Prospect Info: 2014 Draft Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ajax1995

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
8,809
867
People always say that as if it ends all conversation? There is always going to be debate over who is the BPA, and there is room to target a position when several players all project similarly...

BPA means the guy YOU have rated the highest regardless of position, not who the scouting services think. Even if both teams are committed BPA drafting organizations it is highly unlikely Team A's draft board is going to look anywhere close to Team B's because unlike pretty much everyone here NHL teams actually do their own scouting. They don't just look at all the scouting services' rankings and find some way to mash those rankings all together to come up with their rankings.

Also teams put their boards together, especially in the early rounds the way they do for a reason. Even if player X and player Y project similarly there is a reason player X will be ranked above player Y on their board, while another team would have them flipped, and another team wouldn't have one of those guys on their board untill much later. They don't just have groups of players all ranked the same. Yes they will have groupings of players ranked similarly for the purpose of moving up and down in the draft but when it comes to making the actual pick they take the guy ranked highest on their board.

Again the most important thing to remember here is teams actually scout these players and heavily. When it appears a team is going off board, because the scouting services have player Z ranked as high 2nd rounder but team C just took him in the mid 1st round if team C is a committed BPA organization it is because they actually have player Z ranked that high on their board. Their GM hasn't just decided WTH let's go off board...
 

Ajax1995

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
8,809
867
I think GMs get bored taking BPA. You can draft BPA using your web browser for guidance.

Why don't GMs always draft BPA, if BPA should always be taken? Are GMs dumber than fans?

Any GM drafting based on public scouting services like you seem to think it makes sense to base it on is a moron. What do you think teams are paying their own scouts for? To confirm CSS', ISS', McKeen's, Red Lines' and the rest's work? Come on dude. Do you think NFL team's care at all who Kiper and McShay have ranked where?
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,115
13,639
Philadelphia
Fabbri's frame isn't any smaller than Giroux's
It absolutely is.

I think GMs get bored taking BPA. You can draft BPA using your web browser for guidance.

Why don't GMs always draft BPA, if BPA should always be taken? Are GMs dumber than fans?
I don't think you understand what a "BPA" is.

Now explain "Best" to me.

Highest upside?
Most NHL-ready?
Best chance of reaching potential?
Best chance of reaching potential on your team?
How do personal qualities factor in? How do you rate a very talented player who clearly has character issues?

Even if we could (though it's certainly impossible) have an absolutely fair way to assess players' abilities now and in the future (EA Sports-like ratings), definition of best comes down to which of these abilities you find more important. 75 skating + 75 shooting or 80 skating + 70 shooting? 90+60?

BPA is flawed on so many levels. It's like taking a list of 5-10 NHL players of similar level playing different positions and trying to find best.
"Best" is whichever your scouts and your grading criteria determine to be best. The point of "BPA" is not to create some universal rubric to grade players, it's to pick the guy who fits your criteria rather than picking based on current organizational needs or whims.
 

NobodyBeatsTheWiz

Happy now?
Jun 26, 2004
23,422
1,973
The Burbs
It absolutely is.
No it's not.

Your frame dictates how much weight you can put on. Narrow shoulders and waste? You're not putting on much weight. Broad shoulders but skinny? There's some weight to put on.

A fully developed Giroux was able to put 172 pounds on his frame. A mostly undeveloped Fabbri has 170 on his.

Is there an example of a guy who's frame has kept him from succeeding in the NHL?
 

sk84fun_dc

Registered User
Nov 4, 2004
16,442
1
The only time there ever was one, was when they also revealed the new jerseys in 2007...

FWIW

Not true, the Caps had other draft parties in the past, as well, although in recent years with the 2 day draft and Caps not having as many high picks I don't think they have had them.

As to this week, only party information I have seen is a season ticket holder draft party in Arlington on Friday night. Perhaps they open it up to others depending on RSVPs, don't have any idea, but right now it's not open to the public.
 

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,812
7,145
I don't think you understand what a "BPA" is.

There does seem to some debate about it.

How do you know how all teams scouting depts define it?

It sure seems like anytime a GM "reaches" on a player, does not follow consensus of the collective top rated scouting agencies, it was deemed they did not take BPA. It seems a widely accepted stance that it was a reach.

The few that chime in, "but but but he was their BPA", their cries ring kind of hollow. Of course the GM that took him thought he was the "best" but he may have been obsessed with WHL dmen, or something else that skewed his opinion.

Its tough to say the consensus is going to be wrong, just because of the actions of a single GM. Best is the collective consensus to me. Not to a GM and his cronies that are afraid to tell the boss he is an idiota.

Hence the debate of BPA goes on.
 
Last edited:

Ajax1995

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
8,809
867
There does seem to some debate about it.

How do you know how all teams scouting depts define it?

It sure seems like anytime a GM "reaches" on a player, does not follow consensus of the collective top rated scouting agencies, it was deemed they did not take BPA. It seems a widely accepted stance that it was a reach.

The few that chime in, "but but but he was their BPA", their cries ring kind of hollow. Of course the GM that took him thought he was the "best" but he may have been obsessed with WHL dmen, or something else that skewed his opinion.

Its tough to say the consensus is going to be wrong, just because of the actions of a single GM. Best is the collective consensus to me. Not to a GM and his cronies that are afraid to tell the boss he is an idiota.

Hence the debate of BPA goes on.

I will ask again, what is the purpose of teams employing their own scouting departments if the best way to go is some collective ranking of the different scouting services?

So no it is not in anyway tough to say the consensus is going to be wrong. I'll take my own scouts over bunch of services that fans pay $39.99 for any day of the week easily.
 

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,812
7,145
I will ask again, what is the purpose of teams employing their own scouting departments if the best way to go is some collective ranking of the different scouting services?

So no it is not in anyway tough to say the consensus is going to be wrong. I'll take my own scouts over bunch of services that fans pay $39.99 for any day of the week easily.

They employ their own scouts so they can go watch specific players anywhere in the world. Or so on draft day, they can huddle when a best player was not best in the eyes of the GMs choosing beforehand.

If an organization clearly always was smarter than the collective rankings of the top rated services, I think we would all know by now.

You are right, it is not tough to say consensus is going to be wrong, it's just arrogant to think you know better. Unless you have proven consensus wrong time and time again, everyone knows you are guessing.

Who is the best at proving consensus wrong? Clearly the cream should have risen to the top, by now.
 

fedfed

@FedFedRMNB
Oct 28, 2010
4,143
0
Moscow City
"Best" is whichever your scouts and your grading criteria determine to be best. The point of "BPA" is not to create some universal rubric to grade players, it's to pick the guy who fits your criteria rather than picking based on current organizational needs or whims.

Well, then he's not "best" right? He's "The Guy Who Fits Your Criteria Better" (TGWFYCBPA)

I'd also like to know what the criteria is and how is it possible to build that criteria in a vacuum, not looking at who you've already got.

Example: Caps were seeking a power forward and picked Wilson. He fit their criteria, or need, better. He probably (most likely) wasn't best player available but they saw him as a fit to their criteria.

You call it criteria, some other people call it needs.

I'm not arguing drafting entirely by needs, but it should be a part of the analysis behind the selection.
 

Ajax1995

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
8,809
867
Well, then he's not "best" right? He's "The Guy Who Fits Your Criteria Better" (TGWFYCBPA)

I'd also like to know what the criteria is and how is it possible to build that criteria in a vacuum, not looking at who you've already got.

Example: Caps were seeking a power forward and picked Wilson. He fit their criteria, or need, better. He probably (most likely) wasn't best player available but they saw him as a fit to their criteria.

You call it criteria, some other people call it needs.

I'm not arguing drafting entirely by needs, but it should be a part of the analysis behind the selection.

Are you really parsing the nuances of the term 'best?' BPA means the guy YOU have rated the highest based on your criteria regardless of position. It is a pretty darn simple concept and I can't believe people are arguing about what it means.

And whether the Caps are a BPA team or not Wilson was not their BPA at that point. I am pretty sure McPhee even said since they had already gotten Forsberg they felt they could swing for the fences with that pick and took Wilson. We will most likely never know who their BPA was at that spot.
 

fedfed

@FedFedRMNB
Oct 28, 2010
4,143
0
Moscow City
Are you really parsing the nuances of the term 'best?' BPA means the guy YOU have rated the highest based on your criteria regardless of position. It is a pretty darn simple concept and I can't believe people are arguing about what it means.

And whether the Caps are a BPA team or not Wilson was not their BPA at that point. I am pretty sure McPhee even said since they had already gotten Forsberg they felt they could swing for the fences with that pick and took Wilson. We will most likely never know who their BPA was at that spot.

Give me the fair, objective tools to compare wingers and defensemen, for example. All I've heard so far is "best because best". I don't see the "criteria" you're talking about that would be universal for all position. You have to have different criteria for different positions.

Bottom line: You can't draft a player in the first round who may be blocked and never get a fair chance and you'll ruin his development. It's especially true with goalies, but to a certain extent also applies to other players as well.

I'm all for drafting a player who will be best for your team in the future. Otherwise, there's a high chance that the "best" player you took will never turn out to be actually better than other options you had there.
 

NobodyBeatsTheWiz

Happy now?
Jun 26, 2004
23,422
1,973
The Burbs
I've always taken "BPA" to mean the prospect with the best combination intangibles and raw talent. How each of those components is valued likely varies team-by-team and scout-by-scout within each team.

I know in practice, prospects are grouped into tiers based on those components, and the BPA strategy means you never take a prospect from a lower tier than others available to satisfy a position/style need.
 

Ajax1995

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
8,809
867
Give me the fair, objective tools to compare wingers and defensemen, for example. All I've heard so far is "best because best". I don't see the "criteria" you're talking about that would be universal for all position. You have to have different criteria for different positions.

Bottom line: You can't draft a player in the first round who may be blocked and never get a fair chance and you'll ruin his development. It's especially true with goalies, but to a certain extent also applies to other players as well.

I'm all for drafting a player who will be best for your team in the future. Otherwise, there's a high chance that the "best" player you took will never turn out to be actually better than other options you had there.

I don't even know where to begin...

So you don't believe professional sporting organizations, I'm not talking just hockey I am talking sports in general, can look at draft prospects who play completely different positions and make judgements on who will be better? Seriously...?

And yes you can take a player in the 1st round who may appear blocked at that time because you 100% know that you do not know what your roster is going to look like in even a couple years let alone when he is likely to be ready to really contribute. And if he bucks the odds and forces you to make a move to accommodate him then so be it.

When do you see the guy who the Caps take at 13 making the team and actually contributing? IMO 2-3 years down the road at best. How about Burakovsky? At best after another year and likely two IMO. What is the Caps lineup going to look like in 2 years? Neither one of us knows.

You take the BPA because you have no idea what your needs will be when the player is ready. It is as simple as that and to pretend that isn't the case is ignoring the reality of things IMO.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,438
9,153
BPA. Follow your draft board. Simpler...avoids the unevitable semantics underlying things.

Outside of tiering groups of players for trade up/down purposes and razor thin margins between two players it should be just about that simple on draft day. From what I gather it's not like teams even rank 210 players on their final lists to begin with. They make their list of players they like and want to take and that alone tends to be enough to last them through seven rounds.

Stick to your board, maximize value and develop. If your organization can do all of that, evaluate both amateurs and pros equally well and make forward-thinking trades as needed they're in very good shape. Certainly the elite franchises have an 'our type of player' that fits and does not fit but there's also a developmental component in there as well.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,438
9,153
No Sanheim in any of the three is brutal.

McKenzie final rankings. Fleury at 8, Ehlers at 10, Larkin at 12 & Barbashev at 23 all stand out. Goldobin at 37 makes you wonder if he won't last to 44. Hawryluk at 49 & Donato at 50 interesting as far as 44 goes as well.
 
Last edited:

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,438
9,153
Chewing over those McKenzie rankings a bit more it seems like there's a great deal of consensus within the top 10 as a group and then it's all over the place. I could see any of the 11-16 players being under consideration at 13 or a trade down being worthwhile if they really like someone like Scherbak, Barbashev or Sanheim.
 

discobob

Listen... do you smell something?
Dec 2, 2009
1,547
705
Everything
BPA means the guy YOU have rated the highest regardless of position, not who the scouting services think. Even if both teams are committed BPA drafting organizations it is highly unlikely Team A's draft board is going to look anywhere close to Team B's because unlike pretty much everyone here NHL teams actually do their own scouting. They don't just look at all the scouting services' rankings and find some way to mash those rankings all together to come up with their rankings.

Also teams put their boards together, especially in the early rounds the way they do for a reason. Even if player X and player Y project similarly there is a reason player X will be ranked above player Y on their board, while another team would have them flipped, and another team wouldn't have one of those guys on their board untill much later. They don't just have groups of players all ranked the same. Yes they will have groupings of players ranked similarly for the purpose of moving up and down in the draft but when it comes to making the actual pick they take the guy ranked highest on their board.

Again the most important thing to remember here is teams actually scout these players and heavily. When it appears a team is going off board, because the scouting services have player Z ranked as high 2nd rounder but team C just took him in the mid 1st round if team C is a committed BPA organization it is because they actually have player Z ranked that high on their board. Their GM hasn't just decided WTH let's go off board...

No one is going to debate that this is how many organizations (or most) select players, but none of us have access to that list so say "just go BPA" is a moot point. The other consideration is that there is bound to be a good deal of discrepancy in an organization in certain player groupings. In that case, there is room to give preference to a position.
 

discobob

Listen... do you smell something?
Dec 2, 2009
1,547
705
Everything
I've always taken "BPA" to mean the prospect with the best combination intangibles and raw talent. How each of those components is valued likely varies team-by-team and scout-by-scout within each team.

I know in practice, prospects are grouped into tiers based on those components, and the BPA strategy means you never take a prospect from a lower tier than others available to satisfy a position/style need.

I agree with this statement. Again, the people who try to end all argument with "BPA" is silly because none of us have access to that list and it ignores the fact that there are likely tiers in the ranking system.
 

SDBondra

Registered User
Jul 24, 2005
1,201
489
I'm pretty sure BPA just means that you're not drafting based on need or position and use of the term BPA doesn't carry with it any inferred criteria for determining "best". You could subjectively draft the player whose hair you thought was fluffiest. As long as you were drafting him because you strongly value fluffy hair but not because your hockey team and prospects pipelines were devoid of fluffy hair, you are still using "BPA".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad