• E-mail

The Stars are a different team without Sergei Zubov – that's all there is to it.

Zubov averages more than 25 minutes a game and plays like nobody else in the NHL. He is supremely confident with the puck on his stick and he almost dares opponents to come at him on the forecheck, knowing that can only help him get the defense off of its game.

So if he cannot play in the playoffs because of a foot injury or groin injury or some other injury, the Stars will not be as good.

That's the bottom line.

Look at the Detroit Red Wings when Nicklas Lidstrom was out. They struggled to maintain their same level of play on defense. But just as important, Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk had hiccups in their offensive games. Why? Because they were not getting the puck in the areas where they could be most effective. They were unable to create speed through the neutral zone. They were also unable to pick holes in a trap or in a feisty penalty kill. Lidstrom is that important.

Another example can be found in San Jose, where puck-moving defenseman Brian Campbell has put the Sharks in perfect alignment. Not only does Campbell help scale each of San Jose's young defensemen down the minutes ladder, he helps forwards Joe Thornton, Jonathan Cheechoo and Patrick Marleau be better on offense. He is instant confidence for the team.

Can the Stars overcome the potential loss of Zubov? They have before during the regular season. They have a solid group of defenders who all need to step up their game. They have a goalie who handles the puck as well as any in the NHL and can help diffuse the opposition's forecheck. They have enough talent on the power play to score without Zubov.

But they simply cannot be as good without him in the lineup as they are when he's there. That, to me, is impossible. The job ahead for the Stars could be simply to find a way to survive – and that may become the new battle cry.

Q: Nowadays, we are seeing Matt Niskanen, Nicklas Grossman and Mark Fistric making increasingly risky or even boneheaded plays with the puck. Do you think the D-kids are finally looking like deer in the headlights, or will they snap back to high IQs once again?

Matt

HEIKA: I definitely think the young defensemen are feeling the pressure. The reason? I think the opposition detects that they are a weak spot on the team right now, and that opposition is attacking with a fierce forecheck pretty much every night.

Can these kids get better before the playoffs start? I think they already are. Will the Stars still be able to play their normal puck possession game if Zubov doesn't return? I think that's a huge question. I think the answer for the kids is they will probably start getting rid of the puck a lot sooner, and that is going to put a dent in the Stars' ability to move the puck and keep possession. The Stars may have to change their game plan and go to more dump-and-chase hockey in the playoffs.

Q: I believe Dave Tippett is a good coach and that his players play hard for him. My question is: Does Dave Tippett get the team playing at such a high level in the regular season that he exposes the competition to everything the Stars are capable of executing? Therefore, when the playoffs get here, the opposing teams know the Stars inside and out, and we do not have another level to go to?

Geoff C.

HEIKA: It's an interesting theory.

In the past two seasons, Tippett and his coaching staff have done a wonderful job of overcoming injuries to get the Stars a better record than they probably deserved during the regular season. But, in doing so, they do not leave much room to elevate their game in the playoffs.

Is that coaching, goaltending, scoring? It's probably a combination of all three. Tippett seems to get close to maximum out of the Stars on most nights, so there really isn't much room for getting more in the playoffs. They could simply be maxing out and don't have the talent to win in the playoffs.

Q: Why can Dave Tippett not consider the novel idea of establishing four lines and letting them remain that way for at least one full game? Last I heard, hockey was a team sport, and if that be true, it would stand to reason that cohesiveness would be desirable. It sure could not work any less that his constant changing on a minute-by-minute basis.

Dale Hillyer

HEIKA: That is just the way of coaching in the NHL. If there are not immediate results, coaches make changes.

Ken Hitchcock was the same way before that.

Bob Gainey was even worse before that.

Fans of pretty much every team in the NHL are tired of coaches changing lines all of the time. Heck, Vancouver recently broke up the Sedins (which, to me, seems insane) in order to help them find their game. That said, it would be interesting if a coach followed your advice. I would like to see a team stick with lines for a whole season and see what happens.

Q: Can we get the Stars all together in one room for a screening of Stars game films from the 1999 playoffs? They need to remember/learn what it means to outwork the opposition every night and just about every shift. Those Ken Hitchcock teams did that. These Dave Tippett teams don't. They need to play desperate hockey in the playoffs, but they don't seem to know how to do that. Could there be any better reminder than those old tapes?

Mike L.

HEIKA: I agree the new Stars should see some old Stars tapes (either that or Braveheart), but let's be fair to Tippett. That old team had Carbonneau, Nieuwendyk, Skrudland, Verbeek, Ludwig, Hull, Keane ... heck, even Ed Belfour. Those guys did not need to be motivated. They wanted to win more than the coach did. As much as Hitchcock is a motivational genius (and I do believe that's true), his job was simply to not get in the way of the leaders on that team. Mix that with the fact that Bob Gainey would quietly pull players aside all of the time during the season (and especially during the playoffs), and there are a lot of differences between the organization then and the organization now.

It would be really nice to bring that group back, but it just isn't going to happen. That said, it does seem easier to win in the playoffs now than it did back then, and the Stars still have not been able to pull that off.

Q: Why oh why have they brought up B.J. Crombeen and Toby Petersen from the Iowa team? Aren't they supposed to be building chemistry with the players that they have to compete in the playoffs? Doesn't this send the message that they don't have confidence in the people who have gotten them this far and that farm-team players are the answer to whatever question Tippet has?

Deb in N. Richland Hills

HEIKA: I think it clearly shows they don't have confidence in those players who are being scratched right now.

If the team was winning, it probably would not have called these players up. But it is not winning and it is looking for some new solutions. I've liked the chemistry that Petersen and Crombeen are showing. We'll see what happens down the stretch and whether or not they play a role in the playoffs.

But I understand your point. Too many options can be a bad thing for the coaching staff. We'll see if they can use those options intelligently.

Q: Loui Eriksson has started to look like a very solid hockey player recently. I've heard Razor say he draws comparisons to a young Jere Lehtinen. After looking at the numbers from each players' first few seasons, they bear resemblance but aren't identical. Lehtinen's stat lines in his first two seasons were 6-22-28 pts. with a plus-5 in '95-96 and then 16-27-43 pts. with a plus-26 in '96-97. Eriksson's stats from his first two seasons: 6-13-19 pts. with a minus-3 last season and 14-16-30 pts. with a plus-7 this season. I know that numbers won't tell you the whole story. I think that Eriksson is a very strong, consistent player, but is he a Jere Lehtinen? Only time will tell for sure, but I'd like to get your take on Eriksson.

Carl in Arlington

HEIKA: I agree that Eriksson is looking a lot better. He is clearly more comfortable out on the ice.

But to compare him to Lehtinen at any age is a tough thing. Jere Lehtinen is a three-time Selke Trophy winner and could possibly have his number retired by the Stars when he finally hangs up his skates. He is a vastly underrated player.

Eriksson should probably be allowed to advance at whatever rate he advances. He appears to have a pretty good future in front of him, and I would say in comparison to Lehtinen, he might have better hands but he does not appear to have the lower body strength to do the things that Lehtinen does along the walls.

It's a nice comparison, but I think it sets a very high bar for Eriksson.

Q: One can't certainly purposely try for the sixth seed, but it would seem Dallas would have an "easier" first round vs. Minnesota than against Anaheim (acknowledging that nothing comes easy for the Stars). What is your opinion on that?

Bob in California

HEIKA: I think it's too difficult to tank games at the pro level. Someone would find out somewhere. But yes, I do believe the Stars would be much better off playing Minnesota than they would playing Anaheim.

That said, we all were convinced that facing Vancouver last season and facing Colorado the two previous seasons were perfect first-round playoff opponents.

The Stars have proven they can lose to anybody when it comes to the playoffs.

Q: I was quite disappointed to see Mike Smith go in the Brad Richards trade. Do you think Marty Turco's eventual replacement is currently in the system?

Jason D.

HEIKA: I think Richard Bachman, 20, has something, but since he is only at Colorado College, I'm not sure exactly how much he has. I don't believe Tobias Stephan, 24, will be the next No. 1 goalie, but he will probably get a chance to be an NHL backup next season.

I tend to think that there could be a stopgap goalie between Turco and the next farm-raised No. 1.

Q: I guess my big question is what is wrong with the team? I watched them play this past weekend, and they don't seem to have the confidence on the ice that they had on that nice little run in February. They, in fact, look tentative.

If they go out in the first round of the playoffs, what do you see for the summer in regards to changes with players and coaches? I know the coaches were re-upped for another year after that win streak in February.

Michael in Ft. Worth

HEIKA: I think confidence is a big issue. I think they also are seeing the three young defensemen get overexposed a bit. The opposition knows to put pressure on with a heavy forecheck, and the team has not responded well to that.

Because the puck is not getting out as cleanly from the back end, the forwards have had a more difficult time getting speed up through the neutral zone, and have not been able to create as many chances on the rush. That has hurt players like Niklas Hagman. Mix that with the fact they did go through a very big trade in February, and I think they are reeling mentally.

Can they fix it? We'll see. I'm still not sure if talents like Ribeiro, Hagman and Niskanen were overachieving earlier or if those players are capable of bringing that level of play back again. The playoffs will be a really big test.

If I had to predict what would happen, I would say the new GMs will bring back the coaching staff and try to make some personnel moves. That will be tough with the financial commitments they have going forward, but if the cap moves to $56 million, that could give them some wiggle room. The Stars have all of their big guns signed for next season with Richards, Turco, Zubov, Ribeiro, Morrow, Lehtinen, Modano, Boucher and Robidas under contract, so they just need to add complementary players. They have enough passers and need some shooters. It will be Brett Hull's job in the summer to find those guys.

Q: Other than the obvious, Turco, Mo, Richards, Ribero, Morrow, and Zubov, who do you believe will have the greatest impact on getting the Stars to the second round? My opinion is that it is Steve Ott. The Stars didn't seem to be the same team while he served his (undeserved) suspension. Plus, he really has a knack for getting under the opponents' skin and causing them to take unnecessary penalties. Your thoughts?

Steve in Plano

HEIKA: I do believe Steve Ott has done a wonderful job this season. If the Stars play Anaheim, he may be able to get under the skin of the Ducks, who have shown tempers in the past.

That said, the biggest impact has to come from Brad Richards. The Stars need him to step up and help provide some playoff scoring (even if it's only on the power play). It will be important for role players like Ott, Stu Barnes and Joel Lundqvist to step forward, but Richards is a huge key in my book.

Q: With the playoffs only days away, and a looming first-round battle against the Ducks on the road, the Stars will need to make sure they have plenty of leadership and grit if they want to survive. Having said that, who do you anticipate will step up in the playoffs? Do you dress Winchester and Barch and overlook offensive prospects like Pushkarev? Also, what are your thoughts on Stu Barnes? Do you think he'll be valuable in the playoffs, or has his skill fallen off to the point where he'll be a non-factor vs. a very aggressive Anaheim club? Any word on reasons why Dallas didn't retain Scott Thornton a few years ago or Willie Mitchell two years ago? I really liked both players and thought they gave Dallas some much-needed sandpaper and leadership.

C. Barnard

HEIKA: I believe the Stars will give a big, physical winger with offensive upside (like B.J. Crombeen or James Neal) a chance before they will give a smaller skilled player like Pushkarev. I believe Barch is still in the mix. I don't think Winchester is as close to playing a role in the playoffs as Barch is.

I like Stu Barnes. He's smart, his game has been on a steady upturn late in the season and he was one of their better playoff performers last season. I think he can play a role on the fourth line or as a winger on the first line with Ribeiro and Morrow (if you wanted to put Lehtinen with Richards and Modano).

Thornton asked for too much money after the Stars rescued him from Montreal (where he was a fourth liner) and that ticked off Bob Gainey. Mitchell is from the Vancouver area and pretty much said he would take less money to play for the Canucks.

The two new GMs are very interested in the sandpaper quality of players, if that helps any.

Q: It has always struck me as rather risky to acquire an impact player at such a late date in the season, especially one that has spent an entire career with one team (e.g. Brad Rchards, but I'm not complaining about this particular deal. I still think it was the right thing to do!) How much research does a GM do in studying the "system" of another team, and is it more difficult to assimilate from one system to another? Also, does it make sense to move up the trading deadline (say, to the All-Star break) so the player can have time to get used to his new linemates? Seems logical to me. Thanks!

Jim B.

HEIKA: The old deadline was in March, so the NHL did actually move it up a couple of weeks a few years ago. It would not bother me to see it moved up even earlier. I think there is some thought to how a player will assimilate, but the Stars' co-GMs say they knew that Richards might not fit in immediately. He was acquired as a long-term replacement for Mike Modano and a short-term boost for the playoffs.

In retrospect, the Stars could have gotten a shoot-first winger to make the 2007-08 team better, but they did not want to pay the cost it would take to get Marian Hossa. It was also determined that it would be difficult to sign Hossa, who can become an unrestricted free agent in the off-season.

The co-GMs decided that the price of a free agent center like Scott Gomez or Daniel Briere was so high that getting a 27-year-old Brad Richards was a coup. We'll see if they turn out to be right.