Chris Tanev and Zach Hyman Contract Comparison – The Hockey Writers – Toronto Maple Leafs

When Zach Hyman left the Toronto Maple Leafs to sign a seven-year contract with the Edmonton Oilers in 2021, it was met with skepticism, primarily due to the length of the deal and Hyman’s age. At 29, a long-term contract was considered risky, as players’ performance often declines as they age. The fear was that Hyman might not be able to maintain a high level of play throughout the contract term, making it difficult for the Oilers to effectively manage their salary cap.

The General Manager (GM) of the Maple Leafs, Kyle Dubas, seemed to recognize the signs of the times and barely made an offer to Hyman. At the time, most hockey experts would have sided with Dubas in this decision. There were problems for the Maple Leafs organization at the time that spoke against signing the hard-working but overpriced Hyman.

Hyman’s contract was considered too lucrative and far too risky

Another key point was Hyman’s injury history. He had previously suffered a serious knee injury that required surgery, and his physical style of play made him more susceptible to future injuries. This raised doubts about his durability over the term of his contract, and critics feared he could miss a lot of time due to injuries, further diminishing the value of the contract.

Related: Maple Leafs’ top 10 prospects for 2024-25

Additionally, there were doubts about whether Hyman’s performance would justify his $5.5 million average annual value (AAV). Although he was productive with the Maple Leafs, some analysts doubted he would maintain or surpass that performance in Edmonton. Critics argued that the Oilers may have overpaid for Hyman compared to his market value and could have used those resources more effectively to address other needs within the team.

As it turned out, Hyman hit the ice right away. In his three seasons with the Oilers, he has increased his goal-scoring from 27 (2021-22) to 36 (2022-23) to 54 (2023-24). Few expected that. And what looked like a bad contract turned out to be a bargain for the Oilers. Hyman also played like a demon in the postseason, earning all the accolades that came his way.

Looking back, the Maple Leafs came away empty-handed.

The new GM Treliving did what Dubas did not want to do

Two weeks ago, Maple Leafs manager Brad Treliving made a bold move that his predecessor Dubas would not have made. He pushed the envelope by signing defenseman Chris Tanev to a six-year contract that will keep him playing until he’s 40. That decision is in stark contrast to Dubas’ approach when faced with a similar decision regarding Hyman.

Related: Maple Leafs News & Rumors: Marner, Giordano & Tanev

Treliving’s aggressive strategy was evident early on when he secured the negotiating rights to Tanev from the Dallas Stars before July 1. The Maple Leafs then signed Tanev for six years and $27 million, keeping him in Toronto until he turns 40. No one doubts that Tanev, a veteran defenseman with 792 regular-season games and 190 points (33 goals, 157 assists), does not fill a desperate need for defensive stability in the Maple Leafs’ defense.

However, similar to the Oilers’ signing of Hyman, each player’s playing style plays a role in the decision to sign him. Hyman is a physical player and it was expected that he would start to deteriorate well before the contract expired. His age (34) and the length of the contract also caused some consternation. NHL insider Chris Johnston called the contract “long and risky,” but admitted that Tanev was exactly the type of player the Maple Leafs needed.

The mixed feelings surrounding the signing underscore that while Tanev is an ideal addition to solve the team’s defensive woes, signing a 34-year-old to a six-year deal is viewed as questionable. The deal addresses immediate needs but carries significant long-term risks. Treliving was undeterred, however. As a result, Tanev is a long-haul Maple Leafs defenseman.

Dubas’ caution led to Hyman’s departure

In contrast, unless there is something unexpected under the surface, Dubas opted for caution a few years ago when faced with a similar decision with Hyman. Rather than commit to a long-term deal, he let Hyman hit free agency, where he was promptly signed by the Oilers. Hyman developed into a prolific goal scorer. As mentioned, he even reached the 50-goal mark last season. He is a consistent offensive contributor – at least so far – and shows no signs of slowing down. So far, so good for the Oilers.

Related: Who is a better fit for the Maple Leafs: Ekman-Larsson vs. Giordano

Dubas’ reluctance to commit to Hyman long-term was based on concerns about the player’s aging curve and potential decline in performance. However, his success in Edmonton sheds light on the potential upside that Treliving is banking on with Tanev. Treliving appears willing to take the risks associated with an aging player like Tanev to fill the team’s immediate needs.

Strategic differences and future impacts

Treliving’s decision to sign Tanev is a focus on immediate gains, with a willingness to sacrifice future flexibility – if necessary. This approach contrasts with Dubas’ more conservative strategy, which prioritized long-term cap management and player sustainability. The irony is that Dubas is rarely viewed as a conservative GM. Quite the opposite.

Looking at Tanev’s signing, it’s clear that Treliving is focused on the present. He’s willing to accept the possibility that Tanev won’t be as effective in the final years of his contract as he has been this season. This gamble underscores a philosophical shift in Maple Leafs management, with Treliving willing to take greater risks to solve current problems.

As the Maple Leafs move forward, hockey fans and analysts will be watching closely to see how Tanev’s contract plays out compared to Hyman’s success in Edmonton. The contrasting strategies of Treliving and Dubas provide a fascinating case study in NHL roster management and the balancing act between immediate needs and future sustainability.

For better or worse, Treliving sees the world differently than Dubas. The team may not be more successful, but it certainly looks different – except, it seems, for the four core members who are still there.