Will Pens save Fleury or vice-versa'
Let the record show that Marc-Andre Fleury's NHL debut was just like Mario Lemieux's in 1984: The puck went in on his very first shot.
The catch, of course, is that Fleury is a goaltender.
But if you think his debut Friday was any less spectacular than Lemieux's, you'd be mistaken.
It was, in fact, surreal.
Picture this: With 2:20 left, the Penguins were trailing the Los Angeles Kings 2-0 and getting outshot 48-10, but the fans were on their feet, waving white towels and roaring as if it were the Stanley Cup final.
Fleury had just poke-checked Esa Pirnes on a penalty shot.
Fleury gave the fans reason to cheer and surely will again. This team could go 0-41 on home ice and still sell tickets if other nights are anything like this one.
That's the sort of difference Fleury could make.
He not only stopped 46 of 48 shots in a 3-0 loss (the Kings scored an empty-netter), he stopped the Penguins on several occasions. That's how poorly they played.
Scary thought: What if J.S. Aubin had been in goal?
Obviously, Fleury's a star. But the team's performance last night -- it's only fair to point out it hadn't played in 12 days -- prompts the following question: Why on earth would the Penguins want to subject him to this?
Before you answer, "Because they have no choice," know this: If they don't improve radically in the next several weeks, GM Craig Patrick will have to at least consider the following question:
Should he spare Fleury, 18, the agony and possible long-term psychological damage of playing behind this defense?
Fleury has to play 25 games in order to be eligible for certain bonuses, such as an .890 save percentage and a 3.25 goals-against average, Patrick said.
If Fleury hits two of his six bonuses -- the save percentage and GAA are the most attainable ones -- a $3 million bonus will be triggered.
The other choice is to send him back to junior before he plays 25 games.
Under normal circumstances, Patrick's decision would be easy. Get the kid out of here, with a police escort, and save him for another day.
One problem: Fleury might be the biggest reason to watch this team.
He was the only reason last night.
There aren't a handful of NHL goaltenders with feet quick enough to make the sort of skate save Fleury made on Alexander Frolov. He gave Ziggy Palffy the five-hole on a second-period breakaway, then shut it like a car door.
Only Eric Belanger's perfect shot (on a short-handed breakaway, off a Dick Tarnstrom turnover) 38 seconds into the game and a screened deflection beat Fleury.
Yes, Patrick has to keep him. Anybody who saw the kid play last night will want to see him again and again. Others will join them. Their money will help pay his bonuses.
Here's hoping Fleury's psyche is as well-honed as his athletic skill.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.