Click here to submit your question

Q: With camp coming up, who do you hear is going to get the first shot to replace Max Talbot? Will it be a scorer such as Luca Caputi, or will they move Pascal Dupuis up, with Dustin Jeffrey getting a shot on the fourth line? Also is Ben Lovejoy ticketed for Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, or is he up as the seventh defensemen?

Mike, York, Pa.

MOLINARI: While much can change based on performances during training camp, moving Dupuis into Talbot's spot on the second line might be the least disruptive route for the Penguins to take at this point. Although Dupuis does not have top-six skills, he has proven to be a competent, short-term replacement on the top two lines, and while Talbot's recovery from offseason surgery could force him to sit out the first two months of the regular season, it's not as if he will miss the entire season.

With the likes of Rob Scuderi, Hal Gill and Philippe Boucher removed from the mix, Lovejoy will enter camp as the clear favorite to be the Penguins' No. 7 defenseman. His pro experience gives him a significant major advantage over promising prospects like Brian Strait, who is projected to develop into a solid defensive defenseman at this level eventually.

Question: Vancouver goalie Roberto Luongo got a 12-year, $64 million contract extension. That comes to $5.33 million per year, so that's his cap hit.

It's very front-loaded: $10 million the first year, then $6.7 million for each of the next five years. Then $1.6 million, $1 million and $1 million in the last three years. He'll be 31 when it starts, 43 when it ends. Do we really think he'll be playing when he's 43? The last three years are bunk. He'll retire or leave and they'll be off the hook for him. Take those out and it's a nine-year, $64 million extension, or

$6.7 million per year. That's $1.4 million per year in cap space the Canucks saved by structuring it like this, so basically they're getting

$7 million worth of goalie for a $5.3 million cap hit. I don't blame them for doing this; I'm just surprised the NHL is letting itself get so hoodwinked. Sidney Crosby's contract's up in four years. Let's sign him to an 87-year extension paying him $15 million per year the first

15 years, then $1million per year for every year after that. Cap hit?

$3.4 million.

Ryan, Mount Pleasant, S.C.

MOLINARI: Your point is well-taken, although there are a few flaws in your Crosby example. The NHL's collective bargaining agreement establishes limits on how much a player's salary can drop from year to year, and a decline from $15 million to $1 million would not fall within those guidelines. Also, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has "good-of-the-game" authority that allows him to throw out any contract that could call the game's integrity into question. One that would still be in effect when Sidney Crosby entered his second century on the planet presumably would qualify.

Mind you, Bettman also had the power to do that with contracts like the ones that have been given to players such as Luongo, Marian Hossa and Henrik Zetterberg, deals obviously structured in a way to guarantee the player a lot of money while holding down his cap hit by front-loading the contract and adding years that the athlete is a longshot, at best, to spend in the NHL. Teams found that loophole in the CBA and figure to continue exploiting it until at least the next round of labor negotiations. At that point, the NHL is expected to move aggressively to close it, perhaps by limiting the length of contracts.

Question: It would be exciting to increase scoring; it certainly hasn't hurt the NFL. When was the last time, if ever, the size of the goal was altered? Wouldn't that be a way to compensate for larger men, wearing larger equipment, while protecting the goalie? Not absurdly, of course, but as a counter-measure.

Buster Wible, Longwood, Fla.

MOLINARI: NHL officials have looked into -- and even experimented with -- enlarged nets, but there doesn't appear to be strong support for such a radical change at this time. Abandoning the six-feet-by-four-feet net would alter the fundamental nature of the game, much as raising the hoop or moving back the pitcher's mound would profoundly impact basketball or baseball. It certainly is not a move that should be made as a knee-jerk reaction to calls for increased goal-scoring, no matter how reasonable the objective might be.