Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintClick here to submit your question
Q: I'm trying to understand all the ice time and praise given to Ryan Whitney. Don't get me wrong, the guy has a great offensive skill set, does a nice job on the rush, makes good passes in the offensive zone, etc. But he is a major defensive liability. He consistently gives away the puck in his own end with weak clearing attempts or bad passes, shies away from contact and far too often takes ill-advised shots in the offensive zone that lead to breakouts by the opposition. What am I missing?
-- Mike Gaal, Naperville, Ill.
MOLINARI: Whitney-bashing seems to have replaced Fleury-bashing as the in-season sport of choice in some quarters, presumably because Marc-Andre Fleury's play through the first quarter of the season has given his detractors very little about which to complain.
That isn't always the case with Whitney who, as you noted, has been guilty of lapses in judgment and execution, and who does not play with the physical edge usually associated with a guy who is 6 foot 4, 219 pounds. He also does not, as a rule, put the puck on goal nearly as much as a player with his shot should.
Then again, the Penguins don't have many other defensemen who have 16 points in their first 20 games this season. Especially among the ones who haven't appeared in more than 88 games -- that's just six more than a season's worth -- in the NHL. (Whitney's offensive output, conveniently enough, is identical to that of Sergei Gonchar.)
The importance of Whitney's limited experience cannot be overstated because, even in an age when instant gratification doesn't seem to be fast enough to satisfy some people, the simple truth is that even the most gifted defensemen and goaltenders need time to realize their potential at this level, and the process of developing into a quality player isn't always pretty. (Exhibit A is Fleury, who finally has begun to perform to expectations in his fourth season as a pro.)
Whitney's offensive abilities are his greatest asset, and that isn't going to change, but he takes his defensive responsibilities seriously and works at getting better in his own zone. There's not much chance he'll morph into, say, Rod Langway but then, Langway never had the potential to be anything approaching a point-a-game guy, either.
Whitney isn't going to be a factor in the Norris Trophy voting this season, and there's no guarantee he'll ever become the elite defenseman so many people inside the Penguins' organization are convinced he has the potential to be. Very few 23-year-old defensemen have offensive abilities rivaling Whitney's, however, and even fewer who can match his overall promise.
The Penguins' long-term interests will be best-served by giving Whitney the time and guidance he needs to continue progressing, even if it happens at a pace some fans find unsatisfactory.
Q: Mario Lemieux often was used on penalty-killing, where he was able to create many scoring opportunities for himself and the team. On power plays, he usually stayed on the ice for the full two minutes (at least early in his career) and was famous for double-shifting several times during a game. It may be a testament to Lemieux's greatness or a product of the "new" NHL, but why isn't Crosby's much-talked about skill put on the ice as much as possible?
-- Daniel Franciscus, Boston
MOLINARI: These Penguins are considerably deeper than Lemieux's early teams were, so there really is no need to play Crosby as much as Lemieux did a couple of decades ago. And it's not as if Crosby doesn't get the opportunity to work up a good sweat; he's averaging just under 20 1/2 minutes of ice time per game, the most of any Penguins forward.
More than six of those minutes come when the Penguins have a man-advantage, but Crosby's penalty-killing work is largely confined to the final 30 or so seconds of other team's time with the extra man. That's when fatigue might become a factor for the opposing power play and Crosby has an increased chance of forcing -- or exploiting -- a puckhandling or passing mistake that could translate to a scoring opportunity.
There's no question Crosby could be a quality penalty-killer, because he has outstanding hockey sense to go with his speed and other skills, and he's not afraid to block shots. But it's easy to make the case that the Penguins should limit how much they expose him to the perils of penalty-killing -- put yourself in front of enough shots, and there's probably a fracture in your future -- when they have other forwards who should be capable of handling those duties.
Q: Granted, John LeClair is not the scorer he was, but he started slowly last year and still had 22 goals. He is playing with third- and fourth-liners and seeing virtually no power-play time. If Michel Therrien sat him against the New York Rangers (last Saturday) because of his lack of scoring, has his play been that poor that (Therrien is willing to) alienate a proven leader? Seems that a possible Hall of Famer with something left is more valuable to a young team that needs veteran leadership. Shame his coach doesn't see it that way. Hope he lands with a coach who can appreciate him.
-- William Gessler, Trenton, N.J.
MOLINARI: No Penguins player seems to inspire polar-opposite feelings among fans the way LeClair does. Some dismiss him as being hopelessly over the hill, a has-been whose main contribution is to take up a locker-room stall and cash a paycheck twice a month. Others see him as a largely untapped resource whose tangible contributions could equal, if not exceed, the intangibles ones he makes if only he were given an adequate opportunity.
Although LeClair had just one goal when Therrien sat him out against New York, the move still was a surprise because he is well-respected by his teammates and his work ethic is unquestioned. Being scratched clearly stung LeClair, who scored a goal early in the Penguins' 5-3 victory at Philadelphia two nights later, although he said all the right things about working his way back into the lineup when asked his reaction to getting the night off.
There's every reason to believe LeClair will continue to be cast in a low-profile role -- he's averaging 11 minutes, 43 seconds of ice time per game, 1:43 of that on power plays -- but the feeling here is that he could have a meaningful impact, especially when the Penguins have a man-advantage, if given the opportunity.
Q: I look at (Plan B) as a conflict of interest. If the new owner is responsible for annual seven-figure payments for 30 years, wouldn't that reduce the team's revenues and, hence, greatly inhibit its ability to sign free agents? In fact, wouldn't it defeat, in certain aspects, the benefit of having a new arena?
-- Brandon Dunn, Ross Township
MOLINARI: The benefits of having an up-to-date, multi-purpose facility are not supposed to be limited to how much additional money it will generate for the hockey team that plays there, and is it really unreasonable to ask that a business -- whether it's a hockey team or a bank or a shoe store -- contribute something toward constructing and/or maintaining the building in which it operates?
While the Penguins clearly have great leverage at the moment -- thanks mostly to the refusal of elected officials to address the arena issue until the franchise was closing in on unrestricted free agency -- and should be able to work out favorable terms if a Plan B becomes necessary, it's hard to make a case that the city, county, state and/or federal governments should finance construction of an arena, while the Penguins do nothing but play in it and count their money.
Of course, the Penguins will hit the jackpot if Isle of Capri gets the city's slots license, because IOC has agreed to pay $290 million toward an arena, without the Penguins being obligated to do much more than accept a 20-year lease to play in it. There's nothing wrong with that, because those parties struck a deal that worked for both sides; IOC got the support of a major-league franchise and the far-reaching coalition of supporters it organized, and the Penguins got a shot at a relatively inexpensive, if not totally free, arena.
It is important, though, to remember what team officials have been saying for several years: That the Penguins' survival here hinged on getting an owner-friendly collective bargaining agreement (like the one now in effect) and a new building. A new building. Not necessarily a free one.
That doesn't mean they should accept onerous terms if a Plan B comes into play -- the politicians will be inviting owner-to-be Jim Balsillie to take the team elsewhere if they try to impose such conditions on the Penguins -- but neither should they whine about having to kick in some money for the venue that will give the franchise a chance to be profitable and competitive.
Q: How are the Pens sitting, in regard to goaltending depth? With Dany Sabourin and Sebastien Caron gone and Jocelyn Thibault in the final year of his contract, does anybody else in the organization have backup potential, or will they have to look to free agency or trade to fill the position behind Fleury?
-- Ryan Hamner, Blaine, Minn.
MOLINARI: A year ago, the Penguins had a surplus of goalies with NHL experience -- not only the guys you mentioned, but also Andy Chiodo -- but today, the No. 3 man on their depth chart, Andrew Penner, never has faced a shot at this level. He was signed as a free agent during the off-season and is playing with their farm team in Wilkes-Barre.
The Penguins also have a prospect playing in Germany (Patrick Ehelechner, Duisburg) and three in college -- seniors David Brown (Notre Dame) and Bobby Goepfert (St. Cloud State) and Alaska-Fairbanks sophomore Chad Johnson -- but there's no reason to think any is ready to step into the NHL. Or even an assurance that any ever will be.
Consequently, the Penguins might well be in the market for at least one goalie next summer, especially if Thibault decides he would like another opportunity to be a No. 1 somewhere. So far, he has accepted his role as Fleury's backup without complaint and has performed fairly well when called upon; if that continues to be the case through the rest of the season, the Penguins figure to give serious consideration to trying to bring him back, at least in part because there aren't many viable options.
Q: What's wrong with Colby Armstrong? I saw Armstrong play a couple of times this year, but I have not yet seen the kind of player that he was last year. The Penguins need a gritty forward like Armstrong. I saw him on a breakaway (Monday at Philadelphia) and based on the reaction he had, it seems to me like a player who lost confidence in himself.
-- Eric Bouchard, Montreal
MOLINARI: Your assessment of the current state of Armstrong's psyche is dead-on; every last wisp of confidence in his offensive ability drained out of his body weeks ago. Figuring out the reasons behind the slump that led to that state -- and, more to the point, correcting them -- has been a lot tougher. If Armstrong or the Penguins had an answer, you can be sure they would have acted on it by now.
Armstrong's inability to score might be the biggest surprise from the first quarter of the season; the second-biggest might be that the Penguins took 23 points out of their first 20 games despite failing to get a meaningful offensive contribution from their first-line right winger.
Armstrong has, for the most part, retained his place on the No. 1 line despite his failure to score. Part of the reason for that is that Crosby likes having him for a linemate, part because Armstrong has continued to do the other things -- forecheck hard, play physically, work hard at both ends of the rink, etc. -- that got him the job in the first place.
Q: I have a scoring question: Player A passes to player B before heading to the bench. Player B sets up player C for a goal. While player A gets credit for the second assist, is he denied a plus since he was not on the ice when the goal was scored?
-- Bryan Justman, Modesto, Calif.
MOLINARI: That's exactly what would happen, according to the Penguins' off-ice officials. Although a player doesn't have to be on the ice to be awarded an assist (or a goal, for that matter), he does have to be on the ice to be credited for, well, being on the ice.
