BPA vs. Organizational Need

[CaptainChef]

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.

That's my philosophy as well, just can't believe how many are staunch BPA. Right now we need D in our system so much more than Fs. Thats unlikely to change in the next few years unless we start drafting some more D or trade for some. So, if players are basically in the same tier, they are definitely going to chose a D over a F IMO.

 

[CaptainChef]

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.

Yep, theres another consideration where you're chosing a player for need rather than BPA. If a high skill small guy like Keller was available and BPA, but he's close to a much larger C -- who do we pick. The larger C all day. As someone mentioned, no doubt these considerations are taken into account when they score each player, so BPA takes that into account.

 

[Evil Little]

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.

I'd say that the variables you mention, and the complicated benefit analysis they entail, are all part of determining what the BPA is.

Once your board is determined, draft according to it. An unnecessary top 6 winger is always better than an AHL LHD.

 

[KingBogo]

I'd say that the variables you mention, and the complicated benefit analysis they entail, are all part of determining what the BPA is.

Once your board is determined, draft according to it. An unnecessary top 6 winger is always better than an AHL LHD.

I agree with this. BPA is far more complicated than just saying BPA like it is somehow knowable. Probably more accurately it is "the player we project will provide the organization the most long term value at this point in the draft based on a complex benefit analysis". Of course that gets a bit wordy

 

[ps241]

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.

I was watching the NFL draft on PVR last night and was shocked at how need based the drafting is. Granted they are taking older players but there were some whacky choices IMO.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I was watching the NFL draft on PVR last night and was shocked at how need based the drafting is. Granted they are taking older players but there were some whacky choices IMO.

Football has more than a dozen highly specialized positions to draft for and bigger rosters. Not only are the players older, they also have much shorter careers on average. I believe it's less than 3 years

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

After the first round top 20.... Most players are going to take 3-4 years or more to be every day NHL D-men. If we were choosing between A LD and a RD. I would put little emphasis on LD ( a current need) as Myers is likly gone after 3 years and Buff will be closing in on 35 and will have 1 year left on his contract. Trouba will have over 3 year experience on the left side. LOL

 

[Puckatron 3000]

First, I'll respond quickly to those I agree with.
I'll separate out my more "fighty" post for the next one below.

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

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.

Yep. Absolutely.

The guys at the top of a draft are almost always an incredible talent. You work your franchise around them, even if not an organizational need. Or, as you say, their trade value is through the roof, so trade is also a legit option.

A #2 pick is almost certainly a once in a decade (or more) opportunity for the Jets. We didn't even "earn" it. We just got lucky. BPA all the way there. There's more wiggle room further down in the draft.

Eyeseeing and Blues also expressed similar opinions I fully agree with.

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.

That's a really good point. And, to me, yet another argument for organizational need. As it is the strength of the organization's roster that guides this decision.

In the upcoming draft, the Jets should absolutely value high risk / high reward forward picks over lower ceiling, more certain guys. When the pantry is stocked, you can afford some lottery tickets.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

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.

This is a good argument for BPA. But I want to challenge it.

Looking at the "2016-17 roster" thread, let's look at the players you most often see mentioned. I'm going to leave out Burmi and Stafford, since these players are more controversial. Quite a few cut them from their ideal roster.

Forwards:
Ehlers, Scheifele, Wheeler, Little, Laine, Connor, Perreault, Armia, Dano, Petan, Lowry, Copp

Defense:
Buff, Trouba, Enstrom, Myers, Morrissey, Chairot, Postma

Goaltending:
Hellebuyck, Hutch, Pavs

Now, let's cut out the players who were inherited from the Thrashers. Then separate the rest into players achieved through the draft (either by the Jets or Atlanta), vs. players obtained through trade. This should give us a pretty good idea of how the Jets will assemble their team in the future, using their draft and develop strategy.

Draft:
Ehlers, Scheifele, Laine, Connor, Petan, Lowry, Copp, Trouba, Morrissey, Chairot, Postma, Hellebuyck, Hutch
Total: 13

Trade:
Perreault, Armia, Dano, Myers
Total: 4

That's over a 3:1 ratio of drafted players.

Moving forward, I anticipate this ratio may sway even further towards drafted players, since we still have a pretty sweet prospect pool. Which we didn't in the past.

If this ratio holds true in the future, then we need to have a reasonable balance of player positions in the draft. The vast majority of our team will come from the draft.

So yes, the players we draft today who make the NHL, especially in the latter rounds, may not be big contributors to our current core. Although the team is quite young. Regardless, today's draftees will be the ELC cap-relief reinforcements, and ultimately the core at some time in the future.

The overall point being, for a draft and develop team like the Jets, organizational need in the draft is a legit concern.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

Pick 2 is BPA... no doubt about that.

Pick 22, gets interesting, I'd have a hard time passing on a guy who the Jets have ranked in their top 15 if he's there at 22 regardless of position he plays. Let's just pretend, it won't happen but pretend that a guy like Keller falls to 22, Don't you have to take him? I mean, it won't happen but... don't you have to? regardless of the LHD need?

I'm of the thought process that you draft BPA, whether that BPA is forward or a D man, well, that's up to the scouts to decide.

 

[buggs]

Was Morrissey BPA in his draft year? Or did the Jets draft based on need?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Was Morrissey BPA in his draft year? Or did the Jets draft based on need?

BPA on whose list? The Jets? Then yes.

That's the interesting thing about this topic - BPA also depends on evaluation factors. If you go by Button's list, or ??'s list, then perhaps not.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

BPA on whose list? The Jets? Then yes.

That's the interesting thing about this topic - BPA also depends on evaluation factors. If you go by Button's list, or ??'s list, then perhaps not.

The question is, was Morrissey the BPA or B-LHD-A, according to the Jets' list?

If the Jets gave Morrissey a higher ranking because he fulfills a position of need, then they are not drafting BPA.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

The question is, was Morrissey the BPA or B-LHD-A, according to the Jets' list?

If the Jets gave Morrissey a higher ranking because he fulfills a position of need, then they are not drafting BPA.

We'll never know that though. Rumour had it that Domi would have been a Jet, but obviously Morrissey was next on their list.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in these conversations. Knowing Chevy, we'd be at a cottage somewhere.

 

[Flair Hay]

Both come into play. I'd label it organizational fit instead of need, but how a player fits with your group is absolutely a part of good drafting.

Thing is only a few teams have zero holes on their roster, and it only lasts for a year or two at a time. So most teams can go strictly BPA knowing they could use help at center, wing or defense in a year or two.

 

[truck]

 

[Georgetown Al*]

Puckatron 3000 great post!

There's no right or wrong answer really also for either going BPA and/or for organizational need there sometimes come a time when your drafting a player at the draft position number you have that fills both BPA and organizational need at the very same time.

As for our Jets I think Chevy has much more chess pieces to play with now than he has ever had, so Chevy's wheeling and dealing options as well as filling BPA and organizational need scenarios have also increased now with our lucky 2nd round pick.

We all know how Chevy did well when forced to move Kane so it will be even more interesting to see what Chevy can do now going forward with so many more options and as far as I am concerned I think Chevy will surprise us all at how well he can fill BPA, organizational needs and make our Jets even better than they are now and us fans will be very surprised and very happy when he does!

Go Jets Go

 

[Saintb]

bpa all the time in my opinion. filling our the roster is a management issue. if you have a lot of talent in one area then you trade some. also focus your free agency activity to balance things out.
if there is no bias in your scouting then you should have a balanced distribution of prospects over time in any event.

 

[Le Golie]

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

If six of your scouts think player A is the BPA and the other six think player B is the BPA, you can look at need.

Otherwise, BPA every time.

 

[Le Golie]

Pick 2 is BPA... no doubt about that.

Pick 22, gets interesting, I'd have a hard time passing on a guy who the Jets have ranked in their top 15 if he's there at 22 regardless of position he plays. Let's just pretend, it won't happen but pretend that a guy like Keller falls to 22, Don't you have to take him? I mean, it won't happen but... don't you have to? regardless of the LHD need?

I'm of the thought process that you draft BPA, whether that BPA is forward or a D man, well, that's up to the scouts to decide.

The need to draft the BPA only increases as the draft goes on. In the fourth round, you're almost sure to get a guy your scouts rated in the 30-60 range because opinions are so varied. You have to take him.

The player is also three+ years away from sniffing the NHL, so today's 'needs' will be completely irrelevant.

If you hire a quality scouting team and trust them, drafting their BPA is essential.

 

[KingBogo]

If six of your scouts think player A is the BPA and the other six think player B is the BPA, you can look at need.

Otherwise, BPA every time.

So if it is 5-7 you are certain you are picking the BPA? Again I believe organizational need enters into the ranking at the front end so it is already represented on the draft board.

 

[Grind]

It shouldn't unless it is an absolute tie. No matter how slight the difference is its still a worse decision.

 

[KingBogo]

It shouldn't unless it is an absolute tie. No matter how slight the difference is its still a worse decision.

How do you know if 2 players are an absolute tie? Let's say you are comparing a d-man from Europe and a winger from the Q at the 150th spot you can accurately discern which is the BPA? IMO a tremendous amount of subjectivity goes into BPA.

 

[BB88]

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

I have to agree here that you should take the best available prospect, I mean if we look at the Bruins and their desperate need for future #1D I'm willing to bet Connor has a lot, lot more trade value and could actually help to solve that, teams biggest weakness, over Seny/DeBrusk.

Take the best prospect available, if he can beat someone for roster spot and put that player on the market I say great, makes the roster younger and cheaper(high value in Cap world), or use that higher valued prospect in a trade later to address the teams biggest need if you want to.
Don't give gifts to teams you are playing against.

Talking more of what to do with 1st round picks.

 

[Le Golie]

So if it is 5-7 you are certain you are picking the BPA? Again I believe organizational need enters into the ranking at the front end so it is already represented on the draft board.

100%

Organizational need is a ridiculous thing to address at the draft. You don't pick a guy and leave a hole on your depth chart for three or four years til he starts contributing in the league.

There are many other ways to address organizational need, and all are better and more strategic than the draft.