They're actually paying $75K more to Rosehill, according to capgeek.

After waiving Hall and Gervais(assuming they go to another team or the AHL, the Flyers will be $16,022.00 over the cap.

Had they waived Rosehill, they would be under the cap.
- Jsaquella

I don't think waiving Hall was about getting under the Cap. I think they are discussing some possible deals. I think we need to let it play out and see what happens.

oh so what's the big deal with waiving him
- 2Real

Because it's short sighted. If he's claimed, they'll have little choice but to start the clock on Laughton's deal, which gets him one year closer to a bigger contract and free agency and sticks him between Rinaldo and another 4th liner, where he will have to struggle to see quality minutes.

In the full range of things, it's a small thing, but it could snowball into more than a minor move.

oh, but haven't you heard...the ELC should play no role in whether laught should make the team...or so it has been pronounced by the intelligensia.
- isaiah520

No, it shouldn't play any role in whether Laughton makes the team or not. If you disagree state why. Or take this approach.

Because it's short sighted. If he's claimed, they'll have little choice but to start the clock on Laughton's deal, which gets him one year closer to a bigger contract and free agency and sticks him between Rinaldo and another 4th liner, where he will have to struggle to see quality minutes.

In the full range of things, it's a small thing, but it could snowball into more than a minor move.
- Jsaquella

We don't know all the details. We have to let it play out and see what happens before claiming it's shortsighted. Hall could still be on the roster at the start of the Season. The ELC situation with Laughton is a non factor. He either makes the team or doesn't. But it should be based on what's best for the player and what makes the team better.

starting goalie Mason or Emery?

We don't know all the details. We have to let it play out and see what happens before claiming it's shortsighted. Hall could still be on the roster at the start of the Season. The ELC situation with Laughton is a non factor. He either makes the team or doesn't. But it should be based on what's best for the player and what makes the team better.
- MJL

if he's on the bubble, it should be a mitigating factor. no reason to get into a grigerenko situation when we have a solid third line option in talbot and a better option at 4th line center.

They're actually paying $75K more to Rosehill, according to capgeek.

After waiving Hall and Gervais(assuming they go to another team or the AHL, the Flyers will be $16,022.00 over the cap.

Had they waived Rosehill, they would be under the cap.
- Jsaquella

How on earth does Rosehill make more then Hall???

No, it shouldn't play any role in whether Laughton makes the team or not. If you disagree state why. Or take this approach.
- MJL

It plays a role for me because from the games I saw, Laughton wasn't playing any better than Hall. If he had been, it'd be different. But since he wasn't, then I'd consider everything, from if he'd develop better playing a ton of minutes in all situations in the OHL or playing a 4th line role in Philly as well as the ELC.

Bottom line to me is, he wasn't playing better than Hall and in that case everything has to be considered.

At what time tomorrow will Hall clear waivers if he does?

How on earth does Rosehill make more then Hall???

- Buzzo

it's the flyers, they value a knucklehead, heavyweight enforcer more than any other team in the league. it's always 1974 in their minds.

We don't know all the details. We have to let it play out and see what happens before claiming it's shortsighted. Hall could still be on the roster at the start of the Season. The ELC situation with Laughton is a non factor. He either makes the team or doesn't. But it should be based on what's best for the player and what makes the team better.
- MJL

Hall has a far better chance to be claimed on waivers than Rosehill. Hall, IMO, was playing better than Laughton. With that being the case, I can call it short sighted, because they're keeping a lesser player, with a bigger contract and risking losing a solid, dependable guy.

At what time tomorrow will Hall clear waivers if he does?
- jstross

Noon.

if he's on the bubble, it should be a mitigating factor. no reason to get into a grigerenko situation when we have a solid third line option in talbot and a better option at 4th line center.
- isaiah520

No it shouldn't be a mitigating factor. The mitigating factors are what's best for the player and what makes the team better. If they feel he's ready for the NHL, and he makes the team better, then he should make the team.

Do you want to look at a comparable situation. Look at Couturier. Made the team at 18. His next deal is a whopping 375K higher. And after that deal is up, he's likely to sign a multi year deal that takes him into his UFA years. Are were really going to sweat Laughton making the team because of a similar situation? Makes no sense. Starting his EL deal is a non factor.

It plays a role for me because from the games I saw, Laughton wasn't playing any better than Hall. If he had been, it'd be different. But since he wasn't, then I'd consider everything, from if he'd develop better playing a ton of minutes in all situations in the OHL or playing a 4th line role in Philly as well as the ELC.

Bottom line to me is, he wasn't playing better than Hall and in that case everything has to be considered.
- Jsaquella

I don't think this has anything to do with who has played better. I think it has to do with potential moves that they might make.

Noon.
- Jsaquella

I really like Hall and hope he clears. I'd be dumb struck if Hall get's picked up and we're stuck with Rosehill.

Hall has a far better chance to be claimed on waivers than Rosehill. Hall, IMO, was playing better than Laughton. With that being the case, I can call it short sighted, because they're keeping a lesser player, with a bigger contract and risking losing a solid, dependable guy.
- Jsaquella

But that puzzle isn't complete. If it ends up that they lose Hall to a waiver claim, and don't do anything else, then I'd agree. Why not waive Rosehill instead if it's about Cap issues. But I think there is more to it. That may or may not come to fruition. All I'm saying is that I'm going to let it play out and see what they're up to.

No it shouldn't be a mitigating factor. The mitigating factors are what's best for the player and what makes the team better. If they feel he's ready for the NHL, and he makes the team better, then he should make the team.

Do you want to look at a comparable situation. Look at Couturier. Made the team at 18. His next deal is a whopping 375K higher. And after that deal is up, he's likely to sign a multi year deal that takes him into his UFA years. Are were really going to sweat Laughton making the team because of a similar situation? Makes no sense. Starting his EL deal is a non factor.
- MJL

It is a factor. It starts his deal sooner, eats up a contract slot, gets him a year closer to free agency-regardless of the raise Couturier got, it means Laughton will have a higher cap hit sooner rather than later.

Is it better for the team that he plays on the 4th line now, uses up a year of cheap salary & cap hit...to me what is best for the team is making sure that they control the player as long as possible and that he takes the best developmental path possible.

It can be debated which is the best path-playing with Rinaldo & whomever else on the 4th line in the NHL or playing in all situations in the OHL and getting a load of ice time.

And what is best in the short term? I feel Hall was the better player during the preseason.

But that puzzle isn't complete. If it ends up that they lose Hall to a waiver claim, and don't do anything else, then I'd agree. Why not waive Rosehill instead if it's about Cap issues. But I think there is more to it. That may or may not come to fruition. All I'm saying is that I'm going to let it play out and see what they're up to.
- MJL

If they make another move, my opinion may adjust.

Even if it's not about the cap, risking losing a good, solid NHLer that can fill a regular role vs risking an enforcer that can't do much more than fight is, regardless of other moves made, pretty shortsighted.

Even if they make a good move I like later...I'd rather have Hall than Rosehill.

No it shouldn't be a mitigating factor. The mitigating factors are what's best for the player and what makes the team better. If they feel he's ready for the NHL, and he makes the team better, then he should make the team.

Do you want to look at a comparable situation. Look at Couturier. Made the team at 18. His next deal is a whopping 375K higher. And after that deal is up, he's likely to sign a multi year deal that takes him into his UFA years. Are were really going to sweat Laughton making the team because of a similar situation? Makes no sense. Starting his EL deal is a non factor.
- MJL

i'm glad you've convinced yourself

It is a factor. It starts his deal sooner, eats up a contract slot, gets him a year closer to free agency-regardless of the raise Couturier got, it means Laughton will have a higher cap hit sooner rather than later.

Is it better for the team that he plays on the 4th line now, uses up a year of cheap salary & cap hit...to me what is best for the team is making sure that they control the player as long as possible and that he takes the best developmental path possible.

It can be debated which is the best path-playing with Rinaldo & whomever else on the 4th line in the NHL or playing in all situations in the OHL and getting a load of ice time.

And what is best in the short term? I feel Hall was the better player during the preseason.
- Jsaquella

Why is there concern about eating up a contract slot if you feel he makes the team better and belongs on the team? You don't keep a player off of a team because of a contract slot. Opening up a contract slot is simple if it's needed. That's a non issue. So is getting closer to Free Agency. Look at Couturier. After his ELC deal runs out, he get's 2 years for his bridge deal, then they'll sign him to a multi year deal that will go into his Free Agency years, and expire past the time when he would be first eligible for Free Agency at 7 Accrued Seasons. So he'll actually be a Free Agent later then if the Flyers had not kept Couturier in 11/12.
I know we disagree, but I feel that as long as he's ready for the NHL, playing on the 4th line, even in limited minutes is infinitely better then a 4th year in Juniors, in my opinion.
I don't disagree that Hall is the better player right now. He's a 600 NHL game veteran that is strong at the dot, and good on the PK. But there is the future to be concerned with. And Laughton is the future. And they haven't lost Hall yet.

How on earth does Rosehill make more then Hall???

- Buzzo

Hall was pulled off the scrap heap last year.....nobody wanted him......the flyers have lots of journey centermen ....but how many true heavy weights do they have? If they lose hall they have Laughton past the 9 games...i think hall clears stays with the flyers and the flyers send Laughton back after the 9 games....we tried to sneak SEITo thru and he got claimed....it's simple supply and demand....3-4 liners are being waived by everyone.....but how many teams waive their goon? The flyers will always have that guy...enforcer to protect the others as long as snider owns this team!!!

If they make another move, my opinion may adjust.

Even if it's not about the cap, risking losing a good, solid NHLer that can fill a regular role vs risking an enforcer that can't do much more than fight is, regardless of other moves made, pretty shortsighted.

Even if they make a good move I like later...I'd rather have Hall than Rosehill.
- Jsaquella

Easier to replace Hall than Rosehill IMO.

Why is there concern about eating up a contract slot if you feel he makes the team better and belongs on the team? You don't keep a player off of a team because of a contract slot. Opening up a contract slot is simple if it's needed. That's a non issue. So is getting closer to Free Agency. Look at Couturier. After his ELC deal runs out, he get's 2 years for his bridge deal, then they'll sign him to a multi year deal that will go into his Free Agency years, and expire past the time when he would be first eligible for Free Agency at 7 Accrued Seasons. So he'll actually be a Free Agent later then if the Flyers had not kept Couturier in 11/12.
I know we disagree, but I feel that as long as he's ready for the NHL, playing on the 4th line, even in limited minutes is infinitely better then a 4th year in Juniors, in my opinion.
I don't disagree that Hall is the better player right now. He's a 600 NHL game veteran that is strong at the dot, and good on the PK. But there is the future to be concerned with. And Laughton is the future. And they haven't lost Hall yet.
- MJL

Well, the difference is, I'm looking at both the short and long term ramifications.

First off, I don't necessarily agree he'd be better served by playing 4th line in the NHL. In Couturier's case, he had a 96 point season after starting it off with mono, and not getting fully up to speed for a month or so. Couturier was dominating the QMJHL and clearly won a roster spot.

Laughton was the 2nd line center for his OHL team. He played well, but at the same time, he was still not even the best center on his own team. Another year in the OHL isn't going to stagnate his growth. If anything, it will give him an opportunity to play a much larger role. Which may well be better for his long term growth as a player, which would be better for the Flyers.

I also don't feel that just by being able to play in the NHL, his ticket should automatically be punched. IMO, It's debatable that he was one of the team's 12 best forwards during the preseason. That alone should give one pause.

That brings up the ELC. If Hall's gone, Laughton is the only real candidate to stay in the spot. Even if they do make a move like Adding a John Mitchell, they still have an open spot for Laughton to stick and play in a fourth line role, which means he'll spend a year off his ELC in a limited role in limited minutes.

Easier to replace Hall than Rosehill IMO.
- huks99

Really? Easier to replace a goon than a guy who won almost 60 % of the faceoffs he took and was one of the team's top 4 PK guys? Edmonton just signed Steve MacIntyre for $50K less than the Flyers are paying Rosehill

i'm glad you've convinced yourself
- isaiah520

I don't need to convince myself. I just proved it. And I'll spell it out further.

Let's say that Couturier was sent back to Juniors in the 11/12 Season instead of making the Flyers.
A player is eligible for Free Agency at 27 years of age, or 7 Accrued Seasons.

So as it stands now, Couturier would be eligible for Free Agency after the 17/18 Season, because that will be his 7th Accrued Season. So if they had sent him back in 11/12, that would extend his eligibility for Free Agency another year to 18/19.

So let's look at a possible scenario. His EL deal ends this Season, and his 2 year bridge deal he just signed, ends in 15/16. Which when it expires, he will still be a RFA. So what do you think is going to happen then? I think it's reasonable to assume, unless he totally flops, that the Flyers will look to extend him in a multi year deal. So let's say they offer him a solid deal for 4 years. Do you think Couturier is going to turn that down, and reject that security? Or do you think he would agree to a fair long term deal? So if he signs that 4 year deal, or it could be even longer. After that 4 years, he will be a UFA in the 19/20 Season. So as you see that is actually 1 Season later then if they had let his deal slide, and sent him back in 11/12, instead of keeping him on the Flyers.

This is why starting Laughtons EL deal, is not a factor. Because that's easy to deal with. And the Flyers have a history of extending young players into their free agency years.