borro
Registered User
Thornton97 said:"our scouts like this guy" is the best player available in the eyes of that team.
What if it isn't? BPA is a conclusion, not a forethought. Sometimes it is the most appropriate player in their eyes.
Why is that so difficult to see? Obviously all of us can look back in hindsight and see that a pick our team thought was the BPA at the time didn't turn out that way. That is how the draft works. In the past 19 months, we can see what happened with Coburn versus Phaneuf. Coburn, at that time, was the BPA to Atlanta. He was very, very safe. Still is. Of course, Atlanta can look back now and say...humm, we should have grabbed Phaneuf. But that's ridiculous.
No, to say Coburn was the BPA is ridiculous. Phaneuf was the BPA. Of you pick a "safe" pick you stray from the best player available.
I just don't see how your argument "holds water." You seem to be saying that a team can't call a prospect the BPA to it without at least a few years of post-draft observation.
So, calling a guy who works out to be better (take Phaneuf) than Coburn the BPA is wrong some how? Isn't what was really wrong Atlanta's evaluation and estimation of the potential of both guys?
Ottawa could call Meszaros the BPA but Atlanta could not yet call Valabik that. The top end potential guys are not that common. If you consistently pick below the best player available, your team will get bad and probably quickly. If you pick 1st and you get a guy who winds up 40th, it doesn't matter where you had him pegged. What matters is how much he delivers. Obviously, you "miss" on some picks. The best GM's have a narrower miss margin on their top picks.
On the same note, can I ask how many hours you spent in arenas watching Gordon play? I would suspect that those scouts spent many, many hours in small, cold arenas watching him play and collectively came to the educated conclusion that he was the BPA at that time. Of course, at the time you disagreed which is fine. That is our right as fans. But it's not like they didn't spend the time researching. Washington certainly didn't through a damn dart at a chart and somehow pick off Boyd Gordon. At that time, he was the BPA to Washington in the eyes of the organization.
No, I think they would say he fit a need. He was a variance and represents a degradation of available resources. He was maybe a 40 with a higher pick. Babchuck is looking more like a 12-15. You say we have no way to know. If that is so then how did Calgary know to pick Phaneuf? How did Chicago know to pick Babchuck? How did Ottawa know how to pick Meszaros?
The point is that BPA is a conclusion. Don't claim something you have no idea is true. That like salesmanship. Claim what you know. Calgary can probably claim that Phaneuf was the BPA. The Caps can't claim it yet on Ovechkin. Gordon was not the BPA. He was not the worst 1st round pick ever. It's getting the best (lowest gap between BPA and actual performance) that really helps you.