2016 Draft Thread IV – Host: Buffalo – Pick: 8th

[Moskau]

Still haven't decided who I favor. But I think going BPA forward and then somehow getting back into the 1st to take a D is what I prefer.

 

[truthbluth]

I like Dineen, but my favorites are Clague, Hajek, Moverare, and Cholowski. Cholowski will be a project as he's headed to the NCAA just like Fabbro so some slow percolating will work wonders.

I actually think Cholowski won't be going to the NCAA until 2017. At least according to elite prospects. That's a long projection. The last two guys we picked like that haven't panned out.

 

[dotcommunism]

I actually think Cholowski won't be going to the NCAA until 2017. At least according to elite prospects. That's a long projection. The last two guys we picked like that haven't panned out.

Going by his thread from the prospects forum (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1994505) it seems that the information on eliteprospects is outdated, and that Cholowski is heading to St. Cloud State next season. There was a similar situation recently where a Sabres prospect pushed his matriculation up a year; Will Borgen was originally supposed to start at St. Cloud State next season and of course played there this year. The early returns have been pretty good there.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I'd like for GMTM to put a ton of emphasis on defense in this draft, the-stocking the cupboards now so the D can develop. Some combination of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev/Bean and Clague/Dineen/Girard/Niemelainen with the first two picks would be a good way to focus on a position without wildly reaching for talent.

I'd even take a close look at taking some flawed projects/prospects in the late 2nd/3rd. Day and Krys would be good mid-round picks. High ceiling on both if they put everything together, and low risk.

If GMTM came away with this draft, I'd be happy:

1st: OJ/JC/MS/JB
2nd: KC/MN/CD/SG

Trade two thirds to get into the late second.
Late 2nd: Day

3rd: Krys
3rd: Knierim

That's the type of draft that resets LHD long-term. Then use 2017 picks for trades to get a LHD for now.

 

[brian_griffin]

my crystal ball > your crystal ball

Too true.

Or, my balls bigger than your balls...

Still haven't decided who I favor. But I think going BPA forward and then somehow getting back into the 1st to take a D is what I prefer.

That makes no sense to me. Unless the Sabres feel, at #8, there is a forward clearly better than the best available D, then I think they have to go with need, which is Left D, again with the other factors equal.

"Clearly better" means absolutely higher floor and higher ceiling for the forward than the D-man. And I just don't see that happening, where both criteria would be met with consensus. Hell, we can't agree.

And the other reason why I can't see your scenario transpiring is it would be a huge crapshoot to assume BUF could move up from #38 to somewhere later in the 1st round.

Unless either a move-up-from-second-round-to-first trade is worked out in advance of the draft, or a top-pairing LHD is acquired via trade, I see BUF drafting D at #8OA. I just can't see a forward who has a clear, consensus, higher ceiling and higher floor than any of the top 3-4 D-men still being on the board when BUF drafts.

I could be proven wrong, but I believe the above is the most logical, highest probability way for BUF to draft. We'll see in ~6 weeks.

 

[Zip15]

I'd like for GMTM to put a ton of emphasis on defense in this draft, the-stocking the cupboards now so the D can develop. Some combination of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev/Bean and Clague/Dineen/Girard/Niemelainen with the first two picks would be a good way to focus on a position without wildly reaching for talent.

The overemphasis on drafting forwards from 2011-14 is, in no small part, how we ended up in this mess in the first place. People looked at a defensive depth chart with guys like Ehrhoff, Myers, and Sekera in the NHL, and a prospect pool of Pysyk, McNabb, McCabe, and later Risto and Zads, and figured we could stop drafting defensemen for awhile and focus on forwards. Indeed, I specifically remember one poster taking the position that we should exclusively draft forwards in the 2014 draft because we were so set on defense.

Since 2011, we've had 20 picks in the first three rounds. With those 20 picks, we've drafted five defensemen. Things can change quickly. In 30 months we went from having a glut of defensemen to it being our biggest perceived trade. We may trade Girgensons and Ennis and Kane within the next three years, and get some good defensemen in return, and then have another perceived gap in NHL-ready forwards.

BPA is most definitely the way to go after the 1st round when you're dealing with lottery tickets.

 

[LaxSabre]

Brian Gionta last attended an NHL draft in 1998, when he was selected in the third round (#82) by the New Jersey Devils at Marine Midland Arena in Buffalo, NY.
The Buffalo Sabres captain said he's looking forward to attending as a fan when the 2016 NHL Draft is held in Buffalo at First Niagara Center on June 24-June 25.

Gionta recalled being warned by his agent not to bring too big of a contingent to Buffalo for the draft since he was #163 on NHL Central Scouting's final ranking of North American skaters. A freshman at Boston College at the time, Gionta didn't have the heart to tell his family they shouldn't attend. The decision turned out to be a good one.

"Being from Rochester, New York, I drove up and did some team interviews in the hotels a couple of nights before the draft and everyone in my family was there," Gionta said.
"So I think that was the loudest cheer for a third-round pick, ever, at a draft. I had the whole section and they all went nuts for a third-round pick.
It was a dream come true to not only be drafted, but to have everyone there to experience it."

 

[Der Jaeger]

The overemphasis on drafting forwards from 2011-14 is, in no small part, how we ended up in this mess in the first place. People looked at a defensive depth chart with guys like Ehrhoff, Myers, and Sekera in the NHL, and a prospect pool of Pysyk, McNabb, McCabe, and later Risto and Zads, and figured we could stop drafting defensemen for awhile and focus on forwards. Indeed, I specifically remember one poster taking the position that we should exclusively draft forwards in the 2014 draft because we were so set on defense.

Since 2011, we've had 20 picks in the first three rounds. With those 20 picks, we've drafted five defensemen. Things can change quickly. In 30 months we went from having a glut of defensemen to it being our biggest perceived trade. We may trade Girgensons and Ennis and Kane within the next three years, and get some good defensemen in return, and then have another perceived gap in NHL-ready forwards.

BPA is most definitely the way to go after the 1st round when you're dealing with lottery tickets.

I agree with all of this assessment. However, the current issue was generated over drafts, not just one. I'd like to re-balance using the 2016 draft, then go back to BPA, with an eye towards balance between positions. I like this draft for this purpose, since there are defensemen available at 8 and 38 that won't be reaches, and could be BPA.

 

[Chainshot]

I attended the '98 draft. Returned a day early from my honeymoon to do it too.

 

[Wisent42]

Btw, has it been determined which of our third round picks goes to Pittsburgh as compensation for taking Bylsma off their hands?

 

[OkimLom]

I attended the '98 draft. Returned a day early from my honeymoon to do it too.

Was there as well. I remember running into Peca and Ray randomly.

 

[TehDoak]

I attended the '98 draft. Returned a day early from my honeymoon to do it too.

Ugh, i need a draft related euphemism and fast.

 

[Sabretooth]

The overemphasis on drafting forwards from 2011-14 is, in no small part, how we ended up in this mess in the first place. People looked at a defensive depth chart with guys like Ehrhoff, Myers, and Sekera in the NHL, and a prospect pool of Pysyk, McNabb, McCabe, and later Risto and Zads, and figured we could stop drafting defensemen for awhile and focus on forwards. Indeed, I specifically remember one poster taking the position that we should exclusively draft forwards in the 2014 draft because we were so set on defense.

Since 2011, we've had 20 picks in the first three rounds. With those 20 picks, we've drafted five defensemen. Things can change quickly. In 30 months we went from having a glut of defensemen to it being our biggest perceived trade. We may trade Girgensons and Ennis and Kane within the next three years, and get some good defensemen in return, and then have another perceived gap in NHL-ready forwards.

BPA is most definitely the way to go after the 1st round when you're dealing with lottery tickets.

I disagree with the bolded. Does BPA really exist at all after the first round if they're lottery tickets? I'm sure teams have ordered lists of all the draft eligible players in some order of best to worst, but that list is probably dependent on things like long term organizational needs and overarching draft strategy and taking gambles on low floor high ceiling type players. And I'm guessing that list is probably pretty fluid over the course of a draft depending on how things shake out. Unless you're defining BPA as the teams decision on who the best player to pick is all those things considered? Because I doubt teams are going to just draft say 6 centers from rounds 2-7 because "welp BPA we had to take them".

I do agree with the sentiment in the rest of your post that immediate need at the NHL level shouldn't be a huge consideration in who you draft at any spot, because well... the players who can likely contribute immediately only go to the top few spots and you don't have much of a say in what position they are, and the rest are 2-3 years out (or more) type of players and as you say, the NHL roster perceived holes can change quicker than these players can develop.

 

[Chainshot]

I was part of the contingent that boo'd Lindros in '91 too.

 

[Jacob582]

Btw, has it been determined which of our third round picks goes to Pittsburgh as compensation for taking Bylsma off their hands?

I believe it's the 63rd. Neuvirth trade.

 

[Chainshot]

I believe it's the 63rd. Neuvirth trade.

The Pens used it in the Sutter trade to the Canucks too. So it's back with Vancouver, from whence it came.

 

[Zip15]

I disagree with the bolded. Does BPA really exist at all after the first round if they're lottery tickets?

Why have scouts if there's no discernible difference between players picked between 31st overall and 210th, or 31st through 60th? I can't imagine you're suggesting that there's no differentiation between players in those rounds? Based on your scouting reports, your scouts definitely have a BPA each time the team is on the clock.

I used the words "lottery ticket" based on the percentage of those players having extended NHL careers. I was in no way suggesting that all players drafted outside the 1st round are fungible and their potential NHL careers are based on random luck, like lottery numbers.

I'm sure teams have ordered lists of all the draft eligible players in some order of best to worst, but that list is probably dependent on things like long term organizational needs and overarching draft strategy and taking gambles on low floor high ceiling type players.

Even if the draft is fluid, I imagine the list is strictly best to worst. Murray talks about giving each player a score. I imagine their list is strictly best score to worst. I think ties or marginal differences may be broken by the idea of "need," but I don't think the list undergoes sweeping change based on need.

And I'm guessing that list is probably pretty fluid over the course of a draft depending on how things shake out.

I'm sure they do, and I'm saying I think it's generally a bad idea - as evidenced by how quickly our top-to-bottom defense stable went from "stacked" to "biggest organizational need" in about 30 months. What may be perceived to be our biggest need now, may be our biggest strength in a few years - depending on everything from free agency to trades - when these non-1st round picks are turning pro.

Murray's said it over and over: draft well so that you can trade well. I hate the idea of picking a LHD (need) who you have ranked 42nd overall at #38 over a RW (not necessarily a need in that age bracket in our organization) you have ranked 28th. Picking that RW may allow you to move a guy like Fasching or Bailey - or even the pick himself - in a package for a big-time LHD, thereby filling that "need" within the organization.

Unless you're defining BPA as the teams decision on who the best player to pick is all those things considered? Because I doubt teams are going to just draft say 6 centers from rounds 2-7 because "welp BPA we had to take them".

As for your hypo, I'd say go for it. Centers often can play any forward position. What I am against is strict (or general) need-based drafting.

There's certainly some common sense involved as the differentiation diminishes in the later rounds. If you want to draft a defenseman ranked 168th over a RW you have ranked 167th, I don't think it's that big of a deal as we're talking minute chances of having a NHL career at that stage of the draft.

Generally, that's still a BPA strategy with a tiny bit of flexibility and common sense built in.
______________________________________________

The fun part in all of this is that we'll never know whether picking only five defensemen in our 20 picks in the first three rounds since 2011 was because all those non-defensemen were BPA or they were drafting for perceived need. I tend to believe it's the latter, but we'll never know for sure.

 

[Jame]

Why have scouts if there's no discernible difference between players picked between 31st overall and 210th, or 31st through 60th? I can't imagine you're suggesting that there's no differentiation between players in those rounds? Based on your scouting reports, your scouts definitely have a BPA each time the team is on the clock.

Even if the draft is fluid, I imagine the list is strictly best to worst. Murray talks about giving each player a score. I imagine their list is strictly best score to worst. I think ties or marginal differences may be broken by the idea of "need," but I don't think the list undergoes sweeping change based on need.

I think need/fit is built in to that score. And that need can be the determining factor in a score that under a measure based solely on talent analysis come out relatively equal. If Nylander and Dubois have the same exact "score" when it comes to measure their hockey skill sets, but speed is a bigger need and better or more important organizational fit for system/scheme, then that is the determining factor.

Generally, that's still a BPA strategy with a tiny bit of flexibility and common sense built in.

I think it's built in from the beginning.

BPA as solely a measure of talent, is a factor when there is a clear as day separation in the talent (which comes in the form of tiers).

 

[1972]

My God can we stop with this never ending BPA vs need debate.

 

[Royisgone]

This is complete nonsense. The local Edminton paper had an article that basically says their GM is irresponsible (and worse) if he doesn't take Chychrun at 4. Most mock drafts also have them taking him or Juolevi at 4, but please, continue posting about your dumb conspiracy theory.

I'd be surprised if Edmonton picks at 4. That pick is going to be flat out traded away, or they will at least trade down.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I'd be surprised if Edmonton picks at 4. That pick is going to be flat out traded away, or they will at least trade down.

They had an Edm writer on WGR today and he seemed pretty convinced they were planning to move back in the draft, less convinced that they trade the pick outright, and against making the pick at all. Suggested that Dubois and Tkachuck are above the rest in the 4-12 range and that there would be a team in the 6-10 range that would be interested in jumping up to grab 1. Also referenced the isles going 4-7 for a 2nd and 3rd then 7-9 for another second.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

I agree with all of this assessment. However, the current issue was generated over drafts, not just one. I'd like to re-balance using the 2016 draft, then go back to BPA, with an eye towards balance between positions. I like this draft for this purpose, since there are defensemen available at 8 and 38 that won't be reaches, and could be BPA.

Losing Zadorov in the ROR trade also hurt in terms of forward/D-men balance in the organization. I think if we still had Zads, there wouldn't be quite this whole "OMG we need LHD" business as there is now. Of course, we probably don't get ROR without giving up Zads, but that's not really relevant to this thread.

I think last year did a good job in term of quantity by adding Guhle, Borgen, and Stephens to the pipeline. And while early returns are promising, I'd still like to add more higher end talent to the back end. The fact that it takes D-men longer to develop is exactly why taking them sooner makes more sense so they have time to develop to become impact players during the contending window. At least with forwards we have a ton of high-impact guys who are already on the roster, with D that isn't quite the case.

I also want to see them grab another goaltender to keep that position stocked in the prospect rank. You never want to wait until you're in dire need because of the longer developmental curve required. Because we have Ullmark, Peterson, and Kasdorf in the system, we may not need to use a early round pick on one, but continuing to add lotto tickets there is always a good idea in case those guys don't pan out.

 

[OkimLom]

my god can we stop with this never ending bpa vs need debate.

never!!!!!!

 

[signalIInoise]

Ugh, i need a draft related euphemism and fast.

"Bust"?

 

[Zip15]

Just read Tage Thompson only scored one ES goal this season. Woof.