News

Seeded eighth in the Western Conference entering the National Hockey League playoffs, expectations were low for the Edmonton Oilers.

That certainly has changed. With their victory over the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim on Saturday, Edmonton clinched the West title in five games and secured a berth in the Stanley Cup final.

The Oilers will now get a much-deserved rest while they wait for the conclusion of the Eastern final between Buffalo and Carolina.

Will this break in the action slow Edmonton's momentum? Or will it provide the underdog squad a chance to regroup?

Hockey columnist Eric Duhatschek was on-line Monday taking questions from Globe readers on the Oilers' success and the National Hockey League playoffs.

Duhatschek was the winner of the Hockey Hall Of Fame's Elmer Ferguson award for "distinguished contributions to hockey writing" in 2001. A graduate of the University of Western Ontario's grad school of journalism, he began covering hockey in 1978 and after spending 20 years covering the NHL and the Calgary Flames, joined globeandmail.com in September, 2000, where he writes a five-time-a-week NHL column.

A frequent contributor to Hockey Night in Canada's Satellite Hot Stove segment, he has covered four Winter Olympics, 19 Stanley Cup finals, every Canada Cup and World Cup since 1981, plus two world championships. He is also a member of the Hockey Hall Of Fame's annual Selection Committee.

Editor's Note: The same rules will apply to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. Globeandmail.com editors will read and approve each comment/question. Not all comments/questions can be answered in the time available. Comments/questions will be checked checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. Comments/questions that include personal attacks, false or unsubstantiated allegations, vulgar language or libelous statements will be rejected. Preference will be given to those who ask questions under their full name, rather than pseudonyms.

David Leeder, Sports Editor, globeandmail.com writes: Hi Eric and thanks for joining us again. There's been a lot of interest and confusion surrounding when the Cup final will begin. What have you heard?

Eric Duhatschek writes:The league isn't saying officially when the final starts, but it's looking more and more as if it will begin next Monday. The reasons have more to do with U.S. television than any other factor. NBC does not have the rights to the first two games of the final, so they would prefer the series starts on a Monday, so they could televise Game 3 (which would be played Saturday June 10) and Game 6 (which would be played Saturday June 17). The league is committed to a Saturday-Monday-Wednesday cycle, so here is how it shapes up: If Carolina wins tomorrow night and the hockey operations advises commissioner Gary Bettman that they cannot wait around six additional days to the get started, then they'll start Saturday June 3 in Carolina. That, however, is the less likely scenario. The more likely scenario is they'll wait until next Monday to start, which means if the final goes seven games, the championships will be decided on Monday June 19, which would represent the second-longest NHL season in history (only the lockout-delayed 1994-95 season lasted longer). And of course, if Buffalo wins tomorrow night and stays alive in the series, it's a moot point anyway. Then, the Eastern Conference final will be extended until Thursday and the Stanley Cup final will open in the home of the Eastern champion next Monday. CBC obviously would prefer a Saturday start, so they could potentially get three Saturday broadcasts in the final (the third, the 10th and the 17th), but their input is secondary to that of NBC's.

Jonathan Ries from Vancouver writes: Eric, love your columns. My question is do you think that after 3 rounds of gruelling, phyiscal hockey with a relentless forecheck, that the Oilers will run out of gas?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Jonathan, I'm less concerned with the Oilers running out of gas as I am with them losing their edge after a lengthy layoff. Remember, it's happened quite a few times this spring already — that a team that wins a playoff round with comparative ease and suddenly gets a few extra days of rest simply can't get back to the level they were previously playing at. Colorado got smoked 5-0 in their series opener with Anaheim after winning in five over Dallas; New Jersey got beat 6-0 by Carolina after sweeping the Rangers (at which point they'd won 15 in a row and looked unstoppable); and Ottawa, I'm convinced, lost their series to Buffalo because of how erratically their goaltending and defence played in the series opener against Buffalo (a 7-6 overtime loss) that followed a fairly convincing five-game win over Tampa in the opening round. I thought Barry Melrose, the former Kings' coach, said it pretty well in his ESPN column the other day. I'm paraphrasing here, but Melrose said it's hard to keep a team mentally and physically alert if the layoff is a week or more, and it doesn't matter what a coach does in terms of preparation. He said that when a team played every second day, adrenaline takes over — and even though you're tired and beat up, you just keep your head down and your focus on the task at hand and block everything else out and keep going. It's what Badger Bob Johnson, the former Pittsburgh and Calgary coach, used to call the "hockey vacuum" that you enter into at playoff time. Melrose's point, though, was that once you get a few days off and your body starts to heal a little, it instinctively doesn't want to go back to that painful place again — so you really have to push hard to get there. It's an interesting theory and one that makes a lot of sense, given how the playoffs have unfolded this season. So to directly answer your question, probably Edmonton would be happier with a Saturday start (which would mean Carolina won its series with Buffalo in six games and the league decided to get things underway ASAP) than a seven-game series, which would push the start of the Stanley Cup final back to next Monday and result in a nine-day layoff. The Oilers will get the requisite rest right now (they're scheduled to start practising again Tuesday). The key to success will be maintaining the edge they played the first three series with; if they can do that, then you have to think they have a decent chance against whichever team emerges from the East.

R. Carriere from the Maritimes writes: Eric, it is always a pleasure to submit a question(s) to the best hockey columnist in North America. Everyone would admit that on paper the Oilers would have had difficulty making the playoffs. From your point of view, what intangibles have brought the Oilers to the Cup final. Mc Tavish? Lowe? Stanley Cup rings? Work Ethic? Chemistry? Samsonov blocking shots? As a follow-up, I thought Kevin Lowe was a lunatic when he gave away a first round draft pick for Roloson ( That's why I am where I am, and he is where he is ) What could Lowe have possibly seen in Roloson to warrant this? He had only 15 games of NHL playoff experience and certainly was not a household name? Why did the players buy in? I just don't get it! And finally, how upset are the suits in New York going to be with an Edmonton-Carolina/Buffalo final? A ratings bombshell to say the least.

Eric Duhatschek writes: Ron, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to the intangibles that led Edmonton this far down the playoff path. You ask about Craig MacTavish's coaching: The fact that the Oilers were willing to play a 1-4 to protect a lead in a game represents a significant philosophical shift for that organization that used to play go-go hockey all the time; it helped them defeat the Red Wings in the opening round (Detroit couldn't believe it when they saw it and had a hard time reacting on the fly to that tactical shift); and it helped them close down teams in games where they nursed a lead into the third period. On general manager Kevin Lowe's input: I've long held a minority point of view as it relates to the NHL trading deadline. Historically, I believe that the moves a team makes at the 11th hour, with a view to fortifying itself for the stretch drive and playoff run, rarely translates into a positive result on the ice. My point is if, after all these years, we're still talking about the importance to Butch Goring to the Islanders (in 1980) or Ron Francis to Pittsburgh (in 1991), then the vast majority of deals made at the trading deadline did little to improve a team's playoff performance and that the sellers usually do better than the buyers in the overheated trading deadline player market. This year, you could argue that this perspective is incorrect: That the move to acquire goaltender Dwayne Roloson from the Minnesota Wild for a first-round pick is primarily responsible for the Oilers being where they are in the playoff race. Lowe has pointed out a number of times in the last little while that the Oilers gave up the fewest regular-season shots in the NHL (and he was right, by the way, I looked it up. They gave up 2,095 shots; Dallas was second at 2,099, followed by San Jose and Detroit, who were tied for third. The best in the East was Tampa, at 2,260). Lots of teams want to use goaltending as a crutch when things don't go well, but that is clear statistical unemotional proof that it was an issue for them in the first six months of the season and that they needed to shore up that position in order to, first, qualify for the playoffs; and second, go deep into the playoffs. So kudos to Lowe for getting the best available, experienced goalie out there and then to MacTavish for giving Roloson time to adjust to playing behind the Oilers' defence, which took a couple of weeks, because they tended to block more shots than what he was used to; and as a result, it took some time for all of them to get used to each other's tendencies. As for the notion that the NHL head office is going to hate a Carolina-Edmonton final, well, since the lockout was all about evening the playing field for 30 teams, if that's what they believe, then they did this to themselves. From this year forward, I don't think it's going to matter how far a team goes into the playoffs; it will have almost no spillover effect into the next season. This year, we've seen four teams in the Final Four, all of whom missed the playoffs in 2004. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a couple of this year's non-playoff teams have the same sort of complete about-face turnarounds next year and go deep into the post-season. And I'll put Vancouver and Florida at the top of my list as two teams with the capacity to do just that.

Gary Wilson from Calgary writes: This Oilers run is reminiscent in many ways of the Flames run last season. The one difference for me is that I see this Oilers team as quite a bit better than that Flames team. More scoring, more depth, probably not better goaltending, but great goaltending nonetheless. Strangely, for an eighth place team, I don't see a real weakness. Do you see the Oilers as that good or just playing that good?

Eric Duhatschek writes: The biggest difference between Calgary and Edmonton at this stage of their respective playoff series is that the Flames had simply lost too many important players to injury in the first three rounds in 2004 (regulars Toni Lydman and Denis Gauthier were out, and they had to resort to playing a minor leaguer named Brennan Evans for two games in the playoffs). The Oilers, by contrast, are healthy, or will be, once they get back to playing again, after recovering from the flu bug. But you're correct — they also have more balanced scoring than Calgary, which relied so heavily on Jarome Iginla in 2004. A perfect example: Saturday's clinching game when Raffi Torres came out of sick bay to score the game winner and Radek Dvorak earned two assists. When you get to the fourth round of the playoffs, often the battle becomes a war of attrition and right now, the Oilers' look as if they have pretty much everybody at their disposal right now.

Irene Cornwell from Morinville writes: I am a fan of the CBC, but can you explain why the announcers are so unexcited about the Oilers' story and the on-going action on the ice. This is an underdog story from beginning to now. We Oiler fans will be nervous going into the final games. One of my sons listens to a radio commentary while watching the T.V. picture (which is very annoying as there is a 3 to 4 second difference and he is jumping across the room before I see the goal). His logic. To take in some of the electricty of the commentary. Is it professional broadcast conduct or eastern bias???

Eric Duhatschek writes: This is a difficult question for me to answer Irene because, since I'm attending the games in person, I don't get to listen to the commentary. I did skip Game 5 in Anaheim because our Vancouver correspondent, Grant Kerr, skipped down the Left Coast to cover it and I have to say, I thought the commentary from Bob Cole and Harry Neale was balanced and fair. Traditionally, you will get a little more "electricity" from the home team's broadcasting crew (often, they are actually employed by the clubs, or at the very least, the clubs have a say in who gets to keep his job after season's end). As a journalist, I don't mind a little detachment from the commentators as long as the producers do a good job of showing the celebration and excitement demonstrated by the players and the fans. To the credit of the Edmonton players, they themselves were a fairly contained bunch following Saturday's win, understanding I guess that the job is three-quarters done, but not completed yet. That, I think, is the proper way to approach things. As the Calgary Flames could tell you from their experiences two years ago, nothing stings worse than getting to the seventh game of the Stanley Cup final and then losing the decisive match.

George Malik from South Lyon, MI., writes: Mr. Duhatschek, How do you see this summer's goaltending shuffle playing out? The Bolts are obviously hampered by the Richards deal, but the Wings, Sens (assuming they don't re-sign Hasek), and Leafs are all looking for a solid starting netminder, but it's arguable that Raycroft, Nabokov, and possibly Biron and/or Giguere will be on the market...and the cap seems to play a central role in any compensation for said netminders.

Eric Duhatschek writes: Good question: In Tampa's case, they are in a bit of dilemma because of finances, so in a perfect world, they'll try to trade dollars for dollars. By that I mean, they might part with $5 million worth of Martin St. Louis in order to pick up $5 million worth of Evgeni Nabokov from San Jose, thus giving them a Russian goalie that many feel is on par with Nikolai Khabibulin, who won the Cup with them in 2004. The complicating thing there is, St. Louis has five years left on a six-year contract and lots of GMs are reluctant to commit to that kind of term. Also, St. Louis has a no-trade that kicks in on July 1. Giguere might end up in Detroit, although I don't know if Mike Babcock, who coached him in Anaheim in the '03 run, would recommend that or not. Ottawa sounds as if they'll commit to Dominik Hasek again, for reasons that elude me. If I'm Toronto, I'd seriously consider trading one of my two prospects in goal (Pogge or Rask) to Boston for Raycroft, on the grounds that neither of the kids is going to be ready for NHL duty for three or more years anyway and Raycroft (assuming you think his Calder Trophy performance in 2004 was no fluke) could step in and solidify the position until such time as Pogge or Rask can play. Martin Gerber might be an option for Tampa as well. And of course, don't overlook Ed Belfour, who I believe is going to want to play again and will probably do so for a discount, provided whatever contract he signs is heavily bonus-laden. You get some baggage with Belfour, but if he's healthy and motivated, it might be a risk worth taking for a team looking for a short-term solution.

Clydeplays Electric-bass from Victoria writes: Assuming that Buffalo's decimated defense proves to be the undoing of their Stanley Cup aspirations can you comment on how Edmonton and Carolina will match up? Just for fun here are my evaluations. Starting goaltending > Even; Goaltending depth > Edge to Carolina. Defense > Edge to Emonton; Forwards > Even. 3rd and 4th line depth > Slight edge to Edmonton. Power play > slight edge to Carolina. Penalty kill > Edge to Edmonton. Style of play > Both teams play a pressure style of game. Intangibles: Leadership > edge to Edmonton. Experience > even. Prediction > Edmonton in 7.

Eric Duhatschek writes: It's hard to dispute any of your evaluations. The only thing I'll add is this: The pattern, in recent years, has been the clock often strikes midnight on a playoff Cinderella, once it gets to the Stanley Cup final. Carolina was a 112-point regular-season team and finished tied with Dallas for third overall. Edmonton was a 95-point team that finished 14th overall. If you look at the past decade or so, the Stanley Cup champion has invariably been a top-five regular-season team, so on that basis, you might want to pick Carolina to win it all. On the other hand, this is the "new" NHL, so maybe we can throw out all the old stats and trends and just wait to see how it might unfold.

Brett Young from Helsinki writes: Hi Eric, is there any reason to believe that Edmonton this year will *not* continue the recent pattern of lower seeds that make it all the way to the finals, only to run out of steam and lose to higher-ranked teams? I am thinking about teams like Anaheim, Carolina, Washington, Florida, etc.

Eric Duhatschek writes: Brett, I actually addressed this in the previous question because you are correct: Historically, this is when the lower-seeded team runs out of steam. I would suggest this: If Buffalo finds a way of rallying from a 3-2 deficit and comes back to defeat Carolina, then Edmonton — which will be so much healthier than the Sabres, with their depleted defence corps — would stand a great chance. If the Hurricanes advance, then it's a different story — although the one thing Edmonton has done well in these playoffs is defend against high-octane teams such as Carolina which, if it wins, will have done so against Montreal, New Jersey and Buffalo, three very good teams, but none that possess a defenceman such as Chris Pronger, who has been so dominant in these playoffs. Pronger just might tilt the scales in Edmonton's favor, even against the Hurricanes.

James R. from Niagara Falls writes: Does Edmonton have what it takes to handle Buffalo or Carolina? I think they would stand a better chance vs Buffalo than Carolina. Buffalo isn't as deep, nor do they have the overall talent Carolina does. Buffalo has insane speed and are very opportunistic with their scoring chances. Carolina's goalie, Ward, appears to be as solid as Roloson. Tough choices for Edmonton, but they have slayed a few 'giants' to get to the final, so i wouldn't ever put them out of a series.

Eric Duhatschek writes: One of the trickiest things about evaluating playoffs is that you almost have to go on a series-by-series basis. For example, Buffalo — on paper — had a great chance, I thought, against Carolina, but then lost two key defencemen (Teppo Numminen and Henrik Tallinder) to injury. Suddenly, everything changed and they became a far less formidable opponent with minor-league call-ups Jeff Jillson and Doug Janik in the line-up. The Sabres' players and coaches will all say the right things about rallying around the newcomers, but if you're watching, Carolina is exploiting those two newcomers on defence in a tangible way. Apart from Erik Cole's absence, Carolina has mostly all hands on deck. It looked to me as if Buffalo lost its best, last chance to win the series Sunday night, when they blew a 3-1 lead on the road. So to answer your question, yes, Edmonton would stand a better chance to win against the Sabres, with the line-up Buffalo is currently playing, as opposed to Carolina, which has more depth and more ways to beat you. In the end, an Edmonton-Carolina final, if that's the way it unfolds, will probably come down to which goaltender cracks first — Roloson or Cam Ward. Carolina, at least, has the option of making a switch if necessary. Edmonton is committed to Roloson all the way.

Matthew Sinclair writes: Do you foresee a day when cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Detroit (and eventually Winnipeg) will be take control of the NHL's focus because that is where the passion truly lies? Will the importance that hockey plays within a community take precedence over a huge American city where as long as a few people go to see a game once in their lives, the franchise will do OK. Prime example: As many people came out in Edmonton to the mere announcement that the Oilers were acquiring Pronger and Peca, as did emerge in the streets in Tampa Bay to celebrate the Lightning's Stanley Cup victory!...I mean let's get real.

Eric Duhatschek writes: In terms of where franchises are located in the NHL, I don't see much changing in the foreseeable future. The only one in imminent danger of moving is Pittsburgh. I suspect Mario Lemieux will sell his ownership stake in the team, perhaps as early as this summer, and by December or so, we'll learn if the team gets a new building and stays in Pittsburgh, or doesn't get approval for a new building, in which case it'll end up in Kansas City, Houston or Las Vegas. Winnipeg would be a possibility, although it is a long-shot at the moment - unless an ownership group can get its ducks in order and put together an attractive offer that includes lots of cold, hard cash, not just some house-of-cards financial proposition. I don't see that happening and as a result, I believe the status quo will continue in the near term anyway. I've covered enough hockey now in the southern United States to agree with your overall premise — that in a lengthy playoff run, the fan base can come to life in Carolina or Anaheim (although all those empty seats on Saturday night had to send a disturbing message to the Samueli ownership group), but come October, even if the Hurricanes do win the Stanley Cup, it'll be a battle to fill the building for a Tuesday night date with Nashville.

But how do you change that? In a perfect world, the NHL would be a 24-team entity, with four, six-team divisions and eight teams in Canada (let's get both Quebec and Winnipeg back in the fold if we're dreaming in technicolor). But that's pie-in-the-sky thinking. I've said this many times before: To operate in the NHL these days, you primarily need a state-of-the-art building and a deep-pockets ownership group. Everything else (including that passionate fan base you allude to) is secondary. Sadly, until such time as the Asper family in Winnipeg, or perhaps the Saputo family in Quebec, steps up and demonstrates a keen financial commitment to a new NHL franchise, I don't see much changing.

David Leeder, Sports Editor, globeandmail.com writes: We've run out of time. Thanks Eric and everyone who participated today. One last question: Has Calgary, where you're located, caught Oilers fever yet?

Eric Duhatschek writes: In a word, no. Some readers appear to have adopted the Oilers as Canada's team, but the majority of my correspondents are taking the 'anybody-but-Edmonton' approach to the upcoming Stanley Cup final. And I'm sure it was the same way two years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, and Calgary unexpectedly advanced to the Stanley Cup final, only to lose to Tampa in seven games. Some things - such as the Calgary-Edmonton hockey rivalry - never change.