2019 NHL Draft

[GASabresIUFAN]

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.  

[Thorner]

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

[dudacek]

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.”

[Thorner]

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

[GASabresIUFAN]

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.

[GASabresIUFAN]

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

[Thorner]

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. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

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.  

[dudacek]

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.

[Thorner]

Sounds like BPA is a myth to me 

[bobs0108]

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. 

[inkman]

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?

[rakish]

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
   

[GASabresIUFAN]

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.  

[Crusader1969]

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   

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

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

 

[Crusader1969]

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

 

[Eleven]

I'm seeing a lot about this Caufield kid, and I'm liking what I see.

[dudacek]

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.

[Eleven]

Just now, dudacek said:

Sabres certainly seem to want us to like him.

He reminds me of DeBrincat.

[Crusader1969]

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.

[dudacek]

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

[North Buffalo]

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. 

[Crusader1969]

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.

[North Buffalo]

thought i saw 6'1 but ok