SIGN IN or REGISTER
USERNAME or EMAIL
PASSWORD

FORGOT YOUR USERNAME OR PASSWORD?

Jump to content


Photo

Suggestion: Mitch Holmberg

Undrafted Top RW Talent

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:58 PM

We have zero noteworthy RW prospects, or RW players, for that matter.

 

What Mitch isn't:   He's not that big RW power forward we need.   But we have a Lot  of RW positions to fill, and they can't all be power forwards.

 

What Mitch is:  

 

A 5'10, 20 year old Elite RW talent.

 

The WHL's leading scorer.

 

The first modern-day WHLer to average more than a goal per game.

 

 

The two red flags:  Size and age.   IMHO, his talent justifies both.   

 

  Size:  He'll never be 6'5.   But at 5'10, he's the typical size of most top scorers in the NHL.

 

  His age:  20 years old and undrafted, is imho  well worth the risk, and here's why:

 

He passes all the litmus tests for overage players worth taking a risk on:

 

 

Progression:  He has to have shown steady progression, and at 20, any NHL prospect should look out-of-place in the WHL.

     

    He looks very out-of-place.   He was good enough in his draft year to get drafted, but not good enough yet to make up for his size.   Last year, he was just on the verge of being an over-age draft pick.  Again, size was the deciding factor.   This year, he's shown an even bigger jump in improvement than last.   Not only is he the best player in the WHL, he appears to be the best player in the WHL in a Long time.  He does not belong there.

 

Attitude:   Some players get passed over in the draft due to attitude.  Mitch isn't one of them.    He interviews modestly, he's an Assistant Captain, and he has leadership skills.

http://ca.sports.yah...-161758847.html

 

Defense:  Plus/Minus is off the charts.  Despite his goals, he is known for making the players around him look better.

 

Skating:  One of the biggest reasons for getting passed over in the draft.  It may have been a factor in 2012's draft, but he is now one of the WHL's fastest skaters.

 

http://www.whl.ca/vi...33c2cf9b97fb900

 

 

Ultimately, from our end, I don't see much that we have to lose.  No, we can't have all small prospects (Gaudreau, etc).  But we can get our perfectly-sized prospects in the first round of the draft.  We can also make trades.     At some point, we need Something in our RW pipeline.  I see this as an excellent risk to take.

 

Thoughts?

 

http://www.whl.ca/vi...33c2cf9b97fb900



#2 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Misguided Angel

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,534 posts
  • LocationFriendly Manitoba

Posted 22 November 2013 - 05:01 PM

Due to the 50 man roster limit signing every undrafted player in hopes of finding 1 gem would be a fool's game.

We could offer the more promising 1s a try-out contract & let them earn a job.



#3 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 05:30 PM

Ah, the ol' 50 man roster limit :)

 

We've taken a lot worse risks than this with those 50 contracts imho.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to hinder Lane McDermid's development.... but...

 

 

A tryout contract would be perfect for him, imho.   Why not give him 25 games in the AHL and see what happens?



#4 cross16

cross16

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,918 posts
  • LocationCalgary

Posted 22 November 2013 - 05:33 PM

Pass. I'm very weary of guys that light up the dub as a 20 year old as it's almost always misleading. If he could offer you a bottom 6 gig sure but he is top 6 or bust and I don't think he is good enough for that. Worth a tryout maybe but not an NHL contract.

#5 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 22 November 2013 - 06:06 PM

Pass. I'm very weary of guys that light up the dub as a 20 year old as it's almost always misleading. If he could offer you a bottom 6 gig sure but he is top 6 or bust and I don't think he is good enough for that. Worth a tryout maybe but not an NHL contract.

 

I agree, cross



#6 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Misguided Angel

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,534 posts
  • LocationFriendly Manitoba

Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:03 PM

Ah, the ol' 50 man roster limit :)

 

We've taken a lot worse risks than this with those 50 contracts imho.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to hinder Lane McDermid's development.... but...

 

 

A tryout contract would be perfect for him, imho.   Why not give him 25 games in the AHL and see what happens?

MacDermid will be RFA after the season. We gambled a 6th rounder (basically nothing as modern scouting makes it unlikely to find a Datsyuk or Zetterberg that late) for a younger version of Jackman.

If he works out he gets a contract. If not, he gets to shop himself around the league.

MacDermid has 0 to do with offering Holmberg a contract.

 

If Holmberg accepts a PTO offer he can play his way onto either the Flames or Heat.

 

If another team signs him to an EL this season & he becomes a star you can pull this up as an "I told you so" thing. If he gets signed & flops you can use the "they didn't use him right" defense. :lol:

**************************************************

 

I know someone will use the Martin St. Louis example so I'll head that off with a question. How many small, undrafted players do you take a chance on & how long do you play them on the top 6 in hopes he breaks out. It took St. Louis 6 years split between 3 NHL teams, 1 IHL team & 1 AHL team after finishing 4 years of college hockey.

We could sign Holmberg to a cheap EL, develop & re-sign him to watch him top out as a very good overage WHL player after 6-7 years while a similarly undrafted player is passed over.

I'd rather let the scouts that are paid to project decide which are worth taking a chance on rather then decide an over-ager playing against 16 year olds suddenly blossomed due to suddenly increased offensive #s.

**********************************************************

 

& yes, the 50 man roster does cause management to play the odds more then an unlimted # where you could roll the dice on every kid that MIGHT be a late bloomer.



#7 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 01:29 AM

If another team signs him to an EL this season & he becomes a star you can pull this up as an "I told you so" thing. If he gets signed & flops you can use the "they didn't use him right" defense. :lol:

**************************************************

 

Deal!  But only if you promise to call me a stuck up prick if I say "I told you so", and remember to tell me I get too excited over prospects if I use the "they didn't use him right" defense :)

 

It just wouldn't feel right otherwise!

 

I know someone will use the Martin St. Louis example so I'll head that off with a question.

 

Okay, but only one question

 

How many small, undrafted players do you take a chance on

 

Out of 50 contracts, one would be nice.  Especially after proving themselves in a successful PTO.

 

& how long do you play them on the top 6 in hopes he breaks out.

 

The Flames never played St. Louis on the top 6.  If they did, it might have not taken so long.  You play them in the AHL for 1-2 years, if they continue to show promise and improve.  Then you play them on the 3rd line in the NHL.  If they hold their own, you give them some top 6 time.  The Flames never got that far with MSL.  It was difficult to watch them discard him.  I thought he held his own.

 

It took St. Louis 6 years split between 3 NHL teams, 1 IHL team & 1 AHL team after finishing 4 years of college hockey.

 

I'm pretty sure it was 2 NHL teams?  He turned the corner at around 24 years of age, but I felt it could have been sooner had the Flames realized what they had.   He basically did well the moment he was put in the top 6, and it took 6 years to be given the opportunity.  Backlund's had those opportunities for years now, in comparison, and is now older than when St Louis established himself.

 

But, St. Louis was 5'8.  We're talking about a kid that's 5'10.   He's a typical size for a top 6 player and there are bottom 6 NHLers that have success at that size too.

 

We could sign Holmberg to a cheap EL, develop & re-sign him to watch him top out as a very good overage WHL player after 6-7 years while a similarly undrafted player is passed over.

I'd rather let the scouts that are paid to project decide which are worth taking a chance on rather then decide an over-ager playing against 16 year olds suddenly blossomed due to suddenly increased offensive #s.

**********************************************************

 

Fair enough.  But as over-agers go, if there's ever an exception, he's it (by the numbers).   At more than a goal per game, you have to go back to Ray Ferraro's day to find comparables.   For Some of us, FF, that seems like a long time ago :)

 

Usually, I would agree with concern over 20 year olds in the WHL.  cough cough.... Ferland!

 

& yes, the 50 man roster does cause management to play the odds more then an unlimted # where you could roll the dice on every kid that MIGHT be a late bloomer.

 

True.   There's some fat that can be cut, though.  I like your idea of the PTO.  It's extremely low risk.  You can't do it for everyone, but I think you can do it for the WHL's leading scorer in a position of which you have no legitimate prospects.  If he has a bad 25 games, he goes back.  Very ltittle loss.  

 

If he has a good 25 games, then you give him a contract.  Who knows, maybe even an AHL contract if you're that worried about your 50 contracts.   And from there, you let him earn is way up as high as he can go.



#8 travel_dude

travel_dude

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,791 posts
  • LocationIggy-ville

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:05 AM

Deal!  But only if you promise to call me a stuck up prick if I say "I told you so", and remember to tell me I get too excited over prospects if I use the "they didn't use him right" defense :)
 
It just wouldn't feel right otherwise!
 
 
Okay, but only one question
 
 
Out of 50 contracts, one would be nice.  Especially after proving themselves in a successful PTO.
... 
Usually, I would agree with concern over 20 year olds in the WHL.  cough cough.... Ferland!

Ferland is a strange case of a kid that make a push later in life to be a hockey player. Until he showed up for camp in decent shape, I thought he was just one of those kids that does well playing with the smaller/younger kids in junior that was going to fade into the background in the AHL. I think he has got his act together this year and could become a NHL player some time.

The contract limit is a concern since we have possibly 3 players we need to sign coming out of college; Agostino, Johnny H, and Bill Arnold. To me they are a priority.

#9 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Misguided Angel

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,534 posts
  • LocationFriendly Manitoba

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:45 AM

Deal!  But only if you promise to call me a stuck up prick if I say "I told you so", and remember to tell me I get too excited over prospects if I use the "they didn't use him right" defense :)

 

It just wouldn't feel right otherwise!

 

 

 

 

 

Deal. We have to maintain a sense of normalcy on the board. :)



 

 

I'm pretty sure it was 2 NHL teams?  He turned the corner at around 24 years of age, but I felt it could have been sooner had the Flames realized what they had.   He basically did well the moment he was put in the top 6, and it took 6 years to be given the opportunity.  Backlund's had those opportunities for years now, in comparison, and is now older than when St Louis established himself.

It was 2 NHL teams.

Ottawa did give him a try out but didn't keep him. That's what I was thinking off. So 3 teams tried him but only 2 signed him. My mistake.



#10 senor_incendiarse

senor_incendiarse

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:57 AM

I'm pretty sure it was 2 NHL teams?  He turned the corner at around 24 years of age, but I felt it could have been sooner had the Flames realized what they had.   He basically did well the moment he was put in the top 6, and it took 6 years to be given the opportunity.  Backlund's had those opportunities for years now, in comparison, and is now older than when St Louis established himself.

Before Calgary he was signed to a tryout by Ottawa, so it was 3 teams.  Sure we missed the boat on him, but we would have never been able to offer him the same compliment of talent that Tampa has, either going through Vinnie or Richards, then to Stamkos.  For people who like to moan about past events can think about how we could have moved MSL to LW and put him with Iggy and Savard and had a dominant 1st line, but does anybody really remember who else was on those early 2000's teams? we had nothing else and were coming off of 2 failed high picks.



#11 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 01:59 PM

Valeri Bure (point per game player),

 

Iggy,

 

Phil Housley,

 

Savard,

 

Derek Morris,

 

Cory Stillman,

 

JS Giguere,

 

Regehr,

 

.....Not a contender, but More than we have now.  We made a mistake.  Nobody's moaning, but nobody's making excuses either.



#12 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationBottom of the barrel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:12 PM

I liken him to Brendan Shinnimin. 5'10" scoring forward, but doesn't really stand out with any top end skills. While they're going to be very good players, they're going to be very good at the AHL level and not much more.

 

Not every bigtime CHL scorer has the skills required to be an NHL player. Not every team can afford to try and develop a Shinnimin/Holmberg/St. Louis type player for 7 years in the hopes that he works out and becomes an NHL player. If you spend enough time and resources anyone can develop into a star player, but how long is that going to take? You go for the guys who will definitely make it, make it big, or make it faster. Holmberg doesn't have the tools that suggest he's an NHL player for sure, he doesn't have the skills or potential to make it as a top-line forward, and he isn't a sure bet to be in the NHL quicker than other prospects.

 

We don't have the luxury of using resources on every player who comes along and shows some scoring touch. The NHL prioritizes pragmatic use of funds; teams pay for one of the three qualities from above in their prospects and spend the resources needed to move those prospects forward.



#13 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:18 PM

 If you spend enough time and resources anyone can develop into a star player, 

 

 

what-you-talkin-bout-willis-o.gif



#14 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationBottom of the barrel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:25 PM

what-you-talkin-bout-willis-o.gif

 

It's true, the 10 000 hour rule isn't completely false in my opinion. The question is, "Is it worth it to spend 15 years developing someone into an elite talent?". If I trained for the next 15 years and built my body up with the backing of an NHL team, I'm fairly confident that I can play at the NHL level, but it sure doesn't do anything for the team.

 

Anyone can play at an elite level given the time and opportunity, except that both of those are hot commodities. Teams need to make best use of the resources they have, which is why they choose the players they feel are most worth spending those resources to develop. That is the whole point of the draft if you think about it.

 

Holmberg might be an NHLer in 6 years, but there are guys who will be NHLers sooner than that. So he isn't worth the time or effort to make sure he's an NHLer at 26 when there are prospects who will be ready at 22.



#15 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationCalgary

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:28 PM

If you spend enough time and resources anyone can develop into a star

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

 

Re the 10,000 hours... I hear what you're saying but there is a difference between playing at an elite level and being a star at the elite level.



#16 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationBottom of the barrel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 06:24 PM

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

 

Re the 10,000 hours... I hear what you're saying but there is a difference between playing at an elite level and being a star at the elite level.

 

Fair enough, but my point still remains....Holmberg isn't worth the time and effort to develop. Whether or not you think star players are created or just that they have something special that makes them stars, Holmberg is not one of them. We don't need to develop a Jason Krog or Keith Aucoin.



#17 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationCalgary

Posted 24 November 2013 - 08:56 PM

Fair enough, but my point still remains....Holmberg isn't worth the time and effort to develop. Whether or not you think star players are created or just that they have something special that makes them stars, Holmberg is not one of them. We don't need to develop a Jason Krog or Keith Aucoin.

Completely agree



#18 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 09:52 PM

Lol.....does that mean if we spend 15 years on this forum, we'll stop disagreeing?  Because I believe we're halfway there....

 

Moving on from the 10,000 hour discussion, is the fear that he could turn into a Keith Aucoin or Jason Krog?

 

I have to ask the question.

 

Have you seen who we are developing on the Heat for right handers?

 

  • Josh Joorish?   Not even a RW.\
  • Greg Nemisz?
  • Brett Olson?

 

Do you really see any of these guys spending time on NHL ice, and it going well?

 

Do you see Josh, Greg, or Brett having Stanley cup rings?

 

Because, Aucoin has one.   And Krog?   He's played in the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

 

In the end, Aucoin and Krog were two things:

  • Serviceable in the NHL
  • A Positive impact on the development system

 

That is why they've Both been to the Stanley Cup Finals, and why Aucoin has a Stanley Cup Ring.

 

When contenders go to the playoffs, they have injuries.  They need highly skilled, serviceable players that can be called up and perform at an NHL level.   They also need leaders in the dressing room that can develop their future stars.  They need their prospects learning to play a high-skilled game in the minor league system.  With linemates who can give and take passes.

 

If you honestly believe we have that in Nemisz, Joorish and Olsen, then let's put it on record and lock the thread.

 

 

p.s.....if Any player could become the NHL's leading scorer given 6 years of development, believe you me, we would just pick people off the street 6 years previous and have a Stanley Cup Winner in no time.  This talk of how St. Louis wasn't worth our time, is a bit ridiculous.  Especially for anyone reading this who watched the 2004 playoffs.



#19 cross16

cross16

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,918 posts
  • LocationCalgary

Posted 24 November 2013 - 11:28 PM

I agree the chances are small those guys see a cup final or the playoffs or are contributors which for me means they have the same odds as Holmberg.

#20 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:01 AM

I agree the chances are small those guys see a cup final or the playoffs or are contributors which for me means they have the same odds as Holmberg.

 

lol.....we're always agreeing with each other!

 

I give them 1/10,000 odds in Stanley Cup participation/contribution.   I give Holmberg 1/100.

 

Both are small.   BTW, there is an open spot on the Heat for a RW, so we could have both.

 

I would take Holmberg, for two reasons:

 

1.  I believe his odds, although small, are far better than our existing RW prospects.

 

     I believe his odds of becoming an NHL star, although small, are Extremely higher than our RW prospects.

 

     Like ,  1/300 (Holmberg) to 1/1,000,000 (existing RWs).

 

2.  I believe what he would bring to the skill level of the Heat, and the development of the players around him, far exceeds what our existing RW's bring.  He betters the skill development of the rest of the team.  Particularly his linemates.

 

 

p.s....right now, we are teaching our AHL centers that passing is strictly done back-handed..  :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users