Penguins Q&A with Dave Molinari

Friday, May 13, 2005

Although the Penguins don't have much of a presence at the 2005 world championships, they did have quite an impact through the qualifying round, which concluded a few days ago. When it ended, two of the three competing players with active connections to the Penguins were tied for eighth in the scoring race -- and Russian center Evgeni Malkin wasn't one of them. Malkin was limited to one assist in Russia's first six games, although his modest production didn't seem to be causing any problems for his team.

Malkin was, however, well behind two guys who might be his teammates with the Penguins sometime in the next few years. Winger Konstantin Koltsov of Belarus had three goals and three assists in six games, matching the stats of Russian star Ilya Kovalchuk and earning a piece of a 13-way tie for eighth. Technically, he tied Kovalchuk and Daniel Sedin for 10th, because Marian Hossa and Mike Knuble got four of their six points on goals. But while almost no one expected Koltsov to put that kind of numbers, even fewer believed Slovak defenseman Martin Strbak could do it. Nonetheless, Strbak had two goals and four assists in six games to claim a share of the top spot among defensemen and maybe get a little early Norris Trophy buzz going. Or maybe not.

Q: I caught myself daydreaming about how Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin would fit together on the same line if the Pens were lucky enough to draft Crosby. If the Penguins would draft Crosby, do you think they might then be tempted to dangle him in front of Washington in return for Alexander Ovechkin? Would you agree that Malkin and Ovechkin would be a far more compatible pairing than of Crosby and Malkin, and that Washington might just go through with it to get the rights to the biggest prospect out of Canada since Wayne Gretzky? Having the Ovechkin-Malkin-Aleksey Morozov line would be quite something, and it could end up being the best ever Team Russia line. That is, if Morozov gets picked for the team again.

Robin Trueman of Emsworth, Hampshire, England

MOLINARI: It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the top choices in back-to-back drafts to be as celebrated as Ovechkin and Crosby. Remember that, a year ago, Ovechkin was widely regarded as the best prospect since Mario Lemieux in 1984, and nothing that's happened since Washington secured his rights has lowered anyone's opinion of him. And Crosby, if anything, has an even more glittering reputation than Ovechkin did.

The issues you raise are intriguing and might prompt some lively discussions among Q&A readers, but there's no way of knowing what the opinion that would matter most -- that of Penguins general manager Craig Patrick -- would be. He isn't usually inclined to shed much light on personnel moves that have been made, let alone those that are purely hypothetical.

Conceivably, and assuming the Capitals were amenable to discussing such an exchange, the decision on whether to explore the trade could come down to philosophy. A team that believes strength down the middle is the greatest asset a club can have probably would be more inclined to keep Malkin and Crosby, because both are centers and might someday be able to provide a team with a one-two punch rivaling Mario Lemieux-Ron Francis or Wayne Gretzky-Mark Messier, among others.

On the other hand, if a club believes the opportunity to have two prospects with world-class offensive potential -- one as a playmaker, the other as a goal-scorer -- on the same line is too compelling to pass up, some from of a Crosby-for-Ovechkin swap might make sense. And for those who remember similar partnerships such as Gretzky-Jari Kurri or Bryan Trottier-Mike Bossy, it would be easy to understand the appeal of uniting Malkin and Ovechkin.

While there's no way of knowing what moves the Penguins might consider if they'd end up with the right to draft Crosby -- although it's safe to assume Patrick would be ecstatic if that became an issue -- one NHL personnel man who had the Crosby-for-Ovechkin concept floated to him said it would not make sense for Pittsburgh to part with Crosby, under any circumstances. Crosby, he said, is "too good of a player," one who is "special on the ice, maybe a franchise-saver off the ice" and a "star player who can play within a team concept."

The personnel man agreed that Ovechkin -- who has done absolutely nothing to lower his stock over the past year -- has similar qualities and that, "you would have to consider all options," but added that, "Sometimes, the best move is no move at all."

As for Morozov, his reputation has picked up a few dents over the years, and the Russians didn't invite him to compete in the World Cup last fall. But after his superb winter in the Super League, he was asked to play for Russia in the world championships, but declined. How that decision will affect his participation with the national team in the future is conjecture.

Q: Why is it that players who don't feel they are paid enough can hold out, but if the owner feels that a player is overpaid, they can't lock him out? I live an hour away from Philadelphia and there is a lot of talk about Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens holding out. He is just the latest in a long line of players who have decided not to honor their contract. I remember a Pirates pitcher named Larry McWilliams who got paid for like three years after he was cut. What stops an owner from saying, "I am not happy paying you for the lack of production, so don't come to work for a while?"

Michael Litzenberger of Blandon, Pa.

MOLINARI: The NHL has guaranteed contracts -- one thing players are not likely to lose in the next collective bargaining agreement -- so unless a team can come up with a valid reason for suspending a player, it's on the hook for the money it promised to pay him. Some players have "two-way" contracts, which call for a reduced salary if they're in the minor leagues, and teams can reduce those players' earnings by demoting them, but "one-way" contracts are the norm for established veterans.

When some pro athletes believe they have leverage, they will try to exploit it, even if they have no "legal" basis for doing so; that would seem, from the outside, to be the case with Owens. It's worth noting that demanding a renegotiation isn't as common in the NHL as in some leagues. It remains to be seen how the imposition of a salary cap in the next CBA will affect the number of players who refuse to honor contracts they signed previously.

Q: We have heard what everyone and their mother would do to make the game better, but what do you think would make it better? I don't believe we have heard your thoughts on how to improve the game.

Eric Howard of Baldwin

MOLINARI: The single most significant step that could be taken to improve the NHL's product would be to simply enforce existing rules, and to mandate that officials call things the same in the final minute of Game 7 in the Stanley Cup final as they do in the first minute of the regular-season opener. There's nothing wrong with tweaking the rulebook now and then, but the 93 rules already in place establish a pretty sound framework for the game if they're applied properly.

That said, adopting the tag-up offsides would eliminate needless stoppages and enhance the flow of the game, and the size of goaltending equipment could be reduced a bit without jeopardizing the safety of goalies. Moving the goal line closer to the boards would open more space in front of the net and allow a more effective forecheck, particularly against defensemen who don't handle the puck well, and the wider blue lines used in the American Hockey League this season effectively adds a bit of space to the attacking zones without shrinking the neutral zone.

The no-touch icing, another rule experimented with in the AHL this winter, doesn't seem terribly popular with players, but is worth adopting because if removes the threat of injuries caused when players go hard into the boards after trying to chase down a puck. Blowing out a knee or breaking a bone is a pretty stiff price to pay for trying to prevent an icing call.

Experimenting with removing the red line, for purposes of two-line passes, would be worthwhile, though there's no guarantee it would have the desired effect of creating more scoring chances. It's conceivable that at least some coaches, wary of being burned by long-distance passes that would bring a whistle under current rules, will deploy players in even more defense-oriented alignments that those in such favor now.

One proposed change that seems terribly unfair, though quite popular in some circles, is to limit the areas of the ice where goaltenders can handle the puck. (The AHL has test-driven this one, too.) The intent of the restriction -- to increase the number of scoring chances -- is commendable, but it's hard to justify telling a goalie who has spent decades working on his puck-handling that his skills can only be used in certain places.

Q: Having grown up in Pittsburgh in the '80's, I was witness to the increased popularity of hockey with kids when Lemieux came to town. Do you foresee any type of major decline in the number of kids playing hockey due to the lockout, especially with the potential of another lost season? The thought of fewer kids playing hockey and more playing soccer sickens me.

Ryan Milliron of Erie, Pa.

MOLINARI: During the Penguins' early days in the NHL, fans could count the number of indoor rinks in Western Pennsylvania on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to make any number of tasteless gestures at, say, the Plager Brothers. Now, however, they seem to be popping up almost as frequently as chain pharmacies and auto-supply outlets.

That is part of the legacy of Mario Lemieux, whose impact in this area was similar to the one Bobby Orr had in New England 15 or so years earlier. Hockey already had strong roots in that part of the country, but Orr's magic and majesty helped to lure a generation of future NHLers who grew up in that region -- including members of the Penguins' championship teams like Kevin Stevens, Phil Bourque and Peter Taglianetti -- to the game. Lemieux did the same for hockey's popularity here, and that's reflected by how many players from this region have been drafted by NHL clubs and/or played major-college hockey in recent years.

While there is an obvious pro-hockey bias in this forum, it's hard to complain about kids getting involved in soccer, or any other sport. Organized athletics can have their darker side -- anyone who's witnessed an overstimulated youth-league parent in action can testify to that -- but there are a lot more troubling ways that kids can spend their free time.

If there is a real threat to the number of children involved in hockey, the thinking here is that it will not come from soccer or baseball or any other sport, but from the high cost of equipment and ice time. Playing hockey isn't simple as buying a glove and heading to the local sandlot for a pickup game, or purchasing a basketball and taking it to a public court.

While the cost of playing hockey might be a deterrent for some kids and their parents, there's not much reason to fear that the lockout will have a long-term impact on how many children get involved with the sport. Oh, the absence of NHL might temporarily shrink the pool of kids interested in taking up the game, but those who have been playing aren't likely to abandon it just because the NHL has gone into suspended animation for a while.

Q: My question involves the status of players contracts during a lockout/strike. Take Mark Recchi's three-year contract, for example. Since the league has canceled its season, does the first year of his contract become void because the players are not getting paid during the lockout, or does the three-year deal carry over to the next season?

Chad Morris of Connellsville

MOLINARI: The 2004-05 NHL season was a lost one in a lot of ways, including at the pay window. Aside from a handful of guys who were rehabbing injuries from the previous season, NHL players did not receive any of their salaries, and lost a year off their contracts. That means someone who had one season left on his contract when the lockout began will have to negotiate a new deal when the dispute ends, and the three-year agreement Recchi signed last July will have two seasons left.

Q: When is a goalie allowed to freeze the puck? Once I saw a hockey game where the goalie came out of the goal, froze the puck and got two minutes for delay of game.

Joe Korst of Frankfurt, Germany

MOLINARI: As with most decisions NHL officials must make, there is a certain amount of judgment and/or discretion involved in determining whether a delay-of-game penalty is called for. League rules, however, allow a goalie to cover the puck when he's in his crease (provided he's being pressured by an opponent), or if he's come out of the crease to cut down the angle on a shooter, and covers the puck after making the save. Conversely, if a goalie races out of his crease to beat an opposing player to the puck but covers it instead of playing it, he should expect to receive a delay-of-game minor. Perhaps the most meaningful reference to this issue in the NHL rulebook is a note to Rule 79(b) stating that, "The overall intent of this rule is to keep the play going."

The concept of expanding the playoffs from 16 to 20 teams surfaced a few months ago, when NHL officials began to consider ways to win back fans alienated by the lockout. But based on the passionate, albeit unscientific, feedback from Q&A readers, the league might want to consider something that will be more widely accepted. Like making the neutral-zone trap mandatory for all teams at all times. Or suspending players one game for every point they earn in the scoring race. For while getting a large group of fans to agree on almost anything is near-impossible, Q&A readers were just shy of unanimous in their rejection of an expanded playoff field. The only difference in the responses was just how strenuously readers opposed the idea; some rejected it with the fury of a thousand white-hot suns, while the rest hated it even more. A sampling of the responses, with most edited for brevity and/or clarity:

Ken Feigert of Hubbard, Ohio: Just what a public-relations fiasco league needs. Four more clutch-and-grab sleepwalking teams in the playoffs.

George of Amherst, Mass.: I think the number of teams in the playoffs should be reduced. The best part of the playoffs is the intensity of the games. That changes dramatically when the regular season ends. But imagine if only eight teams made the playoffs. That would make the regular season much more meaningful.

Chip Leasure of Lancaster, Pa.: I'm not for expanding the playoff field. Two-thirds of the league could make the post-season. That's too many. Why even play a regular season if you're going to let almost every team advance?

George Bertha of York, Pa.: I feel that too many teams make the playoffs as it is. Remember, when the Penguins won their first Cup they finished the Final on Memorial Day weekend. Now, they're playing into June.

Patrick Tracey of West Islip, N.Y.: I do support lifting the number of teams to 20. The reason I feel this is that it affords more teams a revenue boost -- and keeps more teams in the hunt for the playoffs. In a perfect world. I would have fewer teams make the playoffs, but as the last year has proven, the NHL is not a perfect world. What I do prefer is to have a "play-in" where lower seeds compete to earn spots in a field of 16 for four rounds of playoffs.

Lorrie Barkins of Fairfield, Pa.: Why not let every team in except one? Or perhaps allow all the teams. Or how about allowing all teams including minor-league teams, colleges, high school teams and home school co-ops into the Stanley Cup playoffs? Come on now, there are too many teams in the playoffs right now, and the regular season is relatively meaningless.

Dave of Port Norris, N. J.: Absolutely, no. The playoffs take long enough as is. By expanding it to 20, you are going to reward average (.500) teams. The playoffs are for the best teams, not the so-so ones.

Beej Gefsky of Los Angeles, Calif.: I think I misread your question of the week: Sixteen to 20 ... don't you mean 16 to 12? It seems like now every team makes the playoffs. I know baseball and football are extreme and realize how much revenue the playoffs bring to a club, but 16 is too many.

Jonathan Keim of Bellefonte, Pa.: I must vote no on a 20-team playoff. First, that would involve some teams getting a bye round. I do not like that in any playoff system for any sport. You should compete for a championship by playing, not by not playing. Additionally, there are already enough teams in the NHL playoffs. More teams in the playoffs could seem to devalue the regular season -- why fight for points when almost everyone gets in? The advantage to it would be that hockey can be so competitive, and playoff upsets are the norm rather than the exception. Surely, we'd see some of the lower seeds pull off some stunning upsets, and it would make for some great hockey.

Jeremy Rees of Banska Bystrica, Slovakia: Should the playoff field be expanded to 20 teams? No.

Craig Sakal of Bedford, Ohio: As much as I love playoff hockey, adding four more teams into the mix would cheapen the regular season even more than the current format does. The tie and awarding of standings points for simply making it to overtime have already diluted the regular season as it is. Adding four more playoff spots will only reward four extra teams for uninspired and ultraconservative play.

Kurt Wilson of Mountain View, Calif.: The format is fine the way it is. For years people seemed to complain that it was far too easy to make the playoffs in the NHL. Now, it's more of a challenge, as it should be.

Steven J. Gruber of Glenshaw: Hockey games are physically demanding. A series of seven games, or even just three, is an exhausting ordeal. With a playoff field of 20 teams, at some point some teams are going to get a bye, and then face a team that just played a series. That gives the team with a bye far too big of an advantage, and that's why I think the playoffs should stick to 16 teams.

Jeffrey Palombo of Fairfax, Va.: Obviously, playoff hockey is much more interesting than the regular season, but having two-thirds of the teams qualify for the playoffs is crazy. What would be the point of the regular season? ... Having 20 teams in the playoffs would force the NHL to use byes, which has never seemed like a fair system to me.

Sean Pieszak of Seven Fields, Pa.: Keep the playoff field at 16. Even though playoff hockey is the best hockey, it is already too long. Also, although it may be unfair to some worthy teams, I loved the annual dogfights between division opponents in the first two rounds of the playoffs.

Aaron of Harrisburg, Pa.: Adding four teams to the playoff field is insane. There are 30 teams in the NHL. That means more than 50 percent make the playoffs already. If they expand to 20 teams in the playoffs, two-thirds of the teams would be in. A lot of people love playoff hockey, but say they don't normally watch regular-season games because they are meaningless, since so many teams make the playoffs. If the NHL wants to draw more fans to the game and strengthen its image after the lockout, it needs to think of a way to make the regular season more meaningful.

Craig Cross of Tampa, Fla.: I would not support more playoff teams. As a matter of fact, I think there are too many playoff teams.

Bob Eckenrode of Turtle Creek: I believe the 16 teams that make the playoffs right now are the right amount. Now, we are getting teams right around .500 in the No. 8 slot. Although it is not rare for a No. 8 seed to beat a No. 1, I don't think it would be interesting hockey for a 10th seed to play a No. 1. The season is too long as it is, and you want to add another week or two onto that with another round.

Cristo Paraskevas of Minneapolis, Minn.: Sixteen teams is already enough. Heck, that is over half the league. I would, however, eliminate the divisional seeding. Having the Carolina Hurricanes seeded third because they led their division as they did in 2001-02 when they would have struggled to make it as the eighth seed is completely unfair to teams who played well but were unlucky to be in a tough division.

Andrew Rothey of Upper St. Clair: The NHL was laughed at for years when two-thirds of the league made the playoffs. The regular season should have some meaning. The current playoff system works fine.

Jason Horsman of Kettering, Ohio: I would be against expanding to 20 teams. I think that the current format is excellent and provides for a great level of competition. I think if it were expanded to 20 teams, it would lessen that level of competition. I can see that the league sees that playoff revenue often is the only way a team makes money, but I think money is one of the worst reasons to do anything.

Tony Miller of Carrick: No need to expand to 20 teams. Sixteen is plenty. I do like making it based on (overall standings), though. I never understood how one team makes it into the playoffs over a team in the other conference that has more points.

Bob Buchko of Raleigh, N.C.: No way. Regular-season games are devalued enough as it is; letting two-thirds of the teams into the playoffs would make them almost a joke. Almost as bad as when 16 out of 21 teams made it. I realize the plan would be to generate fan interest toward the end of the season by giving more teams hope for making the playoffs, but the way I see it, this is no better than allowing clutching-and-grabbing and promoting the neutral zone trap. It allows inferior teams to compete with better ones, while penalizing the superior teams by making them work harder to achieve their goal, which is the Cup.

Nick Porto of Fairfield, Me.: I like the amount of teams that currently make the playoffs and I also like the number of games played. Why tinker with one of the best aspects of the NHL?

Bob King of Benicia, Calif.: I would absolutely not expand the playoff field. I would instead increase teams' chances of making the playoffs by eliminating/merging some existing franchises, thereby reducing the scope of the field. Why would I want to watch an even greater number of mediocre players in the playoffs?

Jerri Bullock of Beaver Falls: I'd actually like to see the playoffs go back to eight teams, the top two teams in four divisions, and have the Cup determined by Memorial Day, but I don't think any of those adjustments would be even considered in passing.

Question of the Week: If you could sign two currently available, unrestricted free agents for the Penguins -- considering only their value to the team, not their impact on a salary cap -- who would they be, and why?

First published on May 13, 2005 at 12:00 am

Click here for more professional hockey news.