Completely disagree with this strategy, if we’re talking about the very top of an NHL draft.
It might hold true with a mid first or somewhere later, but you only get so many chances as a team to acquire the true best talents, whether from the draft or from the players already in the league. These are typically the most important parts towards whether you build a Cup contender or not.
You don’t let lesser value assets dictate which top value assets you acquire. The value of the top assets is high enough that even if you have an inefficiency in the market for the lesser assets you don’t let that dictate the top value asset decisions because the gap between value is high enough that what you gain with the top value asset more than makes up for what you lose with a market inefficiency of a lesser asset.
You always take your team's needs into account. It just so happens that at the very top of the draft, there are usually 1 or 2 players that have so clearly separated themselves that it's obvious when someone drafts for need over talent and often a mistake when they do. However in this year it may be different.
In any player case, "BPA" is dumb, debunked by the experts, etc etc.
1. There is not one measurement of "Best." There is a distribution of potential outcomes between floor and ceiling. Some distributions are wider, some are narrower, some are top or bottom heavy, some might be bimodal (either elite or bust). Teams have to take risk profile into account. You're using the language of market efficiency - then in that case, using a market analogy, you don't just "buy the stock with the highest return in the last 5 years", because you have to take its risk profile into account.
2. You have to consider your team's profile in the case that this top pick hits/busts. Considering IF the Sharks see Hagens/Schaefer as comparable top-end talents with comparable risk profiles, if Hagens hits, OK -- you now have two great centers, 1C Celebrini 2C Hagens, and then you either have a superfluous Smith or he moves to the wing, but now 4 of your top 6 forwards are under 6' (+Eklund). So are you really building a healthy top 6 that can win 4 playoff series? Maybe, yes, but maybe you're really really needing 2-4 power wingers who can slot in with those 4. You still have an incredibly weak D pipeline headlined by Dickinson, who has the tools of a top line D but is inconsistent and shows sometimes-poor hockey sense so maybe better to expect a mid-pair guy who plays high event hockey.
further #2 in contrast, if you draft Schaefer and he hits, Dickinson is a luxury and you're still depending on Smith to become a 2C, and you're still short power wingers unless some of your prospects really hit (Musty, Chernyshov), but you've improved more in your D pipe than you have left a gap in your F pipe. This kind of calculus is important for teambuilding -- top end prospects don't often move around and it's not that simple to balance your team. Just ask the Leafs or Oilers, who have spent years with subpar D or holes in the lineup while being overpowered in other areas, yet unable to easily "balance it out" through trade etc.
What about Schaefer does not give you that same secure feeling? I have him over Hagens for that reason exactly, even if it doesn’t end up being a home run it’s hard to imagine him not becoming a highly valuable #2/3D at worst.
FWIW, Bob McKenzie said yesterday that he believes Schaefer has surpassed Hagens.
And many pro scouts and execs seem to think Schaefer is #1 even post injury, per EP's polling of 10 scouts/execs, and even if it's close.
So Schaefer may be Sharks' BPA anyway, but even if he's even with Hagens, he's probably a better fit. However, who knows, and it's all moot until after the lottery anyway.
