Confirmed Signing with Link: [PHI] Scott Laughton signs extension with the Flyers (5 years, $3M AAV)

[phlocky]

Were you the one who made all the Giroux for Galchecnyuk threads?

No, I had proposed trading G to the Preds before they traded Weber.

 

[phlocky]

Also, for those complaining about the term/amount, it's still a very tradable contract even right now. I'm certain there would a number of teams lining up to take him on at just 3 mil even for the next 5 years. Neither of those would scare a team away.

This is one of the few things Fletch got right.

 

[saintunspecified]

Then today, he signed a bottom six player to a 5 year deal lol. If he had a legit plan to make impact moves in the offseason, the last thing you do is commit 5 years and 3 mil to a player who's role will be undefined after such a "shake up." This Laughton signing tells me one thing--Fletcher obviously has no true plan--he's just making convenient, safe plays that fall into his lap and don't move the club forward.

I don't know whether the GM has a plan, and I agree with a lot of your points about the vets, but I find it difficult to conceive of a plan where a player like Laughton does not fit. He's a pain in the ass, competitive as hell, and versatile. He *led* the Flyers in goals in the bubble. If you're rebuilding, a guy like him helps maintain a culture. Meanwhile, if you end up wanting to trade him, no problem. The assets you get back would be gravy.

I would have loved for NYI to acquire him instead of Zajac. I'd have wanted to sign him to replace Cizikas (who I think has lost a step). But I really doubt that Philly was interested in seeing his rather unpleasant mug in an opponent's jersey for 5 years.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

I mean, it's still better than Brandon Tanev's deal so I'm content I guess

 

[Boxscore]

I don't know whether the GM has a plan, and I agree with a lot of your points about the vets, but I find it difficult to conceive of a plan where a player like Laughton does not fit.

See, here's the thing about Laughton--he had a very good year in a contract year. And, yes, he is a good, versatile player. In isolation, signing him is not a problem, but in the big picture it is. For years, the Flyers have lacked true impact players, and when they become available, it's the same old story with the Flyers--"we're up against the cap."

Since the salary cap was initiated, the Flyers have been obsessed with jumping the gun and signing average-to-good players to too much term or cap hit, then claim there's no money left over to add impact players. And it's convenient to say, "who cares about the 3 million or 5 years" until you want to bid on a player like Laine, Forsberg, etc. and you have 150k under the cap to maneuver. Regardless of regime, the Flyers continue to make the same mistakes, and it's nauseating. In the offseason they rushed out to re-sign Hagg and Braun--for what? Look at this team. You could have filled their spots with waiver fodder or AHL players and been just as good this season.

So, is Laughton a bad player? Of course not. But this is more "ready, shoot, aim" by the Flyers. They should be looking to completely revamp this team in the offseason--and they'll need as much flexibility as possible to do so--and they just committed 3 mil and 5 years to a bottom-6 forward who is not essential towards turning this club into a serious contender.

You address the big moves first then round-out your team with the best available options left over that fit your budget--you don't spend your budget on "okay players" then say you have no money to add star power.

In 2 years, Laughton will be the new Matt Read, and we'll have 3 years left of his deal.