick reference, I had a question last column about four teams missing and four teams making the playoffs, one set per division.  Rather than rehashing that out, you can read through my picks here.

Based on the four miss teams in there, the one that best fits this question would be Washington.  Montreal missing wouldn’t be too shocking, neither would Minnesota, and while Los Angeles would certainly be a surprise (and I don’t think they’re missing the playoffs), that wouldn’t be as shocking as a reigning Conference winner missing the postseason.

A lot went wrong for Washington in 2023-24 and just about everything went right last year.  They had several players have career years, the cheapest goalie tandem gave them above-average play, and some typical underachievers had some bounce-back efforts.  If some of those gains are lost, it’s plausible that they could be on the outside looking in.

In terms of an underperformer who still makes it, I’d pick Florida.  The way they struggled down the stretch without Matthew Tkachuk was telling and they’ll be without him for quite a while to start the year.  Between that and two long playoff runs, I could see them landing in a Wild Card spot which would be a bit of a disappointment for them.

Johnny Z: What would it take to get Kirill Kaprizov to be a Wing? Yes, I realize the Wings are not a contender, but getting KK would be a big step towards the prize.

Zakis: To piggyback off Johnny Z, what would realistic packages be for Kaprizov for any team in two scenarios: 1) Kaprizov doesn’t sign an extension.

2) He agrees to a sign and trade.

Notwithstanding the unlikelihood of Detroit happening, the situation of how this happens is important to actually answer this question.  Zakis provides two scenarios but I think it’s actually three.  Is it as a straight rental?  If not, Detroit one of the only teams he’d sign with (or one of the only teams offering the contract he wants)?  Or, is there a bidding war for his services in a sign-and-trade with eight to ten teams realistically in the mix?  All of those would yield different-looking returns.  Let’s try to hypothesize each one, using a Detroit-specific answer and a general one to cover Zakis’ follow-up query.

1) In a pure rental scenario, you’re probably looking at two key components.  One is a first-round pick, the other is a key youngster.  Now, this isn’t like the Brock Nelson trade where the young forward was a recent first-rounder (Calum Ritchie).  For someone at Kaprizov’s level and to win a bidding war as a rental (without an extension, more teams can get involved), that other piece is going to hurt.  My initial thought was Marco Kasper and if he’s a third center at the time of the trade, that still could be the case.  If Nate Danielson is having a big year and sees some NHL action, perhaps he’d fit as well.  Detroit shouldn’t need salary retention but if a different acquiring team does, add a second-round pick (or maybe a third, depending on when the deal happens) to the price.

2) If Kaprizov says there’s only one or two teams he’d sign an extension with, Detroit loses a lot of leverage.  They still could probably get the above with the extension balancing out the reduced leverage but there won’t be as much of an add as there should be.  Speculatively, the acquiring team would want to offset the money a bit.  For the Red Wings, that might be someone like J.T. Compher while in general, a top-six forward with a couple of years left fits.  Now, if you’re thinking that this feels really light, you’re right.  But history shows that if a player only has one destination in mind, it’s more of a fifty cents on the dollar type of return.  If you’re the acquiring team, this is the best-case scenario.

3) Now, if Kaprizov is willing to sign an extension with a bunch of teams, look out.  (This is Minnesota’s best-case scenario if they can’t re-sign him.)  Then, you’re looking at probably multiple core players, at least one first-rounder, and a top prospect.  Someone’s going to keep upping the ante and it’s going to hurt.  For the Red Wings, think along the lines of Lucas Raymond, Kasper, a first (or more), and someone like Trey Augustine.  Minnesota gets two core top-six players (Kasper should get there), cap flexibility as those two cost less than what Kaprizov will, and future assets to either keep or try to flip to add another replacement piece.

Now, having said all that, I still think Kaprizov eventually re-signs.  It might take slightly more than what they’ve offered or perhaps a shorter-term agreement compared to eight years but right now, I’d predict they get it done.

Schwa: Who’s an under-the-radar pick to surprise in camp and force their way onto a roster – PTO, long-time AHL, rookie??

PTO – I’ll go with Kevin Labanc here.  He’s coming off a season where he played pretty sparingly in Columbus and didn’t do a lot in limited minutes.  But he has shown top-six flashes in the past and the Hurricanes have had a knack for getting the most out of some of their back-of-roster pieces, even in limited roles.  There isn’t really a great spot for him (which would make him signing a bit of a surprise) but if he gets a deal, he might be able to contribute.

Long-Time AHL – I’m not sure how under the radar he is but Boston’s Matej Blumel is the first player I thought of when I saw this question.  He was a stellar performer in the minors the last three years with AHL Texas but barely got an NHL opportunity.  The Bruins gave him a one-way deal this summer, a sign they think he could do just that.  Alex Steeves, another Boston signing, could also fit the bill although he might have a bigger hill to climb.  I think he has more NHL upside than he got to show in several years with Toronto.

Rookie – Let’s go with Colorado’s Zakhar Bardakov.  A 2021 seventh-round pick in his third year of eligibility, he’s 24 and hasn’t seen the ice yet in North America.  However, he’s coming off his best performance with SKA St. Petersburg of the KHL and plays with some grit.  The Avs have built a deeper roster but there’s still room for some rookies to grab hold of a spot and Bardakov could step in and do just that.

pawtucket: There’s a lot of talk about the Hughes brothers wanting to play together. How, then, does a team (Devils?) tightrope the salary cap while having a $12MM Quinn, $8MM Jack, and $5MM Luke all needing to be signed around the same time (Quinn expires in two years, Jack in five, Luke maybe in five)?

First, I think you need to reset your number for Luke Hughes.  A five-year, $25MM offer isn’t going to get it done.  While that might be his desired term, the cost would still probably eclipse $7MM and if it’s a longer-term pact, an AAV above Jack’s will be needed.  For Quinn Hughes, that number might wind up a little light as well based on the increasing cap but it’s fair enough to use here.  I’m going to put Luke at $7.5MM and sort of split the difference between the two ranges earlier, meaning the trio would cost $27.5MM.

Short-term, that wouldn’t be hard for New Jersey to manage.  A top-line center and top defense pairing already costs more than $20MM on most teams and by the time 2027-28 rolls around, that shouldn’t be overly costly.  Dougie Hamilton will be on an expiring deal by then so he’d probably be movable, even if not for a great return.

But if they time up their contracts to be up when Jack’s deal expires in 2030, that could be a different story.  At that point, Quinn is still probably in that $12MM range (maybe $13MM), Jack Hughes could very well be at $13MM himself, and Luke could be touching double-digits as well.  (It’s so early in his career that this number could be quite light before long.)  Now you’re talking somewhere between probably $36MM and $40MM for three players.  By then, the league-wide cost for those three spots might be up around $30MM to $32MM so the gap is a bit higher but probably manageable.  It would come down to a team having enough expiring deals to offset those salaries or moving out some pieces to cover the difference but I don’t think it would be overly problematic to fit them in.

Photo courtesy of Nick Wosika-Imagn Images.