Cap World, Drafting for Need and BPA?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly.

I would say a lot of teams in general value centres and defensemen more than wingers. So that philosophy can affect the BPA list. You may move wingers down slightly as a matter of rule in comparison to centres and d-men. Teams who have this philosophy would have been unlikely to take Yakupov #1 in his draft year IMO. Galchenyuk as the top centre or guys like Murray, Rielly, Trouba, Reinhart, were the top D.

Some teams will have a massive emphasis on skating and this will affect the BPA list.
Some teams will have a massive emphasis on skill and this will affect the BPA list.

The Flames I think take a balanced approach blending the importance of a lot of different factors. They value skating, skill, size, character, work ethic. The one attribute I think is a make or break is heart and work ethic. I don't think the Flames are into taking lazy players.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

Positional need is by definition not part of BPA. Arguing so just muddles up terminology and makes communication more difficult. It's like arguing that 'literally' means 'figuratively'. You might win but you've just made our language worse.

By definition?

Let's say you have identical twins and they are equal in every way. One plays C and one plays wing.

Is the C not more valuable (and therefore the BPA) simply due to his position?

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Can we fast forward to the draft lottery? Be nice to know where we're picking

Have they said when the lottery is?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I want to take a BPA look into adjusting the top end of this draft.

From what I've read the two that are separating themselves the most are Matthews and Laine. Matthews seems to be ahead plus the fact he plays centre (the more valuable position) it cements him as #1.

1) Matthews (C)
2) Laine (RW)

Next group from what I see appears to be Puljujarvi, Tkachuk and Chychrun. Puljujarvi is at the head of this group for most. IMO he should only be dethroned if you think Chychrun is a #1 defenseman at the NHL level. Some appear to hold him in the same regard that Ekblad was held in his draft year. So I think some scouts will have Chychrun as high as #3, but some think he's more of a 2/3 so then you can have him lower. Let's go with the consensus at the moment that Puljujarvi heads this tier.

#3) Puljujarvi RW

Tkachuk vs Chychrun. Chychrun should win this unless you feel he's more of a 2/3 and Tkachuk flat out is a #1 LW. Both are very highly regarded so lets use the positional values to bias our selection here and take Chychrun because d-men are more valuable than wingers.

#4) Chychrun (D)
#5) Tkachuk (LW)

This is where the draft drops off according to many and it becomes a lot more debatable. Top candidates for the next few spots include Dubois (LW/C), Sergachev (D), Juolevi (D), Gauthier (RW), Nylander (W), McLeod (C). I would still be looking for BPA and its hard to know who the Flames like best.

This is the spot in the draft where I'd be more comfortable putting a bit more emphasis on positional need because I feel the margin between the prospects is less clear to me. Taking whichever of Dubois/Gauthier/Nylander is fine by me unless they think Juolevi or Sergachev is a top 2 d-man. If they are then you have to take the d-man IMO because top two d-men have insane value in the NHL and we still need another top 4 d-man to complete our dream unit.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Have they said when the lottery is?

Should be right after the season ends before the playoffs I believe.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by 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.

While the example is of course just that, it was obviously not randomly chosen, so good catch. And yeah, I'm totally buying that argument. While moving forwards seems to often be complicated, you can almost always move a defenseman. Especially the younger guys who tend to be more of the "modern" style. (Guys that move the puck well and skate well.)

I mean, out of Russell and Hudler I don't think there's much debate that Hudler is the better player. And yet Russell brought back more in return. (Although age does play a part.)

[handgroen]

BPA is one of those things where it's always right until it's wrong.
How long have we been saying that the oilers needed to pick a dman?

the flames aren't that overloaded at D let's not kid ourselves.
for that reason we're not at the draft year where we can ignore defence especially at the very high end.
most of the times i simulate the draft at this website http://www.tankathon.com/nhl/mock_draft
the flames get chychrun and i would be ecstatic with that outcome.

however if we take defenceman in the first round for the next two consecutive years, it's time to start looking at addressing glaring needs.

so yeah BPA always right till it's wrong.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Chychrun vs Tkachuk vs Puljujarvi to me is like Ekblad vs Draisaitl vs Bennett vs Reinhart. You can't go wrong adding any of those guys, they are all elite prospects.

I think we're golden if we're in that top tier of 5. And based on where we're sitting today in the standings there's a very high chance of drafting top 5.

Because the top tiers are so good, I think we may be able to trade up from #4 or 5 to #3 for not an outrageous price to ensure we get the player that fits our needs best positionally (RW). But if we don't we're still good.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by handgroen

BPA is one of those things where it's always right until it's wrong...

I would counter this by asserting that it is never a bad idea to select the BPA. I think that in rare instances justifying a draft selection by positional need is defensible, but this usually not until well after the fact, if at all.

Can you think of a single instance in which a team erred by taking the BPA? I sure can't.

[Teroy]

Originally Posted by handgroen

BPA is one of those things where it's always right until it's wrong.
How long have we been saying that the oilers needed to pick a dman?

the flames aren't that overloaded at D let's not kid ourselves.
for that reason we're not at the draft year where we can ignore defence especially at the very high end.
most of the times i simulate the draft at this website http://www.tankathon.com/nhl/mock_draft
the flames get chychrun and i would be ecstatic with that outcome.

Interesting the "weight differences" between tankathon and http://www.mynhldraft.com/NHL-Mock-Draft/

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would counter this by asserting that it is never a bad idea to select the BPA. I think that in rare instances justifying a draft pouch by positional need is defensible, but this usually not until well after the fact, if at all.

Can you think of a single instance in which a team erred by taking the BPA? I sure can't.

This is somewhat of a redundant argument I would say, as the BPA in retrospect will always be the best option.

But there is an element of uncertainty in drafting. You can't always know who will ultimately be the best. If the guy you draft doesn't end up being super valuable, you'd rather have a servicable guy at a position of need than one that creates a logjam.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Here's the best answer I've thought of Itse.

The draft is often broken down into tiers by scouts. That's because they see those players on a similar level but its hard to pick between them. Minute differences may be the only reason you favour player X over player Y. This could be a Hall vs Seguin top tier. Or a Ekblad vs Bennett vs Reinhart vs Draisaitl top tier of 4.

When you are drafting inside the tier and picking between two fairly equivalent players then you can definitely decide based on need.

If you're sitting at #6 and Chychrun is in your top tier of 5 players then you have to take him, he's the best player available. He's a whole tier above the other players left. Regardless of position you'd take him.

If you're sitting at #3 and you see Chychrun, Tkachuk and Puljujarvi as being fairly equivalent, on the same tier then you can draft by position.

If we draft at #3 we'd probably take Puljujarvi.
If EDM drafts at #3 wouldn't surprise me if they took or traded down to take Chychrun.

So I guess I believe in both BPA and drafting by position. Sometimes in a tier of fairly equivalent players you certainly can take a positional need.

You certainly wouldn't take a 2nd line RWer over a top 2 d-man just because we need RWers. I think we can all agree on that.

[Enoch Root]

Exactly. Within tiers of roughly equivalent players (which is usually the case), BPA means nothing more than personal preference.

And personal preference can definitely include position.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I don't think teams are as clear about their lists as they sometimes suggest. I am sure it's pretty obvious near the top, but probably gets muddy fast.

At some point they are balancing potential and likelihood, 'value' of that player at that pick, chance they will be there next pick, trading up and down, etc. And I am sure, organizational need. How all that stuff comes together is part of the art of drafting I would guess.

[Iniggywetrust]

Originally Posted by SebC

Positional need is by definition not part of BPA. Arguing so just muddles up terminology and makes communication more difficult. It's like arguing that 'literally' means 'figuratively'. You might win but you've just made our language worse.

I'll assume you were referring to my comments so I'll respond. It's never as simple as BPA. The BPA to me might be different than the BPA to you. So figuratively, when I'm an NHL GM looking at my list, and I value a good character centre with a strong shot over a speedy winger who dangles, the position plays into BPA.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Itse

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

Nope. The point of the draft is to acquire the best possible assets. The point of trading is to convert them into the best possible team.

I'm sure it's already been mentioned but Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen is the best example. They traded from a position of strength to build up a position of weakness.

The Capitals took Ilya Samsonov in last year's first round. This despite their #1G is likely to win the Vezina. Samsonov may never play for them but if they feel he's going to be good, they are going to trade him for whatever team need arises 3 years from now.

All that said, "BPA" is a fuzzy concept because it's subjective. That's why a team's scouts should and do have intensive meetings to get their list right before draft day. When draft day comes the only board that matters is the team's internal one.

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.

Well, there's also center Dubois on the board there, who is a pretty big and HIGHLY skilled center.

But that's besides the point. Yes Chychrun plays a position we've got covered now. But does he play a position we've got covered five years from now? What if an otherwise productive Giordano's cap hit is preventing us from re-signing Brodie? Will we have players on roster and in the system where we can stomach trading away Gio for cap relief?

Look at it another way. How excited were we about Bouwmeester/Phaneuf/Regehr? Well it didn't take long for that entire trio to be on the out. Having a talent as elite as Brodie in the system, kept there from being a hole there when we moved out J-Bo.

So no matter what position you need right now, you have to draft the player with the most talent, however you want to assess that. If it's Chychrun, then maybe, just maybe we'll stomp our way to a cup with the best top 4D in the league Brodie-Giordano / Chychrun-Hamilton. If it's Dubois, and we get prospects to pan out, then maybe we have to convert some centers to wing and our top 6 is (don't worry about who's playing center or how you feel about player x or y):

Gaudreau-Dubois-Monahan
Bennett-Jankowski-Backlund

Let's assume all six of these players pan out. What you have, is six guys that have skillsets that allow them to be valued as top 6 forwards. That's a lot more useful than, say, if Gauthier is a RW but doesn't pan out as a top 6 forward. Let's also assume Jankowski doesn't pan out as a top 6 forward and was just a pick-for-need instead of a BPA:

Gaudreau-Monahan-Frolik
Backlund-Bennett-Poirier?
x-Jankowski-Gauthier

Well then, Gauthier is now worth less than Dubois earlier. You still haven't filled your need for a top line winger. In fact I bet you'd rather have filled it with Sean Monahan sniping like he did against the Sens a couple games ago.

Five of the Sharks' top 6 is all natural centers. Couture, Thornton, Pavelski, Hertl, Marleau. The value the skill those players bring ahead of the "position" they play.

When you're drafting as high as we are though, in my opinion the BPA will probably be a forward just because they are much easier to project. And yeah, position might be a tiebreaker. Key word being "tie".

[Strange Brew]

Agree with GranteedEV generally. In the NFL teams factor in need much more since most draft picks play and contribute right away.

[Iceman90]

If you are the Oilers, you follow BFA - Best Forward Available. Otherwise, you need to best BPA.

[getbak]

It's interesting that people have brought up Nashville drafting Jones and trading him for Johansen as an example in favour of taking BPA over positional need.

What if Columbus hadn't been looking to move Johansen this year? Nashville would still be a team looking for a young Centre while having an abundance of Defencemen. Meanwhile, in 2013, when it was Nashville's turn to pick, there were still two big top-level Centres still on the board.


Johansen went 4th overall in 2010. The year after his Draft, he went back to the WHL for one more year. The following year, he went pro and scored 21 points in 67 games with Columbus. The year after that was the lockout, so Johansen split the year between the AHL and NHL. In the NHL, he put up 12 points in 40 games.

Three seasons after he was drafted, Johansen had a total of 33 points in 107 NHL games. Johansen was almost a year younger at the Draft than Monahan and Lindholm, so you could include his third pro season to get the numbers at a comparable age. In his third pro season, he had 63 points in 82 games, for a total of 96 in 189 games.


For comparison, in the three seasons since the 2013 Draft: Lindholm has 91 points in 204 NHL games; and Monahan has 140 in 218 games. Plus, there's still a quarter of the season left.

This season, combined between Columbus and Nashville, Johansen has 43 points in 62 games (as a 23 year-old). Monahan has 44 points in 62 games (as a 21 year-old).



The argument could be made that Nashville would have been better off drafting for position and taking either Lindholm or Monahan than they were drafting Jones and getting lucky that Columbus was looking to move a young top-level Centre two years later.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

NSH was extraordinarily fortunate that there was another team shopping an elite young asset at exactly the same time. That deal astonished the hockey world as a pure hockey trade, something vanishingly rare in the NHL today.

What happens if Columbus doesn't have a disgruntled young number one centre who wants out? Then NSH shops Jones around for a year or so, looking at offers along the lines of a mid first-round pick, a decent prospect, and a warm body. Extremely unlikely they end up getting fair value for Jones.

People are overlooking how difficult it is to make hockey trades in today's NHL. The whole notion of BPA is based on the idea that you can always exchange a prospect or young player for something of equal value. That's a mistaken assumption.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Can you think of a single instance in which a team erred by taking the BPA? I sure can't.

Yakupov.