Click here to submit your question

Q: Do you think it would be wise for the Penguins to try to sign Ty Conklin to a contract extension before he becomes an unrestricted free agent this summer?

Harold Hecht, Eatontown, N.J.

MOLINARI: They could try, even though Dany Sabourin already is under contract for 2008-09, but it's hard to believe Conklin would be inclined to make a commitment now.

His performance while filling in for Marc-Andre Fleury has elevated his profile and stock around the league considerably, and there's every reason to think some team will offer him a hefty raise on his $500,000 salary and, more important, a promise to compete for a No. 1 job in the NHL. Conklin, remember, began this season as the No. 3 goalie on the Penguins' depth chart and almost certainly wouldn't have made it to the NHL this season if Fleury hadn't been hurt.

Assuming the Penguins are able to re-sign Fleury, who will qualify for restricted free agency this summer, they will have two goalies on one-way contracts for next season. Bringing Conklin back means they would be paying a goalie a major-league salary to play in the American Hockey League. That's not out of the question, but it isn't something NHL clubs are eager to do, either.

Q: After Ottawa scored in overtime (last Saturday), it sounded like Ryan Malone was trying to get the refs to review his (earlier) shot that hit the pipe to see if it went in. Let's say it turned out that it actually did go in the net and bounced out. Could the game result have been changed after the teams had left the ice?

Greg, Ross Township

MOLINARI: Had a video review determined that Malone's shot had gone in, the Penguins, not the Senators, would have won the game, because anything that followed that goal (including the one Ottawa's Daniel Alfredsson scored with 3.2 seconds to play) would have been wiped out.

That the teams left the ice in the wake of Alfredsson's goal would have had no bearing on the outcome because, one way or the other, the game would have been over.

Q: Why does Michel Therrien insist on choosing to shoot first in shootouts when we are at home? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the last shot for the win, a la home baseball teams getting the last at-bat?

Eric Akins, Derry, Pa.

MOLINARI: Hockey coaches get second-guessed over just about everything, from line combinations to defensive schemes to power-play configurations, but your e-mail has broken new ground.

A case could be made for the home coach opting to go first or last in the shootout -- assuming one finds the issue worth debating at all -- and Therrien obviously feels that it's best to try to get a quick lead and put pressure on the other club to respond. The plain truth, though, is that what really matters is getting goals and/or saves, regardless of the order in which they are secured.

Sunday, for example, it really wouldn't have mattered if the Penguins had shot second, since all three San Jose shooters beat Conklin. The only thing the Penguins would have accomplished by going last would have been to render their final shooter unnecessary, since the Sharks would have had a 3-1 lead at that point.

That underscores why the baseball parallel drawn above really doesn't hold up. The rules of that game allow a team to score as many runs in the bottom of the ninth inning as it needs to win; in a hockey shootout, each shot attempt can generate only one goal, so if a team has fallen behind by two with one round to go, the game is over.