A Wild Tuesday in Hockey

It was a blur of a day in the hockey world, so much so that a couple of significant bookkeeping matters - the release of the NHL schedule and the decisions of the NHLPA to rubber stamp an increase in salary cap and agree to let the current collective bargaining agreement run through to its conclusion in 2011-12 - barely got any discussion at all.

It seemed like Montreal kicked off a hectic pre-draft period of NHL activity last week by trading Jaroslav Halak and it hasn't stopped yet. The awards go tonight, and all in all, the NHL has to be pleased by the news being generated right through to the end of June.

So let's run through the big stories from Tuesday one-by-one:

Hall of Fame passes on Burns

Yes, the Hall of Fame induction process is a wildly inconsistent one at best, all made worse by the fact the committee that makes the decisions on players, coaches, GMs and other hockey personnel refuses to make its votes public. I mean, wouldn't you like to know what the vote was on Dino Ciccarelli, or how much Doug Gilmour missed by?

But secrecy is what these guys believe in most passionately, not openness.

The omission of Pat Burns, however, has nothing to do with the vote to induct Ciccarelli or two women, Cammi Granato and Angela James. It has to do with choosing the late "Doc" Seaman, one of a group of businessmen who owned the Calgary Flames, and longtime NHL executive Jimmy Devellano ahead of Burns in the builder category.

Seaman's posthumous induction is one that would leave many scratching their head, particularly given the fact Harley Hotchkiss was the Flames co-owner that most outside Calgary knew well. Devellano, meanwhile, was an integral part of the Islander organization that won four Cups and has spent the last 28 years with the Red Wings, but in neither case was GM when those teams won championships.

How Burns and his distinguished coaching career was found wanting by comparison is something many would like to understand. But the Hall of Fame's induction committee never, ever explains itself.

Should more players have been inducted? Possibly, although it wasn't a year filled with slam dunks. If the idea was that after years of wrongly ignoring women's hockey that this would be a year that the first female inductees would attract the spotlight by outnumbering the males, I can live with that.

Niedermayer retires

Scott Neidermayer sure didn't pick the best day to retire if he wanted the hockey world to notice. But that's Niedermayer. He never sought the headlines throughout his spectacular career, and from the beginning to the end it was always remarkable to talk to him and feel how little he seemed an NHL star, both in his demeanor and his physical stature.

Never saw Bobby Orr play live. But of the defencemen I have seen, Paul Coffey might have been faster, but nobody was more effortless than Niedermayer, who leaves as the only man to win the Memorial Cup, the world junior championship, the Stanley Cup, the world championship and the Olympics.

Now if he's not a Hall of Fame inductee in his first year of eligibility in three years, then they can burn the building down.

Leafs miss out

As of late last week the Leafs were targetting Nashville defencemen Dan Hamhuis, Chicago centre Patrick Sharp and Florida winger Nathan Horton as players they might be able to acquire to enhance the Toronto roster.

Then, in quick succession, Hamhuis' rights were traded to Philly and Sharp was taken at least temporarily off the market, then Tuesday afternoon Horton was dealt to Boston.

So much for Brian Burke's best-laid plans.

Now the Flyers still have to sign Hamhuis before he becomes a free agent July 1st, and while the Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks would rather hang on to Sharp and move the likes of Andrew Ladd, Kris Versteeg and Dustin Byfuglien to deal with their salary cap issues, they might not be able to get what they want for those players.

Horton, meanwhile, is definitely gone. The Leafs were deep in conversations with Florida but clearly didn't have one of the elements the Panthers wanted, and that was a first-round pick. New GM Dale Tallon got the 15th overall selection from the B's to go with the No. 3 pick the Panthers already own. One Boston newspaper noted that the last time B's GM Peter Chiarelli and Tallon did business, Tallon was the GM in Chicago and extracted Versteeg in exchange for the forgettable Brandon Bochenski.

Horton, with three years left on a $24 million deal, will be fascinating to watch in Beantown. He's loaded with talent but seen to be a little short on the motivation end of things, but now he's in a newly revitalized hockey market where he won't be able to be anonymous like he was in south Florida. He'll also be playing for a taskmaster in Claude Julien, who won't be afraid to demand certain things of Horton that weren't always demanded with the Panthers. Let's see if the talented Horton responds better to playing in a hockey town than another ex-Panther, Jay Bouwmeester, did in Calgary last year.

Gregory Campbell, son of league disciplinarian Colin Campbell, was also included in the deal along with Horton, which changes things for NHL game ops. Until now, Campbell had recused himself from any issues involving the Panthers because of his son. Now, it'll be the Bruins, a team still seething from last season's ruling in which Pittsburgh's Matt Cooke was not suspended for his head shot on Marc Savard.

Oilers move Quinn

Two points on Pat Quinn's dismissal as head coach in Edmonton. First, it wasn't great timing by the Oilers to dump Quinn as coach knowing he'd be in Toronto dealing with the Hall of Fame induction process — he's co-chair of the induction committee — and would have to answer questions about the Edmonton situation coming out of those meetings.

Second, the Oilers are likely going to find keeping Quinn in the organization as a consultant won't work. Everywhere he's been he's gathered all the power to himself and isn't likely to be a co-operative foot soldier while others manage and coach the team.

That said, it's intriguing that he's one of the Hall of Fame voters that kept Burns out, isn't it? Doubly interesting given that Burns has a Stanley Cup ring, while Quinn doesn't, and Quinn and his legion of industry buddies will surely be looking to get his Hall of Fame induction campaign revved up sooner than later.

Habs secure Plekanec

Montreal signed Tomas Plekanec to a six-year, $5 million per season deal, one clearly linked to last week's decision to move Halak to St. Louis and clear up some salary cap space.

Plekanec didn't have a very good playoff run, but he was the team's top forward during the regular season. He's one of the Montreal "smurfs" along with Scott Gomez and Mike Cammalleri, and now the Habs are committed long-term to all three.

That size issue is one reason the Canadiens were so keen on picking up Calgary Hitman winger Ian Schultz, a big, bruising forward, in the Halak deal.

Nabokov homeless

Will anybody else sign Evgeny Nabokov? The Sharks have cut him loose after paying him $6 million last season. If he wants to stay in the NHL it will be for half that amount or less, and the KHL seems a likely destination.

The Sharks have a couple of young goalies. Philly doesn't seem poised to sign Michael Leighton, and he might be a perfect short-term fit in San Jose.

Not Waiting

You've got to give the Philadelphia Flyers credit for being proactive.

With a number of teams, including the Maple Leafs, anxiously waiting for a chance to try and sign Nashville defenceman Dan Hamhuis as an unrestricted free agent on July 1st, the Flyers have aggressively struck first, trading defenceman Ryan Parent to the Preds today for the rights to Hamhuis.

That opens up a 12-day window in which the Flyers exclusively own rights to sign the 27-year-old Hamhuis to a new deal, which seems likely. 

It's the same kind of move - and with the same Nashville club - the Flyers made three years ago when they acquired the rights to defenceman Kimmo Timmonen and winger Scott Hartnell then signed both to six-year contracts. At the time, many argued the Flyers ended up paying much more in salary to both players than necessary - Timmonen's deal averaged $6.3 million, Hartnell's $4.2 million - but Timmonen and Hartnell were both integral parts this spring as Philly charged all the way to the Stanley Cup final.

Hamhuis averaged 22 minutes and change for the Preds last season. Parent, 23, played a regular role for the Flyers in the post-season before being a healthy scratch for the final five games of the Stanley Cup final against Chicago.

Hamhuis is coming off a four-year, $8 million contract and will likely be looking for somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million per season. He was widely viewed as the best defenceman among this summer's unrestricted free agent crop, with New Jersey's Paul Martin, Boston Bruin rearguard Johnny Boychuk and Zbynek Michalek others still unsigned.

Philly was already facing some tough salary cap issues. For example, they only have one goalie, Brian Boucher, under contract at $925,000 per season.

Trading a Hero

Sure there's going to be extra angst in Montreal today. That's extra, because when it comes to the Montreal Canadiens, the most successful team in the history of hockey, angst is a daily reality no matter the circumstances.

But the trading of goalie Jaroslav Halak today to St. Louis for prospects Lars Eller and Ian Schultz is sure to cause dismay among those who saw in Halak this spring the next Ken Dryden or the next Patrick Roy, rather than the next Steve Penney.

The Habs, way back when, didn't deal Dryden right after he stunned the Boston Bruins in the '71 playoffs, did they?

Well, that was then is and this is now, a salary cap era in which tough decisions that don't necessarily have to do with the respective talents of players have to be made regularly. The Chicago Blackhawks are going to demonstrate that in the coming weeks as they are forced to partially dismantle a championship team that simply can't be kept together even if the cap, as expected, goes up by $2 million for next season.

With both Halak and Carey Price heading to free agency, the Habs just couldn't keep both. It would have meant that every night upwards of $3 million of valuable cap money would have been parked on the bench wearing a baseball cap rather than a mask.

There was no easy answer here for Habs GM Pierre Gauthier. Whether he kept both or traded either, there was going to be disagreement with his decision.

If anything, Habs fans should be pleased that he probably made the hardest choice by moving Halak given his terrific spring. Gauthier, if he's going to have a more successful run in Montreal than he did in Anaheim or Ottawa, needs to make exactly these types of hard decisions that will cause controversay in a hockey man city like Montreal.

This was a deal, you see, as much about the GM as the player being moved or the players being acquired. Gauthier made a tough choice that he knows will have a great deal of fallout in Montreal, and in doing so acquired young, cheap talent that the Habs needed.

Starting to Really Wonder. . . .

So today's column says new Leaf captain Dion Phaneuf is no quote machine or particularly media friendly, but that it doesn't matter. He'll be judged on whether he's a good player and how the team does, not by his relationship with the media.

Read the column. That's exactly what it says.

In response, there are some apparently offended by the column, twisting it to be criticism of Phaneuf for not being a pal of the media and thus turning thumbs down on his captaincy.

Never said any such thing. 

One thing you realize is that people will believe what they want to believe. If you write something they agree with, they think its great journalism. If it opposes their opinion, they think its horrible and undeserving of publication. Sometimes they twist things around. I included a Larry Murphy anecdote I thought some readers would find amusing, and one accused me of driving Murphy out of town. Such power I wish I had, but I don't.

So you shrug. The readers are entitled to their opinion, and more and more in today's interactive media world they are given an opportunity to make their thoughts and feelings known, which is a good thing. (Watch: Some reader will take issue and say I'm trying to shut everyone else up).

What I was pointing out in today's column, rather clearly I thought, is that it's the Leafs who are seemingly at odds with the captain's job description. They - not I - say a big part of the job is handling the media, then they go out and give the "C" to a player not known for his affability with scribblers and microphones.

Seems a bit contradictory. Me? I wouldn't factor media friendliness into picking a captain at all. I might measure how thick a guy's skin is, but in Toronto its not about public relations. There aren't tickets to be sold, so I don't know why the Leafs believe - or say they believe - they have to award the captaincy to a player with polished media skills.

Far from condemning the decision to give Phaneuf the captaincy, I said we'll have to wait and see, and he'll have to show individual personality skills he hasn't had to use so far in his career. Didn't say he couldn't do it. Said it's going to take some time. Said he's never done the job before so it's an open question as to whether he'll be able to handle it.

To re-iterate, I think Phaneuf has a chance to suceeed if he gets his game back together and if the Leafs win hockey games. He's a lousy interview, which means I probably won't talk to him a great deal, but that certainly doesn't mean I'll hold it against him. The guy's never turned me down for an interview since I first started dealing with him at the world junior championships in 2005, he's just almost never had anything to say and clearly would prefer not to be interviewed at all. Which is his prerogative.

What matters is what he says on the ice, not what he says or doesn't say to me. There's a fair number of players on the team and on other teams who are more than willing to share their insights and thoughts. Not everybody can be Chris Pronger or Patrick Sharp or Mike Cammalleri or Dominic Moore or Daniel Briere or Mike Komisarek or Ryan Miller or Martin Brodeur or Ilya Bryzgalov or even Sidney Crosby, and that's cool with me.

I do think Phaneuf has got to show up, win or lose. If things go well, he needs to speak. Same if things go terribly. Wendel Clark, Mats Sundin and Doug Gilmour always did that, and were respected by their teammates and members of the media. It's called accountability, and while the media end of its is just a small part, it's a part that many notice.

Fact is, the Leafs don't really know how Phaneuf will handle the captaincy. It might make him a better player, it might be a burden that detracts from his game. 

We'll see. It's not like there were any other viable choices, which is usually the case with young teams that have finished in the bottom of the league.

If the Leafs Are Doing It, It Must Be Bad. Right?

It's possible Dion Phaneuf may be a terrible choice as Leaf captain.

Or, he may be an excellent choice.

Fact is, it's rarely known how players, particularly young ones, will handle the mantle of responsibility until they take it out for a spin.

Vinny Lecavalier had the captaincy in Tampa and lost it. Ditto for Patrick Marleau in San Jose. Some who applauded the decision to make Roberto Luongo the captain in Vancouver are now saying it was a terrible idea.

The best captain in the game, of course, is Jonathan Toews, and that's because his team won.

But the point is that the automatic reflex reaction that if the Leafs are doing it, well, it must be wrong, might not necessarily apply.

That, of course, is what you get when you miss the playoffs year after year and then, in a year in which its supposed to turn around, finish 29th.

People say nasty things, and many are deserved.

Trashing the notion of Phaneuf as captain, however, seems a bit premature, particularly when the lone reason to do so is to mindlessly repeat the "rumours" out of Calgary that he wasn't well-liked. Those who pass this gossip along don't have the foggiest notion of whether the gossip is true, but do so anyway.

Well, we'll see if Phaneuf is a good leader in Toronto. We'll see if wearing the "C" gets him back to the point where he was two years ago when people were talking about him as a future Norris Trophy winner, not Duncan Keith.

The facts are that in 26 games with Phaneuf the Leafs were a better team, and that head coach Ron Wilson repeatedly talked about the positive impact Phaneuf had on the Leaf room. Now, admittedly, that's not as saucy as the anonymous rumours out of a losing dressing room in Calgary, but perhaps Wilson's observations deserve some recognition.

More to the point, Phaneuf isn't going to be a bad captain just because its the Leafs who are giving him the job.

The New Look

Everyone try to act surprised now.

For months, its been clear that not only would Dion Phaneuf be the new captain of the Leafs, he would skate his first game with the "C" wearing new jerseys. Reported all that here some time ago.

Monday, the Leafs will unveil both Phaneuf as captain and the new sweaters, which (hopefully) won't be as drab and non-descript as the current t-shirt numbers. All they've done is lose and lose some more in those babies since they donned them after the lockout, so might as well try some thing different. It'll likely be nothing too dramatic, probably just some piping here and there. A move to the traditional Leaf on the chest would be welcome, but seems unlikely.

Then there's Phaneuf as captain, although those media types in Calgary who covered him there are stunned that he is now regarded as a leader in Toronto. Ron Wilson, however, talked about the impact he had on the dressing room from the moment he landed in the deal with the Flames, so maybe they're seeing something the fine Sutter clan in Cowtown never did.

That the Leafs need a leader is indisputable. Whether Phaneuf is the right guy, well, we'll all apparently have years to discuss that, just as the debate over whether Mats Sundin was a good or bad captain never went away.

It says here if Phaneuf can be three-quarters of the captain Sundin was, the Leafs are making an excellent choice.

Live: Post-Stanley Cup hockey Q&A

Damien held a live Q&A Thursday morning, answering readers' questions about Chicago's Stanley Cup win and what lessons the Leafs might learn from it.

Overdue Mail Bag

PHILADELPHIA — Folks, got a confession to make. Been neglecting the mail bag, as a few of you have pointed out to me in emphatic tones.

So with Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final just five hours away, here's my attempt, with apologies, to play catch up.

Actually, we're going to highlight a piece of mail this week from Trevor Belrose of Kanata:

Q: Hi Damien ,

It's pretty remarkable to see the impact the extraordinary draft class of 2003 has had, both in the Olympics and the playoffs. If the '03 draft were re-done today, who would the top 10 picks be? And, how long does it take before we can fairly judge a draft class? Thanks. (I like discussing the 2003 draft with my dad, who's a diehard Leaf fan. Just saying.)

A: Love these kind of if-it-were-done-all-over-again questions, so thanks Trevor. This one is intriguing because the '03 draft - Marc-Andre Fleury was the first pick – was packed with all kinds of talent, much of which remains with the same clubs that did the drafting seven years ago. An exception would be Dion Phaneuf, taken ninth that year, who ended up being dealt to the Leafs.

So in '03, the top picks were: 1. Fleury (Pittsburgh) 2. Eric Staal (Carolina) 3. Nathan Horton (Florida) 4. Nikolai Zherdev (Columbus) 5. Tomas Vanek (Buffalo) 6. Milan Michalek (San Jose) 7. Ryan Suter (Nashville) 8. Brayden Coburn (Atlanta) 9. Phaneuf (Calgary) 10. Andrei Kostitsyn (Montreal).

If those teams could all have a mulligan, my guess would be the new order would be:

1. Ryan Getzlaf (went 19th) 2. Shea Weber (49th) 3. Mike Richards (24th) 4. Zach Parise (17th) 5. Brent Seabrook (14th) 6. Eric Staal (2) 7. Corey Perry (28th) 8. Fleury (1st) 9. Dustin Brown (13th) 10. Ryan Kesler (23).

Obviously, there was great value for teams outside the top 10 that year, and my list doesn't include Patrice Bergeron (45th), Joe Pavelski (205th), Dustin Byfuglien (245th). As well, the three D-men that did go high - Suter, Coburn and Phaneuf - all still have a change to be big-time players but have more developing still to do.

Like this year, with Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin battling for the first overall selection spot, my do-over draft would have Getzlaf and Weber battling for the No. 1 spot. Wonder what Ray Shero, now the GM of the Penguins, and Jim Rutherford, still the GM in Carolina, would prefer? I'm pretty sure Florida and Columbus would have been much happier with Richards and Parise than they were with Horton and Zherdev.

Fun exercise, though. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Here's a few leftover questions from recent weeks:

Q: Hi Damien,

I'm shocked at how little coverage I've seen regarding the Scott Hartnell 'goal' in game 3 that was ruled a goal after a video review. As Craig Simpson commented when looking at the replay, the angle of the camera (it was positioned way too far toward centre ice) made that replay useless, in my opinion.

Do you have any info regarding approval of the eye-in-the-sky camera positions? I sure hope the series doesn't end on a similar replay. I know that there will never be a perfect system for reviewing goals in hockey, but I think the best chance is to have a few mini cameras built in to the goal posts and crossbar. That overhead camera position in Philly has to be changed, though.

Bill Tamblyn, Toronto

A: Here's the deal. Philly and L.A. are the two NHL cities in which the rinks don't allow the overhead camera to be position directly over the crossbar, which is the No. 1 view the NHL replay officials prefer. In the Wachovia Centre, the camera is in front of the crossbar. In the Staples Centre, it's behind. Both are problematic. Essentially, it comes down to costs, and the cost of installing a camera for one game to avoid being obstructed would be enormous in both rinks. The NHL believes that will multiple views, it can work around the problem.

But I'm with you. I'm still wondering if that puck was in.

Q: Hello Damien,

I'm just wondering what's going on with Nikolai Kulemin? Why aren't the Leafs signing him? I heard his agent wants him to go back to Russia? Why would his agent want him to go back to Russia when he's obviously NHL material? Damien, what's going on? Is there even any talk of signing him? Do you think it's worth signing him back? Because I sure do! HELP! Much appreciated!!

Leaf Fan, Manitoulin Island, Ont.

A: Kulemin had a breakthrough year, although 16 goals while getting lots of first line duty doesn't exactly make him a star. To me, he looks like a solid second line winger with a ability to be physical and grind it out.

The Leafs want him back and he wants to come back. But there's a difference in opinion on the price. I believe it will be resolved. My guess is the Leafs want to be in the $2-2.5 million range while Kulemin and his agent are instead looking at $3-3.5 million. I think it'll get done, but you never know. Neither side has great leverage. The Leafs can't afford to lose Kulemin, but I'm not sure there's another team in the league that would pay him a penny over $2 million, and that's being generous.

Q: Damien,

I think I may have come across a solution for the touch-icing issue that Brian Burke touched on in his recent press conference. If a potential icing is occurring, and the offensive player reaches the area between the top of the faceoff circle, and the dot opposite the goalie before the defender can play the puck, the icing is waved off. This keeps the flow of the game going. If, however, the offensive player is below the dot as the defender plays the puck, this will be whistled as icing before the puck is played. I feel that this would alleviate the injury factor to both players, while giving the late arriving forechecker the opportunity to defend against a rush up ice. The only caveat I would include is that the icing must originate from the near side of the far blueline; anything from the defensive zone would result in an automatic icing call. Let me know what you think.

Stu Campaigne, North Bay

A: I'm probably the wrong guy to ask on this issue. I don't have a problem with the icing rule as it stands. I think the risk factor is exaggerated - have you seen a problem in this final - and I would hate to take the race for the puck out of the game. If there's a rule that preserves that race while making it a safer play, of course I'd be in favour.

Q: Why isn't Seattle ever mentioned as a possible location for an NHL franchise? It's the 12th largest television market in the United States, the city has a longstanding hockey tradition (it hosted the Stanley Cup Finals in 1917 and 1919), and amateur and junior teams in the area have always played in front of solid attendance.

I realize there are arena issues, but with the NBA Sonics now out of the picture, it seems like a city ripe for the picking by the NHL - and certainly one with more potential than the likes of Kansas City or Las Vegas.

Josh Lavine, Toronto

A: From time to time, Seattle has come up, but not lately. No rink and no interested owner. That about covers it.

Q: Why is Chris Pronger such a dirty player? Some might consider it merely petty, stealing the game pucks from two Chicago wins, but I look at it as a clear extension of the goonery that Pronger has had on display since 1995 when he hit Pat Peake in the throat with his stick. It's been worse since he left Edmonton, two one-game suspensions in the 2007 playoffs, an 8 game suspension in 2008. Several suspension in his career for intent to injure. What a classy guy.

Arthur Bailey, Red Lake

A: Well, he plays the way he plays because it's been a very good formula for about 17 years now. He's certainly on the edge of the rulebook all the time. Most of the time, I don't see it as dirty. I just see him get away with a lot of interference, holdups and crosschecks, but he's awfully smart and most of the time seems to understand what will get called and what won't.

Q: Brian Burke and others (you?) have been saying that the Leafs will be able to acquire high draft choices by trading their open cap space to teams with cap trouble (i.e., buying out bad contracts with the possibility of sticking the players in the minors, if necessary). So far, there doesn't seem any evidence that teams with cap trouble have had to resort to that step.

Did something happen to change the economics? Do you think it is possible that the Leafs could acquire a first or second round draft pick by acquiring an expensive contract with cap problems, such as Brian Campbell's from Chicago?

John Hunt, Harvard, Mass.

A: It's only been five years since the NHL instituted its salary cap and much remains theoretical about it in terms of how it will alter team's behavior. I think you saw earlier this season in the Cam Barker-Kim Johnsson a team (Chicago) forced to move a younger player not because it wanted to, but because future cap considerations forced it to. I think there's more than a few teams out there that are still operating under old philosophies, hoping contract problems will somehow go away or they will always be able to make an old-style hockey trade to compensate for lost talent. I'm guessing this is going to change, but we'll see.

Mr. Entertainment

PHILADELPHIA — Chris Pronger has been giving the Flyers their money's worth this spring with his terrific, seemingly tireless play.

Behind the scenes, he's been pretty good value for the media, as well. At times self-deprecating, at times combative, at times playful, Pronger has made himself readily available pretty much every day in the post-season and has rarely disappointed. That said, he's been a confusing study at times, leaving observers uncertain as to his intent and attitude.

Today was a perfect example. Pronger patiently answered a long list of questions, many of which he's already answered a dozen times or more in these playoffs, but then grew testy over the issue of grabbing the pucks at the end of the game and attracting a little hate from Chicago's Ben Eager.

The Hawks, apparently, have been in the business of taking the game puck and putting it on display in their dressing room as they try for 16 pucks – signifying 16 wins – for the playoffs. But when they won Games 1 and 2 of the Cup final, Pronger took the game puck, angering Eager, among others.

It's a peripheral, five-day old issue, but it came up again today. Here's how the exhange went:

Q. How come you didn't pick up the puck last night?

CHRIS PRONGER: You mean steal it?

Q. Yes.

CHRIS PRONGER: I heard the term "steal" a couple of times the other day. I don't know, do you have the rule book? I didn't know the winning team was allowed to keep the puck. Is that a rule? Can you look in the rule book for me?

Q. One of your guys picked it up. How come you didn't pick it up? Was it decided in advance?

CHRIS PRONGER: No, it wasn't in front of me like the other one was. I don't know if you know this, but I picked up Game 1 too. You didn't notice that, did you?

And then he stormed off. Or got up and left.

What seems clear is that Pronger is taking an unusually active role in dictating these pressers, and the game's better for it. He's a lively personality with lots of ideas and thoughts on the sport.

Just gotta keep him talking. Doesn't seem to hurt his Hall of Fame game much.

A New Award And That's About It

PHILADELPHIA--Pretty thin gruel.

The content out of today's NHL general managers meetings at the Ritz-Carlton in downtown Philly was anything but explosive and pertained mostly to three matters:

• The announcement that Don Maloney of the Phoenix Coyotes had been named the first recipient of the GM-of-the-year award after somehow making the Desert Dogs into a playoff team in a season of turmoil.

• The agreement that the penalty for an illegal head shot next season - from the side or the back - will be a major and game misconduct, with no wiggle room for a minor penalty. This still needs the approval of the competition committee and the board of governors.

• Significant discussion over whether there are too many shootouts, and whether overtime needs to be tweaked from it's current five-minute, 4-on-4 format to something that would have more games settled in OT. The GMs basically agreed to monitor the issue.