Q: Offensively, the Penguins look great. But during the third period against Atlanta, it was obvious that they had a lot of trouble defending against the Thrashers in their own zone. Now that Josef Melichar is out, who can the Penguins look to on defense to clear those bodies away from the front of the net? Perhaps Jamie Pushor needs more minutes? I'm concerned about the team's ability to succeed over the course of the season without some more toughness on that blue line.
Greg Wood of Greenfield, Pittsburgh
KOVACEVIC: I respectfully differ with your main premise, Greg. I certainly won't argue that the Penguins struggled defensively in the third Wednesday, as that was glaringly evident to all of the 12,000 people at Mellon Arena that night, including, presumably, yourself. But I don't feel it had anything to do with size or toughness on the blue line. That's not the issue anywhere in the league right now as much as speed is, because of the NHL's crackdown on obstruction.
The Thrashers aren't exactly a bulky team. Rather, they have forwards whose games are predicated on making fancy plays to the outside, and that's what the Penguins couldn't keep up with. This also was true against the Maple Leafs and might even have been the case against the Rangers had New York not been playing its third game in four nights. The Penguins' defensemen had little success in following players into the corners, sealing them along the boards and cutting off their path to the front of the net. This is a matter of agility and quickness, not speed. That's why you're seeing a fluid, efficient player such as Dick Tarnstrom do so well for the Penguins right now.
But Tarnstrom is more the exception than the rule on the Penguins' defense and, yes, that's a concern, easily the team's biggest right now, with all else that's gone so well in the past week. They need to find a way to keep up with attacking forwards, or they need to find defensemen who are capable of keeping up.
One of those, I believe firmly, will be Andrew Ference when he returns. This emphasis on skating should work very much to his advantage as long as he can tighten up his positional play.
Q: Hey Dejan. Some college friends and I came up for the Rangers game this past weekend, and it was awesome. Mario Lemieux is such a treat to watch. My question is this: When Martin Straka comes back, what happens to the line combinations? No one likes a demotion out of the top two lines, and the grinding lines seem to have a chemistry. Perhaps Straka's return would make way for the possibility of a trade.
Curtis Mullins of Grundy, Va.
KOVACEVIC: Yes, it could, Curtis. And given the state of the defense, as mentioned in a previous response, dealing a forward for a mobile defenseman would seem to make sense. It won't be easy because acquiring an NHL-caliber defenseman never is, but it's logical.
As for the lines, there's been no hint of what the coaching staff's plans are, as I'm relatively sure they haven't even bothered to discuss it with Straka's return still two or three weeks away. The closest hint to what might happen has come from Lemieux, who said shortly before the season that he'd like to have Straka as his left winger upon his return. Now, bear in mind that he said that before surging to the league lead in scoring, and he might well be content to have things stay exactly the way they are indefinitely.
If it were up to me -- and it most assuredly is not -- I'd move Alexei Kovalev back to the second line, switch Morozov back to his natural position at right wing (you'll notice he's still scoring most of his goals from that side, even though he's lining up at left wing), and fill out the second line with Randy Robitaille in the middle and Jan Hrdina on the left. Kovalev stands to benefit because, for one, he enjoys playing with Robitaille and, for another, I don't think he's playing his usual game alongside Lemieux, although that's an opinion he doesn't share. Also, by using these combinations, you maintain a decent defensive presence or two on each line.
This would leave the odd man out, obviously, as Alexandre Daigle, which seques nicely into our next question ...
Q: Hi, Dejan. We were lucky enough to get tickets for the game Monday in Toronto. I had the night of my life watching Mario Lemieux in person for the first time and scoring four points. I was thinking of your Q&A, too, after Ian Moran filled in Tie Domi. One thing bothered me, to which I'll ask: I saw Alexandre Daigle get knocked off the puck a few times and didn't see any more of a second effort but for a resigned swipe with his outstretched stick. Maybe it's a bit early to get on his case about effort, but do you think maybe a benching is what he needs?
Kent Hayden of Toronto
KOVACEVIC: No. Not yet, anyway. Rick Kehoe feels that Daigle is working the rust out of his system, and you have to give something of a benefit of the doubt for a guy who hasn't played competitive hockey in two years.
Still, what should be a concern to the coaching staff is that the effort you cite and the one he showed Wednesday against Atlanta is a far cry from what he was displaying in the preseason while on a tryout contract. In exhibition games, he was getting his hands dirty, going to the net, circling the attacking zone to make plays and shooting liberally. He has done none of the above in his first four real games, producing only one assist in a blowout.
What might be the greatest concern, actually, is that he has done so little despite facing nothing but subpar defensive teams. One would think that facing the loose likes of the Maple Leafs, Rangers and especially the six-redwoods-on-the-blue-line Thrashers would be a perfect fit for Daigle's speed game. But even when he had eye-popping chances to carry the puck up ice with all kinds of room, he made absolutely nothing happen.
Regarding the other subject you broached, Kent, I feel compelled, as Officially Licensed Apologist for Ian Moran, to point out that as of this morning he ranks second among all NHL defensemen with a plus-5 rating. The Norris Trophy can't be far behind.
Q: Dejan, I'm glad Martin Straka is showing good progress in his recovery in his latest brush with Lady Unluck. However, I sense from his recent comments in the newspaper that he is overanxious to come back early -- again -- and that someone needs to stress to him that he is no good to the Penguins until his back is totally healed. Who makes the call as to when he should return?
Eric Burns of Cranberry
KOVACEVIC: I had a long discussion with Straka Wednesday morning, Eric, and he told me in great detail that his back is no longer an issue. It's now about getting into game condition. That's why the emphasis on his recent drills has been simulating sharp stops, battling along the boards, fighting through checks, that sort of thing. As he described it, the slow, careful workouts he had up until recently while his back was being tested weren't enough to get him physically ready to play in games.
As for your concern about another premature return, the term Straka regularly uses these days is "125 percent." Doctors have given his back a clean bill of health, and he looks to the naked eye like he could play right now, but he's still not out there in games. Nor does he expect to be ready for two, maybe three more weeks. You can imagine that nobody wants more badly than Straka to avoid having yet another injury stunt yet another return.
The call, to answer your actual question, is Straka's at this point. Doctors are going to continue to monitor him and are sure to conduct further tests before he plays, but his injury has been cleared -- "I'm out of the woods," as he put it Wednesday -- which means it's up to him when he feels he's in shape to compete in a game.
Q: First off, Dejan, I really enjoy the Q&A ... good job. I read in your Penguins Report Thursday where Tom Rooney finds the early-season attendance "disconcerting." Strangely enough, I found it disconcerting when the Penguins priced me out of attending games with their yearly ticket increases. Based on information from Team Marketing Report, the Penguins have the eighth-highest average ticket price in the league at more than $47. And isn't this also the same organization that has scalped its own tickets for games in demand? Rooney and his gang can look at it all they want, but clearly they've miscalculated when it comes to figuring what people will pay for their product.
Steven Patterson of Waynesburg
KOVACEVIC: The Penguins did raise prices for single-game tickets from last season to this one, but they maintained the same price level for all season-ticket plans, Steven.
That said, you're correct that the Penguins have priced many fans out of the building, although it's no different around the NHL. The most obvious byproduct of the escalation of player salaries around the league without a corresponding increase in broadcast revenue is that the cost is passed on directly to the ticket-buying public. As long as the economy was all cyber-inflated, as was the case for much of the past decade, that was fine. Clearly, now it isn't. Although Pittsburgh hasn't been hit nearly as hard by the struggling economy as other parts of the country -- we always seem to be immune to both the rises and falls for some reason -- it has made a dent. The four-figure loss of jobs among US Airways employees stands out in particular, as does the loss of the Kaufmann's headquarters. As Rooney acknowledged in the item you cited, 70 percent of all Penguins fans who canceled their season tickets cited economic reasons.
The obvious solution to these problems is to revamp the NHL's Collective Bargaining Agreement and find a way to hold the line on existing ticket prices, if not lower them. That's in 2004, though. We'll see.
What's peculiar to me for right now is something that a couple other e-mailers pointed out this week: The seats that have been the most empty for the first three home games have been in the E and F balconies. Those also are the cheapest, selling for as low as $17. I understand that $17 is more than some can afford, but I also wonder why the $65 seats are selling and the cheap ones aren't, if price is the main deterrent.
If anyone has an explanation, I'm all ears ...
Q: Dejan, what was the ruling on the net being disloged on Toronto's disallowed goal late in the game Monday? Not that I'm complaining, but wasn't it kind of a strange call? I've seen play continue after similar net movement before. The net never came off the pegs and didn't interfere with Hedberg's movement. The Toronto announcers insisted that Shayne Corson had been pushed into the net by Dick Tarnstrom to cause the net to come up, but the replays didn't show this. What was your take on the call?
Dan Wyszomierski of Houston
KOVACEVIC: My take on the call is that if it didn't happen in the hockey world's undisputed capital of whining, it never would have been an issue.
The rule is simple: If the net is raised or off its moorings as a puck enters, it's no goal. Period. Yes, play can continue if it pops right back down and onto the pegs, but a goal can't be scored unless the net is exactly where it belongs.
There's no relevance to anything else that happened, at least not in terms of the goal counting.
If Tarnstrom had picked up that net on his back and thumped his chest like Tarzan, it wouldn't have been a goal because the net would have been off its moorings. If Corson had been decapitated as he was shoved into the net, it wouldn't have been a goal because the net would have been off its moorings. There could be a power play or even a penalty shot awarded, but a goal wouldn't be awarded on that particular shot by Alexander Mogilny because ... repeat after me ... the net would have been off its moorings. (Can you tell I got a whole C-drive's worth of mail on this matter?)
The Maple Leafs wanted a penalty on Tarnstrom for shoving Corson into the net, which is typical of this particular Toronto outfit. No one asks what on earth Corson was doing behind the net with his team down by a goal with 30 seconds left. No one asks why Mikael Renberg committed such an untimely penalty by holding a player's stick with 2:56 left to lead to the Penguins' winning goal. No one asks why Trevor Kidd went searching for a missing contact lens when Lemieux beat him on that winner.
With Toronto, it seems, it's always someone else's fault.
Q: Hey, Dejan, if he keeps this up all season, do you think Aleksey Morozov has a shot at the Art Ross Trophy? It's great to see Mo finally play well.
Andrew Davis of New York
KOVACEVIC: "Mo?"
Seems highly unlikely, Andrew, but there were a few names that popped up near the top of the league's scoring chart last season who were surprises, too, not the least of whom was the leader in Jarome Iginla.
Regardless, Morozov certainly has played above and beyond. He always was an outstanding shooter, from the moment he joined the team in 1997, but it's only recently that he has understood the need to work his way into shooting positions to make that count. Look at the places he's been when he's taken his shots in these four games.
Q: Dejan, many of the good NHL players in the league have nicknames attached to them over the years for one reason or another. Some good, some bad. I would like to put a new one out for consideration for Aleksey Morozov: How does "AMO" sound? Given the way this kid has been shooting the puck, I can't think of a better fit.
Jim Ross of Oakdale
KOVACEVIC: "AMO?"
Um, I have to be honest, Jim: I really don't think the nicknames will go too far with Morozov. He really doesn't strike me as the nickname type. But I promise to remain open-minded on the matter, especially if he hangs around in the NHL scoring race and merits the treatment.
Q: Hi, Dejan. Enjoyed your story on Andy van Hellemond in Thursday's Post-Gazette. It left me with just one question that I hope you can answer: Why the sudden change of heart regarding obstruction? It's obviously been a problem in the league for the better part of a decade. What is it about 2002 that suddenly caused the dim bulb about Gary Bettman's head to illuminate? Was it the quality of play in the Olympics, the falling attendance, the lack of a national TV contract? Here's hoping the rules continue to be enforced. That game in Toronto Monday was one of the most entertaining I've seen in years. Thanks for the great Q&A ... another reason to look forward to Fridays.
John Millea of Harmony
KOVACEVIC: The game Wednesday at the Arena might have been just as good, John. Certainly, judging by the enthusiastic reaction of the 12,000 in the building all night, it was as entertaining a game as I've witnessed in terms of skill, speed and open ice in many a moon. And it wasn't just the Penguins. Getting to see Dany Heatley undress a defenseman with an inside-out move or Ilya Kovalchuk blazing through the neutral zone was a pleasure, indeed.
I share your enthusiasm for the current product and your hope that it continues in perpetuity. Watching this version of the NHL is, for me, like rediscovering an old friend.
To answer your question, Bettman's bulb was lit by two of three factors you cited, the Olympics and the sagging ratings on national telecasts. Attendance, the other one you mentioned, really wasn't an issue in most cities until this season for the economic reasons I cited in a previous response. The Olympics, I think, were so wonderful and such a hit with so many of the people who watched or covered them that there was no way Bettman could ignore the adulation. And when ESPN came to the NHL this summer with its revelation that hockey was being "overexposed," that surely provided the slap in the face.
Hey, whatever it takes.
Q: Dejan, I love your Q&A column. It gives me just one more reason to look forward to Friday. I would like to express my dislike of hurry-up faceoffs. Yeah, it makes the games on television far easier to watch, but live, it's awful. I find that I miss a good 30-45 seconds of game play, every faceoff, due to people rushing back to their seats. Have you recieved any other feedback on this subject?
James Oyler of Baldwin
KOVACEVIC: Yes, but all of it has been overwhelmingly positive, James.
If your issue with the faceoffs in attending games at Mellon Arena is that people walk in front of you, I suggest taking that up with your section's usher. They're not supposed to let anybody back into the viewing area while play is going on. If the usher doesn't help, contact the Penguins.
In different arenas, they handle this problem in different ways. In Tampa, the ushers hold up this geeky little stop-sign-on-a-stick that keeps fans out in the concourse of each section until play stops. In Chicago, the fans police the matter on their own by yelling, swearing and threatening anyone who even thinks about moving through the seating area while play is going on.
My own thoughts on the hurry-up faceoffs, I will admit, are quite biased because they're based almost entirely on having to write stories on a tight deadline:
They are the greatest thing that's happened in the history of mankind.
Q: Dejan, I just don't understand Craig Patrick's logic in not keeping talks going with Alexei Kovalev's agent. I know Patrick is a fan of having players playing in a contract year, but couldn't this come back to haunt Patrick and the Penguins? What if Kovalev has an unreal year and leads the league in scoring? Will he then ask for more than the $9 million that he is asking for? I just feel like Kovalev is far too important to this team for them to stop talks because of the start of the season.
Justin Werth of Butler
KOVACEVIC: Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Penguins Q & A with Dejan Kovacevic 
E-mail this story 
