Brett Pesce sits in the New Jersey Devils training room with a lower-body injury that might be doing his team a favor. The 31-year-old defenseman carries a $5.5 million cap hit, per CapWages, but his on-ice impact tells a story that concerns Devils management: New Jersey is demonstrably better when he's not playing.
The numbers from his 37 games this season paint a picture of defensive decline that goes far beyond his meager 1 goal and 6 assists. According to MoneyPuck, the Devils post a 53% expected goals share when Pesce is off the ice compared to just 45% when he's on it. That's an 8-percentage-point swing in the wrong direction for a player making top-pair money on a team desperately trying to stay relevant in the Eastern Conference playoff race.
For context, that negative impact ranks among the worst on a Devils roster already struggling with defensive consistency. When you're paying a defenseman $5.5 million annually to make your team worse at preventing goals, you have a problem that extends far beyond injury management.
#22 · D · 37 GPThe Decline Is Real, Not Statistical Noise
This isn't a small sample size aberration or bad luck masquerading as poor play. Pesce's underlying metrics reveal a defenseman whose game has fundamentally deteriorated from his productive years in Carolina. His 45% Corsi share when on ice represents a player who consistently loses territorial battles, while his 23 giveaways in just 37 games project to 51 over a full season.
The eye test confirms what the advanced stats suggest. Pesce's average ice time of 12:10.19 per game indicates the coaching staff has reduced his role significantly, and his deployment tells a different story. His -11 plus/minus rating reflects his inability to contribute positively at either end of the ice.
Compare that impact to Luke Hughes, who despite his youth and occasional mistakes, generates a positive territorial impact (53% expected goals share on ice vs 50% off). Hughes makes $925,000 this season and provides better defensive results than a player earning six times his salary.
The regression from Pesce's 2022-23 season is stark. Two years ago, he posted 30 points in 82 games with a +11 rating for Carolina. This season, he's on pace for fewer than 16 points with a -11 rating that reflects his struggles at both ends of the ice.
System Fit or Fundamental Decline?
The obvious question is whether Pesce's struggles stem from adapting to New Jersey's system under Sheldon Keefe or represent genuine decline for a player entering his 30s. The evidence suggests the latter. His shot generation sits at 1.216 shots per game, and his 2.2% shooting percentage indicates he's not even threatening offensively when he does get opportunities.
More concerning is his puck management. His 23 giveaways in 37 games suggest a player who's lost the puck management skills that made him valuable in Carolina. When you're turning the puck over while making $5.5 million, you're actively hurting your team's playoff chances.
The Devils' defensive structure shows the strain of carrying a high-priced liability. New Jersey allows 3.07 goals per game, ranking in the bottom third of the league, and Pesce's negative on-ice impact contributes directly to that problem. His 45% expected goals share means opponents generate better scoring chances when he's on the ice, creating a ripple effect that forces other defensemen into more difficult matchups.
The Contract Reality
Pesce signed a six-year, $33 million deal that seemed reasonable when he was a reliable top-four defenseman in Carolina. Now, with four years remaining at $5.5 million annually, the Devils face a difficult decision about a player whose performance no longer justifies his salary.
The injury that's kept him out of recent games provides temporary cap relief, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. When healthy, Pesce's negative impact forces the Devils to shelter him in easier matchups, which limits their defensive flexibility and puts additional pressure on players like Dougie Hamilton and Jonas Siegenthaler to handle tougher assignments.
The Devils' 35-32-2 record places them on the playoff bubble, where every point matters. Carrying a $5.5 million defenseman who makes the team worse at preventing goals is a luxury they can't afford. The fact that New Jersey's expected goals share improves by 8 percentage points without Pesce suggests they might actually be better off keeping him in the press box.
What the Numbers Say
- On-ice impact differential: Devils post 53% xGF% when Pesce is off ice vs 45% when he's on ice, per MoneyPuck
- Puck management issues: 23 giveaways in 37 games, projecting to 51 over a full season
- Plus/minus: -11 rating indicating negative goal differential impact
- Shot generation: 1.216 SOG/GP with 2.2% shooting percentage
- Contract burden: $5.5M AAV through 2029-30, representing significant cap inefficiency for negative on-ice impact
- Territorial control: 45% Corsi share when on ice vs 54% when off ice, showing consistent loss of puck possession battles
Looking Ahead
The Devils' playoff hopes depend on getting consistent defensive play from their highest-paid players. Pesce's injury creates an opportunity to evaluate whether the team functions better without him in the lineup. Early returns suggest they do.
With Simon Nemec and Luke Hughes providing younger, cheaper alternatives who generate better underlying numbers, the Devils face a decision about Pesce's role when he returns. His contract makes him difficult to trade, but his on-ice impact makes him difficult to play.
The harsh reality is that New Jersey signed a declining player to a long-term deal and are now paying the price. Pesce's negative impact on team defense, combined with his minimal offensive contribution, makes him one of the worst value contracts on a team trying to build around young talent like Jack Hughes and Nico Hischier.
At 31 years old with four years remaining on his deal, Pesce represents the kind of contract mistake that can derail a rebuild. The Devils are learning that paying for past performance rarely translates to future success, especially when the underlying metrics suggest the decline is real and accelerating.