One of the most important talents in professional sports is availability.
In his previous 8 seasons Laine has only played two full seasons. As players age their durability, and resulting availability, lessens.
Some here are also seemingly allergic to the concept of foreseeability.
True. But it is just one. Sports is also a form of entertainment, where value of things are measured how entertaining they're now. In case of PL, it is indeed just to point out and take account to his past from the perspective of 'broken commodity', but when doing that, one must also point out his resilience to overcome adversity: it's not first time for him to rise from the ash. That is important part of that 'foreseeability' too.
Then, hoping for good draft picks is OK, and natural urge, but when valuing such things and totally unseen and not yet materialized potential of a future player that high over proven players playing now, you can't see what happens now leads easily to a maelstrom of perpetual rebuilding. Picks are nice and all, but that niceness tend to get too shortsighted for purposes of real rebuilding. Instant gratification of potentially game-changing, generational pick blinds too often to actually focus to develop those pieces and assets a team already have.
Patrik is certainly valuable asset also from rebuilding purposes, but that's because he is rare talent of very small group of comparable peers. With him comes also a risk, but the risk involved is at least someway 'foreseeable' unlike in cases of potential future development of player of pick number xx of 202X.
In a goal scoring game of hockey it is foreseeable that Patrik scores goals with very high efficiency, entertainment value. Goals, you know, are the immediate objective of the game. Actual goals, not potential or hypothetical ones.
I do not disagree per se, but there are no point to promote only narratives that lead to a mind set of perpetual rebuild, and never ending draft pick ballet. I personally find that not that entertaining.