BPA vs. Organizational Need

[Puckatron 3000]

With draft season upon us soon, I figured I'd bring up an old debate. Which is: Do you always draft best player available? To the exact ordering of the list? Or should you sometimes stray a bit in order to draft for organizational need?

This question seems more relevant than ever, given our forward depth, and the high likelyhood we draft Laine, or at least one of the high caliber Finn wingers. Back when the Jets first arrived, our organizational need was more "everything".

Myself, I'd draft off BPA slightly to fulfill organizational need. It just makes sense to me. Whereas holding perfectly true to the BPA list, regardless of organizational need doesn't. Let's say for example, for our draft pick at 22, we have 2 guys at the top of the list. The first guy is a winger. The second a LHD. In that scenario, I go with the LHD easy. Unless the difference in talent is more significant than you'd normally see between a 22 and 23 pick.

However, I do see lots of folks advocating BPA, with not an ounce of wiggle room.

So let's take the example above. Obviously we need to fulfill an organizational need eventually. If that is not done directly through the draft, then I assume a BPA-advocate would say draft the best player, then trade for organizational need.

That doesn't quite seem so simple to me.

It assumes that:

• The right kind of player is available (e.g. LHD).
• The team we're trading with is asking a reasonable price. (Otherwise we may have been better off just drafting the LHD ourselves instead of a very slightly better player).
• The player matches the general age range of our core.
• The player matches any other traits that are valued by the Jets, who would have drafted with that in mind (e.g. character).
• The possible issues around not developing that player in house (assuming the Jets trust their development is actually good, which they seem to).
• The possibility that you're getting screwed in the trade - i.e. there's some unknown reason why the trading team is looking to dump the LHD.

Given all those reasons, it just seems precarious to say BPA, and organizational need be damned. Especially for 2 potential picks who are very close in talent, but only one gives you what you need. And especially given the Jets' very flush pool of forwards.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[tbcwpg]

I think picking for need in round 2, or if you have a 2nd 1st round pick and you're picking fairly late (22-30 perhaps), then you can "reach" a bit on a guy that fills a need rather than draft strictly BPA. Also, if you're picking from players in a specific "tier", then you can go for position. You have to be careful, though, that you don't pull a Boston and go too far down - they picked Senyshyn because they liked the player, but it seemed like it was a waste to not go BPA at that point. I have no problem going with a defenceman at 22 over a forward, if the talent level isn't that big of a gulf.

 

[Aavco Cup]

The Jets say their philosophy is to draft BPA. It's a good philosophy. I don't think they should change it.

 

[cbcwpg]

Picking #22 - you can look at your organizational needs

Picking #2 - Always the BPA. You can always trade this player if he doesn't suit your needs later.

 

[ellismate]

We've done bpa in the past, and now we have no room for all of our wingers. I'd draft a true C or a ld or trade our pick + for one of those things

 

[truck]

Always BPA. Every time.

Deviating from BPA = intentionally taking a player who is less likely to ever contribute to you team. It doesn'tmake sense.

This isn't the NFL. Players don't step right in and play. Position can break a tie.

 

[BigZ65]

Always BPA. Every time.

Deviating from BPA = intentionally taking a player who is less likely to ever contribute to you team. It doesn'tmake sense.

This isn't the NFL. Players don't step right in and play. Position can break a tie.

Fully agree. You're drafting a guy for the player he might be in 5+ years. Most of the guys in your NHL roster aren't on contacts that long.

I wouldn't draft 10 goalies if they were BPA on my board each time my pick came up, but short of that always BPA.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Always BPA. Every time.

Deviating from BPA = intentionally taking a player who is less likely to ever contribute to you team. It doesn'tmake sense.

This isn't the NFL. Players don't step right in and play. Position can break a tie.

It's one reason a team may trade down at the draft. Can still get the same postional need player later in the draft plus an additional pick.

 

[BigZ65]

We've done bpa in the past, and now we have no room for all of our wingers. I'd draft a true C or a ld or trade our pick + for one of those things

Trade the extra guys. Look at Jones for Johansen.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

With draft season upon us soon, I figured I'd bring up an old debate. Which is: Do you always draft best player available? To the exact ordering of the list? Or should you sometimes stray a bit in order to draft for organizational need?

This question seems more relevant than ever, given our forward depth, and the high likelyhood we draft Laine, or at least one of the high caliber Finn wingers. Back when the Jets first arrived, our organizational need was more "everything".

Myself, I'd draft off BPA slightly to fulfill organizational need. It just makes sense to me. Whereas holding perfectly true to the BPA list, regardless of organizational need doesn't. Let's say for example, for our draft pick at 22, we have 2 guys at the top of the list. The first guy is a winger. The second a LHD. In that scenario, I go with the LHD easy. Unless the difference in talent is more significant than you'd normally see between a 22 and 23 pick.

However, I do see lots of folks advocating BPA, with not an ounce of wiggle room.

So let's take the example above. Obviously we need to fulfill an organizational need eventually. If that is not done directly through the draft, then I assume a BPA-advocate would say draft the best player, then trade for organizational need.

That doesn't quite seem so simple to me.

It assumes that:

• The right kind of player is available (e.g. LHD).
• The team we're trading with is asking a reasonable price. (Otherwise we may have been better off just drafting the LHD ourselves instead of a very slightly better player).
• The player matches the general age range of our core.
• The player matches any other traits that are valued by the Jets, who would have drafted with that in mind (e.g. character).
• The possible issues around not developing that player in house (assuming the Jets trust their development is actually good, which they seem to).
• The possibility that you're getting screwed in the trade - i.e. there's some unknown reason why the trading team is looking to dump the LHD.

Given all those reasons, it just seems precarious to say BPA, and organizational need be damned. Especially for 2 potential picks who are very close in talent, but only one gives you what you need. And especially given the Jets' very flush pool of forwards.

Thoughts?

Agree with everything you said.

If always drafting BPA then over time the net value of players you have drafted will be higher. If the other teams are doing the same then they will have higher values. In both cases there will be unfilled or matched organizational needs. We should be able to find trading partners as long as neither is setting out to rob the other.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Always BPA. Every time.

Deviating from BPA = intentionally taking a player who is less likely to ever contribute to you team. It doesn'tmake sense.

This isn't the NFL. Players don't step right in and play. Position can break a tie.

Yep.

You can always trade that shiny new asset for something else of need later. Stockpile the best possible players, sort out what to do with your roster composition when the time comes.

 

[garret9]

I'm heavily BPA because teams change so much beyond what one would expect/predict.

I remember this team being "set" for long term at LW due to Kane and Ladd.

Need is important but one really can't predict down the road what the needs will be. You are talking about drafting kids who just played as 17 year olds who will most likely play in the NHL at 22-23, if they do at all.

 

[Grind]

Agree with those saying bpa.

Your second last point is actually always a benefit to the board argument.

Despite what you may think any guy drafted next year, and likely most of those drafted this year won't actually fit with our "core" anymore then scheifele fit with the Ladd core.

It's easier to move the best Kong tern piece for the now piece you need then to draft a infurior piece, and hope beyond all hell that he's on an excel rated path.

 

[KingBogo]

With draft season upon us soon, I figured I'd bring up an old debate. Which is: Do you always draft best player available? To the exact ordering of the list? Or should you sometimes stray a bit in order to draft for organizational need?

This question seems more relevant than ever, given our forward depth, and the high likelyhood we draft Laine, or at least one of the high caliber Finn wingers. Back when the Jets first arrived, our organizational need was more "everything".

Myself, I'd draft off BPA slightly to fulfill organizational need. It just makes sense to me. Whereas holding perfectly true to the BPA list, regardless of organizational need doesn't. Let's say for example, for our draft pick at 22, we have 2 guys at the top of the list. The first guy is a winger. The second a LHD. In that scenario, I go with the LHD easy. Unless the difference in talent is more significant than you'd normally see between a 22 and 23 pick.

However, I do see lots of folks advocating BPA, with not an ounce of wiggle room.

So let's take the example above. Obviously we need to fulfill an organizational need eventually. If that is not done directly through the draft, then I assume a BPA-advocate would say draft the best player, then trade for organizational need.

That doesn't quite seem so simple to me.

It assumes that:

• The right kind of player is available (e.g. LHD).
• The team we're trading with is asking a reasonable price. (Otherwise we may have been better off just drafting the LHD ourselves instead of a very slightly better player).
• The player matches the general age range of our core.
• The player matches any other traits that are valued by the Jets, who would have drafted with that in mind (e.g. character).
• The possible issues around not developing that player in house (assuming the Jets trust their development is actually good, which they seem to).
• The possibility that you're getting screwed in the trade - i.e. there's some unknown reason why the trading team is looking to dump the LHD.

Given all those reasons, it just seems precarious to say BPA, and organizational need be damned. Especially for 2 potential picks who are very close in talent, but only one gives you what you need. And especially given the Jets' very flush pool of forwards.

Thoughts?

Good thread and in theory BPA makes total sense. But other than the handful of top players the BPA is far from easy to discern and as we have seen there is a huge variety of opinion on BPA and probably an even bigger range on who actually becomes the BPA available at that position. My guess is in creating draft boards teams already weight team needs in their rankings. And likely every staff has a wide range of opinion among their scouts on just about every player on their board, past maybe the top handful. So you get to pick 22 and you know their is differing opinion among your scouts and you have a group of players in front that are separated by at best a thin razor edge. I say it makes no sense at that point to pick for organizational need.

 

[JetsFan815]

Bruins fans say they didn't draft Barzal because they have enough Centers and needed big scoring wingers like DeBrusk and Seneshyn. Bergeron and Kreci will be 31 in a few weeks, I am sure Bruins will be kicking themselves for not drafting Barzal 3-4 years from now when he will be 22 and playing as a legitimate NHL center and Bergeron and Kreci in the twilight of their careers at 35. That should tell you all about drafting for need

 

[KingBogo]

Bruins fan say they didn't draft Barzal because they have enough Centers and needed big scoring wingers like DeBrusk and Seneshyn. Bergeron and Kreci will be 31 in a few weeks, I am sure Bruins will be kicking themselves for not drafting Barzal 3-4 years from now when he will be 22 and playing as a legitimate NHL center and Bergeron and Kreci in the twilight of their careers at 35. That should tell you all about drafting for need

The Bruins recent draft record blurs the line even more. Is a player the BPA if he can be recognized as such by the team drafting, a consensus of teams if polled at that time in the draft or if he actually becomes the BPA after a suitable length of time to accurately judge what they accomplish in the NHL?

 

[Evil Little]

Need as a tiebreaker is fine.

But only as a tiebreaker.

 

[KingBogo]

Need as a tiebreaker is fine.

But only as a tiebreaker.

Since a true tie is unknowable. How close does it need to be to be considered a tie?

 

[Evocable Manager]

It really depends. If they the BPA and player who suits "needs" are very close then it doesn't matter much. For example, a team needs a Winger over a center, with Tkachuk and Dubois available. Well they are close in potential so go with Tkachuk.
However your loaded on wing and need a center. You don't take Dubois over Laine.

Earlier picks (top 10) usually go BPA and later picks (especially later rounds) you usually go by need.

 

[csk]

It really depends. If they the BPA and player who suits "needs" are very close then it doesn't matter much. For example, a team needs a Winger over a center, with Tkachuk and Dubois available. Well they are close in potential so go with Tkachuk.
However your loaded on wing and need a center. You don't take Dubois over Laine.

Earlier picks (top 10) usually go BPA and later picks (especially later rounds) you usually go by need.

I understand your point, but that's not a great example. Centers can nearly always be converted to wingers if needed.

 

[heretik27]

It really depends. If they the BPA and player who suits "needs" are very close then it doesn't matter much. For example, a team needs a Winger over a center, with Tkachuk and Dubois available. Well they are close in potential so go with Tkachuk.
However your loaded on wing and need a center. You don't take Dubois over Laine.

Earlier picks (top 10) usually go BPA and later picks (especially later rounds) you usually go by need.

Probably not the best example considering a center can always shift to play wing, but the opposite is highly unlikely moving into the NHL.

 

[Evil Little]

Since a true tie is unknowable. How close does it need to be to be considered a tie?

BPA is determined by each team's board. Furthermore, it's a guess. If you're guessing two players will be equally 'best' go for team need.

Though as Garret pointed out, it's hard to also guess team need in two or three years when most (successful) draftees start working their way into and up the NHL roster. Let alone whenever it is they end up in the spot they were supposed to be drafted into.

 

[Eyeseeing]

The thread title itself is not mutually exclusive
The BPA Is the orgs. greatest need so position be damned on draft day.
You do not ignore the BPA when you have 2 overall

 

[KingBogo]

BPA is determined by each team's board. Furthermore, it's a guess. If you're guessing two players will be equally 'best' go for team need.

Though as Garret pointed out, it's hard to also guess team need in two or three years when most (successful) draftees start working their way into and up the NHL roster. Let alone whenever it is they end up in the spot they were supposed to be drafted into.

That is pretty much my point. In an exercise that is wrought with tremendous uncertainty, miscalculation and failed picks, it becomes a guess on who an organization thinks might have the best chance at becoming the best player available at some point in the future if everything goes right...they hope with a little luck. But how much does potential play? What is better a 10% a chance a player becomes a top pairing defenseman or a 100% chance a player becomes a 4th line winger? Which is the best player available? I'm just playing around because IMO BPA is a poor description. Some teams might be willing to risk multiple failed picks for a homerun while others might prefer what the believe to be safer picks. A team's PBA might change drastically depending on the strength of their roster. So an organization in desperate need of a certain position BPA becomes who they hope has the best chance of filling that need. And none of us really know because draft boards are never shared and neither are inside discussions. By definition whoever a team picks becomes their BPA.

 

[ellismate]

Obviously we take Laine at #2. We'd be insane to take a LHD over him.

However, I wouldn't be heartbroken if we drafted for the need of the org in the second and later rounds. I feel like drafting more Chase De Leo type guys would just be a waste of time as a low ranking winger would never get a slot on this team. Drafting a few LD's and hoping at least one of them pans out isn't a terrible idea.