In a public service announcement delivered by the department of redundancy, we were just informed that the 2009-10 Bruins were not that good. I repeat: The 2009-10 Bruins were not that good.

After a storybook season in which Claude Julien's defense-first approach played second fiddle to a lights-out offense headlined by Marc Savard and Phil Kessel, Peter Chiarelli traded the oft-disgruntled Kessel to Toronto for a bevy of draft picks.

Bruins fans lauded Chiarelli for getting rid of Kessel, whom many considered a cancer for the team. If Kessel really was a tumor, then consider last season the Bruins' remission.

It wasn't the year that we were supposed to find out how good the Bruins could be without Kessel. It wound up being the year that we couldn't find out how good the Bruins were, period.

Injuries to everyone but the front office plagued the team and despite stand-up performances from the call-up Baby Bruins, the Bruins never realized their full potential. For two weeks in April, they got healthy and polished off the Sabres before pushing the Flyers to the brink of elimination in the Eastern Conference semi-finals. Then David Krejci's wrist was shattered, and with Marco Sturm sporting MGH's finest linens, Tuukka Rask wore down and that was that.

Fans and writers alike were left to wonder just how good the Bruins could have been. Were they the team that lost ten in a row shortly before the Olympic break? Were they the team that won its last three regular season games, then went 7-2 in the playoffs before crumbling? Were they the team that lost four in a row, including getting skated out of their own building in game 5 and giving up a 3-goal lead in game 7?

How good could the Bruins really have been last season? Not happy with what-ifs, this writer decided to figure it out.

VORP - Value Over Replacement Player - has become one of the more popular derivative stats in all of baseball. What the statistic measures, as any 2010 Red Sox fan knows - is how many more runs created per out made a starting player is worth over the fill-in who takes his place when he has to sit out.

For pitchers, the stat measures how many runs a hurler saves versus how many outs he is responsible for over his replacement, et cetera.

Because baseball has both defensive and offensive currencies (outs on defense, runs on offense), it is easier to measure any player's contribution to his team Defensive statistics in hockey for men who don't wear thousand-dollar works of art on their helmet are much harder to determine: there are blocked shots and hits and little more. Turnovers, blue-line stops, PK clears and intercepted passes aren't really kept track of - and even if they were, how much they affected whether or not the opposing team scored would be difficult to determine.

Because of this, Tom Awad of Puck Prospectus got his hands dirty with GVT - Goals Versus Threshold.

What GVT measures, essentially, is how many more goals a player is responsible for than his less-than-average replacement. It's not an easy stat to work with, primarily because when one hockey player goes down, another that's already on the team will likely take his spot. When Savard went out with an foot problem early last season and with a concussion later, Bergeron stepped up and played as the first-line center. Actually, Bergeron's line just became the first line.

To say that Savard's replacement was Bergeron doesn't account for the drastic loss in point production that the Bruins actually incurred as a result of the loss of Savard. To figure that out, you'd need to travel to the nether regions of the depth chart and find the fourth-line center who came up in place of number 91.

And the winner is...Trent Whitfield.

Yep, that Trent Whitfield. The one with a not-even-close-to-team-worst -0.6 GVT replaced Savard's not-even-close-to-team-high +7.0 GVT (for those scoring at home, Rask led the team - as goalies usually do - in GVT at 25.9, and Shawn Thornton - yes, that Shawn Thornton - was the doormat with a -1.8).

Now, it should be noted that GVT isn't measured by game, but rather over the entire season, so a net change of -3.8 goals (Savard did wind up missing about half the year, after all) over the season shouldn't seem like a huge deal. And it's not; although it could be, in the wrong hands.

On October 24th, the Bruins won a 4-3 shootout victory at Ottawa. They did it with Brad Marchand (-1.0 GVT) replacing Savard who, at the time, was out with an ankle injury. On January 23rd, the Senators beat Boston at the Garden by a score of 2-1. In that game, Whitfield was playing for Savard, who was out with a knee sprain.

If the Bruins had Savard for those games, and if in those two games he decided to contribute the +3 goals that GVT says he's worth (ideally, one in October and two in January), the result would have been the Senators losing 3 points (one from a regulation loss over an OT loss, and two from a regulation loss) and the Bruins gaining two points from a regulation win. The season-ending standings would have Ottawa at 91 points and Boston at 96, and en route to an early playoff exit at the hands of Crosby and company while the Sens toiled with their archrival Buffalo Sabres.

Of course, it wasn't just Savard that the Bruins missed last year. Here's the complete list of Bruins with a positive GVT who played less than 90% (74) of the Bruins' games :

Bergeron (9 games) +8.9

Sturm (6 games) +7.7

Savard (41 games) +7.0

Morris (24 games) +6.0

Boychuk (27 games) +5.5

Stuart (26 games) +1.6

Lucic (32 games) +1.0

In total, that's 165 games missed by players with a combined GVT of +39.7. For a better statistical analysis, it's an average of 24 games (about 70%) missed at an average GVT of +5.7. That's less than a third of the season, so according to GVT, the Bruins only lost 2 goals over the average in their absence, and maybe 3 goals when you consider that none of their replacements had a GVT worse than -1.0.

The one big problem with the GVT analysis? It never sets the threshold, and since the threshold is different for every team, we're still left in the dark. Besides, 3 goals? Does that seem reasonable? Of course not. That's why I dug deeper.

Puck Prospectus also has a remarkable database containing the offensive statistics of every player who's had even just one shift in the League since the 1943-44 NHL season. According to that database, teams whose opening night starters play more than 80% (64) of their team's games in a given season score 279 goals annually. Teams whose opening night starters play between 51 and 80 percent of their team's games score 152 goals. Those stats aren't listed, but since teams in the NHL are iced with 12 forwards and 6 defensemen, it's pretty easy to figure out once you do some simple averaging.

Last year's Bruins scored 191 goals, which still puts them well below the expected results (236) of a team whose starters played in 70 percent of their games. Their 530 total points also scored well below the expected average (625) total points for a team whose starters played in 70 percent of their games. Remarkably, they had a 92.5% point production efficiency - the measure of how many points a team scored compared to how many they could have scored - which is an improvement upon the 89% league average.

Generally, a high PPE is the result of strong team chemistry - and it's safe to say that's something the Bruins sorely lacked last year. But a high PPE doesn't make up for a goal-scoring total that's 45 goals behind where a team in their situation should have been. 45 goals is more than a half-goal per game, and since you can't score a half of a goal (not to hear the 1999 Sabres say it, anyway), that means the Bruins should have scored at least one more goal than they did in around half their games.

Looking back at the 2009-10 schedule, an eerie statistic pops out. The Bruins played in 46 one-goal games. They won 5 of them outright. That leaves 41 games in which they gave points, either by losing or by winning in overtime or a shootout. In overtime, they went 13-14. They lost fourteen one-goal games in regulation.

Now, statistics never distribute themselves evenly over a range, but here's something for consideration: if the Bruins had scored one of those 45 goals in each of the games which they gave points in, they could have earned 42 more points, and possibly not have given away another 13. They would have been a +55 compared to their competition in the point column.

Those 42 points, of course, would have easily put them in first place in the East, giving them the Presidents' Trophy they worked so hard to get last year. It would have vaulted them over the Capitals (who they gave 3 points to), would have knocked the Canadiens (6 points) and Rangers (4 points) from the playoffs and set up a first-round matchup with the Thrashers, whom the Bruins had owned all year.

While it stands to reason that the Bruins wouldn't win every one-goal game they played in outright with their full complement of talent, it's worth considering how good they could have been had they stayed healthy, or even played to the potential of a team missing its starters 30% of the time.

What happened? Was Bergeron envious of Savard's extension? (Absolutely not) Were there locker room troubles that we didn't hear about? (most certainly) Was a young Tuukka Rask not quite ready to carry some four decades of Bruins baggage on his shoulders? (certainly) Was Thomas more hurt than he let on? (sadly, yes) Were there internal problems that hurt an already damaged team chemistry that nobody knew about? (according to sources, yes) Did the coaching staff lack the ability to properly motivate the team come crunch time?

I'll let that one hang in the air.

They still should have beaten the Flyers. For nine playoff games, they played .770 hockey, and couldn't play .250 hockey over their last four games. There are no excuses for what happened.

While it's always fun to talk about what happened and what could have been, there's a more important reason for this discussion: there is a new Bruins team taking the ice in Wilmington in 30 days. They are equal parts experienced, passionate, young, energetic, determined, excited, and fairly well-rested after so many short seasons last year. Some are hurt - Sturm and Krejci physically, Thomas and Savard emotionally - but they are professionals, they are hungry, and when they lace up the skates to play, they'll do just that.

They will be, just like last year, a very sexy pick to contend for Lord Stanley's Cup.

The question is, if last year's team was supposed to be that good and wound up being "only that good", and if this year's Bruins are expected to be better, faster, smarter, stronger, what should we expect?

And most importantly, what will we get?

Skellefteå AIK of Sweden's Elitserien announced today that former P-Bruin Mikko Lehtonen has signed a one-year contract with that club.

Lehtonen, a right wing, put up 23-27-50 totals through 78 games during a struggling Providence season last year, leading the team all those categories except assists. The 23-year-old Finn has been somewhat of a dissapointment developmentally, as many assumed he'd be ready for the NHL much sooner. As it is, he has seen time in exactly two NHL games since coming to North America at the beginning of the 2008-2009 season; one game was a 6-2 shellacking at the hands of the Buffalo Sabres in which Lehtonen looked entirely lost.

The move to Europe for Lehtonen, however, does not come as a surprise. With the influx of talent to the baby B's, Lehtonen's ice time, it can only be assumed, would be vastly reduced, replaced by that of Caron, Colborne, and Riendeau. This move, in fact, guarantees all currently signed forwards a lot more ice time, as Lehtonen consistently played on one of the top two lines all of the previous two seasons.

Lehtonen's move to Sweden makes Tuukka Rask the only Finnish player or prospect currently playing in the Bruins' system.

There's no crying in hockey. Just don't tell Marco Sturm that.

After gaining instant fame throughout New England on New Year's Day by scoring the game-winning OT goal to beat the Flyers in the 2010 Winter Classic, Sturm was flying high. A little over 4 months later, he could barely crawl.

After leveling a hit on Matt Carle in Game 1 of the Bruins' Eastern Conference quarterfinal battle with the Philadelphia Flyers, Sturm's skate got stuck in a divot and he crumpled to the ground, unable to put weight on his right knee. 21 seconds into the series and the Bruins were bitten by the injury bug all over again.

Sturm tore the anterior cruciate ligament as well as the medial collateral ligament in his right knee on that play. Only 18 months earlier, Sturm had had microfracture surgery on his left knee to repair a torn meniscus and ACL.

Sturm put 22 pucks in the back of the net for the Bruins in 2009-10, good enough for the team lead. But he didn't record a single point in the playoffs, in spite of the Bruins' stronghanding of the Buffalo Sabres in round one.

Most players aren't the same after one ACL surgery. in the past 20 months, Marco Sturm has had one ACL surgery on each knee. For a player who relies on his speed and agility to outwork defenders and gain the offensive zone, Sturm's abilities are now very much in question.

One more knee injury and he's done. Everyone knows that, no one more than Sturm himself, who, according to sources, lamented the premature end of his career that night in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Sturm's career may not be over. The really good players, after all, reinvent themselves after injury. Curt Schilling morphed into a finesse pitcher. Kevin McHale became a facilitator.

Then again, sometimes the really good players just rehab hard and come back with more fire than they played with before. Exhibit A: Wesley Carter Welker.

Because of the nature of the movement required by hockey players - skating requires uncanny strength and control of the hamstring, quadricep and adductor muscles - the knee doesn't take on as much weight or torque as it would in a basketball or football player.

So, even after two surgeries, it's not unreasonable to believe that Sturm can still play hockey. Playing hockey with the Boston Bruins, however, is another story.

It's not that the Bruins wouldn't love to have Sturm back - GM Peter Chiarelli has expressed his willingness to make moves that ensure Marco returns to the fold, but just how sincere that willingness is is hard to tell. This is the same man, after all, who could have let Wheeler - who naturally occupies the same right slot that Sturm does - walk, but instead opted to pay him $2.2 million for another season of uncertain production.

Give Chiarelli credit where credit is due - with the exception of the Thomas extension and Michael Ryder's expiring contract, he's worked hard to keep together a team that should spend less time golfing than it has the last two Mays. His work on Savard's extension was brilliantly done and he has built a strong defense to support Julien's systemic approach to the game.

But it's getting tough to take the man at his word. The rest of the Bruins front office has taken issue with some of his behaviors - if they hadn't, why would Neely have been appointed President and awarded more authority than Chiarelli? He's started to shift the focus of the team to offense, drafting forwards in bunches without mentioning how it will affect the tenure of his coaching staff. And he's struggling with a salary cap in the same way that a chronic gambler struggles to pay the electric bill.

Sturm's cap hit is $3.5 million. That's about 6.5% of the total cap - it's not Chara's 7.5 or Thomas' 5 or Bergeron's 4.5 - but it's still substantial. And with the Bruins' current cap situation, it's substantial enough that Ryder, Wheeler, Seguin or another forward might be asked to bow out upon Sturm's return to accommodate the increase in total payroll.

There are, of course, other options.

Chiarelli could make a trade and pick up some more prospects or lottery picks. One of the Bruins' projected starting 12 forwards might not make the team. Somebody might get hurt and go on long-term IR, where Sturm will be until his return. Chiarelli could renegotiate the last year of Bergeron's deal as part of a contract extension (it's been discussed, but there's been little movement on it). Chiarelli could just not activate Sturm if everyone clicks.

If any of these scenarios comes to fruition, it will be bad for either the Bruins, for Chiarelli, or both.

The most likely scenario, however, involves a combination of those mentioned above. With two months to make a move once the season starts, Chiarelli will likely see if there's a team out there willing to take on Sturm's salary and history of knee injuries for a prospect or picks. It would be the best move for the team - Sturm will be happy anywhere, so long as he's playing, it won't jeopardize the chemistry the team puts together in the first two months and it could help further improve the team in the years to come.

Of course, as with so many things in hockey, it will all depend on just who these Bruins really are. If they're the talent-laden offensive team that they appear to be that can score at will, hold their blue line and get stud goaltending for their first 7 weeks, Chiarelli would be remiss to try to mix things up. If they're the young team that's still learning on the fly, Sturm's veteran presence could only help them long-term.

So often in sports, the end depends upon the beginning. For Marco Sturm, that beginning likely won't be in a Black and Gold sweater.

If it weren't for hockey, it's safe to say that Friday the 13th never would have become what it was. At the very least, it's why old-school hockey masks have a contractually obligated cameo in each Scary Movie up to and including Scary Movie 34.

But hey, any excuse for Carmen Electra to run half-naked in front of a sprinkler is a good one, right?

At any rate, it's the reason why Jason Voorhees has such cultural pull. And as an homage to Jason, and especially to Victor Miller and Sean S. Cunningham, who knew enough to leave well enough alone, Something's Bruin submits to you, the viewer, a list of ten movies that wouldn't have made it without hockey:

Mighty Ducks - It's a shame that when people think of Emilio Estevez, the first two things that come to mind are this and this. After all, he did carry a Disney franchise marked by poor acting over not one or two but three separate films and, let's be honest, is responsible for Paul Kariya's career.

To this day, my ultimate frisbee team and I still use the flying V in order to confuse opponents. Does it ever work? Of course not. But as Emilio taught us, the team that quacks together, stays together. Er, drinks together.

Miracle - Although there's still some doubt as to who did greater justice to Coach Brooks' speech, Kurt Russell or Joshua Sacco, there is no doubt that USA 4, USSR 3 is the greatest moment in U.S. hockey history, one of the top five moments in U.S. sports and one of the more remarkable moments in United States history as a whole, an Iwo Jima in its own regard:

Mystery, Alaska - Small-town hopes meet big city reality. It's the stuff of legend, stuff that Fitzgerald wrote about in The Great Gatsby. Stuff that, still, to this day, gives Rangers fans a reason to believe.

The Love Guru - Don't even. This movie sounds like something Rob Schneider would star in. I've never seen it, so you can imagine my surprise when I found out that Mike Myers - not Deuce Bigalow himself- played the lead role. Anyway, I had this Schneider clip ready to go, and I'd hate to waste it, so here it is, anyway.

MVP: Most Valuable Chimp - It's Air Bud meets This guy meets this kid meets every terrible Psych 101 experiment ever made. There. That should be enough youtube clips to make you forget this movie ever happened.

The Cutting Edge - Few movies have done more to ruin the reputation of a great sport than this one, which turned a once-promising hockey star into a glorified ballerina. Someone should have told the producers of this one that that job was reserved for Will Ferrell and Napoleon Dynamite.

Slap Shot - Proof that hockey fights put meat in the seats and only the good die unemployed. Speaking of which, they took our jobs.

Youngblood - Hockey's answer to Rambo. Any questions?

Sudden Death - Although the plot focused less on hockey and more on JCVD's chiseled physique (hey, the ladies need something to see, too), it still did well at the box office because apparently people like watching things get blown up and the terrorist mafia getting taken down. If it were re-made today with Vin Diesel, chances are nobody would go see it. Mostly cause nobody cares about Pittsburgh.

Maurice Richard - One of hockey film's great unknowns. This one taught us two things: one, NHLers can actually act; two, Canadians like hockey. The Rocket, as it was known in America, won 13 Genie awards. Genies, I'm led to believe, are the Canadian version of the Golden Globes. Personally, I'd take a Genie over a Globe anyday. Especially if he spoke French.

Happy Gilmore - Yes, this is the eleventh movie when I promised ten. But, I only did it for this:

Vegas Insider's "Odds to win the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals" was updated this morning at 10 AM, but it doesn't appear that anything tangible was used when calculating these odds - either that, or someone's been having too many martinis at the Caesars' Palace bar.

Look, they're very fancy martinis, okay. (via vegaslifeofluxury.com)

Starting with the most asinine of odds on this list is Chicago at the top with 5/1. Vegas Insider is essentially predicting them to succeed in putting together back-to-back championship seasons. In today's hard-cap NHL, that would be nothing short of miraculous after Chicago has essentially offloaded half of their championship roster via trade/loss to free agency, including playoff goaltending stud Antti Niemi. Chicago dominated for most of the regular season last year, but how will they compete next year minus players like Versteeg, Niemi, and Byfuglien? With a starting goaltender as old and questionable as Turco and no viable backup, how are these 5/1 odds even close to legitamate? True, they keep the core of Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook, but five stellar roster players do not a Stanley Cup Champion make. They're now comparable, interestingly enough, to the Capitals of the last few years, who have failed to make it out of the East in two straight years. They could even be compared to the 2005-2006 Atlanta Thrashers, whose roster was headlined by Marc Savard, Ilya Kovalchuk, Marian Hossa, Slava Kozlov, Peter Bondra, and Bobby Holik. Get past Holik on the roster and the names become forgettable. Despite the offensive firepower of Hossa, Kovalchuk, and Savard, and the notable rookie season of goaltender Kari Lehtonen, these Thrashers failed to make the playoffs.

At least if Chicago misses the playoffs, perhaps that currently cramped bandwagon will empty out a little. Here's hoping.

Stanley Cup championships are won by well-rounded teams, not teams composing solely of several huge salaries and a large number of fill-in players. Tell this to Vegas Insider, who has the Washington Capitals listed at 6/1 chances of winning next year. Perennially, the Capitals obviously do make the playoffs, but they haven't been solid past their first two lines, their goaltending has been questionable since the days of Olaf Kolzig, and their defense is...Mike Green, so basically a second offense. Until they add a veteran blueliner who can lead by some sort of example or Mike Green can learn that he's not in fact the sixth forward, 6/1 odds are way too generous for the Capitals.

Pittsburgh seems almost reasonable at 6/1 odds. They haven't made many offseason moves, and after winning the Cup in 2009, filled the holes in their roster adequately to make a good run again last year before being bested by the Slovakian Wall of Doom out of Montreal, Jaro Halak. Had they bested Montreal, it's very likely that they could have put together another championship run - a lack of salary cap problems during their Cup season will definitely benefit them in the long run. Their goaltending is solid, their defensive corps won't suffer too much with only the loss of the aging Sergei Gonchar; replacing him with UFA Zybnek Michalek may help more than we can anticipate at this time.

Below these top three picks, it really is a crapshoot as to where teams will finish, although additional odds that stand out as laughable are Philadelphia at 12/1, New Jersey at 15/1, Carolina at 35/1, St. Louis and Nashville both at 40/1, Tampa Bay at 45/1, and Edmonton at 100/1. Philadelphia's Chris Pronger might be out of the equation to start the season; their goaltending issue is a failure and they've lost several key pieces of their miracle Stanley Cup Finals team. Their odds should be at least three times worse. In New Jersey - 15/1 would be questionable even if they had sucessfully signed Ilya "17 Years" Kovalchuk. Martin Brodeur had a fantastic season last year, but he's still getting old - nothing guarantees how long he can put up excellent goaltending numbers, especially when he perennially attempts to play the entire season. Carolina just isn't a good team, and deserves to be down around where Atlanta and Columbus are listed. St. Louis should be listed higher - their goaltending improves drastically with the tandem of Halak-Conklin, and they've made some very interesting offseason acquisitions. Nashville, however, has not. Tampa Bay is a sleeper pick for contention; Steve Stamkos and Victor Hedman continue to develop, and they've picked up the slack from Nashville and Philadelphia with the signings of goalie Dan Ellis and Bruins-killer Simon Gagne.

Edmonton, despite the drafting of Taylor Hall, might actually just be awful enough to warrant 100/1 odds, and that's laughable in its own right.

As far as Boston's own odds, 20/1 puts us in the top ten. The Bruins have acquired offensive firepower this offseason, they've got a start-of-season trip planned that could do wonders for team chemistry, and arguably won the draft with their pick of Tyler Seguin - and they're still solid on the blueline and in the net, comparably. Is it too homeriffic to suggest that maybe 15/1 or even 10/1 odds sound more apt?

Seemingly any hockey fan who is knowledgeable about the salary cap era could make a fair mockery of this list of odds. Is it a case of legitimate lack of NHL knowledge, a drastically misinformed odds-maker, pure offseason apathy, or perhaps a Paul the Octopus type game picking scheme? Who knows - but odds are, whoever correctly predicts the 2011 Stanley Cup Winner isn't likely going to receive anything less than a 10-to-1 payout, short of a miracle.

A 20-to-1 payout sounds pretty nice to me.

The news-that-wasn't-really-news came yesterday in the form of a press release from Bruins' General Manager Peter Chiarelli:

“We are cooperating fully with the League in its investigation of the Marc Savard contract extension. The League informed us upon their registration of the contract on December 1, 2009 that they would be investigating the circumstances surrounding this contract. From that point on, they commenced their investigation and it has been ongoing since then. On August 4th, I met with two League appointed lawyers as part of the investigation. We will continue to cooperate with the League in any future investigative proceedings if necessary and we will have no further comment on the matter at this time.”

So let's get this straight. The whole time the Bruins have been shopping Savard, they didn't even know if his 7-year, $28.05 million extension would be considered valid by the League?

The mind reels. The heart yearns. The lungs breathe. And the logical questions follow.

Does Savard actually have the right to his NMC? Can the deal be re-structured? If Savard is traded and then his contract is un-registered by the NHL, is the trade rescinded, too? Will Chiarelli always have that far-off look in his eye? And why doesn't Heidi Watney cover the Bruins, too?

Savard's contract, according to Chiarelli, has been under investigation now for nearing 9 months. The NHL is going after this "situation" with all the fervor of Colin Campbell trying to dish out a suspension or Brett Favre deciding whether or not to un-retire.

Hossa may escape this battle without anything more than a shaving wound, if only because he's the only one of the stars in question to have played on his jeopardized contract. But nobody's safe anymore. Not Marc Savard. Not Chris Pronger. Not Roberto Luongo. And definitely not Gary Bettman's integrity.

If the NHL decides to take back these contracts, it shows a lack of foresight demonstrated only in the bedrooms of frat houses during a Saturday night kegger. If they decide to let them stand, they better follow it up with a press conference announcing that John Kerry's been employed by the League as a consultant, because such flip-flopping without someone to blame is just embarassing.

This could be Bettman's Last Stand. Seriously. Sure, he's done great things for the league when it comes to generating revenue. He's also let teams go bankrupt, dislocated the Nordiques, Jets, North Stars and Whalers in favor of warmer pastures - if you cared or even noticed when the Lightning and Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup on opposite ends of The Lockout, raise your hands.

Nobody? Great. Moving on.

For anyone keeping track, there are currently 10 teams in the NHL that are either south or west of St. Louis - believe it or not, Colorado isn't one of them. Five of those teams (the entire Southwest Division) are both. Seven of those teams (Anaheim, Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, Carolina, Dallas and Nashville) have begun play under Bettman's watchful eye.

That means that one-third of the league is playing in cities where hockey shouldn't even be a consideration. Everyone has their own ideas for how to bring the game back, but if you're going to change the landscape, do it the right way - 12 teams in Canada, 12 in the US, nobody playing hockey south of St. Louis.

Bettman's also been responsible for two labor stoppages, and has another one on the horizon in 2011-12 if he isn't willing to start talking turkey with his top advisors and the NHLPA.

Speaking of the NHLPA, in case you hadn't heard, they're not on very good terms with Gary right now. In the past two years, Bettman and friends have changed a major rule in the middle of the playoffs, refused to suspend goons for obliterating some of the NHL's marquee players (though they've been quick to suspend Ovechkin, knowing that Ovie being out of the lineup would generate more press than him being in it), and now they're staring down a CBA that took 14 months to hammer out and spitting on it.

To be fair, Bettman's done what he was asked to do as commissioner: modernize the league, expand and Americanize the game. The NHL is all over Twitter, Facebook and many of its teams have opened their doors to fans and even minor media, increasing transparency in a world that is becoming more and more closed off.

But transparency means nothing without success. The hard-nosed, no-nonsense, old-guard NHL leadership is no more. But the fans, the ones that snatch up day-game seats and keep small-market teams from going under, are still there. And they don't like what they see at all.

Fighting is down, and is becoming increasingly frowned-upon. I'm not advocating that teams send guys on the ice to pull a Bertuzzi.

Or a Ruff.

And they definitely shouldn't bring this back.

But fighting is what fans expect from a hockey game. Ultimately, it's one of the things that sells tickets. During and after the World Cup, everyone lamented the lack of scoring in the games. Don't they do the same during hockey season?

Consider that Bettman's former employer, the NBA, is the NHL's season-long rival when it comes to programming spots and that the average NBA team scores between 90 and 110 points per game and ask why more people would rather watch the Celtics and Lakers than the Bruins and Kings.

Basketball is also climate-unaware. It can be and is played outdoors in Phoenix, San Jose and Dallas. Ditto for Toronto, Vancouver and Minnesota. It may not belong to those cities in the same way it belongs to the Manhattans, Chicagos and South Phillys of the world, but its appeal is fairly universal. For a lot of Americans, hockey is still just soccer on ice.

Since the lockout ended, Bettman has been approached on countless ocassions by ESPN executives looking to strike a TV deal. Hockey in high-definition, after all, is damned fun to watch. Countless times, he's shirked them, preferring to keep hockey on regional networks, national networks that nobody can watch without paying an extra 40 bucks a month, and, once a week, on Sunday afternoons - but only after mid-January - on NBC.

If you wouldn't pay whatever it takes to have ESPN as part of your cable package to see Don Cherry's wardrobe in HD, you're crazy. Melrose's mullet? What about Barnaby's toothless grin?

ESPN means two things: exposure and revenue. Somehow, Bettman doesn't see the need for either.

The NHL is not the Green Bay Packers. The fans don't own the league, even if they're the ones responsible for keeping it afloat. They don't retain the right to make executive decisions - but it stands to reason that if they did, Bettman would have had the axe a while ago.

He's already to blame from separating the sport from the people. If he now becomes responsible for separating Hossa from the Hawks, Pronger from the Flyers, Lu from the Canucks and Savard from the Bruins, the cries for his head will only grow louder.

This is his chance to come clean and admit that the NHL was rash in its collective bargaining agreement. If he does, he'll buy himself some more time, and maybe restore some confidence in his ability as a leader.

Or to take the fall one last time.

With approximately a month until training camp begins and the excitement of draft day and free agent frenzy in the seemingly distant past, the midpoint of the NHL offseason marks an ideal time to take a look out past the I-95 loop and examine what the Bruins' division rivals have really been up to on the offseason. Here's a quick rundown on what we can expect to see from the Northeast Division this year.

OTTAWA SENATORS

Rival blog: The 6th Sens

Bruins' 2009-2010 record vs. the Senators: 4-2-0

Big offseason moves: Signed UFA Sergei Gonchar, lost defenseman Anton Volchenkov to free agency, signed Peter Regin to a 2-year contract, re-signed Chris Campoli. Traded first round pick in 2010 Draft for defensive prospect David Rundblad from the St. Louis Blues; highest draft pick was Jakub Culek from the Rimouski Oceanic.

What to expect this season: With the loss of Volchenkov to New Jersey and the addition of Gonchar, look for an improved power play from Ottawa this year. Sens fans are looking for either Jared Cowen or Boston's own college stud Eric Gryba to strengthen their D a little. As always, look for Kovalev to be a headache for the Bruins (if his game is on), right along with Spezza, Alfredsson and Fisher, the Sens' big four as far as offense goes. Look for Tim Thomas to start the majority of the games against the Sens, as his record against them is borderline ridiculous (16-7-2 with a .932 sv %, 4 shutouts and a 2.10 GAA).

BUFFALO SABRES

Rival blog: Top Shelf

Bruins' 2009-2010 record vs. the Sabres: 8-4-0 (incl. playoffs)

Big offseason moves: Lost Henrik Tallinder and Toni Lydman to free agency on July 1st, and signed Jordan Leopold. Re-signed perennial pest Patrick Kaleta, after narrowly avoiding arbitration. Re-signed backup goaltender Patrick Lalime. Bought out hometown hero Tim Kennedy, and signed UFAs Tim Conboy and Shaone Morrisonn to contracts. Highest draft pick was defenseman Mark Pysyk from the Edmonton Oil Kings in the first round.

What to expect this season: After a hard-fought first round playoff series, count on Buffalo to have the Bruins' number in 2010-2011. It won't be grudge match central, but Sabres/Bruins games have a history of being chippy, and that likely won't change. The loss of Tallinder on the blueline to New Jersey (although they seemingly can't land Kovalchuk, they certainly are helping the Northeast by taking on these defensive headaches) won't help Buffalo at all, and Shaone Morrisonn won't likely be an upgrade. Kaleta will be annoying as usual, but aside from Tallinder/Morrisonn and buying out Kennedy, the Sabres' front office seemingly hasn't made too many drastic changes to the lineup.

TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

Rival blog: Pension Plan Puppets

Bruins' 2009-2010 record vs. the Leafs: 4-1-1

Big offseason moves: Probably made the biggest moves in the Northeast in this offseason with the signing of Colby Armstrong and the trade of a few prospects to Chicago for Kris Versteeg. Also signed Brett Lebda.

What to expect this season: Look for a far more dangerous Maple Leafs squad this year, much to the chagrin of Bruins fans looking to capitalize on that 2011 draft pick. With a blueline crew headed up by Dion Phaneuf and Francois Beauchemin, two solid goalies in J-S Giguere and Jonas "The Monster" Gustavsson, and an increasingly scary offensive corps headlined by Kessel, Kulimin, Armstrong, Sjostrom, and Stanley Cup champ Versteeg, as well as youngster Nazem Kadri, who's expected to crack the lineup, don't be entirely surprised to see the Leafs make a case for an actual - gasp - playoff spot this year. As one user on twitter so glibly pointed out, "Toronto is the new Montreal." With hated tough guy Mike Komisarek and shunned former Bruin Phil Kessel on the roster, how could they be anything less?

MONTREAL CANADIENS

Rival blog: All Habs

Bruins' 2009-2010 record vs. the Canadiens: 1-3-2

Big offseason moves: Traded Jaro Halak to the St. Louis Blues for prospects. Thus far have failed to sign RFA goalie Carey Price. Signed G Alex Auld, presumably to eventually back up for Price. Allowed Glen Metropolit and Paul Mara to walk. Re-signed Plekanec, Lapierre, Pyatt, and Pouliot, and traded wild child Sergei Kostitsyn for Nashville's Dustin Boyd.

What to expect this season: What do Bruins fans always expect from a season series against the Habs? Carnage. The glory of a hard-fought win. Death. Destruction. We saw absolutely none of these things in last year's season series, and with the loss of Komisarek, Kovalev, and fun tough guy Georges Laraque, don't expect to see much fighting between these teams next season, either. With a retooled Bruins' offense and a very questionable Canadiens goaltending situation, however, count on an upswing in wins against the hated Habs this season. Although fans seemingly have more of a reason to cheer against Toronto this season, a good Habs/Bruins game won't be something to yawn at; rather, with their diminuitive size and lack of general physical presence, the 2010-2011 Bruins should be fairly able to manhandle them. Who knows, maybe fans will be treated to a Wheeler-O'Byrne rematch...

Marc Savard has a full no-trade clause in his contract, which recent reports suggest he never waived at any point this summer. If the NHL has its way, it won't matter.

The Bruins' center signed a seven-year extension in November of last year, worth about 28 million dollars. Although the Bruins' cap hit as a result of that contract is an even $4 million over the next seven seasons, Savard is actually making $7 million in the first two years of the extension and averaging $2.8 million in the last five years.

His is just the kind of contract that the NHL is currently out to take down.

A day after Richard Bloch, NHL arbiter extraordinaire, ruled Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year deal with the New Jersey Devils to be "a retirement contract" and, therefore, not eligible for registration, the NHL has suddenly turned vigilant.

Chris Pronger. Roberto Luongo. Marian Hossa. All centerpieces of their team, now and well into the future. All may soon be free agents.

Savard's contract is the least outlandish of these deals; Luongo is scheduled to make $10 million this year in the first of a new 12-year contract worth $64 million. In the last year of that contract, Luongo is only owed $1 million.

Pronger's deal is equally as long as Savard's, but it is registered at $35 million, seven million more than Savard's deal. Pronger, in his last 2 seasons, is owed only $525,000 annually.

Whether or not Savard and Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli had intentions of circumventing the NHL's rigid salary cap when the contract was signed remains a point of contention. "When I signed a seven-year deal, obviously it was to play the whole seven years," Savard said when the extension was announced.

"So that's how I look at it right now and I think that's what I'm going to be true to right now. I really haven't thought about anything else."

Savard has been the subject of trade rumors all offseason, his no-movement clause the hot-button issue for a team desperately trying to shed salary without sacrificing talent. Toronto's Tomas Kaberle is the name that continues to come up in trade talks, as the Leafs would love to pair Savard with former Boston linemate Phil Kessel and the Bruins would love to sign a puck-moving defenseman.

It is likely that Savard's value in the trade market is now gone. Although talks for Savard had been warming at the end of last week, teams will be much colder on him now because of the contract situation.

If Luongo's contract is un-registered by the NHL, it only becomes a matter of time before Hossa, Pronger and Savard have theirs undone, too. Were the contracts to become un-registered, each player woulld essentially become a restricted free agent - their teams would retain exclusive negotiating rights with them and would be able to match any offer by another team.

If Chiarelli is still looking to open up cap space, it seems his only option is moving Tim Thomas, who, in spite of his 2009 Vezina Trophy-winning self, had an admirable year in net in 2010 before being derailed by a torn hip labrum.

Trading Thomas is an even tougher financial sell and with a still-up-and-comer in Tuukka Rask entering his first full NHL season, Chiarelli would be wise to keep Thomas to guard against a sophomore slump from Rask.

Whether his contract is safe or not, one thing about Savard is certain heading into the 2010-11 season: he'll be playing with a chip on his shoulder. Although he shies away from the spotlight, Savard has been quietly unhappy about Chiarelli - a man who Savard respects and considers a friend, not just a boss - shopping him.

Many have pointed to Savard's inability to get off the ice in Game 7 of the Philadelphia series as the reason the Bruins didn't make the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time since 1992. Savard's too many men penalty put the Bruins on the penalty kill and allowed the Flyers to score the series-clinching power play goal.

Media, management and fans found themselves at odds with Savard's unwillingness to own up to the mistake and the backlash from the unexpected end to the season was what started the Savard trade talk.

That talk is all but dead now, but Savard's future as a Bruin remains in question.

UPDATE: 3:57 PM: In a press release this afternoon, Chiarelli noted that from the moment the contract was registered, the league would be investigating the circumstances surrounding it. On August 4th, he met with two lawyers from the NHL to discuss the terms. At this point, the Bruins, like the Canucks and Devils, have issued no further comments.