Confirmed with Link: Travis Green named new head coach

[Tuna99]

As I said in another thread

We will have Zub and whoever we sign this offseason on RD, just take the best player available and in 2026/27 see if they can make the team in the bottom pairing.

When whoever we draft is ready to play there is no way of knowing what the roster or pipeline will look like.

just why take a LD when you just trade a way your LD problem only to have it come back in 2-3 years again when all these guys will have NTC z and you have Kleven in the #5-6 slot

Take Catton - closest to help right away and is a culture guy who defines a line

 

[GCK]

just why take a LD when you just trade a way your LD problem only to have it come back in 2-3 years again when all these guys will have NTC z and you have Kleven in the #5-6 slot

Take Catton - closest to help right away and is a culture guy who defines a line

You never know what can happen.

What if Norris fully recovers and rebounds to be a 200 foot top 6 centre. What if we sign a RD for 6 years this summer and a top 6 winger next year. What if our late 1st or 2nd blows up and fills a need sooner than expected. What if Brady or Sanderson demand a trade. What if …….

 

[Micklebot]

just why take a LD when you just trade a way your LD problem only to have it come back in 2-3 years again when all these guys will have NTC z and you have Kleven in the #5-6 slot

Take Catton - closest to help right away and is a culture guy who defines a line

We are going to need to shore up RD before any of these guys are ready, besides, Staios already said with our first it will be BPA, and we might consider positional needs later in the draft

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

We are going to need to shore up RD before any of these guys are ready, besides, Staios already said with our first it will be BPA, and we might consider positional needs later in the draft

sounds smart... people confuse iif mmediate need with up in the draft targets... Staios has to address the immediate needs with players ready to contribute immediately not in the top 10 of this draft ,,, I do not get the push for trying to solve immediate needs in the draft

 

[Loach]

sounds smart... people confuse iif mmediate need with up in the draft targets... Staios has to address the immediate needs with players ready to contribute immediately not in the top 10 of this draft ,,, I do not get the push for trying to solve immediate needs in the draft

Dorion effect.

 

[BigRig4]

Any of the guys available @ 7 are probably at least 3 years away from any meaningful contribution at the NHL level. We have no idea how our roster will look by then, that's why you've almost gotta go BPA with these high value picks.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

BPA in the top 10, always.

 

[Micklebot]

So.... I wonder what Travis Green thinks about BPA vs positional need at 7oa...

 

[Hale The Villain]

BPA in the top 10, always.

And I would say it's even more important to go BPA later in the draft.

When it becomes less and less likely that you'll get an NHLer with your pick, it's imperative to select the player with the most potential rather than picking for need/fit.

 

[Micklebot]

And I would say it's even more important to go BPA later in the draft.

When it becomes less and less likely that you'll get an NHLer with your pick, it's imperative to select the player with the most potential rather than picking for need/fit.

BPA becomes a far more nebulous concept the deeper in the draft you go,

Just ask who is BPA at 1st OA, then 2nd, then 10th, the 30th and so on, you'll see the number of differing opinions rise in a logarithmic scale,

Because of that, it becomes far more readable to let position be the tie breaker, you aren't so much choosing need over BPA, as selecting from 5 debatably BPA options based on need.

 

[Hale The Villain]

BPA becomes a far more nebulous concept the deeper in the draft you go,

Just ask who is BPA at 1st OA, then 2nd, then 10th, the 30th and so on, you'll see the member of differing opinions rise in a logarithmic scale,

Because of that, it becomes far more readable to let position be the tie breaker, you aren't so much choosing need over BPA, as selecting from 5 debatably BPA options based on need.

I'm not talking about BPA according to the consensus or the fans, I'm talking about the top ranked player on the team's draft list.

When day 2 comes around you absolutely cannot afford to pass up a player you think has a better chance to be a good NHLer for another because of positional need or fit, as it's already a longshot that the player will become an NHLer (particularly in rounds 3-7).

Take the BPA and maximzie your chance of developing a good NHLer and then make trades/signings in the future to fill positional needs.

 

[Micklebot]

I'm not talking about BPA according to the consensus or the fans, I'm talking about the top ranked player on the team's draft list.

When day 2 comes around you absolutely cannot afford to pass up a player you think has a better chance to be a good NHLer for another because of positional need or fit, as it's already a longshot that the player will become an NHLer (particularly in rounds 3-7).

Take the BPA and maximzie your chance of developing a good NHLer and then make trades/signings in the future to fill positional needs.

Do you think all the scouts on a team agree with the order of those later guys?

I'm talking about real life here, BPA isn't a definitive player, the deeper you go the less the gap between players and the less important one spot on a teams list up or down matters. It's a balance in terms of what provides better value based on what's there when you step up to the podium.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Do you think all the scouts on a team agree with the order of those later guys?

I'm talking about real life here, BPA isn't a definitive player, the deeper you go the less the gap between players and the less important one spot on a teams list up or down matters. It's a balance in terms of what provides better value based on what's there when you step up to the podium.

Pretty sure Mackenzie said this draft has more diversity of opinion than any that he's covered

 

[Hale The Villain]

Do you think all the scouts on a team agree with the order of those later guys?

I'm talking about real life here, BPA isn't a definitive player, the deeper you go the less the gap between players and the less important one spot on a teams list up or down matters. It's a balance in terms of what provides better value based on what's there when you step up to the podium.

Who cares if all the scouts agree. The team will have scouting meetings and collectively they will put players in a ranking, which is what they should go by when selecting players on draft day.

 

[Micklebot]

Who cares if all the scouts agree. The team will have scouting meetings and collectively they will put players in a ranking, which is what they should go by when selecting players on draft day.

What if all the scouts collectively agree drafting the positional need is more likely to provide value than drafting the guy they have one spot up?

The point is you are trying to achieve a goal, and sometimes that means considering all the factors that go into it. When the difference between the next guy up and the other that get tighter and tighter, those other variables become more likely to push the needle to the other side,

Just like a team might trade an objectively slightly better player to fill a positional need, you can choose to draft a guy that better fills a need. Just as an extreme example, say you have a full sleight of goalies in the system, two guys at every level, all young enough that theyll be around for a while yet, and next up on your list in the 6th round is a double overage goalie, with no roster spot available, an a D that could fill a roster spot in the AHL on a couple years as the guy one spot back on your list, do you draft the guy that you won't have a roster spot to play next year, or the guy ranked one spot later?

In the real world, teams make these decisions all the time, they weigh all the factors rather than ignore some just so they can say BPA even at the point where BPA becomes less and less meaningful.

 

[Hale The Villain]

What if all the scouts collectively agree drafting the positional need is more likely to provide value than drafting the guy they have one spot up?

The point is you are trying to achieve a goal, and sometimes that means considering all the factors that go into it. When the difference between the next guy up and the other that get tighter and tighter, those other variables become more likely to push the needle to the other side,

Just like a team might trade an objectively slightly better player to fill a positional need, you can choose to draft a guy that better fills a need. Just as an extreme example, say you have a full sleight of goalies in the system, two guys at every level, all young enough that theyll be around for a while yet, and next up on your list in the 6th round is a double overage goalie, with no roster spot available, an a D that could fill a roster spot in the AHL on a couple years as the guy one spot back on your list, do you draft the guy that you won't have a roster spot to play next year, or the guy ranked one spot later?

In the real world, teams make these decisions all the time, they weigh all the factors rather than ignore some just so they can say BPA even at the point where BPA becomes less and less meaningful.

I would really hope the staff doesn't try to draft on day 2 based on current roster need, as the players selected are not only unlikely to ever play but if they do it's almost always many years down the road when the roster won't look the same. That would be incredibly stupid.

Mind you this is different from placing additional weight on certain positions. It makes sense to place extra value on centers and right-handed defensemen because they are more difficult to trade for. That's always been the case and it isn't going to change.

In your extreme example it does make sense to potentially pass up the slightly better prospect because of positional strength. It's mainly something that applies to goalies though since there's such a limited number of spots.

I remember when people were shocked when the Isles picked 7 defensemen in the 2022 draft. While it's odd a D would be at the top of your list in all 7 rounds, it was smart of them to pick the prospect they viewed as having the best outlook in each round. It would have been tragic for them to have passed on Pelech in round 3 because they had already selected defensemen in the first 2 rounds.

 

[Micklebot]

I would really hope the staff doesn't try to draft on day 2 based on current roster need, as the players selected are not only unlikely to ever play but if they do it's almost always many years down the road when the roster won't look the same. That would be incredibly stupid.

Mind you this is different from placing additional weight on certain positions. It makes sense to place extra value on centers and right-handed defensemen because they are more difficult to trade for. That's always been the case and it isn't going to change.

In your extreme example it does make sense to potentially pass up the slightly better prospect because of positional strength. It's mainly something that applies to goalies though since there's such a limited number of spots.

I remember when people were shocked when the Isles picked 7 defensemen in the 2022 draft. While it's odd a D would be at the top of your list in all 7 rounds, it was smart of them to pick the prospect they viewed as having the best outlook in each round. It would have been tragic for them to have passed on Pelech in round 3 because they had already selected defensemen in the first 2 rounds.

How big of a gap do you think there is by spot 30 and 31? 50 and 51, or 99 and 100?

There is going to come a point where that difference ceases to be consequential, while orgs positional needs are more static in their value. I would absolutely hope that our org is willing to be flexible enough to take all variables into account rather than follow a list that they themselves fully understand becomes less and less definitive the deeper they get.

 

[Hale The Villain]

How big of a gap do you think there is by spot 30 and 31? 50 and 51, or 99 and 100?

There is going to come a point where that difference ceases to be consequential, while orgs positional needs are more static in their value. I would absolutely hope that our org is willing to be flexible enough to take all variables into account rather than follow a list that they themselves fully understand becomes less and less definitive the deeper they get.

What organizational positional needs are you referring to?

For the prospects camp? Because if there is a need for depth at a position at the AHL level it's very easy to fill those holes.

Again, if we were to pass up the BPA on day 2 to draft a RD that's 3-5 years away from potentially playing because we badly need one right now, that's extremely stupid.

Just pick the prospect you think has the best outlook. Don't need to over complicate things.

 

[Micklebot]

What organizational positional needs are you referring to?

For the prospects camp? Because if there is a need for depth at a position at the AHL level it's very easy to fill those holes.

Again, if we were to pass up the BPA on day 2 to draft a RD that's 3-5 years away from potentially playing because we badly need one right now, that's extremely stupid.

Just pick the prospect you think has the best outlook. Don't need to over complicate things.

Organizational position needs go from farm to big club.

If your prospect pool at the farm level is 12 D 4 goalies and 1 forward, and your at 80 on your list and it's another D but 81 is a forward, I would hope the club has the foresight to think about positional needs, because the likelihood of that forward having the opportunity to develop properly are much better than the the D. Drafting doesn't happen in a vacuum, and when you're deep in the list, the distinction between one spot or two becomes meaningless while the implications of org needs do not.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Organizational position needs go from farm to big club.

If your prospect pool at the farm level is 12 D 4 goalies and 1 forward, and your at 80 on your list and it's another D but 81 is a forward, I would hope the club has the foresight to think about positional needs, because the likelihood of that forward having the opportunity to develop properly are much better than the the D. Drafting doesn't happen in a vacuum, and when you're deep in the list, the distinction between one spot or two becomes meaningless while the implications of org needs do not.

In that rare exception where almost all your BPA prospects happen to play the same position, sure take positional need into consideration.

But that is again a very rare occurence, so I'm not sure why we're even bothering with this conversation.

 

[JackieDaytona]

You can convert a C to wing, but not usually the other way around. There’s a dearth of RHD not only in this org but across the league. Makes sense to prioritize those positions after BPA, broad strokes of course.

 

[Satoru Gojo]

I still wonder how much came down to $$$

 

[JungleBeat]

This team is weak in every position.

 

[bert]

Do not kid yourselves - 5-15 to start the season is incoming.

Yeah and Pinto was a terrible 2nd round pick. Thanks for the quality input.

 

[bert]

sounds smart... people confuse iif mmediate need with up in the draft targets... Staios has to address the immediate needs with players ready to contribute immediately not in the top 10 of this draft ,,, I do not get the push for trying to solve immediate needs in the draft

It makes no sense. You're picking the type of player that you project will be the best and help the team win the most. That doesn't mean the best Jr player. Positional value also holds weight in the decision. Centers and RD are the most valuable positions to fill. Wingers are the easiest. Small skill wingers are the easiest by far. If you are picking an undersized winger in the top 10 he better be an absolute dynamo. Also alot of these prospects play center in lower levels doesn't mean they will be in the NHL.