RE: what the heck?

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You know, everyone who wants to effectively tank keeps making that point. I don't get it. WHAT draft consequences, when you look at it realistically. This isn't a draft with a number of transcendent potential franchise players at the top, followed by a precipitous drop off, so that you draft in the lottery or die.  And even if it were, we wouldn't end up bad enough to get a top pick. Instead, it's a deep draft. But deep in role players of varying potential -but still essentially complementary parts- with lots of question marks about them and a need for development time vs making us immediately better. No one worth throwing in the towel over, because if you know what you're doing, you're as likely to get equivalent quality in the first few picks after the lottery as the last few picks of the lottery. While if you don't know what you're doing, you can screw up equally in either spot. Not a lot of no brainers on offer.

I don't like tanking in any case, but especially not when it seems fairly pointless. We've also spare picks we can package to move up if we want to, and likely to greater benefit than actually using them all. Do we really want 3 underdeveloped rookie question mark role players on guaranteed contracts? While the positives of making the playoffs for a very young, inexperienced team that wants to avoid the loser tag so they can sign a decent FA do need to be considered when balancing it all out. 

Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Giovanello <sgiovanello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mar 18, 2004 9:17 AM
<snip>
... That
being said, is it really a good thing that we make the playoffs as a 7
or 8 team, lose in the first or second round, and suffer the draft
consequences this year?