SI.com's Allan Muir's take on the top starting goalies in the NHL is not at all the most interesting thing he's written lately. I've been intending to post a Last Word on Pronger for awhile, and Muir's piece from last week seems like as good an excuse as any, because he gets as close to the heart of the matter as a pro pundit has:

"I knew I'd be Public Enemy No. 1," he told the Journal. "But I'm pissed off by all the rumors and innuendo surrounding my leaving."

He's pissed off? Before he started blasting the fans, he needed to spend some time in front of a six-foot-six mirror.

All right, on one hand, you can see where he's coming from. The talk, particularly about his wife, hasn't been flattering. But what did he expect?

What did he expect, indeed. More from Muir:

Pronger can't have it both ways. He can't blame the fans for making an issue of his personal life. He was the one who introduced his family into the discussion in the first place.

If family was the issue behind his trade request -- and no one is suggesting otherwise -- why even bring them into it?

Sure. Considering how accommodating (and prompt) the Oilers were with his request, surely they could have cooperated with Pronger to construct a semi-plausible professional reasons back story.

Alternatively, he could have been more direct: said flat-out (in person!) that he and his family didn't like Edmonton, could not be happy there, and that he had made the hard decision to request a trade as a result. Instead, he went the way he did (i.e. via Mexico), presumably calculated to minimize the damage to his reputation, and the hurt to his family and the people of Edmonton. How's that working out, by the way?

Sidebar-type-dealy: a player's leverage when he requests a trade is the implied threat of non-performance. Implied only, of course, because this is the 2nd paragraph of the Standard Player Contract between the Player and the Club (my emphasis):

The Player agrees to give his services and to play hockey in all NHL Games, All Star Games, International Hockey Games, and Exhibition Games to the best of his ability under the direction and control of the Club in accordance with the provisions hereof.

The only permissible explicit threat of non-performance is the threat to retire; any other is a contract violation. Chris Pronger lacks a certain humility about what he's managed, which I suppose is not surprising from a guy who basically hasn't acted like a man throughout this whole process.

Pronger's implied threat of non-performance was effective, and he suffered no hardship, because there were numerous other teams that were interested in his services at the salary he earns. Other players are less fortunate; Gary Roberts asked for a trade for reasons that may be more or less valid than Pronger's, to no avail. If Roberts was to do what he wished regarding his family, he'd have to quit his job and forsake two million dollars that can never be recovered.

I'll leave the rest to Muir. I'm not much for the fan-populism stuff, but I think he nails it:

Apparently it never crossed his mind to apologize to those in Edmonton -- including TV reporter Christie Chorley -- whose names were unfairly dragged into this whole mess by his evasiveness.

The Journal interview was an opportunity missed, but not an opportunity lost. There will be other interviews, other chances to set things right. Pronger should make the most of them.

And it should be a good lesson to other players who might find themselves in this position one day. You're the one in the public eye. If you're going to make a tough call, you need to be the one to take the heat.

And don't be upset at the fans for caring so much. If they didn't, you'd be out of a job.