1. Brent Seabrook, CHI
Contract: $6.875M x five years
Surplus Value: -$33.2M
Positive Value Probability: 0.1%

The biggest shock to me was not that Seabrook ended up number one (anybody could’ve guessed that) it’s that there are still five years left on his deal. Five! At $6.875 million. For a replacement-level defenseman. Who is 34-years-old. I’m not sure how any of that is possible, and I’m not even sure how probable it is that Seabrook actually finishes the remainder of the deal in the NHL.

For that price, a team should be getting a capable number two defenseman, and I’m struggling to remember the last year Seabrook actually offered that kind of value. Very few players carry a worse defensive impact than Seabrook and he doesn’t provide much more in the way of offence either. The probability of Seabrook providing positive value on this deal says it all: 999 times out of 1,000, he doesn’t.

2. Drew Doughty, LAK
Contract: $11M x eight years
Surplus Value: -$55.7M
Positive Value Probability: 6.1%

I can imagine this is a very spicy take, so let me explain before you fire off that 300-word tirade in the comments. Doughty signed his deal a full year before free agency, for the full eight years. That deal won’t actually kick off until next season, but a lot has changed since Doughty put pen to paper.

At the time of signing, there was every reason to believe Doughty would be worth it, as he was coming off a Norris trophy win. He was driving play at an elite rate against tough competition and under new coaching put up a career-high in points. He was a bonafide top-five defenseman and deserved to be paid like one. Based on my research on term, Doughty was a safe bet to age gracefully based on his standing as an elite defenseman. It’s a deal a majority of people would’ve signed. Maybe a little rich, maybe a little long – but probably worth it in the end.

No one expected the Doughty that showed up in 2018-19. That’s bad luck. He was just average defensively and a complete shell of himself offensively in terms of play-driving. For the first time in his career, Doughty carried a negative expected goal rate and had one of the worst relative rates of his career. By actual goals, it was the worst of his career and he dropped back down to a pedestrian 45 points. By GSVA he was worth just 0.4 wins last season compared to 3.0 and 2.4 the two seasons prior. WAR didn’t like him much either, putting him just below replacement level. You can argue that Doughty struggled because his team did, but part of the team’s struggles are simply on Doughty not playing like the elite defenseman he should be.

Obviously, no one expects Doughty to be as bad next season, but how much of a bounce-back is reasonable to expect? Can he still be considered an elite defenseman? My model puts a lot of weight for play-driving metrics on the most recent season based on historic predictiveness and Doughty doesn’t come out so hot as a result with an average projection of just 1.1 wins. Still a top pair rate, but nowhere near the 2.75 expected of a defender getting paid $11 million.

And there are eight years left.

Doughty is without a doubt the best player on this bad contracts list, but he’s also much higher paid and that means a lot of negative surplus value if he can’t live up to his contract. P.K. Subban was just traded as a cap dump despite similar pedigree, makes $2 million less for five years fewer and was better than Doughty last season.

Maybe last season was a blip. Maybe he’ll return completely to form, and given his talent, I wouldn’t be at all surprised by that. But given his most recent season and the amount he’s getting paid, it’s difficult to view Doughty’s contract, which pays him until he’s 37-years-old, as anything but an albatross right now. And it’s hard to really fault the team for giving it to him either.

3. Kyle Okposo, BUF
Contract: $6M x four years
Surplus Value: -$21.4M
Positive Value Probability: 2.7%

The year of 2016 was a great year for RFA contracts, with three deals signed then in the top 10 best contracts. For UFA contracts though… yikes. Okposo’s deal is one of four from that summer on this list. It’s safe to say Okposo hasn’t come close to living up to the hype that came with his seven-year deal and his days of being a player worth $6 million are long over.

There was always risk involved with Okposo as a player who may have been carried by teammate John Tavares, but at the time it seemed like the most sensible of the deals signed as he was coming off a 64-point season. In his first year he did fine, scoring at a 57-point pace, but the past two years have been rough, with 2017-18, in particular, being derailed by injury.

Without that fact, maybe Okposo would’ve lived up to his promise, but for now he’s being paid like a second-line forward while providing fourth line value or worse over the remainder of the deal. Any chance at a bounce-back feels relatively slim.

4. Marc-Edouard Vlasic, SJS
Contract: $7M x seven years
Surplus Value: -$44.7M
Positive Value Probability: 7.6%

While the new Marc-Edouard Vlasic winds up on the best contracts list, the old one winds up on the opposite end. Vlasic was still a reasonably strong defender just two-or-three seasons ago, but 2018-19 was extremely unkind to him. It was like he fell off a statistical cliff.

Last year, Vlasic was the only Sharks defender with a negative expected goals differential, he was second last defensively, and by actual goals only his partner, Justin Braun, was worse. The argument for Vlasic is that he plays difficult minutes, but those were dialled back last season when he struggled. His underlying numbers were fine early on in the season with Karlsson and in the playoffs with Burns, so it’s possible that a new partner (read: not Braun) can rejuvenate his career, but with seven years left there are now legitimate concerns about how well Vlasic will age. You probably also don’t want to be paying that much for a player whose play is dependent on his partner.

A bounce-back should be expected next year, but going up to the level commensurate of his paycheck is a tall order. He’s paid like a number two defender, one who should provide 1.6 wins of value next season and 8.2 in the six seasons after. That’s close to where he was at in 2016-17 and 2017-18, but his age and performance last season makes me skeptical he can reach that point again.


Milan Lucic. (Andy Devlin/NHLI via Getty Images)
5. Milan Lucic, EDM
Contract: $6M x four years
Surplus Value: -$23.0M
Positive Value Probability: 6.2%

Contract No. 2 from the hellscape summer of 2016. Many would put Lucic as worse than Okposo, and that’s mighty fair given he’s a worse player with a larger negative surplus value. What’s working in Lucic’s favour is a wider range of uncertainty than Okposo, giving him a slightly better chance to bounce back. His individual offensive numbers are much weaker, but his play-driving numbers are a little stronger, albeit still weak overall.

Honestly, there’s no sense splitting hairs with those two – neither are worth their compensation. At their price, the expectation is 5.9 wins over the next four years. My model has both at less than zero.

6. Mike Matheson, FLA
Contract: $4.875 x seven years
Surplus Value: -$21.5M
Positive Value Probability: 8.3%

Relative to the rest of the players here, Matheson isn’t paid that much, but it still seems mostly non-sensical that he does and for seven years. It’s the type of deal that’s panned out extremely well for other teams like Nashville’s Roman Josi and Carolina’s Brett Pesce, but Matheson didn’t really showcase the same level of excellence before signing.

Based on the salary structure, it’s clearly a deal the team expects him to grow into, going from $3.5 million in the first year to $6.5 million in the final year, but that’s difficult to imagine given what he’s shown so far. He’s 25 now, what you see is what you get and from this vantage point that seems to be a run of the mill bottom pairing guy that’s fed far too many minutes. He doesn’t drive play, is frequently out-scored as a result, doesn’t put up points, and he doesn’t play tough minutes.

Based on his salary, his expectations aren’t that high at just 5.8 wins over the next seven seasons, but even that low bar doesn’t seem like one Matheson can clear.

7. Cam Fowler, ANA
Contract: $6.5M x seven years
Surplus Value: -$35.4M
Positive Value Probability: 11.7%

The Ducks signed Fowler just two seasons ago after a career year where he scored just 39 points taking up loads of power-play time. That he was being paid $6.5 million for his services felt like a stretch then and looks even worse now coming off one of the worst seasons of his career. The Ducks were one of the league’s worst teams by expected goals and Fowler contributed heavily to that as the defensemen with the worst impact on chances. That was a problem at both ends of the ice where he was the worst regular at generating expected goals and suppressing them. He wasn’t scoring points either, putting up just 23 in 59 games.

Fowler still has seven years left on his deal and it doesn’t feel like the rest of the deal is going to be very pretty. He was a sub-replacement level defender last season, but is being paid like a top pairing option. That’s always been a bit of a reach, but looks even more so now. My model expects a bounce-back campaign above replacement level, but doesn’t expect Fowler to stay above that threshold for even half of the remaining years of his contract.

8. Loui Eriksson, VAN
Contract: $6M x three years
Surplus Value: -$17.4M
Positive Value Probability: 3.6%

From day one, Eriksson has been a complete bust as a Canuck. He’s contract No. 3 from the wondrous summer of 2016. The worries of his age and that he was a product of his environment in Boston next to Patrice Bergeron and Brad Marchand were realized to an extent few could’ve really predicted. It speaks to the limitations of current data too as I recall most analysts being largely okay with the Eriksson deal at the time (though not that the Canucks were the team that signed it) as a contributor to that elite line in Boston, rather than a passenger.

What’s clear from his time in Vancouver is that he couldn’t do much by himself and he’s now a replacement-level player, one whose scoring dried up three years ago and whose play-driving went in the tank last season. In the latter case, he was at least passable in that department for the first few seasons.

What makes his deal a little more appealing than Okposo’s and Lucic’s is that it’s over three years from now rather than four. Still, that’s three years with a replacement-level player at a cap hit of $6 million – far from ideal.

9. Bobby Ryan, OTT
Contract: $7.25M x three years
Surplus Value: -$16.7M
Positive Value Probability: 2.6%

There was a time when Ryan looked like a promising player, but ever since signing a monster extension with Ottawa, he hasn’t shown much of that. He isn’t completely abhorrent like some other players on this list – he can still chip in 40 points – but his poor defensive play undermines that. There’s still somehow three years left of that deal and in those years my model sees Ryan producing just 0.6 wins of value, looking like a fourth liner or worse. He’s 32 now, so things will only get worse for him too. At least in Ottawa’s case, Ryan’s bloated contract is an asset toward reaching the cap floor and it’s not like the team will be competitive while he’s on the books either.

10. Andrew Ladd, NYI
Contract: $5.5M x four years
Surplus Value: -$19.2M
Positive Value Probability: 8.6%

Finally, there’s the Ladd deal, completing the quartet of terrible deals from the summer of 2016, a year that should serve as a constant reminder of the dangers that come with unrestricted free agency.

At the time, the Ladd deal carried a lot of risk as he was already in his 30s and showing signs of decline. Aside from providing good defensive value in Year 2 of the deal, Ladd hasn’t done much for the Islanders and looks to be a huge cap liability going forward. He provides as much on-ice value as Okposo, Lucic and Eriksson – very little, if any, over the life of the deal – but costs $500,000 less, has higher variance in his projection, and is a slightly better bet to return some value as a result. The odds are still pitiful though, and it’s why Ladd rounds out the top 10 here.

Honorable mention: Bryan Little (WPG), James Neal (CGY), Justin Abdelkader (DET), Kyle Turris (NSH), Oliver Ekman-Larsson (ARI)
- jimbro83

I can't put Seabrook at #1. Yes it's an albatross. Yes, it goes forever. He makes 1 more million than Staal and is still better. He also isn't like Lucic and totally unplayable.

I'm 6'1 and had a woman once tell me she wanted a taller guy cause she was 5'11. Ok Zena. Not that many guys are taller than 6'1.
- B2B76

It obviously goes both ways, but then people wonder why they can't find anyone.

I can't put Seabrook at #1. Yes it's an albatross. Yes, it goes forever. He makes 1 more million than Staal and is still better. He also isn't like Lucic and totally unplayable.
- 2sticks1puck

yeah, they didn't include any players with only two years left on the deal

You know, this guy is actually a nutcase, but he's not totally wrong. Legit story, one time I hit on a woman. I was rejected because I wasn't 6 foot (I'm 5 10). Her reasoning was she likes to wear high heels, this girl was 5 3. I've seen it in profiles where they say no guys under 6 feet though I've never been told I should be dead.

For women though, the opposite is true. A ton of women over 6 feet have difficulty.
- 2sticks1puck

He may not be wrong about that, but screaming at a bunch of women in a bagel store about it like you're off your meds probably isn't the best way try and convey that to the world

I'm 6'1 and had a woman once tell me she wanted a taller guy cause she was 5'11. Ok Zena. Not that many guys are taller than 6'1.
- B2B76

Does she travel to basketball camps around the world to pick up dudes? Should have asked her how her luck is going

It obviously goes both ways, but then people wonder why they can't find anyone.
- 2sticks1puck

You look on these dating profiles and women drive you nuts, 2 whole paragraphs on what they don't like and wont accept, like Jeez if your gonna be that limited to what you will tolerate your likely gonna be alone forever. And if one more gal says "they're not into games or drama" I'm gonna explode. That goes without saying, WHO THE (frank) IS into games or drama.

You look on these dating profiles and women drive you nuts, 2 whole paragraphs on what they don't like and wont accept, like Jeez if your gonna be that limited to what you will tolerate your likely gonna be alone forever. And if one more gal says "they're not into games or drama" I'm gonna explode. That goes without saying, WHO THE (frank) IS into games or drama.
- B2B76

I am both so happy and so sad that I met my GF before Tinder really blew up

You look on these dating profiles and women drive you nuts, 2 whole paragraphs on what they don't like and wont accept, like Jeez if your gonna be that limited to what you will tolerate your likely gonna be alone forever. And if one more gal says "they're not into games or drama" I'm gonna explode. That goes without saying, WHO THE (frank) IS into games or drama.
- B2B76

TJ just goes on these sites and is banging someone by the next day

but, he is tall, so there's that

I am both so happy and so sad that I met my GF before Tinder really blew up
- eichiefs9

You look on these dating profiles and women drive you nuts, 2 whole paragraphs on what they don't like and wont accept, like Jeez if your gonna be that limited to what you will tolerate your likely gonna be alone forever. And if one more gal says "they're not into games or drama" I'm gonna explode. That goes without saying, WHO THE (frank) IS into games or drama.
- B2B76

I want to create a troll profile of just me with like connect 4 on the table with the headline "I love games"

I am both so happy and so sad that I met my GF before Tinder really blew up
- eichiefs9

Be happy, you have no idea how much money i have thrown away taking these random girls on dates that leads to nothing

TJ just goes on these sites and is banging someone by the next day

but, he is tall, so there's that
- jimbro83

How does TJ not have an STD at this point

TJ just goes on these sites and is banging someone by the next day

but, he is tall, so there's that
- jimbro83

My ex met someone the old fashioned way and is still with them. Since we split I've gone on 50 dates and very few repeat dates lol. Every woman says "not into 1 night stands or hookups" until you start talking and often quickly that's all they want. Mixed messages galore.

How does TJ not have an STD at this point
- TPC

just never goes to the doctor to find out

He may not be wrong about that, but screaming at a bunch of women in a bagel store about it like you're off your meds probably isn't the best way try and convey that to the world
- eichiefs9

I feel sorry for that girl. I can just imagine her just being like "yeah I feel like a bagel" then she walks into that. I just want to know why that guy randomly decided to tell his whole thoughts to a bagel shop in LI.

just never goes to the doctor to find out
- jimbro83

My ex met someone the old fashioned way and is still with them. Since we split I've gone on 50 dates and very few repeat dates lol. Every woman says "not into 1 night stands or hookups" until you start talking and often quickly that's all they want. Mixed messages galore.
- B2B76

That's great, I don't see what the problem is. You plow your way through a field of skanks until you find a good one. That's pretty much what I did my entire life

My ex met someone the old fashioned way and is still with them. Since we split I've gone on 50 dates and very few repeat dates lol. Every woman says "not into 1 night stands or hookups" until you start talking and often quickly that's all they want. Mixed messages galore.
- B2B76

What's the old fashioned way...a pumpkin patch?

That's great, I don't see what the problem is. You plow your way through a field of skanks until you find a good one. That's pretty much what I did my entire life
- eichiefs9

DUH

What's the old fashioned way...a pumpkin patch?
- TPC

I was eating an apple and you just made me spit it out

What's the old fashioned way...a pumpkin patch?
- TPC

Be happy, you have no idea how much money i have thrown away taking these random girls on dates that leads to nothing
- TPC

When I was a dating noob, I would do a dinner at some really nice place. I quickly learned that some middle of the road place is really all that's needed. Has probably saved me hundreds of dollars.

I was eating an apple and you just made me spit it out
- jimbro83

That's great, I don't see what the problem is. You plow your way through a field of skanks until you find a good one. That's pretty much what I did my entire life
- eichiefs9

doo dooo dooooo

When I was a dating noob, I would do a dinner at some really nice place. I quickly learned that some middle of the road place is really all that's needed. Has probably saved me hundreds of dollars.
- 2sticks1puck

I only will max out at Applebee's during half price app hours at this point if she wants food