Player Discussion: Patrik Laine IVever: a new hope? (Laine out of PAP, trade request still stands)

[Monstershockey]

The thing is, being an issue in the locker room doesn't need to be an issue with the players. It could be an issue with coaches also. Not saying Laine specifically, or Columbus for that matter, I am talking any player on any team. You can have a guy the players like, but can create a problem with coaches. If a guy doesn't buy in for example, he could influence the other players to not by in, and then you have just as big of a problem, even though the player is popular in the locker room.

 

[VT]

The thing is, being an issue in the locker room doesn't need to be an issue with the players. It could be an issue with coaches also. Not saying Laine specifically, or Columbus for that matter, I am talking any player on any team. You can have a guy the players like, but can create a problem with coaches. If a guy doesn't buy in for example, he could influence the other players to not by in, and then you have just as big of a problem, even though the player is popular in the locker room.

But he had no problems with neither Larsen nor Vincent. I mean, work ethic.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Something along these lines is probably the truth. In my speculation Laine has two priorities:

A) Play meaningful games, i.e. playoff team
B) Get a fresh start with no memories of whatever caused/contributed to his mental issues, i.e. different house, different streets, nothing that reminds him of the hard times (his dad dying presumably being the main thing)

i actually think the "meaningful games" thing is tied into the mental health part.

not saying that the team being bad contributed to the mental health issues, but i imagine it would've been hard for him to maintain or salvage the joy and love he had for hockey through his injuries/personal issues when the light at the end of the tunnel was getting back on the ice for a lottery team.

i doubt it has anything to do with the room, the city, the fans or the team, and everything to do with just wanting to regain his love of hockey by playing in games that matter again.

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

i actually think the "meaningful games" thing is tied into the mental health part.

not saying that the team being bad contributed to the mental health issues, but i imagine it would've been hard for him to maintain or salvage the joy and love he had for hockey through his injuries/personal issues when the light at the end of the tunnel was getting back on the ice for a lottery team.

i doubt it has anything to do with the room, the city, the fans or the team, and everything to do with just wanting to regain his love of hockey by playing in games that matter again.

Yeah for sure, I agree. Being in a losing environment doesn't do anybody much good, and I agree it's probably got very little to do with the other players or the city etc (or the coaches for that matter).

From what I can gather, Patty genuinely liked the city of Columbus and in a different situation it might've been an ideal environment for him. (And I still think there's a big unknown in how much his struggles off-ice have affected everything, I'm speculating that it's a big part of him wanting a fresh start.)

 

[Monstershockey]

But he had no problems with neither Larsen nor Vincent. I mean, work ethic.

Maybe not. Again, I was just talking in general as far as locker room issues go, not neccessarily saying Laine had a problem with coaching. Its moot anyways since there has been a coaching change. I was just pointing out locker room issues doen't have to be just player to player.

As an example, back in the early 90's our football team hired a new coach. At that time, our quarterback owned the locker room and the only way the coach was getting his message accross was to remove the player. It caused a huge backlash, mostly with the fans, but in the end, it needed to be done. It had nothing to do with player/player issues, but player/coach.

 

[VT]

Maybe not. Again, I was just talking in general as far as locker room issues go, not neccessarily saying Laine had a problem with coaching. Its moot anyways since there has been a coaching change. I was just pointing out locker room issues doen't have to be just player to player.

As an example, back in the early 90's our football team hired a new coach. At that time, our quarterback owned the locker room and the only way the coach was getting his message accross was to remove the player. It caused a huge backlash, mostly with the fans, but in the end, it needed to be done. It had nothing to do with player/player issues, but player/coach.

I agree with you. There are many similar even in sports as swimming, athletic etc. I think every knows it.

I only wrote this was not this problem too.

 

[Xoggz22]

I don’t recall that but I’ll look it up. If he said that then my first bit of speculation would seem to be accurate. I’m not staking my ground on either idea.

I'm 99% sure he said it in an interview with Bob McElligott and also was printed by Portzline. I know we want references, and I don't have them, but I am sure this was pretty much a direct quote. We want the guys that want to be here.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I'm 99% sure he said it in an interview with Bob McElligott and also was printed by Portzline. I know we want references, and I don't have them, but I am sure this was pretty much a direct quote. We want the guys that want to be here.

Thanks.

Based on whoever posted something along the lines of “Waddell doesn’t want (Laine) here,” I hypothesized a couple reasons why that might be. One of them was he’s taking a hard line. That would appear to be the case, presuming the couple folks who’ve shared what Waddell said.

 

[CBJ goalie]

No better place to prove your worth and overcome any mental health issues than a small market team. He's potentially putting more pressure on himself by looking for a change of scenery. Come back, prove your worth.
I'd hope the new coaching staff could sit down with him and gauge his interest and see how he fits in.

 

[NotWendell]

Playing for a winning organization would actually be LESS mentally taxing.

 

[CBJ goalie]

Playing for a winning organization would actually be LESS mentally taxing.

Sure, as the saying goes "WInning solves everything ".

 

[JacketFanInFL]

The bottom line is that Laine has a signed contract to play hockey for the Columbus Blue Jackets through 2026.

He put in a request to be traded. A trade request can be approved or denied the same way my date request for Dua Lipa can be approved or denied. Sometimes in life, you don't get what you want.

At this point, he has a couple of choices:
1. He can choose not to play and not get paid.
2. He can be a detriment to the locker room and throw a fit until he's dumped.
3. He can suck it up and play out his contract in Columbus.
4. He can start playing here, improve his marketability, and re-visit trade discussions at the deadline or in the offseason.

Columbus has zero obligation to dump him for next to nothing, and then pay him to play against us for the next two years. If I am Waddell, I am telling him to find a rental in Columbus after he sold his condo, and get ready to report to training camp.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The bottom line is that Laine has a signed contract to play hockey for the Columbus Blue Jackets through 2026.

He put in a request to be traded. A trade request can be approved or denied the same way my date request for Dua Lipa can be approved or denied. Sometimes in life, you don't get what you want.

At this point, he has a couple of choices:
1. He can choose not to play and not get paid.
2. He can be a detriment to the locker room and throw a fit until he's dumped.
3. He can suck it up and play out his contract in Columbus.
4. He can start playing here, improve his marketability, and re-visit trade discussions at the deadline or in the offseason.

Columbus has zero obligation to dump him for next to nothing, and then pay him to play against us for the next two years. If I am Waddell, I am telling him to find a rental in Columbus after he sold his condo, and get ready to report to training camp.

All this exact same stuff, but with an amicable disposition rather than an adversarial one.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1823743143180656994

 

[Cowumbus]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1823743143180656994

So, will we be giving Laine top minutes regardless of the impact on the team (again ), in order to up his trade value? Or if he “earns” 3rd line ice time, will we play him on the 3rd line? Hope he has a good season and can be moved soon, this saga needs to end.

Columbus has zero obligation to dump him for next to nothing, and then pay him to play against us for the next two years. If I am Waddell, I am telling him to find a rental in Columbus after he sold his condo, and get ready to report to training camp.

Zero obligation, sure -> but potentially justification on why moving him sooner than later is better for the team.

 

[CannonFire1]

All this exact same stuff, but with an amicable disposition rather than an adversarial one.

Are you suggesting a velvet hammer?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Are you suggesting a velvet hammer?

If by velvet hammer you mean acting like a group of adults with respect for each other instead of like a middle school principal giving three days detention then yes.

 

[VT]

So, will we be giving Laine top minutes regardless of the impact on the team (again ), in order to up his trade value? Or if he “earns” it, will we play him on the 3rd line? Hope he has a good season and can be moved soon, this saga needs to end.

Zero obligation, sure -> but potentially justification on why moving him sooner than later is better for the team.

Why? GMs aren't stupid, they'll watch his play, how he leads his line, play without the puck, plays offensively. Especially if he plays against the best lines. Also if he would be the best our player what then? Put him to the 4th line?

Btw, if he stays, we should have three strong lines with the same time. The team needs to play at a high tempo to have a chance to play in the PO.

 

[Cowumbus]

Why?

Why what?

GMs aren't stupid, they'll watch his play, how he leads his line, play without the puck, plays offensively. Especially if he plays against the best lines. Also if he would be the best our player what then? Put him to the 4th line?

it’s really not that hard. Put him in the role he has earned. The point is, I’m not giving him anything, especially not trying to work the lines so Laine is in a position to succeed (as his fanboys often suggest) -> Do what’s best for the team.

 

[VT]

Why what?

it’s really not that hard. Put him in the role he has earned. The point is, I’m not giving him anything, especially not trying to work the lines so Laine is in a position to succeed (as his fanboys often suggest) -> Do what’s best for the team.

I agree. But that goes for everyone, even Gaudreau, Monahan and Jenner if only forwards. Remember last season when Laine was playing poorly, sitting in the third period. I'm not talking about the others. But Johnny only once, yet he had a large number of games where he played awful. That goes for Severson as well. He also only sat in the third period once, even though he deserved to in many games.

It's best for the team to play fast, be able to forcheck, and at the same time make every line dangerous.

 

[Marioesque]

The point is, I’m not giving him anything, especially not trying to work the lines so Laine is in a position to succeed (as his fanboys often suggest) -> Do what’s best for the team.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Team is at it's best when it's individuals are performing at their best and contributing through their strengths. That's just good management of assets.

It's a weird thought process that NOT putting Laine in position to succeed would make the team better. That makes no sense. The success Laine has is strictly tied to the team he represents. His goals are counted for the team.

 

[majormajor]

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Team is at it's best when it's individuals are performing at their best and contributing through their strengths. That's just good management of assets.

The part folks are often leaving out is that "putting player x in a position to succeed" often means that player y will be in less of a position to succeed. You only have so many offensive minutes to go around, only so many PP minutes.

It's not my money, but personally I think the team might be better off just eating half of his salary and getting it over with. No drama, easier for the coach to focus on the long term pieces, we've got our young guns getting the offensive minutes they need, and very importantly we remove the risk that Laine gets injured again, as he has at the beginning of several seasons. The return is the least important part of this equation.

 

[CannonFire1]

The part folks are often leaving out is that "putting player x in a position to succeed" often means that player y will be in less of a position to succeed. You only have so many offensive minutes to go around, only so many PP minutes.

It's not my money, but personally I think the team might be better off just eating half of his salary and getting it over with. No drama, easier for the coach to focus on the long term pieces, we've got our young guns getting the offensive minutes they need, and very importantly we remove the risk that Laine gets injured again, as he has at the beginning of several seasons. The return is the least important part of this equation.

I agree with this. That's why I think a reasonable "meh" return would likely be accepted. I think the team is looking for a way to move on that doesn't require them to attach high value assets or retain 50%. They want to turn the page as much as Laine does.

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

Personally I would just ship him out for future considerations at this point so we can get out of all this bickering in lord knows how many threads on HFB. It's getting ridiculous to rehash the same points over and over and over again... and I still continue to read it all. Gah.

 

[VT]

The part folks are often leaving out is that "putting player x in a position to succeed" often means that player y will be in less of a position to succeed. You only have so many offensive minutes to go around, only so many PP minutes.

It's not my money, but personally I think the team might be better off just eating half of his salary and getting it over with. No drama, easier for the coach to focus on the long term pieces, we've got our young guns getting the offensive minutes they need, and very importantly we remove the risk that Laine gets injured again, as he has at the beginning of several seasons. The return is the least important part of this equation.

Waddell can't afford it. Otherwise, not only other players could take advantage of it, but GMs of other teams as well. Which would weaken his position. If everyone understood his offer to Montreal for Kotkaniemi, for a player like Laine who is not a cancer to the team not.