It's Time to Have the Lafrenière Conversation

[Phil]

Othmann is a Laugh replacement in roster position, not expectations.

 

What I'm suggesting here is to move Laugh in a deal for a middle-six RW with speed, then back fill Laugh's position with Othmann, who will have some expectations as a first-rounder, but significantly fewer compared to a first overall pick rapidly approaching bust.

[siddious]

I love that my “laugh” thing caught on btw 

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, siddious said:

I love that my “laugh” thing caught on btw 

 

I refuse to even write it any other way.

[Sharpshooter]

12 minutes ago, siddious said:

I love that my “laugh” thing caught on btw 

How can it not at this point? 

 

Regarding 'Laugh', if we weren't laughing, we'd be crying.

[siddious]

46 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

How can it not at this point? 

 

Regarding 'Laugh', if we weren't laughing, we'd be crying.

For me it’s a little bit of both 

[RJWantsTheCup]

We would be lucky to get a mid 6 RW for him at this point.

[Valriera]

I actually dont think this is complicated. Everything in the OP is true. He doesn't have a role and hasn't lived up to the 1OA. Let's also not forget he's not been given the development opportunities that one of those typically has. Ignoring that is sort of like putting a poor kid and a rich kid in the same room for the SAT. Sure, it's the same test, but one of them had a lot more opportunity to prep for it. I don't say that to defend him, I say it because it's important for my next point:

To me, you do one of two things:

1) Give him the team. Panarin/Kreider/Zib/etc are almost done here. When they are done, it's Fox+the kids running the show for the future. You can do it earlier by firing the coach for someone who understands this and is willing to put him, kakko, and chytil front and center for this team for the future, PP, etc. For better or for worse, that's where the team is going...unless number two happens. In this storyline, you accept this as truth, and you play your cards to maximize our luck and hope the kids pan out. Statistically, they usually do, just takes some time. They've been bad so far.

 

2) Bundle him and Kakko for another shot at a 1OA in the near future. In this storyline, you accept the other truth, which is that they've been busts and are not going to turn out to be much of anything, so while they're still young and have value, you bundle them up for another shot at it. Might not get you bedard (but maybe it would, you never know), but it could get you the next Jack Hughes/Stamkos/etc. 

 

What you don't do is try to build another team around our current core by shipping off our youth. The current core doesn't deserve that, they failed twice in the same way, and to be honest the kids don't deserve that either, because they haven't had a real shot at it themselves. It also just doesn't make sense. 

 

My opinion is I don't really care which one of those paths we go. I think Lafreniere is unfairly ragged on here, because he's so far from the problem with this team that if you just removed him for someone else it wouldn't matter at all. The problem is he hasn't actually done anything, so I don't actually care if he stays or goes. Just that we don't make stupid decisions with a valuable asset

[Phil]

He's not valuable. That's the entire point. You guys keep getting sucked into this sunk cost fallacy. This was on full display when the return for Kravtsov was announced. Laugh isn't Kravtsov (yet), but I'm not even sure you could trade him for a first-round pick.

[Morphinity 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

He's not valuable. That's the entire point. You guys keep getting sucked into this sunk cost fallacy. This was on full display when the return for Kravtsov was announced. Laugh isn't Kravtsov (yet), but I'm not even sure you could trade him for a first-round pick.

Dach got #13 and #66. Not sure you get much more than that. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Dach got #13 and #66. Not sure you get much more than that. 

 

Right. If they get a first, it's a mid- to late-round one.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, Valriera said:

I actually dont think this is complicated. Everything in the OP is true. He doesn't have a role and hasn't lived up to the 1OA. Let's also not forget he's not been given the development opportunities that one of those typically has. Ignoring that is sort of like putting a poor kid and a rich kid in the same room for the SAT. Sure, it's the same test, but one of them had a lot more opportunity to prep for it. I don't say that to defend him, I say it because it's important for my next point:

To me, you do one of two things:

1) Give him the team. Panarin/Kreider/Zib/etc are almost done here. When they are done, it's Fox+the kids running the show for the future. You can do it earlier by firing the coach for someone who understands this and is willing to put him, kakko, and chytil front and center for this team for the future, PP, etc. For better or for worse, that's where the team is going...unless number two happens. In this storyline, you accept this as truth, and you play your cards to maximize our luck and hope the kids pan out. Statistically, they usually do, just takes some time. They've been bad so far.

 

2) Bundle him and Kakko for another shot at a 1OA in the near future. In this storyline, you accept the other truth, which is that they've been busts and are not going to turn out to be much of anything, so while they're still young and have value, you bundle them up for another shot at it. Might not get you bedard (but maybe it would, you never know), but it could get you the next Jack Hughes/Stamkos/etc. 

 

What you don't do is try to build another team around our current core by shipping off our youth. The current core doesn't deserve that, they failed twice in the same way, and to be honest the kids don't deserve that either, because they haven't had a real shot at it themselves. It also just doesn't make sense. 

 

My opinion is I don't really care which one of those paths we go. I think Lafreniere is unfairly ragged on here, because he's so far from the problem with this team that if you just removed him for someone else it wouldn't matter at all. The problem is he hasn't actually done anything, so I don't actually care if he stays or goes. Just that we don't make stupid decisions with a valuable asset

Doesn't Zib have like 7 more years on his deal?

 

What has Laf shown you to suggest turning the team over to him? Aside from draft status?

[Phil]

You turn this team over to the kids, and I bet the house they go from playoffs to poor house in a Thanos snap.

[Cash or Czech]

Just now, Phil said:

You turn this team over to the kids, and I bet the house they go from playoffs to poor house in a Thanos snap.

 

Don't worry, we'll get another fortunate 1OA and get...Lafreniere part 2.

[goondman]

2 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

I feel the same way, and I think he'll get another shot under a new (better) coach.

Hear hear! 

[RJWantsTheCup]

12 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Dach got #13 and #66. Not sure you get much more than that. 

I would take that in a heartbeat.

Edited May 2, 2023 by RJWantsTheCup

[Sod16]

I look at the calculus like this: he's probably got about a 20% chance of becoming a good top 6 player, so you see what you can get for him, and if it is passable, you take it.  If not, you keep him and hope for the 20%.  Given the chances of a late first rounder becoming a significant player, I probably would not take that for him.  Mid first rounder, yes, take it.  There's also always the trade for another team's underachiever, although those trades usually end with two guys continuing to underachieve in new places.

[BrooksBurner]

I'm probably going to be back and forth all offseason, but right now I'm keeping Lafreniere. The way I see it is taking Lafreniere's $2.5M or whatever he's going to get, and bringing some Goodrow-lite grunt worker in his place, is not going to change a damned thing so long as the rest is the same. Either the core changes, specifically Panarin is moved out, or I'm running it back another year because it's not going to matter. You can't have a $12M bum in the playoffs, and as long as he's a $12M bum on this team, it's just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

 

I'd have to be blown away by a trade offer for Lafreniere.

[Phil]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

I'm probably going to be back and forth all offseason, but right now I'm keeping Lafreniere. The way I see it is taking Lafreniere's $2.5M or whatever he's going to get, and bringing some Goodrow-lite grunt worker in his place, is not going to change a damned thing so long as the rest is the same. Either the core changes, specifically Panarin is moved out, or I'm running it back another year because it's not going to matter. You can't have a $12M bum in the playoffs, and as long as he's a $12M bum on this team, it's just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

 

I'd have to be blown away by a trade offer for Lafreniere.

 

Don't fall victim to sunk cost fallacy. This same line of thinking is what had everyone shocked at the return price on Kravtsov.

 

You shouldn't need to be "blown away" if the return is fair and ultimately works in the big picture. Swapping him for a speedier RW, even if the offense is a wash, is a net win because you likely back fill his role with Othmann, who will help to push the team in the right direction of finding more players who can play playoff hockey.

[Valriera]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

You turn this team over to the kids, and I bet the house they go from playoffs to poor house in a Thanos snap.

We're already in the poor house, so I think the move then is you package them for another shot at 1OA. What I'm not interested in is packaging them to give this core another shot. This core had their chance and they blew it. I'm not shipping more youth to see if Mika and Kreider are going to lead us there. They aren't. 

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, Valriera said:

We're already in the poor house, so I think the move then is you package them for another shot at 1OA. What I'm not interested in is packaging them to give this core another shot. This core had their chance and they blew it. I'm not shipping more youth to see if Mika and Kreider are going to lead us there. They aren't. 

 

No one is giving you another shot at first overall for a couple of first- and second-overall picks who have national media publicly questioning if they'll ever develop to a level commiserate with their draft status. Any team you'd be calling asking would sooner just keep their pick and try to draft their own high-ceiling prospect who they'll have a longer leash on and an opportunity to develop in-house.

 

This is why I keep coming back to the thinking that, as fans, we need to resign ourselves to the idea that a trade for either of these players is unlikely to bring back something of significance. @Morphinity 2.0 brought up the Dach trade return (#13 and #60-something), which is a great comparison.

 

My guess is that's probably in the ballpark of what a Laugh return looks like, while Kakko is probably more of a my middle six for yours type of trade.

[BrooksBurner]

28 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Don't fall victim to sunk cost fallacy. This same line of thinking is what had everyone shocked at the return price on Kravtsov.

 

You shouldn't need to be "blown away" if the return is fair and ultimately works in the big picture. Swapping him for a speedier RW, even if the offense is a wash, is a net win because you likely back fill his role with Othmann, who will help to push the team in the right direction of finding more players who can play playoff hockey.

 

I'm not. Believe me. He's not a 1OA quality player. I am currently not as sure as some of you on how good he can be or what his prime looks like.

 

Let's run an exercise here. He just posted 15 goal 40 points at 21 years old. What are the probabilities for production in his prime? This is roughly what I'm thinking:

 

No growth: 3%

50 points: 25%

60 points: 40%

70 points: 25%

More: 7%

 

I'm overwhelmingly confident this current production isn't his ceiling. I'm almost as confident he will never be a PPG player. I feel very confident he's going to settle in somewhere between 50 and 70 points annually, and within that range is the difference between a good 2nd liner player and a good 1st line player, but a top 6 player nonetheless.

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

Lets just blow up this whole roster and make the kid line the first line.

 

 

[siddious]

Just now, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

Lets just blow up this whole roster and make the kid line the first line.

 

 

thats the sad part even if they wanted to they cant move half of these guys lol

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I'm not. Believe me. He's not a 1OA quality player. I am currently not as sure as some of you on how good he can be or what his prime looks like.

 

Let's run an exercise here. He just posted 15 goal 40 points at 21 years old. What are the probabilities for production in his prime? This is roughly what I'm thinking:

 

No growth: 3%

50 points: 25%

60 points: 40%

70 points: 25%

More: 7%

 

I'm overwhelmingly confident this current production isn't his ceiling. I'm almost as confident he will never be a PPG player. I feel very confident he's going to settle in somewhere between 50 and 70 points annually, and within that range is the difference between a good 2nd liner player and a good 1st line player, but a top 6 player nonetheless.

 

 

The guys I'm comparing him to are guys like Benoit Pouliot and Steve Bernier, who were both taken high, but ended up having long NHL careers as bottom-six journeymen. Pouliot averaged 17 goals a season and 35 points a season. Bernier averaged 14 goals and 30 points. Lafreniere is currently averaging 18 goals and 35 points, so he's only slightly better than Pouliot (in goal scoring).

 

I just don't see anything about his game to suggest or even hint at the odds you're assigning to 50 points, let alone 60 or 70. Like, at all. Laugh has no elite tools whatsoever. No shot, no speed, no elite skating ability, no high-end passing/vision. He looks just like Pouliot and Bernier, only a little smaller in frame.

 

If you were asking me to run the same exercise, it looks like this:

 

No growth: 55%

50 points: 25%

60 points: 15%

70 points: 4%

More: 1%

[BrooksBurner]

33 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Don't fall victim to sunk cost fallacy. This same line of thinking is what had everyone shocked at the return price on Kravtsov.

 

You shouldn't need to be "blown away" if the return is fair and ultimately works in the big picture. Swapping him for a speedier RW, even if the offense is a wash, is a net win because you likely back fill his role with Othmann, who will help to push the team in the right direction of finding more players who can play playoff hockey.

 

In terms of being blown away, I mean blown away relative to his current worth. I agree with what's been mentioned that a mid-1st and 3rd is probably fair and expected market value, but it just doesn't move the needle for me at the moment.

 

With respect to Othmann, I'm not falling into this trap of him being an answer to anything. I'm going to choose to learn from the past that you cannot bank on kids to do anything. I like what I've seen and heard, other than lack of real skating ability which sounds awfully familiar, but a year in the AHL sounds more appropriate.