Who gets the NHL’s next big contract? Here are the top candidates right now
-
Kristen Shilton, ESPN NHL reporter
Contract negotiations are a delicate thing. Some NHL players prefer tuning them out all together during the season. Others might want the process wrapped up quickly — but fairly — and listen in on every detail year round.
The key is not to let those conversations be a distraction to what is actually being achieved on the ice.
Just ask Alexis Lafreniere.
He’s the latest player to sign a long-term extension, inking a seven-year, $52.15 million pact with the New York Rangers last week on the heels of a breakout 2023-24 campaign where the 23-year-old tallied 28 goals and 57 points in 82 games. If Lafreniere continues that sort of growth his big deal will be a sweet steal for the Rangers.
Now that Lafreniere is locked in long term, who might be next to secure the proverbial bag?
There’s already speculation around what the likes of Connor McDavid, Cale Makar and Kirill Kaprizov could receive on a fresh extension, which they’re all eligible to sign beginning next July.
After conversations with league insiders, here is a sample of players — from the obvious to perhaps more obscure — that are poised to (possibly) get paid sooner rather than later. And with the NHL salary cap expected to keep climbing upwards from its current $88 million, there’s (potentially) even more money to spare when those contracts are doled out.
The superstars
It was a gasp heard ’round the hockey world when ESPN’s Kevin Weekes reported earlier this month that Rangers goaltender Igor Shesterkin had turned down an eight-year, $88 million extension — which would have made Shesterkin the highest-paid goalie in NHL history.
Make no mistake: Shesterkin will be paid handsomely at some point — in New York or somewhere else if the pending unrestricted free agent so chooses. And that deal will recalibrate the market for goaltenders going forward.
“My guess is Shesterkin will get upwards of $11.5 [million] per,” one agent said. “He’s not going to settle for a lower number just because. I think the [Jeremy] Swayman situation proved that’s no longer [a norm].”
Fair enough. Plus, Shesterkin has come a long way over the course of his current four-year, $22.67 million deal. He won a Vezina Trophy as the league’s top goaltender following the 2021-22 season, and finished third that year in Hart Trophy voting for league MVP. He’s perennially one of the NHL’s top netminders and this season is no different; Shesterkin is 4-1-1, with a .926 save percentage and 2.16 goals-against average, both of which ratios are top five in the NHL.
Shesterkin’s position as New York’s backbone makes his next contract the massive move worth watching for next — and who knows? There could be more drama on the way there before pens hit paper.
Speaking of dramatics, there’s been no shortage of those surrounding Mitch Marner. The Toronto Maple Leafs winger has declined to comment publicly on extension talks, but they are happening behind closed doors. Marner’s current mark of $10.9 million per year seems likely to rise, and he has two teammates as points of comparison in talks: Auston Matthews‘ $13.5 million per year salary and William Nylander‘s $11.5 million. Marner falls somewhere in the middle.
His camp has taken a “wait and see” approach with the Leafs thus far, testing the waters from training camp into the new season and watching how that played out. Marner’s had a solid start to the campaign with one goal and 10 points in nine games, giving him the team lead in scoring. With that in mind, it would behoove the Leafs to get Marner’s deal done now before any asking price starts to rise.
On the other hand, it’s the postseason where Toronto has most wanted to see Marner at his best — and where the winger has repeatedly faltered at being a certifiable difference-maker.
“It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Marner gets to the summer without an extension,” another agent said. “It also wouldn’t shock me if Marner was the next guy signed [to a big contract]. He’s a dominant player. But how does [GM Brad Treliving] see that team’s core now and going forward? It all factors in.”
One marquee player who might not be satisfied quickly (or easily) by his current club? Mikko Rantanen. The Colorado Avalanche‘s top-line winger appears to have stalled out in conversations with the Avs about extending beyond his current deal worth $9.25 million per season. Rantanen has teammate Nathan MacKinnon‘s eight-year, $100.8 million contract as a comparison tool, and that’s not necessarily the range Colorado sees Rantanen landing in — even if Rantanen does.
Expect Rantanen to use a hot 2024-25 campaign — in which he’s now tied for third in league scoring with four goals and 13 points — to showcase why he’s worth a MacKinnon-like payday when the time comes to close a deal, in Colorado or somewhere else.
The core set
It’s not like typically tight-lipped New York Islanders GM Lou Lamoriello is going to tip his hand about Brock Nelson‘s future with the team. But, Nelson is a pending UFA and despite some rampant speculation the Islanders could move him at the trade deadline, there’s a strong case to be made for paying the man to stay long-term.
Nelson’s career has been on the rise for most of the past three seasons, over which he’s led New York with 111 goals and 209 points in 244 games (that’s with three consecutive 30-plus goal outings). Frankly, the 33-year-old has been showing up for a roster that’s consistently short on scoring, and the fact he’s getting better year over year makes extending him past this six-year, $36 million contract smart business for Lamoriello. Foundational pieces like Nelson are hard to come by.
It’s a similar situation with Vancouver forward Brock Boeser. Despite an up-and-down run with the Canucks to date that included last season’s disappointing finish to the postseason due to a blood-clotting issue, there’s no denying Boeser’s position as a steady force in Vancouver’s offense. The 27-year-old had the best regular season of his career in 2023-24, pacing the Canucks with 40 goals and 73 points in 81 games — then added seven goals and 12 points in 12 postseason tilts before being sidelined. Those numbers — coupled with a point-per-game start to this season — should net Boeser a hefty increase on his current three-year, $19.95 million deal.
It may take a while for the Canucks to sort through their cap situation and find a middle ground with Boeser. And given how well he’s playing, Boeser might not mind waiting, either.
Another core player that seems like a no-brainer for a long-term deal is Florida Panthers center Sam Bennett. Talks are ongoing between the Panthers and their pending UFA, and that’s a great thing for both parties. Florida already sealed the (long-term) deal with Carter Verhaeghe this month, and taking care of Bennett is GM Bill Zito’s next priority.
Bennett has eclipsed the 40-point mark in his last three seasons with Florida and gathered 20-plus goals in two of those outings, making him one of the Panthers’ most reliable pieces up front. He’s shown to be one of the league’s prominent power forwards — an increasingly rare breed — and Bennett also packed a punch for the Panthers in the playoffs, averaging nearly a point per game in both of their runs to the Stanley Cup Final, in 2023 and 2024.
Bennett is wrapping up a contract worth $4.425 million this season, and while he should expect a raise of some sort, the opportunity to keep winning in Florida might be all the juice Bennett needs to get a more team-friendly deal closed and keep the good times rolling.
The rising stars
It’s simpler, in some cases, to peg where established players (like those above) might land in terms of their next significant contracts. For the ones still putting down roots in the league? Trickier!
Take the Boston Bruins‘ Morgan Geekie. He had a standout season in 2023-24, with career-high totals in goals (17) and points (39) through 76 games. Geekie entered training camp this fall with elevated expectations and top-six potential. Boston’s uncharacteristically slow start to the campaign has seemed to put the entire team — including Geekie — in a haze, and the 26-year-old has just one assist in his first eight games.
What does it all mean in the grand scheme for Boston’s pending RFA? Plenty. The Bruins have seen Patrice Bergeron and David Krejci retire in recent years, and it’s guys like Geekie who can replace them into the future. That’s not to say Geekie will be overpaid immediately, but it’s in Boston’s best interest to give Geekie a solid deal that solidifies his place as a premier part of their future. Doing so before summer could be a boost for Geekie’s confidence.
The Dallas Stars have a comparably important player in Wyatt Johnston, who’s also set to be a restricted free agent — and who they would be wise to take care of in short order. Johnston has face-of-the-franchise potential after the last two seasons, during which time he produced 56 goals and 106 points. Johnston is also just 21 years old; given he’s already become a cornerstone of the Stars’ offense, that’s going to cost them on a new deal.
Offering Johnston a long-term deal at around the same $8-$8.5 million a year salary that Dallas has doled out to teammates Roope Hintz and Miro Heiskanen should be enough to keep everyone happy. Johnston has been with Dallas on consecutive trips to the Western Conference finals, and the opportunity to stay in a winning fold is hard to turn down.
In the new 12-team College Football Playoff format, there is an added emphasis on conference championships. The four highest-ranked conference champions receive a first-round bye and a fifth conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field. Those champions will be determined by conference title games held Dec. 6-7.
But in a college football landscape that has mostly done away with divisions and with some conferences expanding to as many as 18 teams, it can be difficult to figure out who is in line to reach those conference title games.
We’re here to help out. Below are the list of tiebreakers for each league to help determine conference championship game participants.
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
2. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
3. Win percentage against common opponents
4. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings
5. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against the next-highest common opponent in the conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Win percentage against all common opponents
3. Record against next-highest common opponent in conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams: if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Record against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams; if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings (and didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season)
2a. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings and lost in the final weekend of the regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If both teams are ranked, the higher-ranked team that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season (if both lose, a composite average of metrics)
2c. If neither team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
1a. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
2. If the highest-ranked team in the latest CFP rankings that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season
2a. If the highest-ranked team loses in final weekend of regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If multiple ranked teams in the CFP rankings, the highest ranked team(s) that wins in the final weekend of the regular season
2c. If all ranked teams lose on the final weekend, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2d. If no teams are ranked in the final CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie and three-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP rankings going into the final weekend (if team wins in the final weekend)
3. Highest average ranking of four computer rankings (Connelly SP+, SportSource, ESPN SOR, KPI Rankings)
4. Highest average ranking of two computer rankings (SportSource, KPI Rankings)
5. Highest most recently published multiyear football Academic Progress Rate (if same, most recent year)
6. Draw administered by commissioner’s designee
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents based on MAC finish (breaking ties) from top-to-bottom of conference
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Three-team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Win percentage against all common opponents
4. Win percentage against all common opponents based on finish (with ties broken)
5. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP ranking (if team wins in the final weekend)
2a. If only or both CFP ranked teams loses in the final weekend (or if there is no ranked teams), an average of metrics will be used
3. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference)
4. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
5. Win percentage against common conference opponents
6. Coin toss conducted virtually by the commissioner
Three-plus team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Highest CFP ranking among teams to win in the final weekend
4. Average of selected metrics (if ranked team loses or if no teams ranked)
5. Overall win percentage against all opponents (conference and nonconference); maximum one win against FCS or lower-division team
6. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
7. Win percentage against common conference opponents
8. Drawing conducted virtually by the commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie
1. Head-to-head
2. Overall win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Win percentage against all common nondivisional conference opponents
5. Higher-ranked teams in the CFP rankings (if it wins in the final regular season week); if the highest-ranked team loses, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
7. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
8. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: (Teams will not revert to two-team tiebreaker once three-plus team tiebreaker is trimmed to two.)
1. Combined head-to-head
2. Divisional win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Highest-ranked team in the CFP rankings (if they win in the final weekend of regular season); if that team loses, an average of selected computer rankings
5. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
7. Draw lots (conducted by commissioner)
Check out the ESPN college football hub page for the latest news, analysis, schedules, rankings and more.
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Juan Soto will take his time surveying the free agent market before signing with a team, according to his agent Scott Boras.
Speaking at the general manager’s meetings Wednesday, Boras indicated that Soto desires a “thorough” vetting before making a decision.
“Due to the volume of interest and Juan’s desire to hear [from teams], I can’t put a timeframe on it, but it’s going to be a very thorough process for him,” Boras said. “He wants to meet people personally. He wants to talk with them. He wants to hear from them.”
That includes ownership, even for the New York Yankees, for whom he played in 2024 and hit 41 home runs with a league-leading 128 runs scored. Soto helped New York to a World Series appearance, but that doesn’t necessarily give the Yankees a leg up on the competition to sign him.
“He wants ownership that’s going to support that they are going win annually,” Boras said. “Owners want to meet with Juan and sit down and talk with him about what they’re going to provide for their franchise short term and long term.”
Soto’s overall deal is likely to be at least the second largest in MLB history behind Shohei Ohtani‘s 10-year, $700 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Boras refused to compare the two players, but stressed Soto’s age (26) as a distinctive factor in teams’ pursuit of his client. Ohtani was 29 when he hit free agency.
“I don’t think Ohtani has much to do with Juan Soto at all,” Boras said. “It’s not something we discuss or consider. … He’s in an age category that separates him.”
Both New York teams have spoken to Boras already, though there are a handful of other big-market franchises that could be in play for his services, including the San Francisco Giants and Toronto Blue Jays.
Boras was asked how the competitive balance tax on payrolls could impact Soto’s free agency.
“I don’t think tax considerations are the focal point when you’re talking about a business opportunity where you can make literally billions of dollars by acquiring somebody like this,” Boras said.
Boras and Soto are only at the beginning stages of what could be a drawn-out process. One thing going for the player, in Boras’ estimation, is that Soto is “pretty well known” considering he has already been on three teams and played in 43 playoff games, including twice in the World Series.
In his agent’s eyes, every winning team should be interested.
“They’re [team executives] called upon to be championship magicians,” Boras said. “Behind every great magician is the magic Juan.”
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Free agent pitcher Kyle Hendricks has agreed to a one year, $2.5 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN.
Hendricks, 34, posted a 5.92 ERA for the Chicago Cubs last season but was better in the second half after a stint in the bullpen. His ERA was 4.41 from mid-July to the end of the regular season. He threw 7⅓ shutout innings in his last start as a Cub in late September after spending the first 11 years of his career with Chicago.
The Angels are hoping Hendricks finds more consistency in 2025, similar to what he displayed at times late in 2024. They also have a young pitching staff that needs mentoring. Hendricks can help in that department as well.
Hendricks won the ERA title in 2016, helping the Cubs to a World Series title. He was the last member of that team still playing for the Cubs until he became a free agent after the 2024 season. Overall, he’s 97-81 with a 3.68 ERA.
Hendricks is from the Los Angeles area, having gone to Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California. He was originally drafted by the Angels in the 39th round in 2008 before attending Dartmouth. Additionally, his dad worked in the Angels’ ticket office for six years when Hendricks was a teenager.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway