The Luke Hughes contract extension discussion seems to have heated up over the past week, with Tom Fitzgerald speaking to RG.org about the issue. This came after Ryan Novozinsky postulated that Luke Hughes was taking long to sign because his camp must want his contract to align with his brother’s, meaning he would be seeking a five-year deal. To me, it seems a bit more like conjecture (i.e. it is taking a long time so it must be for this reason) than a specifically-sourced report, but that is where we are. In his interview with RG.org, Fitzgerald did not talk about term, but only about what makes sense with the cap and comparative contracts. Specifically, James Murphy quoted Fitzgerald responding to a question about players not wanting to get locked into lower cap hits down the line with a fast-rising cap ceiling:
Well, yeah, I’m sure that’s the case, but as a team, you can’t ignore the present. The future is laid out for us via the league and what the cap is going to be. And again, you’re just trying to find common ground today that may work down the road for both parties, too, but you need to live in the present, and this is no different. They’re just looking out for Luke’s best interest, but the reality is you still have to stay in the present time and look at, in my opinion, the comps that are there.
To me, that sounds more like the issue is that Pat Brisson, Luke’s agent, is more concerned about his guy only making $7 or 8 million eight years from now, when comparable defenders will probably be making closer to $13, 14, or 15 million. As the NHL has projected the salary cap to be making large jumps over the next three seasons, a “fair deal” under a $95.5 million cap ceiling will quickly turn into a team-friendly deal by 2027-28, when the cap rises to $113.5 million. The NHL has not seen such large-scale cap ceiling increases since the cap was brought into being in 2004. Since 2020-21, the cap had only risen $7.5 million by the 2024-25 season. So, many of the league’s megadeals have not really matured into something more cap-friendly since the pandemic. Say what you will about the certainty or uncertainty of world economics, but professional sports seems to chug along just fine. At the very least, they have gone full steam ahead with these cap increases, and that changes the game a bit. The cap is going to increase more from 2025-26 to 2026-27 than it did from 2020-21 to 2024-25.
What I don’t get about Tom Fitzgerald’s answers is his affirmation of teams having internal caps. As Fitzgerald said, “There’s only one Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers, and Toronto, and then everybody else tries to make money differently.” You might be put off by Fitzgerald saying that, as if it indicates the Devils are currently being cheap, but they are going to be against the cap ceiling when Luke Hughes signs a contract, however long it is. They are about $7 million below the cap right now if you exclude Seamus Casey, who will likely be the corresponding move on the 23-man roster for Hughes. Currently, there are 12 teams within about $2 million of the cap ceiling, including some bad teams like Philadelphia and some mediocre likely non-playoff teams like Boston, Montreal, and the New York Islanders. It will be 13 teams when the Devils re-sign Hughes, and it could be even more if remaining free agents like Jack Roslovic and Matt Grzelcyk sign with teams with between $3 and $6 million remaining in cap space (seven teams). There are eight teams with $10 million or more in cap space, as well, and only one of them (Carolina) is a certain playoff team, though they have signed multiple players to deferred contracts, which means they will be paying more cash to Seth Jarvis and Jackson Blake several years from now that won’t affect their cap situations when said money is paid.
I think that rebuilding teams, like Chicago, San Jose, and Anaheim, are much more certain to have an internal cap than a playoff team. I imagine the Devils had an internal cap about five years ago, when they were in a much poorer state of affairs than they are now. But do I think the New Jersey Devils presently have an internal cap? Going by the fact that they’re going to be a cap-ceiling team this year, and they are, if anything, questioned for having too many people in the front office, it’s a bit of a stretch, and probably more blind fear than anything based in reality. Their front office features Fitzgerald, Brodeur, two AGMs in MacKinnon and Madigan, a senior advisor in Chuck Fletcher, and another advisor in Andy Greene. They also have an eight-person analytics department and a 23-person scouting department. So, they have two fewer people in their scouting department than the New York Rangers and three more scouts than the Boston Bruins. The Rangers also list one person in analytics, while the Bruins have five. The Rangers have one AGM and one hockey operations advisor. The Bruins, like the Devils, have two AGMs, but only one operations advisor. If I were trying to sniff out a bare bones operation, I would expect significant disparities in hiring. The Chicago Blackhawks, for example, only have 14 people in their scouting department.
But I will play along to some extent: maybe the Devils have made some cuts from a financial standpoint. I would not be the first to say that their in-game experience is a bit low-effort, and that their social media presence is a bit weak. My point would be, though: it does not seem to hold the Devils back from running a full hockey operation, or from spending to the cap ceiling. Before I judge them and the league too harshly, I want to know what they do in two years when the cap is $18 million higher than it is this year. Will they still be spending to the cap? Will other teams be spending to the cap? If teams are hesitant to actually go through with raising their expenditures as the league believes it is making enough money to support those cap increases, then I wouldn’t blame any fanbase for calling for their ownerships to sell.
Should the Devils have to worry about that? Harris and Blitzer have their hands in many cookie jars, from the Washington Commanders to the Philadelphia 76ers to the upcoming Philadelphia WNBA team to the Cleveland Guardians. They’ve also invested in MLS teams and European soccer teams — and even in the return of niche sports such as SlamBall. At this point, the Devils are just a speck in the HBSE books. I am sure they want a return on investment to some extent, but the way a competitive team maximizes their revenue in the NHL is by getting to the Stanley Cup Finals and selling merchandise. The Devils already have one of the top-selling jerseys in the league by having Jack Hughes on the roster, so signing Luke Hughes is basically revenue protection, at the very least. His development also happens to be essential to their Stanley Cup hopes.
In terms of what Ryan Novozinsky wrote, though, I would be a bit annoyed if I were Tom Fitzgerald and Pat Brisson was asking for a five-year deal for Luke Hughes. It is uniquely the sort of contract that makes no sense for the team to give out, even if Luke Hughes and Jack Hughes were entirely unrelated. It takes away exactly zero of Luke’s UFA years (since it would take him through his seventh season), putting him in free agency with no protection for the Devils. However, I still think the five-year thing is more conjecture than a sourced report.
From a team perspective, the balance of team protection and more or less aligning the brothers’ contracts would be six years. If the Devils’ front office failed so thoroughly that the brothers wanted to go to a different team by that point, they would lose Jack Hughes for nothing in free agency, but still be able to trade his younger brother. Otherwise, a three-year deal would still leave the team with RFA protection, but Luke would be able to sign a seven-year max extension under a more appropriate cap hit after the cap has risen and he has gotten closer to unrestricted free agency.
If we are then considering Quinn Hughes, though, there is more complication. If Jack and Luke were signed for five years from now (a situation that I do not even expect to play out) and the Devils acquired Quinn in one or two seasons, would he really turn down a long-term deal to stay aligned with his younger brothers? Quinn would be turning 28 in the 2027-28 season, after his current contract expires, so that would really be the prime time for him to sign a seven-year megadeal. With how volatile the game of hockey is, as well, it is not usually considered an amazing idea for a guy to turn down a megadeal when they can get it.
A lot to think about, perhaps. I wouldn’t hate seeing a three-year bridge for Luke Hughes, personally, though I have advocated using deferred salary to give him a long-term extension in the past. A three-year bridge would probably leave them enough cap space to sign Jack Roslovic, who I think would really help the Devils’ third or fourth-line take the next step to being championship-worthy depth. And considering that the Devils would have the opportunity to sign Quinn Hughes in two years, a three-year bridge would not instill very much fear in me, as the NHL GMs repeatedly show that they are bigger talkers than anything in terms of sending offer sheets.
Your Thoughts
What do you think of the latest on the Luke Hughes contract talks? Are the rumors hot air, or do you think there’s something to them? Leave your thoughts in the comments below, and thanks for reading.