Game 67: Toronto Maple Leafs at Philadelphia Flyers; 3/14/24 @ 7:30, ESPN+, Hulu

[GratefulFlyers]

Well sure….my opinion is simply that I like the direction. I say I love Seeler but I’m not in love with him or Laughton. And I’m not banking on Tortorella’s history so much as how I see him handling the squad this year (and last year). His Cup win was 20 years ago. I’m sure you see as well as anyone the difference in his demeanor these days. Still an a-hole when he wants to be….but at least now it comes off as a choice. 

[OccamsRazor]

43 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

you and anyone else who believes keeping Seeler and Laughton was for this year’s playoffs is just wrong. 

 

It's your opinion you're trying to Trump my opinion with with you must be in politics.

 

So now show me proof of this or yeah you're just sharing your opinion which you claim you don't have and yeah I know I need a drink after trying to understand that...

 

...and you sir are wrong back at cha.

 

[flyercanuck]

9 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

It's your opinion you're trying to Trump my opinion with with you must be in politics.

 

So now show me proof of this or yeah you're just sharing your opinion which you claim you don't have and yeah I know I need a drink after trying to understand that...

 

...and you sir are wrong back at cha.

 

 

You could have at least said you were Biden your time. 

[OccamsRazor]

42 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

You could have at least said you were Biden your time. 

 

i missed my chance to be famous damn!!!

[GratefulFlyers]

"Proof" that they kept Seeler and Laughton for more than this year's POs is the contract to Seeler. They might've been able to negotiate a 1-year deal for stupid money and both sides would've been happy with it. Or they didn't have to extend him at all, right? AFAIK nobody was threatening to "offer-sheet" him.

 

And then there's all the talk (and the ice time) all year about those 2, how valuable they are to the team - this particular team that's trying to build a personality - with a lot of young guys.

 

Laughton as far as I can tell they didn't "keep" so much as they didn't get an offer they felt was worth it. The proof of that is Briere's own words - he said exactly that.

 

 

[RonJeremy]

16 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

i missed my chance to be famous damn!!!

If he said that, he wouldn’t have completed the sentence, he doesn’t have a teleprompter.

Edited March 16 by RonJeremy

[SCFlyguy]

1 hour ago, GratefulFlyers said:

"Proof" that they kept Seeler and Laughton for more than this year's POs is the contract to Seeler. They might've been able to negotiate a 1-year deal for stupid money and both sides would've been happy with it. Or they didn't have to extend him at all, right? AFAIK nobody was threatening to "offer-sheet" him.

 

And then there's all the talk (and the ice time) all year about those 2, how valuable they are to the team - this particular team that's trying to build a personality - with a lot of young guys.

 

Laughton as far as I can tell they didn't "keep" so much as they didn't get an offer they felt was worth it. The proof of that is Briere's own words - he said exactly that.

 

 

Briere is overvaluing these guys if he can't find a deal he likes.  Their value to the Flyers rebuild is quite limited.

[GratefulFlyers]

59 minutes ago, SCFlyguy said:

Briere is overvaluing these guys if he can't find a deal he likes.  Their value to the Flyers rebuild is quite limited.

 

I respect your opinion - you and others who feel the same way but I disagree I think they're both extremely valuable to the rebuild.

 

The good news is the Flyers aren't married to either one. If Seeler continues to play well his contract is tradeable. If his play drops off a cliff there's ways to address that; not painless but not the end of the world either.

 

Laughton is kind of a special case in that he's a well-known contributor to every aspect of the Flyers, on ice and off. But he's not known that way to other clubs. His value is high to the Flyers but not so much to other GMs. Trading him for a 2R is wasting him imho.

 

btw if you can find it @mojo1917 wrote a good post about Laughton's value. I compressed it a bit here; he makes a strong case why a 2R for Laughton is not fair value to the Flyers.

 

Edited March 16 by GratefulFlyers

[SCFlyguy]

A competent scouting department should be able to turn up a Laughton or Seeler nearly every draft.  If you get a second for either of them, you would take that and run with it.

 

Turning your Laughtons and Seelers into shots at a Giroux is how you do a rebuild.  The Rangers didn't keep their Grabners (age 29 in 2016) for their rebuild.  They kept guys who were 25 and under.

[mojo1917]

2 hours ago, SCFlyguy said:

A competent scouting department should be able to turn up a Laughton or Seeler nearly every draft.  If you get a second for either of them, you would take that and run with it.

You're right good scouting should find players with middle six and bottom pair ability.

 

In Laughton's case the FO mentioned his intangibles being more valuable to the Flyers.

I think, again, this non-move was more about the team culture. And it was determined Laughton was more valuble in the room than acquiring  a 13th pick in this draft.

 

Laughton was a first rounder.

He's been leaned on very heavily by this management group, they've said as much. They may trade him once the season is over, but Danny said he felt they owed him an opportunity to finish out the year with the team that was in playoff position. 

 

I don't think teams were offering up 1st picks for him.

 

Danny said he wasn't trading Laughton for fair value. Which is what you are saying you'd like to see done .

 

 

 

 

[CoachX]

4 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

 

In Laughton's case the FO mentioned his intangibles being more valuable to the Flyers.

I think, again, this non-move was more about the team culture. And it was determined Laughton was more valuble in the room than acquiring  a 13th pick in this draft.

This right here. This is the crux of my issue with this player. What is this value? What is its true worth? Does it equate to wins? Does it equate to advancing this team. If it did, they wouldn’t be willing to trade him. Hanging on to a guy because you like him, and not moving him for something more valuable (the 13 pick is more valuable IMO) is right on par with the nonsense that has kept the team from getting better. If he’s so good at what he does, and he’s so valuable at it, why try to trade him

 

fact is they don’t get what they wanted because they overvalued his worth, and no other teams will over pay for those “intangibles”

 

4 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Laughton was a first rounder.

He's been leaned on very heavily by this management group, they've said as much. They may trade him once the season is over, but Danny said he felt they owed him an opportunity to finish out the year with the team that was in playoff position.

Bullshcit! You’re in a rebuild. Your entire plan is based on that. You don’t keep players for nostalgia. What will his excuse be IF they don’t make the playoffs? Yeah, you did him a solid in that case by not reading him

 

4 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Danny said he wasn't trading Laughton for fair value

Then he’s an idiot. Because you obviously can’t trade him for more than he’s worth, no one wants him. Wait…I know, maybe he figures at seasons end, after they don’t make the playoffs, Laughtons value will be higher. Maybe he’ll finally score 20 goals

Edited March 16 by CoachX

[mojo1917]

@CoachX

Couple of things. 

Not pick #13 in the first round.

One of 13 picks in this draft.

 

They're not keeping him around for nostalgia, ffs, Laughton was the only player Fonzie deemed worthy of an offical leadership role in his first year as coach. 

There were terrible assholes on that team to negotiate around.  Laughton did that. 

 

Also, let me remind everyone,  Laughton has another year on his contract. There is no rush/pressure/reason to shop him.

I've said in these very threads, next year is a different story. 

Hell, after the season is a different  story. 

I don't see anything wrong with rewarding a guy for hard work or valuing a guy for the things he's done for the team during a transition period. Ymmv.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17 by mojo1917

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

They're not keeping him around for nostalgia, ffs, Laughton was the only player Fonzie deemed worthy of an offical leadership role in his first year as coach. 

There were terrible assholes on that team to negotiate around.  Laughton did that. 

If he so good at this mystery role, why wasn’t he named Captain? 
 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

Also, let me remind everyone,  Laughton has another year on his contract. There is no rush/pressure/reason to shop him.

I've said in these very threads, next year is a different story. 

Hell, after the season is a different  story. 

I don't see anything wrong with rewarding a guy for hard work or valuing a guy for the things he's done for the team during a transition period.

You don’t have to remind everyone. I’m all alone on This crusade. Everyone else dotes on the guy. As for his contract, if you don’t have to move him, why are you trying?

[radoran]

10 hours ago, CoachX said:

You don’t have to remind everyone. I’m all alone on This crusade. Everyone else dotes on the guy.

 

It's when you start to weave the conventional wisdom official organization lines together that they start to conflict with each other.

 

If you can't build the foundation of your culture on the back of a guy who sat by and idly watched the entire team culture get destroyed around him, who else would you choose?

 

There aren't any other options.

 

Laughton's an absolutely critical piece on a middling, bubble playoff team. Again.

 

I don't hate the player. He's "an NHL player" who "plays the right way" and there are likely a couple dozen of him playing in the league.

[flyercanuck]

10 hours ago, CoachX said:

If he so good at this mystery role, why wasn’t he named Captain? 
 

You don’t have to remind everyone. I’m all alone on This crusade. Everyone else dotes on the guy. As for his contract, if you don’t have to move him, why are you trying?

 

Laughton couldn't captain a Stanley Cup team, but he could certainly captain the Flyers until they actually have a contending team. He teaches the players to work hard, and even though you may not be elite, you can have a nice career. The guy can slot in at any forward position on any line. And I say all this as a guy who would have liked to move him, and hope they do while he still has value.

 

I'll never understand your disdain for a guy who got stuck playing with some of the laziest, dumbest, douchiest players ever assembled on one team. 

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

It's when you start to weave the conventional wisdom official organization lines together that they start to conflict with each other.

 

If you can't build the foundation of your culture on the back of a guy who sat by and idly watched the entire team culture get destroyed around him, who else would you choose?

 

There aren't any other options.

 

Laughton's an absolutely critical piece on a middling, bubble playoff team. Again.

 

I don't hate the player. He's "an NHL player" who "plays the right way" and there are likely a couple dozen of him playing in the league.

I’m on board with your POV here. In a lot of ways it’s exactly how I feel. You’re just more tactful and eloquent in delivering it

 

maybe your the Laughton of the forum 

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

Laughton couldn't captain a Stanley Cup team, but he could certainly captain the Flyers until they actually have a contending team. He teaches the players to work hard, and even though you may not be elite, you can have a nice career.

This makes me think of Dave Poulun. Who I loved. not to you specifically, but the question still remains….if he so good in this role, and so vital, why isn’t he the Captain? Why was 14 given that role? And also, why are they trying to trade the guy who is the glue that holds the team together?

 

the two things seem to contradict

 

 

 

[flyercanuck]

16 minutes ago, CoachX said:

This makes me think of Dave Poulun. Who I loved. not to you specifically, but the question still remains….if he so good in this role, and so vital, why isn’t he the Captain? Why was 14 given that role? And also, why are they trying to trade the guy who is the glue that holds the team together?

 

the two things seem to contradict

 

 

 

 

Well I won't argue you Couturier is a better choice over Laughton. That doesn't make Laughton not leader material.

 

Also, they're supposed to be rebuilding. Laughton is going to be 30. 

Of course that brings the question why they don't trade Couturier, who's 31. He'd bring in a great package, other than Chuck Fletcher took his value away with yet another patented Flyer too long contract.

[radoran]

4 hours ago, CoachX said:

Why was 14 given that role?

 

14 was given that role when 28 left. They just couldn't give it to him until he was "healthy."

 

4 hours ago, CoachX said:

And also, why are they trying to trade the guy who is the glue that holds the team together?

 

They aren't.

 

They won't take "fair value" for him.

 

They are building around three (four) guys ALL of whom were at the very least passive observers of, by official accounts, the complete and total destruction of the team's fundamental culture

 

AND THERE'S NOBODY BETTER TO DO IT.

 

It's almost like they don't actually believe the first part.

 

It's also important, according to the coach, to "not fall in love with players" because this is a rebuild and you have to do things the right way because there aren't any shortcuts.

 

And we have to keep these guys because the coach likes them.

 

It's almost like they don't believe the first part.

 

I'm not at all sure where my ambivalence towards their stated position comes from.

 

I've been pretty clear with this organization* for over ten years.

 

Stop telling me what you're doing, have your actions demonstrate it.

 

The jury isn't even out, the cases are still being presented.

[SCFlyguy]

On 3/16/2024 at 2:46 PM, mojo1917 said:

In Laughton's case the FO mentioned his intangibles being more valuable to the Flyers.

This is corporate speak of the worst kind and I would put no stock in it whatsoever.

 

This is an easy issue.  Laughton's value will never be higher than it is right now and he will never contribute to a contender because he will be sitting on a couch somewhere by the time the Flyers are the real deal.

 

Everything else is just people trying to talk themselves into a silver lining in this decades long cloud.

 

So trade him for any reasonable offer (2nd is fine with me).

Edited March 17 by SCFlyguy

[GratefulFlyers]

28 minutes ago, radoran said:

The jury isn't even out, the cases are still being presented.

and that’s good news because “the cases” are entirely different now.
 

This whole guilt-by-association thing you’re doing here with Couturier, Laughton (whoever) is nonsense. Clever but pure fantasy. Wearing the same jersey is not an automatic endorsement of the captain. It doesn’t imply you agree with his decisions or that you condone everything (or anything) he does, or your teammates do … let alone what the coaches and managers do. It’s called being on the same team that’s all. (I hope that didn’t come off snotty if so it wasn’t intentional)

 

Likewise when Tortorella says “don’t fall in love” with X, Y or Z because they may get traded and then Briere doesn’t trade them, that’s not an indictment of Briere’s management. Nor does it “prove” Tortorella’s advice was insincere or that Briere kept them only because they’re Tortorella’s favorites. It’s just what happened and in Laughton’s case Briere told fans exactly why.

 

So let’s not feign surprise and read a conspiracy into the fact that Laughton (and Seeler), highly praised by the head coach and by management didn’t get traded. Briere said “fair (market) value” wasn’t enough and he stuck by it. Thassall.

[CoachX]

1 hour ago, GratefulFlyers said:

and that’s good news because “the cases” are entirely different now.
 

This whole guilt-by-association thing you’re doing here with Couturier, Laughton (whoever) is nonsense. Clever but pure fantasy. Wearing the same jersey is not an automatic endorsement of the captain. It doesn’t imply you agree with his decisions or that you condone everything (or anything) he does, or your teammates do … let alone what the coaches and managers do. It’s called being on the same team that’s all. (I hope that didn’t come off snotty if so it wasn’t intentional)

 

Likewise when Tortorella says “don’t fall in love” with X, Y or Z because they may get traded and then Briere doesn’t trade them, that’s not an indictment of Briere’s management. Nor does it “prove” Tortorella’s advice was insincere or that Briere kept them only because they’re Tortorella’s favorites. It’s just what happened and in Laughton’s case Briere told fans exactly why.

 

So let’s not feign surprise and read a conspiracy into the fact that Laughton (and Seeler), highly praised by the head coach and by management didn’t get traded. Briere said “fair (market) value” wasn’t enough and he stuck by it. Thassall.

Kamala? Is that you?

[radoran]

1 hour ago, GratefulFlyers said:

Wearing the same jersey is not an automatic endorsement of the captain.

 

So it was the longest tenured captain in the history of the franchise that oversaw the complete and total hollowing out of team culture and the other players in the room had nothing to do with it?

 

I'm saying I don't buy the company line on that whole situation.

 

1 hour ago, GratefulFlyers said:

So let’s not feign surprise and read a conspiracy into the fact that Laughton (and Seeler), highly praised by the head coach and by management didn’t get traded. Briere said “fair (market) value” wasn’t enough and he stuck by it. Thassall.

 

I'm not feigning surprise at all.

 

I wasn't surprised.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

I'm saying that when you look at it through anything but "always good news for the Flyers" there is reason to be circumspect and continue to see how things develop.

 

Listen, I've been to GAMES this season for the first time in years. My first game back was the Owen Tippett hat trick last season. My current avatar is the sticker they give you when you sit in the Gritty section.

 

They're an ENJOYABLE hockey team.

 

Whether they're the foundation of a Cup winner remains to be seen.

 

[mojo1917]

Comments about Laughton are around 6:30.

Still don't hear a guy thinking his team is built.

 

 

Edited March 18 by mojo1917

[GratefulFlyers]

13 hours ago, radoran said:

I'm saying I don't buy the company line on that whole situation.

 

What "company line?" You evidently heard something that I haven't heard.

 

I'm glad you take what I consider the only reasonable position Flyers' fans can take, i.e. "wait and see." I'm glad you're supporting the team by going to games. But whatever connections, leftovers, holdouts etc there are on the current roster, blaming them for the weaknesses of the Giroux years is a farfetched proposition imho.

 

14 hours ago, radoran said:

I'm saying that when you look at it through anything but "always good news for the Flyers" there is reason to be circumspect and continue to see how things develop.

 

Absolutely. But when it is good news, or at least debatable - like not trading Laughton - why look for a conspiracy and "proof" the current managers are "meet the new boss / same as the old boss." The "company line" thing sure smacks of it to me.