Matty Beniers
2025-26· Data as of July 27, 2026
Status derived from CBA rules; edge cases (Group 6 UFA, 10.2(c), 35+ contracts) may be misclassified. Years remaining are not yet tracked.
Model under-rates ascending skaters — value uncertain
Even the high end of this range sits below his $7.1M cap, yet his on-ice impact ranks in the 75th percentile among forwards — we flag that gap rather than call it overpaid. Judge for yourself.
Fair-value range $1.1M – $6.0M
Open-market value $3.6M what a UFA with the same on-ice profile would command. The verdict above uses the status-adjusted figure ($3.4M), which reflects the RFA discount the CBA gives the team.
+0.01 cap-years of surplus ≈ +$251K
Judged as-of — each season priced with only the model and data available then — Matty Beniers has delivered 0.01 cap-years more value than he's been paid across our data window. One cap-year = a full season's salary-cap ceiling.
Career still active — this total will keep moving.
Why this verdict
Why this verdict
Where this contract sits vs. the market
Each dot is a real free-agent signing (2015-2026): 1082 comparable forward deals. The line is the going rate at each talent level, the market convention we price against. Real signings scatter around it; comparable players don’t all sign for the identical number.
The page’s headline verdict, −$3.8M/yr, refines this by adjusting the market rate for age, contract term, and restricted-free-agent status. The plot compares to the raw market curve; the verdict adjusts it.
This player is on an RFA (restricted) contract. Part of the gap below the curve is CBA cost control (teams pay restricted players below open-market value by rule), not evidence of a market inefficiency.
The range reflects pricing-model error, not measurement — fair value is a modeled estimate. The sample badge reflects games played, not dollar accuracy.
Outlook
Outlook
Approaching his peak
Production index for forwards. The dot marks Matty at age 23.
Empirical production-by-age index (delta-method WAR fit, 2010-11+). Illustrative of typical aging; the dollar model prices age with a separate, softer decline.
No as-of track record for this deal yet — a leakage-free record needs at least two seasons graded as-of (coverage runs through 2024-25). The current-season verdict is above.
Full stats
Full stats
On-ice expected-goals impact per 60 — RAPM-adjusted (teammate- and competition-adjusted) where career 5v5 ice time clears the reliability floor, a raw on-off xG differential otherwise. Not wins. The RAPM figure is career-pooled (one value across seasons); the on-off fallback shows the most recent season.
Counted outcomes — totals and rates that carry shooting and goaltending luck.
| Season | GP | G | A | P | TOI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 82 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 19.3 |
| 2024-25 | 82 | 20 | 23 | 43 | 18.7 |
| 2023-24 | 77 | 15 | 22 | 37 | 18.0 |
| 2022-23 | 80 | 24 | 33 | 57 | 17.1 |
| 2021-22 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 16.9 |
On-ice shot shares and modeled expected goals — these stabilize faster than goal totals, but xG is an estimate, not a count.
| Season | CF% | xG | xGF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 46.8 | 25.0 | 93.0 |
| 2024-25 | 49.5 | 20.1 | 82.9 |
| 2023-24 | 51.1 | 15.6 | 75.3 |
| 2022-23 | 51.6 | 19.7 | 72.3 |
| 2021-22 | 46.9 | 2.5 | 10.9 |
- CF%
- Corsi-for percentage — share of shot attempts while on the ice
- xG
- Individual expected goals from the player's own shot attempts
- xGF
- On-ice expected goals — team's xG while this player is on the ice
Usage vs. Value
Usage vs. Value
Big minutes, modest number.
Among forwards this season, Matty's even-strength ice time ranks in the 94th percentile, while our value score puts him at 75. That's a gap of +19 — the coach is leaning in harder than our number.
- 5v5 TOI/GP
- 15:10
- Usage percentile
- 94
- Value score
- 75
- Primary PP usage
- 13%
- Primary PK usage
- 3%
Where even-strength ice time and our value score disagree — descriptive, not a verdict. Our number doesn't yet adjust for role or power-play usage.
Ranked #13 on the forwards Usage vs. Value board. Usage is even-strength (5v5) ice time per game.
The value score is percentiled across the full position group, while the deployment percentile is taken over the eligible subset — the two aren't measured over the identical population.
Playoff track record
Playoff track record
Not enough playoff games to assess.
Descriptive only — not part of Value Score or Fair Value. Playoff samples are small and team-dependent; shown for the record.