As I said, the line hasn't worked at all throughout the tournament. It's been the most dysfunctional line for Finland overall. As such, the coaching choice of making only a single change(That still didn't fix it at all, likely a downgrade) is bad. As for Laine getting chances, a couple of them he did generate almost entirely on his own, but even with them the line wasn't functioning well. How many would he have had with a properly functioning line?
The line itself makes little sense. Aho is a support player, Barkov is a support player, Laine would be the finisher. There's no actual driver. Laine could drive play in the future but right now he cannot yet do it. Barkov would need 2 proper playmakers, as would Laine. Aho could function as a 3rd line finisher just fine and likely is a better option for that than most other Finns. But together they wouldn't work.
Then we get to the bolded. First of all, I disagree with that. Second, you have to maximize your assets, especially if your team has as few goal-scorers as they do. If you don't make your lines so that your only functional goal-scorers can be in the best possible position to succeed, you end up with games like the last one. It has nothing to do with "deserving" ice time, because in the end Finland has scored 1 goal in 2 games with their potentially best 2 goal-scorers stuck in bottom 6 on a line that doesn't work.
And heck, it's not like Finland even dominated that game. That's just an illusion. Against a Sweden that's playing like this Finland should have crushed them.
Sweden won in 5v5 Corsi. 54 vs 47. Not very dominant to me.
The only period Finland won was the third. Sweden almost doubled Finland's 5v5 corsi in the second period. Finland also had 24 5v5 shots and Sweden had 25.