Q: Will Anaheim regret trading Andy McDonald for what might turn out to be only a few more months of service from Scott Niedermayer?
— Chris, Nebraska.
A: Possibly, Chris, but heck, I was excited just to see a trade!

There is risk in every trade — as the Bruins found out when they dished Ken Dryden to the Canadiens, or when the Habs, irked by Patrick Roy’s one-night hissy fit, dealt St. Patrick to the Avalanche.

It could be that McDonald, reunited on a line with ex-Duck Paul Kariya in St. Louis, regains his impressive touch of last season when he was among the keys in the Ducks winning the Cup.  Doug Weight, obtained by Anaheim in the swap, certainly is in the twilight of his career, and turns 37 in January, and is some 6½ years older the speedy McDonald, the former Colgate star.

Let’s not forget, though, that much of Anaheim’s motivation in dealing McDonald, beyond the fact that he was underperforming this season, was rooted in, what else: money. Salaries are about the same for McDonald and Weight (each around $3.5 million). However, Weight’s deal expires in April, of this seson, while McDonald’s pact runs through 2008-‘09.

The Ducks already have some huge salary boosts in place for next season, including Ryan Getzlaf and Chris Kunitz. They’re on the books this season for a combined $1.773 million in salary, and their money increases more than four-fold next season, to $8 million. GM Brian Burke also has to work a new deal with talented young winger Corey Perry.

See where this is going? The “savings” in dealing McDonald already has been absorbed by Getzlaf and Kunitz. Frankly, if Niedermayer decides to come back next season, too, Burke will have to make another move or two in order to ink Perry. And if Teemu Selanne, rumored to be returning soon to Anaheim, also wants back for 2008-‘09? The tight budget only gets tighter.

Overall, the Ducks have enough talent up front to win the Cup again now that Niedermayer is back, although Detroit, my pre-season pick, remains my top choice. What the deal underscores more than anything, I think, is that the cap increasingly will force GMs to make some unpopular and risky deals, for the sake of working within a fixed, mandated budget.

Q: Now that the situations in Nashville and Pittsburgh appear fairly stable, what team(s) are most in jeopardy of possibly moving?
— Todd Jenkins, Erie, Pa.
A: Other than the usual rumor mill, Todd, there is nothing substantive to tell you on the “endangered” franchise beat.  

The cap, because it fixed player costs, also gave all 30 owners huge equity boosts to their franchises. The next expansion round — a virtual certainty, I believe, in the next 24-36 months — probably will bring a “buy-in” charge of $250 million to $300 million. By that estimate, every NHL franchise, by a conservative estimate, has increased in worth by at least $100 million since the end of the lockout.

Now, can owners spend equity? Of course not. It’s nice to believe your house is worth $200,000 more than when you bought it a decade ago, but the “hidden” $200K won’t buy you that 42-inch plasma, will it? For NHL club owners, that extra $100 million will make it easier to tolerate operating losses of, say, $5 million a year. At least for a while. But if the red ink runs deeper in some cities, like Tampa and Sunrise, Fla., I would expect to hear renewed chatter about a possible move.

Q: Haven’t heard much criticism with the shootout format this seaons.  Does that mean having three shooters aside likely here to stay for some time?
— Mike Fletcher, Clarksville, Tenn.
A: There is no move afoot to change the format, Mike. It will remain three shooters aside, unless no team has an advantage once all three shooters have had a shot. Once beyond the three shooters, it’s essentially a one-vs.-one tiebreaker.

Two possible changes come up for constant discussion:

1. Players to have their option to remove their helmets. They’ve chosen not to do this, claiming it would be a safety risk. I am baffled by that one, because most players perform, night in/night out, without any eye protection. What’s more dangerous: playing 60-plus minutes without eye protection, or taking an unchallenged penalty shot? Get back to me when you figure it out, OK?

2. Designating only three shooters for the entire shootout, repeating the 1-2-3 order if the extra session most go beyond three rounds. I like this idea, because the outcome would always be left to each club’s top shooters. For now, though, no change.

MORE FROM NHL

NHL Section Front

Crosby pointless again as Pens fall to Bruins   Perron has hat trick, paces Blues' rout of Canucks   Boyle's late goal lifts Sharks over Predators NHL GMs keep trapezoid, will discuss headshots Sabres F Mair clears waivers, to stay in Buffalo Breaking down the perfect NHL player Live odds Matchups/Injuries Vote: Who will win the Stanley Cup? Rotoworld: Latest NHL player news, rumors, more   NHL Section Front   Add NHL headlines to your news reader: