My assumption is that Lundqvist only accepts a trade if it meets two conditions: he gets to play and he is paid in full. I think the fact that the Rangers have floated the idea that John Davidson and Lundqvist have met to discuss his future suggests to me that the table is being set for him to move on from the Rangers.

Rangers desperately need that cap space.
- spatso

I’m not really familiar with the Rangers cap situation..but is it worth trading the 1st overall just to get rid of Henrik’s contract? He’s only got like 1yr left on his deal.

And I’m pretty much in agreement that if the Rangers do want Byfield, they should trade down.
- Trilla

I'm actually glad to see more teams taking their actual team needs into stronger consideration at the draft, because I don't see a lot of evidence that the consensus/BPA approach necessarily makes a hockey team better. Conversely, there's increasing evidence of the disaster that big-UFA fishing can become when teams try to fill holes that way (i.e. huge $$$/term contracts that become detrimental after just a couple years). There's also evidence that by the time you have a serious team need on your hands, every other GM knows that as well, and it can make it very difficult to get fair value from a deal. As such, it seems clear to me that more teams need to start trying to address their primary needs at the draft... not based on the assumption that they can just trade 'someone' down the road to fill in the gaps. And if for the NY Rangers that means you can trade down a spot or two, address a major team need, add another decent asset, and maybe open some cap space along the way that allows you to sign another good player, then maybe that's a whole lot better than just drafting who everyone else thinks should be picked first.

I’m not really familiar with the Rangers cap situation..but is it worth trading the 1st overall just to get rid of Henrik’s contract? He’s only got like 1yr left on his deal.
- Trilla

No, I don't think so. But, the media will tease out the arguments in order to fill in their need for hockey news content.

I do not think Rangers can take the risk of dealing Lafreniere. He is the real deal and the fans would never forgive management if he is that good and was dealt away.

On the other hand, if he is less good than projected, they will say...everyone got it wrong.

My assumption is that Lundqvist only accepts a trade if it meets two conditions: he gets to play and he is paid in full. I think the fact that the Rangers have floated the idea that John Davidson and Lundqvist have met to discuss his future suggests to me that the table is being set for him to move on from the Rangers.

Rangers desperately need that cap space.
- spatso

I think even more likely would be that the agreement is that he is bought out immediately (a la Marleau last year).

No, I don't think so. But, the media will tease out the arguments in order to fill in their need for hockey news content.

I do not think Rangers can take the risk of dealing Lafreniere. He is the real deal and the fans would never forgive management if he is that good and was dealt away.

On the other hand, if he is less good than projected, they will say...everyone got it wrong.
- spatso

We’re also assuming the rangers would attach this year’s pick..when they could easily attach next years first (if they really wanted him gone)

I'm actually glad to see more teams taking their actual team needs into stronger consideration at the draft, because I don't see a lot of evidence that the consensus/BPA approach necessarily makes a hockey team better. Conversely, there's increasing evidence of the disaster that big-UFA fishing can become when teams try to fill holes that way (i.e. huge $$$/term contracts that become detrimental after just a couple years). There's also evidence that by the time you have a serious team need on your hands, every other GM knows that as well, and it can make it very difficult to get fair value from a deal. As such, it seems clear to me that more teams need to start trying to address their primary needs at the draft... not based on the assumption that they can just trade 'someone' down the road to fill in the gaps. And if for the NY Rangers that means you can trade down a spot or two, address a major team need, add another decent asset, and maybe open some cap space along the way that allows you to sign another good player, then maybe that's a whole lot better than just drafting who everyone else thinks should be picked first.
- khawk

Personally, if I was running a team I’d always take BPA.

You can always fill a need via ufa (albeit at a cost) or through trades. You might think it’s difficult but it’s not, especially if you have an abundance of really good, elite prospects/players.

Take the leafs: they have very good forwards and can address their back end by dealing one of them (talking about Nylander).

Let’s look at the Sens now. We have very good d prospects, if we were to draft Drysdale because Dorion thought he was the BPA, it would allow us to deal one or two of our d prospects to address a forward need.

And ya, sometimes choosing the BPA doesn’t always work out for teams but neither does addressing a need at the draft, and going off the board. You also don’t want a team to “settle” for a player because of your positional need.

Personally, if I was running a team I’d always take BPA.
You can always fill a need via ufa (albeit at a cost) or through trades. You might think it’s difficult but it’s not, especially if you have an abundance of really good, elite prospects/players.
Take the leafs: they have very good forwards and can address their back end by dealing one of them (talking about Nylander).
- Trilla

You can fill a need with 'something', but if you're trying to add high-quality talent at key positions and legitimately challenge for a Stanley Cup, you really need to draft that talent. Consider the core players of teams that have won multiple championships (eg. Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles)... they overwhelmingly come from the draft, and reflect a variety of key positions. Conversely, look at teams that have high-end roster talent but are clearly overbuilt at a given position like Edmonton or Toronto. You claim they can address their problem with a trade, but given the Leafs' recent face-plant against the Blue Jackets, it's quite clear they failed in a big way to address it with the Barrie/Ceci trades last summer. Now, maybe you think a Nylander trade will yield the silver bullet, but I'm sure the Oilers thought the same thing when they parted ways with Taylor Hall. So let's maybe just see what actually happens before suggesting that it's "not difficult" to course-correct a team roster with those kinds of major structural problems.

I'm actually glad to see more teams taking their actual team needs into stronger consideration at the draft, because I don't see a lot of evidence that the consensus/BPA approach necessarily makes a hockey team better. Conversely, there's increasing evidence of the disaster that big-UFA fishing can become when teams try to fill holes that way (i.e. huge $$$/term contracts that become detrimental after just a couple years). There's also evidence that by the time you have a serious team need on your hands, every other GM knows that as well, and it can make it very difficult to get fair value from a deal. As such, it seems clear to me that more teams need to start trying to address their primary needs at the draft... not based on the assumption that they can just trade 'someone' down the road to fill in the gaps. And if for the NY Rangers that means you can trade down a spot or two, address a major team need, add another decent asset, and maybe open some cap space along the way that allows you to sign another good player, then maybe that's a whole lot better than just drafting who everyone else thinks should be picked first.
- khawk

Draft BPA and not for positional need in the top 5 - 10 spots in most drafts, as these are way more likely to turn into good NHL players and the quality quickly drops off after those picks. Draft for positional need after that and hope for the best. In this draft I think I would draft BPA in the first 15-20.
Why miss out on a quality NHL player for an average one at another position. No guarantees with draft picks so play the best odds of picking a winner.

Draft BPA and not for positional need in the top 5 - 10 spots in most drafts, as these are way more likely to turn into good NHL players and the quality quickly drops off after those picks. Draft for positional need after that and hope for the best. In this draft I think I would draft BPA in the first 15-20.
Why miss out on a quality NHL player for an average one at another position. No guarantees with draft picks so play the best odds of picking a winner.
- CaliNewf

Watching Mark stone...makes me think of how dominant he was for us.

Really wish we would’ve kept him

[quote=Barrykerr1]

The Senators need to keep their number 3 and 5 pick, both should be better than anyone currently on the team other than Chabot or Tkachuk. This draft is that strong!

[quote=Barrykerr1]
I’d say both 3 & 5 will be their best players one day.

[quote=Barrykerr1]


Canes are a quick study for Sens. Lots of good young D. Young elite forwards and a solid group of 3rd and 4th liner that work hard every shift.

Canes are a quick study for Sens
[quote=spatso]

It's mostly coaching. That kind of structure and playing style is not something the players figure out on their own.

Draft BPA and not for positional need in the top 5 - 10 spots in most drafts, as these are way more likely to turn into good NHL players and the quality quickly drops off after those picks. Draft for positional need after that and hope for the best. In this draft I think I would draft BPA in the first 15-20.
Why miss out on a quality NHL player for an average one at another position. No guarantees with draft picks so play the best odds of picking a winner.
- CaliNewf

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.
- khawk

I totally agree.

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.
- khawk

Draft position is important as well. Taking a goalie early in the first round is always high risk. Teams find really good 3rd and 4th line players as well as good 3rd and 4th Dmen in the second round and beyond. Also find some gems that will develop into future stars (Mark Stone, Daniel Alfredsson) in lower rounds. So, once you get beyond the 1st round you start looking at potential and intangibles. Can we develop this kid beyond what we see in his game today?

I remember a scout being interviewed about the combine and looking for kids that were high on the talent scale but low on the physical fitness charts. If the kid has the right attitude you can always improve on his fitness.

Scouting is partly science. But, it is also intuition. If you are always committed to BPA, maybe a Mark Stone or Daniel Alfredsson is never drafted.

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.
- khawk

In that specific example it’s not clear because that bubble of players are kinda similar (-Sanderson who shouldn’t be in the top 10). But let’s say somehow Lafreniere falls to #3. And say we need a center (because that’s the position we’re weakest in)...should we pass up on Laf to draft..Rossi??

Btw you’re forgetting that some positions are much easier to fill then others via trade. For example it’s easier to acquire a high skilled forward because there are simply more of them. It’s much harder addressing the back end because it’s IMO the most coveted position, due to work load, special teams..and the fact that there are so few elite dmen.

So in a sense, I guess I answered who I think the Sens should draft at 5 lol.

In that specific example it’s not clear because that bubble of players are kinda similar (-Sanderson who shouldn’t be in the top 10). But let’s say somehow Lafreniere falls to #3. And say we need a center (because that’s the position we’re weakest in)...should we pass up on Laf to draft..Rossi??
Btw you’re forgetting that some positions are much easier to fill then others via trade. For example it’s easier to acquire a high skilled forward because there are simply more of them. It’s much harder addressing the back end because it’s IMO the most coveted position, due to work load, special teams..and the fact that there are so few elite dmen.
- Trilla

I've never suggested that positional need overrides all sense of reason... if you're picking between Lafreniere/Rossi, then sure you most likely pick Lafreniere. However, if you're picking between Lafreniere/Byfield, that might be a different conversation if you really believe in the potential growth in Byfield's game, and are a team with limited quality at C. This whole conversation started because there was some speculation that the Rangers might actually be considering Byfield as the player they wanted most, and how that potentially lead them to trading down to #2 or #3.

But I'm absolutely NOT forgetting that some positions are easier to fill than others... in fact it's precisely my whole point. High-end C or D or just have a clear track record of being harder to acquire than a scoring winger. This is why if there's only a marginal difference in perceived BPA, I think teams would be increasingly wise to consider positional need, instead of just piling on assets that are already clear organizational strengths.

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.
- khawk

the BPA for ottawa at 5 is whoever they have at 5 on their list that's available.

i think what people are getting at is, say Ottawa has Raymond at 5 on their list, and Sanderson at 9, but they take Sanderson simply because he's a dman (despite not needing him) that's dumb. they should take Raymond.

if a team like the leafs were drafting 5th (assuming drysdale was gone).....they might still have raymond at 5 and sanderson at 9 on their list, but they're likely taking sanderson (drafting for need) rather than raymond (bpa)

No offense, but this is part of why I dislike the BPA argument. Not only is it completely subjective (i.e. your BPA is not my BPA), but it's fundamentally lazy because it presumes an answer without actually giving one. Seriously, fill in the blank... who exactly is the BPA at #5? Drysdale? Rossi? Perfetti? Holtz? Raymond? Sanderson?

Honestly, teams have their draft lists of who they would draft in what sequence, but you can believe their criteria includes a certain measure of positional bias (eg. C > W, D > G, etc.). And teams that don't consider position at all in making their picks can find themselves in a difficult spot because it's really not that easy to add quality players to key positions.
- khawk

I wasn't suggesting who the BPA was at number 5, or that the sens should read a Bob McKenzie blog and go off of that - but they should pick who THEY think is the BPA that high in the draft. Draft picks are a crap shoot, so you need to give yourself the best odds possible of finding a usable NHL player. The higher in the draft, the more likely a player turns out, so don't mess around with picking for position and lowering the odds. Now, if you feel two players are of equal potential, then sure - pick the position more suited to you. I usually like Sens drafting so I am sure they have done their homework and will pick well.

the BPA for ottawa at 5 is whoever they have at 5 on their list that's available.

i think what people are getting at is, say Ottawa has Raymond at 5 on their list, and Sanderson at 9, but they take Sanderson simply because he's a dman (despite not needing him) that's dumb. they should take Raymond.

if a team like the leafs were drafting 5th (assuming drysdale was gone).....they might still have raymond at 5 and sanderson at 9 on their list, but they're likely taking sanderson (drafting for need) rather than raymond (bpa)
- sensarmy_11

No, if the Leafs really value Sanderson more, then he'll be ranked higher on their draft list than Raymond. Teams don't evaluate players and generate draft lists based on one criteria, but then reconsider every pick based on positional need. They build in the value they put on certain positions into their criteria, and adjust their rankings accordingly. So in your scenario, the Leafs would have Sanderson ranked at #5 on their list with Raymond ranked later, and the Senators would have Raymond ranked at #5 with Sanderson ranked later. Both teams would simply take the player they value most at that point in the draft, because they'd have 2 minutes to make a decision, and no guarantee of which 4 players will be off the board at that point.