Laughton vs. Maata

[RonJeremy]

Laughton could end up being a great player, but my biggest argument against Homer is, he should be drafting what we need instead of his infatuation with drafting centers. His refusal to draft defense , up until last year is the reason we are paying Streit all this $$ and why we will be forced to trade one of our centers once Timmo retires. None of our AHL dmen are offensive style puck movers that we need , and our young guys like  Ghost, Morin and Haag are a few years off.  Defenseman take at least 2 years to be NHL ready and at least another 2 before they are a real factor, so had we drafted some skilled dmen a few years ago they  be ready to step in next year.

There is no way we go into next year with Streit as our only skilled dman, Gus is still a big question mark, I would not count on him. So unless we sign another old overpriced FA dman , we have no choice but to make a trade.

 

Maybe if Homer stopped trading our second rounders and stopped wasting picks on marginal longshot goons and  picking another Rinaldo ,he should go for some skilled college our Euro defenseman, its a crapshoot anyway at that point, so why not go for skill over a guy like Mathers.

[flyercanuck]

RonJeremy

 

So if we're set at center and need defence and Homer thinks the center available at his pick projects to a first liner and the defenceman available projects to a 6-7 he should take the player we need? Even though that player may not make the team for 5 years...or at all? You take the best player in the first round.....always.

[RonJeremy]

Of course, I don't mean it that way. I mean if it close, like Matta and Laughton, then  go with the dman,, since thats much more needed, especially when the year before, you took a defensive center over an offensive dman (Coots over Hamilton), and we also took Cousins. How many 2 way centers do we need? Just like we took Ron Sutter over Stevens way back when.

[flyercanuck]

Last year Laughton was easily a better player than Maatta was in junior. I'm actually quite surprised how well maatta has turned out in his first season. He didn't look very good defensively last year against Barrie in the playoffs. Meanwhile when we played Oshawa Laughton was their best player by far.

 

And that "defensive" forward we took named Couturier led ALL juniors in ppg his draft year. How much more OFFENSIVE can you get than that?. And highly coveted by pretty much every team in the NHL. He'd be the Leafs #1 center.

 

I admit in both cases I wanted the defencmen...until Couturier fell to us. He was a no-brainer. And Laughton is making that pick look like a good one. I've said before I honestly think Holmgren is more comfortable picking forwards cause he's pretty good at it. Worst case scenario is they become trade bait. Better than a bust defenceman, right?

[radoran]

I admit in both cases I wanted the defencmen...until Couturier fell to us. He was a no-brainer. And Laughton is making that pick look like a good one. I've said before I honestly think Holmgren is more comfortable picking forwards cause he's pretty good at it. Worst case scenario is they become trade bait. Better than a bust defenceman, right?

 

Somewhere, Luke Schenn is saying "hello?"

 

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

Ya, and there's that too. I don't care what position you pick if the guy ends up having a good NHL career. 

[Polaris922]

@Ron_Jeremy

@flyercanuck

You two are in agreement actually. If Holmgren had drafted for need, or most talented player available... You'd have Maatta.

Again Laughton may prove worth the pick someday... But at the time, and currently, Holmgren has lost that bet so far.

[jammer2]

@Polaris922  Was Matta captain of Team Finland last year?  Getting named Captain of Team Canada is a nice feather in the hat of Laughts. There is a TON of talent on that team, yet they chose him. Even during is *very* productive year on the OHL, people don't give Scott enough props for his offensive skill set. The guy is gonna be a very good NHL'er. If things go his way, and he makes it into the Philly's top 6 forwards, he could have the upside for a point per game kinda guy. Conjecture at this point, but I believe he will be very productive as a pro. He'll be in the show, all that remains is to see how much impact he will have.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922 "Conjecture at this point..."

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I can't believe anyone is comparing a guy who remains a "prospect" at this point to a guy who's done as well as Maatta as a 19 year old NHL defenseman. Pure homerism this time fellas. It would be similar to me saying Harrington is better than Couturier.

I don't care if the guy scores 100 goals in the OHL and is named Prince of Wales... Until he plays and succeeds at the NHL level, he's still just a prospect, no matter how promising his future may look.

As I've said... Let's revisit this in a few years and see how the two compare. Give Laughton a chance to show whether it was a good move or not. As of right now, it was not. You guys could use Maatta on your defense right now.

[Mad Dog]

@Polaris922

 

I agree with you that at THIS point and judging purely by what each guy has done in the NHL, Maatta has accomplished more... again in the NHL. 

 

Maatta's game and his numbers speak for themsleves.  And that's what good about facts - they are hard to argue with.  In those several games I saw your team play, he looked liked like a poised, mature beyond his age, very smart defenseman.  I like him. 

 

As for the future, who really knows. I think Laughton was a decent pick.  Not perfect, but good.  And as others mentioned, he had success in different leagues.  What this means when translating to his future in the NHL is a pure speculation and is sort of meaningless at this point.  For starterts, he needs to make the roster at some point.  Then we will see.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

I agree with you that at THIS point and judging purely by what each guy has done in the NHL, Maatta has accomplished more... again in the NHL.

Maatta's game and his numbers speak for themsleves. And that's what good about facts - they are hard to argue with. In those several games I saw your team play, he looked liked like a poised, mature beyond his age, very smart defenseman. I like him.

As for the future, who really knows. I think Laughton was a decent pick. Not perfect, but good. And as others mentioned, he had success in different leagues. What this means when translating to his future in the NHL is a pure speculation and is sort of meaningless at this point. For starterts, he needs to make the roster at some point. Then we will see.

A voice of reason! Lol. It will be fun watching Laughton's progress now and seeing what he develops into. Hearing everyone's praise of him sounds promising for the young man, but I can't help but think of quite a few names who had great success in junior levels that never made it big in the NHL. Not saying that's his fate, but I think of that often when people praise prospects... Yours, ours, or otherwise.

[Mad Dog]

A voice of reason! Lol. It will be fun watching Laughton's progress now and seeing what he develops into. Hearing everyone's praise of him sounds promising for the young man, but I can't help but think of quite a few names who had great success in junior levels that never made it big in the NHL. Not saying that's his fate, but I think of that often when people praise prospects... Yours, ours, or otherwise.

 

Laughton's biggest enemy is Flyers' depth at center position.  When Holmgren went out and signed LeCavalier, he basically sealed Laughton's fate.  I thought that move was completely unneccessary, even though LeCavalier fit right in and is having a good season - when he is healthy that is.  Without LeCavalier, Laughton woudl have made the team. 

 

But like I said, he needs to crack the roster for starters.  That's not happening any time soon, and that's the problem.

[OccamsRazor]

But like I said, he needs to crack the roster for starters. 

 

there is time for that next year he is exactly where he needs to be...learning and growing into his skin...

 

...next season Hall isn't signed for...and could in the offseason and they could just start Scott off on the Phantoms with Leier and Stolarz ,Valeri Vasiliev and maybe even Ghost and Larsson...it sure will be a very talented Phantoms team...a lot can change from now till then though...

 

 

Phantoms defensemen that may or may not be resigned... Manning is a RFA i believe may be resigned...yet Cullen Eddy RFA and Hostetter RFA may be shown the door...insert Larsson, Vasiliev and maybe Ghost...Ben Holmstrom is a UFA...Laughton could take his captain spot..we'll see.

 

Stolarz will certainly be an upgrade over Danis...Stollie/Heeter make a nice AHL tandem.

 

Phantoms have 13 RFAs and UFAs...a lot to think about and where this club is headed...but it looks like it is turning around slowly...

Edited December 26, 2013 by OccamsRazor

[terp]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I can't believe anyone is comparing a guy who remains a "prospect" at this point to a guy who's done as well as Maatta as a 19 year old NHL defenseman. Pure homerism this time fellas. It would be similar to me saying Harrington is better than Couturier.

I don't care if the guy scores 100 goals in the OHL and is named Prince of Wales... Until he plays and succeeds at the NHL level, he's still just a prospect, no matter how promising his future may look.

As I've said... Let's revisit this in a few years and see how the two compare. Give Laughton a chance to show whether it was a good move or not. As of right now, it was not. You guys could use Maatta on your defense right now.

Maata has played far less than a full season, so he's proven very little. Perhaps what he's proven is that Bylama is great at hiding his inexperience with good match ups or that it is easy to play third pair behind one of the best offenses in the NHL. Not saying he's no good, just that you should not be saying he has proven anything more than that he is a good prospect (which is all he is at this point, a prospect). This is only marginally more than Laughton has proven and could evaporate tomorrow night. His sample at this point doesn't constituent a coming out party.

[Polaris922]

You obviously haven't watched him play. When an NHL team lets a player stay up that they could rotate down to save money, it's not because he's a "prospect". Especially as deep as our defensive prospects pool was at the time, let alone with Depres and Bortuzzo sent down instead. And he's not "paired" with anyone in particular, yet shuts down the best forwards of our opponents with scary consistency. He's making a mistake here and there, but he's definitely a top candidate for rookie of the year in the NHL to date. Period.

I think you posted more in defense of Laughton and Holmgren than actually knowing about Maatta.

[flyercanuck]

A voice of reason! Lol. It will be fun watching Laughton's progress now and seeing what he develops into. Hearing everyone's praise of him sounds promising for the young man, but I can't help but think of quite a few names who had great success in junior levels that never made it big in the NHL. Not saying that's his fate, but I think of that often when people praise prospects... Yours, ours, or otherwise.

 

Great point.

 

And I can't help but think of plenty of names who had a good first year in the NHL only to fizzle out and be gone by their 3rd or 4th. And the many, many, many more who don't make the NHL until they are 20, 21, 22 or older who have gone on to great careers. I'll take Matt Read over Rinaldo anyday. Rinaldo made the NHL way earlier in his career than Read did. And he may be out of the NHL earlier too.

 

I'm happy Couturier made it his first year. I'm happy that he seems to be breaking out in his 3rd. I still think one more year of junior would have done his development, offensively, a world of good. And as good as he's looking, I'd trade him for Connor McDavid, who won't even be drafted for a year and a half, in a heartbeat. 

 

Again, the Flyers are so deep at center there's no way Laughton is cracking the lineup. Same if Pittsburgh drafted him. And again, if the Leafs drafted him he would likely be the first line center right now.

 

Maatta is looking like a very good prospect. And yes, that's what he is no matter where he is playing. One half a season does not a career make. I have little doubt he is going to stick but for now he's a good looking  prospect with some NHL games under his belt. So is Laughton. 

[Mad Dog]

Maata has played far less than a full season, so he's proven very little. Perhaps what he's proven is that Bylama is great at hiding his inexperience with good match ups or that it is easy to play third pair behind one of the best offenses in the NHL. Not saying he's no good, just that you should not be saying he has proven anything more than that he is a good prospect (which is all he is at this point, a prospect). This is only marginally more than Laughton has proven and could evaporate tomorrow night. His sample at this point doesn't constituent a coming out party.

 

Sorry, terp (and I am not really challenging you to anything), but have you actually watched Maata play at all this year? Given the fact that only a select few first-year defensemen can make a stunning debut in their rookie year, I thought Maata has done exceptionally well. Victor Hedman, who was drafted 2nd overall and was expected to set the world on fire in his rookie year, is still finding his game.

 

Those games I watched the Pittsburgh play, I found Olli has an excellent hockey sense and poise. I like his positioning and how he uses his body to steal the puck. And this is why Bylsma is not afraid to throw him out there to shut down proven NHL forwards and thought he did well so far.

 

I would say this sample of his play is representative enough to at least warrant an opinion about what he can do in this league. Laughton, by comparison, has ways to go to prove himself. Again, Homer and Snider, being true to themselves, opted to go after a big name in the off-season instead of letting Laughton mature and gradually ramp up his ice time. Instead, his development in the NHL will have to wait. Not his fault by any means, but to say that Maatta has only accomplished marginally more than Laughton is not completely accurate in my opinion.

[terp]

@Mad Dog

I made a point of watching him play after posting a question about his development on another thread. And while I like what I see, please refer to flyercanuck's above post. Also please refer to the career of Ron Flockhart, who fizzled out after scoring a point a game as a rookie. It is too early to say Maata is anything more than a good prospect.

[Polaris922]

@terp

 

Prospects play in the minors.  i.e Laughton.  

 

@flyercanuck

 

So you're saying you would rather have Laughton in the OHL than Maatta... who would be tied for second in scoring on your defense (3/8/11), second to only Gustafsson in plus minus with a plus 3, tied with Timonen but with 12 less PIM...  while supporting mostly an AHL cast on defense and our 3-4 lines?  You're absolutely right...  there are many players who had a good rookie season then failed.  But there are far more who've had good rookie seasons and then excelled from there.  Far more in fact than had great OHL seasons and succeeded.  Not to mention... how many 19 year olds can perform as a defenseman at the NHL level?  

 

Hey, I'll all for supporting Laughton, and the way you guys describe him, he may be a quality third or even second center someday...  gritty and hard nosed...  willing to battle for the tough goals but still able to score the pretty ones, and with all the character a true NHL captain needs.  He may turn into that yet, proving a LOT of scouts wrong... which is why I keep saying let's revisit it in a few years.  But anybody who says they'd rather have him in the minors instead of a quality young NHL defenseman their team could really use right now... is just swallowing the Holmgren kool-aid.  

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1900680-breaking-down-olli-maattas-2013-14-calder-trophy-chances

 

I know it's Bleacher Report...  but that article is all over the web so I just used their version.  

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

 

I never said I'd rather have him in the minors. All I'm saying is you can't judge prospects (which is what both of them are) by one guy having a half season in the NHL. 

 

And I don't drink Homer kool-aid...you should know better than that.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

 

I never said I'd rather have him in the minors. All I'm saying is you can't judge prospects (which is what both of them are) by one guy having a half season in the NHL. 

 

And I don't drink Homer kool-aid...you should know better than that.

 

 

That's what surprises me so much on this comparison.  You've never been one to do it.  

 

After tonight's game, Maatta becomes ineligible for return to the London Knights.  He'll have 40 games in the NHL.  I just don't see how anyone can refer to a starting NHL defenseman who has started every single game 39 games into a season as a "prospect".  They stop being a prospect when they become NHL regulars.  And if Laughton is doing so well, and is so comparable, why wasn't he called up when Lacavalier went down?  Because he needs the time in the OHL yet.  Kudos to the Flyers for not rushing him along.  but kudos to Maatta for being able and ready to play at so young an age.  

 

"Regardless of whether or not he ends up with any hardware at the end of this campaign, there's absolutely no denying that the Penguins landed another special player in the waning selections of the first round when they picked Maatta at No. 22 in 2012."

[aziz]

@Polaris922

 

i think the idea is exactly what you said, revisit it in a few years.  people here seem confident that once maata and laughton are both NHL regulars, flyers fans will be glad that the choice was made to go with laughton.  and, i think the point that is confusing the issue, maata's current assignment (and success) in the nhl doesn't change that longer term thinking.  you're right, maata appears to have graduated from prospect status, as he is currently proving he is an NHLer ("prospect" obviously meaning "prospective", i.e., a "maybe", and maata doesn't seem to be that, at this point)...but we aren't talking about a pair of 27 yearolds where one of them not being in the NHL can be seen as a particular knock against him.  it'd be nice for the flyers if their recent draft pick was ready to contribute right now, but in the long run that really won't make any difference and isn't being added to the "right or wrong choice" equation.

 

i personally don't follow prospects outside of the NHL much, the separation from the junior game to the NHL game (or even AHL to NHL) is just way way too big for me see as a generally accurate indicator.  all of the scouting i've seen on laughton says he isn't anything mindblowing, certainly not miles beyond maata on draft day, so i kinda think the flyers maybe should have stocked up the blueline, but....we really won't know for half a decade who actually won with their pick.  and laughton has stepped beyond most scouts' expectations this season.  against 15 yearolds, but still.  we'll see.

Edited December 27, 2013 by aziz

[PhilsFanDrew]

That's what surprises me so much on this comparison.  You've never been one to do it.  

 

After tonight's game, Maatta becomes ineligible for return to the London Knights.  He'll have 40 games in the NHL.  I just don't see how anyone can refer to a starting NHL defenseman who has started every single game 39 games into a season as a "prospect".  They stop being a prospect when they become NHL regulars.  And if Laughton is doing so well, and is so comparable, why wasn't he called up when Lacavalier went down?  Because he needs the time in the OHL yet.  Kudos to the Flyers for not rushing him along.  but kudos to Maatta for being able and ready to play at so young an age.  

 

"Regardless of whether or not he ends up with any hardware at the end of this campaign, there's absolutely no denying that the Penguins landed another special player in the waning selections of the first round when they picked Maatta at No. 22 in 2012."

 

Because they are stacked at center.   You just keep Giroux on 1, Move B Schenn from wing to C on the 2nd line, and keep Couts on 3, Hall on 4.   With Vinny in the line up they move Schenn to mostly play wing which is not his natural position. 

Edited December 27, 2013 by PhilsFanDrew

[Polaris922]

@aziz

Concur.

@PhilsFanDrew

The point is... If he were playing as well as Maatta he'd be called up. Not like Adam Hall is irreplaceable. And you moved Schenn over already so...

It's irrelevant really. I'll be forced to watch Laughton's maturation anyway so we can revisit in a few years.

[Claude Monet]

Maybe Laughton is playing well enough to be on the team but don't want to burn a contract year....