Jeremy Rutherford: Everyone's been waiting patiently for the season to start. Well, we're just a week away . . . time for some questions.

slap shot: J.R., As a well-respected hockey reporter covering the St. Louis professional hockey scene for many years, you travel with and are around the Blues' hockey team on a regular and constant basis. As such, you are probably aware of many issues regarding team personnel that do not "see the light of day" and do not become public knowledge through the print media.
Given a "hypothetical" occurance, regarding the "team", where you are "told" or "learn" something that is "off-the-record", how do you handle/balance maintaining your personal and professional "integrity" and "trustworthiness" as a reporter, after having dug for the facts and the truth of a "matter", then knowing the truth, but are told that this is to remain strictly confidential, with the public's "right-to-know"? In situations like this do you make the call or do your editors make the call as to what to print?

Jeremy Rutherford: Terrific question and I don't know if I'll be able to answer it in a few words. The bottom line is that I will never "cover up" anything. I work for the newspaper and my job is to give the readers what they deserve. Sure, someone in management or a player will tell you something confidentially. You can't break that trust. First of all, you wouldn't have that information if they didn't tell it to you off-the-record. Secondly, if you report it, you will never get that type of information again from the management/players. There's a fine line . . . I always remember a line that Post-Dispatch gossip columnist Jerry Berger told me: "We don't get paid to keep secrets."

Quickly, let's use the Erik Johnson injury as an example. I drove to the Lake of the Ozarks last week and talked to people at the course. Much of what I got was hear-say. Sure, I'm hearing the same rumors as everyone else about how the injury perhaps happened differently. But when I sit down to write the story, I can only write the facts. So for those folks who sent me emails saying that I was covering up for the Blues on the EJ story, I wish they could sit in front of a laptop with the cursor blinking, and be asked to write only the stuff you know as fact. Makes everything a lot tougher.

Great question.

Mark: JR, how did Hinote sustain a cut in his leg that required 50 stitches? Skate get up under his padding? How long will he be out?

Jeremy Rutherford: I don't know how a skate got under his pants. I'm told it was a terrible cut. Andy Murray said that it didn't quite make it to the muscle, but Hinote's leg was split wide open. It took 50 stitches because they had to stitch the inside of the cut and then stitch the outside. Murray said last night that Hinote will probably play in Saturday's preseason game.

Mark: JR, I'm inclined to belive EJ's golf cart story as it seems to be one of those stories that is so out there that it's more likely to be fact than fiction but if the Blues really want people to stop it with the conspiracy theories, shouldn't they reveal the whole story about the two damaged carts? Can you tell us who was driving those carts and if EJ's injury had anything to do with the damage they sustained?

Jeremy Rutherford: I honestly don't know who was driving the carts that were damaged. I've heard rumors, but again I don't have facts. I agree that having knowledge of the cart accident would probably give everybody a better picture of what happened, and therefore people could separate EJ from that incident. But then again, who will the Blues if they do tell that part of the story. Whether or not the Blues are telling the truth, everyone is going to be skeptical. I had a good source upset that I was reporting the golf cart incident because he said "everyone will make the link to EJ and there's no connection."

My response was, "well, have EJ go on record saying there was no connection," which EJ did in last week's article. I think everyone wants to believe EJ, but now that he's on record saying there's no connection, it wouldn't be good for his reputation if the story came out differently.

One more thing: EJ could have kept his mouth shut and not issued further denial of "horse play." The fact that he gave me a lengthy comments saying he's irritated about the speculation shows me that he's really sticking his neck out. I applaud him for that.

Mark: Where would you say Pietrangelo's development is this season as compared to EJ's develoment at this stage a year ago? His offensive talent is obvious but to me, he seems a little hesitant and overwhelmed in the defensive zone. How has his development been progressing over the past couple weeks? Are his chances of making the team improving?

Jeremy Rutherford: Pietrangelo is going to be a good/great player. Right now, he's 18 years old, and at times, he looks like he's 18. There is a huge difference between EJ breaking into the league and Pietrangelo . . . EJ had a full year at Minnesota. If you don't think that's a big deal, you're wrong in my opinion.

I've talked to a number of people who follow the Blues about this: EJ is probably a bit more skilled and he has a bigger frame than Pietrangelo. So EJ was probably more ready for the NHL last year than Pietrangelo is this season, and remember it took EJ until the second half of the season to show his stuff.

Yes, Pietrangelo will be better off next season if he spends this year with the Blues, but the team has to decide if he's ready. He has looked poised on the ice in the preseason, but he's also made a number of mistakes (which was to be expected).

Andy Murray asked Pietrangelo the other day how he thought he played against Toronto Monday. Pietrangelo said: "Not bad." Murray said, "Do you want to revise your answer?" The answer Murray was looking for was "Not good enough."

My guess is that Pietrangelo gets a nine-game trial and then goes back to Junior.