View Single Post
10-18-2011, 08:08 AM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500

Good God do I hate this term. For some reason people seem to think there's some secret, master list that tells you exactly who the best player is, and that it's somehow universal across all teams. "BPA" is a horribly subjective term which depends upon a multitude of factors. Perhaps the most important factor of BPA is actually system need.

The fact is, there's not some discrete number system where (to use 2011 as an example) the Avs said "well Landeskog is a 9.53, and Larsson is a 9.47, and Huberdeau is a 9.50 so we'll take Landeskog." In fact, the Avs might have thought that Larsson was a slightly better option than Landeskog, but the Avs are second to only Nashville in defensive depth. For better or worse, the current regime is tied inexoribly to EJ, and will sink or swim based upon his play. Put simply, unless one player was ridiculously beyond any other available player remaining (and we're talking like Larsson vs Jurco here) the Avs weren't going to select a defenseman.

Likewise, with Florida, they quite possibly thought that Larsson was better than Huberdeau. Looking at Florida on draft day, people might have opined that they had a "need" for defense at the NHL level. However, their best defensive prospect (Gudbradson) is considered to be much more promising than their best center prospect (Bjugstad) was at the time. If they had Huberdeau and Larsson ranked close to each other, they go with Huberdeau because they're more needy at center than defense. Furthermore, there's a lot to say about the value of different positions. It's certainly not unheard of for second round picks to develop into genuine top pairing defensemen, it's rare for even late first round picks to end up as a genuine 1C.


BPA is dumb, and doesn't mean what people think it means.

squidz* is offline