When The Athletic’s Dom Luszczyszyn unveiled his rankings of the NHL’s best-value contracts, one result immediately caught the attention of fans across the league.
Montreal Canadiens defenseman Lane Hutson claimed the top spot with his eight-year extension worth $70.8 million, carrying an average annual value of $8.85 million.
The ranking quickly sparked debate, with many fans questioning how Hutson’s deal could be viewed as more valuable than Connor McDavid’s recent two-year, $25 million extension with the Edmonton Oilers.
Analyst Puts McDavid-Hutson Contract Debate to Rest
According to The Athletic’s model, McDavid’s projected market value is $22.3 million, while Hutson’s is slightly higher at $22.5 million.
As discussions surrounding the two contracts intensified, Luszczyszyn stepped in to explain the reasoning behind the numbers. “For those wondering why McDavid’s model value is $200,000 lower than Hutson’s, it’s entirely due to age and term. McDavid’s value on an eight-year deal, even in his 30s, is $25 million,” Luszczyszyn said.
His explanation highlighted one of the most common misconceptions about contract models. The rankings are not designed to determine which player is better. McDavid remains the benchmark by which every other player in the NHL is measured.
Instead, the model focuses on value relative to cost.
In other words, it estimates how much production a player is expected to provide compared with how much money the team is paying him over the life of the contract.
The first factor is age.
Hutson’s contract covers the years from age 22 through age 30, which are widely considered the prime years of a player’s career. Statistical models generally project younger players to improve or maintain elite production throughout that period.
McDavid’s situation is different. Although he remains the best player in hockey, an eight-year contract signed at this stage of his career would stretch into his late 30s. Most analytical models automatically account for the possibility of age-related decline during the final years of a deal.
The second factor is the rapidly increasing salary cap.
Hutson is locked into an annual salary of less than $9 million, a figure that could look like a bargain if the league’s salary cap continues to climb over the next several years.
McDavid, on the other hand, is expected to command one of the largest contracts in league history whenever he signs his next long-term deal. Because his salary is already so high, the gap between his market value and his actual cap hit is much smaller.
That difference ultimately explains why Hutson’s contract came out on top.
Luszczyszyn’s analysis doesn’t suggest that Hutson has surpassed McDavid as the NHL’s most valuable player. Rather, it illustrates how age, contract length, and salary-cap growth can dramatically influence the way long-term deals are evaluated.
McDavid may still be the league’s most dominant player, but Hutson’s combination of youth, upside, and cost certainty makes his contract one of the most team-friendly deals in hockey.
