is this how you feel about all young players or simply with Laughton?
- Crimsoninja

Every player is different. Top draft picks like Laughton should make the NHL team if they're ready to play in the NHL. It's about what is best for the player. And I think a limited NHL role is more beneficial then a 4th Season in Juniors regardless of the role and ice time he would get in Juniors. The only thing I'll add is that if you're going to keep him on the team, then use him. And be prepared to work through any growing pains. The Coach and the GM need to be on the same page with that.

The Flyers will have to keep Pronger off of LTIR until the first day of the Season, to get the full LTIR relief. Not at the end of Camp.
- MJL

Yes, but basically it's the same thing. The season opens Tuesday October 1st. Camp is scheduled to end two days prior to that. Unless of course you want to nitpick.

Yes, but basically it's the same thing. The season opens Tuesday October 1st. Camp is scheduled to end two days prior to that. Unless of course you want to nitpick.
- Jsaquella

It's not basically the same thing and it's not nitpicking. If the Flyers put Pronger on LTIR at the end of Camp to become Cap compliant, they will not get the full value of relief. If they wait until the first day of the NHL Season, they can get full relief. There is a clear and distinct difference.

I hate Lasse Kukkonen like Justin Bieber fans hate Selena Gomez
- Jsaquella

You lie sir

Even if he makes the team and has some expected Rookie struggles. I don't see that lessening his trade value.
- MJL

If he has some "expected rookie struggles," I agree with you wholeheartedly--it won't lessen his value.

Yet my concern is that Laughton may appear overmatched (not just by the quality of opponents, but the length of the schedule as well) if brought up too early. (It is very hard to gauge how a player will hold up over the length of an 82 season with only a nine-game trial, and for that reason, I would play it safe and give him an extra season at Oshawa since the club has other options who won't leave them "stuck" after 9 games.)

If he were to appear overmatched in games 10-82 this season, I think it would be much more difficult to get the quality of a return in a trade as they could get if he were still the organization's top prospect, at least until he shows he can play through an entire NHL season. (Plus, he would have an extra year on his ELC as a sweetener for a team in a rebuild.)

If Gagne doesn't return, then Laughton is probably battling with McGinn for the third line LW spot, with Talbot on the 4th line. Rosehill is going to be Shelley, in all probability, playing in games where Laviolette feels the need for an enforcer.

I do feel Gagne does ultimately end up re-signing, after they make their cap moves. I'm not for or against Laughton making the team, nor do I care if he's a wing or a center. If he makes the team, I want him playing 10-12 minutes a night. Otherwise, he's probably better served as an Oshawa General.
- Jsaquella

If he has some "expected rookie struggles," I agree with you wholeheartedly--it won't lessen his value.

Yet my concern is that Laughton may appear overmatched (not just by the quality of opponents, but the length of the schedule as well) if brought up too early. (It is very hard to gauge how a player will hold up over the length of an 82 season with only a nine-game trial, and for that reason, I would play it safe and give him an extra season at Oshawa since the club has other options who won't leave them "stuck" after 9 games.)

If he were to appear overmatched in games 10-82 this season, I think it would be much more difficult to get the quality of a return in a trade as they could get if he were still the organization's top prospect, at least until he shows he can play through an entire NHL season. (Plus, he would have an extra year on his ELC as a sweetener for a team in a rebuild.)
- Moose_15

Laughton either makes the team or gets sent back to the OHL, he doesn't get the "trial" games, unfortunately.

Laughton either makes the team or gets sent back to the OHL, he doesn't get the "trial" games, unfortunately.
- KINGKENZO

Laughton does get the trial games, any player who has a "slide" eligible contract gets those games. He's just not eligible for the AHL, until his junior season ends.

For anyone who says Giroux had a down year:

Kurt ‏@Kurt_BSH

Claude Giroux: faces stronger defensemen (by TOI) than literally any player in hockey, scores a point per game, has a Down Year. #LRT

I just caught the tail bit of an Alain Vigneault interview on NHL xm radio.

The gist of what he said is when you have offensively talented players you have to give them the OK to push their chances at the offensive game, and not completely stymie them to a defensive system. But the key part was the players had to realize that there is the correct time and place in a game to take scoring chances and gambles.

I love this flexibility. I would also love to see the Flyers show some of this, and be disciplined enough to win some 1-0 and 2-1 games. Be able to lock a game down and win those close ones when they go into the third period with a lead. I hope Lavi could implement something similar. I hate seeing some of the slower defensive D men pinching all the time, no matter what the game situation is, and all the odd man rushes resulting. The Flyers can still be an aggressive forechecking team, but chose your spots.

Carry on.

Laughton does get the trial games, any player who has a "slide" eligible contract gets those games. He's just not eligible for the AHL, until his junior season ends.
- Jsaquella

He'll also be subject to serve the remaining 3 games of his OHL suspension he received from a hit in the playoffs against Barrie.

But that wouldn't stop his production.

For anyone who says Giroux had a down year:

Kurt ‏@Kurt_BSH

Claude Giroux: faces stronger defensemen (by TOI) than literally any player in hockey, scores a point per game, has a Down Year. #LRT
- Jsaquella

he sucks trade him now before the NTC kicks in


/sarcastic

Laughton does get the trial games, any player who has a "slide" eligible contract gets those games. He's just not eligible for the AHL, until his junior season ends.
- Jsaquella

I asked Homer that last night at tha STH event, he doesn't, unless He doesn't know what he's talking about

He'll also be subject to serve the remaining 3 games of his OHL suspension he received from a hit in the playoffs against Barrie.

But that wouldn't stop his production.
- ob18

No, it wouldn't. He missed time last year and still produced. I'm not against him earning a job as a Flyer, but I'm also not deadset on him having to be a Flyer.

No, it wouldn't. He missed time last year and still produced. I'm not against him earning a job as a Flyer, but I'm also not deadset on him having to be a Flyer.
- Jsaquella

I hope he earns a job but if it's down to 4th line I would be somewhat okay with that vs wanting him in juniors to work on what he said he wants to work on and that his offensive game.

I asked Homer that last night at tha STH event, he doesn't, unless He doesn't know what he's talking about
- KINGKENZO

Nope, he's right. The CBA only mentions playing less than ten games in the first year of the SPC. Good job Homer.

I hope he earns a job but if it's down to 4th line I would be somewhat okay with that vs wanting him in juniors to work on what he said he wants to work on and that his offensive game.
- ob18

If he's getting the kind of ice time Couturier did as a rookie, then I'm fine with him sticking and would prefer it to sending him back to the OHL.

But I'm not sold he will. Laviolette's gonna be on the hot seat to some extent. Does that mean he will be more likely to lean on the proven vets, rather than the developing kid? Does it mean keeping his job comes before Laughton's best interests?

Laughton either makes the team or gets sent back to the OHL, he doesn't get the "trial" games, unfortunately.
- KINGKENZO

Balls. Balls indeed.



Nevertheless, re-sign Gagne. Let Laughton stay in Oshawa.

If he's getting the kind of ice time Couturier did as a rookie, then I'm fine with him sticking and would prefer it to sending him back to the OHL.

But I'm not sold he will. Laviolette's gonna be on the hot seat to some extent. Does that mean he will be more likely to lean on the proven vets, rather than the developing kid? Does it mean keeping his job comes before Laughton's best interests?
- Jsaquella

Soon we will find out.

Nope, he's right. The CBA only mentions playing less than ten games in the first year of the SPC. Good job Homer.
- Jsaquella

By the convoluted logic of the NHL, Laugt used 100% of his trial games, regardless, that it was a shortened season. Reason would stand that he should get another 4 games, but its the NHL.....

Balls. Balls indeed.



Nevertheless, re-sign Gagne. Let Laughton stay in Oshawa.
- Moose_15

My gut instinct is that Laughton wont even really be in the conversation. I have nothing to back this up other than factoring in Lavy's situation as JSaq has mentioned, and factoring in that he hasn't really lit up his own league. There is already a logjam at forward, and at this point in time I don't see him being an upgrade over whoever he would replace considering the role he would be replacing.
Be it 4th line grinder or top 9 forward.

By the convoluted logic of the NHL, Laugt used 100% of his trial games, regardless, that it was a shortened season. Reason would stand that he should get another 4 games, but its the NHL.....
- KINGKENZO

Yeah, I misunderstood it when I read it, went back and said, Crap

My gut instinct is that Laughton wont even really be in the conversation. I have nothing to back this up other than factoring in Lavy's situation as JSaq has mentioned, and factoring in that he hasn't really lit up his own league. There is already a logjam at forward, and at this point in time I don't see him being an upgrade over whoever he would replace considering the role he would be replacing.
Be it 4th line grinder or top 9 forward.
- MBFlyerfan

That's the flip side of the coin. If Gagne's back, Laughton's a 4th liner, fighting for ice time with two proven PK guys, one of whom is an excellent faceoff guy, Rinaldo who is a good agitator and draws penalties and creates fire with his hitting and Rosehill, who is there for the rough stuff.

That's the flip side of the coin. If Gagne's back, Laughton's a 4th liner, fighting for ice time with two proven PK guys, one of whom is an excellent faceoff guy, Rinaldo who is a good agitator and draws penalties and creates fire with his hitting and Rosehill, who is there for the rough stuff.
- Jsaquella

Exactly my point.

I just caught the tail bit of an Alain Vigneault interview on NHL xm radio.

The gist of what he said is when you have offensively talented players you have to give them the OK to push their chances at the offensive game, and not completely stymie them to a defensive system. But the key part was the players had to realize that there is the correct time and place in a game to take scoring chances and gambles.

I love this flexibility. I would also love to see the Flyers show some of this, and be disciplined enough to win some 1-0 and 2-1 games. Be able to lock a game down and win those close ones when they go into the third period with a lead. I hope Lavi could implement something similar. I hate seeing some of the slower defensive D men pinching all the time, no matter what the game situation is, and all the odd man rushes resulting. The Flyers can still be an aggressive forechecking team, but chose your spots.

Carry on.
- Marc D

I agree wholeheartedly. Read and react, not just go-go-go! Happy medium between Tortorella and Laviolette. Which adds up to Quenneville and Julien!