The Athletic reports the obvious

[thshadow]

7 minutes ago, slats said:

No, I still consider positional value to be very important when determining BAP, especially high. And yes, as a result of that, I don't love trading up for a guard at #14 overall, but I definitely understand it in this case. I posted a thread before the draft stating that Joe Douglas just had to draft an IOL, then he could BAP it down the line from there. I get it, and do not fault the pick. Just sucks to be in that position where your hand is forced, and it's now been two drafts in a row on the OL. I don't want them to be there again next year. 

Is it better to be forced to pick OL and to then pick one, or to be in desperate need of one and to pick a DT?  

7 minutes ago, slats said:

I do think it's a pick that will be scrutinized down the road. If AVT is the player they believe him to be, it's going to be difficult to resign him a year after Becton comes due, in the same year that Zach Wilson comes due. But between now and then, he shores up the OL in a very real way. The future will work itself out. Looks like they got themselves a very solid guy at a position of need. It's the need I'd like to see taken out of the equation when drafting in the first round. Desires are fine, but you want to be free to take the top player on your board based on overall value, IMHO. 

Let's say they stayed at 23, AVT fell to them, and they picked him.  If he does well, it will be exactly as hard to sign him no matter where we drafted him - trading up or not won't make any difference.

And if at 23 we got someone else, who didn't play as well as AVT did, they would be easier to resign...  But is that really better???  

If anything, he *was* cognizant of the cap, as he drafted IOL, which should be cheaper than say DE or CB.

[slats]

1 minute ago, thshadow said:

Is it better to be forced to pick OL and to then pick one, or to be in desperate need of one and to pick a DT?  

Let's say they stayed at 23, AVT fell to them, and they picked him.  If he does well, it will be exactly as hard to sign him no matter where we drafted him - trading up or not won't make any difference.

And if at 23 we got someone else, who didn't play as well as AVT did, they would be easier to resign...  But is that really better???  

If anything, he *was* cognizant of the cap, as he drafted IOL, which should be cheaper than say DE or CB.

Dude, I'm really good with the pick. But the fact is that he was locked in because of need, and -IMO- that's not a good position to be in when entering the draft. That's all I'm saying about it. Once he didn't upgrade the OL in free agency, he had to do it in the draft, and he did. I'm good. 

I'm hoping he goes into next year's draft with no clear glaring need. That'll be better. 

[thshadow]

Here's a maybe more interesting question than about pure BAP (and I think we all agree that no GM does pure BAP with every pick).  Is it better in FA to try to get passable / decent players at all spots, or to get plus players at some spots and leave more glaring holes at others?  In the first situation, you can go much more BAP with your picks, while in the 2nd situation, you're somewhat locked in at least for your first pick.

I would say that JD did more of the 2nd than the 1st (whether by choice or not I don't know).  For (1), you can give the draft picks more of a chance to develop (though you'll likely still suck during that time).  For (2) - you better get players that can start right away.

[Maynard13]

On 5/5/2021 at 9:11 AM, sec101row23 said:

Agreed.  Maccagnan never had a plan as to how to build a roster and where to allocate his resources.   It was such a scattered approach that made little sense.  

Of course he did. He rang up an alarming coffee tab at Starbucks and took the money and ran. In retrospect, he was the ultimate con man.