VirginiaMtlExpat
Second most interesting man in the world.
What if next year's "BPA" is also a LD? And then the following year, maybe a RD? And then, the obvious "BPA" in 3 years is, wait for it, an LD! And why not, year 4, can't avoid this obvious BPA at RD. We need to build that juggernaut defense!...
And you figure out the rest later.
Will the other teams give us the equivalent forward to some of our redundant LDs and RDs, comparable to what we could have drafted at forward that year? Sure they will!
How long does this insanity continue? This is what is wrong with the BPA thesis. It assumes a perfect tradability of excess players at the same position, but GMs can sniff the desperation to trade from a counterpart, with say, 8-9 excess defensemen, since most of them will be dealing from a position of comparable balance in relation to the "perfect BPA" advocate.
I would make drafting a high-first rounder D conditional on trading 1-2 Ds out for a star forward that day. But definitely not "figure it out later".