We got pretty limited viewings of Holloway at center, but I wasn't impressed with what I saw. From a skillset perspective, I think his game translates better to flying around lower in the O zone laterally instead of hanging up higher. I also like his speed to match Kyrou as the first 2 guys to exit our zone on the transition. I think you minimize some of his strengths by asking him to take the defensive center assignments. Even if he can learn to effectively do the stuff you need your center doing in the middle of the ice, I think having him doing that stuff prevents him from doing the best parts of his game as much as we'd like.
We have a pretty decent sample size of Holloway/Kyrou having chemistry and being an absolute nightmare for opponents to deal with as wingers on the same line. Having a wing duo like that is a pretty rare commodity that can offer a massive advantage when you have them on a separate line from your franchise center. I have zero desire to tinker with that in order to avoid acquiring a 2C. I'd rather spend money/assets to bring in a 2C to complete that line instead of seeing if we can rebuild the line by moving Holloway to center and asking him to change his game.
When I'm thinking about the 5 year plan, there are very few things that I consider a near-lock to play the same 5 on 5 role the entire time. I have 3 players who I have extremely defined roles for and then everything else is subject to acquisitions, development, chemistry, etc:
X-Thomas-X
Holloway-Y-Kyrou
X-Y-X
Every decision I'd make about the forward group is about filling those roles around that structure. I very much believe that those 3 guys in the 3 roles above forms the heart of two Cup-caliber top 6 lines. I also think that we currently have more than enough X shaped players/prospects in the system to effectively fill those 4 X roles at below-market cap dollars for the next 5 years.
I'd much rather spend assets/cap to bring in a Y shaped player than try to fundamentally change the Holloway/Kyrou pairing.
