Draft best player available or positional need

[MasterMatt25]

RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larsson and Couturier were sort of the top 5, Strome, Hamilton and (Ryan) Murphy were a slight notch down and you can throw Zibanejad as a clear cut #9

TSN Top 30 Archive: 2011 NHL Entry Draft

Dayum. Ryan Murphy really flamed out

 

[boredmale]

Dayum. Ryan Murphy really flamed out

I remember when he fell to 12, I thought Carolina got a steal. I guess it just proves that sometimes the consensus picks aren't always the best picks

 

[Newsworthy]

Problem with drafting BPA is that the BPA isnt always the right choice.

 

[Klaus3154]

BPA all day

Guess one time BPA didn’t work is when the Islanders took DiPietro when you already had Luongo. They would have had Heatley or Gaborik

 

[SI90]

Guess one time BPA didn’t work is when the Islanders took DiPietro when you already had Luongo. They would have had Heatley or Gaborik

Was DiPietro considered BPA? What’s your angle?

 

[Klaus3154]

Was DiPietro considered BPA? What’s your angle?

I assume Islanders saw him as BPA considering they already had Luongo they weren’t drafting out of positional need. Neatly was ranked number 1

 

[biturbo19]

The thing i don't get in all the "BPA duh" sort of answers, is exactly how you ascertain what the "best" is? There's no magic crystal ball list that arranges the future best players in any clear order anyway. Especially the further you get into the draft, it becomes a real crapshoot altogether.

That's where for me, positional value plays into BPA...because ultimately, long-term...position plays a big role in the "value" of a player. If we're talking about marginal differences between the quality of players, positions like C and D will have more potential value than a comparable W, and thus be the "better" available prospect.

When you're talking about a substantial drop-off in quality, then sure...draft the higher quality prospect at a less premium position. But really...when is the last time you heard about a team drafting a Winger for "need"? It just doesn't happen. Nobody really talks about that, because i think intrinsically, most people get that it's not about "positional need" so much as it's about "positional premium". And the idea of positional premium has merit in building a successful team imo.

 

[member 157595]

if you have no current center depth and no center prospects, I can tell you what montreal's needs will be today, tommorrow, next year, two years from now and three years from now.

but I'm sure drafting another winger will be the salve for a decade of crappy center depth.

Montreal could probably have addressed that problem over the past few years if they didn't have an atrocious GM and an owner more interested in PR and mediocrity than contention, though.

What percentage of NHL draft picks are Top 6 impact centers in less than 3 years? Let's take this year as an example; what center is available at #3 that makes it worth passing up Svechnikov or Zadina?

 

[Eisen]

I take best player when there are still sure fire players on the board. After that I take whatever I want. The draft is more luck than anything else after the sure fire picks.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

BPA is such a stock answer as it is often impossible to determine who that really is. Rarely can you be sure that a player is better than everyone else. Obviously you don't go picking lesser prospects just because of positional needs but the goal is to build a balanced team which cannot be accomplished by picking the same type of player over and over again.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

BPA.

For the most part, these players won't be major contributors to your team for another 3+ years. So drafting for need is useless since you can't be certain what your team's need will be in 3+ years.

Only time you draft for need is if you have two relatively equal prospects available at your spot, where one of them plays a position you're weak at and the other doesn't.

 

[Voight]

BPA

Can always move said player or someone else for a position of need.

I.e if you have a star LW and the BPA is an elite LW prospect... go for them, if they turn out good then you can trade your current LW or move the prospect for a player you need.

 

[nturn06]

Hate to say this. But NEED.
(Or BPA who isn't a winger).

Trades rarely happen, and nobody is gifting RHD or Centres without extreme overpays.

Oilers kept drafting undersized skilled smurf wingers when the need was clearly Dmen and Centres.

Hall had to be traded for Larsson. Instead we could have drafted Seguin.

If Oilers drafted (instead):
Ryan Ellis (RHD) instead of Paajaarvi (RW)
Seguin (C) instead of Hall (LW)
Hopkins (C)
Reilly (RHD) instead of Yakupov.
Risto (RHD) instead of Nurse (LHD)
Drai (C)
McD (C)


This woud be a very well rounded roster capable of competing for cups.

RNH-McDavid-Drai
**** - Seguin - Eberle

***** - Ellis
Klefbom - Reilly
Nurse or Risto lead 3rd pairing

I doubt Columbus regrets taking Dubois over Puljujaarvi. Even if Puljujaarvi breaks out and gets 60 points. Cbus wasn't going to get a #1Centre in the next 20 years without drafting one.

By your reasoning, the Oilers should pass on McD because with your picks they already have 3 solid C's in the system and are very thin on Wing.....

Also correct me if I am wrong, but last time when the Oilers drafted for need was the infamous MAP pick in one of the best drafts ever, they needed a big C.... And wasn't need the reason why they traded the Barzal pick for a D-man?

 

[MardyBum]

BPA. As has been said, this isn't the NFL where they'll be playing their (on average) 5-6 year prime 1 or 2 years out of the draft. You need to look longterm, and BPA is longterm.

 

[Jarey Curry]

You always hear about teams drafting based on positional needs which I never understood considering that player most likely will be be 2-3 years away from playing in the NHL and your needs might be different at that point. I have always believed in drafting the best player available. Thoughts?

You answered to your own question there

 

[ItMe]

You typically have to take BPA in the NHL. Most prospects take time to develop so if you draft for a team need now, it may not be a need three years down the road.

 

[613Leafer]

BPA if they're clearly the better prospect.

But I'd imagine most prospects get grouped into tiers, and then within that tier you could choose based on need.

Marginal differences at this age when you're projecting 3+ years down the line really aren't going to be super reliable, especially considering how much of a crapshoot drafting can be anyway.

 

[pheasant]

It's always going to come down to the situation. Before the GM goes up to the podium, his draft-table team would have had lots of discussions about who is the BPA, but they would have also discussed positional need. If a good goalie is on the board, a team with a good starter and a stud in the minors might pass, where as a team that has no G depth might jump to pick him. Neither team is wrong.

But don't forget about positional importance. That's what some people here are mentioning with the difference between a winger and a defender. It's maybe not a team need to take the defenceman, but you know that he would be worth more if he hits his ceiling.

Then add in more human factors, like bloodlines. Do you draft a Nylander a bit sooner than you would if his last name was Scott? How about taking more risks if you have more than one selection in the same round? I'm sure it happens. What about passing on a player because you think you can get him in a later round? That's passing on the BPA, but you might snag the steal of the draft.

Now combine all that with how difficult it is to get a consensus on who the BPA really is, and you could have disagreements as early as the 1stOA. How can anyone say "just take the best player"? It doesn't work like that.

 

[Newsworthy]

So called "BPA" isn't as big a factor in hockey as it is in other sports like football where the Q B position gets over drafted every year.
Or in baseball where every one is searching for pitchers and catchers.
i guess you can say Centers and D-man go ahead of Wingers but even than you see the league turning those wingers into centers.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

How often are #1C's traded/hit UFA??
How often are 1st pair RHD Traded/hit UFA??

Because that should tell you that not all BPAs are created equal.

Position should really be taken into consideration more than people seem to think. Having 3 1st line leftwings doesn't do anything when youre running 5x LHD.

 

[Aceboogie]

There's usually a massive drop off after the 2nd or 3rd pick in a draft. Many gms would take a defenseman over a 2nd line forward if they are truly aweful on d.

Eh not really. After the ~25 spot, the value of draft picks is relatively similar. The only big drop off is after 1 and after the top 7. It may seem like there is a big drop off because teams often pick there high risk guys with the 2nd round pick and low upside positional needs with the 3rd round pick, so that is what sticks out to fans

As for the question, the NHL draft is a lot similar than GMs act. You pick BPA 95% of the time. And you should always look to trade down after the late 1st and acquire more lottery tickets.

Hell, Id personally make a wager I could end up with a better results at a draft with zero scouting staff and zero spent on any scouting activities by trading down when the price is right, acquiring more picks and picking BPA from the aggregate of the different freely available scouting agencies. GMs try way, way to hard to put their own stamp on the draft and try to outsmart the other GMs.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Hall for Larsson is what you get when you go 'positional need'

 

[Aceboogie]

How often are #1C's traded/hit UFA??
How often are 1st pair RHD Traded/hit UFA??

Because that should tell you that not all BPAs are created equal.

Position should really be taken into consideration more than people seem to think. Having 3 1st line leftwings doesn't do anything when youre running 5x LHD.

This is unrealistic, or just a strawman argument. There is simply no way you can look at 17 year old Player X from the Sweden second division and accurately project him as your second pairing RD puck mover in 5 years from now. There is simply no GM in the league with anywhere near this level of skill when identifying later round players (there is no data to back this up and no GM has done is regularly). Prospects in later rounds have such a low chance of turning out as NHLers and even lower chance of turning out as expected. So it would be incredibly misguided to pass up on a better LW prospect for a lower skilled, lower ranked center just because you want/need a center in the future.

If you are talking about drafting for positional need in the top 5 of a draft then there is a bit of merit to the argument because those players have a higher degree chance of turning out as projected. But still, if teams had drafted D higher in the top 5/10 in the past 10 years, they would be typically worse off as the D drafted higher tended to turn out worse in the end. If you have two identically ranked players, that would be the only time itd make sense to draft for position.

Or you could just do what Nashville did and draft BPA even if that means adding to an already strong position and just trading for positional need after

 

[Aceboogie]

Hall for Larsson is what you get when you go 'positional need'

Hey I guess it worked out for NJ. Pick a player in a position that GMs overrate and trade him for a kings ransom to a dumb team in the future

 

[DaveG]

I remember when he fell to 12, I thought Carolina got a steal. I guess it just proves that sometimes the consensus picks aren't always the best picks

The concussion he got early in his +1 season did him absolutely no favors either. He just flat out became gun shy at that point and his game never transferred over to the NHL level. Though it doesn't help when one of his biggest weapons that killed it in junior was a slapper that took forever for him to get off in the NHL.