Cap World, Drafting for Need and BPA?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This debate has been had a hundred times... the only guy you can make a real case of for them not taking BPA was Yakupov.

And Hall.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The one lottery they needed to win (Ekblad) they didn't. Of course wouldn't surprise me if they took a forward over him lol.

[GranteedEV]

Looking back at the Oilers' 07 and 09 drafts, they also took Gagner over Voracek and Couture and Magnus Pajaarvi over Ryan Ellis.

We tend to forget they were incompetent before Hall.

Team "One Spot After the Oilers Pick":

Gabriel Landeskog-Jack Eichel-Jakub Voracek
Alex Radulov-Tyler Seguin-Ryan Kesler
Kyle Connor-Sam Bennett-Patrik Laine

Ryan Ellis-Rasmus Ristolainen
Ryan Murray-Connor Murphy

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And Hall.

I don't think you could definitively say that at the time.

However, I do think you can argue that taking the C was the better choice (another possible point for position mattering)

If the Oilers had considered position and team structure when drafting each year, they could have had:

Seguin
Landeskog
Reilly/Trouba (plus another asset)
Nurse
Bennett
McDavid

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think you could definitively say that at the time.

However, I do think you can argue that taking the C was the better choice (another possible point for position mattering)

If the Oilers had considered position and team structure when drafting each year, they could have had:

Seguin
Landeskog
Reilly/Trouba (plus another asset)
Nurse
Bennett
McDavid

I don't disagree, but not sure if makes much of a difference. They're more than a 3rd pairing defenseman away and none of the choices are obvious. I actually don't think they made any glaring mistakes in drafting. The bigger problems are:

1) outside of Hall the drafts were comparatively very weak at the top
2) they drafted nothing outside the top 6 such is where you make your base team. They've been floating far too many below replacement level players throughout their lineup.
3) the "it's ok to lose for a while" attitude destroyed the locker room

[CliffFletcher]

Yakupov was ranked #1 on most draft lists (according to the reports McKenzie and others provide). We can sneer at Edmonton now for the pick, but there's no reason to believe the other teams who could have picked 1st overall wouldn't have taken Yakupov too. He was the BPA. And he was also the wrong player for Edmonton to take.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yakupov was ranked #1 on most draft lists (according to the reports McKenzie and others provide). We can sneer at Edmonton now for the pick, but there's no reason to believe the other teams who could have picked 1st overall wouldn't have taken Yakupov too. He was the BPA. And he was also the wrong player for Edmonton to take.

Actually there's lot of reasons.

Article 1: Leafs Behind the Scenes Draft Video. Burke whispers to Bettman they had Morgan Rielly rated #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-hErRQleag

Article 2: Newspaper Article on the Draft. I believe Tod Button is quoted as saying they had Galchenyuk rated #1. Not sure where to find it archived.

Article 3: Strong rumblings from EDM that their scouts liked Murray best and two of their higher ups like G. Reinhart best.

I think the reason is people think Yakupov was a consensus #1 is because two of the best prospects that year in Rielly and Galchenyuk missed almost the entire season. Not every team is going to let Bob Mackenzie know that he should have those guys ahead of Yakupov, because they are trying to get those guys later.

I'd be shocked if more than half the teams in the league would've taken Yakupov #1. Wouldn't surprise me if it was significantly less than half.

There was no consensus #1 that year, I don't care what the rankings say. The teams quite clearly did not believe in a consensus #1 and that is reflected in what's come out since that draft. Basically all the behinds the scenes stuff after that draft indicates Yakupov was not a consensus #1.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yakupov was ranked #1 on most draft lists (according to the reports McKenzie and others provide). We can sneer at Edmonton now for the pick, but there's no reason to believe the other teams who could have picked 1st overall wouldn't have taken Yakupov too. He was the BPA. And he was also the wrong player for Edmonton to take.

Even if Yak was the undisputed #1 (which there are questions about) the smart move would have been to trade down.

If the Flames love a guy that's ranked 5th or 6th, I am all for going after him. But they should not use a top 3 pick for him. Trade down and get a late 1st or 2nd round pick on top.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DJones

Even if Yak was the undisputed #1 (which there are questions about) the smart move would have been to trade down.

If the Flames love a guy that's ranked 5th or 6th, I am all for going after him. But they should not use a top 3 pick for him. Trade down and get a late 1st or 2nd round pick on top.

Exactly. Trouba + would have been infinitely better for them than Yakupov.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It would be hard to boil down the Oiler incompetence to just one thing. I think it is fairly safe to say that they are 1) incompetent at evaluating who is BPA, 2) incompetent in deciding when it might be appropriate to veer from the BPA and take on a need and, most importantly, 3) incompetent in properly evaluating the players they have and the needs of the team, so that they may actually make a hockey trade in order to improve the club. All of which provides us with a wonderful view of a full blown tire fire.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually there's lot of reasons.

Article 1: Leafs Behind the Scenes Draft Video. Burke whispers to Bettman they had Morgan Rielly rated #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-hErRQleag

Article 2: Newspaper Article on the Draft. I believe Tod Button is quoted as saying they had Galchenyuk rated #1. Not sure where to find it archived.

Article 3: Strong rumblings from EDM that their scouts liked Murray best and two of their higher ups like G. Reinhart best.

I think the reason is people think Yakupov was a consensus #1 is because two of the best prospects that year in Rielly and Galchenyuk missed almost the entire season. Not every team is going to let Bob Mackenzie know that he should have those guys ahead of Yakupov, because they are trying to get those guys later.

I'd be shocked if more than half the teams in the league would've taken Yakupov #1. Wouldn't surprise me if it was significantly less than half.

There was no consensus #1 that year, I don't care what the rankings say. The teams quite clearly did not believe in a consensus #1 and that is reflected in what's come out since that draft. Basically all the behinds the scenes stuff after that draft indicates Yakupov was not a consensus #1.

If the Grease had taken Griffin Reinhart 1OA does that make their 2012 draft more intelligent?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

If the Grease had taken Griffin Reinhart 1OA does that make their 2012 draft more intelligent?

Definitely not. But if they trade down and take him it might've helped their draft better overall.

There's two different problems in EDM and I think they are getting confused and muddled together.

#1) Their scouting sucks and therefore they have a problem identifying the BPA. See taking Gagner over Voracek/Couture.
#2) They don't seem to have the strength of their convictions to actually take the player their scouts like best. Reportedly they take Yakupov over Murray when their scouts like Murray better. Reportedly MacTavish overrules the scouts and takes Nurse over Nichushkin due to positional need when their scouts like Nichushkin better.

It's a two-fold problem. I'm guessing Chiarelli has tried to address both ends of the problem.

[Firebot]

Edmonton's first round pick selections are not the issue. Outside of Yakupov which is debatable, all other players picked made sense.

Hall was the proper choice at the time.
Neugent-Hopkins was the proper choice
Nurse was the proper choice (fitting a need). Even now despite Edmonton's bungling I would still pick him over Nichkushin
Draisatl was a fine choice in Edmonton's situation (fitting a need)
McDavid

The problem with Edmonton has always been that they truly believe that by doing nothing, these players year after year could get you a Cup, without developing them or teach them how to win. Signing a guy like Justin Schultz and calling him a future Norris player hurt you. Pampering these high draft picks from day one and giving them the key to the city with no responsibilities hurts you. Hiring a coach like Eakins hurts you. Having no management skills and smiling when you win the draft lottery hurts you. Having no proper scouting past the 1st round gimmies hurts you.

Edmonton strove by a "losing is the way to rebuild" mentality, and even now, with McDavid falling on their lap after 10 years of The Rebuild TM, they sit in 29th place.

Calgary needs to pick the BPA, and if things are too close to call, you pick with a slight bias to position.

[belsarius]

I have a hard time when evaluating Oilers picks because they are on the Oilers and I feel that itself has been detrimental to their progress. The Oilers have been terrible at development of their players, they are constantly rushed and pushed into positions they are not ready for. I believe part of what makes Seguin better than Hall was his time on a fourth line learning the game instead of forced into top minutes and the only goal was to score goals. I think Nurse has actually been the player they have handled best by letting him take his time to learn the pro game in the NHL. Its easy yo compare players picked after the Oilers but their development tracks are very different.

[Conroy4Mayor]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

If we were drafting by need, we would be taking g a goalie in the top 10..

I always cringe when a goalie goes top 60. I'm sure there are tons of reasons why you take certain goalies but honestly, Tokarski, Subban and others along that line concern me. Sure you could get a Martin Brodeur (career starting G goalie who can carry a team to a cup) but that is becoming a Unicorn IMO.

I like it when teams pick goalies after 30, preferably after 60.

That said, BPA unless Need is real close to BPA and that's when you trade down.

Amen brother.

The fact that now highly-touted Matthew Murray was the 18th ranked goalie in his draft, just proves that drafting goalies is a crap shoot.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Oilers are such a dysfunctional organization, that really there isn't much that people can look at anything that organization does while comparing things to averages.

They drafted terribly beyond the first round - they were obviously not even ready organizationally for their rebuild. That is one thing that we can thank Darryl Sutter and Jay Feaster about - they both made it a point to grow the drafting and development program to make better use of the draft.

Oilers also don't seem able to develop well. Has any of their first overalls to date put up 'first overall-type numbers' up yet?

I have arrived at the conclusion long ago that it didn't matter much who the Oilers drafted. They outcome would have been the same. It still would have been putting kids high up on the pecking order on the ice and in the dressing room, without solid vets to mentor them or shoulder the load, and little to no support from the rest of the team, including a completely non-existent defence and poor coaching. Everything from that team stinks, and that is why they continue to suck even as they accrue more first overalls.

I think they picked the 'correct' first overall in every case - maybe Yakupov didn't have as high of a consensus, but even he was generally as close as you got to consensus (at least, consensus through the fan scouting publications and ISS, etc - we will never know what the 'real' consensus was on him from all 30 teams).

If they had Seguin, Landeskog, Galchenyuk/Rielly/Murray, McDavid - I would bet we would still be talking about how stupid they were for picking these guys ahead of what the 'consensus' was, and Hall, Nugent Hopkins and Yakupov would all probably be doing way better and those years wouldn't have been considered 'poor first-overall' years.

The Oilers suck so bad at developing players and building a team, that anything they do can't be used in any amalgamation with what the rest of the league is doing in order to try and draw any conclusions that could provide insight.

I think it is akin to someone trying to see what the Asian factory automakers are doing right in terms of reliability and pricing. So they compare Toyota (Chicago), Honda (Pittsburgh), Nissan (Florida), Kia (Islanders) and... hmm... AutoVAZ (Edmonton). One of these is not like the others, and we can all expect extreme outliers that would result in faulty data.

Forget Edmonton in any analysis about what the Flames should or shouldn't do. They are such a dysfunctional outlier, that the only place they have in any discussion on these forums is the E=NG thread.

[troutman]

You don't know what your needs will be in 3-4 years, so BPA every time.

[Hackey]

I don't think the Oilers selection was the issue it was more the draft was pretty terrible.

1) Nail Yakupov
2) Ryan Murray
3) Alex Galchenyuk
4) Griffin Reinhart
5) Morgan Rielly
6) Hampus Lindholm
7) Matthew Dumba
8) Derrick Pouliot
9) Jacob Trouba
10) Slater Koekkoek

Not a very impressive list. Lindholm and Trouba probably the best of the bunch and those guys are more complimentary players than game changers.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Complimentary players? Lindhom and Rielly are top pairing d-men in their early 20's. I'd say they are far from complimentary players, those are key building blocks for a team.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Complimentary players? Lindhom and Rielly are top pairing d-men in their early 20's. I'd say they are far from complimentary players, those are key building blocks for a team.

True, but no one had them as first overalls. The talent at the top was weaker than most drafts