Schlenk: 2018 was top heavy, 2019 is a deep draft

[High 5]

When did he say that?

found it from a tweet from last year

Nobody knows what happened to that tweet huh? High5 just says some rando stuff and doesn’t back up his claim. Not new.

“Not a lot of people know this: if we would’ve stayed at three we would’ve taken Luka."

From the Woj Pod on Feb. 17. It was news back when it happened. Use Google. Don't be a clown.

[Spud2nique]

found it from a tweet from last year

Nobody knows what happened to that tweet huh? High5 just says some rando stuff and doesn’t back up his claim. Not new.

“Not a lot of people know this: if we would’ve stayed at three we would’ve taken Luka."

From the Woj Pod on Feb. 17. It was news back when it happened. Use Google. Don't be a clown.

I’m not doing your research. That’s not a link. Provide a link. For all I know that quote was written by your friend Ricky. Don’t drop a line and not back it up sun.

[High 5]

I’m not doing your research. That’s not a link. Provide a link. For all I know that quote was written by your friend Ricky. Don’t drop a line and not back it up sun.

Only because I think that's your way of saying you don't know how to use Google, I'll do you this one favor:

Watch on YouTube

He says it at 40:50.

[Jamaaliver]

^If I might be of assistance.

Travis Schlenk: Hawks Would Have Drafted Luka Doncic If They Kept 3rd Pick

Travis Schlenk said that the Atlanta Hawks were going to draft Luka Doncic had they kept the 3rd pick in last year's draft.

"Not a lot of people know this...if we stayed at 3, we would have taken Luka. We had worked with his agent, he did a physical with us that morning in New York...but then Dallas came in an hour or so before the draft. I told them all along that it would take another lottery pick for us to slide back, and that's when the conversations got started," Schlenk stated on Adrian Wojnarowski's podcast.
The deal to move back two spots and receive a top-5 protected pick from the Mavs this season was influenced by analytics.
"Our analytics staff was predicting Dallas to finish 8th this year," added Schlenk.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/ESPN

RealGM Wiretap --Feb 17

[Spud2nique]

I’m not doing your research. That’s not a link. Provide a link. For all I know that quote was written by your friend Ricky. Don’t drop a line and not back it up sun.

Only because I think that's your way of saying you don't know how to use Google, I'll do you this one favor:

Watch on YouTube

He says it at 40:50.

Oooooohhhhh favors...come and get the award here’s a hint..

[Spud2nique]

Kinda convinced he wanted Trae all along. It’s easy to say things after the fact but let’s face it Schlenk was in love with Trae at first sight.

[Buzzard]

You want a strategy, all Schlenk has ever talked about is draft well, be competitive, be flexible, and do not over pay. I don't see a lot to read into that.

I don't either.

But he's also said some other things that, when one applies cold hard logic to it, allows us to deduce a little more than that.

I go back to this... I thought you agreed with all of it (?) since you didn't offer any counterpoint to any...

1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

If one accepts all of that, then that leads down a logical path to this...

the goal is always to obtain the best talent you can obtain, but sometimes you take risks on high ceiling players, and sometimes you don't. If you don't already have a player you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to be more open to risk. If you don't already have one you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to consider the best avenues to obtain that, potentially even considering trades out of one draft and into another.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

I replied in my way about a 1/2 dozen times. I would never stop trying to get elite talent. That is mostly done via the draft. Why you think it is a different risk one way or the other is beyond me. Why you think it has to be high ceiling vs low ceiling is beyond me. The draft is always a risk, I want BPA based on what my GM thinks.

Sometimes, the best player available per a scouts judgement has the lowest ceiling. Sometimes the best player available has the highest ceiling. I am not a talent evaluator, so I take BPA based on what my scout team says. If both players are splitting hairs equal in evaluation, I then go with need. I have also stated that you don't trade away assets, in most cases, until you are on the brink of at least a conference final. That is also fluid based on the player, money, and picks involved.

I read this as you are wanting some sort of black and white strategy that would indicate the players Schlenk will draft or if he will trade for one. Welcome to the party, as there are about 30 other GMs and a few hundred to a few thousand fans that would like to know that for the 1st and 2nd rounds. You are much better off sticking with a computing language that only understands zeroes and ones.

I said what I would do. I have said what I think Travis will do. I have also said somethings he has stated. Now its up to you to read Schlenk's mind so can be 100% sure or call it a day. I think I know what he will do and he will stay in the draft; but I am not 100% sure. Hell, he may make a move to get another pick next season.

[Buzzard]

You want a strategy, all Schlenk has ever talked about is draft well, be competitive, be flexible, and do not over pay. I don't see a lot to read into that.

I don't either.

But he's also said some other things that, when one applies cold hard logic to it, allows us to deduce a little more than that.

the goal is always to obtain the best talent you can obtain, but sometimes you take risks on high ceiling players, and sometimes you don't. If you don't already have a player you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to be more open to risk. If you don't already have one you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to consider the best avenues to obtain that, potentially even considering trades out of one draft and into another.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

You want this to be black and white, ones and zeroes, pluses and minuses. There are 30 GM's in the NBA and I honestly believe you would have a hard time getting any of them to say your last paragraph is absolutely correct. Talent acquisition is fluid, it is not concrete. That is for both drafts and trades when building a team.

Some teams would chase a big trade, some teams would chase the draft, some teams would chase a little of both. Some GMs are risk takers, some are not, and some fall in the middle. I think Travis falls in the chasing draft and calculated risk area. But if a trade comes up that knocks his socks off, I think he is flexible enough to pull the trigger. He likes the draft and has stated this many times. I base my opinion on that; and he came from GSW who drafted well and never chased a big FA. Durant chased them.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Kinda convinced he wanted Trae all along. It’s easy to say things after the fact but let’s face it Schlenk was in love with Trae at first sight.

So, if he wanted Trae all along, what possibly would deter him from saying so?

But he said he wanted Luka at 3, which can't make Trae feel all that great that, all other things being equal, he wouldn't have been the choice. So, Travis, why be so honest? Or why say anything at all if it's not something complimentary of your guy?

To the contrary, Schlenk must have really liked Luka, but not so much that he would turn down Trae plus an additional swing at it in case Trae didn't work out so well...



...and really, Luka didn't exactly come without some question marks on his profile, as well, so it's easy to me to see why Schlenk considered Trae+2019 #8-ish pick > Luka.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

You want a strategy, all Schlenk has ever talked about is draft well, be competitive, be flexible, and do not over pay. I don't see a lot to read into that.

I don't either.

But he's also said some other things that, when one applies cold hard logic to it, allows us to deduce a little more than that.

I go back to this... I thought you agreed with all of it (?) since you didn't offer any counterpoint to any...

1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

If one accepts all of that, then that leads down a logical path to this...

the goal is always to obtain the best talent you can obtain, but sometimes you take risks on high ceiling players, and sometimes you don't. If you don't already have a player you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to be more open to risk. If you don't already have one you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to consider the best avenues to obtain that, potentially even considering trades out of one draft and into another.

No? If no, give me a counterargument.

I replied in my way about a 1/2 dozen times. I would never stop trying to get elite talent. That is mostly done via the draft. Why you think it is a different risk one way or the other is beyond me. Why you think it has to be high ceiling vs low ceiling is beyond me. The draft is always a risk, I want BPA based on what my GM thinks.

"Why you think X is beyond me" sounds like you're offended. Don't be offended. No reason to be. I've just tried to simplify the pivot points, and see if you agreed or not with each so that it would be more easily figured out where there might be some specific disagreement.

To what you said... I'd be surprised to learn that you don't agree with the general conventional wisdom that when a given player is assessed by scouts, they're looking at best-case (ceiling) and worst-case (floor) outcome for that player.

If you don't perceive that they do that, then I'd have to hear you explain why you don't. Which is it, then?

Continuing the thought, then when players have lower floors, that translates into those being more risky by definition than the ones with higher floors. (Honestly, forgive me if this seems childish to rehearse because I think you almost have to know this.)

So, going into a given draft, for some GMs, swinging for the fences is more important than others. It's an oversimplification to pretend that just because the draft itself is filled with risks, that every risk on the draft board constitutes an equivalent risk. Surely you don't believe that. So, BPA may be desirable for the few teams like us who are in total talent accumulation mode, but lifting the hood and examining what is fueling that BPA number is a calculation that somehow takes into consideration that range of possibility that the player may achieve, and probably, some way to pin down an sensible number that is more than merely an average of the two extremes, but instead some formula that is more complex.

All that to say, if you've got that elite talent on your roster already, and you have a guy who could conceivably be an MVP some day, but who also could be a miserable disappointment at the end of someone's bench... versus... a guy who conceivably could be an ASG participant some day but who at minimum figures to be a part-time starter... and those two calculate to essentially the same score and are tied on your draft board... it makes sense to not gamble needlessly.

If you don't have that elite talent, there is need to gamble, if indeed, you're a GM authentically pursuing a championship.

Sometimes, the best player available per a scouts judgement has the lowest ceiling. Sometimes the best player available has the highest ceiling. I am not a talent evaluator, so I take BPA based on what my scout team says. If both players are splitting hairs equal in evaluation, I then go with need. I have also stated that you don't trade away assets, in most cases, until you are on the brink of at least a conference final. That is also fluid based on the player, money, and picks involved.

So, wading my way through your thinking, glad to see you wrote this, but scratching my head how this is congruent with what you wrote in the previous paragraph.

Why else would the BPA be one who has the lowest ceiling except because his floor is so high, allowing the team's calculus to push him to the top in spite of that lowest best-case forecast?

There really are THREE numbers to be taken into account... (a) a number representing the player's best-case, (b) a number representing his worst-case, and (c) a number that equals the team's calculation of what is the most likely achievement level within that range... with "c" then being the number used to rank the player on the team's big board.




And then, you say essentially if both players grade out essentially the same, "I then go with need."

Of course you do. That's what's reasonable. And so, if your roster's greatest need is to acquire that elite talent, you go with the guy with the greater likelihood to become that... ie, the higher ceiling player.

Here's where we seem to differ, though... "seem"... I'm actually still not sure because you've resisted just answering those questions straight up.

If you don't have that elite guy on your roster yet.. that's what you need.

And if you have to draft #8, long after the one or two high ceiling/high floor players in the 2019 draft have been taken...

Then, you have to just set aside "b" and "c", because "a" is all that matters unless you have two (or more) players that your scouts have assessed as having the same ceiling.

Do we agree or disagree on that last statement then?

Finally, you said something about the futility of trying to boil down Schlenk's decision to black and white.

You're not wrong about that. It is futile.

We can't know his draft board. We can't know any of the numbers that are going into how his draft board is set up.

We can't know whether he believes he already has a future Steve Nash or just a future Mike Bibby on this roster.

But this is an entertainment/recreational pursuit. Part of the fun of being a fan is to try to put oneself in the head of the actual GM and decide, based on the whole of the picture, what the GM is most likely to do... and trying to put oneself into the head of the actual GM is best informed by both his previous words and his previous actions.

I'm not wrong to be interested in the puzzle, and to narrow down to some blacker grays and whiter grays what is more likely. It's entertainment. It's fun. Won't apologize for that.

At the end of the day, then, because I am one of those on the fence who isn't confident whether we have a Nash on our hands or a Bibby on our hands, I'm cheering for Schlenk to draft at #8 and #10 the guys who have the best best-case, nevermind their worst worst-cases....

Reddish, Bol, Bouya and Bruno are the four who I consider to have those best best-cases.

Where this whole tangent of the original discussion began is, I'm led to think with this newest quote cited in this thread that maybe Schlenk thinks he has a Nash after all. That most definitely would be comforting if it is the case, since that would effectively reduce the risk... he really can just draft BPA straight-up.

[Buzzard]

I don't either.

But he's also said some other things that, when one applies cold hard logic to it, allows us to deduce a little more than that.

I go back to this... I thought you agreed with all of it (?) since you didn't offer any counterpoint to any...



If one accepts all of that, then that leads down a logical path to this...

I replied in my way about a 1/2 dozen times. I would never stop trying to get elite talent. That is mostly done via the draft. Why you think it is a different risk one way or the other is beyond me. Why you think it has to be high ceiling vs low ceiling is beyond me. The draft is always a risk, I want BPA based on what my GM thinks.

"Why you think X is beyond me" sounds like you're offended. Don't be offended. No reason to be. I've just tried to simplify the pivot points, and see if you agreed or not with each so that it would be more easily figured out where there might be some specific disagreement.

To what you said... I'd be surprised to learn that you don't agree with the general conventional wisdom that when a given player is assessed by scouts, they're looking at best-case (ceiling) and worst-case (floor) outcome for that player.

If you don't perceive that they do that, then I'd have to hear you explain why you don't. Which is it, then?

Continuing the thought, then when players have lower floors, that translates into those being more risky by definition than the ones with higher floors. (Honestly, forgive me if this seems childish to rehearse because I think you almost have to know this.)

So, going into a given draft, for some GMs, swinging for the fences is more important than others. It's an oversimplification to pretend that just because the draft itself is filled with risks, that every risk on the draft board constitutes an equivalent risk. Surely you don't believe that. So, BPA may be desirable for the few teams like us who are in total talent accumulation mode, but lifting the hood and examining what is fueling that BPA number is a calculation that somehow takes into consideration that range of possibility that the player may achieve, and probably, some way to pin down an sensible number that is more than merely an average of the two extremes, but instead some formula that is more complex.

All that to say, if you've got that elite talent on your roster already, and you have a guy who could conceivably be an MVP some day, but who also could be a miserable disappointment at the end of someone's bench... versus... a guy who conceivably could be an ASG participant some day but who at minimum figures to be a part-time starter... and those two calculate to essentially the same score and are tied on your draft board... it makes sense to not gamble needlessly.

If you don't have that elite talent, there is need to gamble, if indeed, you're a GM authentically pursuing a championship.

Sometimes, the best player available per a scouts judgement has the lowest ceiling. Sometimes the best player available has the highest ceiling. I am not a talent evaluator, so I take BPA based on what my scout team says. If both players are splitting hairs equal in evaluation, I then go with need. I have also stated that you don't trade away assets, in most cases, until you are on the brink of at least a conference final. That is also fluid based on the player, money, and picks involved.

So, wading my way through your thinking, glad to see you wrote this, but scratching my head how this is congruent with what you wrote in the previous paragraph.

Why else would the BPA be one who has the lowest ceiling except because his floor is so high, allowing the team's calculus to push him to the top in spite of that lowest best-case forecast?

There really are THREE numbers to be taken into account... (a) a number representing the player's best-case, (b) a number representing his worst-case, and (c) a number that equals the team's calculation of what is the most likely achievement level within that range... with "c" then being the number used to rank the player on the team's big board.




And then, you say essentially if both players grade out essentially the same, "I then go with need."

Of course you do. That's what's reasonable. And so, if your roster's greatest need is to acquire that elite talent, you go with the guy with the greater likelihood to become that... ie, the higher ceiling player.

Here's where we seem to differ, though... "seem"... I'm actually still not sure because you've resisted just answering those questions straight up.

If you don't have that elite guy on your roster yet.. that's what you need.

And if you have to draft #8, long after the one or two high ceiling/high floor players in the 2019 draft have been taken...

Then, you have to just set aside "b" and "c", because "a" is all that matters unless you have two (or more) players that your scouts have assessed as having the same ceiling.

Do we agree or disagree on that last statement then?

Finally, you said something about the futility of trying to boil down Schlenk's decision to black and white.

You're not wrong about that. It is futile.

We can't know his draft board. We can't know any of the numbers that are going into how his draft board is set up.

We can't know whether he believes he already has a future Steve Nash or just a future Mike Bibby on this roster.

But this is an entertainment/recreational pursuit. Part of the fun of being a fan is to try to put oneself in the head of the actual GM and decide, based on the whole of the picture, what the GM is most likely to do... and trying to put oneself into the head of the actual GM is best informed by both his previous words and his previous actions.

I'm not wrong to be interested in the puzzle, and to narrow down to some blacker grays and whiter grays what is more likely. It's entertainment. It's fun. Won't apologize for that.

At the end of the day, then, because I am one of those on the fence who isn't confident whether we have a Nash on our hands or a Bibby on our hands, I'm cheering for Schlenk to draft at #8 and #10 the guys who have the best best-case, nevermind their worst worst-cases....

Reddish, Bol, Bouya and Bruno are the four who I consider to have those best best-cases.

Where this whole tangent of the original discussion began is, I'm led to think with this newest quote cited in this thread that maybe Schlenk thinks he has a Nash after all. That most definitely would be comforting if it is the case, since that would effectively reduce the risk... he really can just draft BPA straight-up.

I do not agree with your assessment that once you have "one" elite talent that changes the direction of your draft/rebuild strategy. I do not agree with that premise at all. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Example of BPA in this draft with a low ceiling: Rui Hachimura. I could see us taking him if he is the best available left when we draft. Very possible, especially at 10, if Schlenk does not like the bigs in this draft or he already took his BPA big at 8. And that has nothing to do with how I think about Trae. Now you obviously see things differently if Trae is elite or not elite. I don't, because we are a long ways from built with just one potentially great point guard; and settling for anything except BPA is a risk in my opinion.

You want to see an example of a bad plan, look no further than Darko. The Pistons were champions and took a flyer on pure upside. I do not want us to do that in any draft. You seem to think it is ok so long as we still need one "elite" talent. Once again, I don't.

I am not offended but our styles of writing are very different. I try and make my point as clear and concise as possible. Maybe you see that as me being short. Its not. I document IT Issues all day/night long and my style is exactly what my bosses want to read.

[Spud2nique]

Good god this thread is a long read ..I’m out.

[td00]

The only mystery left is who TS thinks are the BPA at our draft slots. We have a long way to go, perhaps another long season as well if we don’t add any vets.
Does TS think he can find his team leader this offseason? Can we wait long enough for TY to be that leader?

[jayu70]

The only mystery left is who TS thinks are the BPA at our draft slots. We have a long way to go, perhaps another long season as well if we don’t add any vets.
Does TS think he can find his team leader this offseason? Can we wait long enough for TY to be that leader?

The Hawks are in good hands with TY as the leader. He showed that as the season progressed.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I do not agree with your assessment that once you have "one" elite talent that changes the direction of your draft/rebuild strategy. I do not agree with that premise at all. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

But you only need one of those. One.

You need more high-quality players around that guy, but you only need one of those.

If you have one of those, then, you can just go strictly BPA... go get your Hachimura or whoever is the BPA, based on that third number that set that BPA on your board.

If you have one of those, then, you don't need to be taking that highest ceiling guy who also has the low floor, ie, high reward/high risk.

If you don't yet think you have that elite guy, then it makes no sense to draft your Hachimura, because those guys are much more easily obtained than the elite... that is, if you're really and truly shooting for a championship, and not just re-elevation back to the playoff hamster wheel... if that's not truly your goal, then of course, you just want to seem as competitive as you can... and you can do the Hachimura thing after all.

If you disagree, then just point out where you see the point of disagreement, as I just did. Tell me what part of that is wrong, but then go on to explain why it's wrong.

[Buzzard]

I do not agree with your assessment that once you have "one" elite talent that changes the direction of your draft/rebuild strategy. I do not agree with that premise at all. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

But you only need one of those. One.

You need more high-quality players around that guy, but you only need one of those.

If you have one of those, then, you can just go strictly BPA... go get your Hachimura or whoever is the BPA, based on that third number that set that BPA on your board.

If you have one of those, then, you don't need to be taking that highest ceiling guy who also has the low floor, ie, high reward/high risk.

If you don't yet think you have that elite guy, then it makes no sense to draft your Hachimura, because those guys are much more easily obtained than the elite... that is, if you're really and truly shooting for a championship, and not just re-elevation back to the playoff hamster wheel... if that's not truly your goal, then of course, you just want to seem as competitive as you can... and you can do the Hachimura thing after all.

If you disagree, then just point out where you see the point of disagreement, as I just did. Tell me what part of that is wrong, but then go on to explain why it's wrong.

Your definition means: Curry and Durant elite. Westbrook and George elite. CP3 and Harden elite. Shaq and Kobe elite. Shaq and Wade elite. Parker and Duncan elite. When OKC had them, Durant, Harden, Westbrook elite.

By your definition, the above combos have been at one time or another elite = in the top five or winners of the MVP. You have your answer to why. Those teams did not stop shooting for elite talent after they got one; I don't think we should either. I honestly think your opinion/definition of elite is a tough ask. I have always considered top ten players to be elite and anyone in the top 10% to be near enough to consider potentially elite.

Drafting Hachimura makes perfect sense if no one left at 8 or 10 is judged by Travis to be potentially elite and he is the BPA.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Curry/Durant: Durant was obtained via FA, so that's not really germane to this conversation... why did you think it was? We're talking about risk aversion in the draft, or at least, that's what I'm talking about.

Shaq/Kobe: Same situation

Shaq/Wade: Same situation

Westbrook/George: George was obtained via trade, so that's also not germane to this conversation.

CP3/Harden: Same situation.

It's a little strange to me that a conversation could get this far, and evidently one of the parties involved hasn't really read well enough to pick up on the essentials.... it's not that complex.... we're talking about approaches to drafting.

So, in all that, there are two groups that actually are relevant...

Durant/Harden/Westbrook: When you're drafting in the top 2 of the draft, self-evidently, it's more likely than not that the guy you select projects to become an elite player; same for top 3; same for top 4. Not much risk aversion to be had so far up in the order.

Duncan/Parker: Parker was the 28th pick. Not sure where you were going with that... that one is completely congruent with my assertion that you have to be ready to take on some additional risk and just draft on the basis of the player's perceived ceiling... and so much more so, at #28.

What remains confusing about your approach is that, on the one hand, you talk about drafting BPA, and on the other, you talk about drafting to obtain an elite talent.... huh?

If you're drafting at #8 for elite, then your draft board comes down to the simple question of which player remaining has the highest ceiling, nevermind their rank on the board and their floor... it's a boom or bust pick... more risk, but more reward.

If you're drafting at #8 for BPA, then it's just that... you don't really care if the player can be projected to be an elite player some day, you're just satisfied that you're getting the player most likely to have the best success.

And lastly... we agree... if there is no potential elite player left at #8... AND... if there is no team that seems ready to make a trade that would allow him to punt to 2020... then he's left to go with BPA, whoever that happens to be. We should also be able to agree... on the basis of your insistence that parallels mine... that that would be a disappointing development... we both seem to perceive that Schlenk is smart to pursue a player for whom a reasonable argument can be made by the scouts that he can evolve into an elite.

[Buzzard]

What remains confusing about your approach is that, on the one hand, you talk about drafting BPA, and on the other, you talk about drafting to obtain an elite talent.... huh?

If you're drafting at #8 for BPA, then it's just that... you don't really care if the player can be projected to be an elite player some day, you're just satisfied that you're getting the player most likely to have the best success.

And lastly... we agree... if there is no potential elite player left at #8... AND... if there is no team that seems ready to make a trade that would allow him to punt to 2020... then he's left to go with BPA, whoever that happens to be. We should also be able to agree... on the basis of your insistence that parallels mine... that that would be a disappointing development... we both seem to perceive that Schlenk is smart to pursue a player for whom a reasonable argument can be made by the scouts that he can evolve into an elite.

And you seem to think that when one is drafting they are not always "hoping" for elite talent and that for every player taken it is already "known" whether they will be elite or just a good starter. I bet every GM wished it was as easy to determine as you make it out to be; but I don't think none of them are not hoping for elite when they draft.

It sounds to me like you are saying: This season I am drafting for a HOF player; and then next year all we want to draft for is a starter. I take BPA and hope for the best. If that sounds overly simplistic to you, I am ok with that.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

What remains confusing about your approach is that, on the one hand, you talk about drafting BPA, and on the other, you talk about drafting to obtain an elite talent.... huh?

If you're drafting at #8 for BPA, then it's just that... you don't really care if the player can be projected to be an elite player some day, you're just satisfied that you're getting the player most likely to have the best success.

And lastly... we agree... if there is no potential elite player left at #8... AND... if there is no team that seems ready to make a trade that would allow him to punt to 2020... then he's left to go with BPA, whoever that happens to be. We should also be able to agree... on the basis of your insistence that parallels mine... that that would be a disappointing development... we both seem to perceive that Schlenk is smart to pursue a player for whom a reasonable argument can be made by the scouts that he can evolve into an elite.

And you seem to think that when one is drafting they are not always "hoping" for elite talent and that for every player taken it is already "known" whether they will be elite or just a good starter. I bet every GM wished it was as easy to determine as you make it out to be; but I don't think none of them are not hoping for elite when they draft.

It sounds to me like you are saying: This season I am drafting for a HOF player; and then next year all we want to draft for is a starter. I take BPA and hope for the best. If that sounds overly simplistic to you, I am ok with that.

Now, you're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. Every player is "hoped" to be the next Michael Jordan, but obviously, some of those hopes are better grounded than others.

It's like you don't think scouts grade on the basis of a ceiling or a floor at all. It's like you don't think scouts project... (ie, take an educated guess as to what they might become...) players in order to arrive at their ranking of BPA. It's like you have no exposure to the concept that there are stocks that you can buy where there is great risk, but great potential reward.... and others where there is less risk but great potential reward assuming you have the capital with which to acquire the stock. And that this is like that.

I'm sorry but I thought we were attempting to have a legitimate discussion, but time after time, you refuse to engage the counterpoint made, and either agree or offer some directly applicable counterpoint of your own... instead, you just keep circling back to reaffirm your original assertion, no regard for the counterpoint made at all... that's what people do when they're more interested in holding onto a position rather than having a productive conversation.

That's not to say that people cannot agree to disagree legitimately... obviously, they can... but it's more valid for them to do that when they just arrive at some fork in the road where there really is no further evidence/facts or no further line of rational thought, and it's left for the gut feeling or the general attitude of each to take over. That's not what happened here as far as I can tell.

[Spud2nique]

What remains confusing about your approach is that, on the one hand, you talk about drafting BPA, and on the other, you talk about drafting to obtain an elite talent.... huh?

If you're drafting at #8 for BPA, then it's just that... you don't really care if the player can be projected to be an elite player some day, you're just satisfied that you're getting the player most likely to have the best success.

And lastly... we agree... if there is no potential elite player left at #8... AND... if there is no team that seems ready to make a trade that would allow him to punt to 2020... then he's left to go with BPA, whoever that happens to be. We should also be able to agree... on the basis of your insistence that parallels mine... that that would be a disappointing development... we both seem to perceive that Schlenk is smart to pursue a player for whom a reasonable argument can be made by the scouts that he can evolve into an elite.

And you seem to think that when one is drafting they are not always "hoping" for elite talent and that for every player taken it is already "known" whether they will be elite or just a good starter. I bet every GM wished it was as easy to determine as you make it out to be; but I don't think none of them are not hoping for elite when they draft.

It sounds to me like you are saying: This season I am drafting for a HOF player; and then next year all we want to draft for is a starter. I take BPA and hope for the best. If that sounds overly simplistic to you, I am ok with that.

Now, you're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. Every player is "hoped" to be the next Michael Jordan, but obviously, some of those hopes are better grounded than others.

It's like you don't think scouts grade on the basis of a ceiling or a floor at all. It's like you don't think scouts project... (ie, take an educated guess as to what they might become...) players in order to arrive at their ranking of BPA. It's like you have no exposure to the concept that there are stocks that you can buy where there is great risk, but great potential reward.... and others where there is less risk but great potential reward assuming you have the capital with which to acquire the stock. And that this is like that.

I'm sorry but I thought we were attempting to have a legitimate discussion, but time after time, you refuse to engage the counterpoint made, and either agree or offer some directly applicable counterpoint of your own... instead, you just keep circling back to reaffirm your original assertion, no regard for the counterpoint made at all... that's what people do when they're more interested in holding onto a position rather than having a productive conversation.

That's not to say that people cannot agree to disagree legitimately... obviously, they can... but it's more valid for them to do that when they just arrive at some fork in the road where there really is no further evidence/facts or no further line of rational thought, and it's left for the gut feeling or the general attitude of each to take over. That's not what happened here as far as I can tell.

Maaan...you are a wordy fella.