And here we have two boneheads who did not get the crux of the statement. It was not written from the objective point of view. I was simply stating the fact that, at the end of the day, KJ knew far better what Laine could do in men's games than what Puljujärvi could do. I was in no way stating which one of them is better player at the moment. (If you want an answer to that, it's Laine to me, but I don't possess enough data to say by how much.)
It's actually a valid thought, how would things be if their positions had been reversed and Kärpät had won the semifinal series? Had Puljujärvi shined through the finals while Laine rips the U18s apart, would Pulju now be the youngest Finnish player ever to play in the WHCs while Laine sits at home? Who knows. Sometimes it could indeed be that things are left like this, for chance to decide. The fact remains however that at the end of it all, Jalonen did have more data about Laine's prowess in tough, competitive games than he did of Puljujärvi.
And while you keep telling yourself "it was because of his injuries", consider this: When has a player, of any age, been picked without zero men's NT games, zero NHL games, or - at the very least - good recent showings from the final series in some European league? Never. Only thing Puljujärvi had riding for him was that he was the media sweetheart, and by that extension, hot commodity among bar corner scouts.
When the time came to pick the team, Jalonen could somewhat comfortably tell what Laine could do, while Puljujärvi was more of an open question. That's it. Whether that was because of chance or because Jalonen was willingly ignoring Pulju does not really even interest me, I consider that semantics, but that is and was the dealbreaker between him and Laine. Perhaps undeservedly, but c'est la vie. With all these NHL additions flowing in, to me it looks like they would have had no room for more than one of 'em anyway.