Scott Laughton

[iban3z]

Just like with Anthony Stolarz, I've started a Scott Laughton Topic for those who'd like to follow him, discuss and so forth. 

 

Here is his Bio: (Wiki)

 

Scott Laughton (born May 30, 1994) is a Canadian ice hockey centre who currently plays for the Oshawa Generals of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL). He was drafted in the first round, 20th overall, at the 2012 NHL Entry Draft by thePhiladelphia Flyers.^[1]

Laughton signed a three-year entry-level contract with the Flyers on August 8, 2012.Following the 2012–13 NHL lockout, Laughton made the Flyers out of the team's abbreviated training camp and made his NHL debut on January 19, 2013 at home against the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Following the Flyers 2013–14 preseason training camp, Laughton was loaned back to theOshawa Generals of the OHL after failing to stick with the NHL club to start the season

 

So far Laughton is having a great start to his OHL Season: In 8 games he has 10G, 7A for 17 Pts and is a +6.

 

 

Career:            GP       G      A    Pts   PIM 

Team: 2009–10  Toronto Marlboros Minor Midget AAA                                     

                             76              55         40          95           109        

 

Team : 2009–10 St. Michael's Buzzers CCHL

                               2               0             0           0            4             

 

2010–11 Oshawa Generals OHL

                            63              12             11         23         58          

 

2011–12 Oshawa Generals OHL

                                64           21             32        53         101        

 

2012–13 Oshawa Generals OHL

                               49            23             33         56         72          

 

2012–13 Philadelphia Flyers NHL

                                 5             0              0            0            0             

 

2012–13 Adirondack Phantoms AHL

                                6              1              2             3           0             

 

OHL totals           176              56           76         132        231         

Edited October 21, 2013 by iban3z

[pilldoc]

too bad for the AHL age limit rule...would love to see him with Phantoms this year......

IMO I think he would grow better there with better competition then being stuck in Juniors again...again jsut my opinion...

[iban3z]

too bad for the AHL age limit rule...would love to see him with Phantoms this year......

IMO I think he would grow better there with better competition then being stuck in Juniors again...again jsut my opinion...

 

I agree. I thought that back when the Flyers had Luca Sbisa. If he were able to grow and show off on the Phantoms, I think he's not part of that Chris Pronger trade.

[brelic]

So what do you do with Laughton next year? At 20 years old, he might very well be NHL ready (some think he is already).

If you've got Giroux, Lecavalier, and Couturier blocking his way, do you move him to wing? Has he played wing at all in junior?

I don't think 4th line will do him any good, and he might be beyond AHL already.

[radoran]

So what do you do with Laughton next year? At 20 years old, he might very well be NHL ready (some think he is already).

If you've got Giroux, Lecavalier, and Couturier blocking his way, do you move him to wing? Has he played wing at all in junior?

I don't think 4th line will do him any good, and he might be beyond AHL already.

 

There's also "natural center" Brayden Schenn and "shutdown center" Max Talbot on the roster...

 

What they really need is a top flight sniper on the wing who could pot 30+ in a season.

 

Maybe trade a stay-at-home defencemen for him?

 

[flyercanuck]

As far as Laughton goes (or any other kid) I don't think any players career has ever been derailed because he spent an extra year in junior. Plenty have though from being brought up too fast. Laughton can hone his offensive game while gaining confidence. That's hardly going to hurt his development. The guy is playing top minutes 5 on 5, shorthanded and on the pp. Would he get that in the A? And he's 19, not 20 or 21. For the most part he IS playing against his age group. He'll also be on Canadas junior team, which won't hurt either.

[Bertmega]

@flyercanuck

 

Agreed with one more year. I personally think Couturier was rushed and probably could have benefited from a year more in the Q or at most with the Phantoms. 

 

In any case, with the current log jam at center, another year won't hurt the guy.

[radoran]

@flyercanuck

 

Agreed with one more year. I personally think Couturier was rushed and probably could have benefited from a year more in the Q or at most with the Phantoms. 

 

In any case, with the current log jam at center, another year won't hurt the guy.

 

The "current" log jam?

 

Giroux - signed through 2022

Lecavalier - signed through 2018

Couturier - signed through 2016

Talbot - signed through 2016

BSchenn - pending RFA

 

There isn't a "top 6" center spot on this team for five more years, hardly any at all for two more seasons after this one, and they have no less than two potential replacements at that point.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with Laughton back in Juniors, but if he is looking to be a center or the Flyers are looking at playing him there - that could be a issue for the short- and middle-term.

 

Good thing they didn't draft Maata - the log jam at defense would have stifled his growth

[Bertmega]

@radoran

 

Ok, perhaps I should have worded it the "long term log jam".

 

I suspect two of the centers you mentioned will not be on this roster next fall.

[brelic]

As far as Laughton goes (or any other kid) I don't think any players career has ever been derailed because he spent an extra year in junior. Plenty have though from being brought up too fast. Laughton can hone his offensive game while gaining confidence. That's hardly going to hurt his development. The guy is playing top minutes 5 on 5, shorthanded and on the pp. Would he get that in the A? And he's 19, not 20 or 21. For the most part he IS playing against his age group. He'll also be on Canadas junior team, which won't hurt either.

Laughton will be 20 years old next year, and this is his last junior year. That's what I was getting at.. my bad if it wasn't clear.

Anyway, unless he moves to wing or someone is traded (i.e. Couturier) I really don't see a spot for him next year. Guess there's nothing wrong with him developing in the A.

EDIT: Right after I posted, I saw Meltzer did a little write up on Laughton and argues that he has nothing to left to learn at the OHL level.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Meltzer/Meltzers-Musings-Post-Practice-Update-Laughton-is-Too-Advanced-for-OHL/45/55013#.UmV3pnCsh8E

LAUGHTON'S OHL DOMINANCE SHOWS FOLLY OF CURRENT AHL AGE RULE

When the Flyers first sent Scott Laughton back to the OHL after making the NHL club's opening night roster, I was interested to see how he would respond in the games immediately following his return to junior hockey.

Well, he responded perfectly. He took his disappointment out on the Oshawa Generals opponents. Right off the bat, he exploded for four points (two goals, two assists) in his first game and the proceeded to win OHL Player of the Week honors with four goals and nine points in his first four games.

In his last two games, Laughton has dominated games to such a ridiculous level that it's clear the OHL is no longer a challenge for him. He had a hat trick against London and followed it up with shorthanded and even strength goals in the Generals' 5-4 win over Sault Ste. Marie yesterday.

For the season, Laughton has a ridiculous 10 goals and 17 points in just eight games. With the major exception of being eligible -- and pretty much a shoo-in -- to play for Team Canada at the World Junior Championships, there is pretty much nothing left for Laughton to prove (or to gain in his development) in junior hockey.

It is debateable right now whether Laughton is fully NHL-ready. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the 19-year-old could benefit from time in the American Hockey League --- if only the rules allowed it.

I have said this before and will say it again: The AHL age rules for CHL-affiliated players do not benefit players like Laughton nor do they benefit the NHL teams that hold the rights to these players. In this case, Laughton is already under NHL entry-level contract (which will slide to next season now that he's been re-assigned to the Ontario League).

My proposed change to the rule: Contracted players under the age of 20 who have played three seasons of major junior hockey should be eligible for the AHL rather than returning to their junior team for a fourth season. This decision should be at the discretion of the NHL team that drafted and signed the player. If the NHL team exercises its right to send an eligible underager to the AHL, the player's junior team would get some financial compensation (this would be to remove the argument that the junior team needs such players for gate revenue reasons).

In Laughton's case, the player already has three seasons of OHL experience. As such, he'd be one of the players to benefit from the slight tweak to the current rules. To me, it's just a compromise solution to the AHL age rule that makes sense.

[jammer2]

As far as Laughton goes (or any other kid) I don't think any players career has ever been derailed because he spent an extra year in junior. Plenty have though from being brought up too fast. Laughton can hone his offensive game while gaining confidence. That's hardly going to hurt his development. The guy is playing top minutes 5 on 5, shorthanded and on the pp. Would he get that in the A? And he's 19, not 20 or 21. For the most part he IS playing against his age group. He'll also be on Canadas junior team, which won't hurt either.

 

 That's basically what I was gonna say. *If* he was getting top line minutes in the AHL, unquestioned on the top pp, killing penalties...ALL of those, then I would be ok with him in the AHL. I want him handling the puck in open space on the top pp, figuring things out etc. I think he's in the spot where he would benefit from the bigger faster pace of the AHL, but only if he's ready to handle the stuff I mentioned above. Basically, he'd have to be the "man" for the Phantoms like the would be in Oshawa. Like you said, a kid can't get his career derailed by spending an extra year in jr. I just want to make sure he's challenged sufficiently.

[radoran]

The AHL rules don't benefit they players because they're not designed to benefit the players.

They're designed so that every 18- and 19-year old in the CHL doesn't leave to collect a paycheck in the AHL.

 

They're designed to "save" Junior hockey as we know it today.

 

And, at what point does "having the team decide" help the player? If we're talking about "helping the player" who shouldn't "the player" make the decision?

 

Would Oshawa be happy with a check? Would the Generals' fans be happier with a check?

 

I don't have any allegiance whatsoever to the current situation and would be happy to see the whole thing upended.

 

There are, I would guess, a LOT of teams in small town Canada that just might feel different.

[flyercanuck]

 If the rules allowed putting junior age players in the AHL you'd have idiots like Holmgren moving 18 year olds off their team. (He'd rush 16 year olds if he was allowed to) This in turn would ruin junior teams, and 99% of these kids wouldn't be ready physically or mentally so their careers would be destroyed. The rules are for the good of the game. Sometimes they don't seem to make sense, but for the majority of players they absolutely do.

[OccamsRazor]

If the rules allowed putting junior age players in the AHL you'd have idiots like Holmgren moving 18 year olds off their team.

 

Not really there would have to be some guide lines in place so this doesn't happen...like must have completed 3 years if junior play.

 

And there needs to be some kind of compensation for the junior clubs, their main complaint is loss of ticket sales....so that has to be solved first.

 

But really how many players would we be talking about every year????

 

Only a handful....really and Laughton is one great example. Like i said there has to be a way. The players best develpment should be key.

 

And if playing against kids close to their age wasn't a big deal then they wouldn't be making a big deal about it being a players "fifth year of junior"  i mean cause come which is it???

 

t's only a year difference...but that is always brought up when someone dominates in their 5th year...can't have it both ways.

[radoran]

Not really there would have to be some guide lines in place so this doesn't happen...like must have completed 3 years if junior play.

 

And there needs to be some kind of compensation for the junior clubs, their main complaint is loss of ticket sales....so that has to be solved first.

 

But really how many players would we be talking about every year????

 

Only a handful....really and Laughton is one great example. Like i said there has to be a way. The players best develpment should be key.

 

And if playing against kids close to their age wasn't a big deal then they wouldn't be making a big deal about it being a players "fifth year of junior"  i mean cause come which is it???

 

t's only a year difference...but that is always brought up when someone dominates in their 5th year...can't have it both ways.

 

I think the "fifth year" concept is a good place to start rather than "after three years."

Give them "four years" of mandatory Junior time (or NHL) and for "fifth year" players allow the option of the NHL club to compensate the Junior squad.

 

Probably more involved in this, but that sounds reasonable to me.

[OccamsRazor]

I think the "fifth year" concept is a good place to start rather than "after three years."

Give them "four years" of mandatory Junior time (or NHL) and for "fifth year" players allow the option of the NHL club to compensate the Junior squad.

Probably more involved in this, but that sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

See FC provided the best example/arguement in the shout box....McKinnon (whom is playing in the NHL now) and Drouin (in juniors now) both have only played 2 years of juniors...but by the way you guys are thingking (or it seems)......what if the Avs din't have the CHOICE to play him on the BIG club what if they had to be 20 to even play on the BIG club????

 

But that isn't the case they can do this they can decide whats best for the 18 kid but not the 19 one!!!

 

That makes ZEO sense!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But what if NHL had the fear of letting a 18 play in the BIGs as they do of a 19 year old playing in the A!!! Tavareze, Coots, Mckinnon (just to name a few) wouldn't have the OPTION to play in the NHL....they would have to wait till they were 20!!!!

 

It's just funny we are trusting them to make the right call on the younger 18 kid but not the 19 year old????? WTF that doesn't make sense!

 

One minute it's what best for the CHL the next minute it's what is best for the player....but what it really boils down too is what is best for the BIG club and the salary cap or need for talent on the BIG club....the player's best interst is just the "excuse".

 

There needs to be an OTPION....just like the NHL has the OPTION to playa 18 old kid in the NHL how many times have we seen them rushed there???? But they have the OPTION....and all we have is the trast them will do the right thing....for whom well that is debatable!!!

Edited October 22, 2013 by OccamsRazor

[radoran]

Who makes the choice?

 

Suppose the player would rather be in Juniors for the year than riding an AHL bus out of Erie, PA or Glens Falls, NY for a year but the NHL club wants him in the A?

 

I think it would also be interesting to get Laughton's feelings on the issue - is/was he "held back" by being in Oshawa? He's obviously NEVER going to say something like that rightnow, but may be able to look back in a few years with some perspective.

 

FC's other point - that Laughton may be better off getting monster minutes in top line time in Juniors could be better for him than slogging through the muck in Glens Falls - is also valid. As is the impact Laughton's play may have on his teammates on the Generals.

 

There are a lot of factors here that we're likely not fully addressing.

[flyercanuck]

@OccamsRazor

 

 The CHL team has invested a lot of time and money into a player like Laughton. Adirondack has invested nothing. Laughton has spent most of his life persuing his dream of playing in the NHL. If he's good enough, at 18, to play there, good for him. If not, like I said, it's going to do him a lot more good playing 25-30 minutes at every facet of the game against the best players in the world in his age group than playing 5-15 minutes on the 3rd or 4th line in the A. It also gives him another year to add some strength, he's only about 170 lbs. And it gives his team, the one that's already invested 3 years into his development, a better chance in the playoffs. Which will also help his development. Any playoff action going on in Adirondack lately?

 

 Oshawa is currently 2nd in the entire OHL. That can't hurt his motivation. Neither will playing on Canadas WJ team. A lot of players cite playing in the WJs as a huge step in their development. And the way Laughtons playing, it doesn't look like he's bummed about getting sent down. Looks to me like it's set a fire under his arse.

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

 Riding a bus from Oshawa to Sault Ste. Marie in February likely isn't any better than riding one in the A.

 

 And like I said in the last post, if Laughton is disappointed to have been sent back, he sure as heck isn't showing it. If anything it's motivated the hell out of him.

 

 Again, I've heard the term "rushed" on many a prospect who went to the next level too soon. I can't recall a coach or player ever saying they spent one year too many in junior, or the A for that matter.

[jammer2]

I think the "fifth year" concept is a good place to start rather than "after three years."

Give them "four years" of mandatory Junior time (or NHL) and for "fifth year" players allow the option of the NHL club to compensate the Junior squad.

 

Probably more involved in this, but that sounds reasonable to me.

 

 That's a really good idea. The junior team gets 4 guaranteed years, and a nice paycheque should the player stick for the 5th year. The fans get to see the kid develop, his last two years would be really fun to watch. I'm betting CHL GM's would be doing cartwheels if this rule was ever implemented. No more guessing if so and so is coming back, much easier to fill out a roster, takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation. This would do wonders for CHL attendance also. The NHL gets more mature, physically bigger prospects...sounds like a win, win. Guys like Ryan Nugent Hopkins would really benefit from a mandatory 4 year jr rule. He was talented enough to play in the NHL, but his body was not ready, resulting in 3 surgeries to this point. If a NHL team really *needs* a 18 year old player, they must suck. I agree with OR, it's usually a salary cap escape, sometimes to the kids detriment.

[radoran]

 That's a really good idea. The junior team gets 4 guaranteed years, and a nice paycheque should the player stick for the 5th year. The fans get to see the kid develop, his last two years would be really fun to watch. I'm betting CHL GM's would be doing cartwheels if this rule was ever implemented. No more guessing if so and so is coming back, much easier to fill out a roster, takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation. This would do wonders for CHL attendance also. The NHL gets more mature, physically bigger prospects...sounds like a win, win. Guys like Ryan Nugent Hopkins would really benefit from a mandatory 4 year jr rule. He was talented enough to play in the NHL, but his body was not ready, resulting in 3 surgeries to this point. If a NHL team really *needs* a 18 year old player, they must suck. I agree with OR, it's usually a salary cap escape, sometimes to the kids detriment.

 

Well, jammer, my thought would be that they still could jump to the NHL before 20.

 

I'm really spitballing about something that's quite complex.

[jammer2]

@radoran  Well, most star players who become 1st round picks start in the CHL at 16. That would give them 16, 17, 18, 19...four full years, and still in the NHL by 20. The players granted exceptional status like Tavares, Exblad and most recently Day would be in the NHL by 19, that sounds totally fair.

[Leach27]

Anyone seen this goal??? Why is he not with The Flyers? 13 games he has 14 g and 11 a.

[radoran]

Anyone seen this goal??? Why is he not with The Flyers? 13 games he has 14 g and 11 a.

 

 

They had to have a roster spot for Jay Rosehill.

[iban3z]

I meant to post this yesterday. I know it's a kick in the teeth, but hey the Flyers are healthy scratching Mcginn tonight and Rosehill will be in the line-up. I may just lose my freakin mind!

Edited November 5, 2013 by iban3z