Yes, by all means, let's get rid of a defender who looks like he's getting back into form. Can't have 6 actual in their prime NHL defensemen at one time. It's against the rules. We all want to see Gill out there every night.
- bodiva88

Forget about Gustefsson?

Doubtful. They're content with Rosehill as a regular 4th liner, unfortunately.
- bradleyc4

Depth forwards are usually the most plentiful and available at the trade deadline. They just shouldn't overpay.

Maybe Raffl develops and becomes an NHLer by the mid point of the season.

It also had no Doop, which is more important. I think its Dyno-mite!
- youarewrong

Agreed. Let the Union have it back.

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?

Doubtful. They're content with Rosehill as a regular 4th liner, unfortunately.
- bradleyc4

I said it yesterday and I will say it today. I had no issue with Rosehill's game last night.

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

Don't waste time asking logical questions. The Flyers never do anything conventionally.

Laughton didn't play well enough in camp to earn a roster spot. Today's decision validates that. I'm glad Laughton was returned, it's the right decision. He's not NHL ready.

The fact for the time being Rosehill becoming a regular, and Newbury as the 13th forward is a waste of everyone's time.
- PLindbergh31

Not trying to stir things up.....well maybe I am but ......Gagne?

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

I'm sayin

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

Couldn't they have just made the paper demotion of Schenn and/or Couts to get compliant, anyways? I don't understand the need to waive anybody.

I agree, although the timing of the moves doesn't make any sense. They could have avoided having to send Hall to waivers if Laughton was sent back to juniors right after preseason since it seems like the Flyers never planned to dress Laughton. Again, the end result is still the same so it doesn't really matter. Flyers management is all up in my head!
- mcefalu

Why was Hall put on waivers, when they could have just returned Laughton to Juniors? The plan is clear. Everything makes sense now.

Thats not bad. How about this...

Simmonds-Giroux-Voracek
Hartnell-Lecavalier-Read
Schenn-Couturier-Tabot
Hall-Laughton-Rinaldo
- youarewrong

I'd be fine with that as well.

Couldn't they have just made the paper demotion of Schenn and/or Couts to get compliant, anyways? I don't understand the need to waive anybody.
- BulliesPhan87

Yep. I guess maybe they were hopeful that Hall would get claimed?

No less mind-boggling.

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

was it ever clarified if Laughton could get another 9 games or if 1 game started the clock ticking?

Not trying to stir things up.....well maybe I am but ......Gagne?
- nastyflyergirl

He played well last year. Not sure if bridges have been burned or not.

I said it yesterday and I will say it today. I had no issue with Rosehill's game last night.
- youarewrong

Neither did I, but I was hoping the Flyers would have a better all around hockey player to platoon with Rosehill. His minutes will really be limited in away games. Couple that with limited minutes for Rinaldo and you may start overplaying some other guys.

Maybe a trade coming?
- funmaster18

That would be my guess.

Yes, by all means, let's get rid of a defender who looks like he's getting back into form. Can't have 6 actual in their prime NHL defensemen at one time. It's against the rules. We all want to see Gill out there every night.
- bodiva88

I don't know who is advocating a trade of a dman. And gusty would be in, not gil

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

That is a good question. The only thing I can think of is there might be a move coming and Laughton's salary cap hit is higher then his production would be this year, thus the move.

If the Flyers weren't sold on Laughton after training camp, why risk losing Adam Hall to waivers on Sunday?
- bradleyc4

Kinda what I was wondering when I read the news of Laughton being sent down.

Maybe a paper move as a part of the salary cap shell game?

I said it yesterday and I will say it today. I had no issue with Rosehill's game last night.
- youarewrong

So you were happy that he took a roughing penalty on Fraser that almost eliminated a power play?

Cool.

was it ever clarified if Laughton could get another 9 games or if 1 game started the clock ticking?
- nastyflyergirl

ASF made it sound as though another 9 games were allotted in his blog on the flyers official website. Can't remember which post though.

So you were happy that he took a roughing penalty on Fraser that almost eliminated a power play?

Cool.
- bradleyc4

It may have been a bit of interference, but I thought the check was clean.

I hear you, I just don't think they are calling him up to play the exact same role as Rosehill.
- Feanor

Agreed and don't mind if it's one or the other, I guess. Just don't need to see them every night.

was it ever clarified if Laughton could get another 9 games or if 1 game started the clock ticking?
- nastyflyergirl

I was informed by a person with very good knowledge of the CBA that he had another 9 games this season.

Neither did I, but I was hoping the Flyers would have a better all around hockey player to platoon with Rosehill. His minutes will really be limited in away games. Couple that with limited minutes for Rinaldo and you may start overplaying some other guys.
- PhillySportsGuy

I think the Newberry move is a temporary move incase there is an injury before the Carolina game. I really think a move is coming to get a 2nd or 3rd line winger. Its possible they dont even move a defenseman.