Cap World, Drafting for Need and BPA?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

NSH didn't have a problem moving Seth Jones when they were overloaded at defense.

The best player will be the best asset.

How often do trades like these happen though? Not even once in a season, in a 30 team league.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Itse

How often do trades like these happen though? Not even once in a season, in a 30 team league.

Yes, but usually the teams that draft high are the bad teams that could use basically everything.

Plus, it's rare to have as large of a surplus as Nashville typically has at D.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I'd entertain trading down for Gauthier or McLeod for sure. Address a need and add more assets. RW is that abysmal.

Barf. Much rather trade up. Doesn't look like a good trade down situation this year.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

NSH didn't have a problem moving Seth Jones when they were overloaded at defense.

The best player will be the best asset.

This. No guarantee that if you draft for need, that said player will turn into the kind of player you want. But with BPA, you can always flip that player as an asset, and then get the player you need.

Let's say in 2013 when we drafted Monahan, that our biggest need was a RW instead of a C. So we end up drafting Nischuskin instead of Monahan, because that was our biggest need at the time. Is there anybody today who would make that trade? Sure, Nischuskin would have fulfilled a need at the time. But who is the better player right now?

You always draft BPA. Always. Nothing is guaranteed at the draft. It's better to draft from a position of strength and have a sure-thing, then to draft for a need and have them bust.

We also have a GM who has proven that he can win trades. So I have no issue with the Flames drafting yet another C or D come draft day, and BT flipping it for a player who fills a need and then something else alongside it.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I take skill over everything else. If it's close then factors like size and position come into play.

I don't. To a certain point, skill is a priority, but no matter how talented they are, they've got to be at least close to average size to be a first round pick I think. You have to balance potential with likeliness of reaching that potential.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Barf. Much rather trade up. Doesn't look like a good trade down situation this year.

The cost of trading into even Nylander is going be more painful than any other year because of how top heavy the draft is. It's not that unreasonable to think Chychrun would be over higher value to teams below the Flames @6

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't know, I'll break the mold and suggest that depending on the situation, 1st rounders should sometimes be drafted by need. After the 1st round it should always be BPA since it's a total crapshoot.

When should 1st rounders be by need? When your first round picks start to stack up in one position after a few years. Then you end up like the Oilers who took the consensus BPA every year and now they have a bunch of soft but skilled forwards and the rest of team is utter trash.

The problem with the Oilers is that they should have traded away those players or picks for assets that would help them. Everyone knows that is what they need to do, but the haven't done so yet. Their mistake is holding onto those players like their lives depend on it.

And for all the grief they get, they took the general consensus #1 pick each season. Who's to say the Flames wouldn't have made the same picks had they been in that position? It's easy to say they should have taken Ryan Murray instead of Yakupov. That would certainly have filled a need. But no one at the time was saying that. Same with Hall vs Seguin. Seguin now for sure, but at the time Hall was winning those polls with a >80% vote, including on CP. We have the luxury of hindsight.

The Oilers trading away either those 1st overalls for some good talent would have been the smart move. But alas, we are blessed they don't think like that.

[polak]

Originally Posted by SebC

This seems backwards to me. 1st rounders are more accurately rated, so it makes more sense to spend your late picks on positional needs.

Yet, late round picks often have more and development time, and less predictable development time, so it's harder to assess what your needs will actually because of the lag between drafting a prospect and that prospect making an impact.

Exactly, so wouldn't you want to draft by position for the player that has a good chance of fitting into that hole in your team? If you're the Oilers (haha loser) and there's a projected top pairing D available, you're going to take a center just cause they're the BPA?

Whereas in the later rounds, why limit your already slim chances of an NHL player by playing picky choosy based on need?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think one has to only look at the Flames 5 or so years ago. They were very deep organizationally with Iginla, Bourque, Moss and I believe Nystrom (or was that Prust - fuzzy now). Iginla with a 40+ season. Bourque with almost a 30 goal season. Moss with almost a 20 goal season. In a few short seasons, everyone except Iginla was gone, and then he too eventually got traded.

Point is, you always draft BPA. A lot can happen organizationally in the span of a few short seasons.

Even when a team finds itself pretty 'stacked' with youth at a certain position, it too can quickly evaporate. LW was looking really, really stacked for the next decade with a 2 PPG Baertschi tearing up the WHL and scoring well in his emergency call-up just turning pro, the 135lb long-shot suddenly became a can't miss player in Gaudreau (at least that worked out!), and Klimchuk was just drafted. On the roster was still a fairly dependable player in Glencross as well, and Hudler. Talk about depth!

Now, it is only Gaudreau with Klimchuk in the pipeline, and a recently acquired Shinkaruk. Things can evaporate fairly quickly.

Always BPA, and you can trade from an area of strength to shore-up an area of weakness in the long run anyways.

[polak]

Yes but holes are unlikely to be plugged by UFA's. Hence why filling them with blue chips seems like a good idea to me.

Good discussion though, I can't really argue against your points either

[SebC]

Originally Posted by polak

Exactly, so wouldn't you want to draft by position for the player that has a good chance of fitting into that hole in your team? If you're the Oilers (haha loser) and there's a projected top pairing D available, you're going to take a center just cause they're the BPA?

Whereas in the later rounds, why limit your already slim chances of an NHL player by playing picky choosy based on need?

What I'm saying is that if you're in that situation you can you trade down, or draft then trade. That's how you preserve the value of your pick.

In the late rounds, all picks have roughly equal value so you're not really losing anything if you pick for position. But it's still harder to do.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

The problem with the Oilers is that they should have traded away those players or picks for assets that would help them. Everyone knows that is what they need to do, but the haven't done so yet. Their mistake is holding onto those players like their lives depend on it.

And for all the grief they get, they took the general consensus #1 pick each season. Who's to say the Flames wouldn't have made the same picks had they been in that position? It's easy to say they should have taken Ryan Murray instead of Yakupov. That would certainly have filled a need. But no one at the time was saying that. Same with Hall vs Seguin. Seguin now for sure, but at the time Hall was winning those polls with a >80% vote, including on CP. We have the luxury of hindsight.

The Oilers trading away either those 1st overalls for some good talent would have been the smart move. But alas, we are blessed they don't think like that.

Actually there was a lot of talk about this, especially up here in Edmonton. There were also a lot of rumours that Katz intervened and forced them to take Yakupov over Murray. All speculation of course, but there were a lot of people that were saying the whole time that Yakupov was the wrong player to pick even though he was ranked 1st.

[Geeoff]

This team has needs for prospects in every position.

Some factors to consider:

-there's no guarantee that the player you're drafting will develop to fill the hole the team has.
-the needs of the team might be different by the time a prospect is ready to play in the NHL

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

This team has needs for prospects in every position.

Some factors to consider:

-there's no guarantee that the player you're drafting will develop to fill the hole the team has.
-the needs of the team might be different by the time a prospect is ready to play in the NHL

Valid. But outside of Poirier, what RW has a great chance of being a hit for top 6 duties? Hathaway? Harrison? Smith?

In the OP scenario we're left with Chychrun as BPA and the Flames have way more top 4 potential D prospects in the chamber. I don't even think that's a debate.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I think need may affect our decision about whether we wanna trade up from #4-6 if we get stuck there.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Also something that should not be overlooked in the OP's example that I don't think anyone touched upon, is the fact that defencemen seem to hold higher value than wingers. Top pairing defencemen have values on par with top line centers (for the most part). Top 4 defencemen are usually more valuable than 2nd line wingers - and sometimes hold more value than top line wingers in some instances.

I would be 100% comfortable in drafting Chychurn if he was the BPA (or another defencemen) over perhaps a lesser prospect to fill an immediate hole organizationally. This comes from someone who very much believes that Kylington could very well end up as a top-pairing guy, and feel very comfortable that organizationally, this team is extremely well setup for top 4 defencemen (Brodie, Hamilton, Kylington, Andersson, Hickey, Kulak) and 'bottom 4' (no chance at top pairing, but perhaps a chance at middle pairing or bottom pairing upside - Culkin, Wotherspoon, Nakladal, Jokipakka, Kanzig (yes, bottom pairing upside), Ollas-Mattsson, Rafikov).

As they force their way into the NHL, they either get traded for additional futures, packaged for immediate holes in the lineup, or they even push the defencemen ahead of them out of the organization and use those other defencemen as trade chips to likewise refill the cupboards or fill immediate needs.

Regardless of position, the BPA will have a better chance at becoming an impact player in the NHL, and that player will at least have more value in future trades to re-balance the lineup.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by polak

...When should 1st rounders be by need? When your first round picks start to stack up in one position after a few years. Then you end up like the Oilers who took the consensus BPA every year and now they have a bunch of soft but skilled forwards and the rest of team is utter trash...

That is not exactly true. Yes, the Oilers took players who were judged to be the BPA, but there were lively debates about whether the best player in each of 2010 and 2012 between Hall or Seguin? Yakupov or Murray? The Oilers' problem was not so much a product of their draft strategy as the combination of player identification and development.

You shouldn't leave the composition of your roster up to blind luck by just taking the BPA regardless of position.

Picking BPA is not "blind luck." When drafting, these are your core players who should then determine the direction of the rest of a team's decisions.

EDIT: I want the fins over Matthews.

I think that is nuts. Mathews has the rare combination of size, speed, and skill down the middle. Like with the Team Canada roster released today that comprises mostly centres, players in this position are readily and easily converted to the wing, with rare exceptions like Markus Grandlund.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

(...)players in this position are readily and easily converted to the wing, with rare exceptions like Michael Grandlund.

Think you mean Markus. Also Granlund.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by AC

Think you mean Markus. Also Granlund.

Whup. Was just reviewing World Cup rosters with my son.

[Iniggywetrust]

I think that there is actually a string correlation between BPA and positional need. A team will based it's list on who they think is the BPA but how they judge who is actually best will depend on what skills and attributes they find most important. Position will factor into that as well.