Sen sational
Registered User
- Mar 27, 2019
- 488
- 262
BondraTime and SOA, thank you for your perspectives and the article. You make some interesting points including the greater chance that a player will not make the NHL if you take a lower ranked player over the BPA. Here BPA is based solely on his own personal hockey skills, and does not include any organizational needs.
I can certainly agree with this premise if there is a substantial difference in the evaluation process ie. rating 95 for BPA and 70 for your organizational need player. Where I think there is room for organizational need is where the rating is not significant, 95 BPA and 94.5 or 93 RD. Certainly you wouldn't see this decision in the early part of the 1st round but, depending on the depth, there would be substantially less differential the further down the draft you went.
I also acknowledge that in 3 years time your teams needs may change and that you may be able to take your BPA and trade him for your organizational need, however I also know that if I see something specific in the organizational need that I want, ie. big, physical, good skating, RD, with good first pass, and hockey IQ, it may be very difficult for me to pry a player with those skills away from a team for my BPA LW as the RD is more scarce in general.
In the limited reading I have done the advocates of BPA, hockey skills only, suggest that BPA works for rounds 1 and 2 but should not govern the following rounds. The only problem with that is if you leave your selection of organizational need, high end RD, are you really giving yourself a chance of filling that position in rounds 3 to 7?
In summary, I acknowledge that BPA is more often than not the right pick in rounds 1 and 2, but I still believe that organizational need, which includes the type of game you want to play ie. Jake Vertanen versus William Nylander, should be taken into consideration when making a pick.
I can certainly agree with this premise if there is a substantial difference in the evaluation process ie. rating 95 for BPA and 70 for your organizational need player. Where I think there is room for organizational need is where the rating is not significant, 95 BPA and 94.5 or 93 RD. Certainly you wouldn't see this decision in the early part of the 1st round but, depending on the depth, there would be substantially less differential the further down the draft you went.
I also acknowledge that in 3 years time your teams needs may change and that you may be able to take your BPA and trade him for your organizational need, however I also know that if I see something specific in the organizational need that I want, ie. big, physical, good skating, RD, with good first pass, and hockey IQ, it may be very difficult for me to pry a player with those skills away from a team for my BPA LW as the RD is more scarce in general.
In the limited reading I have done the advocates of BPA, hockey skills only, suggest that BPA works for rounds 1 and 2 but should not govern the following rounds. The only problem with that is if you leave your selection of organizational need, high end RD, are you really giving yourself a chance of filling that position in rounds 3 to 7?
In summary, I acknowledge that BPA is more often than not the right pick in rounds 1 and 2, but I still believe that organizational need, which includes the type of game you want to play ie. Jake Vertanen versus William Nylander, should be taken into consideration when making a pick.