[quote=jmatchett383]

Just read a headline on TSN:

"Unlike Kessel, Leafs' Phaneuf open to in-season negotiations"

What it's really saying is this:

"Unlike American, Canadian open to in-season negotiations"

Just read a headline on TSN:

"Unlike Kessel, Leafs' Phaneuf open to in-season negotiations"

What it's really saying is this:

"Unlike American, Canadian open to in-season negotiations"
- jmatchett383

Based on Dreger's comments lately, I tend to take it more as, "TSN continues to perform as a mouthpiece for the Maple Leafs regarding player negotiations."

I read that and Down to a Sunless Sea back-to-back on my dad's advice. Couldn't put either one down.

For more crazy space-type sci fi, you should check out The Star Kings and The Man in the Maze.
- jmatchett383

Will do, thanks!

My friend with Canucks tickets just emailed me saying he has 4 tickets for Canucks Flyers 12/30.

Woo hoo, can never plan too far ahead for these things.

They have a brutal road trip that week, at Edm, Canucks, Calgary, Aves, Phoenix.
5 games in 8 days over the New Year.

Just read a headline on TSN:

"Unlike Kessel, Leafs' Phaneuf open to in-season negotiations"

What it's really saying is this:

"Unlike American, Canadian open to in-season negotiations"
- jmatchett383

No, some players feel it's a distraction to deal with that and player, others not so much. It has nothing to do with whatever country they are from.

I can't see Laughton making the team and then being placed on the 4th line. He needs minutes and skillful teammates to developp his game and confidence and also for the staff to evaluate him properly and to decide if his contract 'slides' to the next year and he will still have 3 years remaining on it.

Since Gags and Cleary are now out of the picture, I wouldn't mind seeing the kid on the 2nd or 3rd line with more minutes for 9 games more or less depending on his performance and adaptation and then deciding to use or lose a year off his valuable ELC.

Hartnell - G - Voracek

Schenn/Laughton - Lecavalier - Simmonds

Laughton/Schenn - Couts - Read

Rinaldo - Hall- Talbot

I heard Laughton doesn't have elbows, can anybody confirm?
- BulliesPhan87

Heading to King of Prussia Mall to find out. I once saw Giroux on the golf course. Puny as hell!

I can't see Laughton making the team and then being placed on the 4th line. He needs minutes and skillful teammates to developp his game and confidence and also for the staff to evaluate him properly and to decide if his contract 'slides' to the next year and he will still have 3 years remaining on it.

Since Gags and Cleary are now out of the picture, I wouldn't mind seeing the kid on the 2nd or 3rd line with more minutes for 9 games more or less depending on his performance and adaptation and then deciding to use or lose a year off his valuable ELC.

Hartnell - G - Voracek

Schenn/Laughton - Lecavalier - Simmonds

Laughton/Schenn - Couts - Read

Rinaldo - Hall- Talbot
- Chris48

I honestly don't know why Laughton can't play on the 4th line. Richards and Carter spent time on the 4th line when they first came to the Flyers. No reason why Laughton can't. But I'm certainly not against giving him a bigger role if he earns it.

Another good night for some QMJHL action.

I can't see Laughton making the team and then being placed on the 4th line. He needs minutes and skillful teammates to developp his game and confidence and also for the staff to evaluate him properly and to decide if his contract 'slides' to the next year and he will still have 3 years remaining on it.

Since Gags and Cleary are now out of the picture, I wouldn't mind seeing the kid on the 2nd or 3rd line with more minutes for 9 games more or less depending on his performance and adaptation and then deciding to use or lose a year off his valuable ELC.

Hartnell - G - Voracek

Schenn/Laughton - Lecavalier - Simmonds

Laughton/Schenn - Couts - Read

Rinaldo - Hall- Talbot
- Chris48

There is really nothing wrong with a prospect playing mostly on the fourth line in his rookie year. It does not hurt development, as he would be practicing and learning with NHLers. Also Laughton really doesn't have much more to gain by a fourth season in the OHL. I understand the point about not burning a year off his entry-level contract they think he's NHL ready now, he should be on the team, even if it's in a 4th line role.

There is really nothing wrong with a prospect playing mostly on the fourth line in his rookie year. It does not hurt development, as he would be practicing and learning with NHLers. Also Laughton really doesn't have much more to gain by a fourth season in the OHL. I understand the point about not burning a year off his entry-level contract they think he's NHL ready now, he should be on the team, even if it's in a 4th line role.
- bmeltzer

I agree wholeheartedly. 8-10 minutes a game on the 4th line in the NHL is much better for his development. Then going back for a 4th Junior Season and playing as an overager, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly. 8-10 minutes a game on the 4th line in the NHL is much better for his development. Then going back for a 4th Junior Season and playing as an overager, in my opinion.
- MJL

I'd be fine with that role, but for whatever reason I can see him going back

I agree wholeheartedly. 8-10 minutes a game on the 4th line in the NHL is much better for his development. Then going back for a 4th Junior Season and playing as an overager, in my opinion.
- MJL

He's not an overager, yet -- this is his 19-year-old year. He's still eligible for the World Juniors -- right?

I'd be fine with that role, but for whatever reason I can see him going back
- ob18

Who knows, but I just get the feeling that he has a very good chance of making the team.

He's not an overager, yet -- this is his 19-year-old year. He's still eligible for the World Juniors -- right?
- AllInForFlyers

It would be his 4th Junior Season. Not sure what the technical definition is of an overager. But that's what he is to me. If he's NHL ready, sending him back is a waste in my opinion.

Who knows, but I just get the feeling that he has a very good chance of making the team.
- MJL

I'm rooting for him to make it. Either way I already paid for my online junior games package so it won't stop me from watching any games.

I'm rooting for him to make it. Either way I already paid for my online junior games package so it won't stop me from watching any games.
- ob18

Well if he goes back, we're counting on you for scouting reports.

It would be his 4th Junior Season. Not sure what the technical definition is of an overager. But that's what he is to me. If he's NHL ready, sending him back is a waste in my opinion.
- MJL

An overager's a 20-year-old, IIRC; you only get that year, and I'd have to look it up, but I don't think you can even get that overage year if you're under NHL contract.

Well if he goes back, we're counting on you for scouting reports.
- MJL

Checking out the Charlottetown Islanders (Formally PEI Rockets) vs Halifax Mooseheads tonight.

Alexis Pepin (Charlottetown) is highly ranked for the 2014 draft

An overager's a 20-year-old, IIRC; you only get that year, and I'd have to look it up, but I don't think you can even get that overage year if you're under NHL contract.
- AllInForFlyers

Yes but Laughton has 2 years of junior eligibility left that includes the over age year when they are 20 years of age.

An overager's a 20-year-old, IIRC; you only get that year, and I'd have to look it up, but I don't think you can even get that overage year if you're under NHL contract.
- AllInForFlyers

I looked it up, didn't find the exact definition. But I think you're correct. A player is considered an overager at 20 years of age. But regardless, I still think he belongs in the NHL if he shows he's ready

I looked it up, didn't find the exact definition. But I think you're correct. A player is considered an overager at 20 years of age. But regardless, I still think he belongs in the NHL if he shows he's ready
- MJL

It's a weird rule in the CHL each team I believe can start out the year having up to 5 players whom are overage but at some point during the season it can only be 2 per team.

20 years of age is correct.

I looked it up, didn't find the exact definition. But I think you're correct. A player is considered an overager at 20 years of age. But regardless, I still think he belongs in the NHL if he shows he's ready
- MJL

And you and OB18, others...I don't necessarily disagree with that statement: If he earns a spot, he should be on the team. I don't know that he shouldn't have stayed with the team last year, to be honest -- he wasn't the worst forward on the team in those five games he played, though he was certainly sheltered some.

But at the same time...this is an important year for the franchise. They just missed the playoffs. That's horrifying. I don't know that this is the year for Scott Laughton to be learning on the fly -- that's why I was in favor of Daniel Cleary being brought in, for 3LW. For that specific role -- the Flyers need production there.

I want Scott Laughton to be a good, productive NHL player, and I do believe that he looked really strong last season in junior -- I watched two of his games when he went crazy for about three weeks -- and he didn't look out of place last year.

But at the same time, he had no points. The Flyers can't afford that for an extended period from 3LW, this season. They have to be focused on making the playoffs. If Laughton is able to be productive, great. But to me, again, IMO, this is not the year for Laughton to be developed at the NHL level -- not when you're coming off a non-playoff year and heads will absolutely roll if this team isn't playing good, consistent hockey from Day 1.

And you and OB18, others...I don't necessarily disagree with that statement: If he earns a spot, he should be on the team. I don't know that he shouldn't have stayed with the team last year, to be honest -- he wasn't the worst forward on the team in those five games he played, though he was certainly sheltered some.

But at the same time...this is an important year for the franchise. They just missed the playoffs. That's horrifying. I don't know that this is the year for Scott Laughton to be learning on the fly -- that's why I was in favor of Daniel Cleary being brought in, for 3LW. For that specific role -- the Flyers need production there.

I want Scott Laughton to be a good, productive NHL player, and I do believe that he looked really strong last season in junior -- I watched two of his games when he went crazy for about three weeks -- and he didn't look out of place last year.

But at the same time, he had no points. The Flyers can't afford that for an extended period from 3LW, this season. They have to be focused on making the playoffs. If Laughton is able to be productive, great. But to me, again, IMO, this is not the year for Laughton to be developed at the NHL level -- not when you're coming off a non-playoff year and heads will absolutely roll if this team isn't playing good, consistent hockey from Day 1.
- AllInForFlyers

Well first of all, why does Laughton have to play on the 3rd line? He can also play on the 4th line. And I see it as the opposite. This is the perfect time to develop a player like Laughton in the NHL. They legitimately aren't a contender on paper. Anything can happen when you make the playoffs, and you never know. But letting Laughton get through the inevitable growing pains in the NHL this season, could have him farther in his development. And far more ready to contribute in a few years, when the team is hopefully, close to Championship level.