OT: BPA or Centre Prospect @15OA?

[Kords]

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.

Agree with all that, but scouting has also been limited and additionally players have been playing under unprecedented circumstances. Like, didn't they ban checking in the WHL at one point?

Seems like much of this draft will be a crapshoot in a way.

 

[aufheben]

BPA. I’m not choosing position over player that early in the draft. Best case scenario he makes the 2022-23 roster, then who knows how many more seasons until he actually develops into the player he was drafted to be.

 

[Edge]

Agree with all that, but scouting has also been limited and additionally players have been playing under unprecedented circumstances. Like, didn't they ban checking in the WHL at one point?

Seems like much of this draft will be a crapshoot in a way.

Very much. I think that's why it will have a bit of that 1990s feel.

You're gonna have some really good players coming from rounds we haven't seen in a while, and you're probably going to have more misses than we've become accustomed to.

 

[bl02]

Rangers trade down with Montreal.

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

You mean at 31??? You know the parade is already being planned down the Saint Laurent Boulevard?!

 

[The Crypto Guy]

"You don' know what the team will look like in a few years so you always pick BPA"

Well I totally disagree with that one, our defense right now:

Schneider - 19 years old
Lundkvist - 20 years old
Robertson - 20 years old
Jones - 20 years old
Miller - 21 years old
Fox - 23 years old
Lindgren - 23 years old

In 2-3 years all 7 of those players could be playing top 4 roles or top 2 roles(not all on our team of course but we will hold onto the ones who emerge as the best). So, I'm sorry, I'll say it again, that is just a lazy thing to say and a lazier way to draft unless your farm system is completely depleted or lacking in several positions. We KNOW our defense will be stacked in a few years, you draft your 1st pick for a position you actually will need in 2-3 years and that will still be the center.

 

[JCProdigy]

Immediately after a draft pick is made it becomes an asset. Hopefully it's an appreciating asset. That asset doesn't necessarily end up playing for your team as it is allowed to be used as trade currency. The more the asset appreciates the more currency it holds. Take the asset you feel will appreciate the most. period.

...I look in my wallet and I have $100 but it's all in twenties. I could use some ones and fives. A benefactor then offers me another $100 in twenties or they'll give me the ones and fives I need but only $80 worth. I'm taking the $100. Then I'll try and find a bank that will break a few twenties for me.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

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.

I would never draft for NHL need but going with centers because your prospect pool is severely lacking them isn't a bad idea.

Aside from Henriksson, we have no center in the pipeline with a decent shot to even make the NHL.

 

[SnowFort]

Normally I would say BPA but we are so hilariously badly set up for the future regarding centers that I really would look to draft one at 15 unless the hypothetical BPA is marginally better.

Strome and Mika are not getting younger, Chytil has yet to take the next step and we can’t bet it all on a Eichel trade happening. I doubt Henriksson’s ceiling is higher than a 3C. The center prospects beyond him are barely worth mentioning.

 

[Savant]

BPA Forward (not necessarily a C) or Wallstedt

I don’t think there will be D value at 15 either

I also don’t think they keep the pick.

 

[haohmaru]

BPA, because the Rangers have proven throughout history that they are the worst franchise in the NHL at drafting centers.

 

[broadwayblue]

BPA as long as it's a goalie.

 

[pld459666]

Coronado, please

 

[SRHRangers]

I voted for BPA, but I think choice 5 is most likely.

Trade the pick for an established NHLer.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

BPA but make sure to draft centers in rounds 2-7 (I think they get a second rounder) especially round four.

And please no more Benoit Allaire projects off the board.

 

[EdJovanovski]

BPA because I believe Kravtsov is a center

 

[Richard Banger]

Just trade the pick plus buch for a center.. boom problem solved

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

BPA, because the Rangers have proven throughout history that they are the worst franchise in the NHL at drafting centers.

See, this can be changed. Analytics can help (wow for all the people who trashed me saying I'm anti analytics SMFH).

You can run several models with x-variables (height, weight, Corsi, country of origin, age, goals, faceoffs) and see which ones are statistically significant in determining NHL effectiveness. Then apply it to the upcoming draft class and use it as a tool when making the selection.

This is a very simple way of explaining it but you get where I'm trying to go. This plus a psychological evaluation to prevent more headcases like Kovacs, Zborovsky, Anderson, Gropp, etc. along with final discussion can help in finding centers that are solid, not just the "we watched him and he has character and plays a 200 ft. game".

 

[chosen]

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.

If a team has players ranked as 15-17, at that point in the draft you're already saying there is almost no way of determining the difference between the 3 of them as potential impact players, so it's not like taking #17 would be going against the BPA.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

As long as bpa is not a defenseman
Him

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

As long as bpa is not a defenseman
Him

I second this. always BPA

 

[Fireonk]

BPA even if it's a defensemen. This isn't a player that we are counting on to contribute for a couple years. Not only can you never be sure know how things will look a couple years down the road, but picking the best player means you have a better trading chip if you need it in the future. Take the best player and if there is no path for him, trade him for a similar player in a different position if you need to.

Obviously if you have a bunch of guys evaluated at about the same level with not much separating them, you use position of organizational need as the tiebreaker. But if there truly is someone you have as BPA on the board, you take him.

 

[Unusual Suspect]

Anything BUT a defenseman (or goaltender) this year.

 

[Daves a mess]

BPA, because the Rangers have proven throughout history that they are the worst franchise in the NHL at drafting centers.

Christian Dube
Bruce Graham
Lee Farladeau
Lias Andersson
Carl Henrikkson ( yet to be seen)
Manny Malhotra ( as a Ranger)
Jaime Landmark
I'm obviously missing a bunch but this is who came to mind for me initially.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

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


Going by McKenzie's rankings and assuming the picks run in close to that order, I'm not seeing anyone at 15 or later that's not a center who is clearly better than Pinelli or Svechkov anyway.

 

[Barnaby]

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 disagree. I think you need to make a board and stick to it as much as possible. Thats how you decide whether to slide up or down the board. Sure you may have 2-3 guys about even but even then you should hopefully have some preference - not just let’s roll a dice to decide between these 6 guys.