I'm not 100% sure a FanPost is the most appropriate location to post this, so apologies in advance if I missed some other area to post a question like this.

I'm about to enter my third season as a 12-game plan holder, but I've gone from 2 to 3 seats for this season.  This introduces a potential conundrum that I didn't encounter when I only had 2 seats.  Specifically, I'm wondering about some details of exchanging tickets.

The scenario I'm wondering about is as follows: If I have 3 tickets to Game A (A1, A2, and A3) and 3 tickets to Game B (B1, B2, and B3), but the third person can't go to either game, am I allowed to trade A3 and B3 for 2 tickets to one of the designated exchange games? Or does the exchange program work such that I would have to trade all my tickets for Game A for the same number of tickets to the exchange game?

Thanks!

As the losses have continued to mount, there have been any number of different reasons put forth as the root cause for the struggles. The play of everyone on the ice has been discussed and dissected every which way, yet we still see the same mistakes, and the same lack of fundamentals on display game after game.

At this point it seems fair to question whether the poor play on the ice is merely a symptom of a deeper problem.  I've seen comments starting to head in that direction, suggesting that the team has tuned out Lemaire, or that a coaching change might be necessary.  Personally, I think that a coaching change would be a short-term fix at best, and that what we're seeing is the culmination of a problem in the Devils' locker room that's been building for quite a while now. I think what we're looking at is a team that has lost  its presence, its identity, and its will to win.

Back in 2000 when they overcame the 3-1 deficit to Philadelphia, Larry Robinson's tirade after game 4 got a lot of the credit, but would it have meant anything without guys like Ken Daneyko, Bobby Holik, Claude Lemieux, and Scott Stevens to set the tone for the players in the lockerroom and on the ice?  The Devils were a team that built its identity around defense and toughness, and any one of those three guys could deliver a physical play to put the other team back on its heels.  Stevens and Daneyko were there again in 2003, along with Joe Nieuwendyk after giving up the 3-1 series lead to Ottawa, and seeing the Ducks claw their way back into it every time the Devils seemed to have them against the wall in the Finals.  Unfortunately for the Devils, Daneyko retired after the 2003 Finals, and Stevens only played a small portion of the following season before exiting the lineup for good.

And when Stevens and Daneyko retired, they took a significant piece of the team's identity with them. Since then,  the Devils have lacked a true tone-setter both on the ice and in the room.  There hasn't been anyone since Stevens who has brought that kind of presence to the team, the type of leader who could look around the room, tell the team to get on his back, and then go out and deliver a game-changing hit.

Maybe Niedermayer could have been that type of leader.  Sure, he'd certainly never hit anyone like Stevens did, but he definitely had the skill to put his stamp on the game with an offensive play or a key defensive stop.  Unfortunately, he only had that one partial season as the Captain and focal point, before the Devils lost in the first round of the playoffs. And things have just gotten worse since the lockout.  I don't want to knock Elias and Langenbrunner as players, but as Captains, it seems like they were picked mostly because there wasn't a better option at the time.

And since the lockout, the Devils have shown the inability to rise up in the face of adversity and fight their way back into a series (see 5-game second round losses to Carolina in '06 and Ottawa in '07, and the 5-game first round loss to the Rangers in '08).  They've also wilted in the face of physical play (see the way Sean Avery was allowed to run wild in that '08 series, and the way Andrew Peters has mostly failed to be an effective enforcer this season).  And they've shown an inability to stay focused and a tendency to crumble when things don't go well (see the end of game 7 against the Hurricanes last year, and the innumerable times opponents have scored goals in rapid succession this year).

Who on this year's team can be the one to step up and put the team on his shoulders?  Who on this team is standing up in the dressing room, telling the others "We are NOT going to lose," and then going out on the ice and getting it done? You'd think if they had that sort of leader in the room, he'd have done it by now.

What I think this team needs, more than a shutdown defenseman, more than a new coach, and more than a new goalie, is a heart transplant.

Last week, while catching up on the various hockey blogs and columns that I read, I came upon this gem from Ross McKeon of Yahoo! Sports.

"Chicago and San Jose are the class of not only the West but of the league. Everyone else in the West is a Stanley Cup pretender, but six of those pretenders will get into the postseason tourney. Buffalo and New Jersey have splashy records in the East, but no way do they hold up through even three rounds of the playoffs. Washington is not built for winning a Cup, at least not prior to the deadline. Pittsburgh is, and the Penguins are the East’s only hope before the roster reshuffling otherwise known as the trade deadline." (The link can be found here.)

After my initial reaction of sarcastically, wondering why we should even bother with the rest of the season and playoffs instead of just putting the Blackhawks and Sharks on the ice for a best of 7, I got to thinking about  who actually could be viable contenders for The Cup this year.

I've identified 5 teams in each conference that I believe have most of the pieces in place to be a legitimate possibility to win the Cup.  None of the 10 teams are perfect however, and each has some key questions that could easily undermine their hopes.

This is in no way an in-depth analysis, just some quick observations on the season to date.

Starting in the West:

Calgary:

Pros: Miikka Kiprusoff in goal; the offensive skill of Jarome Iginla and Olli Jokinen; three-headed monster of Dion Phaneuf, Robyn Regher, and Jay Bouwmeester on defense.

Cons: Have been inconsistent this year and may not make the playoffs; Have underachieved in post-season play with the exception of their run to the finals in 2004; Brent Sutter hasn't shown much coaching ability in the playoffs.

Chicago:

Pros: Balance -- relentless offensively, and good defensively; Get offensive production up and down the lineup; lessons learned from the loss to Detroit last year; additional leadership added by acquisition of John Madden.

Cons: Can Cristobal Huet get it done?

Detroit:

Pros: Experience; core of the two-time defending Western Conference championship team is intact; No fear; be honest -- if they get in as the 7th or 8th seed, would you really want to draw them in the first round?

Cons: Have been inconsistent this year and may not make the playoffs; injruies; goaltending is a major question mark.

San Jose:

Pros: Offense of the Marleau, Thornton, Heatley line; goaltending of Evgeni Nabokov; deep, talented defense led by Rob Blake and Dan Boyle

Cons: Pressure and history  -- San Jose has a long history of underachieving in the playoffs -- a 1-8, or 2-7 matchup against Detroit looms as a distinct possibility.

Vancouver:

Pros: Offense is balanced, if not overpowering -- good secondary scoring; unheralded but talented defense; superstars Henrik Sedin and Roberto Luongo who are hungry and have something to prove on the big stage.

Cons: As good as they are, are they really good enough to overcome deeper, more explosive teams like Chicago and San Jose, or a more successful postseason team like Detroit?

And in the East:

Buffalo:

Pros: As hardworking a team as there is in the NHL, very tough to play against; Ryan Miller; very good defensively in front of Miller.

Cons: Can they put up enough offense to make it through the playoffs?

New Jersey:

Pros: Jacques Lemaire's experience behind the bench; good veteran leadership; Marty; ZZ Pops; this team is hungry to make amends for the disastrous ending against Carolina last year.

Cons: Specter of recent playoff failures; Marty hasn't looked like his usual self the last couple of playoffs; depth at center; can they generate enough secondary and powerplay scoring to support ZZ Pops?

Philadelphia:

Pros: Deep forward corps; top scorers have struggled, but they've got good balance;  the leadership, experience, and nastiness of Chris Pronger on the blueline.

Cons: Can this team's best players step up and carry them in the playoffs?  Can Ray Emery keep his head screwed on straight, and not self-destruct? Is Ray Emery the goalie who can finally answer the Flyers' age-old goalie dilemma? Can this team get past Pittsburgh if they meet again?

Pittsburgh:

Pros: Defending champions; Crosby and Malkin; goaltending of Marc-Andre Fleury; deep supporting cast led by Jordan Staal and Bill Guerin.

Cons: Can a younger group of defensemen hold up through the playoffs? Will they be able to muster the same level of emotion and intensity? 

Washington:

Pros: Ovechkin's skill and desire; relentless on the attack -- good secondary scoring behind Ovechkin and Backstrom;

Cons: Can they play championship caliber defense?  Who's in goal, and will he be good enough to backstop a Cup run?

Prediction: The last four teams standing will be New Jersey and Washington in the East; and Detroit and Chicago in the West.  Chicago will get by Detroit this year, while the Devils will (very unfortunately) lose a 7-game heartbreaker against the Caps.  Chicago over Washington in 7 to win The Cup.