Jeremy Rutherford: Sorry I'm late. I was finishing my Morning Skate blog that is now posted. Let's get rolling.

john: Since Toivenen looks like a bust, what are the Blue's options for next year? Any pending free agents? They can't count on Manny playing so well, or staying so healthy next year and there's not much down on the farm.

Jeremy Rutherford: It's interesting that this is the first question of the day because I just wrote a Morning Skate blog about Toivonen getting the start tonight in Ottawa.

Andy Murray says that the team wants to know what its got in Toivonen. He obviously showed some talent early in the season, but the second half has been disappointing for him to say the least.

With nine games left, Toivonen will get a few more chances to show what he's got. That will go a long way in determining whether the Blues go looking for a better option in the offseason. He needs to produce or the Blues will check out the market for a No. 2 goalie.

David D: JR, Thanks for taking my question which involves draft position. The NHL currently has a lottery for the number one overall which I thought was a somewhat complicated formula involving a team's finish in the current year as well as their finish in the previous one or two seasons. Can you explain the lottery process and what the odds might be for the Blues to end up number one overall to select Stamkos?
Cheers!!

Jeremy Rutherford: If I'm not mistaken, you are referring to the draft coming out of the lockout. The NHL came up with some stipulations on the draft because there wasn't a season on which to base the selection order.

Beginning with the 2006 draft, the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs are thrown into the lottery. Those 14 teams are ranked in order of points, and the teams with the five fewest points have a chance to earn the No. 1 pick. That's because a team is only allowed to jump four spots or fall back one.

So if you have the fifth-fewest points in the league, you can jump to No. 1. If you have the seventh-fewest points, the best you can do is jump to No. 3.

Another thing to note is that the fewer points you have the better percentage chance you have to win the No. 1 pick. For example, the Blues had the lowest point total in 2006 and had a 25 percent chance of winning the No. 1 pick, which they did and took Erik Johnson.

The Blues look like they will finish in the bottom five and therefore will have a chance at the No. 1, which will be Stamkos.

woodstown@excite.com: Hiya JR-

What's up with EJ not being able to anticipate where a puck's going? Twice in Montreal he completely misread simple dump-ins and Montreal got the puck and created some offense. Was this a fluke or is this one of those rookie things he needs to work on?

Also, is it just me or do the Blues coaches play to not lose, instead of play to win? It seems the grinders are eating a lot more ice than they should, particularly in light of the way the skill players have been picking it up lately. There were a couple of guys who could've threatened to put the puck in the net in OT last night that didn't even see a shift...

Thanks!

Marty

Jeremy Rutherford: I don't remmeber those particular plays involving Johnson. I would say for the most part, though, that his mistakes have been decreasing over the last two months. I don't doubt what you witnessed Tuesday, but I would say that for the most part, his miscues haven't been nearly as glaring as early in the year.

As far as playing not to lose, the Blues don't have the skill level of a lot of their opponents. Therefore, you see a lot of McClement-Johnson-Mayers against the other team's top line. That line did a good job of limiting the Kovalev line Tuesday in Montreal. The Blues are almost crossing their fingers that they'll get some offense, and then their main goal is to shutdown the other team's top players.

Marcus: I don't want to be too much of a Murray-basher, but David Perron got about 5.50 mins of ice-time in Montreal. Think that's fair? That's really giving him his chance to shine? It was the game of his dream, he said so himself. At this point in the season, when there's nothing to play for but pride, why not just give Perron his chance?

Jeremy Rutherford: I can see both sides in this debate. Perron's ice time was severely decreased in Montreal and part of that was because the Blues were killing off six penalties in a tight game. Perron does not play on the penalty kill.

With that said, he could have had some more ice time. The Blues wanted to have McClement-Johnson-Mayers against the Kovalev line. Every time Murray put Perron on the ice, Montreal countered with the Kovalev line.

There was also a line of thinking that if David Perron failed in that setting (being home in Montreal), he would have been crucified by Canadian media. That's where I disagree. If I were the coach, I would put my players in pressure situations. They'll either succeed or they'll learn from the experience.

Granted the Blues won in Boston with Manny Legace in net, but I might have started Hannu Toivonen against his old team back in December. The Blues didn't want to put Toivonen in that environment, and they didn't want to put Perron in that environement Tuesday.

Perron, though, did get time on the power play and took the Blues' first shootout attempt.