Every year, the biggest mistakes made by NHL teams are made on the first day of free agency. It’s the nature of the free market, where bidding wars drive up prices to wild places and the last team standing is usually paying an uncomfortable amount.

Yesterday, we looked at 10 undervalued players who should avoid that. Today, we look at the opposite: The overvalued players to actively avoid. It’s the players who very likely won’t be worth what they’ll be paid this summer.

Here’s who I think are the players to avoid based on their projected contracts courtesy of AFP Analytics.

How Carolina built the Hurricanes to win the Stanley Cup

Sean Gentille and Jayne Orenstein

Jacob Trouba

Fresh off an $8 million cap hit, it doesn’t appear like the price tag for Jacob Trouba’s services is going to go down dramatically. AFP Analytics is forecasting a four-year deal at $6.4 million per season. I think Trouba is worth only half of that.

There’s a lot to like about Trouba’s game; he’s a feared competitor with size and a right shot who has shown some aptitude for eating minutes. At this point in his career, he’s still on the cusp of top-four caliber, mostly thanks to a bounce-back in his first full season with the Ducks.

But even that bounce-back had Trouba in just No. 4 territory and is one year removed from him looking almost completely washed with the Rangers. He looks better, sure, but he’s still very far from clearing the bar necessary to be paid $6.4 million per season and there’s real risk with the wrong fit. At that price, teams are paying for a solid No. 3; at 32, I’m not convinced Trouba has that level in him anymore.

Trouba was still valued at that level in 2022-23 when he ate tough matchups to a near draw, but we’re now four seasons removed from that. Even if Trouba clicks perfectly with his next team, is it a safe bet to expect that to continue in his mid-30s? I wouldn’t count on it.

If a fortunate team can get Trouba for something much closer to third-pair money, he’s worth it for the intangible elements he brings to the table. His expected price tag is much harder to justify.

Andrew Peeke

Few defensemen have been consistently outscored as badly as Andrew Peeke has over the last few years. On Boston’s sheltered third pair, he doesn’t even have the excuse of playing tough minutes as he did in Columbus either. Earning 43 percent of actual goals and 44 percent of expected goals in soft minutes should be a very tough sell for most teams and Peeke’s tracked data looks even worse. He’s a no-show in the offensive zone, and his ability to break pucks out and defend his blue line from entries looks rough, too. Being 6-foot-3 shouldn’t matter if a player can’t play and Peeke’s minus-10.7 Net Rating last year was essentially replacement level.

And yet AFP Analytics has him projected for a $4.1 million AAV on a four-year deal. That’s more than twice as much as he should be getting and would be a day-one albatross. Size isn’t everything and in Peeke’s case, it’s all he’s got.

Brett Kulak

I hesitate to have Brett Kulak on this list because of how strong he was in the playoffs. He was defensively stout and delivered a 54 percent xG rate for the Avalanche playing top-four minutes. But during the regular season, his numbers tanked for three separate teams, culminating in a 47 percent xG and just a 45 percent goal rate. Relative to teammates, only four defensemen were worse than Kulak on the xG front.

That drops Kulak’s projected value way down heading into the 2026-27 season, where he now looks closer to a low-end third-pair option rather than the No. 4/5 he was for a while in Edmonton. That’s not unheard-of for a 32-year-old defenseman, but I’d be very wary of paying Kulak for what he was a year ago rather than what he is now. Kulak is projected to net $4 million annually over a three-year deal; he’s not that guy anymore.

Logan Stanley

Logan Stanley’s potential deal doesn’t look completely awful based on what AFP Analytics is projecting: A two-year deal at $3 million per year. That’s probably too much for a replacement-level option whom the Sabres opted to scratch in Game 7, but it’s not end-of-the-world bad.

The problem is the sinking feeling that it will, in fact, be a lot worse. For teams that covet size, Stanley’s wingspan may be the only measurable they care about. Who cares about a consistent 45-to-47 percent xG when a player is 6-foot-7 and 230 pounds, right? Relative to teammates, only 20 defensemen have a worse impact on xG than Stanley over the last three years. Anything over $2 million is probably an overpay and it wouldn’t be a shock at all to see Stanley get double that.

Mario Ferraro

I have a lot of time for Mario Ferraro and feel like he can be a decent fit in the right role. I just don’t think that role is one that commands the $5.1 million ticket AFP Analytics projects over a four-year deal; I have Ferraro closer to $3.5 million.

That’s still a decent player and Ferraro is coming off one of his best seasons, where he showed a decent amount of defensive upside for a Sharks team mostly devoid of it. But his puck skills and offensive ability leave him seriously wanting in a top-four role. Based on his All Three Zones tracking profile, Ferraro grades out fairly weak at exiting his zone and creating offense in his opponent’s zone.

As a No. 5, Ferraro can work well. But even in a rising-cap world, that’s a luxury at Ferraro’s expected price tag, and expecting him to slide into the top four might be asking for trouble.

Jason Dickinson

Until now, we’ve only talked about defensemen and it’s been a fairly specific archetype of bigger guys being paid for their role rather than their aptitude. Now we move on to some forwards, specifically two centers who are going to be paid far too much to be depth contributors.

Jason Dickinson is the first and is a genuinely fantastic defensive presence. His projected Defensive Rating has been right around plus-two in each of the last three seasons and he’s done a marvelous job limiting chances in tough minutes for a bad Chicago Blackhawks team. During that time, Dickinson has allowed 0.32 fewer xGA/60 relative to teammates, a top-10 mark in hockey. He is a perfect checking-line center.

What he won’t offer, though, is a shred of capable offense. That nullifies a lot of what he offers defensively, and at 30 that’s fine for now, but on a four-year deal it won’t be long until Dickinson slides into a 4C role. That’s where pricing comes into play. A $5 million cap hit, as AFP Analytics is projecting, is going to be third-line money for the life of Dickinson’s potential deal, but he looks likely to slip below that level sooner rather than later. That leaves his expected value closer to $2.5 million.

For a team with space that has the right pieces above, Dickinson might be worth the premium in a weak center market. But his trajectory points to his price tag being a luxury most teams shouldn’t splurge on.

Scott Laughton

In a similar vein, Scott Laughton is a good center that many teams would be lucky to have … just not at the price he’s expected to net. AFP Analytics has him at $4.1 million and he’s probably worth closer to $2.4 million.

The center premium is real and it’s understandable why teams overpay to get decent ones; they’re hard to find. Laughton, by all accounts, is a great locker room presence and that plays a role here, too.

But he was already being used in a fourth-line role in Toronto and seems likely to drift further in that direction the further he goes into his 30s. Laughton may have been an excellent third-line option in his late 20s, but at 32 it’s unlikely that’s his path forward. A $4 million ticket for a 4C is tough to justify.

One other thing to note: Laughton’s xG numbers may look passable, but his results have been routinely worse than expected for five years running. During that stretch, he has a 48 percent xG rate, while earning just 42 percent of actual goals.

Beck Malenstyn

Traits are very tough to ignore. Beck Malenstyn is big, tenacious and fast — a tantalizing combo of traits that will likely have GMs salivating this summer. Malenstyn has the looks of the perfect fourth-liner.

The question is how much should the potentially perfect fourth-liner cost? That number is probably in the ballpark of where AFP Analytics projects, right around $2.5 million. Personally, I have a reservation regarding whether Malenstyn actually fits the description. Getting outscored and out-chanced in a sheltered role isn’t exactly impressive enough to pay a premium.

Some will point to Malenstyn’s strong ability to reduce chances against, and while he does project to have a positive Defensive Rating, it’s only barely so. It’s important to grade fourth-line defense on a curve relative to their competition where the pace is innately slower; Malenstyn’s defensive game isn’t nearly as strong as his relative xGA/60 may indicate.

The bigger issue is offense, where Malenstyn has produced under one point per 60 in each of the last two seasons. While a fourth-liner doesn’t need to produce much, he should still produce something and Malenstyn ranking 357th out of 371 forwards the last two seasons doesn’t scream premium pricing either.

Maybe it doesn’t matter with the cap going up. But teams would be better served finding the next Malenstyn than overpaying for speed and size without the actual utility $2.5 million should procure.

Evander Kane

It’s difficult to truly judge any player from last year’s train wreck in Vancouver, but even with that in mind, it’s hard to see Evander Kane providing much bang for buck. His archetype generally comes at a salary premium and while Kane was arguably worth it once, that’s no longer the case at age 34.

The main problem with Kane is that while he’s always been a defensive liability, he usually had the production to make up for it. His offensive game and the edge he played with made the miscues worth it. That’s no longer the case; Kane’s projected Defensive Rating currently sits at minus-3.5. That’s among the weakest in the class.

Maybe there’s room for Kane in a sheltered role, it’s just probably not worth the elevated salary it might take to acquire him. AFP Analytics has him at $3.5 million; I think he’s closer to the low twos.

Sergei Bobrovsky

Goalies are tricky beasts. One year, they can look like the GOAT; the next year, they can look like actual goats.

Sergei Bobrovsky obviously fits that bill. For three years, he was one of the main reasons the Panthers went to back-to-back-to-back Stanley Cup Finals, winning twice. But he was also the primary reason the team didn’t make it all this past season; he was that poor. Only three goalies had a worse GSAx than Bobrovsky’s minus-17.6.

And yet, AFP Analytics has the 37-year-old pencilled in at $5.6 million on a two-year deal. At Bobrovsky’s age, that’s a hard pass after the year he just had.

There’s a chance Bobrovsky bounces back, but even his 2024-25 campaign saw his GSAx at just minus-1.0. That’s two seasons of subpar play that make it difficult to invest even medium dollars in his services.

With the Hurricanes winning the Cup on the back of Frederik Andersen and Brandon Bussi, the decision to invest big between the pipes should be met with increased scrutiny. Questionable goaltending makes sense if it’s cheap; Bobrovsky won’t be, and that’s a tough sell even in a thin goalie market.

Data via Hockey Stats, Hockey Stat Cards, Evolving-Hockey and All Three Zones