Ten games. A complete NHL plan.

The decision that defines this slate

Dallas and Vegas are the starting points, but they are not the whole slate. The supplied CourtEdge projections file gives Dallas a 3.8 implied team total and Vegas 3.7, ahead of Detroit and Montreal at 3.5. That is a useful map for finding scoring environments. It is not a prediction that every player on those teams will beat every alternative. The practical decision is how much salary to commit to those offenses, which teammates share scoring opportunities, and where inexpensive involvement lets you keep the strongest complete roster.

My first cash comparison is Jason Robertson against William Nylander, then the premium centers Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews against the value that their extra salary displaces. Robertson has the best team environment in this snapshot; Nylander costs $900 less and projects only 0.58 points behind him. That small gap matters when it can improve defense or the goalie slot. Eichel leads all skaters at 15.77 projected points, but Matthews is close at 15.59. Neither needs to be treated as a mandatory lock.

For tournaments, I want several distinct scoring stories: Dallas's top line, Vegas's Eichel line, Detroit's power play, Montreal's intact first line, and selected secondary stacks that make those combinations affordable. Edmonton remains an expensive ceiling branch, not an automatic full-stack requirement. The file's lower ownership on McDavid and Draisaitl makes them worth considering, but their combined salary is $18,300 before adding a third teammate. A roster can be unique and still be a poor use of salary.

Everything below uses the uploaded October 17 Main snapshot. Salaries, ownership, team assignments and units are source estimates. Positive goalie projections are not starting confirmations. The official current DraftKings salary file has not yet been matched to this upload, so the examples are price-and-roster checked research rather than verified upload-ready entries. The ten-game Main pool is kept separate from other NHL slates and from Friday's completed research.

The board at a glance

The total and implied goals above are copied from the upload, not refreshed sportsbook prices. Use them to compare environments within the same snapshot. A 6.5 total in one game does not tell you whether the scoring will concentrate on the first line, spread across three lines, or arrive on special teams. Your stack chooses the particular route you want. That is why I prefer naming the actual players in a stack rather than saying only “play Dallas” or “play Toronto.”

Best cash priorities: involvement, value and the full nine

My cash skater shortlist starts with Nylander, Robertson, Eichel, Matthews and Larkin, with Charlie McAvoy and Brandt Clarke as important defense comparisons. These are editorial priorities based on the supplied projection and salary, not a claim that the file contains verified shot rates or minutes. It does not include a detailed shot/block distribution. A high projection helps, but it should not be described as a proven floor simply because the player is familiar.

Nylander at $6,600 is the cleanest price-versus-output comparison among the expensive wings: 13.73 projected points, first-line assignment and PP1 in the source. Robertson at $7,500 gives you Dallas's 3.8 implied total and 14.31 projected points. If both fit without resorting to inactive players, I am comfortable keeping both in the cash comparison. If the choice is Robertson plus a weak filler against Nylander plus a substantial upgrade elsewhere, compare the full two-player combination before deciding.

At center, Eichel and Matthews are a near-level premium tier in this snapshot. Larkin at $6,600 is the less expensive alternative with 13.13 projected points and an uploaded PP1 role. That $1,600–$1,700 saving can matter more than the roughly 2.5-point individual projection gap. Celebrini is a different branch: a strong 15.34 projection but $8,400 on the underdog side of Detroit–San Jose. He can be a cash candidate on projection while remaining a more volatile team-environment choice.

Defense is where the complete lineup often improves. McAvoy costs $5,400 for 11.67 projected points; Clarke $5,000 for 10.97. Werenski is the highest-projected defenseman at 14.00 but costs $8,000. Schaefer gives another upper tier at $6,400 and 12.59. I would not automatically pay the Werenski premium in cash if doing so removes two strong forward roles. Conversely, do not turn a good roster into a collection of the cheapest defensemen solely to fit two stars.

The preferred salary-release names are Seguin at $3,200, Maccelli at $3,100 and selected cheap centers. Seguin's uploaded PP1 assignment gives him a direct route into Dallas's best environment even though his even-strength line is different from Robertson's. Maccelli's first-line and PP1 labels are attractive at his price. Both depend on those roles surviving the final lineup update. Cash should not force a five-man stack; let shared roles be a benefit when the individual choices already make sense.

Goalies: make the confirmation part of the choice

The source's highest goalie projection is Michael DiPietro at $8,200 and 12.46. That makes him a name to investigate, not a confirmed starter or an automatic cash lock. Boston is an underdog in this snapshot, and a high projected goalie score can reflect save opportunity as well as win potential. Before using him, confirm the actual starter and make sure the source has not simply carried forward a prior game's assignment. I am keeping that distinction explicit because a non-starting goalie can undo every other good decision.

Oettinger at $7,700 is my first favorite-side cash comparison: Dallas has the strongest supplied team environment and the lowest opponent implied total among the two biggest favorites, although Chicago still carries 2.7 implied goals. Carter Hart at $8,200 is the corresponding Vegas branch. These are conditional choices, not confirmations. If either team announces a different starter, rebuild with that player's real salary and projection instead of changing only the name in the existing roster.

Fowler at $7,200 offers a cheaper Montreal route with a 10.06 projection. Gibson at $7,300 is another salary comparison on the favored Detroit side. Ullmark is $8,500 despite a 10.45 projection, so his price needs a reason beyond the favorite label. Sorokin, Murashov and Askarov are tournament alternatives where saves and an upset can produce a useful score, but they should not be mixed casually into stacks targeting their own net.

Across a portfolio, spread goalie risk when the alternatives are competitive. Inside a single lineup, avoid attacking your own goalie with opposing skaters. The NHL builder enforces that rule. Pairing a goalie with his own team's skaters is allowed, but a five-goal team performance does not guarantee an elite goalie score. Wins, saves and goals allowed are different scoring drivers. Confirm starters, then review each complete construction again.

Game 1: Dallas at Chicago — my preferred favorite-side foundation

Dallas gives the most straightforward top-line starting point: Hintz, Robertson and Rantanen share ES1 and PP1 in the upload. Their combined $19,600 buys access to 35.29 projected points before any correlation benefit. That sum is only the addition of individual means; it is not a simulated stack return. Heiskanen can replace a winger or extend the group when you want a defenseman tied to the same power play. Seguin is the cheaper PP1 route from the second even-strength line.

For one strong single-entry lineup, I prefer a coherent Dallas three-man group plus a competitive secondary stack to a collection of five Dallas names assembled without regard to unit. A four-man PP1 branch is viable when the secondary group supplies real value. The example below uses Buffalo ES2 to keep the full roster within budget. On the Chicago side, Bedard and Kane are an opposing upset route, not pieces I would pair with Oettinger. A Dallas fade is a tournament scenario, not a statement that the favorite is a bad play.

Game 2: Pittsburgh at Vegas — separate ES1 from the power-play mix

Eichel, Stone and Barbashev form the uploaded Vegas first line. Barbashev's $4,000 salary is useful because it lowers the cost of combining the expensive center and wing. Marner is PP1 but ES2 in this file. Eichel–Marner therefore targets shared power-play production; Eichel–Stone–Barbashev targets the first-line route as well. Those are related constructions, not interchangeable labels. Connelly at $3,800 is another PP1 salary release, but his even-strength label is ES3.

One important detail: the uploaded Vegas PP1 contains five forwards and no defenseman. Do not add an arbitrary Vegas defenseman and call it a verified PP1 stack. If a builder preset explicitly requires a PP defenseman, that particular preset cannot represent this supplied unit until the roles change. Pittsburgh's Crosby–Rakell–Rust first line is the opposing GPP branch. Murashov is a separate goalie-upset branch; he belongs with rosters that do not attack him with Vegas skaters.

Game 3: San Jose at Detroit — the best place to distinguish line correlation from PP correlation

Detroit's 3.5 implied goals support Larkin and the power-play core, but DeBrincat is ES2 in this upload while Larkin is ES1. Larkin–DeBrincat–Seider is a PP1 stack, not a same-even-strength-line trio. Raymond and Arvidsson are the source's first-line wingers with Larkin and also share PP1. You can choose the broader power-play ceiling or the tighter first-line overlap without pretending they express the same scoring event.

San Jose is more than a throw-in opponent. Celebrini's 15.34 projection is near the slate lead, and Will Smith plus Chernyshov provide a less expensive ES1 combination around him. Wennberg and Stenberg supply cheap PP1 access from different even-strength lines; Toffoli is PP2 in the source. In a larger portfolio, Detroit-heavy and San Jose-heavy constructions are useful alternative branches. Keep each roster internally consistent, especially if Gibson or Askarov occupies the goalie slot.

Game 4: Islanders at Toronto — two expensive centers, two different ways to save

Toronto's Matthews–Nylander pair is a premium cash and GPP comparison. Roslovic adds the uploaded ES1 connection at $4,200, while Marchenko is an ES2/PP1 option. The decision is whether you want even-strength continuity or a mixed-line power-play group. A cheap PP1 label alone should not make a player essential; McKenna's supplied 6.13 projection at $4,700 is a different value proposition from Nylander's 13.73 at $6,600.

The Islanders offer Horvat–Maccelli–Palmieri as ES1, with Maccelli providing the main salary release at $3,100. Schaefer can extend the PP1 branch from defense. That makes the Islanders useful both as a primary contrarian stack and as a secondary group beside a more popular favorite. Avoid rostering their goal stack against a Toronto goalie in the same lineup. The $49,900 Vegas–Islanders example shows how the inexpensive member can preserve the larger structure.

Game 5: Buffalo at Montreal — a premium first line and an affordable second line

Montreal's Suzuki, Caufield and Slafkovsky share ES1 and PP1 in the upload. That overlap is attractive because a successful combination can benefit from more than one game phase. At $20,700, however, the full trio is not cheap. Hutson adds a PP1 defense route, and Kreider is another power-play member from ES2. Decide which role you need instead of adding all five and discovering that the rest of the roster no longer works.

Buffalo's Quinn–Benson–Ostlund ES2 costs $12,400 in total and all three are labeled PP1. That is one of the most useful secondary constructions in the file. Thompson is also PP1 but belongs to ES1, so adding him expands the power-play theme rather than the ES2 stack. Owen Power is the PP1 defenseman in the snapshot. Do not substitute another Buffalo defenseman and retain the PP1 label without checking the actual assignment.

Game 6: Rangers at Columbus — a premium defense decision with cheaper forward access

Werenski costs $8,000 and projects for 14.00, the highest defense mean in the file. Fantilli, Knies and Kent Johnson give cheaper Columbus first-line access, with Johnson at $3,600 particularly useful in a secondary group. The uploaded implied total is 3.4, so Columbus belongs in the tournament discussion even when the Dallas and Vegas names attract the first attention. Severson is a cheaper ES-pair defense choice, but he is not PP1 in this source.

The Rangers counter with Zibanejad, Perreault and Lafreniere on ES1. Fox can join the power-play route; Miller and Dorofeyev cross from ES2 into PP1. That distinction creates several sensible constructions without requiring the entire Rangers offense to be one unit. Perreault's $3,000 price helps a line stack, but a single cheap teammate should not justify paying for an otherwise weak complete roster. Recheck Garand or Greaves only after the announced starter is known.

Game 7: Edmonton at Utah — pay for the ceiling deliberately

McDavid and Draisaitl are together on ES1 and PP1 in the upload, with Podkolzin completing the even-strength line and Hyman joining the power play from ES2. The premium pair plus Bouchard costs $26,300. That is a legitimate ceiling branch, but more than half the salary cap has gone before filling six slots. If you choose it, identify the secondary value structure first rather than hoping random cheap players will solve the problem later.

Utah is favored in the supplied prices and has 3.4 implied goals against Edmonton's 3.1. Keller and Schmaltz share ES1 with Crouse; Guenther and Cooley join PP1 from ES2, with Sergachev at defense. The lower cost of that power-play route is meaningful. I would keep both Edmonton explosion and Utah production scenarios in the larger candidate search, then let the contest ranking compare complete legal rosters instead of assuming the more famous pair must lead every build.

Game 8: Boston at Los Angeles — useful pieces without forcing a low-total game stack

The 5.5 supplied total makes this a different environment from the seven 6.5-total games. Pastrnak still has a 13.20 projection, and McAvoy at $5,400 is a useful defense comparison across the whole slate. Geekie and Zacha complete the uploaded Boston first line. A compact Boston stack can work as a tournament branch; paying for a full game stack needs a stronger reason than including familiar names from both teams.

Los Angeles offers Panarin–Kempe–Laferriere at even strength, while Byfield and Clarke join the uploaded PP1. Haula at $2,800 is an inexpensive PP2 role and a value one-off comparison, not a member of that first unit. This distinction matters when a cheap player is filling the final slot beside an unrelated primary stack. The goalie decision is especially sensitive here: the positive DiPietro projection is a source assumption, and a late starting change should trigger a fresh roster review.

Game 9: Ottawa at Philadelphia — affordable units, modest team totals

Ottawa's PP1 has several usable salary points: Stuetzle at $6,400, Batherson at $5,200, Cozens at $4,500 and Yakemchuk at $3,300. Halliday is the inexpensive ES1/PP1 member in the file. The source gives Ottawa 3.0 implied goals, so I view this as a secondary or alternative stack rather than the unquestioned first offense to force into every lineup. Giroux's $2,800 salary is useful, but his uploaded assignment is PP2.

Philadelphia has the lowest implied total on this Main snapshot at 2.5. That does not make every Flyer unusable: a small salary can fit a good complete roster. It does mean I want a specific role-based explanation before turning the entire lineup toward Philadelphia. Foerster, Zegras and Michkov provide cheap PP1 comparisons. Vladar is a separate goalie branch. Using him should close off Ottawa skaters in that same roster, even when their salaries appear to fit neatly.

Game 10: St. Louis at Nashville — secondary construction rather than mandatory fade

This is another 5.5-total environment, with St. Louis at 2.8 implied goals and Nashville at 2.7. Thomas–Holloway–Snuggerud form the supplied Blues ES1 and PP1 core. Neighbours is a cheaper PP1 member from ES3. A three-man line can still be attractive as a less expensive secondary route; the lower game total should affect your overall priority, not erase the role information or replace analysis with an automatic fade.

Nashville's Forsberg, Stamkos, O'Reilly, Josi and Marchessault share PP1 across two even-strength lines. That makes a power-play combination more coherent than calling any arbitrary three of them an ES1 stack. Forsberg's $6,700 and 12.81 projection also work as a one-off comparison. If a roster already has a clear primary correlation, the final slot can be the strongest independent value. It does not need to be forced into a second weak stack simply to make the lineup look symmetrical.

Ranked correlation menu

These are editorial comparison orders, not simulated stack ROIs. I prioritize Dallas's overlap and the useful value around the larger scoring environments. Vegas ES1, Montreal ES1 and Detroit PP1 remain distinct branches with different salary costs. Buffalo ES2 and Islanders ES1 are especially useful secondary groups. A five-player power-play unit is optional; it increases dependence on one event and can leave too little salary for a strong goalie and the remaining skaters.

Use PP2 as a deliberate secondary branch, not as a synonym for cheap value. Boston's Minten–Khusnutdinov–Peterka ES2 gives an inexpensive line construction with PP2 overlap in the file. San Jose's Wennberg–Toffoli–Marchment ES2 is affordable, but Wennberg is PP1 while Toffoli and Marchment are PP2, so it should be labeled ES2 rather than full PP2. The names must match the intended event. A unit label printed beside an optimizer checkbox does not guarantee that the role stayed current.

Value is the roster improvement it enables

Seguin and Maccelli are my first cheap-role comparisons because they connect to a high-priority power play or first line. Benson and Ostlund also improve roster construction together rather than merely appearing as unrelated discounts. Haula, Giroux and Finnie are useful one-off alternatives when their assignment and projection remain intact. A cheap forward's low ownership is not itself a reason to prefer him over a better role at a similar price.

At defense, Severson and Mateychuk are inexpensive Columbus choices with different special-teams exposure. Justin Faulk at $3,200 is another price comparison in the uploaded Detroit group. Their dollar savings can fund a first-line forward or improve the goalie path. Do not infer a shot-block bonus or a guaranteed workload from the value ratio alone. The ratio is simply projected points divided by salary in thousands; it does not measure ceiling, ice-time security, or how often a stack succeeds.

Complete cash and GPP examples

Read the examples as explanations of construction. Their projected totals add the source means; they do not include a hidden correlation bonus or a claimed Sim ROI. Each has two centers, three wings, two defensemen, one goalie and one skater utility, costs no more than $50,000, includes at least three teams and avoids skaters opposing its own goalie. The goalie must actually start, and the current official DraftKings file must validate salaries, positions and IDs before export.

The Dallas example illustrates a useful difference between a team stack and an exact line stack: Robertson, Hintz, Seguin and Heiskanen share the uploaded PP1 even though Seguin is on ES2. Buffalo's three ES2 forwards form the secondary group. The Vegas example is a true ES1 trio beside an Islanders ES1 trio. The Detroit–Montreal example uses Detroit PP1 across roles beside Montreal's intact first line. These distinctions are the reason to preserve the ES and PP columns in the builder.

Match the construction to the contest

The Kick Save sends 25% of its $40,000 pool to first place, and the Poke Check sends 20% of its $25,000 pool to first. Both reward a lineup with a credible path to the top, not merely a good chance of a minimum cash. Their actual entry limits differ: 94 versus 150. Generate a larger research pool if useful, simulate against the exact ladder, and select no more than the contest permits for actual entry. Filling the maximum is optional; it is a spending decision, not evidence that the lineups are better.

The One-Timer and Knuckle Puck are smaller single-entry contests with first-place shares of 10% and 12%. I would retain strong projection and clear correlation before seeking extreme low ownership. You still need to beat the field, but a coherent Dallas or Vegas construction with a sensible secondary route is a better starting comparison than deliberately weakening five slots to avoid every popular player. In the five-entry Enforcer, rotate primary scoring stories instead of making five near-identical versions of one lineup.

The 11-entry Blocked Shot pays $400, $225 and $125. It is not a double-up despite its small field, because the three paid finishes have different rewards. A pure Cash% ranking does not capture that distinction. Compare ROI and first-place opportunity with lineup quality and uncertainty, while recognizing that a tiny opponent field makes individual opponent composition matter. The Shootout is a separate ten-entry-max portfolio, not another 150-max product.

The Barn Burner satellites award a ticket labeled Barn Bash in the payout text. Keep that exact distinction in the directory. First-place probability is the direct qualification objective. Any ROI calculated from $555 ticket face value is a noncash valuation assumption, not a promise that the ticket can be sold for $555 or redeemed as winnings. The $9 two-entry-max qualifier and the $90 single-entry qualifier are different contests even though they award the same named prize. FHWC satellites likewise stay separate by price, field and entry cap. The NBA MEGA 8’s satellite is explicitly Must Fill: its empty snapshot is not a guaranteed overlay, and a full-field simulation is conditional on the contest filling.

A practical portfolio and simulator workflow

Start with a manageable set of primary branches rather than locking an entire lineup. My research emphasis is Dallas, Vegas, Detroit and Montreal, with Columbus, Toronto and the cheaper secondary lines supplying alternatives. Edmonton and selected underdog stacks provide additional ceiling paths. Those are search priorities, not a requirement to impose identical player exposures. A player can appear in several different primary stories, so team-stack percentages and individual exposure percentages should not be added together as if they were the same statistic.

Build up to 5,000 unique candidates when the player pool and constraints support it. Simulate the completed pool against the chosen contest, then select the top N under the ranking you actually want. ROI is expected return relative to entry fee; profit is expected net dollars per entry. At a fixed entry fee they should normally produce the same order. RAROI discounts payout volatility. Cash% measures a paid finish; First% and tie-adjusted Win% describe first-place outcomes differently when ties occur. Top 1% is another tail metric, not the same as winning.

For a true cash contest, use the actual flat payout and review Cash% alongside projection and role stability. For a top-heavy GPP, compare ROI with first-place and top-1% opportunity. More simulation draws reduce sampling noise inside the chosen model; they do not correct an inaccurate goalie projection, an outdated line, or a poor opponent-field assumption. The NHL model remains exploratory. Save the pre-lock build and its settings if you want to compare forecasts with results afterward rather than judging the process only from the winning lineup.

Before entering, confirm starting goalies and late scratches, refresh changed units, match the current official salary template and rebuild any affected rosters. Check the selected lineup count against the actual contest cap. Review exposure after top-N selection because it can differ substantially from the entire candidate pool. Keep the archived Friday material available for review, but do not let it populate tonight's Main builder. The goal is a current, understandable decision process that can be checked before lock and learned from afterward.

Source notes

Player prices, projections, ownership, teams, implied goals and ES/PP assignments come from the supplied CourtEdge projections_Hockey_Main_23460.csv. The file has 517 records, including 378 positive projections across ten Main games. No individual goalie is called confirmed here. Contest economics come from James's pasted October 17 DraftKings contest details; pasted entry counts are snapshots, not final participation. The official October 17 salary template remains pending. Consult team announcements before lock; the playbook's selection preferences are editorial analysis, not externally validated win probabilities.

Open NHL builder Shared research workspace