View Single Post
01-03-2011, 08:07 PM
Minister of Offence
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 24,148
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Oh I fully understand what he's arguing, that with better prospects you can acquire better players in trades or not have to sign a specific player to fill a specific position, however that still has nothing to do with the quality of your pro scouting. Good pro scouting would have told Murray that Commodore and Kovalev were bad fits on this team, and that Leclaire wasn't as good as his one season made him out to be, yet he made moves to acquire those players, which tells us that our pro scouting is not that great.

Like I said before, his position is that no pro scouting required = good pro scouting and that is a logical fallacy.
What do you know about our pro scouting? Or any teams for that matter? It's completely different if you tell me you know what our pro scouts have reported to our management. But if you don't, then all you have is your perception on them based on the players they brought in...which could have been improved in the first place if amateur scouting was strong and expendable assets were better.

The bold is not all true and is a shortsighted take on my point. In a perfect world your pro scouts are evaluating other teams in general and providing strategy to beat them. In a perfect world no trades are needed....obviously that's impossible but the less you require trades the more likely your amateur scouting has been a big success...and if your amateur scouting has been a big success the few trades you do make are more likely to involve good young prospects in exchange for proven high quality players....which in turn provides ARS with a good perception of our pro scouts of whom he has no idea what kind of reports they have provided or how good they actually are.

Amateur scouting makes life easier on is the basis of the way teams build.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote