[News] Burke says he is unlikely to trade up... hasn't watched Bennett

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You're really starting to embarrass yourself here. I don't think you even know what you're going on about. You're only proving my point for me. Media likes to use the term "off the board' as a figure of speech to say a guy not expected to go where he went. That figure of speech is taken literally by people like you.

Are you honestly suggesting there is one draft list for all 30 teams?

Think about what you're saying when you post stuff like that.

There's the old MMF we know and love, opposite opinion go straight to insults.

Obviously there is is not one list of 30 names set in stone, but there is a general consensus.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Obviously there is is not one list of 30 names set in stone, but there is a general consensus.

For the top guys I'd agree. The cream tends to rise to the top and each team can easily identity the top players year-to-year. Outside of that it gets murkier, and it only gets murkier after each pick outside of those top picks.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

There is no board but that doesn't mean that teams aren't trying to gain some insight into what players other teams are likely to target and therefore try to maximize value. Teams likely have some idea of how often other teams have scouted a player, and scouts no doubt probably talk. You can probably even find out if a team has interviewed a player. Lots of ways to gain some insight into what other teams are going to do.

There is no one board.
There are 30 of them.
And you would be a fool to just ignore what those other 29 boards likely look like.
But worrying about any of the consensus singular lists would be foolish for a GM

I'm not saying there is one board. I'm saying that prospects are taken relative to other teams' interests in addition to your own rankings. I'm not talking about a consensus, I'm talking about a rough estimate. The Flames know, and have mentioned that there is 5 players at the top of this draft that many have in separate tier. Hence, if their guy was McCann it would be silly to take him there when they know they can get him a little later and they can generate a bidding war over whoever is left in that tier after 3 selections.

It's not one that all team's use, but a subjective rough estimate to gauge interest, and the likelihood of getting a player at certain stages of the draft. Will each team have different information and thus not have symmetric boards? Yes. Will they still have roughly similar lists since information is often recycled? Yes. From that, it's up to them to determine exactly what you're next paragraph entails.

Moreover, the decision isn't nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be - and I suspect you know this. That is the Flames likely had a few players in mind - we know if they didn't take Janko they likely would have taken Sieloff with the pick.

So the decision is more like this.
- We don't move down and just get Janko
- We move down and a few things can happen
1. We get Janko AND the other guy we like (Sieloff)
2. Janko gets picked and we take Sieloff plus someone else instead (Matt Finn was a guy they liked I think)
3. Janko gets picked so we move down again - or trade the 1st altogether. Or we take Sieloff and move the 2nd.

So you are balancing all of those outcomes, and how much you like one over the other. In this case it is pretty crystal clear that the while the Flames liked Janko, they were willing to risk not getting him to potentially get a 2nd player they liked.

Makes sense to me. Not sure why people try to look at things like this in such black and white terms.

Fully aware of the scenario and their logic of thinking, but I would add that the teams rumoured to be enamoured with Jankowski were Pheonix and NJ(IIRC), who were picking at 27th and 29th respectively. If the Flames were going on the basis of that information, the assumption then becomes that Jankowski can reasonably be pencilled into that range, and if another team wants him, they're going to jump above 27th to get him. Moving to 21 would be a very safe bet if Jankowski is your guy if you're scared of that threat.

At the end of the day, I think we're roughly on the same track and the difference is our definition of what a board is. I use it somewhat more loosely than many and as a gauge of prospect interest and value for teams around the league as opposed to the be-all end-all of prospect rankings.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Dagger

I'm not saying there is one board..

Amen. Hallelujah, brother.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Relative rankings, sure. A smart GM will weigh what other GM's are doing. I don't pretend to know how it all shook out and I won't speculate on this particular pick too much because honestly, it's been debated to death in other threads.

What I am saying is there is no draft board that ranks guys 1-600 in each draft. Besides the top 2-5 guys in any draft teams have wildly different lists, especially once it gets out of the teens and especially once it gets out of the first round. Posters here get way too focused on various draft lists, rankings, mock drafts etc etc leading up to the draft and become obsessive wannabe experts that whine uncontrollably when a name they've never heard of gets drafted where they didn't expect their magazine to draft them at. That's what I'm referring to when I say there is no one board. There are 30 NHL draft boards, and if you pick apart those draft lists there are 100's of different lists, each team compiles a lists from each scouts list which probably isn't refined until the final days leading up to the draft.

The only draft board that matters at the end of the day is the one post draft. Mark Jankowski was ranked 21st overall in the 2012 draft. You know how I know that? That's where he was god damn picked.

Well of course not. I never argued there was. Posters do have a right to get upset however and call picks "off the board" if the information received then, and the stuff we know now about Jankowski indicate he might have been had later. The Sieloff mentioning earlier is perfect as if they were going to take him if Jankowski was gone at 21, it would have been "off-the-board" as he was still available midway through the 2nd round.

We're just starting to go in circles, but I think the only real difference here is the definition of board.

[Yrebmi]

The term board is a poor adjective. Maybe it would be better if it didn't insinuate singularity. Every team has their own board or list. Even then they may go out of order based on what they believe other teams list order may be to maximize choices.

MMF is right, there is no board. There is no uniform consensus on which draft eligible players are best. I also agree with Dagger, Calgary took a risky pick on a player that most did not have rated as high. However I liked the gamble. We knew Jankowski would be a longer term project, but we also know the team development is not going to be overnight either. With luck Jankowski will hit his stride at the right time.

edit: lol so many posts between where I read and where I posted this entire entry looks redundant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Yoho

There's the old MMF we know and love, opposite opinion go straight to insults.

Obviously there is is not one list of 30 names set in stone, but there is a general consensus.

There is a general consensus among the media, because they create one to give fans a backdrop to follow.

However, no matter how many times you ignore this fact, there is no consensus among teams because they each create their own private list. And those lists are all that matters.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by googol

All it takes is one other team interested in the pick to throw the board out the window.

there is no window

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There is a general consensus among the media, because they create one to give fans a backdrop to follow.

However, no matter how many times you ignore this fact, there is no consensus among teams because they each create their own private list. And those lists are all that matters.

Built largely from scouting services and feedback from scouts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Of course there is no consensus board in a draft, but to say that teams don't have roughly similar lists bar a few meteoric risers and droppers is accurate, especially in the top end of the draft. I'm not saying that Poirier or Jankowski is off the board because of where MacKenzie or some list has them lower, as there likely are a few teams high on these types of players forcing us to make a decision.


Let's say Keegan Kanzig was drafted 6th overall instead of Monahan, what does that then become? Apparently it can't be off the board according to this forum, but by every possible measure of value(which is what drafting prospects relative to your draft slot is all about) it's incredibly low. Hence making it off the board.

It becomes a bad pick.

[Poe969]

There is only one board that is actually right... If we look at who was drafted last year, we'll know where they rank on the "actual board" because it's where they were drafted.

Before last years draft, there were some that had Seth Jones at the #1 spot, he didn't go there and he'll be known as the #4 (or whatever) pick because that's where he went.

Who really cares where everyone in the world has people placed on their board??? I only really care where the Flames have players ranked and I really only care about the few that the Flames pick. I'm going to trust Burke and whomever is helping him at the draft and going forward.

All this board talk is irrelevant.

[Vulcan]

Every idiot should know that each team has their own list and every team's list is different. When the media says the pick is 'off the board', it is off the media's list compiled by scouting agencies and their own reporters. These are two different definitions but the media has every right to criticize using their own definition.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Every idiot should know that each team has their own list and every team's list is different. When the media says the pick is 'off the board', it is off the media's list compiled by scouting agencies and their own reporters. These are two different definitions but the media has every right to criticize using their own definition.

Sure but it's when those same idiots (your words) use those lists as gospel and not understand various lists are just various opinions and the only lists that matters are each respective teams. That's when the problem happens.

TSN shouldn't say "off the board" they should say "off our board. Any article referencing an "off the board" pick shouldn't use that phrase, they should reference a specific list.

[snipetype]

This thread is a whole new level of awful right now

[nik-]

Originally Posted by snipetype

This thread is a whole new level of awful right now

Because you're back?

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by snipetype

This thread is a whole new level of awful right now

All threads are fine when meat and potatoes aren't discussed.

[AC]

My favourite draft over reaction that I can recall was from 2007 when Angelo Esposito (0 NHL games played) and Nick Petrecki (1 NHL game played) were plummeting.

The Flames traded down from 18th to 24th and 70th to take Backlund. Many people actually liked Backlund prior to the draft so the outrage for him wasn't obscene, but several posters lost their minds over not taking Esposito or Petrecki.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

There's no off the board, but there are stupid picks. Those stupid picks are when you take a player that no other team in their right mind would take at that position.

It is a common practice (on some teams) that they will develop "blinders" on a player and they will slot that player ridiculously high up relative to Central Scouting, etc.

One of the teams that I saw do this no longer employs that head scout. It's pretty stupid. But it does happen.

One example was I saw a team's list who had a player ranked 6th overall and my initial thought was "that is ridiculous". The team ended up taking the player with their first rounder and of course the player turned out to be junk. Central Scouting had the player ranked over 100.

I asked a hockey executive about the player and what he thought about him maybe going in the first round and he laughed and said no chance he goes in the first or second round. Well, he went in the first round and is no longer in hockey, playing hardly any games.

Another really stupid one was when the Oilers had Jesse Niinimaki ranked first overall in the 2002 NHL Draft (and took him 15th). He was the 50th ranked European skater. Maybe the stupidest thing there was telling the media you had him ranked first overall.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

There's no off the board, but there are stupid picks. Those stupid picks are when you take a player that no other team in their right mind would take at that position.

It is a common practice (on some teams) that they will develop "blinders" on a player and they will slot that player ridiculously high up relative to Central Scouting, etc.

One of the teams that I saw do this no longer employs that head scout. It's pretty stupid. But it does happen.

One example was I saw a team's list who had a player ranked 6th overall and my initial thought was "that is ridiculous". The team ended up taking the player with their first rounder and of course the player turned out to be junk. Central Scouting had the player ranked over 100.

I asked a hockey executive about the player and what he thought about him maybe going in the first round and he laughed and said no chance he goes in the first or second round. Well, he went in the first round and is no longer in hockey, playing hardly any games.

Another really stupid one was when the Oilers had Jesse Niinimaki ranked first overall in the 2002 NHL Draft (and took him 15th). He was the 50th ranked European skater. Maybe the stupidest thing there was telling the media you had him ranked first overall.

Nice insight. Stupid is stupid whether you want to avoid words like "off the board" or "consensus". If no one else would take a player in the first or second round, and you take him in the first, it's still stupid

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Nice insight. Stupid is stupid whether you want to avoid words like "off the board" or "consensus". If no one else would take a player in the first or second round, and you take him in the first, it's still stupid

Maybe this is in an earlier post, but IIRC, the Flames went waaay "off the board" when they selected Derek Morris at 13, when his highest ranking was somewhere in the 50's. We may not have liked him much as a Flame, but that was a great pick, even though all the experts were saying the Flames were crazy - he would likely have been available in the second or third round. Each GM has to trust the scouts he hired, and for all anyone knew, another team might have picked him a couple of positions later. Same with Jankowski - it's done, so let's wait it out.