Burning Questions

SI.com's David Vecsey tackles three issues from around the league:

1. Who's going to win the Stanley Cup?

Whoa, so much for an easy first shift in this shiny new season. Who's going to win the Stanley Cup? That's the first question out of the box? OK, let's get it on.

Teemu Selanne Brian Bahr/Getty Images

I'm saying the Avs. With an asterisk. And I reserve the right to change my pick at any point during the season as many times as needed.

Why the Avs? Well, they started with a roster of Olympians and All-Stars and added two more in Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne. That's the trend these days. Every baseball player who wants to win the World Series signs with the Yankees, every basketball player seeking that elusive ring joins Phil Jackson in L.A. And every hockey player looking to get his mitts on the Cup ends up in Denver.

That said. The commitment shown to young goalies David Aebischer and Phil Sauve is admirable, but I'm curious to see how long it lasts should the Avs not pull away early. There are top-shelf goalies out there for the trading, and Colorado always has the return package in place. Pierre Lacroix's two youngsters certainly are capable of backstopping this veteran team in the regular season, but are they up to the task of staring down Dominik Hasek or Martin Brodeur in a seven-game series? That's what Lacroix will have to decide.

The usual cast of characters still roam the wild Western Conference. Dallas and Detroit made their standard offseason moves, San Jose may round back into form, St. Louis should be healthier ... but I'm staying with Colorado. For now.

I see that three of our SI.com experts have picked Ottawa, which is fine. I'm down with that. But, to me, Jacques Martin is the Bobby Cox of the NHL. He assembles a great day-to-day team for the regular season but can't seem to make the adjustments needed to win a big postseason series. The Senators have gone a step further each of the past two postseasons, culminating with a seven-game loss to New Jersey in the conference final last year. Does that natural progression continue this year? Maybe. The East is always winnable ... Ottawa just never seems to win it.

2. Who will be the first coach fired?

Paul Maurice Al Bello/Getty Images

NHL GMs fire their coaches just for the sport of it these days. So, I'm going with longest-tenured coach, Carolina's Paul Maurice. But not just because he's overdue by NHL standards.

Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos has ignored annual calls for Maurice's head almost from the time he hired him early in the 1995-96 season. Maurice rewarded Karmanos' loyalty with a trip to the Stanley Cup finals in 2002 and it bought him a pass through last year's disaster.

But if the Hurricanes are not decidedly better on the ice and decidedly happier in the dressing room, then it might finally be time for Maurice to go. And I don't think Karmanos will need a very large test sample to figure that out.

As always, the Southeast Division and the No. 3 postseason seed are up for grabs, and the team that starts to fade first (with the exception of the Thrashers) might be the first to make a coaching move.

3. What kind of offense can we expect this year?

Milan Hejduk Rick Stewart/Getty Images

The term "firewagon hockey" was so en vogue last year it made "left-wing lock" seem soooo outdated. And, yet, when the final horn blew on the last day of the season, we had just one 50-goal scorer and three 100-point men. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

Was all this offense being spread around more? A little, but not much. If you go deeper on the scoring list, there were 17 players with at least 35 goals, an increase of only three from the year before. And five teams topped 250 goals, up from just two the year before.

More telling: At the very middle of the pack, the 15th-ranked offense (San Jose) had 214 goals, while the 16th (Columbus) had 213. The year before, No. 15 (Dallas) had 215 and No. 16 (L.A.) had 214. It's virtually identical.

So call it what you want, a rodeo or firewagon, the offensive output in the NHL seems to be about the same as it ever was.