2021 NHL Draft Thread: Brackett and Friends

Status
Not open for further replies.

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,842
423
nearest bar MN
where is the proof that anyone really knows who bpa is, im just saying i really dislike that concept. in theory it means its obvious who teams should pick when reality is no one knows for sure. can we agree on that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestonedkoala

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,736
24,445
Farmington, MN
where is the proof that anyone really knows who bpa is, im just saying i really dislike that concept. in theory it means its obvious who teams should pick when reality is no one knows for sure.
The BPA is determined by your amateur scout team... in our case, Judd Brackett and crew.

He has a proven track record of putting together great draft boards and nailng it on BPA.

Just because teams rank them differently doesn't mean you don't trust the work you and yours put in.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
where is the proof that anyone really knows who bpa is, im just saying i really dislike that concept. in theory it means its obvious who teams should pick when reality is no one knows for sure. can we agree on that?

Exactly; I mean Sheppard was considered a top 10? Maybe just outside the top 10 pick. Pouliot was considered a top 5 pick. Those were the BPA at the time when Minnesota picked. Hell, I even think Phillips was considered a top 30 prospect.

Next year is pretty light on right wingers, but they have some depth at defense and center (which is great). One mock for next year's draft has us take Zachary L'Heureux, an undersized left winger. Second pick they have us take is Anton Olsson.

A) It's way too early to tell, but some of the boards I've seen have guys that are taken after L'Heureux ranked higher (Luke Hughes for one, Corson Ceulemans, Chaz Lucius) B) The BPA according to this one mock has us taking a lefty defenseman and a left winger.
 

fentonsbrainchild

Registered User
Jul 29, 2019
1,037
548
I’ll say it once, I’ll say it a thousand times.

Projecting need 2-4 years out based on current needs is a futile art.

Of course we won’t know what BPA is for years to come but in a draft like the NHL where only a percentage of players actually play in the NHL you always take the guy with the best grade by your scouts. This isn’t the NFL where you can plug and play players from day 1, and a large majority of the players drafted play in the NFL.

Again this discussion started from TSK saying we should draft a RW. I agree with that if Brackett thinks a RW is the best player available where we’re picking.

i'll just finish with would there be any steals of the draft if every team got the "BPA" right?
It’s almost like scouting isn’t an exact science?

Your argument is “scouts make mistakes so we should draft on perceived need”?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 2Pair

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
I’ll say it once, I’ll say it a thousand times.

Projecting need 2-4 years out based on current needs is a futile art.

Except, some of us aren't projecting current needs 2-4 years out based off of current needs. I mean we had Staal and Koivu three years ago, does that mean we needed to ignore center because we had those two?

Again this discussion started from TSK saying we should draft a RW. I agree with that if Brackett thinks a RW is the best player available where we’re picking.

Where did I say we need to draft a right wing? Most fans were saying that we needed a center. If Drysdale was there (which some projected) and Rossi was there, would you be disappointed that we selected Drysdale over Rossi? What about Johansson over Veleno or Bokk?
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
44,928
19,780
MinneSNOWta
Except, some of us aren't projecting current needs 2-4 years out based off of current needs. I mean we had Staal and Koivu three years ago, does that mean we needed to ignore center because we had those two?



Where did I say we need to draft a right wing? Most fans were saying that we needed a center. If Drysdale was there (which some projected) and Rossi was there, would you be disappointed that we selected Drysdale over Rossi? What about Johansson over Veleno or Bokk?

Earlier in this thread, when you said “RW and G”. Somebody else responded with “BPA”, and alas we all have wound up here, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

fentonsbrainchild

Registered User
Jul 29, 2019
1,037
548
Except, some of us aren't projecting current needs 2-4 years out based off of current needs. I mean we had Staal and Koivu three years ago, does that mean we needed to ignore center because we had those two?



Where did I say we need to draft a right wing? Most fans were saying that we needed a center. If Drysdale was there (which some projected) and Rossi was there, would you be disappointed that we selected Drysdale over Rossi? What about Johansson over Veleno or Bokk?
Needs are fluid and it’s stupid to try to draft for needs when most kids (top picks aside) won’t be major contributors for at least 2-5 years.

I would have been disappointed if we drafted Drysdale over Rossi because I think Rossi is a better prospect.
 

fentonsbrainchild

Registered User
Jul 29, 2019
1,037
548
@thestonedkoala On the third page you said “RW and then Goalie”.

You also stated earlier in the thread “Isn’t this draft pretty D-heavy? I’d hate to reach for a RW.” It’s almost like you would hate straying from BPA strategy o_O
 

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,842
423
nearest bar MN
If you have a Center and a Defenseman graded out about the same, then it make sense to pick the one that best fills an organizational need.
i would take that a step further, your #1 & #2 C are leaving soon. your D is set for the next 4-5 years even if a D pick was slightly better why on earth wouldn't you pick a C that fills your need? example boldy was listed as bpa but newhook would have filled a desperate need?
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Earlier in this thread, when you said “RW and G”. Somebody else responded with “BPA”, and alas we all have wound up here, again.

Fair enough.

Needs are fluid and it’s stupid to try to draft for needs when most kids (top picks aside) won’t be major contributors for at least 2-5 years.

Needs are fluid, that's why it's better to have a more diverse prospect pool.

I would have been disappointed if we drafted Drysdale over Rossi because I think Rossi is a better prospect.

And many people would disagree.

@thestonedkoala On the third page you said “RW and then Goalie”.

You also stated earlier in the thread “Isn’t this draft pretty D-heavy? I’d hate to reach for a RW.” It’s almost like you would hate straying from BPA strategy o_O

I'm saying that Minnesota should look at drafting some right wingers and a goalie. I'm also saying that like center last year, right wing and a goaltender should be a priority. No where did I say that we should take a right winger if it's a reach. But if a right winger and a defenseman grade out the same, take the right winger.

i would take that a step further, your #1 & #2 C are leaving soon. your D is set for the next 4-5 years even if a D pick was slightly better why on earth wouldn't you pick a C that fills your need? example boldy was listed as bpa but newhook would have filled a desperate need?

It goes even further than that, if you got a bunch of defensive guys or guys that can pass the puck but can't shoot, you start taking shooters.
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,342
5,484
i would take that a step further, your #1 & #2 C are leaving soon. your D is set for the next 4-5 years even if a D pick was slightly better why on earth wouldn't you pick a C that fills your need?

It all depends. Most prospects are 2-3 years away from contributing...and it's hard to know what the organizational needs will be 2-3 years from now.

Let's put your scenario into a real-world example. Let's say the Wild had the #6 pick in the 2016 draft. Would you have passed on Matthew Tkachuk (LW) and instead choose a player like Tyson Jost because he was a center and center was your biggest need? I would hope that you wouldn't.

example boldy was listed as bpa but newhook would have filled a desperate need?

Listed where? Did you have access to every team's board?
 

fentonsbrainchild

Registered User
Jul 29, 2019
1,037
548
I’d rather have better prospect pool than a diverse prospect pool. You aren’t stuck with the players you draft, trades are allowed believe it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
44,928
19,780
MinneSNOWta
with the heat im taking it sure feels like it.

Because there is miscommunication abound.

i would take that a step further, your #1 & #2 C are leaving soon. your D is set for the next 4-5 years even if a D pick was slightly better why on earth wouldn't you pick a C that fills your need? example boldy was listed as bpa but newhook would have filled a desperate need?

The key phrase here is “slightly better”. What if it’s more than slightly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
I’d rather have better prospect pool than a diverse prospect pool. You aren’t stuck with the players you draft, trades are allowed believe it or not.

Yeah like how magically the Wild traded for a top 6 center.

A diverse pool also means that if injuries happen or if you trade a player you don't deplete what you have.

Again Minnesota thought that Johansson was the BPA. Why was so many fans mad about that?
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,736
24,445
Farmington, MN
Yeah like how magically the Wild traded for a top 6 center.

A diverse pool also means that if injuries happen or if you trade a player you don't deplete what you have.

Again Minnesota thought that Johansson was the BPA. Why was so many fans mad about that?
So many were mad because so many disagree that he was the BPA. The team fumbled that pick bigtime. Terrible draft board in most people's opinion, if he was their BPA.

Just because we want a BPA strategy doesn't mean we'll all agree on who that BPA is.
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
I'm still waiting for DANOZ28 or TSK to explain what the thought process should be if it isn't going to be "BPA"?
If the idea is to draft for need, who decides what is needed most? When you do identify the greatest position of need, how do you decide which player at that position to pick?
 

BagHead

Registered User
Dec 23, 2010
6,367
3,408
Minneapolis, MN
So many were mad because so many disagree that he was the BPA. The team fumbled that pick bigtime. Terrible draft board in most people's opinion, if he was their BPA.

Just because we want a BPA strategy doesn't mean we'll all agree on who that BPA is.
I want to bold that sentence for emphasis, as I think that's the point that is causing almost all of the miscommunication in this thread. Good post, TaLoN!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,842
423
nearest bar MN
I'm still waiting for DANOZ28 or TSK to explain what the thought process should be if it isn't going to be "BPA"?
If the idea is to draft for need, who decides what is needed most? When you do identify the greatest position of need, how do you decide which player at that position to pick?
well not that you always explain your posts but its simple if you desperately need a C you pick the best available when its your pick not a D or a winger you think might be slightly better. problem solved. also you dont wait until all you C's are gone then panic calling every other team offering 3 or 4 1sts!
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
well not that you always explain your posts but its simple if you desperately need a C you pick the best available when its your pick not a D or a winger you think might be slightly better. problem solved. also you dont wait until all you C's are gone then panic calling every other team offering 3 or 4 1sts!
How do you decide which center to choose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->