(04-25-2023, 08:45 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(04-25-2023, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Thing is, I don't know of many here (other than one) that is black and white need or value and never the twain shall meet. Most of us have been arguing that like Baalke, the aim is to find where need and value overlap. It's extremely rare that a GM is going to lean entirely toward need or entirely toward value. Those are the GMs that are going to be in trouble if their picks miss or their trades end up lopsided against them.

Are you saying that it is rare that a GM darfts where the value aligns with a position of need? Because to me that is the exact opposite of what Baalke suggested above.

Hell no.  I did not say that!  How in the world did you get that from what I wrote?  Re-read what I said.  I said, according to Baalke, it is rare that a GM has to make a choice between need and value.  

So, when we argue about need vs BPA, we are arguing about a situation that is rare, at least according to Baalke.  So if you believe him, and I have no reason not to, we should probably dispense with these arguments about "need vs BPA."  It just doesn't happen often enough to worry about it.

---