2012 D-Crop to Impact 2011?

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

I just think that if a team is deciding between a defenseman or a forward later in the first round, I would hope they might consider next year's D crop and let that play into the decision....even just a little bit. And this is really mostly for later in the first round. For something like a top 10 choice, I don't think it should weigh into it one bit.

You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

And how come it seems like you always have something critical to say about MY posts? Did I do something to you at some point along the way?

Later in the 1st round? Where most prospects are 2-3 years away. Meaning the 2012 equivalent would be 3-4 years away. Meaning need is absolutely redundant because in 3-4 years time, needs will have almost certainly changed. So you are factoring in a prospect (whose data you won't have enough on to make a critical decision and has another year of draft development which will be imperative for any informative assessment) from 2012 who is 3-4 years away impacting on the choice of a 2011 later 1st round pick?

Utterly, utterly, utterly illogical.

"
You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong" - What type of argument is this? It's just a cop out.

If i reply with a critical comment, it is because i feel you have written something illogical, false or something i do not share the same opinion on. What would you prefer, a personal message saying ASL?

 

[R S]

Later in the 1st round? Where most prospects are 2-3 years away. Meaning the 2012 equivalent would be 3-4 years away. Meaning need is absolutely redundant because in 3-4 years time, needs will have almost certainly changed. So you are factoring in a prospect (whose data you won't have enough on to make a critical decision and has another year of draft development which will be imperative for any informative assessment) from 2012 who is 3-4 years away impacting on the choice of a 2011 later 1st round pick?

Utterly, utterly, utterly illogical.

"
You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong" - What type of argument is this? It's just a cop out.

If i reply with a critical comment, it is because i feel you have written something illogical, false or something i do not share the same opinion on. What would you prefer, a personal message saying ASL?

It just seems like whenever I actually see one of your posts on the prospect board, it's often in reply to me, pointing out how "flawed" my view is.


Such as me saying earlier this year that I was very impressed with how Medicine Hat Tigers fw Hunter Shinkaruk was very impressive defensively, as well as offensively during a game I watched him in live.

You were all bent out of shape that someone would actually CARE how he looked defensively even though he's not draft eligible until 2013.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

It just seems like whenever I actually see one of your posts on the prospect board, it's often in reply to me, pointing out how "flawed" my view is.


Such as me saying earlier this year that I was very impressed with how Medicine Hat Tigers fw Hunter Shinkaruk was very impressive defensively, as well as offensively during a game I watched him in live.

You were all bent out of shape that someone would actually CARE how he looked defensively even though he's not draft eligible until 2013.

Yet he's still absolutely right, at least imo, making it apply only to teams picking 20+ only weakens your argument. The idea of 2012's D is that has many high end caliber players right? You'd know much more than many posters here so you can answer that.

If that's the case however than the only way it makes sense to factor 2012 is that a team thinking about taking one of the top flight d this year, like Hamilton/Larsson/Murphy/etc., because in theory they'd be better served taking someone like Couturier or Huberdeau, a high end forward, knowing that some talented D like Dumba, Reinhart, or Ebert would be there to make up for the loss. Even so I think it's the wrong approach, BPA is just the best asset management.

But if you're suggesting it for 20+ teams I just don't really understand. Is there supposed to be that much depth at D that would spill into the late first? I'd even argue that this year has so much depth at forward in that 15-50 range that even if you do factor next year's depth at defense it wouldn't matter as 2011 and 12 seem to offset one another in that sense.

 

[arsmaster*]

Team that stay with BPA have the most success imo.

No reason to pass on a defenceman this year and take a forward simply because of next years draft. To me that is silly.

Now if an organization has two players rated identically, and it's a toss up between a forward or a defenceman, I could see that team take the forward in that instance...

But to pass up a better prospect is absurd if you ask me. Prospects can always be dealt...

Agreed.

In theory, yes it should have an impact.

However, there are quite a few complications. Firstly, 2012 draft eligible players by and large won't have been bearly as heavily scouted. Judgements will be less "valid" if you will. Secondly, the most important season is the draft year. This year we've seen players like Ambroz, Saad etc fall in the rankings. It's IMO poor judgement to base a particular draft selection year on the next draft ; because we as of yet don't have their draft development year. Things change so quickly. To me atleast, it seems a ploy that has holes in it and is not a logical one.

So perhaps it could have a minimal impact, but it doesn't seem logical for it to have any meaningful direct impact on 2011 selections.

If a team has a BPA available at say 13, then i find it completely absurd for them to assign need over BPA based on notions of a future event over a year away that will undoubtedly change dramatically and event that they don't even possess sufficient data and information on now.

Agreed. and I agree with the poster who agreed with both of these

Murray
Ebert
Larsson
Reinhart and Co.

We should bump this next year when all Ebert and Murray's "warts" are shown from being in the spotlight for too long. The difference between Murray and Larsson is negligible at best. Both are limited in terms of explosive on ice "skill", but both guys more than make up for it with hockey sense, positioning.

Larsson is an exceptional prospect who deserves to be mentioned as a possible 1st overall pick....the amount of naysayers on the 2011 draft class is shocking and annoying all at the same time.

All I said was it was a valid point. Are teams going pass on a player because of looking ahead to the '12 draft class? I highly doubt it. It's just an interesting point to consider.

I'm interested to see how many 1st, 2nd and even 3rd round picks next year get moved on draft day and during the season. Don't get me wrong, high picks this year still have value, but I think next years picks will have even more value.

I always bring this discussion back to the team I cheer for - Vancouver Canucks

Last year the Canucks make a decision to trade their 1st round pick (25th overall) depending on the availability of "their guy". This issue was pretty big, considering the team had already moved their 2nd and 3rd rounders for 2010. "Their guy" was gone by 25th so Florida got their additional 1st rounder.

Gillis then went on record to state that he wanted to keep his 2011 picks as he liked that group much better than the 2010 group. So in 2010, an NHL GM, made acquistions/moves based on the next years draft class. So obviously, the depth of next years draft for defensman would have "some" impact on how a team goes about this years draft, but I think its more in terms of picks moved etc, rather than defense vs. forward.

Another thing to note is that Gillis also made deadline day deals that moved 2012 and 2013 picks INSTEAD of 2011 picks, so while the 2012 draft looks amazing on paper to HFboards a year in advance, I would still hesitate to say whether it has depth thoughout. So might some NHL GM's....

 

[Aaron Vickers]

The thing with everyone saying 'you always take the best player available'.

With, say, pick 27 in this year's draft, who is the best player available? Does one really expect that there is going to be a 'head and shoulders, clear cut best player' at any given pick?

If you have a forward and defenseman you're debating against at 27, and have them virtually equal, why not take the forward over the defenseman given the crop of blueliners next year?

And if you think teams aren't talking about this exact scenario, they are. Well, I know for a fact at least one team is anyway, because they are the one who suggested to me they were.

It has made for a very interesting discussion here though!

 

[misfit]

What is stopping teams from taking a defenseman in the first rount this year AND next year? Just because the guy you might be in a position to take next year could be better, it doesn't make the defenseman at the top of your list this year any less BPA.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

The thing with everyone saying 'you always take the best player available'.

With, say, pick 27 in this year's draft, who is the best player available? Does one really expect that there is going to be a 'head and shoulders, clear cut best player' at any given pick?

If you have a forward and defenseman you're debating against at 27, and have them virtually equal, why not take the forward over the defenseman given the crop of blueliners next year?

And if you think teams aren't talking about this exact scenario, they are. Well, I know for a fact at least one team is anyway, because they are the one who suggested to me they were.

It has made for a very interesting discussion here though!

Who the BPA is almost irrelevant to this discussion. The BPA doesn't have to be clear and away better than all others just simply who after a year of scouting is determined to be best by that club. The notion that the opinions generated from scouts should be subject to the potential strengths of a future class is just absurd. Some people argue you shouldn't even subject it to the strengths of your own prospect pool so stretching that out to future classes just doesn't make much sense.

If next year's class was really the concern then BPA would be even more useful. Say a club takes a player that they view as BPA regardless of his position and he performs up to expectations, you now have an asset to try and move into 2012's first round.

There's just no sense in making a strike against a player because his position is less than preferential in relation to future drafts. Each player has to be viewed individually and those judgments should dictate the process.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

I don't think it makes any sense to alter your draft because of the possibility that next years draft may have better D in it. Draft BPA period especially earlier on.

 

[R S]

Ross MacLean of ISS was on TPS last night and even said that 2012 might actually play into things if a team is thinking of reaching.