GASabresIUFAN Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, Thorny said: Maybe so, but I've been told repeatedly that all NHL GMs worth their weight draft for BPA exclusively. It does look like the pick is Zegras or Caufield. No GM uses BPA because BPA doesn’t exist except maybe the 1st 2 picks. Each team creates their own prospect list and each list weighs factors differently. Some lists include organizational need as a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Brawndo said: Botterill and Jankowski are on record saying BPA is the way to go, Jankowski this AM said as such 8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said: No GM uses BPA because BPA doesn’t exist except maybe the 1st 2 picks. Each team creates their own prospect list and each list weighs factors differently. Some lists include organizational need as a factor. ?♂️ Edited June 17, 2019 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 It’s semantics based on the fact best player available means different things to different people, based on whatever criteria is used to shape your list. BPA for a team that favours smart, long defenceman is going to be different than a team that puts enormous weight on numbers produced in the CHL, is different than a team that thinks the game is slanted toward speed. I take Sam Reinhart over Skinner because I value the ability to make and execute good hockey decisions over all things. @nfreeman takes Jeff because for him nothing trumps ES goal scoring in crunch time. We argue our cases to Botterill, he makes the call, based on how he determines BPA. Botterill should take the player he thinks is better, but the factors he weighs and the weight he gives them are huge variables and they may change due to circumstances and they certainly change from team to team. If the staff clearly favours Caufield over Pod, he takes Caufield, but if the staff is divided, he might say “we’re taking the American kid because goal scoring is our biggest need,” or “we’re taking the Russian because we have a glaring hole for top-six grit.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, dudacek said: It’s semantics based on the fact best player available means different things to different people, based on whatever criteria is used to shape your list. BPA for a team that favours smart, long defenceman is going to be different than a team that puts enormous weight on numbers produced in the CHL, is different than a team that thinks the game is slanted toward speed. I take Sam Reinhart over Skinner because I value the ability to make and execute good hockey decisions over all things. @nfreeman takes Jeff because for him nothing trumps ES goal scoring in crunch time. We argue our cases to Botterill, he makes the call, based on how he determines BPA. Botterill should take the player he thinks is better, but the factors he weighs and the weight he gives them are huge variables and they may change due to circumstances and they certainly change from team to team. If the staff clearly favours Caufield over Pod, he takes Caufield, but if the staff is divided, he might say “we’re taking the American kid because goal scoring is our biggest need,” or “we’re taking the Russian because we have a glaring hole for top-six grit.” It's generally accepted that the term BPA is used/was coined specifically in opposition to "need-based" drafting. Of course there is a level of subjectivity that goes into it depending on the team, as with any talent evaluation, but when someone uses "Best Player Available" the implication is that need does not factor in. It's not meant to allow room for "best available to your team", it's supposed to represent a focus solely on talent. If need is factoring in, might as well scrap the BPA terminology all together as it has zero meaning. Edited June 17, 2019 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 Think of it this way. If BPA existed why would we need a draft. The computer would list guys 1-210 or so and assign the BPA to the draft order. Teams have draft lists based on their system, need, physical factors, hockey IQ etc... Each list is so radically different. Teams should take the next guy on their list but even then there are probably guys with identical scores through out the draft and the GM/staff takes a guy probably on need or some other tie breaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Thorny said: It's generally accepted that the term BPA is used/was coined specifically in opposition to "need-based" drafting. Of course there is a level of subjectivity that goes into it depending on the team, but when someone uses "Best Player Available" the implication is that need does not factor in. If need is factoring in, might as well scrap the BPA terminology all together as it has zero meaning. I agree it has zero meaning. Teams clearly use need as a factor either in making their list or in breaking ties. It’s way you hear GMs or scouts say the team will likely take a goalie this year etc. Edited June 17, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said: Think of it this way. If BPA existed why would we need a draft. The computer would list guys 1-210 or so and assign the BPA to the draft order. Teams have draft lists based on their system, need, physical factors, hockey IQ etc... Each list is so radically different. Teams should take the next guy on their list but even then there are probably guys with identical scores through out the draft and the GM/staff takes a guy probably on need or some other tie breaker. Because talent evaluation is still subjective. We are making this more complicated than it has to be. The term specifically references the idea that current need isn't factoring in. If need is factoring in, the term is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Thorny said: Because talent evaluation is still subjective. We are making this more complicated than it has to be. The term specifically references the idea that current need isn't factoring in. If need is factoring in, the term is useless. Right, but organizational need has to be a factor. NHL team need cant be because of the development time for 99% of the picks, but organizational need is critical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 Jankowski said it was BPA that led to them taking so many D last year, but he also seemed to acknowledge that there is a common sense aspect to it, particularly the deeper you go into the draft. Me speaking, not him, but I read that as you aren’t going to see a team picking 3 goalies in the same draft, regardless of rankings, because you can’t really develop them; and if your organization is devoid of speed, you might see a lot of fast guys drafted. What BPA means to me is that a team won’t pass on a higher-ranked player for a positional or stylistic need, but “higher-ranked” isn’t as rigid as you might think, teams rank many players as roughly equal, and the deeper you get into the draft, the more likely you are taking a guy who is much less throughly scouted and might be getting picked for just one or two impressive attributes, rather than overall ability. I get the impression GA puts more weight on organizational need than scouts do, but I also think it would be wrong to suggest some GMs don’t say things to their staff like “the Blues are so good at clogging the defensive zone, find me some defencemen that can do that,” and that might skew a team’s ranking. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 Sounds like BPA is a myth to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobs0108 Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 I personally want Pod and think he will be the best player outside of the top two guys. I also think he will fall in the 10-15 range and who ever takes him will be happy they did and the pundits will question why he dropped 5 years from now. I hope we take a chance on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 BPA= guy with most talent Whatever other mental contortions people are going through to justify their line of thinking is bizzaro land. So I'm a GM who has the 31st pick, the guy they take there is going to be an organizational need even though he might be 4 years away from contributing or never put on your teams sweater? Or does ignoring BPA only work if your are drafting top 10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 My draft contest, Mom's Basement Stakes, is back for year 6. In the first 5 years, Pronman and Button lead me by a player or so, I'm in third, and the Sabres are roughly 4 players behind me. McKenzie is probably a bit behind the Sabres. Last season I used every draft list I could find, so about 60 contestants, which was an overwhelming amount of paperwork, so this year I'm scaling back to those who submit draft boards, and the usual suspects, Pronman, Button, McKenzie, etc. Liger has his board in, though I worry he doesn't have enough picks for his later rounds. This year we are using whoever picks 7th. If the Sabres trade up to 3, everyone will make the same pick, which takes out all the fun. The 7th is well positioned for a wide range of options. If you want to compete, just post below, I generally read everything in this thread. And you guessed it, that is Tage's little brother at the lower end of my draft board. This is mine: Jack Hughes Kaapo Kakko Alex Turcotte Bowen Byram Alex Newhook Arthur Kaliyev Kirby Dach Alex Beaucage Brayden Tracey Thomas Harley Pavel Dorofeyev Simon Holmstrom Tobias Bjornfot Nils Hoglander Nicholas Robertson Henry Thrun Maxim Cajkovic Nathan Legare Ronnie Attard Brett Leason Mikhail Shalagin Alexander Campbell Quinn Olson Filip Cederqvist Massimo Rizzo Carter Berger Simon Lundmark Samuel Fagemo Gianni Fairbrother Samuel Sjolund Tyce Thompson Karl Henriksson Adam Beckman Quinn Schmiemann Matias Maccelli Mikko Kokkonen Wilson Johansson Layton Ahac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 25 minutes ago, inkman said: BPA= guy with most talent Whatever other mental contortions people are going through to justify their line of thinking is bizzaro land. So I'm a GM who has the 31st pick, the guy they take there is going to be an organizational need even though he might be 4 years away from contributing or never put on your teams sweater? Or does ignoring BPA only work if your are drafting top 10? Again, need is a relative thing. My guess is that the scouts list prospects by a score, which is derived from the sum of small scores in the the various categories that JBot wants scouted. My guess is that this creates tiers of players with some players having identical or nearly identical scores. At some point the GM must make choice and it might be splitting hairs between player A and player B. I think organizational need must come into play. For example: Nylander vs Sergachev. I had them nearly equal on my board. However, at that time, since DR and TM had ignored taking a D in the 1st two rounds for years and TM had systematically traded away many of our D prospects, I'd have taken Sergachev as all else was equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 5 hours ago, Thorny said: Does Botterill draft for need? No, but position matters I think when prospects are tightly ranked. with Zegras and Cozens you have the option of center or song. I fully expect Turcotte and Byram to go before Sabres pick. The guy I will be most disappointed to hear his name called before Sabres draft is Zegras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 16 different rankings - Average ranking (Hi - Low) 1 Hughes (1 - 1) 2 Kakko (2 - 2) 3 Byram (3-10) 4 Turcotte (3-10) 5 Zegras (3-12) 6 Dach (3-12) 7 Podkolzin (4-18) 8 Cozens (4-14) 9 Boldy (5-15) 10 Krebs (6-13) 11 Caufield (4-13) (If the Sabres draft anyone below this ranking at 7 I'd be shocked (and disappointed) - Huge gap from 11 to 12 12 Newhook (9-19) 13 Broberg (5-29) 14 York (9-22) 15 Soderstrom (8-28) 16 Moritz (9-26) 17 Harley (11-29) 18 Kaliyev (12-30) Could he really slip[ to us at 31? 19 Lavoie (13-31) 20 Suzuki (14-29) These are all the unanimous players - players 21- 24 made 11/12 of 16 rankings Hi/Low listed for place on ballot only. We should be very happy if one of these next 4 fell to us at 31. 21 Heinola (14-28) 22 Tomasino (16-26) 23 Brink (13-30) 24 Hoglander (18-30) Players 25-29 on 9 or 10 ballots 25 Robertson, Nick (12-29) 26 Knight (12-29) 27 Pelletier (22-31) 28 Poulin (14-31) 29 McMichael (18-31) Others 30 Afanasyev 31 Robertson, Matt 32 Bjornfot 33 Leason 34 Dorofeyev 35 Nikolayev Even more to watch Puistola, Johnson (Ryan), Kolyachonok, Honka, Thomson, & Beecher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 9 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said: 16 different rankings - Average ranking (Hi - Low) 1 Hughes (1 - 1) 2 Kakko (2 - 2) 3 Byram (3-10) 4 Turcotte (3-10) 5 Zegras (3-12) 6 Dach (3-12) 7 Podkolzin (4-18) 8 Cozens (4-14) 9 Boldy (5-15) 10 Krebs (6-13) 11 Caufield (4-13) (If the Sabres draft anyone below this ranking at 7 I'd be shocked (and disappointed) - Huge gap from 11 to 12 12 Newhook (9-19) 13 Broberg (5-29) 14 York (9-22) 15 Soderstrom (8-28) 16 Moritz (9-26) 17 Harley (11-29) 18 Kaliyev (12-30) Could he really slip[ to us at 31? 19 Lavoie (13-31) 20 Suzuki (14-29) These are all the unanimous players - players 21- 24 made 11/12 of 16 rankings Hi/Low listed for place on ballot only. We should be very happy if one of these next 4 fell to us at 31. 21 Heinola (14-28) 22 Tomasino (16-26) 23 Brink (13-30) 24 Hoglander (18-30) Players 25-29 on 9 or 10 ballots 25 Robertson, Nick (12-29) 26 Knight (12-29) 27 Pelletier (22-31) 28 Poulin (14-31) 29 McMichael (18-31) Others 30 Afanasyev 31 Robertson, Matt 32 Bjornfot 33 Leason 34 Dorofeyev 35 Nikolayev Even more to watch Puistola, Johnson (Ryan), Kolyachonok, Honka, Thomson, & Beecher Have a hard time with any rankings that would have either Turcotte or Byram at 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 I'm seeing a lot about this Caufield kid, and I'm liking what I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Eleven said: I'm seeing a lot about this Caufield kid, and I'm liking what I see. Sabres certainly seem to want us to like him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, dudacek said: Sabres certainly seem to want us to like him. He reminds me of DeBrincat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Eleven said: I'm seeing a lot about this Caufield kid, and I'm liking what I see. not sold at all on him. doesnt drive play at all and is an average skater. Sabres could use some size, speed and skill at center. Dach, Cozens, Newhook or Zegras need to be the pick. Dach provides Size and Skill, Cozens size and speed while Newhook and Zegras bring speed and skill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) So McKenzie had Spencer Knight slotted at 12 which was surprising to me. And I just heard Pierre Maguire say he knows a team that has Knight ranked in their top 5 and another team picking in the top 10 that might take him. Also said that he thinks he is the best American goalie prospect ever, and that he could be in the NHL in two years. Over-the-top Pierring, or are the masses sleeping on this kid because “nobody takes a goalie in the first round.”? Edited June 18, 2019 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Crusader1969 said: not sold at all on him. doesnt drive play at all and is an average skater. Sabres could use some size, speed and skill at center. Dach, Cozens, Newhook or Zegras need to be the pick. Dach provides Size and Skill, Cozens size and speed while Newhook and Zegras bring speed and skill. Zegras is 6'1" not small and still possibly growing. His younger brother a HS sophomore soon to be junior is taller than him and would not be surprised if he ends up at 6'2", 6'3" range. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, North Buffalo said: Zegras is 6'1" not small and still possibly growing. His younger brother a HS sophomore soon to be junior is taller than him and would not be surprised if he ends up at 6'2", 6'3" range. he just got measured at 6'0 at the combine. That being said, he is still #1 on my board for guys that could be there at 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted June 18, 2019 Report Share Posted June 18, 2019 thought i saw 6'1 but ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.