Line Combos: 2016/2017 Colorado Avalanche Defence

[AllAboutAvs]

BPA is pretty vague term. it can mean a lot of things.

it could be just taking the best player regardless of position.

or it could be taking the player that gives you the most value in 7 years/when the player is 27. player A who is winger is seen as slightly better by a team compared to player B who is a defenseman but defenseman usually have higher value and that team might be stacked on the wing already. thus, argument can be made that player B would bring the most value to that team (and maybe even if they were stacked on D but weak on wing) and would be BPA.



RyJo > monahan on the ice.

of course ryjo could leave in couple of years so monahan would be better in that case.

Although I agree with you that BPA is subjective, I disagree with your example because you are still drafting by position. That team would give a higher rating to a player because of a need at that position making him the BPA but it is still drafting with needs in mind.

I see basically two ways which would affect the BPA rankings between teams:

1. A team's scout sees a player a few times and for example the player wasn't very physical during those games, or his energy was a bit down those days, or he was playing weaker teams and he looked better, etc. So many factors can influence the way a scout sees a player compare to another scout on different days.

2. A team puts more emphasis on physical play for example, or views size as important as skills, or for another character (Avs) is more important to them than another team, etc.

These IMO would affect how the team ranks a player and build their BPA list.

 

[henchman21]

I meant that they've drafted BPA and are now trying to turn those assets into defence. Whether they do it successfully or not is a different story.

That would, in theory, be the same price no? They are giving up jones in either scenario. I would argue Ryjo is better than monahan although that may change. Monahan would be an RFA still but you are getting someone who has been developed elsewhere. They are better off with Ryjo than Monahan because of Rinne's age IMO.

Is there a difference in skill set you wouldn't go past though to get that #1C. I'm just curious. For example, lets go back and say Tampa picked doughty over Stamkos. Do you take Duchene over Hedman the following year?

I'm saying that is a clear case of BPA not working and having to overpay for defensive help.

Kinda... they would have had Monahan for 3 full seasons now (Nashville would have been a better team the previous 2 years), and I expect Monahan and RyJo to be similar caliber of players throughout their careers. Legit 1s with size. Monahan cares more and is less of a headcase. RyJo is a slightly better player when he cares. Monahan will cost less long-term. Nashville could have also moved down and picked Monahan too.

Monahan is entering his prime seasons now, RyJo has 3-4 left but is past his peak. I see either argument to pair up with Rinne. Monahan and RyJo will probably have similar seasons next year, Monahan might be better offensively.

There are always breaking points... Tampa wasn't passing on Stamkos because of the hype, but if they did, figuring out the #1C situation down the road would have been a necessity. I don't think Tampa would be worse off right now with Doughty over Hedman and Duchene over Stamkos. In Stamkos' prime, yeah, but Doughty was very clearly better than Hedman for 3-4 years (and I'd still argue now).

There are so many variables, but would the Avs have been better off drafting OEL instead of Duchene to start off the rebuild?

 

[CobraAcesS]

I'm saying that is a clear case of BPA not working and having to overpay for defensive help.

Kinda... they would have had Monahan for 3 full seasons now (Nashville would have been a better team the previous 2 years), and I expect Monahan and RyJo to be similar caliber of players throughout their careers. Legit 1s with size. Monahan cares more and is less of a headcase. RyJo is a slightly better player when he cares. Monahan will cost less long-term. Nashville could have also moved down and picked Monahan too.

Monahan is entering his prime seasons now, RyJo has 3-4 left but is past his peak. I see either argument to pair up with Rinne. Monahan and RyJo will probably have similar seasons next year, Monahan might be better offensively.

There are always breaking points... Tampa wasn't passing on Stamkos because of the hype, but if they did, figuring out the #1C situation down the road would have been a necessity. I don't think Tampa would be worse off right now with Doughty over Hedman and Duchene over Stamkos. In Stamkos' prime, yeah, but Doughty was very clearly better than Hedman for 3-4 years (and I'd still argue now).

There are so many variables, but would the Avs have been better off drafting OEL instead of Duchene to start off the rebuild?

Either that, or trading up one spot to get Hedman in 09. I doubt that would have been impossible, or crushingly expensive at the time.

We also have no idea if this organization could actually have developed a #1 at the time either. Hedman being as good as he is now coming out of this trash heap is a serious question.

 

[AslanRH]

Either that, or trading up one spot to get Hedman in 09. I doubt that would have been impossible, or crushingly expensive at the time.

We also have no idea if this organization could actually have developed a #1 at the time either. Hedman being as good as he is now coming out of this trash heap is a serious question.

Our luck they would have traded Hedman for Johnson rather than Shatty anyway

 

[tigervixxxen]

I'd love to play the alternate reality of what if philly had drafted Siemens.

 

[Thepoolmaster]

I'm saying that is a clear case of BPA not working and having to overpay for defensive help.

Kinda... they would have had Monahan for 3 full seasons now (Nashville would have been a better team the previous 2 years), and I expect Monahan and RyJo to be similar caliber of players throughout their careers. Legit 1s with size. Monahan cares more and is less of a headcase. RyJo is a slightly better player when he cares. Monahan will cost less long-term. Nashville could have also moved down and picked Monahan too.

Monahan is entering his prime seasons now, RyJo has 3-4 left but is past his peak. I see either argument to pair up with Rinne. Monahan and RyJo will probably have similar seasons next year, Monahan might be better offensively.

There are always breaking points... Tampa wasn't passing on Stamkos because of the hype, but if they did, figuring out the #1C situation down the road would have been a necessity. I don't think Tampa would be worse off right now with Doughty over Hedman and Duchene over Stamkos. In Stamkos' prime, yeah, but Doughty was very clearly better than Hedman for 3-4 years (and I'd still argue now).

There are so many variables, but would the Avs have been better off drafting OEL instead of Duchene to start off the rebuild?

All valid points. I would argue that Pittsburgh is the best example of taking BPA and it working out. Now that BPA was over the top in Crosby and Malkin but they also took Jordan staal. Hit on Letang in the 3rd round and surround the core with wingers to win the cup and go to the finals in back to back years. This year they got lucky the leafs were trying to get rid of Kessel to lead them to a cup this year.

I think Edmonton is in the midst of a second rebuild. Yes they still suck but it looks more like another rebuild rather than a continuation (at least in the forwards).

Again valid points on monahan. I don't think we will agree but I can see the argument. If you are trading down you are trading jones for monahan. This shows that you are aware that you should take jones and want monahan. This is the same as trading jones for monahan + or jones for Ryjo IMO.

Perhaps the better question would have been had Tampa won the lottery should they have passed on Tavares for Hedman. Forget the hype of Tavares as well. If you believe in your philosophy it shouldn't matter. Trading down for Hedman would be the same as trading Tavares for Hedman +. Again trading BPA for an asset you need. Of course you can play the what if game forever but I am just trying to find good examples for discussion purposes rather than going off of arbitrary designations. i just think taking BPA gives you the best assets to trade at a later date. If Edmonton had got Larson + for hall we wouldn't be saying it was a failure. That was a bad trade by chiarelli not a problem with the value of Taylor hall again IMO.

Interesting discussion and interesting points. I could be swayed to your way of thinking in some cases but ultimately I think you have to go BPA. Thanks for the discussion

 

[henchman21]

Perhaps the better question would have been had Tampa won the lottery should they have passed on Tavares for Hedman.

If I had Stamkos as my center only a couple years into the league, absolutely I would have drafted Hedman over Tavares. I'd try to drop back and pick up an asset, but I wouldn't hesitate picking the better fit player.

With Pittsburgh... they kind of hit a whirlwind of things... They got Malkin and then won the lottery for the next generational player. You don't skip over a generational sort, no matter what. They picked Staal because EJ got selected first, and the rest of the other players fighting for the #2 picks were 3 centers and 1 center/wing. I'd say they went after the BPA in their estimation.

I am a big believer in getting the core set and building around those players, and if I was starting from scratch, ideally I'd start with drafting a defensemen then center (drafting goalies in the later rounds), but BPA wins if there is a significant difference... then probably trading for a goalie (if one of the picks didn't work) once I had a good idea the defensemen and center are in place.

 

[Thepoolmaster]

If I had Stamkos as my center only a couple years into the league, absolutely I would have drafted Hedman over Tavares. I'd try to drop back and pick up an asset, but I wouldn't hesitate picking the better fit player.

With Pittsburgh... they kind of hit a whirlwind of things... They got Malkin and then won the lottery for the next generational player. You don't skip over a generational sort, no matter what. They picked Staal because EJ got selected first, and the rest of the other players fighting for the #2 picks were 3 centers and 1 center/wing. I'd say they went after the BPA in their estimation.

I am a big believer in getting the core set and building around those players, and if I was starting from scratch, ideally I'd start with drafting a defensemen then center (drafting goalies in the later rounds), but BPA wins if there is a significant difference... then probably trading for a goalie (if one of the picks didn't work) once I had a good idea the defensemen and center are in place.

Hmm interesting. I think trading back for Hedman is essentially trading Tavares for Hedman +. Trading BPA for fit which is what we would be doing in the future. But we are arguing semantics at this point. I don't think I would have done the same but that is because I believe you need two centers that can play the game at a high level and 1 D. But I put a lot of emphasis on centers. I would argue your 3C is more important than the wings even. So that we bring this thread back to the Avs I would say that your team needs in this order:

1C
2C/1D
1G/3C
2D
1W
2W

To be successful I believe that your 3C should be good enough to play on the power play (this is not saying he's your 3rd best forward just that he is good enough to be a top 6 tweeter) and that you have a really good 1D

The Avs have that right now in
Duchene Landeskog
Mack rantanen
Soderberg

1D
EJ
Barrie?

Varly

The Avs lack that 1D. Would it have been easier to draft jones over Mack and keep ROR who knows. Revisionist history and all that but if the Avs can get a true 1D I think they would have the core to get ready for a playoff run and only need some solid complimentary pieces. Of course everyone has to become what we as fans hope etc. but the foundation is there. Can the Avs get that one D. I don't know how. Maybe trading Landeskog is the answer (I wouldn't be opposed to it if it's the right guy but it would have to be worth it)

 

[henchman21]

#1D just don't get traded in the NHL very often, and when they do it cost a ton (like another #1D in a trade we all just saw).

I believe (and we have seen) 2nd line centers can be found throughout the first couple rounds of the draft, in trades, and in free agency with regularity (hell we saw Nielsen and Backes change teams this just this summer). #1 and even really #2D have to be developed. They just rarely hit the market, and when they do, the cost is incredibly high... hell, Jones who I believe is a low end #1, but was traded for because of potential (not that he established himself in Nashville) now cost an established #1C.

IMO the hardest position to solve in the NHL is the #1D followed by the #1C. Find those and the rest of the team can be built in time between the draft, trades, and free agency. I don't say ignore the other positions, but if you have a chance to draft kids you think solve those two spots... you do it.

 

[Thepoolmaster]

I can agree with most of that.

I would argue 1C is harder. Yes, there are more of them but I believe that the 1C has to be better relatively to that position than the 1D. But again we are arguing personal opinion.

The 1D is only slightly less difficult to fill because you can get them later in the draft which is what the Avs have started doing. Bigras/Meloche. Real examples are Keith/Letang/subban etc. it is rare to get a true 1C anywhere other than the first round. (Datsyuk doesn't count. Different era of drafting).

 

[henchman21]

I can agree with most of that.

I would argue 1C is harder. Yes, there are more of them but I believe that the 1C has to be better relatively to that position than the 1D. But again we are arguing personal opinion.

The 1D is only slightly less difficult to fill because you can get them later in the draft which is what the Avs have started doing. Bigras/Meloche. Real examples are Keith/Letang/subban etc. it is rare to get a true 1C anywhere other than the first round. (Datsyuk doesn't count. Different era of drafting).

I'd argue Letang/Subban were a different era of drafting... the last #1 (IMO) to be drafted outside the top 15 was Falk in 2010. Before him it was probably Subban in 2007 (maybe Brodie 2008). #1D are not really found outside the top 15 anymore. There are some late 1st/early 2nd #1Cs, but neither are common. To have the best chances for either, you need to draft them high. Which is why I'd try to select them while towards the top of the draft.