RayNAustin wrote:What pray tell do you mean by "all else being equal, but all else isn't equal" ?
It means it's not the only relevant variable.
In any event ... I'm not posing an argument that needs advancing. I merely stated a fact that those wins were costly as in THREE DRAFT PICKS. It's not speculation, nor subject to debate ... it's simply a fact.
Do you realize that I'm not disputing the fact that more losses would have meant a higher draft pick? That's the reason I'm saying it's not helping the discussion along to keep repeating this point.
Here's what I'm saying in brief: It doesn't follow from "fewer wins = higher draft pick" that, therefore, "
in the scheme of things our wins were 'costly' to this franchise."
And for those who like to spew rather than READ .... once again, I DO NOT PROPOSE .. nor have I ever suggested that we should have purposely lost games.
I don't know whether this is directed at me, but if it is and if you can take your own advice, you'll see that I never said you suggested that we should have purposefully lost games.

Therefore ... in RETROSPECT ... those losses were beneficial to the bigger picture, even if no one would have consciously chosen those outcomes, which was the underlying point of my simple comments that brought about this hailstorm of bovine excrement.
Kaz handled your "simple point" pretty well above by giving you a few "simple points" of his own in return. IMO both sets are about as interesting/insightful with respect to this conversation.