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

[Farmboy Patty]

Johnny Hockey and Laine will tear up the league. I feel bad for the defensemen – who are you going to cover? JH or PL? You can't give any of them any room or the puck is in the net. This team will be extremely fun to watch next season.

 

[Byrral]

$10m for 8 years for Laine? Too risky for me. Inconsistency and injuries prevent me from supporting this number.

I support a 5 year contract at $44m or lower if possible. It would put his AAV above younger players like Chabot, Heiskenen and Brady Tkuchuck and below others like Kaprizov, Makar and Rantanen.

I was a year off on term back in May (4 years is good) but the AAV was almost dead on. Now Laine can prove he deserves a bigger "next" contract after he lives up to this one or he can underperform and be on his way out. I am glad this is done and Laine will be here for a few years. I really like the direction of the team now and Laine can get even better. Jarmo has mixed in a couple head scratchers with some big gains. Gonna need a couple years for the kids to gain experience and catch up especially on the defensive end but things look promising.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Going to get 8.75 for 6 years

Hey MajorMajor... maybe you & I should be GM's,

 

[Halberdier]

Hey MajorMajor... maybe you & I should be GM's,

Maybe you should, but 4*8.7M equals more like 6*9.5M, esp. now when cap is expected to rise in about 3 years. Or in other words: there was no way Laine's agent would have been recommending 6*8.75M contract for his client.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Maybe you should, but 4*8.7M equals more like 6*9.5M, esp. now when cap is expected to rise in about 3 years. Or in other words: there was no way Laine's agent would have been recommending 6*8.75M contract for his client.

Oh.. let me have my moment.. pause, clears throat, Thank you

 

[Youngguns1380]

 

[Farmboy Patty]

"The hardest thing to do in the NHL is to score goals"
We'll, our top guns have the tools and the drive to do that. I'm putting my money on Johnny and Laine to tear up the league next season – it just feels like magic is going to happen when they'll be on the ice together. I'm predicting career highs for both players if they stay healthy!

 

[thebus88]

"The hardest thing to do in the NHL is to score goals"
We'll, our top guns have the tools and the drive to do that. I'm putting my money on Johnny and Laine to tear up the league next season – it just feels like magic is going to happen when they'll be on the ice together. I'm predicting career highs for both players if they stay healthy!

Scoring goals is “the hardest thing to do” because most other teams, the BEST teams, are FOCUSING on defense just as much as offense.

NO, I’m not saying focusing MORE on defense or considering that as MORE important, but, GOOD teams see them as EQUAL in importance. Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against. Sometimes the issue isn’t about “drive”, look at players like Voracek and Sillinger, their issue on defense aren’t about “drive”, just actual lack of defensive awareness.

That said, the question about “drive” IS there “throughout” the lineup. From Werenski/Laine to Roslovic/Boqvist. I have no opinion on Gaudreau, or if similar complaints from CGY fans are prevalent or justified.

As good as Gaudreau/Laine/Werenski are, this team is nowhere near as deep skill/roster wise, in comparison to the current top teams in the NHL and past GREAT(safe is death and Duchene/Panarin teams) CBJ teams. The point is they ARE NOT in the position to simply “outscore” teams. Maybe in 2-3 years, maybe not.

You guys blow by the concept or thinking of how much offense actually results FROM good defense. The past mindset/motto of “Safe is Death”, wasn’t describing just an overly offensive mindset/idea. It had to do with an ATTACK strategy from BOTH the offense and the defense.

We don’t have the team defense or mobile enough defensemen to play an aggressive attacking style defense, so instead we are left with this half commitment 5 man rotation thing, that seemingly only about 1/3 of the team can adapt to and be effective with.

Again, the problem with the CBJ isn’t them scoring goals. I see all this FOCUS on how many points Laine/Gaudreau put up, and no questions on any possible changes in their game or on the improvements of the team that is needed, and the impact that will have on the SUCCESS of THE TEAM.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Scoring goals is “the hardest thing to do” because most other teams, the BEST teams, are FOCUSING on defense just as much as offense.

NO, I’m not saying focusing MORE on defense or considering that as MORE important, but, GOOD teams see them as EQUAL in importance. Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against. Sometimes the issue isn’t about “drive”, look at players like Voracek and Sillinger, their issue on defense aren’t about “drive”, just actual lack of defensive awareness.

That said, the question about “drive” IS there “throughout” the lineup. From Werenski/Laine to Roslovic/Boqvist. I have no opinion on Gaudreau, or if similar complaints from CGY fans are prevalent or justified.

As good as Gaudreau/Laine/Werenski are, this team is nowhere near as deep skill/roster wise, in comparison to the current top teams in the NHL and past GREAT(safe is death and Duchene/Panarin teams) CBJ teams. The point is they ARE NOT in the position to simply “outscore” teams. Maybe in 2-3 years, maybe not.

You guys blow by the concept or thinking of how much offense actually results FROM good defense. The past mindset/motto of “Safe is Death”, wasn’t describing just an overly offensive mindset/idea. It had to do with an ATTACK strategy from BOTH the offense and the defense.

We don’t have the team defense or mobile enough defensemen to play an aggressive attacking style defense, so instead we are left with this half commitment 5 man rotation thing, that seemingly only about 1/3 of the team can adapt to and be effective with.

Again, the problem with the CBJ isn’t them scoring goals. I see all this FOCUS on how many points Laine/Gaudreau put up, and no questions on any possible changes in their game or on the improvements of the team that is needed, and the impact that will have on the SUCCESS of THE TEAM.

1) Please identify at least one poster who has suggested the team would be successful being last in goals against.

2) This whole matter is a coaching thing, right?

 

[Marioesque]

I'm sure we would all prefer a stronger defense. It will be in a few years as all the young players grow and get better. And as Lasse above pointed out, it's a coaching issue to create a system that works. To get the best balance out of the pieces that are available. For now, Jackets have to score a lot to win because of defensive/goaltending woes, nobody is suggesting those should be ignored.

 

[thebus88]

1) Please identify at least one poster who has suggested the team would be successful being last in goals against.

2) This whole matter is a coaching thing, right?

Well I think there are widely varying ideas of what the team being “successful” would even look like. 1 of my main issues is that the success of the team and/or goals against is seemingly not of actual concern to a big chunk of people, especially around this thread. How many points Laine gets or how good the offense is, seems to be what the focus is, and I have made it known that I have a problem with that.

The counter is, “There’s no right way to build a winning team”….which means what exactly? That the defense is fine?

And you ask who says the team would be successful being last in goals against. I mean, you say “1 poster”, but, do you mean that?? That quickly turn into “just 1 person”. I have been debating with between 1-3+ people regarding the concept of goals against literally not being as valuable as goals scored, and arguments that the team (or certain leading players) don’t need to focus more on defense, but, that simply scoring more goals would bring the team…wait for it….success.

Look at how close they were to being last in goals against just last year. While there are plenty of people who acknowledge the teams defensive problems, there are plenty of people who believe the team’s defensive focus is fine and that they just need to score MORE goals, and that since “there is no right way to build a winning team”, I’m assuming they don’t care how close the team just was to being last in the league in goals against, and don’t think it has much of an impact on the teams success.

I have current issues not only with lineup decisions and strategies being used last year, but also, the fact that our coaching staff seemingly have their hands tied and mouths gagged, when it comes to the things NEEDED to hold a team accountable in order to become successful.

When does the excuse, “That was last year”, morph into, “That was last month”, or, “That was last game”. ??

What WAS the disagreement between Larsen and Laine about? Let me guess, that’s the past, just forget it.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Well I think there are widely varying ideas of what the team being “successful” would even look like. 1 of my main issues is that the success of the team and/or goals against is seemingly not of actual concern to a big chunk of people, especially around this thread. How many points Laine gets or how good the offense is, seems to be what the focus is, and I have made it known that I have a problem with that.

The counter is, “There’s no right way to build a winning team”….which means what exactly? That the defense is fine?

And you ask who says the team would be successful being last in goals against. I mean, you say “1 poster”, but, do you mean that?? That quickly turn into “just 1 person”. I have been debating with between 1-3+ people regarding the concept of goals against literally not being as valuable as goals scored, and arguments that the team (or certain leading players) don’t need to focus more on defense, but, that simply scoring more goals would bring the team…wait for it….success.

Look at how close they were to being last in goals against just last year. While there are plenty of people who acknowledge the teams defensive problems, there are plenty of people who believe the team’s defensive focus is fine and that they just need to score MORE goals, and that since “there is no right way to build a winning team”, I’m assuming they don’t care how close the team just was to being last in the league in goals against, and don’t think it has much of an impact on the teams success.

I have current issues not only with lineup decisions and strategies being used last year, but also, the fact that our coaching staff seemingly have their hands tied and mouths gagged, when it comes to the things NEEDED to hold a team accountable in order to become successful.

When does the excuse, “That was last year”, morph into, “That was last month”, or, “That was last game”. ??

What WAS the disagreement between Larsen and Laine about? Let me guess, that’s the past, just forget it.

When you said it seemed like some people wanted the team to be last in goals against, I wondered who it was that was advocating for that. I still don’t know.

The question about coaching is that it seems like you’re saying the scheme does not suit the players. Is that a coaching problem? Or is that not what you’re saying?

 

[JacketsDavid]

1) Please identify at least one poster who has suggested the team would be successful being last in goals against.

2) This whole matter is a coaching thing, right?

or #2 I would put it as a lack of accountability. Knowing the way Larsen played I can't imagine he just says "don't worry about playing D".
I think it's the fact that quite a few of the players just are more interested in the offensive zone, and they choose not to listen to the coach. Which also tells me that at least for the time being upper management wanted to get as far away from Tort's system as possible - hence the reason they brought in a lot of puck moving defensemen.

Maybe I am wrong and maybe Lars and the FO really think they can win by not being defensively responsible, but I would expect there to be more defensive accountability this season, but I do think it will take a good portion of the season to see the results.

 

[Fro]

Well I think there are widely varying ideas of what the team being “successful” would even look like. 1 of my main issues is that the success of the team and/or goals against is seemingly not of actual concern to a big chunk of people, especially around this thread. How many points Laine gets or how good the offense is, seems to be what the focus is, and I have made it known that I have a problem with that.

The counter is, “There’s no right way to build a winning team”….which means what exactly? That the defense is fine?

And you ask who says the team would be successful being last in goals against. I mean, you say “1 poster”, but, do you mean that?? That quickly turn into “just 1 person”. I have been debating with between 1-3+ people regarding the concept of goals against literally not being as valuable as goals scored, and arguments that the team (or certain leading players) don’t need to focus more on defense, but, that simply scoring more goals would bring the team…wait for it….success.

Look at how close they were to being last in goals against just last year. While there are plenty of people who acknowledge the teams defensive problems, there are plenty of people who believe the team’s defensive focus is fine and that they just need to score MORE goals, and that since “there is no right way to build a winning team”, I’m assuming they don’t care how close the team just was to being last in the league in goals against, and don’t think it has much of an impact on the teams success.

I have current issues not only with lineup decisions and strategies being used last year, but also, the fact that our coaching staff seemingly have their hands tied and mouths gagged, when it comes to the things NEEDED to hold a team accountable in order to become successful.

When does the excuse, “That was last year”, morph into, “That was last month”, or, “That was last game”. ??

What WAS the disagreement between Larsen and Laine about? Let me guess, that’s the past, just forget it.

Translation: I can't answer your question @Double-Shift Lasse

 

[thebus88]

When you said it seemed like some people anted they team together be last in goals against, I wondered who it was that was advocating for that. I still don’t know.

The question about coaching is that it seems like you’re saying the scheme does not suit the players. Is that a coaching problem? Or is that not what you’re saying?

There are people who don’t see fixing the goals against as the most important thing that will keep the current CBJ team from becoming “successful”. 20 goals from last place last year. My idea on improvement of the team, would be to focus on the things you are WORST at, and I disagree with much of this “natural progression” that many people are planning on regarding the current guys, and hate to actually wait for Jiricek/Mateychuk/Ceulemans to actually be ready to make an “impact” at the NHL level, when that might not actually ever happen.

While some people thought it would be fine, and that Werenski and Gavrikov were legit #1 and #2 guys, the majority thought there were too many younger offensive minded defenseman and there would be plenty of issues on defense. The problem is that I think it was somehow WORSE than anybody could imagine, and that many are downplaying JUST how bad it was and just how small of a chance there is that some miraculous growth of awareness/intelligence will just happen with most guys.

While Gudbranson will absolutely help the defense, he does seemingly look to fill the same roles and play a “similar” game to both Peeke and Gavrikov. While Peeke is a bit quicker than the other 2, all 3 you could argue are below average or barely average mobility/skating wise.

I don’t know if the problem is that the “scheme does not suit the players”, or that this group of players wouldn’t fit in ANY scheme. The “man on man” defense clearly doesn’t work with the group we have. I’m not sure what “scheme” would work, it would’ve helped for them to mix it up a bit more instead of just sticking with what didn’t work.

Other than a lack of toughness and lack of defensive AWARENESS across the entire roster, another thing we might have overlooked and still have a problem with, isn’t necessarily the “offensive mindedness” of the defense, but the simple lack of overall mobility.

I don’t think any of our defensemen could be considered “great” skaters, even Werenski or my homeboy Bean. All of them sacrifice other things to bring forward their strengths. This hurts when it comes to being able to cover for your or other players deficiencies and mistakes, something that unfortunately the team isn’t lacking.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

There are people who don’t see fixing the goals against as the most important thing that will keep the current CBJ team from becoming “successful”. 20 goals from last place last year. My idea on improvement of the team, would be to focus on the things you are WORST at, and I disagree with much of this “natural progression” that many people are planning on regarding the current guys, and hate to actually wait for Jiricek/Mateychuk/Ceulemans to actually be ready to make an “impact” at the NHL level, when that might not actually ever happen.

While some people thought it would be fine, and that Werenski and Gavrikov were legit #1 and #2 guys, the majority thought there were too many younger offensive minded defenseman and there would be plenty of issues on defense. The problem is that I think it was somehow WORSE than anybody could imagine, and that many are downplaying JUST how bad it was and just how small of a chance there is that some miraculous growth of awareness/intelligence will just happen with most guys.

While Gudbranson will absolutely help the defense, he does seemingly look to fill the same roles and play a “similar” game to both Peeke and Gavrikov. While Peeke is a bit quicker than the other 2, all 3 you could argue are below average or barely average mobility/skating wise.

I don’t know if the problem is that the “scheme does not suit the players”, or that this group of players wouldn’t fit in ANY scheme. The “man on man” defense clearly doesn’t work with the group we have. I’m not sure what “scheme” would work, it would’ve helped for them to mix it up a bit more instead of just sticking with what didn’t work.

Other than a lack of toughness and lack of defensive AWARENESS across the entire roster, another thing we might have overlooked and still have a problem with, isn’t necessarily the “offensive mindedness” of the defense, but the simple lack of overall mobility.

I don’t think any of our defensemen could be considered “great” skaters, even Werenski or my homeboy Bean. All of them sacrifice other things to bring forward their strengths. This hurts when it comes to being able to cover for your or other players deficiencies and mistakes, something that unfortunately the team isn’t lacking.

We've gone way off topic here but I'm going to ask anyway.

Since it seems that awareness and mobility seem to be an issue with several of the defensemen, to unique degrees with each, and since this appears to be the blieline we're going to have for at least this year, how would you suggest they "focus on the things you are WORST at"?

 

[VT]

We answer the question of how many defensemen were able to play defense last season. Because system is one thing, but I doubt one of Lars' tactics was to leave the middle of the defensive zone open so the super had plenty of room to cross pass. Alternatively, playing in front of the goalie when you're supposedly defensive, tough players weren't able to push players away. Look at the defenders support under the forchecking. In short, other than Gudbranson we don't have a tough defenseman (and even then I'm not sure about his defensive ability), Werenski, Bean and partially Boqvist (he should be holding the puck less) know how to play the puck. And next? Either wait for the development of the youngsters, including Peeke, or make trades.

Btw, don't forget injuries. Werenski played 68 games, Bean 67 games, Boqvist 52 games. On the other side Peeke 82 games, Kukan 41 games, Carlsson 38 games, Bayreuther 43 games.

And still one thing. Lars hadn't too much experiences. It's normal, I think it'll be better in the next season.

 

[Ippenator]

Scoring goals is “the hardest thing to do” because most other teams, the BEST teams, are FOCUSING on defense just as much as offense.

NO, I’m not saying focusing MORE on defense or considering that as MORE important, but, GOOD teams see them as EQUAL in importance. Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against. Sometimes the issue isn’t about “drive”, look at players like Voracek and Sillinger, their issue on defense aren’t about “drive”, just actual lack of defensive awareness.

That said, the question about “drive” IS there “throughout” the lineup. From Werenski/Laine to Roslovic/Boqvist. I have no opinion on Gaudreau, or if similar complaints from CGY fans are prevalent or justified.

As good as Gaudreau/Laine/Werenski are, this team is nowhere near as deep skill/roster wise, in comparison to the current top teams in the NHL and past GREAT(safe is death and Duchene/Panarin teams) CBJ teams. The point is they ARE NOT in the position to simply “outscore” teams. Maybe in 2-3 years, maybe not.

You guys blow by the concept or thinking of how much offense actually results FROM good defense. The past mindset/motto of “Safe is Death”, wasn’t describing just an overly offensive mindset/idea. It had to do with an ATTACK strategy from BOTH the offense and the defense.

We don’t have the team defense or mobile enough defensemen to play an aggressive attacking style defense, so instead we are left with this half commitment 5 man rotation thing, that seemingly only about 1/3 of the team can adapt to and be effective with.

Again, the problem with the CBJ isn’t them scoring goals. I see all this FOCUS on how many points Laine/Gaudreau put up, and no questions on any possible changes in their game or on the improvements of the team that is needed, and the impact that will have on the SUCCESS of THE TEAM.

Lets make it really short: Scoring clearly more goals than the opponents will do it.

With James Hetfield’s voice: ”And nothing else matters…”

 

[thebus88]

Translation: I can't answer your question @Double-Shift Lasse

Quite frankly, what I said was twisted into something more.

Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against.

I also stand by what I said. There is a small contingent who stand by the idea that more offense either is or can be the answer. “Suggested”, “implied”, “infer”, I don’t know. What I do know is that if the CBJ lead the league in goals this upcoming year, it would be considered a “successful season”, no matter what to some people. Some people are content with the play from last year, when the team was WAY closer to last in GA than they were to the top in GF.

That’s the point. The focus on scoring more goals. My HYPOTHETICAL/made up idea of a team both having the highest GF and GA in the league has what odds of happening?? f***ing zero?? If anybody can find a comparable season, please.

Lets make it really short: Scoring clearly more goals than the opponents will do it.

With James Hetfield’s voice: ”And nothing else matters…”

Found 1

 

[VT]

I also suggest moving Laine and Gaudreau in different lines. Yes, I may be opposed that the lines won't be as dangerous this way, but in the case of one outstanding one, opponents can deploy forchecking on the defenders. Besides, we don't currently have a center like Lindholm who is very underrated. But there is one more problem. Roslovic. Laine is perfect with Jenner, a center who can play without the puck, quality defense would be more ideal to Gaudreau. For me, the options are Voracek -- Jenner -- Laine, Gaudreau -- Sillinger -- Nyquist lines. But in that case, Jack would play third line with Texier and one of the Foudy/Johnson/Danforth/Marchenko/Chinakhov five. I don't know if he'd like it.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

I also suggest moving Laine and Gaudreau in different lines. Yes, I may be opposed that the lines won't be as dangerous this way, but in the case of one outstanding one, opponents can deploy forchecking on the defenders. Besides, we don't currently have a center like Lindholm who is very underrated. But there is one more problem. Roslovic. Laine is perfect with Jenner, a center who can play without the puck, quality defense would be more ideal to Gaudreau. For me, the options are Voracek -- Jenner -- Laine, Gaudreau -- Sillinger -- Nyquist lines. But in that case, Jack would play third line with Texier and one of the Foudy/Johnson/Danforth/Marchenko/Chinakhov five. I don't know if he'd like it.

Gaudreau's game IMO works best when he's playing with a puck hound on his line, so Jenner is a perfectly good fit to play between him and Laine. Personally, I'd like to see something like this:

13 - 38 - 29
42 - 34 - 93
KJ - 96 - 14
86 - 7 - 17

Tex has earned an opportunity to show what he can do in a top six role IMO, and would compliment the chemistry we saw last year between Sillinger and Voracek.

I'm lower than most on Roslovic, but I think if he's on a line where his role is to carry the puck and shoot more than pass, he'll be solid. Probably a good place for KJ to start.

Marchenko on the fourth line should be fine, too. Texier still produced in that role. Lars trusts Kuraly and Danforth, Marchenko adds a lot of what Texier did and would be able to get his feet wet in that role.

Robinson would be the 13th F at that point, but could easily swap in with some of the younger guys or give a guy like Jake a night off every so often.

 

[Marioesque]

There is a small contingent who stand by the idea that more offense either is or can be the answer. “Suggested”, “implied”, “infer”, I don’t know.

Of course it can be. Games start at 0-0 and the one with the most goals after 60 minutes or 65 minutes wins. The more time you spend in the opponents end of the ice, the harder it is for them to score against you. It's pretty clear how important goal scoring is in hockey, it decides who gets the win. I don't know why you're struggling with acknowledging that.

 

[VT]

Gaudreau's game IMO works best when he's playing with a puck hound on his line, so Jenner is a perfectly good fit to play between him and Laine. Personally, I'd like to see something like this:

13 - 38 - 29
42 - 34 - 93
KJ - 96 - 14
86 - 7 - 17

Tex has earned an opportunity to show what he can do in a top six role IMO, and would compliment the chemistry we saw last year between Sillinger and Voracek.

I'm lower than most on Roslovic, but I think if he's on a line where his role is to carry the puck and shoot more than pass, he'll be solid. Probably a good place for KJ to start.

Marchenko on the fourth line should be fine, too. Texier still produced in that role. Lars trusts Kuraly and Danforth, Marchenko adds a lot of what Texier did and would be able to get his feet wet in that role.

Robinson would be the 13th F at that point, but could easily swap in with some of the younger guys or give a guy like Jake a night off every so often.

Robinson is better than Danforth, excellent for/backchecking. Marchenko has to play.
It was Chinakhov -- Sillinger -- Voracek line. It isn't fact Texier should have chemistry with them.
And again, the first line - strong. Others not. If Silly would progress more, take around 40-50 points, it would be very good but we don't know his future. But even in your lines Roslo is in the third line.

 

[thebus88]

Of course it can be. Games start at 0-0 and the one with the most goals after 60 minutes or 65 minutes wins. The more time you spend in the opponents end of the ice, the harder it is for them to score against you. It's pretty clear how important goal scoring is in hockey, it decides who gets the win. I don't know why you're struggling with acknowledging that.

I understand having more goals than the other team means you win the game, and that is the goal. (pun intended)

The thing we disagree on, is the breakdown of the amount of focus needed to be spread out across the offensive and defensive sides of game, that you have to play in the NHL, in order for that to actually happen on a consistent enough basis to actually reach any sort of team oriented goal.

 

[thebus88]

We've gone way off topic here but I'm going to ask anyway.

Since it seems that awareness and mobility seem to be an issue with several of the defensemen, to unique degrees with each, and since this appears to be the blieline we're going to have for at least this year, how would you suggest they "focus on the things you are WORST at"?

Kinda morphed/mixed up the responses from that Bean thread where the D talk was more relevant.

Other than watching the Werenski-Boqvist pairing play sloppy and overly aggressive offensively, I don’t know how much is a “style” problem. I’m not sure many of the guys CAN get much better, other than adding strength. Not being able to cover guys individually 1 on 1 playing within a “defensive structure” is one thing, making terrible reads and mistakes that NHL players simply shouldn’t make, is another.

I’d look to keep Werenski/Bean and move 2 of Boqvist/Gavrikov/Peeke for more mobile defenseman.

The question that should be taken to another thread, or maybe is relevant to Laine and our possibly seen as weak defensively wingers/centers, is WHY DID the coaching staff think the defensive strategy they used, would work with the players we had??