Click here to submit your question

Q: I find it hard to believe the Pens have no use for a player of John LeClair's caliber. On a team as young as the Pens, an experienced playoff performer should be quite an asset. What is it that Michel Therrien has against LeClair? Or is this just another in a long line of salary dumps? Who really is behind this move, the coach, GM or new management?

Mark Van Deveer, Virginia Beach, Va.

MOLINARI: Neither man has ever acknowledged it publicly -- and there's little reason to believe either ever will -- but there seems to have been friction between Therrien and LeClair since shortly after Therrien replaced Eddie Olczyk as coach last December.

Therrien obviously wasn't satisfied with what LeClair contributed before he was waived last week, and LeClair didn't care for the modest role in which he was cast, but their relationship was strained from the time Therrien stripped LeClair of his alternate captaincy last season and gave it to Sidney Crosby, a decision that seems no more logical now than it did then.

Waiving LeClair definitely was not a salary dump. If the Penguins just wanted to get the balance of his contract off their books, they would have assigned him to their farm team in Wilkes-Barre, then suspended him when he declined to report, which one has to believe would have been LeClair's course of action if the Penguins had forced the issue.

Instead, the Penguins allowed him to join his family in suburban Philadelphia and stay there after he passed through waivers rather than compelling him to go to Wilkes-Barre.

What's more, general manager Ray Shero put LeClair on re-entry waivers 24 hours after he cleared, knowing full well that the Penguins would be responsible for paying half of LeClair's salary if another team grabbed him. If saving some money was his objective, Shero would have done everything in his power to convince LeClair to retire; instead, he did everything he could to maximize the chances that LeClair would be able to realize his goal of continuing his career.

The Penguins, needing to open a roster spot for Michel Ouellet, assigned LeClair to Wilkes-Barre again yesterday. It remains to be seen if they will now press him to report or retire.

Indications are that LeClair, convinced that he would not be asked to fill a meaningful role with the Penguins, asked Shero to waive him, although Shero contends it was a "mutual" decision. Regardless of which version is more rooted in reality, however, it's clear that owner-to-be Jim Balsillie didn't play a part in the LeClair saga.

Balsillie won't be authorized to have a say in personnel matters -- or anything else -- until the Board of Governors approves his purchase of the franchise, and that hasn't happened yet. But when it does, one hopes Balsillie won't micro-manage to the extent that he's making decisions on what to do with a third-line left winger.

Q: I was wondering if you knew the average number of extra points gained by teams last season by competing in shootouts, compared to previous seasons. In the 2003-2004 season, only three teams failed to make the playoffs while playing .500 hockey and in the previous season, no over-.500 teams missed the playoffs. Last year, six such teams missed the playoffs. It used to seem that 82 points was a good benchmark to shoot for if you were fighting for those last two or three playoff spots, but that certainly is not the case anymore. What do you think is the new 82?

Grant, Pittsburgh

MOLINARI: A total of 145 games went to a shootout during the 2005-06 season, which means 145 "extra" points -- an average of 4.83 per team -- were awarded to the clubs that won those games. Dallas led the NHL by earning 12 points for winning shootouts; the Penguins and San Jose tied for last place with one each.

Under the current format, in which the top eight teams from each conference qualify for the playoffs, clubs that wanted to get in couldn't count on doing it simply by playing .500, but the events of last season suggest that breaking even wouldn't even come close to getting the job done anymore. Tampa Bay earned the final spot in the 2006 Eastern playoff field with 92 points, and Edmonton locked up the last spot in the West with 95.

Based on that precedent -- and, admittedly, it is only one season -- the over-under target figure for getting into the playoffs would seem to be somewhere in the low- to mid-90s.

Q: What about Peter Bondra joining the Penguins? He's available, and probably cheap by now. He could be the perfect fit for a team needing scoring from its wingers.

Darren Bernky, Denver

MOLINARI: If the Penguins had brought in every veteran winger in whom they have been purported -- or encouraged -- to have an interest since the end of last season, they might not have space on their 23-man roster for anyone else. They also wouldn't have much available shelf space in the locker-room refrigerator, because it would be filled with bottles of prune juice.

The Penguins clearly need more scoring from the wing if they want to get back into serious contention for a playoff spot; going into last night's game against the New York Rangers, Mark Recchi (7) was the only winger with more than six goals.

Even so, management has been committed to finding out precisely what the wingers already on its depth chart are capable of doing, and there's no compelling evidence -- not at the moment, anyway -- that Shero is prepared to deviate from that.

Q: Why can't the owners realize how the current scheduling format hurts the league? There's only one game every three years against teams out West that most people can actually watch. There's a game here one year, one year with no game, and one year with a 10 or 10:30 p.m. start. It's hard to get excited about players from the other conference when you have only heard about them, not seen them play. A home-and-home with every Western Conference team every year is a must.

Joel, North Braddock

MOLINARI: Many, if not most, people associated with the NHL seem to agree that the scheduling format should be changed. Exactly what should be done is another matter.

Commissioner Gary Bettman reportedly will appoint a committee to study the issue, which figures to be on the agenda again when the Board of Governors meets in Dallas next month.

The current arrangement calls for teams to play a total of eight games against each of the other four clubs inside their division, four against each of the other clubs in their conference and a total of 10 -- five at home and five away -- against the other conference. That means teams in the Eastern Conference will face each club from the Western only twice, once at home and once on the road, during a three-year period.

The league's objective is to ratchet up fan interest by developing intra-division rivalries, but that ignores the reality that most rivalries are rooted in playoff meetings, not anything that happens during the regular season.

Q: Is Mellon Arena the only place in the league where the visitors' backup goalie sits all by himself? Does he get a walkie-talkie in case he notices something?

Sam Chodosh, Pittsburgh

MOLINARI: Actually, the Penguins' backup goalie sits on a folding chair in the runway leading from the ice to his team's dressing room at Mellon Arena, too. The same arrangement exists in some of the league's other old buildings -- Nassau Coliseum comes immediately to mind -- and goalies don't have a spot on the bench in some newer arenas, either. In the latter, however, the dressing rooms generally are located directly behind the team benches, not on the opposite side of the ice, so a casual viewer might think a goalie sitting in the runway actually has a spot at the end of the bench.

And forget giving the backup a walkie-talkie when he's in the runway; let the guy have an iPod or a Game Boy or something of that sort to keep him entertained, because odds are he's not going to see much of the game. Not only is he sitting on a folding chair, which means the top of the boards is fairly close to eye-level, but he often is positioned well down the runway to avoid getting tangled up with photographers, camera operators and other people working in the area.

Q: Why does the NHL insist on keeping team power-play statistics that don't really tell how effective a team is on the power play? For instance, a team that scores a goal on a two-minute power play is credited the same as one that scores a goal on a five-minute power play. Same for 5-on-4 vs. 5-on-3. I propose they take the power-play time and divide it by goals to determine a team's true effectiveness on the power play. If more than one player is in the box, divide by their combined time. This system would reward teams that score quickly as well and not penalize those who are on the power play for small bursts after offsetting penalties.

Josh Barone, New York City

MOLINARI: A few quick clarifications, to start: The league does not treat goals scored during a major penalty the same way it does those scored during a minor. A team that scores during a five-minute power play is credited with going 1-for-2, not 1-for-1, the way it is when scoring during a conventional two-minute advantage.

Also, if a team has a five-on-three, both of the penalties that led to that advantage are accounted for in the stats. If the power play converts once during those two penalties -- regardless of whether the goal comes while both players still are in the box, or just one is -- it is credited with being 1-for-2. Obviously, a goal during a 5-on-4 (assuming it's a two-minute advantage) would make a team 1-for-1.

The formula you propose would give a different perspective on power-play success rates, but wouldn't necessarily have a profound impact on efficiency rankings. If you want to assume that, in general, most of the 30 teams finish the season with roughly the same number of two-man advantages and power plays awarded because of major penalties, the relative conversion rates of the clubs wouldn't figure to change significantly.

Finally, because there aren't standings points -- or even a trophy -- handed out on the basis of power-play success rates, per se, there probably isn't much chance of the league abandoning a stat-keeping system it has employed for decades.

Q: When was the last time the Pens scored an empty-net goal?

Len, Los Angeles

MOLINARI: An examination of the fossil record suggests it was sometime late in the Paleozoic Era; carbon-dating the puck from that game might narrow the time frame a bit.

Actually, it hasn't been quite that long -- the key word there is "quite" -- but we're closing in on the day when there will be an entire generation of fans who don't remember what it's like to see a Penguin score into an empty net.

They haven't done it since April 2, 2004, when Aleksey Morozov got one at 19:12 of the third period in a 3-2 victory against Atlanta in the next-to-last game of the 2003-04 season. (Ilya Kovalchuk of the Thrashers scored at 19:54 of that game at Philips Arena to make Morozov's goal the game-winner.)