NHL Inbox: Discrediting Ovi? Wolf for Calder? Milwaukee expansion?

Welcome to the fourth edition of NHL Inbox, a monthly forum in which readers can ask me anything hockey-related and I try my best to deliver an insightful answer. Thanks to the hundreds of people who've submitted a question thus far.

Note: The questions below have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

Chris G. asks: I'll start by admitting I'm a huge Flames fan. Why isn't Dustin Wolf getting more Calder Trophy love? Most experts thought Calgary would be a bottom-five team. Wolf has singlehandedly kept us out of that conversation and into the wild-card race. Yes, Macklin Celebrini and others are having great seasons, but has any rookie been more valuable to their team than Wolf?

Wolf's Calder case is compelling: 20 wins in 35 starts for an upstart club. He ranks 10th in save percentage (.913) and 18th in goals saved above expected per 60 minutes (0.33) among 50 goalies with 20-plus games.

It's totally fair to say no rookie has been more valuable to his team than Wolf.

Goalies traditionally get overlooked in the early stages of the Calder debate due to a lighter workload than skaters, and the fact that voters can't take their eyes off the shiny new offensive creator. Wolf, 23, and partner Dan Vladar split crease time down the middle in the first half, while top pick Celebrini, hockey savant Matvei Michkov, and transition king Lane Hutson filled highlight reels.

Another factor: The Calder is officially awarded to the "most proficient" rookie. In other words, it honors the best rookie, not necessarily the most valuable.

With roughly 25 games left, Wolf and Celebrini are in the top tier. Celebrini boasts an extremely advanced skill set for an 18-year-old and leads all rookies in goals and points per game. He's currently the Sharks' No. 1 center.

Fair or not, some voters consider team performance. The narrative will be on Wolf's side if the Flames sneak into the playoffs and he sits at around 50 appearances. Of course, Celebrini could counter by popping off offensively.

Steve Mason was the last netminder to claim the Calder in 2008-09.

633788perfect asks: Ovi goal chase: What do you think about all of Alex Ovechkin's empty-netters? I don't think he has that many more than Wayne Gretzky. Do you think he should be discredited for having so many on the power play? If Ovi played in Gretz's era, or if Gretz played now, do you think Ovi would have the record by now based on things like the size of goalie pads? Overall, taking everything into account, who is the better goal-scorer?

Despite all the fuss over Ovechkin's seven empty-net goals in 43 games this season, the Russian has just nine more than Gretzky in total (64-55).

No, I don't think Ovechkin should be discredited for scoring so many of his goals on the power play (320 to Gretzky's 213). For one, a goal is a goal regardless of the game situation, and scoring is arguably the hardest thing to do in hockey. Also, Ovechkin's power-play prowess speaks to his playing style, especially late in his career.

Young Ovechkin was an incredibly fast, remarkably physical sniper. It felt inevitable he'd will a puck past the goal line every game. Old Ovechkin is a slower, less physical player. He's leveraging hockey IQ to rack up goals as he approaches his 40th birthday.

The goal totals would be tight if Ovechkin and Gretzky played in the same era, though I think Ovechkin would be slightly ahead. His sole objective on the ice is to score, whereas Gretzky became the all-time leader in goals almost by accident. Gretzky, with his one-of-a-kind vision, was a playmaker first, a goal-scorer second. He thought the game way better than any of his peers.

Put simply, Ovechkin is the purer goal-scorer, while Gretzky is a significantly better player overall.

therealcowtown asks: Is Seth Jones as good a player as I think he is, and will he be a bargain as the salary cap rises? Also, what kind of return do you think the Blackhawks would get for him if they do trade him?

Jones seems to be underrated by the stats-obsessed, new-school crowd and overrated by the eye-test-loving, old-school crowd. The truth is somewhere in the middle: the 30-year-old would plug in nicely as the No. 2 or No. 3 defenseman on a Stanley Cup-contending team, not the No. 1 guy he's been for four years on the rebuilding Blackhawks.

"He'd be an awesome guy to have in your top four," said someone working in a rival front office. "But he's slowed down a lot with his injury and isn't a true offensive D-man."

Jones logs a team-high 24:30 a night and has racked up 27 points in 42 games this season. However, his trademark transition game has sagged a bit, with his skating speed, zone-entry, and zone-exit numbers all down on a per-game basis. The slight step back could be related to different factors: a November foot injury that sidelined him for a month, trying to do too much on a poor team, or aging quickly as a 6-foot-4 blue-liner. It may be a mix of all three.

Whatever the case, Jones has talked publicly about wanting to move on, which is much easier said than done. Jones makes $9.5 million annually through 2029-2030, and his no-move clause gives him control over the process.

The Blackhawks would likely have to retain salary, and keeping 50% is no small amount even with the cap rising. Involving a third team would help divvy up the retention. But those types of deals are difficult to assemble in a crunch.

It feels like a Jones trade is better suited for draft weekend.

The return is almost impossible to predict given the circumstances. But if I'm Chicago, I'm not looking at this as a get-out-of-jail-free card. General manager Kyle Davidson doesn't have to do anything. The Blackhawks need to ice a competitive lineup sooner rather than later, and trading Jones immediately creates another hole on the roster.

Ben V asks: I'd like to hear a detailed explanation of why Milwaukee is never on short lists of potential NHL expansion/relocation sites. I've heard rumblings the Blackhawks own some sort of proximity clause that limits Milwaukee from getting a team. If true, it must have an expiration date. I doubt the NHL would give out such an absolute to one owner. If there isn't a clause, why not Milwaukee? They have a state-of-the-art arena. Wisconsin is a huge hockey hotbed; attendance would not be an issue. Instant rivalries with Chicago and Minnesota. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of cons. What am I missing?

Future expansion is by far the most popular topic among submitted questions.

Fans clearly want to know if the buzz about the NHL potentially growing to 34 teams is substantive. The short answer: yes. By all accounts, it's a matter of when, not if, the league expands. Personally, I'd label Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix the front-runners, though New Orleans is an intriguing new option.

So why not Milwaukee? The chief criterion would be a group with an interest in making a bid.

"While there was some interest expressed at earlier points in time about the potential of owning a franchise in Milwaukee, there has been no interest expressed in Milwaukee in the relatively recent past," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told theScore in an email earlier this week.

Ben's points about the ready-made fan base, relatively new arena, and geographical rivalries are accurate. First and foremost, though, the city needs a prospective ownership group with deep pockets, a good reputation, and league-wide utility. The NHL wouldn't be in Salt Lake City if Utah owner Ryan Smith didn't check those boxes; he's a billionaire embedded in the tech industry who's established a track record as owner of the NBA's Utah Jazz and other teams.

Gary Bettman's NHL has prioritized non-traditional markets (Nashville, for instance), novelty (a Big Four sports team in Las Vegas!?), and large TV markets (Phoenix). Milwaukee profiles similar to Quebec City but without any NHL history - established hockey market, solid arena. Milwaukee's regional population is similar to Raleigh, where the Carolina Hurricanes reside.

That said, Daly noted Milwaukee's place on the map isn't a major issue.

"There is no currently effective 'proximity clause' that has ever been given or granted to any NHL franchise," he said when asked about the idea of a Milwaukee club infringing on the Blackhawks' regional territory. New York has three teams in close proximity and Los Angeles has two.

Brian H. asks: Do coaches keep track of why their players get thrown out of the faceoff dot? Seems to me that if teams and coaches knew why it was happening then they could work on changing whatever's wrong midgame.

I ran this question past an assistant coach who handles the forwards - and, by extension, faceoffs - for his NHL team. He said he's pretty hands-off during the game. A vibe develops, and players naturally adjust to the standard set by the linesmen that night.

The coach then went on a rant about how linesmen have become increasingly strict over the past few years. Faceoff violations are "black and white" in 2025. It's gotten to a point, he said, where wingers are spending valuable practice time working on draws because they're forced to fill in for centers so often.

"I understand they want to make it fair and call faceoffs by the book, but it's gone too far, in my opinion," the coach said. "There's enough delays in the game as is. We don't need more. There's got to be a happy medium."

I found myself nodding along as the coach explained the trend. It does seem like centers are being thrown out of a high percentage of draws these days.

The NHL evaluates its on-ice officials throughout the regular season. Only the top performers work playoff games. This dynamic, the coach theorized, has led to linesmen putting an unnecessarily heavy emphasis on faceoff etiquette. Sure, kick out the worst offenders. But let's not nitpick every single little detail.

CheeseMan40 asks: Why do some owners, who seem to have limited knowledge of running teams, like to have so much involvement? These owners usually end up hindering the team for many years by trying to make silly moves that make a team capable of drawing in a crowd but not winning much.

Sports team owners dominated at least one business sector on their way to becoming fabulously rich. Most get so used to being the smartest person in boardrooms that being the dumbest one in a room full of hockey people is a shock to the system. Some will respond by trying to micromanage decisions big and small.

I've always believed an owner can do whatever he or she wants with his team; they pay the bills. But the cons outweigh the pros in micromanaging.

The smart owners instead hire the right executives and let them cook. Does that mean he or she can't sit in on scouting meetings? No. But the owner should be listening more, talking less. There's a fine balance to strike between being completely invisible to your staff and being overwhelmingly hands-on.

Outgoing Lightning owner Jeff Vinik, who's often cited as one of the NHL's best owners, seems to have mastered this approach. He doesn't meddle in the day-to-day, yet he's around enough to interact with staff, players, fans, and community leaders. Tampa Bay is a well-run club, and it starts at the top.

What do you want to know, hockey fans?

There are three ways to submit a question for future editions of NHL Inbox:

• Comment on this article in theScore mobile app
• Email senior NHL writer John Matisz at [email protected]
• Shoot John a message on Twitter/X (@matiszjohn)