John Tavares still isn't over how his first season with the Toronto Maple Leafs ended.

The Leafs held a 3-2 series lead over the Boston Bruins in the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs but were unable to close out the series on home ice in Game 6. Then, Toronto was unable to conquer its Game 7 demons in Boston.

"I'm still bitter," Tavares said Friday, according to NHL.com's Mike Zeisberger. "We were up 3-2 in that series. We thought we were in the driver's seat and we just didn't find a way to put the nail in the coffin ... to really finish them off. It's something we have to learn from."

The Bruins made it all the way to the Stanley Cup Final. Their path through the Eastern Conference was easier than expected after the Tampa Bay Lightning, Washington Capitals, and Pittsburgh Penguins all lost in the first round.

Tavares enjoyed a career year in 2018-19, tallying 47 goals and 88 points in 82 games. He added two goals and three assists in seven playoff tilts. The Toronto native, who inked a seven-year, $77-million contract with the Leafs last summer, will look to help his boyhood team win its first playoff series since 2004 come next spring.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.

The City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation, and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited have agreed to fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new public sports and entertainment event center, according to the city's press release.

The event center would serve as a new home for the Flames, who've played at the Scotiabank Saddledome since 1983. The Saddledome is the third-oldest building in the league, behind Madison Square Garden and Nassau Coliseum.

The estimated cost of the event center is $550 million, which will be split 50/50 between the city and the team. The city will own 100 percent of the event center. The team will bear 100 percent of the operating, maintenance, and repair costs for the duration of the 35-year agreement.

Here's a look at an artist's conceptual rendering of the project:

The event center would be located adjacent to the downtown core in East Victoria Park.

The agreement is subject to a vote of Calgary's city council on July 29, a seven-day public comment period, and customary approvals by the CSEC and the Stampede.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.

At this past weekend's TeamSnap Hockey Coaches Conference in Toronto, theScore chatted with a group of high-level coaches to gain some insight into their profession as it evolves alongside the sport itself.

The participants:

• Pete DeBoer, San Jose Sharks head coach (NHL)
• Rikard Gronborg, ZSC Lions head coach (Switzerland)
• Greg Powers, Arizona State head coach (NCAA)
• Todd Woodcroft, Winnipeg Jets assistant coach (NHL)
• Mike Kelly, Vegas Golden Knights assistant coach (NHL)
• Reid Cashman, Washington Capitals assistant coach (NHL)

The conversations, lightly edited for brevity and clarity, were held individually and compiled to form the discussion below.

What’s the No. 1 challenge facing today's high-level coaches?

DeBoer: "I honestly believe the biggest challenge for all of us going forward is analytics, and what role analytics is going to play and what we're doing at ground level. They're important, but to what extent? How much are you using them? How much is overuse? How much do the players want, without overextending it?

"A version of analytics has been around since probably (legendary Canadiens coach) Toe Blake tracked scoring chances against or odd-man rushes. Coaches have been doing that forever. Now we’ve got this pile of information on every play that happens in a game, and there’s some important, valuable information in there, but it’s all about how you filter through that and what you give to the players. For every yin, there’s a yang. If you’re good in one area, you’re going to give up something in another area."

Gronborg: "Doing the daily work and believing in something that you set out to achieve. There's going to be a lot of push and pull out there, a lot of influences that want to get in there. If you really believe in what you're doing, really believe in waking up in the morning and taking on the challenges, I think you're in good shape, no matter what level you're at. The coaches of the Toronto Maple Leafs - (Mike) Babcock and the rest of the coaches - can attest. There's a lot of pressure in a lot of different situations. How do you handle that? You do the daily work and believe in what you're doing, and make everyone in the locker room believe in the daily work as well."

Cashman: "I think the No. 1 challenge is getting your players to trust you - and I say that in a positive way ... If you don’t get a player who believes you'll be able to maximize his abilities, I think you're going to have a tough time coaching him.

"For me, as a (defense) corps, we’re all going to be connected, and then individually you and I will figure out the best way to maximize your abilities. What does that mean? Well, do you need extra work before practice? Do you like to be in the weight room before practice? Is there stuff going on at home? As a university coach, how are classes going? Can I help you with classes? And now you trust me because you know that I want to help you as a human being, and then as a hockey player."

Woodcroft: "I'll back up to my first year in the NHL, in 2000. Seeing the evolution of the voice that the players have now. It has evolved from authoritative - well, authoritative is not the right word, but it wasn’t really a democracy before. The players would do what the coaches told them to do, and they would often do it without asking questions and understanding why. Now, the players are in partnership with the coaches. The best coaches, I think, are the ones that have the idea that they're managers also, and that the 23 guys on your roster are people too. They have lives outside hockey.

"Society now, with social media and the pressures these guys have - I could have scored that goal, I could have made that save, why was this guy on the ice, what the hell is wrong with this power play - everyone has an opinion. That sometimes bleeds into the players’ lives and influences players. Our job as coaches is to manage expectations and manage the notion that we’re a team and that the team is insular."

Powers: "Oof. That’s a loaded question. I think, especially for older coaches, it’s understanding that you’ve got to coach guys differently today. You can't just blanket-treat players anymore. You have to get to know them. What makes each individual player tick? Everybody's motivated in a different way. With all the distraction - social media, technology - you almost have to peel back the onion more to really get to know what makes a kid go. It's an ongoing process for me."

How does your organization manage analytics and team culture? What’s the optimal fit?

Gronborg: "I call it the 'package.' Every day, when a player shows up, we give him a (verbally communicated) package. Some packages have statistics and analytics in them, but mostly it's going to be about what we're doing on the ice. You shouldn't burden them too much with analytics. At the same time, I like to take those numbers and say, 'We're really successful here. We're not so successful here, so let’s change that.' That’s information. As coaches, one thing we need to do is boil everything down."

Kelly: "(In Vegas), we have a guy who works in the analytics department who's played at the college level - Dustin Walsh. He does a really good job at giving (the coaching staff) meaningful data. He'll ask us what we want, and we'll ask for a basic outline back. So he'll give us about three-to-four pages of information before the game and then after the game.

"It's funny. His numbers align really well with how we saw the game, and so it's good that after we come back the next day we have the report. It’s sitting there, and you can go, 'Yeah, I was right. This is what I saw.' Sometimes it's not the same, but there could be reasons for it. Or, there might be a number there that doesn’t really reflect what happened accurately. But I’d say 95 percent of the time they're right on."

Woodcroft: "For myself, it's an easy answer ... If you're neglecting something (like analytics) - whether you don't understand it, or you think it's silly, or whatever - you’re probably doing your team a disservice.

"(Winnipeg coach) Paul Maurice is a master of using analytics as a narrative, as a way to weave through the team we're going to play and how we're playing. We focus a lot on how we play, and we'll use analytics accordingly. I think analytics is not just the recent thing, I think it’s the future as well.

"If you have money to spend outside the (player salary) cap, it’s going to make your team better. Teams that have huge financial war chests will have an advantage, being able to put a ton of resources into analytics. Teams that maybe don’t have the luxury of spending all of that money on it, I think down the road will probably suffer. You saw in the '80s. (There were) teams that didn't have goalie coaches, video coaches, and strength coaches, and then they understood it was the wave of the future and started hiring these guys full time. Now teams have two goalie coaches, two video coaches, three or four strength coaches. There's no cap off the ice. The best teams spend smartly outside the cap, whether it's player development, or the best things your team can eat, or sleep doctors."

What do you think is, or will be, the next tactical trend in coaching circles? Example: Five forwards on a power-play unit.

Gronborg: "I’m looking more at the complete game and involving all players in all situations. Yeah, you have defensemen and forwards, you have centers out there, whatever, but it's a free-flowing game, so why not involve them all?

"Everyone is so tight, everyone is so scouted nowadays. Let’s switch it up a little bit, let’s challenge the norms a little bit by making movements and formations nobody's used to.

"They're so used to 'left defenseman,' 'right defenseman' and playing a certain position. It's pretty easy to defend that. But what happens if you spread out, what happens if you go in patterns they're not used to? A little bit of positionless hockey, especially in the offensive zone (could be the trend)."

Cashman: "I think defensemen need to become more involved in the offensive zone. With how teams defend so low (in the zone), smothering five guys low, the open ice is up high. I think you need to teach defensemen to take advantage of that open ice, and not just get a puck, roll your head, and shoot it. Take it, attack that open ice, and create options.

"We preach options (in Washington). Put yourself in a position to have multiple options. If the (point) shot is there and the best option, take the shot. But if it’s not and there’s a bunch of open ice, take it instead."

Powers: "Generally, the best coaches have always been the best thieves, right? There's no need to reinvent the game. I think the game is simple.

"Obviously, you always look at NHL games and watch special teams. The drop (pass) on the (power-play) breakout was really hot for a while - kinda slowing it down and changing sides - but (penalty kills) are so advanced now that forecheckers have figured that out. Now, coming up with speed is almost coming back (into the mainstream) ... I think that coaching is so advanced, and players are so prepared now because of it, that you almost have to have different plans ready. Maybe two units that do two completely different things and both are prepared to flip-flop to what the other is doing."

If you had a hockey-playing 10-year-old son or daughter, would you encourage playing other sports in the summer months or double down on hockey? Is 10 too young for specialization?

Cashman: "A 10-year-old? I do not think they should be specializing. If my daughter wants to do one camp in the summer where she gets on the ice because she loves hockey, yeah, I think you can do a camp. I think it's crazy when 10-year-olds are chasing tournaments all over North America in the summertime and playing 100 games in a calendar year. They're not practicing, they’re not developing other skills as an athlete. To be the best athlete you can be, you need to maximize your athleticism. And to do that you need to play multiple sports."

Kelly: "I think, in a perfect world, people would play a number of different sports. But we don't live in a perfect world anymore. It depends on how seriously they want to be about a sport. If they just kinda like a sport, go out and play as many sports as you can. Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where competitive hockey players - just like competitive ball players, competitive soccer players - are playing hockey 12 months a year, or 11 months a year. So, if you want to keep up, that's what you have to do. I don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is. We live in a different world. Just because we did it one way doesn’t mean it's the be-all, end-all."

Powers: "100 percent other sports … You want athletes that know how to compete, not robots. I think the hockey community is now trying to produce these robotic players that are machines. I think there's something to be said for creativity and compete. The best way to develop that is to play other sports."

Woodcroft: "Certain games are invasion games. Hockey is an invasion game. So I think people who play soccer have an excellent advantage crossing over. Plus, you talk about learning to solve problems spatially in different sports. In basketball: boxing out. Soccer: creating two-on-ones. And, with athleticism, it's not just sports. Climb a tree, swim, be athletic. If you're an 8-year-old, 9-year-old, 13-year-old, your body is still developing. Learn. Go to gymnastics, or try out parkour."

John Matisz is theScore's national hockey writer.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.

At this past weekend's TeamSnap Hockey Coaches Conference in Toronto, theScore chatted with a group of high-level coaches to gain some insight into their profession as it evolves alongside the sport itself.

The participants:

• Pete DeBoer, San Jose Sharks head coach (NHL)
• Rikard Gronborg, ZSC Lions head coach (Switzerland)
• Greg Powers, Arizona State head coach (NCAA)
• Todd Woodcroft, Winnipeg Jets assistant coach (NHL)
• Mike Kelly, Vegas Golden Knights assistant coach (NHL)
• Reid Cashman, Washington Capitals assistant coach (NHL)

The conversations, lightly edited for brevity and clarity, were held individually and compiled to form the discussion below.

What’s the No. 1 challenge facing today's high-level coaches?

DeBoer: "I honestly believe the biggest challenge for all of us going forward is analytics, and what role analytics is going to play and what we're doing at ground level. They're important, but to what extent? How much are you using them? How much is overuse? How much do the players want, without overextending it?

"A version of analytics has been around since probably (legendary Canadiens coach) Toe Blake tracked scoring chances against or odd-man rushes. Coaches have been doing that forever. Now we’ve got this pile of information on every play that happens in a game, and there’s some important, valuable information in there, but it’s all about how you filter through that and what you give to the players. For every yin, there’s a yang. If you’re good in one area, you’re going to give up something in another area."

Gronborg: "Doing the daily work and believing in something that you set out to achieve. There's going to be a lot of push and pull out there, a lot of influences that want to get in there. If you really believe in what you're doing, really believe in waking up in the morning and taking on the challenges, I think you're in good shape, no matter what level you're at. The coaches of the Toronto Maple Leafs - (Mike) Babcock and the rest of the coaches - can attest. There's a lot of pressure in a lot of different situations. How do you handle that? You do the daily work and believe in what you're doing, and make everyone in the locker room believe in the daily work as well."

Cashman: "I think the No. 1 challenge is getting your players to trust you - and I say that in a positive way ... If you don’t get a player who believes you'll be able to maximize his abilities, I think you're going to have a tough time coaching him.

"For me, as a (defense) corps, we’re all going to be connected, and then individually you and I will figure out the best way to maximize your abilities. What does that mean? Well, do you need extra work before practice? Do you like to be in the weight room before practice? Is there stuff going on at home? As a university coach, how are classes going? Can I help you with classes? And now you trust me because you know that I want to help you as a human being, and then as a hockey player."

Woodcroft: "I'll back up to my first year in the NHL, in 2000. Seeing the evolution of the voice that the players have now. It has evolved from authoritative - well, authoritative is not the right word, but it wasn’t really a democracy before. The players would do what the coaches told them to do, and they would often do it without asking questions and understanding why. Now, the players are in partnership with the coaches. The best coaches, I think, are the ones that have the idea that they're managers also, and that the 23 guys on your roster are people too. They have lives outside hockey.

"Society now, with social media and the pressures these guys have - I could have scored that goal, I could have made that save, why was this guy on the ice, what the hell is wrong with this power play - everyone has an opinion. That sometimes bleeds into the players’ lives and influences players. Our job as coaches is to manage expectations and manage the notion that we’re a team and that the team is insular."

Powers: "Oof. That’s a loaded question. I think, especially for older coaches, it’s understanding that you’ve got to coach guys differently today. You can't just blanket-treat players anymore. You have to get to know them. What makes each individual player tick? Everybody's motivated in a different way. With all the distraction - social media, technology - you almost have to peel back the onion more to really get to know what makes a kid go. It's an ongoing process for me."

How does your organization manage analytics and team culture? What’s the optimal fit?

Gronborg: "I call it the 'package.' Every day, when a player shows up, we give him a (verbally communicated) package. Some packages have statistics and analytics in them, but mostly it's going to be about what we're doing on the ice. You shouldn't burden them too much with analytics. At the same time, I like to take those numbers and say, 'We're really successful here. We're not so successful here, so let’s change that.' That’s information. As coaches, one thing we need to do is boil everything down."

Kelly: "(In Vegas), we have a guy who works in the analytics department who's played at the college level - Dustin Walsh. He does a really good job at giving (the coaching staff) meaningful data. He'll ask us what we want, and we'll ask for a basic outline back. So he'll give us about three-to-four pages of information before the game and then after the game.

"It's funny. His numbers align really well with how we saw the game, and so it's good that after we come back the next day we have the report. It’s sitting there, and you can go, 'Yeah, I was right. This is what I saw.' Sometimes it's not the same, but there could be reasons for it. Or, there might be a number there that doesn’t really reflect what happened accurately. But I’d say 95 percent of the time they're right on."

Woodcroft: "For myself, it's an easy answer ... If you're neglecting something (like analytics) - whether you don't understand it, or you think it's silly, or whatever - you’re probably doing your team a disservice.

"(Winnipeg coach) Paul Maurice is a master of using analytics as a narrative, as a way to weave through the team we're going to play and how we're playing. We focus a lot on how we play, and we'll use analytics accordingly. I think analytics is not just the recent thing, I think it’s the future as well.

"If you have money to spend outside the (player salary) cap, it’s going to make your team better. Teams that have huge financial war chests will have an advantage, being able to put a ton of resources into analytics. Teams that maybe don’t have the luxury of spending all of that money on it, I think down the road will probably suffer. You saw in the '80s. (There were) teams that didn't have goalie coaches, video coaches, and strength coaches, and then they understood it was the wave of the future and started hiring these guys full time. Now teams have two goalie coaches, two video coaches, three or four strength coaches. There's no cap off the ice. The best teams spend smartly outside the cap, whether it's player development, or the best things your team can eat, or sleep doctors."

What do you think is, or will be, the next tactical trend in coaching circles? Example: Five forwards on a power-play unit.

Gronborg: "I’m looking more at the complete game and involving all players in all situations. Yeah, you have defensemen and forwards, you have centers out there, whatever, but it's a free-flowing game, so why not involve them all?

"Everyone is so tight, everyone is so scouted nowadays. Let’s switch it up a little bit, let’s challenge the norms a little bit by making movements and formations nobody's used to.

"They're so used to 'left defenseman,' 'right defenseman' and playing a certain position. It's pretty easy to defend that. But what happens if you spread out, what happens if you go in patterns they're not used to? A little bit of positionless hockey, especially in the offensive zone (could be the trend)."

Cashman: "I think defensemen need to become more involved in the offensive zone. With how teams defend so low (in the zone), smothering five guys low, the open ice is up high. I think you need to teach defensemen to take advantage of that open ice, and not just get a puck, roll your head, and shoot it. Take it, attack that open ice, and create options.

"We preach options (in Washington). Put yourself in a position to have multiple options. If the (point) shot is there and the best option, take the shot. But if it’s not and there’s a bunch of open ice, take it instead."

Powers: "Generally, the best coaches have always been the best thieves, right? There's no need to reinvent the game. I think the game is simple.

"Obviously, you always look at NHL games and watch special teams. The drop (pass) on the (power-play) breakout was really hot for a while - kinda slowing it down and changing sides - but (penalty kills) are so advanced now that forecheckers have figured that out. Now, coming up with speed is almost coming back (into the mainstream) ... I think that coaching is so advanced, and players are so prepared now because of it, that you almost have to have different plans ready. Maybe two units that do two completely different things and both are prepared to flip-flop to what the other is doing."

If you had a hockey-playing 10-year-old son or daughter, would you encourage playing other sports in the summer months or double down on hockey? Is 10 too young for specialization?

Cashman: "A 10-year-old? I do not think they should be specializing. If my daughter wants to do one camp in the summer where she gets on the ice because she loves hockey, yeah, I think you can do a camp. I think it's crazy when 10-year-olds are chasing tournaments all over North America in the summertime and playing 100 games in a calendar year. They're not practicing, they’re not developing other skills as an athlete. To be the best athlete you can be, you need to maximize your athleticism. And to do that you need to play multiple sports."

Kelly: "I think, in a perfect world, people would play a number of different sports. But we don't live in a perfect world anymore. It depends on how seriously they want to be about a sport. If they just kinda like a sport, go out and play as many sports as you can. Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where competitive hockey players - just like competitive ball players, competitive soccer players - are playing hockey 12 months a year, or 11 months a year. So, if you want to keep up, that's what you have to do. I don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is. We live in a different world. Just because we did it one way doesn’t mean it's the be-all, end-all."

Powers: "100 percent other sports … You want athletes that know how to compete, not robots. I think the hockey community is now trying to produce these robotic players that are machines. I think there's something to be said for creativity and compete. The best way to develop that is to play other sports."

Woodcroft: "Certain games are invasion games. Hockey is an invasion game. So I think people who play soccer have an excellent advantage crossing over. Plus, you talk about learning to solve problems spatially in different sports. In basketball: boxing out. Soccer: creating two-on-ones. And, with athleticism, it's not just sports. Climb a tree, swim, be athletic. If you're an 8-year-old, 9-year-old, 13-year-old, your body is still developing. Learn. Go to gymnastics, or try out parkour."

John Matisz is theScore's national hockey writer.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.

The Pittsburgh Penguins and restricted free agent Zach Aston-Reese avoided arbitration by agreeing to a two-year, $2-million contract, the team announced Monday.

The 24-year-old forward recorded eight goals and 17 points for the Penguins last season while being limited to 43 games due to a broken hand.

"Zach is a responsible player who plays a solid two-way game," said Penguins general manager Jim Rutherford. "He has a heavy style of play that is especially effective on the forecheck and penalty kill."

After being named a finalist for the Hobey Baker Award due to his dominance at the collegiate level with Northeastern University, Aston-Reese signed a two-year, entry-level contract with Pittsburgh ahead of the 2017-18 season.

The Penguins are now $157,000 above the cap ceiling of $81.5 million with a full 23-man roster, according to CapFriendly. However, teams can exceed the cap by 10 percent during the offseason. The Vegas Golden Knights and New York Rangers are the only other teams currently above the ceiling.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.

Below, we rank each Eastern Conference general manager's best and worst moves. In certain cases, the GM hasn't been with his current team long enough to warrant judgment, so we subbed in his predecessor.

The numbers in brackets indicate the year each executive began his tenure. Let's get started.

Don Sweeney, Boston Bruins (2015)

Best Move: Signing David Pastrnak - Contract negotiations with the superstar winger threatened to drag into training camp in September 2017, but Sweeney ultimately signed the 2014 first-round selection to a six-year deal at $6.66 million annually - one of the best bargains in the league.

Worst Move: Signing David Backes - Sweeney added Backes on a five-year, $30-million deal in the summer of 2016. The 35-year-old has only scored 38 goals in 201 games with Boston and still has two seasons left on a contract that had buyer's remorse written all over it from the get-go.

Jason Botterill, Buffalo Sabres (2017)

Best Move: Acquiring Jeff Skinner - Botterill bought low on Skinner, sending prospect Cliff Pu and three draft picks to Carolina for the three-time 30-goal man. Skinner lit the lamp 40 times In his first season in Buffalo, earning a hefty contract extension for his efforts.

Worst move: Dealing Ryan O'Reilly - Well, you can't win 'em all. Botterill's other big move in the summer of 2018 sent O'Reilly to the St. Louis Blues. The former Sabre set a career high in points in his first year in the Gateway City and went on to win the Selke Trophy, the Conn Smythe Trophy, and the Stanley Cup.

Don Waddell, Carolina Hurricanes (2018)

Best move: Acquiring Dougie Hamilton - The Hamilton trade was initially met with some consternation among the masses, but the defender fit in immediately during Carolina's best season in a decade. Noah Hanifin and Elias Lindholm had good years in Calgary, too, but it's hard to call this one a loss for Waddell at this point.

Worst move: Return for Jeff Skinner - Given the unexceptional assets they received for Skinner, Carolina's brass must have been uneasy watching their former star put up 40 with Buffalo as the Hurricanes remained a middling offensive team.

Jarmo Kekalainen, Columbus Blue Jackets (2013)

Best move: Acquiring Artemi Panarin - There were other pieces involved, but Kekalainen essentially nabbed Panarin for Brandon Saad, and though the Breadman has since moved on, it was a coup for the Blue Jackets. Panarin scored 169 points in 160 games in Columbus, while Saad has so far posted 82 over 162 contests in his second stint in Chicago.

Worst move: Signing Nathan Horton - One of Kekalainen's first big moves as the Blue Jackets' boss was signing Horton to a seven-year, $37.1-million contract in 2013. Unfortunately, debilitating back injuries derailed Horton's career and he suited up in just 36 games for the Blue Jackets.

Ken Holland, Detroit Red Wings (1997-2019)

*Current GM: Steve Yzerman

Best move: Drafting Pavel Datsyuk - Holland's Red Wings career spanned parts of three decades, so there's plenty to choose from here, but Datsyuk takes the cake. Plucked in the sixth round of the 1998 NHL Draft, the Magic Man played 14 seasons for Detroit, winning two Cups, three Selke trophies, and four Lady Byngs while adding 918 points during a Hall of Fame career.

Worst move: Signing Stephen Weiss - The arrival of the salary cap made it more difficult for Holland to swing for the fences as he did when he was building Cup contenders in the '90s, but he still didn't shy away from doling out big-time money in free agency. He proved as much with a five-year, $24.5-million contract for Weiss in 2013. The forward played 78 games for Detroit, and his buyout is on the Wings' books until 2021.

Dale Tallon, Florida Panthers (2010)

Best move: Drafting, signing Aleksander Barkov - Tallon and the Panthers surprised many by drafting Barkov second overall in 2013, ahead of the likes of Seth Jones and Jonathan Drouin. Five years later, that decision looks like a no-brainer. Barkov has blossomed into one of the game's top two-way centers and registered a career-high 96 points in 2018-19. That the 23-year-old makes $5.9 million a season until 2022 is just icing on the cake.

Worst move: Signing Dave Bolland - Tallon rekindled his former Blackhawks flame in 2014, signing Bolland to a five-year deal that paid him almost as much as Barkov makes now. The two-time Cup winner appeared in 78 games over two years for Florida, scoring seven goals.

Marc Bergevin, Montreal Canadiens (2012)

Best move: Acquiring Phillip Danault - Bergevin robbed the Blackhawks at the 2016 trade deadline, adding a then-22-year-old Danault and a second-round pick for the measly price of Tomas Fleischmann and Dale Weise. Danault has since become an important contributor in the Habs' top six and put up a career-high 53 points last season.

Worst move: Signing Karl Alzner - Bergevin swung and missed on July 1, 2017, handing a mammoth five-year contract to Alzner, who has not panned out at all for the Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge. Alzner's deal doesn't offer significant savings with a buyout and still has three seasons left. The blue-liner himself played nine games for the Habs last season and was eventually sent to the AHL.

Ray Shero, New Jersey Devils (2015)

Best move: Acquiring Taylor Hall - The easiest layup of this entire exercise. Shero flat-out fleeced Peter Chiarelli and the Oilers in June 2016, sending defenseman Adam Larsson to Alberta in a one-for-one exchange for Hall, the MVP of the 2017-18 season.

Worst move: Signing Ben Lovejoy - Shero's done some tidy business throughout his tenure in the Meadowlands, so finding a glaring error was tricky. His three-year contract for Lovejoy didn't yield much success, but the mistake had minimal effect on the success of his club.

Lou Lamoriello, New York Islanders (2018)

Best move: Signing Robin Lehner - Lamoriello gave Lehner a fresh start on a one-year deal prior to last season, and the netminder went on to be a Vezina Trophy finalist. Unfortunately, the magic only lasted a year as the two sides couldn't agree on a new pact this summer.

Worst move: Signing Leo Komarov - Even after the gritty winger experienced a steep decline during his final year in Toronto, Lamoriello brought Komarov with him to Long Island on a four-year contract worth $2.95 million per season. It's simply too large a commitment for a player of Komarov's caliber.

Jeff Gorton, New York Rangers (2015)

Best move: Acquiring Mika Zibanejad - Any of Gorton's big moves this summer would certainly qualify, but his heist to nab Zibanejad from Ottawa was his finest work. Gorton landed the then-23-year-old pivot and a second-round pick for Derick Brassard and a seventh-rounder. Zibanejad is now the club's No. 1 center, and a cost-efficient one at that.

Worst move: Signing Kevin Shattenkirk - Shattenkirk was one of the marquee free agents in 2017 and the Rangers went hard after the hometown kid with a four-year, $26-million contract. It's tough to call this deal a total bust at this point, but it's fair to say Shattenkirk hasn't had the impact expected of him.

Pierre Dorion, Ottawa Senators (2016)

Best move: Mark Stone's return - Let's be clear: Trading Stone last season was not an ideal situation for Dorion, but he did OK in this portion of the Senators' mass exodus. Erik Brannstrom was likely among the best young players Ottawa could have received for Stone and is a significant addition to the Sens' prospect pool.

Worst move: Trade for Matt Duchene - After Ottawa's run to the Eastern Conference Final a year prior, Dorion went all-in to acquire Duchene. Suffice to say, it didn't work out. In a three-team deal with the Predators and Avalanche, the Senators gave up prospect Shane Bowers, a third-round pick, and the first-rounder that ended up becoming the fourth overall selection in this June's draft - all for a player no longer with the team.

Chuck Fletcher, Philadelphia Flyers (2018)

Best move: Trading Wayne Simmonds - Fletcher's run in Philly has only just begun, but offloading an unproductive and aging Simmonds for assets at last season's deadline was the right move.

Worst move: Acquiring Matt Niskanen - Radko Gudas, the player Fletcher gave up for Niskanen, is younger, cheaper, and more effective based on several on-ice metrics. This one was a head-scratcher.

Jim Rutherford, Pittsburgh Penguins (2014)

Best move: Acquiring Phil Kessel - There was a lot of drama surrounding Kessel in Pittsburgh, but the charismatic winger was instrumental in the club's back-to-back Stanley Cup runs, making the cost more than worth it for Rutherford.

Worst move: Acquiring Ryan Reaves - Fresh off a championship, Rutherford shipped a first-round pick and promising young forward Oskar Sundqvist to St. Louis for Reaves and a second-rounder. The enforcer played 58 games in the Steel City before Rutherford flipped him to Vegas in a bizarre display of asset management.

Steve Yzerman, Tampa Bay Lightning (2010-2018)

*Current GM: Julien BriseBois

Best move: Drafting, signing Nikita Kucherov - The league's reigning MVP fell right into Yzerman's lap at the 2011 draft, going 58th overall to the Lightning. Eight years later, Kucherov currently leads his draft class in points, and Yzerman managed to sign him to two team-friendly contracts before taking the GM job in Detroit.

Worst move: Signing Ryan Callahan - Yzerman helped build a tremendous program in Tampa Bay but he wasn't without mistakes. The six-year, $34.8-million contract given to Callahan - one featuring a full no-move clause for four years - created cap issues for the Bolts, and the player's production never matched his price tag.

Kyle Dubas, Toronto Maple Leafs (2018)

Best move: Signing John Tavares - The arrival of Tavares and his $77-million contract kicked the Maple Leafs' cap headaches into overdrive, but his 47-goal debut campaign helped ease the pain. Dubas swung for the fences - in his first summer on the job, no less - to secure one of the game's elite pivots, and is one Mitch Marner contract away from solving the financial puzzle.

Worst move: The Patrick Marleau trade - It's tough to fault Dubas for this move since he inherited Marleau's cumbersome contract from his predecessor. But sacrificing a first-round pick to unload the 39-year-old winger was a tough pill to swallow in what's been an otherwise impressive first year for Toronto's GM.

Brian MacLellan, Washington Capitals (2014)

Best move: Acquiring T.J. Oshie - MacLellan shipped Troy Brouwer, Pheonix Copley, and a third-round pick to the Blues in July 2015 for Oshie, who instantly became a fixture in the Caps' top six. Oshie was massive in Washington's 2018 championship run, posting 21 points in 24 playoff games, while Brouwer only played one season with the Blues. MacLellan also got Copley back two years later, and the netminder currently serves as the club's backup.

Worst move: Brooks Orpik's first contract - MacLellan signed Orpik to a five-year, $27.5-million contract in 2014 during his first summer as GM. Orpik, 33 at the time of the deal, ate up a lot of minutes and eventually helped win a Cup, but he didn't live up to his lucrative deal; Washington ended up trading him to Colorado so the Avalanche could buy him out. Orpik re-signed with the Caps shortly afterward, this time on a far more reasonable $1-million cap hit.

Copyright © 2019 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.