Of course this is a valid question.
The way I define the 10% to 20% figure is min maxing draft picks in cap space because honestly how are you going to get extra draft picks?
Trading your existing assets to get them is the only way ( cap Space being asset )
So what is happening is they are not spending significant assets on players that wouldn’t fit in the long-term plan because of age for the most part.
This means when you make trades you make trades for young players or at least young enough to see through the rebuild such as big Erik.
It means you do not trade away high draft picks for immediate help A.k.a. older players who you know will be retired long before you can realistically contend.
Weaponizing cap space to maximize draft picks is actually not that significant when you calculate how likely it is for a draft pick to turn in to a good player.
Every franchise has whiffed on a top five pick your top 10 pick look at Sam Bennett look at Cam Barker look at Brett Connolly the list goes on and on.
If you do the math and you assume successful drafting you don’t need any more than the standard seven allotted picks per year in fact anymore than that would create and in balance in your roster with too many players up for re-signing deals at the same time which can cripple a team.
I agree that having more pics will move the needle forward in terms of rebuilding and restocking talent of course it’s trivially true idea. The question is would you rather move the needle forward that little bit at the expense of building a culture I say no and I’m glad that the professionals doing the job agree with me.
To answer:
1. If they are limiting themselves from trading existing assets to gain picks, that's a decision that is costing them picks. As in, they are working against a rebuild.
2. If they are choosing to instead target age gap players that fit the long-term plan, that's compounding issue #1 by paying a premium for these players. So less futures in + more futures out = paying through the nose for a bad team.
3. No one expects a team in their position to trade high picks for veterans. That's what playoff bound teams do.
4. The low odds associated with the draft is not a valid reason to forgo weaponizing cap space. Picks are the primary assets to a rebuild. Period. As the best assets for a rebuild, they should be pursued as a primary objective and weaponizing cap space is a way to that end.
5. I've never seen someone at once disparage the odds of drafting to make one point, and then promote the odds of the draft to make the point that a team could have too many good players to sustain --> All in the same post.
6. Building a culture and drafting to rebuild are not mutually exclusive ideas. You are presenting a false dichotomy with your last point.
