Lane Hutson (Photo by Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images)
The topic of Lane Hutson’s eventual extension has quickly become one of the NHL’s most talked-about storylines, especially after two other young defensemen set the market in recent days. Luke Hughes signed his long-term deal in New Jersey, while Anaheim surprised many by locking up Jackson LaCombe with an eight-year, $9 million-per-year contract. With both players now secured, attention has shifted to Montreal, where Hutson and the Canadiens must determine whether to get a deal done before the season or wait until 2026, when Hutson technically has until July to sign.
LaCombe’s deal may look aggressive at first glance, but the Ducks had strong incentives to strike. The 24-year-old blossomed last season with 44 points and one of the best underlying statistical profiles among NHL defensemen. He was only two years away from unrestricted free agency, had arbitration eligibility, and could have received offer sheets next summer.
By signing him for eight years, Anaheim not only secured its top blueliner, but also bought six full UFA seasons—premium years that rarely come cheap.
“LaCombe, being on the older side of RFAs, had much more leverage – due to arbitration and just being closer to full autonomy,” said an NHL source. “Had he jumped right out of his entry-level contract at age 22 or 23, maybe he signs closer to Brock Faber at 8.5M.”
For Anaheim, the decision was about controlling the long-term cost of a franchise cornerstone. If LaCombe had played out another season, his market value could have escalated well beyond $9 million, given his trajectory and outside leverage. By moving now, GM Pat Verbeek locked in his No. 1 defenseman at a set price through his prime years, avoiding messy arbitration fights or the threat of losing him to the open market.
Luke Hughes’ negotiation unfolded under very different circumstances. As a 10.2(c) RFA, he had no arbitration rights and could not sign an offer sheet, which, on paper, limited his leverage. But his camp held two powerful cards: the Devils’ urgent need to ice him with an injured defense, and the long-term pull of the Hughes family. Jack Hughes is signed for another five seasons in New Jersey, Quinn Hughes is under contract in Vancouver but only about 21 months from UFA status, and all three brothers have been open about their desire to one day play together.
That family factor, combined with immediate roster pressure, left GM Tom Fitzgerald in a difficult spot. Hughes’ camp pushed for either a shorter five-year contract that lined up with Jack’s UFA window, or a full-term deal at $9M AAV. Fitzgerald chose the latter, securing Luke beyond Jack’s current deal while keeping alive the possibility of luring Quinn in the future.
“The Hughes family basically backed the Devils’ into a poor position from which to negotiate,” said an NHL source familiar with the situation. “Not only were you negotiating for Luke Hughes, but you had to consider the impact it could have on Jack now and potentially Quinn down the road. To secure Luke long-term, beyond when Jack’s deal expires, would give you emotional leverage to retain him then too.”
For a Devils’ management team desperate to make the playoffs, there was no appetite for a holdout. The contract became not just about Luke’s individual value, but about family dynamics, playoff urgency, and protecting the franchise’s long-term vision.
The Hutson Question in Montreal
That brings the spotlight firmly back to Montreal and Lane Hutson, whose looming extension is quickly becoming one of the most intriguing contract negotiations in the NHL. Like Luke Hughes, he is classified as a 10.2(c) RFA — meaning he has no arbitration rights and cannot receive an offer sheet. That technical detail strips him of the leverage that helped Jackson LaCombe secure $9 million from Anaheim and allowed Hughes to push New Jersey toward his asking price.
What Hutson does have, however, is star power and expectation. Fresh off a Calder Trophy campaign, he has already become the centerpiece of the Canadiens’ rebuild and a focal point of the team’s marketing and fan enthusiasm. The hype is real, but Montreal’s situation is different from that of the Devils or Ducks. Unlike New Jersey, the Canadiens are not under immediate playoff pressure. Unlike Anaheim, Montreal’s timeline is not dictated by the risk of losing a player to unrestricted free agency in the near future. Hutson’s camp may point to the $9M benchmarks set in recent weeks, but GM Kent Hughes is known for being a disciplined negotiator who rarely bends to market hysteria.
The likeliest outcome, then, is a deal that threads the needle: rewarding Hutson’s superstar trajectory without overshooting the realities of his RFA status. While fans may clamor for numbers north of $10 or 11 million, Montreal can credibly argue that Hutson’s leverage is limited compared to LaCombe or Hughes. His contract could ultimately serve as a balance between paying for future dominance and maintaining cost control within a roster that is still under construction.
For the Canadiens’ front office, the pitch goes beyond dollars and cents. Executive vice president Jeff Gorton recently underlined that Montreal is increasingly viewed as an attractive destination, despite the province’s heavy tax burden.
“There’s a lot there that when we talk to players around the league, the agents, people are excited about Montreal,” Gorton said this summer in an exclusive interview with RG. “Yeah, the taxes we get that, and it’s definitely a thing, but there are ways around that. There are ways we can do certain things in Quebec and Montreal to help alleviate the tax issues, but we’re excited about Montreal and where we’re going, and I feel like, around the league, people are taking notice.”
That’s where Hutson’s deal becomes especially interesting. Even if his AAV matches Hughes or LaCombe at around $9M, the Canadiens have tools — from signing bonus structures to tax-efficient mechanisms like trusts and deferrals — that could help Hutson take home more money than his peers without inflating the cap hit upwards of $10M.
Echoing the sentiment shared earlier this summer from Gorton, TVA Sport’s Renaud Lavoie has reported that the Canadiens are prepared to use all tools at their disposal to keep the cap hit on Lane Hutson’s next contrat as reasonable as possible.
How far Montreal is willing to go with those levers may define whether Hutson’s contract simply mirrors his comparables on paper or quietly surpasses them in real value.
Signing Bonuses
For American-born NHL players on Canadian teams like Hutson, signing bonuses have long been a valuable tax strategy. Thanks to the Canada–U.S. Tax Treaty, bonuses structured as true “inducements” to sign can be taxed at just 15% in Canada, compared to regular salary which can face combined federal and provincial rates exceeding 50%. This differential has given Canadian franchises an important bargaining tool: by front-loading compensation into signing bonuses rather than base salary, they can offer players more favorable after-tax earnings without inflating the overall contract value.
Auston Matthews of the Toronto Maple Leafs is a prime example. His contract is structured with just a $1 million base salary, while nearly $16 million is paid annually as signing bonuses. That design significantly lowers his Canadian tax exposure, allowing him to keep millions more of his earnings compared to if the same money had been classified as regular salary. For teams competing against U.S.-based franchises—where players already benefit from lower tax environments—this mechanism has helped Canadian clubs stay competitive in attracting and retaining stars.
Of course, signing bonuses haven’t been without controversy. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has previously challenged whether large bonuses were truly “inducements to sign” or simply disguised salary, most notably in John Tavares’s case with the Toronto Maple Leafs. That dispute is still winding its way through the courts, but most player agents and tax advisors aren’t overly concerned. They argue that future deals will be structured more carefully, with contracts clearly identifying bonuses as inducements under the Canada–U.S. treaty, making challenges far less likely.
“This is surely a path I see the Canadiens taking, even (Noah) Dobson’s contract included a high amount of signing bonuses early on to maximize his player earnings. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be used here,” said an NHL agent.
If Hutson were to sign a comparable $9M contract, an optimal structure would pay him $1 million in salary and $8 million in signing bonuses. Here’s how he’d be advantaged over someone like Jackson LaCombe:
The $1 million salary would be taxed at Quebec rates of roughly 53%, leaving about $470,000 after tax. The $8 million bonus, taxed at the Treaty’s 15% rate, would leave about $6.8 million after tax. Combined, the player nets roughly $7.27 million. By contrast, if all $9 million were salary taxed at over 50% (like in both California or Quebec), take-home would shrink to about $4.2-4.5 million.
That’s an advantage of around $3 million annually, purely from contract structure.
However, this advantage is set to disappear. Under the terms of the NHL’s new collective bargaining agreement, beginning September 16, 2026, signing bonuses will be restricted to a maximum of 60% of a player’s total compensation over the life of a contract.
Retirement Compensation Agreement
Another potential option, brought up first by Lavoie, that would net Hutson more bang for his buck would be a Retirement Compensation Arrangement.
American NHL players who sign with Canadian teams face tax rates that can exceed 50%, meaning millions in salary can quickly erode. To mitigate this, many use a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA) trust, which allows them to defer up to 49% of their salary. The deferred amount is split: half goes to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as a refundable deposit, while the other half is invested in the trust.
When the player retires and returns to the U.S., the CRA refunds the deposit, and withdrawals are taxed at U.S. rates—often much lower than the Canadian rates they would have faced during their careers. This strategy is particularly effective if a player retires in a no-income-tax state like Florida.
If Hutson were to sign a comparable $9M deal that paid him the same amount each year, this is how he could benefit:
Without an RCA, the entire $9M would be taxed in Quebec at roughly 53%, leaving the player with about $4.23M net. With an RCA, 49% ($4.41M) is deferred—split into a $2.205M refundable tax deposit and $2.205M invested in the trust—while the remaining $4.59M is taxed in Canada, leaving about $2.16M net today.
In retirement, the deferred $4.41M comes back, taxed at U.S. rates instead of Canadian ones. This timing shift in taxation can save players millions across a multi-year contract, turning the RCA into a financial game-changer.
Why Hutson’s Next Deal May Not Hit $10M — Yet
The market has shifted with LaCombe and Hughes both securing $9 million AAV extensions, and on the surface, it seems inevitable that Hutson will command even more. After all, he’s coming off a Calder Trophy season, is already a face of the Canadiens’ rebuild, and plays in one of hockey’s most scrutinized markets. On talent alone, he has every argument to leap past $10 million per year.
But contract negotiations are never just about talent — they are about leverage, timing, and the tools available to management. LaCombe’s deal was inflated by the fact that he was just two years from unrestricted free agency, with arbitration rights and the threat of offer sheets boosting his bargaining power. Hughes, meanwhile, benefited from unique circumstances in New Jersey: the Devils’ desperate need to ice him immediately, the injuries on their blue line, and the emotional weight of the Hughes family storyline. Hutson, as a 10.2(c) RFA, lacks those same pressure points.
This doesn’t mean Hutson won’t be richly rewarded, but it does suggest that his extension will look different in structure. The Canadiens have every reason to keep his AAV closer to Hughes and LaCombe rather than blowing past them. Where they can create an advantage is through creative structuring — using signing bonuses, front-loaded payouts, and other tax-efficient methods to make Hutson’s take-home pay more lucrative than the headline number might suggest. In other words, Montreal can deliver him “Hughes money” while still keeping the salary cap impact under control.
Executive vice president Jeff Gorton alluded to this strategy earlier this summer when he noted that while taxes in Quebec are an obstacle, the Canadiens have “ways around that.” For Hutson’s camp, those levers may soften the sting of a deal that looks level with his comparables on paper but pays out more in practice. That flexibility gives Montreal room to be competitive in negotiations without surrendering long-term financial control.
Which is why I wouldn’t rush to assume the Hutson deal automatically climbs to $10 million or beyond. With the avenues available to the Canadiens — tax strategies, bonus-heavy structures, and a negotiating stance grounded in Hutson’s RFA limitations — there is every chance his contract lands at the $9M mark like Hughes and LaCombe, but ultimately leaves him richer in real dollars.
The optics may look level, but behind the scenes, Montreal can still make sure Hutson feels like he’s winning.