Quoting: BroadStreet53
He is a very solid bottom 6 who can slot in anywhere in your lineup in a pinch. I do not see him worth a 1st. He is a nice veteran, but if you can acquire a 1st no questions asked he has to go. This is a rebuild not the b.s. with we need good veterans to show the rookies the ropes. Show them what? We need talent and to get that you need assets in a rebuild. Our best player of the last 20 years got us Tippett and a 1st. All these GMs think Scott Laughton will fetch us a 1st and.......Not a shot in hell. He is desireable because he has term on a reasonable cap hit. He is a nice depth player, but nothing more. You dont win cups because of Scott Laughton. He can be a nice piece on a cup winning team however.
I didn't say anything against any one of your points, I am taking what I've heard from hockey insiders, not bloggers or vlogs or twitter followers with 8 followers. People/accounts that are in the know, that break deals prior to them happening, to have a pulse on said team.
I didn't say what I think Laughton is worth, i reiterated what other people have seen and heard what he is worth. Personally, I wouldn't trade a first for a guy like Laughton either, even though I love how he plays and what he brings to a lineup. He's like a lesser Barbashev, like a 3rd line guy the Lightning seem to produce or acquire year after year. He can score a bit, mix it up a bit, plays a defensive responsible game, has a good motor, leads by example, and is a good role model. Again, if im a GM, I wouldn't trade a first for that. But it appears real life GMs would, that's all i'm saying. He certainly could be a nice piece to a cup winning team and I think he will be eventually. Unfortunately, probably not with the Flyers. By the time we're ready to compete he will be on the wrong side of 30, so again, I agree with getting as much as you can for him. Whatever that is, who knows till it happens.