Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
Monahan's team sacked last year but they were fairly good in the years before that. If you're an elite guy you're going to get tons of ice on any junior team. You'll get more chances as a 16/17 year old on a bad team, but klimchuk would get top line/1st pp unit time on any whl at his age.
|
I definitely agree he would get top line/1st PP time on almost every team in the WHL (very few exceptions I would think), and you also get the benefit of a playoff drive. That is huge and not to be underestimated in a prospect's development.
It is just that if you are 'the guy' on a bad team, your responsibilities increase and so does the quality of competition, as it becomes easy to line-match against you (like Monahan last year facing the highest quality of competition in the OHL (possibly the CHL?). Leadership opportunities would also be bigger as well.
I remember Kulak talking about it last year and about his development opportunities playing for the Giants, and how he would probably not get those same opportunities if he was playing on a contender - both on and off the ice.
Pros and cons to both scenarios was my only point really, which I never thought of before. I am undecided which is the 'best' way (would imagine someone like Klimchuk who is fairly well-rounded would benefit more from an elite team and the long playoff drive than someone who is just offensive), but there are definitely advantages to a player's development playing on a lousy team.