Draft best player available or positional need

[grieves]

I rarely see any sources cites of why people are valuing one position over the other. It has always seemed weird to me, seeing as you are playing a game in a box with a semi-fluid 5 man unit.

Are there any credible sources going on record about drafting preferences or is this just "general consensus" which we know can be completely off-base?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

So... what youre suggesting is drafting for need improves a team?

Interesting how that plays out.

Drafting for need and picking the exact right players probably does.

And I'm just saying that you might not have been top 3 those two years, but you still might've been 4-9 or something like that.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

BPA

You can always trade from a position of strength for a position of need down the road like Nashville did.

No.

If the BPA is a winger, you can't trade for a right shot Dman without a severe overpay.

Ask Cbus fans which winger in this league they would trade Seth Jones for.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Ask Cbus fans which winger in this league they would trade Seth Jones for.

Seth Jones is one of the best players in the league...so he is the 'BPA' here.

 

[Soundgarden]

Unless your team is overly stacked in one area(like Tampa’s forwards or Nashville’s D-core) you go BPA.

Nashville is an example of always picking BPA even if you are overly stacked in one area.

 

[Machinehead]

Top 50 picks are BPA, after that you can use whatever criteria you want.

I think this makes a lot of sense, because talent at the top of the draft is easier to identify. At a certain point, you honestly don't know if player A is better than player B, and you're rolling the dice anyway, so roll the dice on a need.

I think the number is lower than 50, but I agree with the premise.

 

[Machinehead]

No.

If the BPA is a winger, you can't trade for a right shot Dman without a severe overpay.

Ask Cbus fans which winger in this league they would trade Seth Jones for.

Jones was drafted by Nashville when they were absolutely loaded on defense.

 

[boredmale]

Jones was drafted by Nashville when they were absolutely loaded on defense.

Bad example, Jones at that point was the clear cut best player on the board, question is would they have drafted him say 3rd if their choices were Jones and Drouin if they felt Jones was slightly better or even second if they felt he was better then Barkov

If you look at it reverse Tampa would have did better drafting for need(defense) by picking Jones 3rd over Drouin(who I assume they felt was BPA)

 

[Dumais]

I maybe in the minority, but just don't see much ability/potential difference between 1, 2 and 3 in most drafts. Positional need is the way I would go. And trading for positional needs is as hit and miss as drafting most times.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Jones was drafted by Nashville when they were absolutely loaded on defense.

and he was traded for a centre not a winger.

What winger in this league do you believe Columbus would trade for Jones?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Nashville is an example of always picking BPA even if you are overly stacked in one area.

Only if the BPA isn't a winger or Goalie or LH Defense.

 

[Spirit of 67]

BPA. But with a leaning towards C and D.

 

[tony d]

I'd go BPA unless my team had a big need that could be filled through the draft.

 

[sandysan]

I rarely see any sources cites of why people are valuing one position over the other. It has always seemed weird to me, seeing as you are playing a game in a box with a semi-fluid 5 man unit.

Are there any credible sources going on record about drafting preferences or is this just "general consensus" which we know can be completely off-base?

for forwards, a center has the ability to make both his wingers better. The converse generally isnt true.

You dont NEED to have world class goaltending, but if your goaltending is clearly below par, it usually comes back to bite you in the ass.

I think that all else being equal, wingers are the least valuable position as a whole.

 

[boredmale]

I think that all else being equal, wingers are the least valuable position as a whole.

Only thing about winger in regards to drafting is decent chance a winger will be on your team in 2-4 years, goalies might not make your team till they are like 23-24

 

[grieves]

for forwards, a center has the ability to make both his wingers better. The converse generally isnt true.

You dont NEED to have world class goaltending, but if your goaltending is clearly below par, it usually comes back to bite you in the ass.

I think that all else being equal, wingers are the least valuable position as a whole.

My question is, is there anyone credible saying stuff like this somewhere? I know what the general consensus is but that doesn't really interest me that much.

I would first secure my Goalie position if you ask me, because that is the basically a one man department directly affecting my goals against with every shot.

 

[sandysan]

Only thing about winger in regards to drafting is decent chance a winger will be on your team in 2-4 years, goalies might not make your team till they are like 23-24

as a low draft pick it can be even faster because you can shelter their minutes. After the first round, most guys will need time in the A and you can them look at their game their to see what itches they might scratch and where they fall in your prospect pool.

Guys who have singular talents ( wingers) can make the jump pretty easy so long as they can be protected. Its hard to protect a center unless you alreasdy have a lot of depth at that position,

And based on trades, we rarely see winger for center swaps straight up ( everything being as equal as it can).

 

[sandysan]

My question is, is there anyone credible saying stuff like this somewhere? I know what the general consensus is but that doesn't really interest me that much.

I would first secure my Goalie position if you ask me, because that is the basically a one man department directly affecting my goals against with every shot.

drafting goalies is just a hell of a lot riskier ( tons of prospects never pan oput) than forwards and to a lesser extend D-men. And so long as you don't have poor goaltending, teams can win with average goalies. having better than average goaltending is a plus, but teams with average center depth ( unless they are fantastically stacked on D) also have problems.

I think that the " credible stuff" you are looking for is derived from past trade histories, 1C's dont get swapped for top 3 wingers.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Given how seemingly difficult it is to make trades, I don't think that a team can just blindly take BPA after BPA after BPA. When it comes time to make that trade to rebalance a roster, the team may not have a dance partner and thus be put into a position in which the only real option is to lose the trade to get what the team needs (see Hall for Larsson.) That Jones-for-Johansen style swap is the best-case, not the every-case outcome.

Some level of mid to long-term strategy has to be in play for at least the high picks.

 

[Maukkis]

BPA.

Always.

 

[grieves]

drafting goalies is just a hell of a lot riskier ( tons of prospects never pan oput) than forwards and to a lesser extend D-men. And so long as you don't have poor goaltending, teams can win with average goalies. having better than average goaltending is a plus, but teams with average center depth ( unless they are fantastically stacked on D) also have problems.

I think that the " credible stuff" you are looking for is derived from past trade histories, 1C's dont get swapped for top 3 wingers.

Maybe one of the reasons goalies don't pan out is because there is not much room for error. Either you are the best or second best, or you are out of here.

Also, the better players usually tend to be pushed towards C, so we can't say for sure whether or not the preference there is because of the position, or because the BPA usually plays that position.

I'm not an expert in this matter but I would pay something extra to have the best goalie and I'll give you guys your D's and C's.

 

[sandysan]

Maybe one of the reasons goalies don't pan out is because there is not much room for error. Either you are the best or second best, or you are out of here.

Also, the better players usually tend to be pushed towards C, so we can't say for sure whether or not the preference there is because of the position, or because the BPA usually plays that position.

I'm not an expert in this matter but I would pay something extra to have the best goalie and I'll give you guys your D's and C's.

Its not, in my opinion, that " there is less room for error" its that it is hard to determine relative ability. Goalies who tear it up in the minors might do so simply because they play against minor league players, and that when the level of talent is upped, they don't have enough room to grow. Its also why, in many cases even the most promising goalies generally get drafted in the second round or later. Even when the pedigree of certain goalies looks like they are can't miss prospects, they more than not miss. a lot of guys who were picked in the first round ( especially those in the bottom 2/3's) often never even got a chance to replace the goalie in the nets when they were drafted.

Goalies just need a lot more time to be nhl ready and predicting which ones will cut it is a lot harder than trying to determine who has skills as as player that will translate well. Even goalies that go on tears in the NHL fall back to earth pretty quick and the trade history has shown that the value of an unproven nhl goalie, no matter what his pedigree, is pretty low.

 

[grieves]

Its not, in my opinion, that " there is less room for error" its that it is hard to determine relative ability. Goalies who tear it up in the minors might do so simply because they play against minor league players, and that when the level of talent is upped, they don't have enough room to grow. Its also why, in many cases even the most promising goalies generally get drafted in the second round or later. Even when the pedigree of certain goalies looks like they are can't miss prospects, they more than not miss. a lot of guys who were picked in the first round ( especially those in the bottom 2/3's) often never even got a chance to replace the goalie in the nets when they were drafted.

Goalies just need a lot more time to be nhl ready and predicting which ones will cut it is a lot harder than trying to determine who has skills as as player that will translate well. Even goalies that go on tears in the NHL fall back to earth pretty quick and the trade history has shown that the value of an unproven nhl goalie, no matter what his pedigree, is pretty low.

These would be the things I am not considering not being an expert and all.

I would however focus my scouting staff to get me the best goalie prospect available and/or would be willing to make significant sacrifices to secure that spot.

 

[Ambisextrous]

Positional would have made edmonton so much better lol

 

[Maitz]

Always draft BPA no matter the position or the need. If you have too much winger and draft a winger that becomes one of the best, you make one of your winger expendable and available to fill a need on D or C.