I was worried about it, and I debated it with others (and myself), but they should have kept Bjorkstrand over Laine.
I would have kept both.
There's a long list of other players - Roslovic, Nyquist, Boqvist, Bean, etc.. that could have been shopped instead. Maybe some of them weren't moveable but I do not believe that none of them were.
Laine isn’t a very good hockey player. He’s a fantastic shooter and offensive weapon, with an ability to backcheck, but that’s it.
A lot of games he is a drain on the team, yes. To get the most out of Laine you pretty much have to build a team that doesn't need him. Where he can take you from good to great. So let's really hope we can get to good in the next couple years.
He and Gaudreau have no chemistry. And that’s not likely to change.
We really have no idea. Three games? You really believe you can suddenly forecast the coming years based on a smattering of minutes together when the team is getting wiped by a couple of buzzsaw teams?
Bjorkstrand, not as dangerous in the OZ, is still a good player in his own right. He would have been a perfect fit with Gaudreau considering he would have battled for pucks and got them to Johnny.
Whether with Gaudreau or not, Bjorkstrand could have gotten us some offensive zone time and give our boys a break. Defending is exhausting. We have no way to win momentum in games like this.
I can't believe the people who cling to Bjorkstrand like he was a future hall of famer.
There is too much talent on the roster to play this sh*tty. This team was sh*tty when Laine was hurt. It's still sh^tty with him playing. Everyone wants a scapegoat.
Too much talent maybe betrays the misunderstanding. This isn't about talent level.
Bjorkstrand isn't an elite player. He is a player type that we are now completely lacking in. We had one of him and now we have none, nothing left but a monoculture of one-and-done rush players that don't have the skillsets to turn momentum in our favor.
