News

The race for the Stanley Cup begins in earnest on Wednesday with four games, including the series openers for two of the three Canadian teams.

In a rematch of a first-round series from a year ago, the Ottawa Senators, who slid to seventh in the Eastern Conference with an ugly final month of the regular season, hope for a similar result as 2007, when they beat Pittsburgh in five games. But this is a very different Penguins team, featuring a more mature duo of Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. Pittsburgh narrowly missed finishing atop the East.

In Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Roy MacGregor writes: "That the Penguins themselves will be up is beyond debate. Last year they were a very young and inexperienced team that lucked its way into the playoffs. They fell in five games to the then mighty Senators and it was deemed a success in light of the playoff experience gained by the youngsters. Now they are less young, less inexperienced. More significantly, Malkin, who looked lost a year ago in the playoffs, has emerged as one of the NHL's most lethal forces, coming second in the scoring race to the Washington Capitals' Alexander Ovechkin."

Calgary, the seventh seed in the West, opens on the road against the No. 2 San Jose Sharks in a reprise of a thrilling 2004 conference championship. The Sharks enter the playoffs on a roll after being the hottest team in the National Hockey League.

On Thursday, the Canadiens begin the post-season as the top seed in the Eastern Conference, hosting a Boston Bruins squad which they went 8-0 against this season. After enjoying a breakthrough regular season, Globesports.com hockey columnist Eric Duhatschek thinks the Canadiens are Canada's best hope to end a 15-year Stanley Cup drought.

Other storylines to watch include the post-season debut of Alexander Ovechkin, who hoisted the Capitals on his shoulders down the stretch, against Philadelphia and another installment in the always contentious battle echkin between the Rangers and Devils.

Is their a clear Cup favourite? Who will surprise? Who will disappoint?

Duhatschek was currently online Tuesday to discuss the playoffs.

Dave Leeder, Sports Editor, Globesports.com: Hi Eric, thanks for joining us today. A quick question to start us off: During the regular season, the spotlight has been focused on the maturation and subsequent success of the National Hockey League's crop of young superstars, like Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby. Their offensve exploits have been the talk of the league. Will that continue in the playoffs? Or, as in past seasons, will slow, defensive hockey prevail again with netminders dominating the action?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Scoring is a good place to start because it also factors into a question on a lot of people's minds these days — making choices in their annual playoff pools. Looking back, it's hard to imagine some of the gaudy scoring numbers that you saw in the playoffs once upon a time. Wayne Gretzky had 43 points in 19 games in 1988. Mario Lemieux had 44 points in 23 games in the 1991 playoffs. Even as recently as 1996, Joe Sakic had a highly respectable 34 points in 22 games for Colorado.

Since then however — and this covers 10 consecutive playoff series — no player has managed to crack the 30-point barrier for post-season scoring. The closest was Eric Staal of Carolina who managed 28 two years ago. But it has been as few as 18 points, which is what Jamie Langenbrunner and Scott Niedermayer managed for the Devils in '03.

Despite all the initiatives designed to increase NHL scoring in the three years since the lockout, there hasn't been a demonstrable gain in actual goals scored (although overall the hockey is better and scoring chances have increased). Still, there were only three 50-goal scorers in the league this year — Ovechkin and Malkin in the East, Jarome Iginla in the West. Just about everyone I've talked to in the past few days — Calgary players, San Jose players, Anaheim players — every second word out of their mouths is defence. So I suspect we'll see, as your question implies, that defensive hockey will indeed prevail again.

Brent Galbraith from Calgary writes: Eric, I'd like to start off by saying I love your articles and always look forward to reading your insights. To simply put my question, what do you think of Calgary's odds in the playoffs and, more particularly, the first round San Jose match up? The Flames won the season series. However, they completed their games well before the Sharks have become the best team in the NHL. Is Iginla and Kiprusoff good enough to win a series for their team? In my opinion, I think Nolan will be the one to watch here as he has done very well against his former team and answers the call in must-win games (ie Calgary's recent 3-2 win over Edmonton). Thanks for answering my question, I look forward to reading your response.

Eric Duhatschek writes: Brent, thank for the kind words, they are much appreciated. I would give the Flames about a one-in-three chance against the Sharks. I'm picking San Jose, I picked them at the start of the year and I'm not about to jump ship now that they're playing so well, but they do match up fairly evenly in terms of their high-end talent — Thornton/Iginla, Campbell/Phaneuf and Nabokov/Kiprusoff.

Indeed, you could also give Calgary a slight advantage there. However, I think from players No. 4 to 23, San Jose is better — more overall depth and a far more mobile blue line. Calgary's defence, after Robyn Regehr, is extremely high risk. I can see this series being decided on turnovers, and on the basis of the regular season anyway, the Flames make far more mistakes on the defensive side of the puck than does San Jose.

And I'll agree with your Owen Nolan observation. He scored his only hat trick of the season against his ex-team this season; and he scored arguably the biggest goal of Calgary's season in that win over Edmonton last Tuesday, the main reason they're in the playoffs. Nolan did his best to downplay the significance of facing a team that he captained for years, but no one else on his team believes that. They think he'll be highly motivated — and effective — against the Sharks.

James Cooke from New York City writes: Hi Eric, really enjoy your columns, especially the ones on Fridays. Keep up the good work! There has been a lot written over the past week or so regarding the distorted standings caused by the OT/shootout 'nonsense.' Is there any chance the NHL will come to its senses and go back to a two-point game? Also, do you think the Habs can come out of the East and restore Canada to NHL glory? Thank you.

Eric Duhatschek writes: James, glad you like those Friday opuses. I like doing them too — it gives me a chance to go on at length which, as you can probably tell from chats and other forums I participate in, suits me well. You ask: If the NHL will come to its senses and go back to the two-point game? Sadly, the answer is no.

The matter of changing the standings came up at the '07 GMs meetings in Naples and it was shouted down by among others the Ducks' Brian Burke. The NHL loved the fact that the races went down to the wire; that there was hope in about 24 markets right up until the final week of the season; and weren't bothered at all by the fact that 24 of 30 teams finished with "winning" records. I can't stand it myself but I don't like the shootout either. If they made me commissioner, you'd have 10 minutes of four-on-four overtime, winner-take-all, and if it ends in a tie, it ends in a tie. I can live with that.

DW from Switzerland writes: Completely off the wall question: as they say, anybody who gets into the postseason -- ANY team -- can win the thing; just to speculate, do you see any possible route by which the lowest ranked team in the playoffs, Nashville, could win the Stanley Cup this year? (actually, dunno if their final points total was lower than the lowest in the East).

Eric Duhatschek writes: David, you're correct, Nashville had the lowest point total of any playoff team with 91; if you look past them and the five teams that finished above 100 points, a total of only five points separated the remaining 10 teams in the standings, from 99-point New Jersey down to 94-point Calgary, Washington, Ottawa and Boston. So who's a favorite? Who's an underdog? Who knows?

It's not like the old days when a mediocre 68-point Minnesota North Stars team that had no business even making the playoffs can get all the way to the Stanley Cup final (1991) or a 63-point Los Angeles Kings' team can take down a 111-point Edmonton Oilers team, the way they did in 1982. Presumably, if an eighth-place Oilers team could get to the final only two years ago, the Predators could do it too. The funny thing about all those Cinderella stories though is they rarely ever result in a championship — for whatever reason, midnight tends to strike on them, just before they get their hands on that big silver trophy.

Jay D from Ottawa writes: In your opinion does Anaheim have sufficient scoring depth to repeat as champion this year? Their defence and goaltending are championship caliber, but in last year's playoffs they barely scored enough. Also, will Corey Perry be ready to go?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Officially, Corey Perry isn't back until the near the end of the opening round, although trying to get an accurate assessment of a player's injury status — difficult in the regular season — is nearly impossible now. If I had to hazard a guess: A very slight chance of him appearing in the opener; a better chance of him playing in Game 3; and of course, everything hinges on how things are going. If they're up 2-0 without him, they may not rush him back.

As for the Ducks' scoring ability, I predicted — with tongue in cheek — after Scott Niedermayer returned that every game for the remainder of the season featuring Anaheim would end 2-1. I'll go along with that for the playoffs too — they don't have a lot of scoring, but they probably have enough.

Ron from Hamilton writes: Hi Eric, it's a multi part question. Do you give Calgary much of a chance against San Jose? How do you evaluate Mike Keenan's work this year? In my view he did well with a lineup that had about three quality players, a great goalie and not much else. Did Dallas get take on dead weight with the Richards deal (and hand Stamkos to Tampa Bay in the bargain)? Wasn't that a brilliant move by Jay Feaster? Forget Brian Burke, what are the chances that the Leafs will steal Feaster from Tampa Bay? What do you think of a Feaster/Keenan combo in Toronto? OK I'm a Leaf (and Calgary) fan. Thanks.

Eric Duhatschek writes: I like the Sharks over the Flames in six. I think Keenan has done credible work with the team he was given, but I know he wasn't always on the same page as, say, Kristian Huselius or Alex Tanguay, and would have probably liked to see Flames' GM Darryl Sutter do a few more things at the trading deadline, to bring in the 2008 answers to Stephane Matteau and Brian Noonan (which this year would have been Olli Jokinen). Didn't happen of course. This is the team that Darryl built, so there couldn't be anything wrong with it.

The problem with the Stars' acquisition of Brad Richards is that they now have two real good playmaking centres and nobody to finish on the wings. It was Richards's problem in Tampa (after they shifted Martin St. Louis off his line and moved St. Louis up with Vincent Lecavalier). People forget that Richards and St. Louis played together with Freddie Modin in Tampa's championship year; Lecavalier's linemates that year were usually Cory Stillman and Ruslan Fedotenko.

I'm not sure how brilliant the move was on Jay Feaster's part only because I'm uncertain if Mike Smith really is the goalie that they can rely on to be a No. 1. If he is, then the deal will almost certainly go Tampa's way. But you're right, they now have Steve Stamkos to come in and probably play in Richards' spot as a No. 2 centre right away, a much younger (and cheaper) alternative. Keenan/Feaster in Toronto? Ah, no I don't so.

Brian Marto from Toronto writes: I have to agree with you on Montreal for me since I can remember Montreal has won the Cup in every decade so really they are due soon. My pick has to be Detroit vs Montreal in the final a classic original 6 match-up with Montreal taking it in 7. What do you think Eric?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Three weeks ago, as part of a joint project with the Hockey News, Globe writers were asked to make their playoff predictions — or long before the playoff races were settled in an ultra-tight race. I actually had to double-check to see who I chose at that point (and you gotta feel read bad for those guys who picked Carolina). I had Pittsburgh defeating Montreal in the Eastern Conference final; and San Jose over Detroit in the West. Then I picked San Jose to win the Cup. It'd be bad form to change off that now, I suspect, but I do think Montreal helped itself by finishing first overall, so that if Philadelphia can knock off Washington, they'll get the Flyers in the second round, another winnable series for the Canadiens from my perspective.

John Richardson from Mimico writes: Dear Mr. Duhatschek;

I don't know whether I'm a voice in the wilderness, but all the discussion in the East seems to focus on the strengths of Montreal, Pittsburgh and Washington or how Boston or Ottawa will be out in four.

I agree that hey are all capable of taking the East but no one seems to even mention the Devils who, in my opinion, can win the Conference simply because of Brodeur.

Goaltending is at best either untested or questionable in the East: Carey Price could be the next Patrick--either Roy or Lalime; Ottawa's speaks for itself; Huet may get the yips, Tim Thomas may be overwhelmed by Montreal's offense, Fleury may return to last year's form; Phillie traditionally lacks goaltending; and. who knows about Lundqvist?

I am not a Devils' fan--as a matter of fact, they'd be near the bottom of teams I'd like to see in the Final--but Brodeur is a proven performer and still the best goalie in the world.

Thoughts?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Goaltending is the X factor in any playoff year; the thing about Brodeur, as good as he is, in the last five years, he's been out in the first round twice; out in the second round twice and he won a championship in 2003. In fact, in 2002, he was the losing goalie in the first round against Carolina and the winning goalie — in the deciding game — was Kevin Weekes, who is now his back-up.
|
My view of goaltending is this: If your team isn't good enough, then you need lights-out brilliant netminding to have a chance — and sometimes, teams get that. J.S. Giguere gave it to Anaheim in '03; Mike Keenan was regaling us with a funny story about the 1989 playoffs, when he coached Chicago and they rode Alain Chevrier all the way to the conference finals. Johan Hedberg, Steve Pennery — you know all the names of goalies that were unlikely playoff heroes for a short period of time and then disappeared into the ether.

So every question you raise about the aforementioned group of eight goalies deserves to be asked. My guess though is that while some may come up short of expectation, I don't think they all will — and to me, the Devils are just too average up-and-down their line-up to win three series, even with a class act like Brodeur and his 94 playoff wins to fall back on.

Prussian Prince from Canada writes: Eric, many commentators are picking the Sharks to go all the way. First they have to go through the inconsistent but capable Flames. How do you like the Flames' chances to knock the Sharks off their game with a gangbusters physical style of play? Also, are the Senators going to get blown-out by the Penguins? Or will they step-up and show resilience partly based on their deep playoff experience? Thanks.

Eric Duhatschek writes: I do think Calgary's best chance against the Sharks is to lure them into a physical game - distract them so that they don't get their pressure-forechecking game going. Ultimately, that's how it'll be decided — if San Jose can get in on Calgary's defence and create turnovers, they'll score from close range, or on the power play because they're forced an undisciplined Flames' team into taking too many penalties. Five-on-five, Calgary is pretty good. The trick is, if they're parading to the penalty box in this series, they're going to need to take a Sharks' player with them.

As for Ottawa, the one chance they have is this us-against-the-world siege mentality that coach Bryan Murray is trying to create for them. The Senators' history, with very rare exceptions, is that they thrive as the underdog, when the pressure is limited, but fail to meet expectations when they are cast as the heavy favorite. So you can be sure that Spezza, Heatley and the rest will play far more relaxed than they would have had they finished as well as they started. I just worry about Alfredsson and Fisher's absence. Not only do they need them for scoring, they also rely on their leadership. I'm not sure the rest of what remains can pull up the slack in that all-important aspect of the game.

Brier Bear from Canada writes: There's usually an upset in the first round. Do you see any of underdogs this year making it to the second round? Boston over Montreal perhaps?

Eric Duhatschek: I don't see Boston over Montreal; when it comes to underdogs, I'm picking the six seeds over the threes in both conferences. In fact, I really like Colorado as my sleeper team in the West. Minnesota is going to have to play without Nick Schultz, one half of their shutdown defence pair, after he underwent an emergency appendectomy Monday. They are already without power-play specialist Kurtis Foster. So Petteri Nummelin draws in and while he can be gifted offensively, he's a liability on the blue line. It also means more minutes for Martin Skoula, the ex-Avs' defenceman, and if anyone knows how to exploit Skoula, it'll be Peter Forsberg, Joe Sakic and the rest. Minnesota wins if it evolves into a battle of special teams; otherwise, I see Colorado winning there, and setting up an intriguing second-round match against Detroit, their great rival.

In the East, I see the Capitals a little like the Penguins of last season, a team that made great regular-season strides, and were captivated fans around the league that probably couldn't have named five players on their roster two months ago. The problem, when you go on a run like that is that sooner or later, you need to exhale — you go flat, you go a little stale. It happens to every team at some point. Philly had that happen to them a month ago; they've been better lately and goaltender Martin Biron seems to be back on track. I think most observers see Washington as an easy winner there; I think the Flyers will give them all they can handle.

Dave Leeder, Sports Editor, Globesports.com: Unfortunately, we've run out of time. One last (selfish) question for you: Many of us are spending some time today filling up playoff pool entry forms. Do you have any tips? Sleepers? Busts?

Eric Duhatschek writes: Because I like Colorado, I think there are some easy to overlook Avalanche players who could come cheap — Peter Forsberg, of course, Joe Sakic, who spent all that time on the IR; even their leading scorer Paul Stastny, who along with Milan Hedjuk and Forsberg look like one of the most dangerous lines in the NHL this season.

If you, like me, think highly of San Jose's chances, don't overlook Ryan Clowe, who played only 15 games and scored eight points, but is a big physical player who may up on Joe Thornton's line at some point in the playoffs.

And of course, Gary Roberts is back playing in Pittsburgh, a team that could go all the way. He'll be rested and might get an important role, depending upon how things go with Pascal Dupuis, currently up there playing with Sidney Crosby and Marian Hossa.

With the Ducks, you need to go down the list a little to find Teemu Selanne (23 points in 26 games) and Scott Niedermayer (25 in 48). If the Ducks play three rounds, they'll be Anaheim's second and third leading scorers, behind only Ryan Getzlaf, so don't wait too long if you legitimately believe in Anaheim's chances.

And for those who watch Detroit closely, you probably saw Tomas Holmstrom was back for their regular-season finale. At 40 points in only 59 games, he'll be somebody that could get overlooked. Good luck to everybody in their playoff pools and thanks again for submitting your questions today.