Good point.

Talbot will likely play on the 3rd line with Couturier and Read.
- bradleyc4

That's yet another option, with McGinn or one of the other youngsters playing on the 4th line.

unfortunately, i don't see a fit w/ our current mix. if we had a chimera instead of read, i would be gung ho for gags. we can't have two finesse guys w/ couts.
- isaiah520

I hear Cours bulked up a bit over the summer. Maybe that will add a bit more jam.

That's yet another option, with McGinn or one of the other youngsters playing on the 4th line.
- Jsaquella

Rinaldo/Hall/Raffl (or Laughton)

Rinaldo/Hall/Raffl (or Laughton)
- bradleyc4

Yeah, I keep forgetting Raffl is in the mix, too.

Rinaldo/Hall/Raffl (or Laughton)
- bradleyc4

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST WE PLAY LAUGHTON!!!
WE''LL WASTE A YEAR OF HIS ELC!!!!
EEEEE ELLLL CEEE!!!

Yeah, I keep forgetting Raffl is in the mix, too.
- Jsaquella

A lot of options. Unless Laughton blows everyone away in camp this year, I hope he ends up back in the OHL. So many solid veterans to add instead.

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST WE PLAY LAUGHTON!!!
WE''LL WASTE A YEAR OF HIS ELC!!!!
EEEEE ELLLL CEEE!!!
- jmatchett383

Dozens of comparable veteran players could be had for peanuts on a one-year deal.

Why start his clock early if you don't need to?

Dozens of comparable veteran players could be had for peanuts on a one-year deal.

Why start his clock early if you don't need to?
- bradleyc4

Because, if he plays like he deserves a spot on the team, then he should be on the team. If there's a better fit, then by all means, send him back.

I also find it hard to say there are "dozens of comparable veteran players" when we've never seen him play more than 5 NHL games as an 18-year-old. Not a very good sample size to compare to.

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST WE PLAY LAUGHTON!!!
WE''LL WASTE A YEAR OF HIS ELC!!!!
EEEEE ELLLL CEEE!!!
- jmatchett383

The biggest concern I'd have in playing Laughton is ensuring he'd get enough ice time to develop.

It's not a case of a kid who so dominated the OHL that he'd gain nothing by staying another year. He was the 2nd line center on his team, averaged just over a point per game, and played well. He would be Oshawa's top center this year and see tons of ice time, in all situations.

A lot of options. Unless Laughton blows everyone away in camp this year, I hope he ends up back in the OHL. So many solid veterans to add instead.
- bradleyc4

Yep, as I just typed, there's no harm in him playing one more year in Oshawa.

Really? I think Mason has a way better paint job.
- PhillaBully

yep. don't like his stitched skull themes.

The biggest concern I'd have in playing Laughton is ensuring he'd get enough ice time to develop.

It's not a case of a kid who so dominated the OHL that he'd gain nothing by staying another year. He was the 2nd line center on his team, averaged just over a point per game, and played well. He would be Oshawa's top center this year and see tons of ice time, in all situations.
- Jsaquella

Like I said, if there's a better fit for the team and he doesn't earn the spot in camp, then I'm cool with sending him back. But I'm more concerned with his on-ice ability as opposed to his ELC.

Dozens of comparable veteran players could be had for peanuts on a one-year deal.

Why start his clock early if you don't need to?
- bradleyc4

I remember calling for the Flyers to send Cooter back to junior in the fall of 2011, but he ended up proving me wrong and contributing quite well.

Dozens of comparable veteran players could be had for peanuts on a one-year deal.

Why start his clock early if you don't need to?
- bradleyc4

Starting the clock early, should have zero to do with where Laughton plays. Simply not a factor. What's best for the player's development, and if he's ready for the NHL is what it should be based on. Flyers need to use some roster spots to see what they have in some of the young forwards. Not signing veterans as if they're expecting to contend. And if it turns out later in the Season, that they have a need. That's what the trade deadline is for.

I remember calling for the Flyers to send Cooter back to junior in the fall of 2011, but he ended up proving me wrong and contributing quite well.
- Hextall271

Waste of an ELC year with tons of veteran 3rd liners that we could have had. Horrible call.

Has Gagne even been invited to camp?

Has Gagne even been invited to camp?
- dingo8urbaby

Not to my knowledge. Nothing official, anyway.

Like I said, if there's a better fit for the team and he doesn't earn the spot in camp, then I'm cool with sending him back. But I'm more concerned with his on-ice ability as opposed to his ELC.
- jmatchett383

If he clearly comes in and earns a spot, that should be the end of it, no question. But if he's playing at the same level of a Raffl, McGinn or whomever else, and isn't obviously better, why not save the year on the ELC?

Has Gagne even been invited to camp?
- dingo8urbaby

No. The only PTO the Flyers have issued is to Hal Gill

I remember calling for the Flyers to send Cooter back to junior in the fall of 2011, but he ended up proving me wrong and contributing quite well.
- Hextall271

No doubt that Laughton could potentially help this season.

However, it's an odd year with the artificially lowered salary cap for this one season. Lots of depth guys getting squeezed out of NHL jobs. Would rather play one of them for a season -- Gagne even -- than starting Laughton's contract clock this year.

Flyers, a team annually at the top of the salary cap bracket, need to be doing all they can to get the most out of their top prospect's Eeeeeee-Elllllllll-Ceeeees.

If he clearly comes in and earns a spot, that should be the end of it, no question. But if he's playing at the same level of a Raffl, McGinn or whomever else, and isn't obviously better, why not save the year on the ELC?
- Jsaquella

I'd be on the fence. One the one hand, if he doesn't win a spot outright at camp, then you have to consider it. But, you'd also expect him (at least I would) to develop more throughout the season than those 2, so you could conceivably argue that, by the end of the season, he might surpass those 2. Also, if Raffl/McGinn play in the AHL to start, they can be called up at any point. Laughton can't, so there's that to consider as well.

No doubt that Laughton could potentially help this season.

However, it's an odd year with the artificially lowered salary cap for this one season. Lots of depth guys getting squeezed out of NHL jobs. Would rather play one of them for a season -- Gagne even -- than starting Laughton's contract clock this year.

Flyers, a team annually at the top of the salary cap bracket, need to be doing all they can to get the most out of their top prospect's Eeeeeee-Elllllllll-Ceeeees.
- bradleyc4

If he makes the team, then great.

I just don't want him to have a job handed to him just because he was a first round pick.

If he makes the team, then great.

I just don't want him to have a job handed to him just because he was a first round pick.
- johndewar

I definitely don't think that's the case. They learned that lesson with Giroux.

I definitely don't think that's the case. They learned that lesson with Giroux.
- jmatchett383

Agreed.

Ray Giroux's career in the NHL never got on track.

I'd be on the fence. One the one hand, if he doesn't win a spot outright at camp, then you have to consider it. But, you'd also expect him (at least I would) to develop more throughout the season than those 2, so you could conceivably argue that, by the end of the season, he might surpass those 2. Also, if Raffl/McGinn play in the AHL to start, they can be called up at any point. Laughton can't, so there's that to consider as well.
- jmatchett383

The ELC benefit is a nice bird to have in hand, moving forward, but if Laughton is markedly better than any of the other candidates, he should make the team.

But, as Brad points out, there's a lot of solid guys out there, in addition to Raffl & McGinn, they could add a vet on a one year deal and he might be better than a developing Laughton or the other two kids.