OT: BPA or Centre Prospect @15OA?

[Harbour Dog]

Generally, I think there are more people that lean towards BPA. But with our organizational depth clearly being much stronger on the wings and at D, I'm curious to see how the majority of the board would like us to approach our first rounder this year.

Assuming that we don't use it in a trade, nor move up or down on draft day.

For me, I want to keep taking the BPA, regardless of position. We can gather centres with later picks, when it is much more of a crapshoot.

Click to read more...

 

[nyr2k2]

BPA always with the caveat of "not a goalie until much later."

 

[darko]

Always go BPA

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Eh. BPA to me is never a player-by-player thing, but more a group of players in the same tier. Within that tier you can go for need.

If this team drafts another defenseman, I will laugh

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Take the best centre prospect. But if the BPA is considerably better, then take the BPA.

I have no interest in taking another defensemen unless he is CONSIDERABLY better than the best center prospect left. IMO it's lazy to just say take the BPA and not care at all about the position and only really makes sense on a team whos farm system is lacking in everything. Our defense is so damn stacked for the next 6-8 years it's ridiculous.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Not sure how Raty goes from #1 overall to potentially slipping to 15 or beyond. Honestly, how does that happen?

So i’m looking for kid with a cannon shot among a likely log jam of equally talented players. I figure with Fox, Nils and company there will be enough to pass the biscuit so find the cannon to shoot it.

Speed, size, shot, etc . . . i’m opting for shot.

 

[nyr2k2]

Eh. BPA to me is never a player-by-player thing, but more a group of players in the same tier. Within that tier you can go for need.

If this team drafts another defenseman, I will laugh

I think you need to have a semi-rigid ranking like most teams do. You need to get everyone on the same page (as much as possible) so you can react quickly and decisively to what's happening rather than having debates about multiple players within a tier structure when your pick comes up or when someone comes calling with a trade.

I feel like a team that is very thorough and diligent should be able to assign rankings with confidence throughout at least the first couple of rounds. I mean these guys, it's their jobs to determine whether Eklund or Mason McTavish is better; I think they should be able to know that going in without just having them in a tier of top-ten guys or whatever. Those are two guys same position same tier. Who is BPA? You need to know going in.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Let's put it this way. If Wallstedt is on the board he should be the pick. He's a no brainer in that spot. If he's off the board, I'm ok with Sillinger, Svechkov, Lucius, or Pinelli.

I think the pick is going to be traded, so it's all moot anyway.

 

[Edge]

Re: Take the best centre prospect. But if the BPA is considerably better, then take the BPA.

I'm very much of the same mindset as @Amazing Kreiderman. I think a lot of people tend to think of BPA as linear or singular in the sense that everyone comes in with a prospect score and that those scores are clearly defined, with tiers and an obvious winner.

In reality you tend to have clusters and guys in the same range. Different teams might value things differently that could modestly push someone up a tier or down a tier, but for the most part you tend to have a group of players who are more or less seen as having equal value or close enough value.

For shits and giggles lets assume that Pinelli, Coronato and Chayka are all on the same tier. In that situation you could have a scenario where all three guys are ranked 15, 16 and 17 by the Rangers, with Pinelli ranked last (17th) of the trio.

The Rangers aren't necessarily inclined to take the guy ranked 15th, unless there is a pretty obvious gap there. If all guys are more of less ranked the same, they very well could go with the guy ranked 17th if they feel the gap is negligible or deemed to be worth the trade-off.

Teams also rank players differently. I know some teams who give a numerical order to each player, while I know of others who strictly go by tiers. Most use a hybrid system.

 

[Irishguy42]

BPA AINEC

Doesn't matter if it's a center prospect or not, because by the time that prospect regularly plays for the Rangers, center may not be the position of NEED

In fact, that's the whole point of drafting BPA regardless of position. Drafting for position over BPA is very very very very very likely to be poop.

 

[nyr2k2]

Re: Take the best centre prospect. But if the BPA is considerably better, then take the BPA.

I'm very much of the same mindset as @Amazing Kreiderman. I think a lot of people tend to think of BPA as linear or singular in the sense that everyone comes in with a prospect score and that those scores are clearly defined, with tiers and an obvious winner.

In reality you tend to have clusters and guys in the same range. Different teams might value things differently that could modestly push someone up a tier or down a tier, but for the most part you tend to have a group of players who are more or less seen as having equal value or close enough value.

For shits and giggles lets assume that Pinelli, Coronato and Chayka are all on the same tier. In that situation you could have a scenario where all three guys are ranked 15, 16 and 17 by the Rangers, with Pinelli ranked last (17th) of the trio.

The Rangers aren't necessarily inclined to take the guy ranked 15th, unless there is a pretty obvious gap there. If all guys are more of less ranked the same, they very well could go with the guy ranked 17th if they feel the gap is negligible or deemed to be worth the trade-off.

Teams also rank players differently. I know some teams who give a numerical order to each player, while I know of others who strictly go by tiers. Most use a hybrid system.

Unless three guys are so close that you're assigning them a ranking based on throws at the dart board, it would seem counterintuitive to take the time to rank players 15-17 but then draft the guy you had 17 when 15 and 16 were available. IMO anyway.

Of course there are tiers of players like in any sport with drop-offs in the first couple rounds that are pretty apparent. The idea of identifying tiers is reasonable, but I don't know why a team wouldn't also at least attempt to then identify an ideal sequence for those players.

 

[Machinehead]

Take BPA.

#15 generally isn't a spot where you get instant results and this draft is particularly bad.

We're looking 3-4 years before this player makes an impact, most likely. Who knows what the team looks like at that point?

 

[Edge]

Unless three guys are so close that you're assigning them a ranking based on throws at the dart board, it would seem counterintuitive to take the time to rank players 15-17 but then draft the guy you had 17 when 15 and 16 were available. IMO anyway.

Of course there are tiers of players like in any sport with drop-offs in the first couple rounds that are pretty apparent. The idea of identifying tiers is reasonable, but I don't know why a team wouldn't also at least attempt to then identify an ideal sequence for those players.

For some teams the thought is whether the difference of .25 on a score sheet trumps positional needs or depth.

It can also be a factor when you're looking at trade down scenarios. Our 12th ranked guy is on the board with a score of 89.5. But if we trade down to 15 and pick up a second, there's a good chance we get a guy we have scored at 87 and another kid we have 70. I'm just using that as a generic example.

It depends on the team though.

 

[Crease]

I don’t like drafting for need because by the time the prospect enters his NHL prime, the team’s needs can be totally different.

All else equal, sure take the center. But if not, take the clear BPA.

 

[RangerBlues]

They talked themselves into not only picking another D man but using draft capitol to move up. Completely ignoring the lack of center in the organization.
The BPA must be a center, if not trade down till you are comfortable with one

 

[Machinehead]

Three years ago, we would have said RD is by far the biggest position of need. Now we have the best RD depth in the league.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Three years ago, we would have said RD is by far the biggest position of need. Now we have the best RD depth in the league.

It helps that a Norris candidate (that should win) forced his way here because he grew up rooting for the team, but yes.

But yeah, the Rangers had a cooked Dan Girardi and Kevin Klein and the legendary Adam Clendening as the starting RD's 4 years ago.

 

[LokiDog]

It’s always BPA but the issue here is, at 15 there’s rarely enough separation to say there’s a definitive BPA. Now, if there’s nothing but wingers and D between the 10-20, that’s one thing, and I’d stick with what we perceive as the BPA in that range. But if there’s a couple of centers in that 10-20 range, I would certainly consider grabbing a center in that range.

It’s complicated, you know? If there’s a faller who was ranked in the top 10, you grab him. If there’s a range of players rated in the same range and one fits a need, draft for the need. If there’s no centers in that range definitely don’t reach for one.

If we had a top 5 pick there would be a stronger BPA, no questions asked approach. I don’t think there’s typically a “this is the hands down best player on the board” when you get to the 15+ range. With that in mind, if a player who is in the 10-20 range that fills an organizational need, I say draft with that in mind.

At the same time, you should probably have a larger plan as well. A center taken at 15 is at least one year, if not two to three away. Do you anticipate that still being a position of need or do you have a plan to add centers in the immediate future? Do you anticipate depleting depth at D? Or W? If so, and you feel fairly confident that center is going to be addressed elsewhere, than draft for the need you anticipate further down the road.

 

[nyr2k2]

For some teams the thought is whether the difference of .25 on a score sheet trumps positional needs or depth.

It can also be a factor when you're looking at trade down scenarios. Our 12th ranked guy is on the board with a score of 89.5. But if we trade down to 15 and pick up a second, there's a good chance we get a guy we have scored at 87 and another kid we have 70. I'm just using that as a generic example.

It depends on the team though.

The trade down scenario makes sense, since you're still using valuations. You're just making the decision that the second round pick is worth more than whatever drop off in quality you'd experience with the 15th pick instead of the 12th. It's just like the NFL draft value board that's been around forever. Everything has a value associated with it.

I'm fine with your earlier scenario of taking the guy we ranked 17th instead of 15th if they're closely clustered and 15 is Wallstedt and 17 is Balduc (hypothetically). But still, I see that not as drafting BPA, but Best Player Available for Us.

 

[Edge]

The trade down scenario makes sense, since you're still using valuations. You're just making the decision that the second round pick is worth more than whatever drop off in quality you'd experience with the 15th pick instead of the 12th. It's just like the NFL draft value board that's been around forever. Everything has a value associated with it.

I'm fine with your earlier scenario of taking the guy we ranked 17th instead of 15th if they're closely clustered and 15 is Wallstedt and 17 is Balduc (hypothetically). But still, I see that not as drafting BPA, but Best Player Available for Us.

No, I totally get it. Just shedding some light on the thought process of some teams.

The Rangers were (are?) a hybrid team. They have rankings mainly because they considered a multitude of different factors, but they also had guys ranked in tiers that weren't separated by more than a point. At least as of 12 months ago.

 

[huerter]

Not sure how Raty goes from #1 overall to potentially slipping to 15 or beyond. Honestly, how does that happen?

Ask Angelo Eposito, Sean Day, Justin Anderson, Justin Jenifer.

 

[JT Kreider]

BPA just as long as the BPA is not an oversized defensive minded RHD or a European goalie

 

[Edge]

BPA just as long as the BPA is not an oversized defensive minded RHD or a European goalie

Rangers trade down with Montreal.

Grab European goalie at 18 and a defensive-minded RHD at 50.

 

[Kords]

This draft is all over the place at 15. I've seen about 6 different projected BPA, so in my mind (for this particular draft) i'm looking for a Center unless the "BPA" is significantly better but I don't see how that could be quantified with the projections i'm reading.

 

[Edge]

This draft is all over the place at 15. I've seen about 6 different projected BPA, so in my mind (for this particular draft) i'm looking for a Center unless the "BPA" is significantly better but I don't see how that could be quantified with the projections i'm reading.

Typically when you get outside the top 10, all bets are off --- even in the drafts that are seen as being particularly deep.

While I don't think his a deep or exceptional draft, I don't think it's awful either. But you are going to have an even broader range of rankings than usual. This could feel very much like a draft from 1990s.