Over the past few years, my perspective on how hockey general managers should run their teams has dramatically shifted. Coming from the academic world, where I was the head of a small unit within the larger university, I became used to managing budgets and personnel. While my job was not focused per se on making money, I couldn’t make decisions that would cost the university money.
When I retired from full-time university work, I carried this business perspective into my hockey writing. I initially viewed hockey management as a business similar to how I conducted business as a leader in my former job. The guiding principles seemed straightforward: don’t spend more money than you have, avoid mortgaging the future, and make prudent, long-term decisions.
Hyman’s Contract Changed My Mind About How the NHL Should Be Run
However, witnessing Zach Hyman’s impact on the Edmonton Oilers has made me reconsider these business ideas. They might help run a traditional business or a family’s finances, but they don’t work in today’s NHL.
Related: Zach Hyman’s Remarkable Postseason with the Edmonton Oilers
When the Toronto Maple Leafs didn’t offer Hyman the money he was after, he quickly moved to the Oilers. Initially, I thought his seven-year, $38.5 million contract needed to be shorter and cheaper. I feared he would outlive its value and become a burden in the contract’s later years. Given the NHL’s finite salary cap, I thought large contracts pushing the limits of a player’s usefulness could be problematic. But now, I’ve started to rethink the value of long-term deals for impactful players.
Hyman’s performance with the Oilers and their near Stanley Cup victory last season have been eye-opening. Despite the Oilers’ financial disadvantage compared to teams like the Florida Panthers, who benefit from no state tax, Hyman’s contract has proven to be a solid investment. His contribution was vital to the Oilers’ success. I changed my mind.
Sometimes, it’s worth paying top dollar for talent and dealing with the consequences later in today’s NHL.
The Maple Leafs’ Tanev Contract Is a Case in Point
The approach of signing players like Chris Tanev might not be as risky as I once thought, even if it means locking them into deals that extend into their later years. For heaven’s sake, he will be 40 years old when the contract expires. Given the “warrior” way he plays, will he even be able to walk in six or seven years?
Related: 4 NHL Trades That Set Up Successful Rebuilds
Still, the issue is clear. The Maple Leafs need solid defensemen, and paying a premium now to secure someone like Tanev could pay off in immediate success. If his performance declines in the later years of the contract, the team can deal with it then. The key is to capitalize on the window of opportunity to win the Stanley Cup when it presents itself. And, for the Maple Leafs and Auston Matthews, that window seems to be closing.
For the Maple Leafs, concerns about the length of contracts for new players must be considered. Nonetheless, in the unique world of the NHL, they are understandable. Tavev received a six-year contract worth $4.5 million annually. His potential blue-line partner Oliver Ekman-Larsson signed a four-year deal at $3.5 million annually. These contracts might raise eyebrows, but they also fill critical needs.
Tanev, widely considered one of the best defensemen available, will bring a stabilizing presence to Toronto’s blue line. His defensive ability will allow Morgan Rielly to focus more on his offensive game. Even if Tanev’s performance declines in a few years, the immediate benefits could justify the long-term commitment. Similarly, Ekman-Larsson will add depth and experience, which is crucial for a team that has struggled to make deep playoff runs despite its talented roster.
Need to Win in the NHL Now Trumps Future Concerns
The underlying question is: “How much should term matter for a win-now team like the Maple Leafs?” The answer is – it matters big time.
Acquiring good-to-elite players should be prioritized, even if their contracts look problematic down the road. If a move like signing Tanev doesn’t pan out, the team isn’t significantly worse off than before. They still have options and flexibility. There are ways to dump contracts. But that’s something to worry about later.
Related: Maple Leafs’ Forgotten Ones: Joffrey Lupul
There’s a tendency to overcomplicate things in the modern NHL. In retrospect, I might have been guilty of just that when thinking about good or bad NHL contracts. Sometimes, simplicity holds. The Maple Leafs need to get good players when they’re still performing at high levels. With their history of playoff frustrations, the Maple Leafs must seize every chance to improve. Integrating players like Tanev and Ekman-Larsson is a step toward the ultimate goal: winning the Stanley Cup.
NHL Teams Cannot Be Run Like Typical Businesses
Ultimately, the NHL operates in a unique landscape where the focus on immediate results often overshadows long-term planning. Unlike typical businesses that prioritize sustainable growth and future profitability, NHL teams are driven by the pursuit of the Stanley Cup. That goal demands an aggressive, short-term approach to team building.
Hyman’s success with the Oilers has challenged the conventional wisdom of avoiding large contracts to maintain future flexibility. In the NHL, the window of opportunity to win is often small. Teams like the Maple Leafs must capitalize on their current roster’s potential, even if it means taking financial risks. Despite their lengthy contracts, acquiring players like Tanev and Ekman-Larsson addresses immediate needs and strengthens the team’s chances for success now. The long-term implications of these deals are secondary to the pressing goal of playoff success.
(Jess Starr/The Hockey Writers)
Ultimately, the NHL’s emphasis on winning “now” fundamentally differs from typical business decisions. While future planning and financial prudence are still important, the immediate pursuit of the Stanley Cup takes precedence. This unique dynamic necessitates a different management approach. It prioritizes aggressive moves and seizes current opportunities over making conservative, long-term strategies.
The Maple Leafs can only engage in the immediate reality of getting the best players within the current salary cap structure and simply going for it. Future problems can be addressed when they arise.
