Washington Capitals Prospects

[borro]

"our scouts like this guy" is the best player available in the eyes of that team.

What if it isn't? BPA is a conclusion, not a forethought. Sometimes it is the most appropriate player in their eyes.


Why is that so difficult to see? Obviously all of us can look back in hindsight and see that a pick our team thought was the BPA at the time didn't turn out that way. That is how the draft works. In the past 19 months, we can see what happened with Coburn versus Phaneuf. Coburn, at that time, was the BPA to Atlanta. He was very, very safe. Still is. Of course, Atlanta can look back now and say...humm, we should have grabbed Phaneuf. But that's ridiculous.

No, to say Coburn was the BPA is ridiculous. Phaneuf was the BPA. Of you pick a "safe" pick you stray from the best player available.

I just don't see how your argument "holds water." You seem to be saying that a team can't call a prospect the BPA to it without at least a few years of post-draft observation.

So, calling a guy who works out to be better (take Phaneuf) than Coburn the BPA is wrong some how? Isn't what was really wrong Atlanta's evaluation and estimation of the potential of both guys?

Ottawa could call Meszaros the BPA but Atlanta could not yet call Valabik that. The top end potential guys are not that common. If you consistently pick below the best player available, your team will get bad and probably quickly. If you pick 1st and you get a guy who winds up 40th, it doesn't matter where you had him pegged. What matters is how much he delivers. Obviously, you "miss" on some picks. The best GM's have a narrower miss margin on their top picks.

On the same note, can I ask how many hours you spent in arenas watching Gordon play? I would suspect that those scouts spent many, many hours in small, cold arenas watching him play and collectively came to the educated conclusion that he was the BPA at that time. Of course, at the time you disagreed which is fine. That is our right as fans. But it's not like they didn't spend the time researching. Washington certainly didn't through a damn dart at a chart and somehow pick off Boyd Gordon. At that time, he was the BPA to Washington in the eyes of the organization.

No, I think they would say he fit a need. He was a variance and represents a degradation of available resources. He was maybe a 40 with a higher pick. Babchuck is looking more like a 12-15. You say we have no way to know. If that is so then how did Calgary know to pick Phaneuf? How did Chicago know to pick Babchuck? How did Ottawa know how to pick Meszaros?

The point is that BPA is a conclusion. Don't claim something you have no idea is true. That like salesmanship. Claim what you know. Calgary can probably claim that Phaneuf was the BPA. The Caps can't claim it yet on Ovechkin. Gordon was not the BPA. He was not the worst 1st round pick ever. It's getting the best (lowest gap between BPA and actual performance) that really helps you.

 

[Thornton97]

Calgary can probably claim that Phaneuf was the BPA. QUOTE]


Well no kidding! The point of this entire thread--and the term BPA used at a draft--is that hindsight isn't possible.

If you talk with either Atlanta or Nashville, I am 100% certain that they didn't think Phaneuf was the BPA at that time. And who are we to argue with their scouting staffs back in June 2003? BPA is a term used at the draft, and of course months or years later who the BPA was from a draft could change. But scouting staffs do not have the luxury of going into the future and seeing who technically will be the BPA twenty years down the road. No one thought Pavel Datsyuk would be any good back in '98. He is one of the better players to come out of that draft.

Hindsight cannot be factored into the equation. But I'm done arguing here. You obviously have different opinions on what BPA means and there is nothing wrong with that. I just don't see your argument, however.

 

[Thornton97]

Curious, Who would you say is the BPA for the #1 slot in the "2005" NHL Entry Draft? I think the entire world would say Crosby. Would your argument be that we cannot use that term because we cannot see how the draft classes' NHL careers would end up?

 

[Captain Conservative]

With what? Wishfull thinking?



All right, this guy has got to go >>>

:lol

 

[borro]

Curious, Who would you say is the BPA for the #1 slot in the "2005" NHL Entry Draft? I think the entire world would say Crosby. Would your argument be that we cannot use that term because we cannot see how the draft classes' NHL careers would end up?

I believe I answered that saying we can't say it for Ovechkin. Truth is, Crosby is likely a "no-brainer". It is still too early to tell if he will be the BPA. If you pick him 1 and he winds up a 40, then you are in trouble. You only get so many chances. The 2-3 pick (Brule Johnson Pyan Poulliot etc) is a pick that has some downsides as far as real performance not matching up.

 

[Squeaky]

The point is that BPA is a conclusion. Don't claim something you have no idea is true. That like salesmanship. Claim what you know. Calgary can probably claim that Phaneuf was the BPA. The Caps can't claim it yet on Ovechkin. Gordon was not the BPA. He was not the worst 1st round pick ever. It's getting the best (lowest gap between BPA and actual performance) that really helps you.

Since when is BPA a conclusion? BPA is a guess.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Best player available is a bunch of hogwash fed to the masses to brainwash them. How many of us think they really get the "best player available?" Not many of us. When we do mocks, we all choose someone different-move guys up and down. The BPA is a line that excuses mediocrity or bad choices. It's like invoking "God told me to do it". You can't question someone taking the best player available, just like you don't question someone who claims inspiration. Was Daigle the best player available? No. They pick the player they want. Maybe we should have an all cliche draft. We'll all pick the BPA. Can someone please tell me how they compare a goaltender to a dman to a forward? What is the adjustment for someone playing in the WHL vs the QMJHL? How do Europeans fit in? How about Tier 2 guys? The fact is they rate players not different than the NFL does. Some may actually stick to that at draft. I suspect the scouts have more impact when it comes time to taking 4-5 guys who are close. BPA is a figment of imagination. They draft for need, player style, and what their scouts are sold on. Sometimes they get the BPA. Many more times they get the best sales pitch.

I think that you obviously do not understand "Best Player Available". This strategy means that you do not try to fill holes on your current roster by drafting players by position. This means that if GMGM thinks that Johnson is the best players available, he takes him regardless if the Cap's need a #1 center. European and Tier 2 guys are based on talent evaluations, just like everyone else.

Do you think that PHO looked at Wheeler last year and said "We are looking for a big RW - we must get BW!". Or do you think they said "We think that BW has the best chance of all the players available to contribute and help our team in the future". If Wheeler develops into a top tier forward, and the Yotes still need goaltending help - he can be moved at that point for an elite goalie.

Every draft is based on talent evaluation. BPA just means that you do not allow the current needs of your organization dictate what position you draft. If players develop, deals can be made to fill holes. You didn't see Lou stop drafting goaltenders when he had a 25 YO Broduer in net. He was drafting who he thought would be able to contribute at the NHL level - regardless of position. If he ends up trading a guy like Denis - he's filled a hole.

You might be too young to remember - but Daigle was by far and away the best player in his draft class. You seem to be working with 100% hindsight - of course he busted, but it doesn't mean that all of the scouts did not agree he was the best player in his draft class.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Let me give an example. The Caps drafted Boyd Gordon a few years ago. I screamed because I wanted Babchuck. Many of the Cap fans now defend the choice. I think it sucked because I thought he may have been there on our next pick. McPhee says he picks "Best Player Available." It was Babchuck at that time. Nothing against Gordon, but let's call a spade a spade. This was "our scouts like this guy" and not a BPA pick. Sometimes it works-sometimes it doesn't. It's like Blake Wheeler. Maybe the pick will come to be a great one in time. It was not a BPA pick and neither was Gordon. Call it a lust pick. Some might say Valabik was one. They "lusted" after aggression. Most say not the BPA.

I'll try to keep this as easy as possible.

In all likelyhood, GMGM thought that Gordon had the best chance to contribute at the NHL level when he made that selection. It was probably a combination of evaluation, and how that player might fit into the organization. (I think that GMGM has a history of taking the big WHL forwards, but I might be wrong).

For what your are concluding to have happened, McPhee would of had to thought something like this "Boy, Babchuk is a TOTAL stud. I think he's going to be a #1 d-man at the NHL level. But you know - we already have Sergei Gonchar, so I don't need another offensively gifted defenseman. In fact, you know what the Cap's need - a big guy with decent skill that can play with Kono on the 3rd line! This pick has Boyd Gordon written all over it!"

An ATL did think that Valabik was the BPA, just like PHO thought Wheeler was the BPA. Both teams saw something in a player, be it size, skill, heart, whatever - that they think will allow that player to become a very good NHL player. Are they right? Only time will tell, but if history is any judge about half of the first round picks bomb, so it's likely that one or both GM's will be judged harshly for taking a shot on a raw prospect.

Just as an example - do you think that Lacroix thought that Hejduk would turn into the player he is? If he did, don't you think he would of taken him well before the 8th round of the draft? Somehow, PL found 7 or so players he liked better than MH, which just shows how much uncertainity there is in the draft, and why it's not a science.

This is also why I don't get overly excited about prospect ratings. How much good did it to the Caps that their prospects were very highly thought of 8-10 years ago? Or the Hawks 3 years ago? The guys still have to develop and contribute at the NHL level, which is anything but guaranteed when you're talking about 18 to 21 year old kids.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I believe I answered that saying we can't say it for Ovechkin. Truth is, Crosby is likely a "no-brainer". It is still too early to tell if he will be the BPA. If you pick him 1 and he winds up a 40, then you are in trouble. You only get so many chances. The 2-3 pick (Brule Johnson Pyan Poulliot etc) is a pick that has some downsides as far as real performance not matching up.

This all makes sense now. You are treating BPA as who is actually the best player available when you at their entire NHL career.

In both this and last year - there was one player that was head and shoulders better then everyone else (PITT posters forgive me for the potential exaggeration excluding Malkin). THEY ARE THE BPA, regardless of what anyone else's career. If Cam Barker turns into Big Al Part 2, and goes on to be the the best d-man over the next 20 years - Ovechkin was still the BPA.

GM's can only be evaluated on what they know at the time of the draft. Who knew that Daigle (or Fogarty, or any number of others) was a headcase, and wouldn't develop as expected?

If McPhee has a bias towards a certain type of player (big bruising WHL forwards theoritically), that doesn't mean that he didn't take the BPA (IN HIS OPINION) when he drafted Gordon or Sutherby. That means that he thinks that size is very important when determining who will be successful at the NHL level.

You could make a case that GMGM didn't take the BPA and selected Gordon because he wanted a "safe" pick after taking Eminger and Semin. To me, that is a very valid point.

Two GM's drive this theory home - Dudley (TB) and Smith (CHI). Dudley based his player evaluation based on size and speed (seemingly all Russian players). Smith really had a bias towards Russian players. The both thought they were taking the BPA, it was just that they had a very different idea of who they thought would be successful at the NHL level.

 

[borro]

This all makes sense now. You are treating BPA as who is actually the best player available when you at their entire NHL career.

In both this and last year - there was one player that was head and shoulders better then everyone else (PITT posters forgive me for the potential exaggeration excluding Malkin). THEY ARE THE BPA, regardless of what anyone else's career. If Cam Barker turns into Big Al Part 2, and goes on to be the the best d-man over the next 20 years - Ovechkin was still the BPA.

GM's can only be evaluated on what they know at the time of the draft. Who knew that Daigle (or Fogarty, or any number of others) was a headcase, and wouldn't develop as expected?

If McPhee has a bias towards a certain type of player (big bruising WHL forwards theoritically), that doesn't mean that he didn't take the BPA (IN HIS OPINION) when he drafted Gordon or Sutherby. That means that he thinks that size is very important when determining who will be successful at the NHL level.

You could make a case that GMGM didn't take the BPA and selected Gordon because he wanted a "safe" pick after taking Eminger and Semin. To me, that is a very valid point.

Two GM's drive this theory home - Dudley (TB) and Smith (CHI). Dudley based his player evaluation based on size and speed (seemingly all Russian players). Smith really had a bias towards Russian players. The both thought they were taking the BPA, it was just that they had a very different idea of who they thought would be successful at the NHL level.

I agree with about 3/4 of what you said here. The part I don't seem to be communicating is the BPA is performance based. Lets say the Caps pick Ovechkin #1 and he turns out to be the best player in that year. Their talent is not degraded. However if he is #15 in performance, they degrade 14 spots. Some degradation is inevitable. The way to tell whether a GM is doing pretty well is to measure the actual performance. Teams like Ottawa taking Meszaros, he may wind up #10-they upgrade 13 slots in that scenario. Just because Daigle or Fogarty get press, you are not excused from the consequences of choosing them. Why did the Caps suck the past few years? One reason is that some of their picks (Volchkov, Baumgartner etc.) never turned out. You only get so many high picks. You need to convert them to productive players. Conversely, look at Ottawa. Their picks turn out with little gap, and they are Cup contenders.

Hindsight is 50/50. GM's are paid to get results. When you draft Gordon at #17 and then maintain that he is doing a good job being a minus player at Portland after 3 years you fool yourself. Babchuck was the pick. They would have had little or no degradation of talent picking him and hoping for Gordon later. I really liked your speculation on why they picked Gordon. That was well thought out.

 

[Mothra]

Hindsight is 50/50.

classic

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I agree with about 3/4 of what you said here. The part I don't seem to be communicating is the BPA is performance based. Lets say the Caps pick Ovechkin #1 and he turns out to be the best player in that year. Their talent is not degraded. However if he is #15 in performance, they degrade 14 spots. Some degradation is inevitable. The way to tell whether a GM is doing pretty well is to measure the actual performance. Teams like Ottawa taking Meszaros, he may wind up #10-they upgrade 13 slots in that scenario. Just because Daigle or Fogarty get press, you are not excused from the consequences of choosing them. Why did the Caps suck the past few years? One reason is that some of their picks (Volchkov, Baumgartner etc.) never turned out. You only get so many high picks. You need to convert them to productive players. Conversely, look at Ottawa. Their picks turn out with little gap, and they are Cup contenders.

Hindsight is 50/50. GM's are paid to get results. When you draft Gordon at #17 and then maintain that he is doing a good job being a minus player at Portland after 3 years you fool yourself. Babchuck was the pick. They would have had little or no degradation of talent picking him and hoping for Gordon later. I really liked your speculation on why they picked Gordon. That was well thought out.

I agree with what you're saying, but I want to throw a little twist into it. If you're drafting in high spots for years and your picks are turning out to be busts, do you not think then it might be something in the way that you're developing players? I mean, Boyd Gordon was supposed to be a good player. He really was. He gets to Washington, plays in Portland, and then all of a sudden, he tanks. But it isn't just Boyd that has tanked. You've got other prospects as well that are tanking. If you're the owner of the team, do you not begin to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the GM of the team doesn't have a solid plan in place to produce talent?

I know if I'm spending millions of dollars on draft picks and they're bombing left, right and center, I'm gonna have the GM in my office and ask him what is going on. We can all blame the choice on bad picks, but after awhile, you've got to begin to point the finger at the architect of the organization and say "You've been here for X amount of years and out of that time, we've only had X amount of players turn out for us. Why? What is going on in the development of these kids." You start asking questions like that, and you're forcing GMs to be accountable for not only drafting, but for how these picks are being developed.

I take a look at Washington right now and I see an organization loaded with young talent, but their minor league coach is killing these kids. He has no idea how to utilize their talent. Hey, I'm not saying I'm a coach, but I know that to have these kids play trap hockey and not develop their skills is doing no one a favour. I think what you need in order for good players to develop is plan. And while McPhee has drafted good players, there hasn't been any plan on how to develop them other than just send them to Portland. There needs to be some continuity. You take a look at Ottawa, Philadelphia, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, etc....and all these teams have plans in place on how to develop talent. They know what each of their farm teams are doing and what plan is in place on how to develop their kids. I don't see that from Washington. If I'm Ted Leonsis, I give McPhee one more year to get the Caps straightened out. If McPhee can't turn it around, then it's time to look at someone else. I'll say this. I'm surprised no one in the league has even looked at Jersey's David Conte yet. Not only does he have a keen eye for drafting, but he usually comes up with the development plan for prospects. He'd be ideal in Washington.

 

[borro]

I agree with what you're saying, but I want to throw a little twist into it. If you're drafting in high spots for years and your picks are turning out to be busts, do you not think then it might be something in the way that you're developing players?

Yes I do. Very astute observation.

I mean, Boyd Gordon was supposed to be a good player. He really was. He gets to Washington, plays in Portland, and then all of a sudden, he tanks. But it isn't just Boyd that has tanked. You've got other prospects as well that are tanking. If you're the owner of the team, do you not begin to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the GM of the team doesn't have a solid plan in place to produce talent?

Gordon will be a solid player. just was picked too early. I would not say he has tanked. He has not scored quite as well as hoped.


I know if I'm spending millions of dollars on draft picks and they're bombing left, right and center, I'm gonna have the GM in my office and ask him what is going on. We can all blame the choice on bad picks, but after awhile, you've got to begin to point the finger at the architect of the organization and say "You've been here for X amount of years and out of that time, we've only had X amount of players turn out for us. Why? What is going on in the development of these kids." You start asking questions like that, and you're forcing GMs to be accountable for not only drafting, but for how these picks are being developed.

Washingon is picking very well all in all now. They need to develop much better. Hanlon did a great job. I am less than sold on Army's skills. I hope we bring a Dale Hunter or Langway aboard as a teacher.


I take a look at Washington right now and I see an organization loaded with young talent, but their minor league coach is killing these kids. He has no idea how to utilize their talent. Hey, I'm not saying I'm a coach, but I know that to have these kids play trap hockey and not develop their skills is doing no one a favour. I think what you need in order for good players to develop is plan. And while McPhee has drafted good players, there hasn't been any plan on how to develop them other than just send them to Portland. There needs to be some continuity. You take a look at Ottawa, Philadelphia, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, etc....and all these teams have plans in place on how to develop talent. They know what each of their farm teams are doing and what plan is in place on how to develop their kids. I don't see that from Washington. If I'm Ted Leonsis, I give McPhee one more year to get the Caps straightened out. If McPhee can't turn it around, then it's time to look at someone else. I'll say this. I'm surprised no one in the league has even looked at Jersey's David Conte yet. Not only does he have a keen eye for drafting, but he usually comes up with the development plan for prospects. He'd be ideal in Washington.

Not a bad thought. McPhee has shown signs greatly improving his drafting from earlier years. We need better development.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

BPA is really easy to figure out.

Suppose you have the number 2 overall pick in this years draft and your team is really desperate for Defencemen. Now you know without a doubt that the first pick is going to be Crosby and you will select Johnson. Now for some reason the #1 pick ends up being Johnson.

Do you

1. Still pick a D-man cause those are your team needs?
2. Pick the Best Player Available?

Pretty easy answer and I think alot of teams especially early in the first round do indeed take the BPA over what there team needs are.

Also you can never have enough stud defencemen in you organization hardest postition to fill after goalie.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I agree with about 3/4 of what you said here. The part I don't seem to be communicating is the BPA is performance based. Lets say the Caps pick Ovechkin #1 and he turns out to be the best player in that year. Their talent is not degraded. However if he is #15 in performance, they degrade 14 spots. Some degradation is inevitable. The way to tell whether a GM is doing pretty well is to measure the actual performance. Teams like Ottawa taking Meszaros, he may wind up #10-they upgrade 13 slots in that scenario. Just because Daigle or Fogarty get press, you are not excused from the consequences of choosing them. Why did the Caps suck the past few years? One reason is that some of their picks (Volchkov, Baumgartner etc.) never turned out. You only get so many high picks. You need to convert them to productive players. Conversely, look at Ottawa. Their picks turn out with little gap, and they are Cup contenders.

Hindsight is 50/50. GM's are paid to get results. When you draft Gordon at #17 and then maintain that he is doing a good job being a minus player at Portland after 3 years you fool yourself. Babchuck was the pick. They would have had little or no degradation of talent picking him and hoping for Gordon later. I really liked your speculation on why they picked Gordon. That was well thought out.

I agree with most of what you said regarding how you "rate" GM's. I just think that you shouldn't relate your thought process to "BPA" because that is something entirely different.

One question though - how much credit do you give to Pierre Lacroix for selecting Hejduk? He got him in the 87th overall, and he's turned out to probably be one of the top 2 players in that draft (Elias being the other candidate for the top spot IMO). However, that was after PL blew picks on Wade Belak, Jeff Kealty, and Josef Marha before selecting Hejduk and Drury.

 

[borro]

I agree with most of what you said regarding how you "rate" GM's. I just think that you shouldn't relate your thought process to "BPA" because that is something entirely different.

One question though - how much credit do you give to Pierre Lacroix for selecting Hejduk? He got him in the 87th overall, and he's turned out to probably be one of the top 2 players in that draft (Elias being the other candidate for the top spot IMO). However, that was after PL blew picks on Wade Belak, Jeff Kealty, and Josef Marha before selecting Hejduk and Drury.

Every GM blows picks. Guys are too far from NHL ready. The answer is simple. Hedjuk is an upgrade, the others a degradation. Sometimes you pick guys for the wrong reason. The main thing is to get players. You'd be hard pressed to say PL doesn't do that.