Click here to submit your question

Q: A lot of people seem to be talking about how much extra money the Penguins could make from more home games. Exactly how much would winning the Cup help the bottom line for the team? Also, does the money from playoffs become at all distributed through the league via revenue-sharing?

Matthew, Washington, D.C.

MOLINARI: Winning the Cup, as opposed to simply qualifying for the Cup final, probably wouldn't have a meaningful, direct impact on the team's finances, since the only short-term bump in revenues likely would be from increased souvenir sales. (The Penguins make the same amount off ticket sales for home games whether they win or lose at Mellon Arena, although it's been so long since they were defeated there that losing a home game seems like a purely hypothetical concept at this point.)

There would, though, be some long-term benefits to winning a championship, with increased fan interest, which translates to greater demand for tickets and most other things the franchise would sell, and the potential for a more lucrative deal when broadcast rights go up for bid again, etc.

The Penguins, like most private companies, don't make a habit of disclosing financial information, but they are believed to gross between $1.5 million and $2 million per game. That does not mean they make that much profit off of every game; there are costs related to simply staging the games, team-related expenses for things such as travel to road games and, perhaps most important, what one person familiar with the situation characterized as a "sizeable" bite taken by the league.

The NHL gets a percentage of the gate from the first four games of each series, with that money going to the league's operating costs, revenue-sharing program and the lump sum -- about $6 million in 2008 -- that is given to the NHL Players' Association, which then divides it among the teams that participate in the playoffs.

There is no question that teams benefit financially from being in the playoffs, but competing in them isn't necessarily the money-making bonanza that it might appear to be at first blush.

Q: I can't be the only one asking this, but were the Senators, Rangers and Flyers that bad, or are the Penguins just that good?

Bill, Huntington, W. Va.

MOLINARI: Ottawa was a mess when it faced the Penguins, for any number of reasons, but the Rangers are a quality team with a world-class goaltender and the Flyers had beaten the Penguins five times in eight regular-season meetings and were fresh off upsets of the Nos. 3 and 1 seeds in the Eastern Conference.

Detroit will be, by far, the most formidable opponent the Penguins have faced this spring, but the fact that the Penguins won 12 of 14 games against the teams mentioned above reinforces the idea that a lot of people, including the moderator of this forum, did not fully appreciate their potential, or what they had the talent, depth, commitment and maturity to accomplish.

Q: I understand that while there are concerns about this off-season, the biggest challenge with retaining players will come after the 2008-09 season, when Evgeni Malkin and Jordan Staal are up for new contracts. With Marian Hossa elevating his play lately, has there been any talk of trying to re-sign him for just one additional year before Malkin's up for his big payday?

Omar Choadly, Chewelah, Wash.

MOLINARI: First, understand that general manager Ray Shero doesn't have the luxury of waiting a year before paying serious attention to the next contracts for Malkin and Staal. It's critical to have a long-term plan in place so that he doesn't get caught with insufficient salary-cap space, and end up having to make unplanned personnel moves to fit them in.

More important, while signing Hossa to a one-year deal might be a great thing for the Penguins, what exactly would be in it for him? Given the option of signing a one-year deal for big money here or a five- or six-year deal elsewhere for as much or perhaps more, which would be logical for him to accept?

It's possible that Hossa would be willing to accept a bit less money to stay in a good situation -- he's on a line with the best center in the game, and part of a team that could be a contender for the foreseeable future -- but his primary obligation is to himself and his family, not his employer of the moment. Because a career-ending injury is a constant threat in his line of work, getting the most security possible only makes sense and, for most players, seems to trump all other considerations most of the time.