In he's on the 3rd line, which 2 of Giroux, Couturier, Schenn, and Lecavalier are wingers or 4th line centers?
- jmatchett383

some combination of:

hartnell-giroux-voracek
schenn-lecavalier-simmonds
laughton-couturier-read

he'd be bumping Talbot to the 4th line.

Put him on the 4th line over Rosehill. Again, many 1st round picks start out on the lower lines and work their way up. If he comes into training camp and outplays players, then he should be on the team, ELC or not.
- jmatchett383

I agree. He's not a skill guy, so playing him on the 4th line will be a good starting point. I have a feeling he will make it abundantly clear in pre-season and training camp that he belongs in the NHL.

I just don't think guys like Rosehill, Hall or Gagne should stand in the way of Laughton. (Although I'd like to have Hall in the starting lineup unless Couturier shows a vast improvement on face-offs)

You can find plenty of cheap help to bolster the 4th line.

I personally would rather send him back and have him primed for a 3rd line role next season -- not burn a year of his ELC -- and not have him become a UFA until age 27, instead of 26. Get the most out of his prime years.

If he comes into camp and wows everyone, appears ready for a 3rd line role now, then so be it. Sign me up.
- bradleyc4

It's quite common today for players to sign contracts extensions in RFA years that extend into UFA years. Really, when he's eligible for free agency and burning a year off his ELC is really a non issue as far as I'm concerned. And should have zero bearing on Laughton making the team.

You can find plenty of cheap help to bolster the 4th line.

I personally would rather send him back and have him primed for a 3rd line role next season -- not burn a year of his ELC -- and not have him become a UFA until age 27, instead of 26. Get the most out of his prime years.

If he comes into camp and wows everyone, appears ready for a 3rd line role now, then so be it. Sign me up.
- bradleyc4

I'm in favor of bringing him up for his own development. Who says waiting a year will make him a better player? What is he going to learn at Juniors that will help him? He's already a very good player there

some combination of:

hartnell-giroux-voracek
schenn-lecavalier-simmonds
laughton-couturier-read

he'd be bumping Talbot to the 4th line.
- bradleyc4

I'd still rather have him on the 4th lien to start. When you have a defensive-minded player, even one who put up numbers like Laughton, penciling them in as 3rd line players without more than a handful of games can backfire. In the past, similar players like Richards and Couturier both started out as 4th liners and moved up throughout the season. I'd like them to do the same with Laughton. Let him start with the easier assignments, learn NHL-level defense first and gradually move up to the 2nd/3rd line if he earns it.

You can find plenty of cheap help to bolster the 4th line.

I personally would rather send him back and have him primed for a 3rd line role next season -- not burn a year of his ELC -- and not have him become a UFA until age 27, instead of 26. Get the most out of his prime years.

If he comes into camp and wows everyone, appears ready for a 3rd line role now, then so be it. Sign me up.
- bradleyc4

I agree 10000% percent

Hall's resigning hurts Laughton's odds.

He'll be in camp but it's the coach's job to put together a winning team. He won't be worrying about Laughton's future, it's the Flyers present which concerns him. This is a team that missed the playoffs this year, no time for training wheels.

hello RJ, glad you read the blobs here and do you have a Penguin tattoo?

It's quite common today for players to sign contracts extensions in RFA years that extend into UFA years. Really, when he's eligible for free agency and burning a year off his ELC is really a non issue as far as I'm concerned. And should have zero bearing on Laughton making the team.
- MJL

Yes, but you can delay that scenario by a year by keeping him in juniors another season.

But like I said, if he's ready for a top-9 role now, I'm all for it. I don't see how playing 7 minutes a night in the NHL is that much better for his growth than a season of doing it all on a top line in junior.

Hall's resigning hurts Laughton's odds.

He'll be in camp but it's the coach's job to put together a winning team. He won't be worrying about Laughton's future, it's the Flyers present which concerns him. This is a team that missed the playoffs this year, no time for training wheels.
- Coburns_Nose

Playing a year in the AHL will do him a lot of good anyways. No harm in that.

Hall's resigning hurts Laughton's odds.

He'll be in camp but it's the coach's job to put together a winning team. He won't be worrying about Laughton's future, it's the Flyers present which concerns him. This is a team that missed the playoffs this year, no time for training wheels.
- Coburns_Nose

Hall can be sent to AHL with no penalty. The Flyers re-signed him because of his faceoff prowess and defensive abilities.

Weber time. What are the chance ek post a blog about the flyers and weber today??

I'd still rather have him on the 4th lien to start. When you have a defensive-minded player, even one who put up numbers like Laughton, penciling them in as 3rd line players without more than a handful of games can backfire. In the past, similar players like Richards and Couturier both started out as 4th liners and moved up throughout the season. I'd like them to do the same with Laughton. Let him start with the easier assignments, learn NHL-level defense first and gradually move up to the 2nd/3rd line if he earns it.
- jmatchett383

By those standards, imo, he's not "ready" for the NHL.

Hall's resigning hurts Laughton's odds.

He'll be in camp but it's the coach's job to put together a winning team. He won't be worrying about Laughton's future, it's the Flyers present which concerns him. This is a team that missed the playoffs this year, no time for training wheels.
- Coburns_Nose

As far as Hall goes...if Laughton comes into camp and outplays a guy who was waived 3 times last season, then Hall should be a healthy scratch in favor of Laughton. Best players make the team...and yes, I realize this goes against my claim that Gustafsson should be in the top-6 and Meszaros should be your #7.

By those standards, imo, he's not "ready" for the NHL.
- bradleyc4

So would you say that playing Mike Richards in 05/06 was a mistake, that he wasn't "ready" as well?

Yes, but you can delay that scenario by a year by keeping him in juniors another season.

But like I said, if he's ready for a top-9 role now, I'm all for it. I don't see how playing 7 minutes a night in the NHL is that much better for his growth than a season of doing it all on a top line in junior.
- bradleyc4

There's no need to delay that scenario. First of all, I think he'd average closer to 10 minutes a game. And I think that, along with being at practice, would be infinitely better for his development. Then a 4th Junior Season.

Playing a year in the AHL will do him a lot of good anyways. No harm in that.
- PhillaBully

So he's 2 years out of the NHL???

Playing a year in the AHL will do him a lot of good anyways. No harm in that.
- PhillaBully

Laughton is not eligible to play in the AHL.

So he's 2 years out of the NHL???
- jmatchett383

I think hes one year away.

Yes, but you can delay that scenario by a year by keeping him in juniors another season.

But like I said, if he's ready for a top-9 role now, I'm all for it. I don't see how playing 7 minutes a night in the NHL is that much better for his growth than a season of doing it all on a top line in junior.
- bradleyc4

I think he'd get more like 12-14 minutes. He's a guy that can get mixed in on the PK. He's also defensively responsible, which will give the coaches more confidence to play him in more situations.

The idea of waiting so his contract doesn't start is irrational. The Flyers aren't a small market team. They don't need to worry about losing his right a year early. If he's good they'll just sign him long term.

Laughton is not eligible to play in the AHL.
- MJL

I thought he played a few games after the OHL season ended? Or is that some special rule? I have a six month old so excuse me of not knowing all hte hockey rules inside and out

So would you say that playing Mike Richards in 05/06 was a mistake, that he wasn't "ready" as well?
- jmatchett383

Do you think the Oilers bringing up Sam Gagner as an 18-year-old was a good idea?

Laughton is not eligible to play in the AHL.
- MJL

I think Bill should just include this as the first sentence of every blog he writes.

I think hes one year away.
- PhillaBully

But you want him to play a full AHL season after this year.