Welcome to the first FTR Roundtable, something you'll see each Monday as the FTR writers chime in on some of the week's most interesting hockey stories.

-If you're a playoff-bound GM, do you see value in acquiring Rod Brind'Amour?

FrankD: Before anyone starts saying he's too old to play or that he's past his prime, I think now would be a good time to remind everyone about last year's trade deadline.  If you replace "Rod Brind'Amour" with "Bill Guerin" you have what ultimately led to a Stanley Cup.  In my opinion, a real playoff contender looking for a veteran voice to step it up in the locker room can benefit from Brind'Amour far more than his projected numbers or age would lead on. 

Cory Lavalette: Unfortunately, Brind'Amour isn't the same player he was two or three seasons ago. Injuries have finally slowed one of the NHL's great iron men. It never hurts to have a great faceoff guy in your lineup, but if you're hoping for the scoring acumen and defensive prowess of the player that hoisted the Cup in 2006, you'll be sorely disappointed. With another year still on his contract ($3.6M cap hit/$3M salary), Brind'Amour would be an expensive gamble for any team looking for a fourth-line center.
 
Joe F: At this stage in the game I can't see him bringing anything to the table aside from some veteran experience. I can't see any teams giving up anything of real value for him, especially since he has another year on his contract. Plus with the Hurricanes removing the "C" from him, and him being demoted to basically a checking-line player, I don't think anyone wants to take the risk.

Mike: Cory's point about cap space is valid, but I get the feeling that Rod the Bod's competitive spirit and physical fitness would be a huge addition to a team with Cup aspirations. Deadline trades seem to inject the Fountain of Youth in savvy vets, and I suppose it comes down to whether or not the GM involved has the cap space for next season. Of course, there's the option of acquiring the contract and buying out the last year. It's not a real classy move but such is the reality of the cap.

Bob:  I have to agree with Cory on this one.  If Brind'Amour's contract was up this season, I could see some team taking a "flyer" on him.  But 3.6 million USD is a bit much of a cap hit for next season to watch him possibly languish on the fourth line while he battles for the distinction of having one of the worst plus/minus stats in the league for the third straight year.

-Vincent Lecavalier trade rumors yet again -- finally real or more wishful thinking?

Mike: If your superstar's off year is a pace of about 75 points, there are plenty of worse things that can happen. For the Bolts to be about .500 right now in a rebuild year, I think things are going right on schedule and any thing above this is a bonus. Tampa's issues are more about Alex Tanguay being a disappointment, Mike Smith's injuries, and not being able to import 25-year-old Victor Hedman from the future. If they do move Lecavalier (he's got a no-trade clause), I'm guessing it'll be more about money and ownership, not performance.

FrankD: I guess it depends on the Lightning ownership.  Like Mike mentioned above, Lecavalier has a no-trade clause, so unless there is a mutual desire for him to leave Tampa, I think it's going to take some convincing to get him out of town.  If teams could still trade players in exchange for cash, like they could back in the day, I'd imagine that would be Tampa Bay's incentive right now.  They could probably slap a pretty good price tag on him, without a doubt.

Cory Lavalette: I can't see a team wanting to tie their franchise to a player who will earn $10 million a year the next six seasons, plus a combined $15 million more the four years after that. I think the only way this gets done is if Bob Gainey's desperation to hold on to his job in Montreal leads him to bring Lecavalier home to Quebec — and even then it has to be something Vinny wants, too.
 
Joe F: Lecavalier has talent, no one is arguing that, but the problem is his contract. After this season he has 10 years left on his contract (he will be signed until he is 39) at a 7.7 million dollar cap hit. That contract will tie up any team for an entire decade, and I don't think that anyone wants that. Plus the Lightning are going to want top flight players, prospects and picks. Plus there is also his full no-movement clause to consiter, so there is no way around keeping him on your sqad. Trust me on this one, we (the Rangers) are going through a no-movement clause with Chris Drury and it's not a good thing. So I just can't see anyone making any substantial moves for him.

Bob: This is wishful thinking on someone's part.  It's doubtful that Tampa Bay wants to move Vinny, and as mentioned above, that is one difficult contract to move even if they wanted to move it.

-Andy Sutton suspension -- should it be more or less?

FrankD: I think it was just right.  Sutton knew he was under the microscope after that game and even admitted the hit "wasn't clean."  Severity of Dupuis's injury aside, a hit from behind is still a hit from behind and I think two games is just right for Sutton.  Now if he stood up afterward and said something like, "I was just finishing my check.  I did nothing wrong," I think the suspension would've been a bit more.  I think Sutton and the league (gasp!) handled it well.
 
Joe F: I agree with Frank here, I think that the NHL actually did a good job with this one. It obviously wasn't intentional but it was still a dangerous hit that had to be punished.

Cory Lavalette: If we're going on precedent, I think it's fair. For a guy who plays a physical brand of hockey, Sutton has only been suspended once before when he received four games for an Oct. 14, 2005 hit on Toronto's Darcy Tucker when he played for Atlanta.

Personally, I'd like to see longer suspensions for hits from behind just so they'll get out of the game, but the league puts too much emphasis on the victim's injury vs. the aggressor's intent for my taste.

Bob:  Maggie the Monkey got this one right.  (The secret behind the NHL's "wheel of justice" is out.)

-Georges Laraque is done in Montreal with a buyout at the end of the season. With Laraque dealing with family issues due to the Haiti disaster, was he right saying that the timing was "classless"?

FrankD: Big Georges has never refrained from saying what's on his mind, but given the situation at hand I think he's really speaking from the heart.  I would have to agree that the timing is pretty crappy.  Unless Montreal can prove something was in the works for a reason before the earthquake, then I don't see how people can refrain from agreeing with Laraque.

Mike: The guy's in the press box anyway, so why complicate his life while his family is dealing with tragedy? I don't like when players challenge the organization over stuff like this, but I think this was a situation that could have handled with a little more sensitivity. Of course, there's a problem with the price Montreal gave Laraque in the first place, but that's another story...
 
Joe F: To be honest I don't know too much about Laraque. The NHL is a business and while sometimes it is difficult to understand sometimes touch decisions have to be made. Still the timing was pretty awful and I don't see the harm in Montreal waiting a few weeks to make it known to him.

Bob:  I love it when players speak up and let you know what's really on their minds.  I don't know if what Montreal did was "classy" or not, but Laraque has the right to say what he did. 

Cory Lavalette: It's not like Georges is having his salary pulled out from under him. Gainey's job is to look out for the best interests of his team, and if the team's enforcer is being pegged as someone who won't stand up for his teammates, he needs to cut his losses. Like they say, it's only business.

-First the Winter Classic ratings are down, now the ratings for last week's Wings/Hawks games are lower than the previous year. What gives?

FrankD: It's still football season, and the playoffs no less.  The NFL is such a ratings juggernaut and people are so stuck in their college bowl habits on New Year's Day (or too hungover to remember a hockey game is on) that really the odds were already stacked against the NHL leading into those two days.  I think we'll notice a slight difference once football is done.  I'm really hoping the Olympics promote the league and sport to new heights and people jump on board for the remainder of the season.

Mike: I'm not too surprised about the Winter Classic, just because the previous WCs featured teams/players that were a little more marketable to the mainstream. I am kind of surprised about last week's Wings/Hawks game, but the NFL overshadows everyone right now. Let's see how things go after the Super Bowl -- and if the Olympics offer any sort of boost.
 
Joe F: Agree with Frank here again, the NFL is a powerhouse which draws tons of fans. Plus, while the Winter Classic is a great event January 1st is a day full of College Bowl games which might draw some other views.

Bob:  Concerning the Winter Classic, two words: snow storm.  The non-hockey fans tune in to these outdoor games so they can watch players skating around in snow.  While the novelty of the game is still cool, it's just not the same without the Buffalo snow.  P.S.  The mere mention of possibly having two of these games on New Year's drives down television ratings.  Concerning the Wings/Hawks game?  The economy is so bad in Detroit, fans can no longer afford televisions and are unable to watch their beloved Wings.

Cory Lavalette: Take two underachieving teams, throw in a lack of dynamic megastars and you have a lackluster matchup. Plus, isn't everyone sick of Fenway after the Red Sox and Yankees are on TV all baseball season long?