(04-25-2023, 09:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

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

I think Baalke is confirming the "needs" position.  BAP people believe that you always take the player rated as BAP regardless of need.  Baalke said that it is very rare that he doesn't draft a need.  What are the odds that the BAP and the biggest need are the same with pick after pick after pick after pick?  Baalke saying that he rarely has to make a choice is clearly because he's willing to bypass the BAP for a need if it is close.  That's the argument of the needs people on here.

---