Again have to really disagree, you have a road map and you follow it! If you can't see what your prospects are capable of, nor have the ability to see what you will need in 3-4 years then you have no place in a scouting department nor in management.
OK, smart guy, who will be the #1 goalie of the Flames in three or four years? Is it a player who is in the organization now? If so, which one?
Who will be the #1 centre in four years? Which, if any, of the Flames’ current prospects not only have the potential to play that role, but will actually fulfil that potential?
The fact is that you don’t know, and neither does anyone. Hockey people are not psychic. Their failure to be psychic does not make them stupid. Your expecting them to be, on the other hand, might not be the smartest idea going.
Quote:
This is how the good teams seem to stay near the top for so long, they don't draft for instant gratification but for the long term glory, one way equals success the other way equals the oilers!
And that is WHY you don’t draft for organizational need. BPA = long term. Organizational need = looking at today’s depth chart.
You want to talk about the Oilers? They needed a big centre (organizational need), so they took Leon Draisaitl and put him right into the NHL lineup. He is completely lost out there. This year is probably a lost year for his development, and he may never catch up to where he would have been if he had stayed in junior and got top minutes and good coaching.
Now, the consensus BPA at that time was Sam Bennett. If the Oilers had drafted Bennett and then signed a free agent to plug the hole short-term, is there any doubt that they would be better off, both now and in the future?
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Last edited by Jay Random; 12-27-2014 at 10:58 PM.
OK, smart guy, who will be the #1 goalie of the Flames in three or four years? Is it a player who is in the organization now? If so, which one?
Who will be the #1 centre in four years? Which, if any, of the Flames’ current prospects not only have the potential to play that role, but will actually fulfil that potential?
The fact is that you don’t know, and neither does anyone. Hockey people are not psychic. Their failure to be psychic does not make them stupid. Your expecting them to be, on the other hand, might not be the smartest idea going.
And that is WHY you don’t draft for organizational need. BPA = long term. Organizational need = looking at today’s depth chart.
Go cheer for the oilers if that is what you want "smart guy! " you of course will not know exacts but you can definitely see weaknesses within your organization where toy week want something addressed in the coming years. You either have no sense in how things actually work in the world of hockey or are hell bent on instant gratification!
We have 3 pretty good goalies coming up in the system, you hope one will be your starter, in the coming few years you draft a couple more to keep the pipeline full. Centres we have some very good centres with a couple more in the system, you should know that for the next few years we should be good, draft some if you want but under the understanding that they may sle to wing long term or may push someone you currently have to wing.
You know our d corps is lacking and drafting for organizational need is the smartest thing to do in the coming couple of years, you suggesting otherwise is just child's play! And for you to suggest that teams do not look 3-5 years down the road is pure ignorance on your behalf and why taking bpa after mid first round is very unwise!
Consensus was Sam Bennett? Who's consensus? Many thought there was very little between the top 4 and that this draft was one where drafting for organizational need at the top comes into play. Again, they addressed a long term organizational need but put him into the NHL when he's not nearly ready, especially for 2nd line minutes. That is instant gratification, not taking the longer term outlook that I suggest and that you seen to not understand. They obviously thought he was the bpa and would help a glaring organizational need, the fact that they put him in there before he's ready is an oilers choice and probably the only team in the NHL that would have done so after the 9 games. Had they let him play junior another year, develop his game more he could (and probably still will)become a very good NHL player.
Consensus was Sam Bennett? Who's consensus? Many had Draisatl ahead. Again, they addressed an organizational need but put him into the NHL when he's not nearly ready, especially for 2nd line minutes. That is instant gratification, not taking the longer term outlook that I suggest and that you seen to not understand. They obviously thought he was the bpa and would help a glassing organizational need, the fact that they put him in there before he's ready is an oilers choice and probably the only team in the NHL that would have done so after the 9 games. Had they let him play junior another year, develop his game more he could (and probably still will)become a very good NHL player.
Yeah I don't understand the early disappointment with Klimchuk.
Just because a player is a first round pick, doesn't mean it is top six or bust. He wasn't projected to be a top line winger. I think/hope he will turn out to be a solid all around player. All situations, both wings.
I think Burke has said it before. His game translates very well to pro.
The Following User Says Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
Go cheer for the oilers if that is what you want "smart guy! " you of course will not know exacts but you can definitely see weaknesses within your organization where toy week want something addressed in the coming years. You either have no sense in how things actually work in the world of hockey or are hell bent on instant gratification!
I just said that you don’t draft for immediate organizational need. What the hell has that got to do with instant gratification? Good grief, have you not read a single word I’ve written? Apparently not.
Quote:
We have 3 pretty good goalies coming up in the system, you hope one will be your starter, in the coming few years you draft a couple more to keep the pipeline full.
So is it an area of organizational need or not? Sorry, you’re the one who claims to know what the team will need in four years. Have we got a #1 goalie four years from now or not? If so, what is his name?
If you don’t know that, you have no claim to be saying that a team should be drafting based on organizational needs four years in the future.
Come on, smart guy. Answer the question.
Quote:
Centres we have some very good centres with a couple more in the system, you should know that for the next few years we should be good, draft some if you want but under the understanding that they may sle to wing long term or may push someone you currently have to wing.
In other words, again, you don’t answer the question. You don’t know what the depth chart will look like in four years, so how can you draft based on what the organizational needs will be at that date? You can’t.
Quote:
You know our d corps is lacking and drafting for organizational need is the smartest thing to do in the coming couple of years, you suggesting otherwise is just child's play!
Yes, the Flames’ D corps is thin today. Drafting a defenceman in this year‘s draft will not help that. So you have to fix that problem with trades or free agency. At that point you have a different depth chart and different organizational needs. Which means that drafting based on the needs you used to have is a plain waste of time.
Quote:
And for you to suggest that teams do not look 3-5 years down the road is pure ignorance on your behalf and why taking bpa after mid first round is very unwise!
Listen. I said VERY CLEARLY, you DO look years down the road. THAT IS WHY YOU TAKE THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE. That is why you DO NOT draft based on the holes in your depth chart TODAY. You DO NOT KNOW what your depth chart will look like in four years. NOBODY KNOWS THAT. What you do know is what kind of players you want to have in your system, and what kind of players you want to be developing. At that range you have to plan in general terms, not in details.
You seem to be fixated on the idea that a GM has to know exactly what his team’s needs will be in four years (which nobody ever has known in the entire history of hockey), or else he is flying by the seat of his pants. Well, BOTH of those alternatives are COMPLETELY WRONG. Get that through your head, will you?
Geez.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Consensus was Sam Bennett? Who's consensus? Many had Draisatl ahead.
Name two. Every source I remember reading put Bennett ahead of Draisaitl. Many had Bennett ranked #1. I don’t think a single scouting source had Draisaitl #1.
Quote:
Again, they addressed an organizational need but put him into the NHL when he's not nearly ready, especially for 2nd line minutes. That is instant gratification, not taking the longer term outlook that I suggest and that you seen to not understand.
Right. They addressed an organizational need, which is the WRONG THING TO DO. You are the one saying that it is the right thing.
Quote:
They obviously thought he was the bpa and would help a glassing organizational need,
No, they did NOT ‘obviously’ think he was the BPA. They thought they needed a big beefy centreman to put in the lineup right away. Bennett was not big and beefy, so they passed him over.
Quote:
the fact that they put him in there before he's ready is an oilers choice and probably the only team in the NHL that would have done so after the 9 games. Had they let him play junior another year, develop his game more he could (and probably still will)become a very good NHL player.
Exactly. My point exactly. They drafted for immediate positional need, and screwed the pooch. Yet in your twisted view of the world, teams are supposed to draft for immediate positional need. And anybody who drafts for talent and general organizational fit is, in your view, completely stupid.
How do you reconcile these things? You contradict yourself every time you open your mouth.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Jay, you simply do not get it do you, you certainly do draft for organizational need the further you get away from the first few picks and most every team would tell you that.
Now where the hell did I ever say to draft for immediate need? Never have and never will! Apparently it's you who cannot read!
Now the draft order was all over the place and just like the draft rankings they were all over the place,one in fact had Draisatl #1 some time in the year. You look at what this kid did with nobody around him in PA,the points he put up etc and he was in serious contention for 1st overall.
Now try reading my posts again buddy and take it all in, drafting for organizational need after the mid first round (got that?)is a smart thing to do, dressing how you suggest is a very, very foolish approach,especially when there is little difference between players in many scout's eyes the further you get from the first few players drafted. You are trying to compare the front of the draft to the rest of the draft and you are making yourself look foolish in doing so,you do not employ the same principle to players that there is very little between them. I mean got are going to continue to loaf up on left wingers mid way through the first round when your long term outlook calls for you to go heavier on defencemen? Good luck with that approach, your team would be fighting edmonton for the first overall for years to come.
Thing is that forwards are a lot more can't miss than dmen. So hard to project dmen at 18 in general. As you say you are projecting 3-5 years down the line. I'm ok with the current approach as we need picks that play in the NHL. Don't need another matt pelech in our pool. Yeah, would suck if we have to part with a young forward to get a d but at least we would have the asset base in order to acquire a dman, instead of a bust prospect. Let's face it, the past two drafts haven't been good for dmen but let's hope our scouts have found a couple of players in Hickey and Rafikov. Always can supplement with some ncaa free agents too.
I agree. It worked out nice for us in 1988, at least short term.
Consensus was Sam Bennett? Who's consensus? Many thought there was very little between the top 4 and that this draft was one where drafting for organizational need at the top comes into play. Again, they addressed a long term organizational need but put him into the NHL when he's not nearly ready, especially for 2nd line minutes. That is instant gratification, not taking the longer term outlook that I suggest and that you seen to not understand. They obviously thought he was the bpa and would help a glaring organizational need, the fact that they put him in there before he's ready is an oilers choice and probably the only team in the NHL that would have done so after the 9 games. Had they let him play junior another year, develop his game more he could (and probably still will)become a very good NHL player.
Everyone, when called on it, can quote a source that will support their position because it isn't an exact science and there will always be different opinions.
Having said that, it is a real stretch to suggest that there was little to differentiate the top 4. Almost everyone had a top 3, with Draisaitl usually in a toss up with Dal Colle in the 4/5 position.
I find the best evidence for these debates is that chart that shows the ranges for where different people rank the various players. And it shows a pretty clear separation between the top 3 and Draisaitl.
Bennett and Reinhart were as close to a toss up as you'll see. But for me, the preference was Bennett. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Reinhart ends up with more points, I expect Bennett will be a more complete player and the kind of guy you win with. Thrilled we got Bennett.
And the only reason we did was because the Oilers took the guy that could help them right now (they thought). Draisaitl had NHL size and strength and they had a hole in their roster.
People can and will debate the Hall/Seguin thing. For me, Yakupov was a huge mistake - and yes, was actually a case where they should have considered their situation organizationally (for the long term, not for the present).
But I think Draisaitl will go down as an even bigger mistake. Nothing wrong with drafting players that fit your organization, when skill sets are a toss up.
But the Oilers made the ultimate draft-day mistake: they took a lesser player because it helped them now.
With a top 5 pick especially, you simply can't do that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
In the argument of drafting BPA or go for organizational needs, I think it should be a little bit of both. Having to name our goalie in 4 years is a made up rule. I look at as do we have the goalies in the pipeline to provide competition for that spot? The same goes for defencemen and the other positions. This seems to be getting more important as trades are becoming harder to make and defencemen are at a premium. I'm not saying to force things to pick a player of organizational needs but when the choice becomes somewhat blurry, take the player we think we'll need in the future.
