Cap World, Drafting for Need and BPA?

[Itse]

This is a thought that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now, and I'd like to hear what the CP hivemind thinks.

In short the question is:
Is drafting for need now more important than drafting BPA?

I think there are clear signs that this would be the case. Trades have become more difficult to make, and as a result finding the player you want in exchange for the player you're willing to move is in no way guaranteed, and you might not get full value back. Star UFA's mostly end up overpaid, which is a killer in the cap world.

Prospects also know their value better and as a result having a logjam in a position could again force you to trade from a position of weakness or at least lowered value of prospect. (See Drouin as the most extreme case.)

For example;
I think most agree we have a pretty decent defensive trio in Brodie, Giordano and Hamilton. It's not all of a contending teams defense, but it's a pretty good start. Our forward group on the other hand is desperately short on both size and skill.

Let's say the Flames are drafting 6th. Matthews, Laine, Puljujärvi, Tkachuk and Nylander are all gone. Now I know "there's no board", but for the sake of argument the clear BPA at this point is the defenseman Chychrun, followed by a couple of other defensemen and smallish centers.

After those guys we have Julien Gauthier, 6'4" 225lbs RW, power forward with potentially elite scoring touch, good skating and a solid work ethic. In short, everything we need. (Again, at least for the sake of argument.)

Traditional logic says BPA. But with the difficulty of making trades, I just might go with the somewhat lower ranked guy to fill a much bigger hole in our lineup.

Opinions?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Best player available unless it's so close its a toss up.

I'd happily take Chychrun at #6.

[N-E-B]

Always draft BPA. Best case scenario for the Flames is they pick 2nd and BPA is Laine. Then you get the best of both worlds.

[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.

[irrevocable]

Just parroting the other posters thus far. You always go BPA.

[Textcritic]

It will always be BPA.

[codynw]

Always draft best player available. If it's close, then go for positional need.

If you end up with an extra center or defenceman, then you can use them to trade for what you need. Teams are always looking for centers and defencemen.

[dammage79]

Might be time to consider positioning into the BPA equation. The Flames have a glaring weakness in the RW depth department throughout the organization. I can't uld see them go off the board for sure.

[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.

[SebC]

I think BPA-logic is a little bit dogmatic, but still usually correct.

[mdubz]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Might be time to consider positioning into the BPA equation. The Flames have a glaring weakness in the RW depth department throughout the organization. I can't uld see them go off the board for sure.

If the 2 Finns are gone, you would take Gauthier over a stud D-man like Chychrun?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by mdubz

If the 2 Finns are gone, you would take Gauthier over a stud D-man like Chychrun?

Or, if they get the 1st overall pick do they take Laine or Puljujarvi over Matthews?

I sure hope they wouldn't.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Considering there is no "board," BPA may turn out to be weighted toward a specific position because of the bias forced by our management.

[nightfx]

I'd take Chychrun and Dubois over Gauthier in that scenario, I don't think he has high enough hockey IQ to be a top 6 guy in the NHL.

[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.

So yeah, 2nd round on, BPA. 1st round, BPA unless the BPA is a position you're fairly stacked in then you should draft by need and if possible, trade down (or trade for an already drafted prospect) to do so should there not be any of those players in your range.

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

EDIT: I want the fins over Matthews.

[Imported_Aussie]

I say BPA as you are always looking to draft players in terms of their potential upside and likelihood to reach said upside. Jones for Johansen, as already mentioned above, is a great example of why you do this as you can trade from strength.
It doesn't even need to be a one for one trade like that, it could be that in adding a stud D in this draft, you then turn the top end D prospects in your system into trade assets.
What it comes down to is whether you have your list ranked correctly.

I think positional need is considered more in leagues where the drafted player is expected to play right away, such as the NBA or NFL, than in the NHL where even a first round pick may need time to develop, meaning they may graduate into a totally different roster

[Itse]

Originally Posted by codynw

Or, if they get the 1st overall pick do they take Laine or Puljujarvi over Matthews?

I sure hope they wouldn't.

I don't think "drafting for need" really makes a difference for forwards, especially centers. You can always move extra centers to wing. But you can't move a defenseman to RW.

If BPA is still the consensus, do people think drafting for need has at least become more of a consideration? Or am I in the minority in thinking that?

(I mean, obviously you're not going to go way out JUST to draft for need. But I do think it's much more of an issue.)

[Caged Great]

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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by polak

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.

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.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by mdubz

If the 2 Finns are gone, you would take Gauthier over a stud D-man like Chychrun?

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