Cap World, Drafting for Need and BPA? - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 07:20 PM

Assuming these players are still on the board, I'd go BPA: Matthews.
If Matthews was gone I'd draft by position needs: Gauthier or Nylander.

Ashasx · 03-02-2016, 07:23 PM

You'd take those 2 players ahead of the Finns?

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

You'd take those 2 players ahead of the Finns?

Yes

AC · 03-02-2016, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

Yes

Why?

Seems like the Finns would easily qualify as BPA if Matthews was gone AND positional need.

Ashasx · 03-02-2016, 07:27 PM

The Finns are both the best players available after Matthews and fill a position void.

They are a clear tier above Gauthier and Nylander.

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 07:32 PM

I appreciate your opinion but I favour Nylander and Gauthier. Both RW, have size and better scoring stats. Only time will tell. My choices were based on position need.

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-02-2016, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

I appreciate your opinion but I favour Nylander and Gauthier. Both RW, have size and better scoring stats. Only time will tell. My choices were based on position need.

Nylander is considerably smaller than Laine and Puljujarvi.

Better scoring stats? Not sure what you're talking about here. Laine and Puljujarvi play against men in professional sports leagues. Nylander and Gauthier are scoring on kids in junior.

When all 4 played together in the World Juniors the Finns outclassed Gauthier certainly. Nylander held his own but is a smaller player.

Ashasx · 03-02-2016, 07:35 PM

Puljujarvi is 6'3". Laine is 6'4". They are big boys.

I actually can't find any draft guide that doesn't have Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi 1-3 in some order.

Gauthier and Nylander also have better scoring stats in far inferior leagues.

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Puljujarvi is 6'3". Laine is 6'4". They are big boys.

I actually can't find any draft guide that doesn't have Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi 1-3 in some order.

Gauthier and Nylander also have better scoring stats in far inferior leagues.

As I said, "position need".

flamesforcup · 03-02-2016, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

As I said, "position need".

but all of them are right shot wingers im pretty sure.....

AC · 03-02-2016, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

As I said, "position need".

Gauthier 6'4" RW, shoots right.
Puljujarvi 6'3" RW, shoots right.

Nylander 6'0" LW/RW, shoots right.
Laine 6'4" LW/RW, shoots right.

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-02-2016, 07:45 PM

Quote:

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.

Except that isn't exactly what the Oilers did.

The year they took Hall they thought they were taking the best player available (it was debatable vs Seguin.) Hard to say how many teams would have taken Hall and how many Seguin

The year they took RNH they thought they were taking the best player available (still debatable that year as well.) I'm sure there's at least one team that would've picked Landeskog ahead of RNH. Wouldn't surprise me if Huberdeau was ahead of RNH for some people. But RNH was fairly consensus #1.

The year they took Yakupov their scouting staff reportedly liked Murray the best and several of their key guys liked Griffin Reinhart. Reportedly Katz influenced the pick. Yakupov was certainly not a consensus BPA that year. TOR had Rielly #1. CGY had Galchenyuk #1. I think CBJ liked Murray more than Yakupov (just a theory.) At the time people talked about trading down and taking a defenseman and clearly that was the right move in retrospect.

The year they took Nurse reportedly their scouting staff actually liked Nichushkin the best but MacTavish overruled BPA and selected Nurse based on organizational need.

BPA should have been the philosophy the entire time. They'd be in better shape with Murray and Nichushkin instead of Nurse and Yak.

EDM has problems determining who the best player available is, lets be frank.

Textcritic · 03-02-2016, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

As I said, "position need".

What position do Gauthier and Nylander fill that the Finns do not?

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-02-2016, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

As I said, "position need".

Arguably Laine and Puljujarvi fill our position needs the best as they are both big, strong, right shooting RWers. Which is why some of us find it baffling you are ignoring them.

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-02-2016, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

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

They don't happen because teams don't usually want to trade a young player as good as Ryan Johansen or Seth Jones. But if CBJ wanted to shop Johansen, they were going to get a ton for him. Same for NSH and Jones.

Elite young players are the most valuable commodity in the NHL. If you draft too many at one position it won't be a problem at all to swap an elite young player at one position for another elite young player at a different position.

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 07:52 PM

Yes they're all RW with size. I didn't say your choices didn't have size but you make the argument about playing/scoring against men. Take a look at their playing/scoring history. I still think that my choices have produced better through their young careers. I'll stick with my selections.

1qqaaz · 03-02-2016, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teroy

Yes they're all RW with size. I didn't say your choices didn't have size but you make the argument about playing/scoring against men. Take a look at their playing/scoring history. I still think that my choices have produced better through their young careers. I'll stick with my selections.

During the long losing season, it can be nice to have a devil's advocate around to keep the conversation interesting.

But I think it would be bad asset management to take Gautier or Nylander at 2nd or 3rd overall. At the very least, they should trade down 5 spots or so to pick up extra value.

But I guess we'll see!

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-02-2016, 07:58 PM

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

Teroy · 03-02-2016, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

During the long losing season, it can be nice to have a devil's advocate around to keep the conversation interesting.

But I think it would be bad asset management to take Gautier or Nylander at 2nd or 3rd overall. At the very least, they should trade down 5 spots or so to pick up extra value.

But I guess we'll see!

It's too bad you think I'm being the devil's advocate. I think I'm just offering my opinion and can't help it if it's different from yours. After all, the draft rankings are just opinions and have been wrong in the past.

SebC · 03-02-2016, 08:04 PM

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.