Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
BPA is a vastly over-used argument.
It simply isn't that cut and dried. When you're drafting between 5th and 10th for example, your probably looking at 4 or 5 essentially equal prospects. One might be a better skater and another have a better shot or higher hockey IQ. It's a question of preferences.
Ask 5 scouts which one is the BPA and you probably get 5 different answers. So just take the one you like (and that is often influenced by position or team need).
When it becomes an issue is when a team reaches. If the next tier of players doesn't include a LW, for example, but a team really wants an LW so they reach down into the next tier. That's when they get themselves in trouble.
And I am confident Treliving would never do that.
|
IIRC, the Flames (and other teams) assign weights to specific areas like "IQ", "Size", "Skill", "Character", etc. Then they assign a numerical value to each one. That is how they determine BPA when it is their call.
I would imagine most teams kind of do this. You get a difference of opinion because different organizations place a different weight on these values (or instance, Flames are placing a larger emphasis on IQ and character), as well as the subjective numerical value assigned to these players by the scouts. Ask 10 scouts from 10 different organizations to assign a numerical value onto any one value, and you may get widely different numbers.
Also, scouts are not all the same. They each have their own personal biases as to what makes a player a good one. Some organizations have larger scouting staffs and can view certain players much more often - so they may see a bunch of bad games and then see the good games as well, and have a much more balanced opinion of said player. Some scouts are very experienced and can pick out young players who have the best chance of becoming NHL players - others seemingly are about as good as I am (and I freely admit to sucking completely).
I still think that most organizations pick BPA. It may get a bit tricky at the top of the draft since the top 5 (sometimes more) kids are essentially kids with very high ceilings who are already NHL-ready - so you can pick for need.
Do organizations pick for organizational need at times? I bet they do. I do think that organizations - especially in the 2nd half of the draft - look at the number of prospects in each position, and balance it out a bit. You can't have 15 LW'ers in the system and no defencemen - tough to get NHL players out of that situation I guess. I am assuming they do try to balance it out.
An organization can suddenly find itself going from extremely strong in one area, and then extremely weak in a matter of a couple of seasons. Flames were incredibly strong on RW with Iginla, Bourque (and he was great for a while and young), Bertuzzi, Moss, etc. Suddenly it became a wasteland. Defence too, with arguably the best defensive group in the NHL with Regehr, Phaneuf, Bouwmeester, Sarich, Giordano to what we saw in the last couple of years. If it wasn't for the Wideman signing, Russel trade, and now the Hamilton trade this year, Flames would not have a very solid defence at all. A bit of a straw-man on that one, but you kind of get the point.
If you routinely draft for need, some players might not be available to fill that need (even at the top end of the draft) for a couple of seasons, and by that time the landscape can be drastically different.