NHL Entry Draft 2019 Entry Draft Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
Alex Daigle was the unanimous BPA and was a horrible pick, Ottawa should of taken Pronger at #2.

You can’t build a team of wingers and goalies, and some point you have to take C and D - and puck moving D and big Centers. So you have to draft by need

That's an issue with drafted players not meeting expectation, nothing to do with whether or not you should go BPA or draft for need.

In that same year, Tbay chose Gratton the big center over Kariya the small winger; where they right?
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
And Brady Tkachuk, Chabot.

But BPA is silly because Dorion admitted in his scouting meetings his room was essentially 50/50 over who was the #1 pick - Stankos or Doughty. Everyone thinks Stankos was unanimous and thus the BPA but clearly he wasn’t and in hindsite - Doughty is the better player.

So BPA last year would of had us take Zadina who is a PP specialist over Brady who’s just a stud hockey player. We drafted for need (leadership, down low presence) over the scouting evaluation and it’s worked out great for us.

So I’m not a believer in BPA because it doesn’t take into account leadership, fearlessness that players like EK and Chabot play with, intangibles.

But intangibles gets you Lazar over Anthony Mantha some drafts
Aho in 2015 using your hindsight, and way, way too early to say anything on Tkachuk.

No it wouldn't, I can say with 100% certainty that Zadina wasn't the BPA on the Sens list, even with Tkachuk off the board. BPA means the highest on their list, not whatever you are using to determine that Zadina was the BPA. I'm sure everyone had different BPA's (I had, and still have Dobson), that doesn't mean that the Sens taking Tkachuk means they choose for need and passed over the BPA. That just means that the Sens thought Tkachuk was the BPA.

They went their BPA, which is why they took Tkachuk. If they had Zadina as the BPA, they take him. Simple as that.

You don't seem to understand what BPA means. Their highest rated player is the BPA, has nothing to do with consensus rankings. The Sens could have had Chabot at #5 on their lists and choose him over Marner and Werenski who they had #6 and #7. If they took Chabot over both them they still took the BPA, even though the other 2 were rated higher on publications.
 

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,713
6,799
Aho in 2015 using your hindsight, and way, way too early to say anything on Tkachuk.

No it wouldn't, I can say with 100% certainty that Zadina wasn't the BPA on the Sens list, even with Tkachuk off the board. BPA means the highest on their list, not whatever you are using to determine that Zadina was the BPA. I'm sure everyone had different BPA's (I had, and still have Dobson), that doesn't mean that the Sens taking Tkachuk means they choose for need and passed over the BPA. That just means that the Sens thought Tkachuk was the BPA.

They went their BPA, which is why they took Tkachuk. If they had Zadina as the BPA, they take him. Simple as that.

You don't seem to understand what BPA means. Their highest rated player is the BPA, has nothing to do with consensus rankings. The Sens could have had Chabot at #5 on their lists and choose him over Marner and Werenski who they had #6 and #7. If they took Chabot over both them they still took the BPA, even though the other 2 were rated higher on publications.

So I’m using ISS and TSN draft rankings to make an argument as no one will ever see an nhl teams draft ranking. if we are assuming every single NHL just takes BPA available based of their list then this is a non starter conversation. There is literally no point to discuss BPA over need because we’ll just always assume every single team drafts BPA which is just not the case as admitted by every scout in every draft that has ever happened
 

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,713
6,799
That's an issue with drafted players not meeting expectation, nothing to do with whether or not you should go BPA or draft for need.

In that same year, Tbay chose Gratton the big center over Kariya the small winger; where they right?

I agreed you shouldn’t draft Russians when the KHO started because there’s just to big a risk losing a player with such an important tool at your disposal - so drafting BPA you have to take into consideration things like ‘will this player come ehrr’ Like Eric Lindros

Culture of teams is also important; NJD and Minnyvtake a ton of college players because they are American and local and supports USA hockey. Yzerman loves drafting Russians and gets good value from them.

Kariya was a better choice then Pronger, Jagr was a better choice the Nolan - moving on
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
And Brady Tkachuk, Chabot.

But BPA is silly because Dorion admitted in his scouting meetings his room was essentially 50/50 over who was the #1 pick - Stankos or Doughty. Everyone thinks Stankos was unanimous and thus the BPA but clearly he wasn’t and in hindsite - Doughty is the better player.

So BPA last year would of had us take Zadina who is a PP specialist over Brady who’s just a stud hockey player. We drafted for need (leadership, down low presence) over the scouting evaluation and it’s worked out great for us.

So I’m not a believer in BPA because it doesn’t take into account leadership, fearlessness that players like EK and Chabot play with, intangibles.

But intangibles gets you Lazar over Anthony Mantha some drafts

Your all over the place... BPA doesn't mean everyone agrees on who the BPA is, you can think Tkachuk was the BPA even though Zadina was available. Drafting for need is about going against your own list of BPA and skipping somebody you think will end up better. There's no hindsight in BPA vs drafting for need, it's about that moment in time.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
So I’m using ISS and TSN draft rankings to make an argument as no one will ever see an nhl teams draft ranking. if we are assuming every single NHL just takes BPA available based of their list then this is a non starter conversation. There is literally no point to discuss BPA over need because we’ll just always assume every single team drafts BPA which is just not the case as admitted by every scout in every draft that has ever happened
I do know that Zadina wouldn't have been the BPA on the Sens list, as I stated before. Don't know where he was on their list, but I know for certain he wasn't their BPA at 4 even without Tkachuk.

Using last years ISS the only teams that drafted the BPA using your method is Buffalo and Carolina, everyone else would be drafting for need, which obviouly never happened.

When you see teams try and trade down, that usually means they like someone but feel he won't be taken that high/there are others available that would be taken. Last year with Bernard-Docker, if the Sens couldn't find a dance partner, they would have taken him at 21. They traded back to 26, and then tried/wanted to trade back again. They maximised their assets, but they 100% would have taken him at 21 had they had too, knowing that it was a high pick to use on him. That tells me they drafted a guy they felt fit their team and filled a need, while getting an asset in return, but also would have taken him higher than they felt then needed to if they couldn't find a trade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vprime

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
The Sens internal draft list and BPA are two different things. The sens should pick the top players available off their own internal list. That list has been filtered from BPA by organizational needs by their scouts and management . Every team applies their own filter.

For example - the best goalie may be the 15th ranked player by the Sens scouts but the Sens management filter him out because they don’t need a goalie and he represents interest to the sens at the 55th player pick.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
The Sens internal draft list and BPA are two different things. The sens should pick the top players available off their own internal list. That list has been filtered from BPA by organizational needs by their scouts and management . Every team applies their own filter.

For example - the best goalie may be the 15th ranked player by the Sens scouts but the Sens management filter him out because they don’t need a goalie and he represents interest to the sens at the 55th player pick.

Goalies and players are completely different beasts, and they are likely not put on the same draft lists, as we see with NHLCS rankings (a tool the NHL teams pay for outside their own lists) they are ranked by themselves. Goalies are probably the only position in the league that are drafted based on need. As we hear fro the Sens every year, we like to take at least 1 goalie in the mid/late rounds every draft. That is their draft MO, they have a goalie they like and just take him with one of their mid/late picks, I highly doubt they have them ranked on a player list. They just pick the goalie they have highest available at the pick they choose to utilise for a goalie.

I know in the CHL drafts, at least some teams have ranking of players and goalies entirely
separate, and will only take one high (top 3 rounds) if they have a 19/20 year old and no 16/17 year old's stepping up in midget or as a backup.

Outside of goalies, the Sens internal draft list is entirely BPA based, they may like a lower guy (ranked 22 on their list, JBD for example) and another lower guy (ranked 28 on their list Tychonick for example) more than a guy they have ranked 20 on their list (Miller for example). Completely hypothetical situation, but its the only appropriate situation I can see that a team can pass on the highest guy from their list and have done a good job.
 
Last edited:

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Goalies and players are completely different beasts, and they are likely not put on the same draft lists, as we see with NHLCS rankings (a tool the NHL teams pay for outside their own lists) they are ranked by themselves. Goalies are probably the only position in the league that are drafted based on need. As we hear fro the Sens every year, we like to take at least 1 goalie in the mid/late rounds every draft. That is their draft MO, they have a goalie they like and just take him with one of their mid/late picks, I highly doubt they have them ranked on a player list. They just pick the goalie they have highest available at the pick they choose to utilise for a goalie.

I know in the CHL drafts, at least some teams have ranking of players and goalies entirely
separate, and will only take one high (top 3 rounds) if they have a 19/20 year old and no 16/17 year old's stepping up in midget or as a backup.

Outside of goalies, the Sens internal draft list is entirely BPA based, they may like a lower guy (ranked 22 on their list, JBD for example) and another lower guy (ranked 28 on their list Tychonick for example) more than a guy they have ranked 20 on their list (Miller for example). Completely hypothetical situation, but its the only appropriate situation I can see that a team can pass on the highest guy from their list and have done a good job.

The sens internal draft list is BPA filtered by the Sens. If the sens scouts say forwArd “x” is a 83 and dman “y” is a 82 the Sens filtered list may have the dman a head of the forwArd. If they think the forwArd is more valuable to the organization they would have the forwArd ranked ahead of the dman.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
The sens internal draft list is BPA filtered by the Sens. If the sens scouts say forwArd “x” is a 83 and dman “y” is a 82 the Sens filtered list may have the dman a head of the forwArd. If they think the forwArd is more valuable to the organization they would have the forwArd ranked ahead of the dman.


Is it?

Dorion said:
“You don’t go into a draft looking at needs,” Dorion said. “When you’re making your evaluations, you’re always going to look at the best (expectations) in two, three or four years.”
Size is an advantage, but Dorion also points to Senators centre Jean-Gabriel Pageau as an example of a player who can succeed despite being undersized.
“Bryan (Murray) always tells me we have enough small jerseys, but it’s about getting the best player,” he said. “If you’re small and play hard and go into tough areas, that’s no problem.”
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
Drafting by need would have the Oilers passing on McDavid in 2015 to take Noah Hanifin.
Even the most ardent supporter of draft by need isn't saying that. They just feel that weight is given to need as well.

I can't seem to find the quote right now, but i recall Dorion or somebody suggesting they went by need once in recent years and implied they regretted it.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,828
9,251
Even the most ardent supporter of draft by need isn't saying that. They just feel that weight is given to need as well.

I can't seem to find the quote right now, but i recall Dorion or somebody suggesting they went by need once in recent years and implied they regretted it.

Perhaps not, but that definitely shows just how faulty it is to put need ahead of PBA.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
The sens internal draft list is BPA filtered by the Sens. If the sens scouts say forwArd “x” is a 83 and dman “y” is a 82 the Sens filtered list may have the dman a head of the forwArd. If they think the forwArd is more valuable to the organization they would have the forwArd ranked ahead of the dman.
From every scout and person I've talked to over the past 5 or so years in the rinks, this would be a whole new approach towards the draft from everything I've been told.
 

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,713
6,799
Schieffle is a good example of need over BPA. So is that bomb Russian kid Edmonton took first overall, they should of taken the D because they needed him, but the Russian was rated higher so they took him.

Need also has to do with depth, if your culture is to have an elite blue line like Nashville does it, you keep your blue line stoked by taking a D over a W/C. The sum of the parts becomes greater then the talent level because of its depth
 

Sen sational

Registered User
Mar 27, 2019
488
262
You could argue this forever.

I think the problem is that everyone is using different criteria in determining what BPA versus drafting for need means.

It appears that most acknowledge that BPA does not mean the next player on the Mac ranking but the best player on the Sens list for that spot in the draft. At that spot the Sens may have a list of 3 names, just in case a team has chosen the first on their list. So in this case BPA means the Sens taking the first name on their list for that spot.

Here is where the greatest opportunity for dispute comes. What do the scouts look at in determining their list of 3 names for that spot?

If the scouts simply look at who will end up being the best player in the NHL then, subject to differences in opinion, you would be using Mac’s list.

If your scouts take a more holistic view of the BPA for the Sens, they could,as one of their criteria, consider organizational need. In which case as between a D and C who are projected to have the same career potential our scouts could consider the organizational need for a RD to determine that the RD is the BPA. If the scouts determine the C is much better than the RD but that the organizational need for the RD is more important then the scouts have still chosen the BPA for the Sens if they choose the RD.

Given that the Sens scouts determine what weight to give to the criteria that goes into the BPA for the Sens we should assume that they always take the BPA.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
Schieffle is a good example of need over BPA. So is that bomb Russian kid Edmonton took first overall, they should of taken the D because they needed him, but the Russian was rated higher so they took him.

Need also has to do with depth, if your culture is to have an elite blue line like Nashville does it, you keep your blue line stoked by taking a D over a W/C. The sum of the parts becomes greater then the talent level because of its depth


Winnipeg literally said at the draft that they felt Scheifele was the best player in the draft. They never drafted him for need, they took the guy they had ranked highest, or BPA. Drafting for need would have been taking Coutourier who plays the same position and was ranked higher, going by your method. This is a clear case of Scheifele being Winnipeg's BPA on their list.

You really don't understand the concept of BPA. You are just using hindsight without context.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Caesar Rex

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,043
East Coast
You could argue this forever.

I think the problem is that everyone is using different criteria in determining what BPA versus drafting for need means.

It appears that most acknowledge that BPA does not mean the next player on the Mac ranking but the best player on the Sens list for that spot in the draft. At that spot the Sens may have a list of 3 names, just in case a team has chosen the first on their list. So in this case BPA means the Sens taking the first name on their list for that spot.

Here is where the greatest opportunity for dispute comes. What do the scouts look at in determining their list of 3 names for that spot?

If the scouts simply look at who will end up being the best player in the NHL then, subject to differences in opinion, you would be using Mac’s list.

If your scouts take a more holistic view of the BPA for the Sens, they could,as one of their criteria, consider organizational need. In which case as between a D and C who are projected to have the same career potential our scouts could consider the organizational need for a RD to determine that the RD is the BPA. If the scouts determine the C is much better than the RD but that the organizational need for the RD is more important then the scouts have still chosen the BPA for the Sens if they choose the RD.

Given that the Sens scouts determine what weight to give to the criteria that goes into the BPA for the Sens we should assume that they always take the BPA.
Bob's list is a weighted average, it doesn't indicate who each team thinks is going to be the best player. Colorado had Heiskanen #1 for example, he was their BPA in 2017, but was #3 on Bobs list. Oviously Jersey and Philly had Heiskanen lower. They had different BPA's on their lists.

Look at the Columbus (I believe, or was it Vancouver?) list that was leaked in their draft video a couple of years ago. They had it done in a 1-30 manner, no positions. They had said in the video they will draft the highest name remaining on the list regardless where they played, otherwise why have these meeting and develop their list.

The NHL isn't the NFL. You are not drafting 23 year olds who immediately jump in to fill needs on the field and make an impact. You are drafting the best players, and filling your roster 4+ years from now. Your needs in 2019 are going to be significantly different even a year from now. You draft the best players and adjust accordingly. It's awesome when you get a starting Corner that comes in immediately and stars for your team for the next 4 years, but drafting a RD in the hopes of it still being a need 4 years down the road is scouting suicide.

As has already been mentioned, Dorion is on record saying that they have drafted for need over ranking before and it never went well for them.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
Schieffle is a good example of need over BPA. So is that bomb Russian kid Edmonton took first overall, they should of taken the D because they needed him, but the Russian was rated higher so they took him.

Need also has to do with depth, if your culture is to have an elite blue line like Nashville does it, you keep your blue line stoked by taking a D over a W/C. The sum of the parts becomes greater then the talent level because of its depth
So they passed over center Couturier who was BPA on most lists to draft Scheifele and that's drafting by need? I think they just disagreed with the consensus and felt Scheifele was BPA
 

Viletho

Registered User
Jan 20, 2015
3,863
1,327
Drafting by need would have the Oilers passing on McDavid in 2015 to take Noah Hanifin.
Good and bad exemple since every team would need to add generational talent even if they have one already.

But oustide the generational status Mcdavid has, that's a good example of Need vs BPA
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
64,992
49,511
Drafting isn't an exact science. Take 10 scouts get them to rank the players for the draft. For the draft is an important distinction in that the players are projected to what kind of player they can be in the NHL. The lists will be in BPA order according to each of the scouts. Bring the scouts together discuss the rankings come up with one consolidated list.. The fact is , not all of the players ranked will turn out for a variety of reasons, which is extremely difficult to predict. Player development can stall. Injuries/Health. Player has peaked early. Weak areas do not improve. Attitude. Personal issues. All the scouts know this. The GM and Chief Scout knows this. Drafting for need, it is easier to miss just because you are narrowing the field. Rank the players according to BPA. Draft according to your rank. Any other way increases your chances of missing.


Edit: Just came across this.. Its an oldy but it still applies and it pertains to "Your Ottawa Senators"
The Best Player Available Draft Strategy - Hockey's Future
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Peptic Balcers

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,713
6,799
Winnipeg literally said at the draft that they felt Scheifele was the best player in the draft. They never drafted him for need, they took the guy they had ranked highest, or BPA. Drafting for need would have been taking Coutourier who plays the same position and was ranked higher, going by your method. This is a clear case of Scheifele being Winnipeg's BPA on their list.

You really don't understand the concept of BPA. You are just using hindsight without context.

Okay, I dont understand. You understand
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,337
I'm kinda giving up hope on picking at 19th... Assuming we pick int the final four, id like to land two of the following with the clb puck and our 2nd:

Leason, Thompson, Heinola, Pelletier and Hoglander.

I'd be happy with that particularly if Leason is there.

Edit: looks like Heinola has rocketed up the rankings and probably won't be available unless Clb loses to boston... Oh well
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->