Please forgive the long break since Part 2 of this series. It's been an eventful summer. In the interim, the Hockey Hall of Fame selected Glenn Anderson (FINALLY!) and Igor Larionov as its 2008 inductees. Worthy candidates both and fine additions to the Hall.

Before getting to Part 3, I wanted to take a brief pause to expand upon something that I'd originally blogged in August in the comments section at Spector's Blog. These thoughts were in response to The Hockey News 2008 Top Fifty Active NHL Players list and they directly relate to our discussion of Hockey Hall of Fame qualifications and candidates.

The challenge with these types of Top Active Player lists rests upon how we are rating these players: is it by their raw talent, their past accomplishments or our future expectations? Let me add a fourth way to the mix, that encompasses all three methods.

The rule of thumb is that in any given season of the NHL you will have between 40 to 50 future Hockey Hall of Famers in uniform. (How? If you assume that 3.75 players are selected to the HHOF each season (the historical average) and that a HHOF worthy career lasts between 10 to 15 years, you've got between 37.5 to 56.25 future HHOFers in uniform each season.) In that respect, a list like this could be considered a snapshot of those active NHLers who are on the HHOF path.

Certainly, there are a few active HHOF-bound players who aren't on this list as they are in the sunset of there careers. Likewise, there are some young players overlooked as they haven't broken out yet. But those exceptions aside, look at The Hockey News list anew with a HHOF mindset. What names now seem out-of-place?

I've got 40 currently active NHL players presently rated on a Hockey Hall of Fame path.

I consider the following 12 active NHLers pegged as "Certain" Hockey Hall of Famers (meaning anything more they do in their careers is just icing on the cake): Forwards Peter Forsberg, Mike Modano, Joe Sakic, Teemu Selanne, Brendan Shanahan and Mats Sundin; Defensemen Rob Blake, Chris Chelios, Nicklas Lidstrom, Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger; and Goaltender Martin Brodeur. (Note: Were Jaromir Jagr still an active NHLer, he would certainly be included on this list. Assuming he completes his 2-year KHL contract, he should be eligible for the HHOF in 2013.)

The following five players I've rated as "Cusp" Hockey Hall of Famers (meaning thus far they are strong contenders, but not yet sure-fire locks): Forwards Sergei Fedorov, Mark Recchi and Jeremy Roenick; Defenseman Sergei Zubov; and Goaltender Ed Belfour.

Finally, I rate the following 23 players as "On-Track" for the Hockey Hall of Fame (meaning I do not believe their accomplishments merit induction to the HHOF if they retired tomorrow, but they should become viable candidates if their careers continue to progress as expected): Forwards Daniel Alfredsson, Sidney Crosby, Pavel Datsyuk, Dany Heatley, Jarome Iginla, Paul Kariya, Vincent Lecavalier, Evgeni Malkin, Markus Naslund, Alexander Ovechkin, Martin St. Louis, Joe Thornton, Keith Tkachuk and Henrik Zetterberg; Defensemen Zdeno Chara, Sergei Gonchar, Dion Phaneuf and Mathieu Schneider; and Goaltenders J.S. Giguere, Miikka Kiprusoff, Roberto Luongo, Evgeni Nabokov and Chris Osgood.

Not all of these 23 players will necessarily remain "on-track" and a number may fall by the wayside.

For example, it seems with every shift Paul Kariya skates further away from the HHOF, despite a handful of years where he was among the best (if not the best) left winger in the game. My bleak assessment may change if Kariya starts to play some meaningful post-season games again, but right now he's looking like a latter-day John LeClair.

Tkachuk is another guy playing himself out of contention for the HHOF (to my mind) almost purely because he's currently on a playoff also-ran.

Conversely, I think the HHOF stock of Naslund and Schneider is rising with them on Stanley Cup contenders NYR and Anaheim respectively, although they're still both HHOF bubble boys. (And who knows where Schneider is going to wind up as Anaheim attempts to solve their salary cap issues.) The players need to finish their careers strong to make the grade.

Osgood is a special case. I've examined him in detail previously on this FoxSports blog and he's a vexing challenge. In my gut, Osgood is just not a Hall of Famer. BUT... with three Cups under his belt so far (two earned while in the driver's seat) and the prospect of a couple more seasons in Detroit which should push him well past 400 career wins, he becomes hard to ignore. That said, Osgood may wind up becoming the goaltending equivalent of Dino Ciccarelli -- the stats are there, but he just doesn't have that HHOF swagger.

Jose Theodore (not on my list) is another interesting case. To date, only two Hart Trophy winners eligible for the HHOF have failed to make the grade. Unless something dramatic happens during his tenure in Washington, Theodore may complete the hat trick when he retires.

There are a number of other active players who are not quite yet on a Hall of Fame path but could quickly move into solid contention as the season progresses.

And, of course, this doesn't consider the retired players who will be eligible for induction in 2009, 2010 and 2011. (Currently active players who retired from professional hockey during or following the 2008-09 season will not be eligible for induction until 2012.) As we return to Part 3 of our series next time out, we'll examine the qualifications and chances for these 2009, 2010 and 2011 HHOF candidates.

Welcome to Part 2 of our continuing exploration into what constitutes a Hockey Hall of Famer, and how we might go about establishing criteria to determine who is worthy of induction. To develop the concept further, I’d like to use some of the work done by Bill James, the noted baseball statistician who has written extensively on Baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Now, before starting down this path of discussion, I’d like to make something clear right off the top: Hockey is not baseball.

Baseball is a relatively simple, structured game and accordingly has compiled a vast array of statistical evidence on its participants – covering both offensive and defensive performance – down to a minute level of detail. Most arguments in baseball, particularly concerning the whether a player is suitable for induction into their Hall of Fame, ultimately come back to this statistical record to either prove or disprove the point.

Conversely, hockey is a more complex, fluid and chaotic game. And because of that we do not have an array of statistical measures that fully encompass all elements of the game, particularly on the defensive, goal prevention side of the equation. (Whether we would ever want such a body statistical data is a debate for another day.) Moreover, in a team sport such as hockey, it is much harder to abstract the full value of an individual's contributions to the overall team success, particularly using our more limited statistical record.

For example, we may use goals against average and save percentage to compare two goaltenders, but that doesn’t give us a complete picture. What about the quality of the shots faced? Two equally skilled goaltenders may face an equivalent number of shots, but if one goalie plays on a stronger defensive team where he faces a greater number of low-percentage chances, his statistical record should be superior. This is hockey’s “chicken or the egg” question: Was, for example, Ken Dryden a great goaltender because he played for the Montreal Canadiens, or were the Montreal Canadiens a great team because Ken Dryden was their goaltender? (The correct answer is “Yes”.)

So any effort to utilize statistics alone in a hockey context gives us a somewhat limited picture, and we need to maintain a broader focus. There are more intangibles at play in hockey.

Okay, with the caveat made, let’s talk about Bill James.

A few years back I read his wonderfully insightful book entitled Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?: Baseball, Cooperstown and the Politics of Glory. Within, on pages 274-275, I found a great questionnaire that helps to structure the discussion on whether or not a player is a Hall of Famer. It’s not a scoring or a rating system but 15 subjective questions designed to help clarify our thinking on the issue. I’ve re-printed James’ questionnaire below, and while not every question has a precise hockey application, I think it serves as a good starting point for considering the types of players who merit selection to the Hall of Fame:

1.       Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2.       Was he the best player on his team?

3.       Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4.       Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5.       Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

6.       Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7.       Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8.       Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9.       Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10.   Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

11.   How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12.   How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?

13.   If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14.   What impact did the player have on baseball history? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15.   Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

In our next installment, we’ll refine the James list to more of a hockey context, add some other elements to the mix, and then start using these tools to identify who among the eligible candidates merits selection to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2008.

Lately I've been thinking more and more about the Hockey Hall of Fame (HHOF). Perhaps it's because over the last few years the idols of my youth and young adulthood are beginning to be installed in their rightful place amongst the greats of the game. Maybe it's because I've reached that season of life where reflecting on the past becomes as important as surging ahead into the future. Undoubtedly, it’s due in no small part to achieving that point of hockey super-saturation where (like US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s classic identification of pornography), I find that while I might not know precisely how to quantify a Hall of Fame career (yet), I sure know one when I see one.

It’s that question of precise quantification and qualification that’s been whirling about in my thoughts.

If we look at the NHL today there are obvious Hall of Famers, like Joe Sakic and Nicklas Lidstrom. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that both those guys will be spending a gala November weekend in Toronto three years after they retire. Likewise, there are guys like Georges Laraque, Tiger Williams and Dave Schultz who, despite a degree of notoriety and numerous fans, have no chance of getting into the Hockey Hall of Fame unless they stop at the ticket wicket first. Figuring out the extremes is easy. It’s that fine area of gray between where white turns to black to which I’d like to direct our attention.

There’s a national radio sports host in the United States who uses a very simple dichotomy for determining who belongs in a Hall of Fame: if you ever need to make an argument in favour of anyone's qualifications, he’s not a Hall of Famer. Period. That’s arguably a workable rule of thumb – an extreme version of the Potter test above – but it’s a bit spare for our purposes as it doesn’t address any of the “why” questions.

Some like to use the lowest rung on the ladder approach, which leads to the argument “Player X is in the Hall of Fame and Player Y is just as good or better, so Player Y deserves to be there, too.” Selecting to the lowest common denominator is not satisfactory either. One mistake by the Selection Committee should not condemn the Hall of Fame to a parade of similar unqualified candidates. Nor does it properly address the standards utilized to determine how Player Y is determined to be “as good or better” than Player X.

There are others who prefer to use automatic thresholds, like 400 goals or 1000 points, where a player’s induction is assured once he passes these milestones. In that accounting, the player who scores 50 goals a season for eight years is on par with the player who scores 20 goals a season over 20 years. Do a few seasons of greatness equate to many seasons of good or above average play? Even if you adjust the milestones upwards, the question still remains concerning a value of a short meteoric career vs. a career of steady longevity.

The threshold approach comes with other limitations. For example, how do you fairly equate players in the offensively limited 1990s with players from the goal-rich 1980s?

To resolve these questions, I’ve begun developing some tests and standards by which to evaluate those already immortalized in the Hall of Fame that will help us determine future Hall of Famers. In the coming days I’ll be presenting these ideas here and I’d appreciate your thoughts and feedback as we grapple with this question.

To fuel our discussion, here's a short list of eligible candidates for the 2008 Hockey Hall of Fame. Thanks to the 2005 Lock-Out there are no "first-year" eligible players; everybody is a holdover from a previous year.

2008 Hockey Hall of Fame Potential Player Inductees (Incomplete List)

Glenn Anderson, Tom Barrasso, Brian Bellows, Carl Brewer, Pavel Bure, Guy Carbonneau, Dino Ciccarelli, Vincent Damphousse, Ray Ferraro, Doug Gilmour, Butch Goring, Adam Graves, Kevin Hatcher, Ron Hextall, Phil Housley, Mark Howe, Dale Hunter, Doug Jarvis, Igor Larionov, Steve Larmer, Claude Lemieux, Kevin Lowe, Rick Middleton, Boris Mikhailov, Andy Moog, Bernie Nichols, Adam Oates, Brian Propp, Glenn Resch, Mike Richter, Dave Taylor, Esa Tikkanen, John Tonelli, Rogie Vachon, John Vanbiesbrouck, Pat Verbeek, Mike Vernon

As we await the start of the 2008 Stanley Cup Final, there's a lot of talk flying around about how a Detroit win would create a post-modern era "Dynasty" with 4 Stanley Cups in 11 years. Or how a Pittsburgh win will likely usher in the start of a new hockey "Dynasty".

There are a lot of words thrown around casually in sports, and "Dynasty" is one of them. We want to recognize success, and we want to equate the success of current teams (our great teams) against the all-time greats (our father's and grandfather's great teams). But "Dynasty" has a very specific meaning: usually at least three successive championships or, if we broaden the definition slightly, a number of championships within a short timespan, like the Edmonton Oilers winning five Stanley Cups in seven years.

As someone who foolishly clings to the notion that words are important, and their meanings shouldn't be cheapened, Detroit's recent Stanley Cup run of 3 in 6 (1997, 1998 and 2002) and potential Stanley Cup run of 4 in 11, while impressive, does not a Dynasty make. We need another term.

I propose "Dominant". It captures the idea that people wish to impart -- these are significant accomplishments achieved by excellent teams -- without cheapening the term "Dynasty". More importantly, "Dominant" allows us of have more than one team vying for the title of excellence, which better reflects our current era where there is no single uber-team.

Consider: Of the last ten Stanley Cups (1997-2007; no Cup in 2005), the victors include Detroit (3), New Jersey (2), Anaheim (1), Carolina (1), Colorado (1), Dallas (1) and Tampa Bay (1). If we look at appearances in the Stanley Cup Final over that same time period, we get Detroit (3), New Jersey (3), Anaheim (2), Carolina (2), Dallas (2), Buffalo (1), Calgary (1), Colorado (1), Edmonton (1), Ottawa (1), Philadelphia (1), Tampa Bay (1) and Washington (1). For 2008, give another appearance tally for Detroit and add Pittsburgh to the list.

Clearly, we can make the case that Detroit and New Jersey (at least as far as appearances in the Stanley Cup Final and championships won) are the Dominant teams of the last decade, but neither obviously comes close to qualifying as a proper Dynasty. And I think a decade is the longest timeframe that should be considered when we talk of Dominance and Dynasties. Those great teams we recall from the past are primarily a collection of athletes who will walk through history together as champions. The more time between titles, the less connection those title-winning teams have with each other. Look at the rosters and you'll find there is surprisingly little player overlap between the Detroit squad of 2002 versus the current club, let alone the Detroit teams of 1997 and 1998.

So, sit back and enjoy the 2008 Stanley Cup Final. Will Detroit extend their Dominance? Might we be watching the beginning of something special in Pittsburgh? We'll know in a couple of weeks.

Barring a miracle on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or a Texas landslide, it's beginning to look more and more like 2008 will provide us with a Detroit vs. Pittsburgh Stanley Cup Final. And that match-up could be one for the ages with the most probable and potential HHOFers in the lineup since Colorado vs. New Jersey in 2001, maybe even since Edmonton vs. NY Islanders in 1984.

Eyeballing the Detroit/Pittsburgh rosters, there's pretty much four guaranteed HHOFers already in the mix (Hasak, Lidstrom, Chelios and Crosby), a bunch of guys with the potential to get there if they stay healthy (Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Malkin, Hossa, Gonchar), even a couple of argument candidates (Osgood and Roberts) thrown in for good measure. And, no doubt, maybe one or two more young players who'll emerge from the mix over time and surprise us all. That's not a bad crop of high-end talant which should produce some great hockey over the next few weeks.

In advance of that, it's to one of those HHOF argument candidates -- Chris Osgood -- that I'd like to turn our attention and sound out the argument posed in the title of this blog: Is Chris Osgood a Hockey Hall of Famer?

The initial gut reaction for many (myself included) is that Chris Osgood isn't a Hall of Famer. He doesn't have the swagger of a Billy Smith did or that aura that surrounded Grant Fuhr in his prime. Instead, Osgood has quietly put together a very impressive career, and with nine straight wins in this year's playoffs he's beginning to make some noise at last. So let's take a closer look at Mr. Osgood...

As of the end of this regular season, Chris Osgood has won two Stanley Cups (albeit one as a caddy) and holds a regular season record of 363-195-66 in 664 games (a 0.596 winning percentage). Those are pretty good numbers thus far, which currently puts him in the same class (stastically, at least) as Hockey Hall of Fame hopefuls Rogie Vachon (3 Cups, 355 wins), Tom Barrasso (2 Cups, 369 wins), Andy Moog (3 Cups, 372 wins) and Mike Vernon (2 Cups, 385 wins). Each of those players have vocal lobbists passionately arguing for their induction and the Hall would clearly not be diminished by their inclusion.

Let's consider Osgood's contemporaries: Among active goaltenders, only Martin Brodeur (3 Cups, 538 wins), Ed Belfour (1 Cup, 484 wins), Curtis Joseph (0 Cups, 449 wins) and Dominik Hasek (1 Cup, 389 wins) are ahead of Osgood in regular season wins. There is little doubt three of those four guys in front of Osgood are headed to the Hockey Hall of Fame shortly after they retire -- the jury is still out for Curtis Joseph; subject matter for another blog someday. Osgood is among some select company.

So, is Chris Osgood a Hockey Hall of Famer? I'd have to say he's a player on the cusp, and this post-season could be critical to his chances, tipping him one way or the other in the minds of fans and HHOF Selection Committee members alike. If Osgood wins his third Stanley Cup this year (playing AHEAD of Hasek) and he pushes himself over 400 regular season wins (which is quite possible with another couple of seasons in the Motor City), the argument for his induction becomes significantly stronger and I'd wager it likely he makes the cut. Conversely, if Osgood loses out in the Final this season, he becomes labelled as a guy who couldn't win with a great team in front of him and likely finds himself on his way out of Detroit and out of HHOF contention.

I cannot believe that some people are already posting their NHL pre-season predictions. Predictions before training camp and even the final setting rosters is the way of madness. However, if we are going to be this silly, let's at least consult an impartial, unbiased source, the Magic Eight Ball, and ask "Will [insert team here] make the NHL playoffs in 2007-08?"

Here are the Western Conference findings:

Detroit - "My sources say no"
Anaheim - "Absolutely"
Vancouver - "My sources say no"
Nashville - "Definitely"
San Jose - "Ask again later"
Dallas - "Outlook not so good"
Minnesota - "My sources say no"
Calgary - "My sources say no"
Colorado - "Maybe"
St. Louis - "My sources say no"
Columbus - "No way"
Edmonton - "Maybe"
Los Angeles - "Maybe"
Phoenix - "Yes"
Chicago - "Definitely"

So there you go:

Anaheim (Absolutely), Nashville and Chicago (Definitely), Phoenix (Yes), Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles (Maybe) and San Jose (Ask again later) are the probable top eight. Dallas is on the bubble (Outlook not so good).

Detroit, Vancouver, Minnesota, Calgary and St. Louis all miss the cut if the Magic Eight Ball's sources are any good. And Columbus is likely due for a last place finish with that strong "No way".

For those who doubt the power of the Magic Eight Ball, is it not remarkable that it has seven teams with some form of "No" or "Outlook not so good"? It didn't say that 12 teams would make the playoffs or that 9 would miss out. Obviously, it is a reliable source of pre-season prediction wisdom.

I'll let someone who lives in EDT perform the Magic Eight Ball for the Eastern Conference, because I'm certain it'll work better if you're closer to the subject matter.

Been a busy week while I've been away! Let's catch-up with a few quick hits, some of which might grow into full and proper blogs of their own:

Stanley Cup Final

My pre-season selection of the Ducks as Cup Champions still stands, and with Game 1 under our belt, we should be in for some great hockey the rest of the way out!

Looking at the two line-ups, there are three dead certain Hockey Hall of Fame locks on that Ducks roster (Teemu Selanne, Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger) and one potential HHOFer (J.S. Giguere). In the Ottawa line-up, there's a probable HHOFer (Daniel Alfredsson) and three potential candidates (Jason Speeza, Dany Heatley and Wade Redden). With the number of young kids on the ice those HHOF numbers may grow, and a couple of those potential candidates might fall by the wayside due to injury or career trajectory. Nevertheless, I don't think we've had this level of HHOF-caliber talent on both sides of the puck since the 2001 Final with Colorado versus New Jersey.

Brian Leetch's retirement and the Hockey Hall of Fame ramifications

That Leetch finally made official last week what we've long known to be the truth for months -- that his professional days were done -- did not come as either a shock or a surprise. But Leetch's confirmation does create an interesting dynamic for the 2009 Induction to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

With only four vacancies per year, that 2009 class now stands with Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Luc Robitaille and Brian Leetch as virtual locks for selection, and arguably could be considered the most talented group ever inducted. Unfortunately, that also guarantees that first year eligible players Dave Andreychuk and Alexander Mogilny, admittedly borderline Hall of Famers both, will be shoved to the sidelines without any consideration.

We won't know how the roster for 2010 stacks up until we get all the retirements over the summer, but mid-season retiree Joe Nieuwendyk has the early lock on one of the four vacancies, as will Peter Forsberg should he decide to hang up the skates. If one or two other prominent players call it quits this year, 2010 could become a closed shop too. And with the number of great mid-30s players whose pending retirements are expected at point in the next half decade, full slates might be the norm for the next few years after that.

Looking back to this year, with six certain Hall of Famers competing for four slots in 2007 -- Mark Messier, Ron Francis, Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens, Igor Larionov and Adam Oates -- it's very likely whichever two don't make the initial cut in 2007 will get in on the "lock-out year" of 2008. Which means there are only two open slots available to reconsider "passovers" like Glenn Anderson, Doug Gilmour, Dino Ciccarelli, Pavel Bure and Phil Housley. If the outer years continue to fill up fast and the HHOF Selection Committee doesn't increase the number of vacancies per year, 2008 might be last chance for a number of these on-the-cusp players for a long time.

Mike Milbury steps down from day-to-day responsibilities with the Islanders

As I wrote (in part) commenting on the essay "Milbury's Legacy" on Spector's Blog (and if you've never been there, head on over soon, it's a fine place): In painting, you reach a point where you have to lift the brush and say "I'm done" because anything else detracts from the work. Until the end, Milbury worked in abstract, over-painting the bold colours he'd laid down before with even bolder colours of the moment. The work was not improved, and what remained beneath the extra oil was likely superior to the final result.

That said, thank you Mike for sending to Edmonton (among other players and draft picks) Mike Peca, Raffi Torres, Tommy Salo and Eric Brewer for relatively little in return. You will be missed!

Potential relocation of the Nashville Predators and re-alignment

Lot of discussion on what this means to the Preds, especially considering that the new ownership (still to be approved) is rumoured to have quietly assembled 27 acres of land 82 kms outside of Toronto, just barely beyond the Maple Leafs territorial limits. (Is it just me, or does anyone else appreciate the use of an Imperial system land quantity located a Metric system distance away in all those reports?)

I'll wait for more facts to come out on the pending deal before making a full comment on the sale, but let's play with the idea of relocation for a minute.

I find it ironic that back last summer when we were all concerned about the Penguins moving to Kansas City that I proposed the Nashville club should be the one headed to the Eastern Conference due to geographic logisticalities. (Everyone said move Detroit east, but it was much cleaner to my mind geographically to move Nashville into the Southeast and move Washington into the Atlantic, which improved the travel within both those divisions.)

Now, should the Predators move to Southern Ontario, undoubtedly ownership will want those 8 games against Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal, so they're going to the Eastern Conference. Buffalo or Boston becomes odd man out of the Northeast Division. You can't move either of those squads to the West (Buffalo too much talent and too far east; Boston way too far east) or to the Southeast Division (too much distance), so one of them (likely Boston) is going to the Atlantic Division and you've got to displace somebody. It won't be the three New York area teams, so it's either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Philly is in such close proximity to the other New York area clubs, so the logical choice would be Pittsburgh. As long as Sidney Crosby is on that team, there is NO WAY they'll let Pittsburgh head west, so the Penguins waddle south to the Southwest Division. You've now got six teams in the Southwest Division. The western-most team is Atlanta, so they draw the short straw and swap conferences.

The results are rather interesting:

• A Southeast Division composed of Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina and Washington should guarantee the Penguins a playoff spot each season and guarantees eight Crosby / Ovechkin meetings a year!
• An Atlantic Division with Boston, New Jersey, NY Rangers, NY Islanders and Philadelphia. Nuff said! That division just looks so old school.
• A Northeast Division with Buffalo, Montreal, Ontario (nee Nashville), Ottawa and Toronto means Hockey Night in Canada will undoubtedly go to triple-headers with two early games in the East and one late night contest in the West.
• A Central Division with Atlanta, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. This is what we call "compensation": the travel isn't much worse than the current arrangement, but in lieu of going east, these soft clubs should guarantee Detroit a top-of-the-division finish each season.

That's enough to chew on at one sitting. Let's settle back for Game 2 and enjoy our last little bit of hockey for the season before we're firmly in the Air Conditioner League (the summer equivalent of baseball's winter Hot Stove League). And as always, I look forward to your comments!

According to Eklund, the "Wade Redden to Edmonton" rumour is picking up steam once again, with it now being suggested the Ottawa Senators defenseman could be heading to Edmonton for Raffi Torres, one of the Oilers first round picks in 2007, and an unnamed prospect.

Let's leave the likelihood or not of that deal aside for a moment and ask another question: Why now? With Ottawa on the verge of going into the Stanley Cup Finals (last night's loss to Buffalo notwithstanding), why should this rumour arise from the dead right now?

Do we have a game going on where people close to Buffalo are trying to psychologically derail the Senators and they are the source of this rumour hitting the wire? Or is it a pre-emptive strike from southern California or Hockeytown to seed a distraction for the team they seem likely to face in the Finals?

Adding something else to the mix, FoxSports hockey contributor Al Strachan reported recently that all is not well within the management team of the Senators and that, win or lose, John Muckler is likely on the outs. Once again one must ask, why that story now? But more to the point, assuming the story is true and Muckler is on his way out the door (and given the accuracy of Strachan's reporting on the Chris Pronger story last year, Al gets the benefit of my doubt), would the short-timer Muckler have the authority to move one of the Sens' major assets? Would the Sens contemplate moving one of their major assets in a GM vacuum?

Remember when the New York Rangers march to the Cup in 1994 had a bit of the "coach Mike Keenan going to St. Louis to be the GM" sideshow going on, and because of that the club almost went off the rails? You just might be watching the long-awaited sequel play itself out on the Rideau Canal.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Oilumni, a blog about past, present and future Edmonton Oilers, and other items of interest related to the world of hockey. I hope you find these musings -- sometimes grave, sometimes irreverent -- interesting and I look forward to getting your comments.

The Worst Nightmare...

I'm a firm believer in the old maxim "Once an Oiler, always an Oiler", although I will admit there are times when that approach is put more to the test than others (as will be seen in the moment).

Like most Edmonton fans, when the hometown squad is out of the running my attention shifts to cheering for former Oilers in hopes that they'll get their names engraved on the Cup. And the NHL's Final Four in 2007 gives us a great cross-section of ex-Oilers for which to cheer. From Anaheim there's speedy Todd Marchant, a good company man for a decade in the City of Champions. From Detroit you've got Kirk Maltby (a previous Cup winner, but you can never have your name on the Cup too many times) and Daniel Cleary. From Buffalo there's a hat-trick: Jochen Hecht, Ty Conklin and Jaroslav Spacek. And Ottawa offers Dean McAmmond and former coach John Muckler. Solid citizens all.

So what's the problem? The possibility of an Ottawa / Anaheim Stanley Cup Final, that's what. Oh, the quality of the competition would be superb, and having visited both cities numerous times I can attest to the wonderful virtues of each community, although it's a close call as to which city has the greater spectacle: Disneyland or Parliament? But how could an Oilers fan pick a side to cheer for when Ottawa's line-up features Mike Comrie (Public Enemy Number 2) and Anaheim's roster includes Chris Pronger (Public Enemy Number 1)? It's like choosing between murder and suicide...

One can only hope that Anaheim continues to self destruct against the Red Wings, or that Buffalo pulls off the miracle in the next three games, and I'm spared making this Hobson's Choice.