So Schmid didn't actually sign anywhere yet? Guess he had less value than Holtz after all lol
So Schmid didn't actually sign anywhere yet? Guess he had less value than Holtz after all lol
I mean, he kinda did. He was drafted almost entirely because of goal-scoring and having a high-end shot, not for any other qualities. That's the player they should have known they were getting.He never showed much reason to have belief in him. I don't know that I have seen a putative scoreline player be worse than Holtz in 22-23. That said, he should've been sent to the minors earlier that year, but keeping a high pick in the minors does not somehow maintain their value. Everybody knows that a 7th overall in the minors in their D+3 is not a great sign.
I mean, he kinda did. He was drafted almost entirely because of goal-scoring and having a high-end shot, not for any other qualities. That's the player they should have known they were getting.
He showed he can do that at the AHL level, and fairly efficiently (in low TOI) at the NHL level. If you're not going to put him in a position to use his only tool, and publicly slag him because he's not the player he should never have been expected to be, that's on management.
If you're drafting a one-shot scorer with deficiencies elsewhere, and you're mad that what's you get, then the draft strategy and asset management were all wrong and Fitz should own it.
He didn't even have a great one-timer. His slap shot was actually a weakness he admitted he needed to work on when we drafted him. His scoring was from positioning, finding open areas, and shot placement. That's why I was a bit disappointed when we drafted him.I guess we just have different definitions of what's expected of a player. No, Holtz wasn't going to turn into Patrice Bergeron, but he had very glaring issues outside of one-timing pucks that occasionally went in. Publicly slagging him was dumb, but to me you don't expect that a high drafted forward will still be processing the game as badly as Holtz was in his D+4.
He would be best served on a rebuilding team where they'd be primarily focused on development and he can improve over another two seasons or so and improve as the team improves. Style of play would matter as well. He won't fit on a Colorado most likely for example. Maybe Utah would be a good landing spot? I'd say San Jose but that's too cliche at this point.“Holtz: the draft pick” wasn’t the problem. “Holtz: the example of the Devils’ development after his AHL breakout” is the problem. Letting him ride the bench for almost a whole season, then running him in the top-6 for the entire following preseason only to demote him as soon as the season starts, and then publicly calling him a disappointment when the season was over? That’s where his value went. And it was pretty easily avoidable.
I still believe in Holtz the player quite a bit. He made massive strides in his skating when he saw it was necessary, and i think he’s gonna make the same strides with his defensive play. But i dunno that Vegas is gonna be the team that has the patience to let him work through his stuff. Or maybe a non-Ruff, non-Green coach has a better idea of how to handle guys like him? We’ll see.
Well Palat and Haula were supposed to be those guys to even more of an extent, they clearly….weren’t enough. Dougie too but he disappeared on IRIt's an interesting theory.
I mean when your veteran voice in the room is Brendan Smith, you have issues.
I do feel like the unspeakable about this roster is that it was damn young. Maybe Fitz felt they needed some older heads to keep them in check?
Well Palat and Haula were supposed to be those guys to even more of an extent, they clearly….weren’t enough. Dougie too but he disappeared on IR
i mean teams have been able to get production out offensively-talented but other otherwise disappointing forwards before. IIRC Burakovsky had a similar early development to Holtz and he fit in very well with Colorado. So much of it comes down to coaching and usage and a player’s mindset. Maybe Holtz’s real issue is between his ears? We’ll probably know for sure by the end of next season.
He did make some improvements. His skating was a big weakness, and he's brought it up. I agree his defensive play is lacking, but I noticed him making more "effort" in that area this season, if not better effectiveness.I guess we just have different definitions of what's expected of a player. No, Holtz wasn't going to turn into Patrice Bergeron, but he had very glaring issues outside of one-timing pucks that occasionally went in. Publicly slagging him was dumb, but to me you don't expect that a high drafted forward will still be processing the game as badly as Holtz was in his D+4.
It was a poor draft pick. That's part of the problem. I did not want Holtz at that spot.“Holtz: the draft pick” wasn’t the problem. “Holtz: the example of the Devils’ development after his AHL breakout” is the problem. Letting him ride the bench for almost a whole season, then running him in the top-6 for the entire following preseason only to demote him as soon as the season starts, and then publicly calling him a disappointment when the season was over? That’s where his value went. And it was pretty easily avoidable.
I still believe in Holtz the player quite a bit. He made massive strides in his skating when he saw it was necessary, and i think he’s gonna make the same strides with his defensive play. But i dunno that Vegas is gonna be the team that has the patience to let him work through his stuff. Or maybe a non-Ruff, non-Green coach has a better idea of how to handle guys like him? We’ll see.
I dont really disagree with this, but I think the context around each player is important. Holtz missed crucial development time with injuries, the Caps had a much more cemented and mature core to insulate Burakovsky, they had Barry Trotz… hell even covid probably messed up a bunch of development curves for prospects around Holtz’s age.Burakovsky had a long track record of being an NHLer. He made the Caps in his D+2 and while they never trusted him with big minutes, he played there for 5 seasons and was a good-to-great soft minute scorer every year after except for the one he was traded. I don't really think they're that similar, maybe if Holtz scores at a similar rate next year, but boy do I think that's unlikely.
I think Holtz was a victim of Fitz trying to solve his “goal scoring winger” problem through the draft, which is entirely on Fitz. But Holtz still went exactly where he was slotted. You can only call it a bad draft pick if you think the entirety of the scouting industry is flawed (which i guess i wouldn’t necessarily disagree with).It was a poor draft pick.
I didn't like the pick at the time. Scouts are paid to scout. If they're bad at their jobs, get new ones.I think Holtz was a victim of Fitz trying to solve his “goal scoring winger” problem through the draft, which is entirely on Fitz. But Holtz still went exactly where he was slotted. You can only call it a bad draft pick if you think the entirety of the scouting industry is flawed (which i guess i wouldn’t necessarily disagree with).
We’re not talking about Dylan McIlrath or Chase Stillman here.
I actually think we fired that scout the next year. Can't remember who it was, but I vaguely recall him being replaced.I didn't like the pick at the time. Scouts are paid to scout. If they're bad at their jobs, get new ones.
If you're just going to go with the "industry consensus" at ever selection, why have scouts at all?