Your reasoning is perfectly circular: a GM must be a great talent evaluator; therefore Ball, who is not, is a bad hire.
THE QUESTION IS WHY! Evolved [not necessarily better] thinking was presented on this issue and this counters none of that!
Let’s try again. Let’s just talk the college draft here:
Info comes for a million places about THOUSANDS of college players. A GM has to contort this info into a draft board that ranks EACH player [GB into tiers]. Organizational skills are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than knowledge of scouting for this task. A great scout without great organization skills will FAIL.
The players are adjusted, moved in and out of various tiers, as the GM receives input from EVERY SINGLE SCOUT and OTHER PERSONEL GUYS. This is what, 15-20-30 guys [don’t forget they use some outside scouting services]? What’s more important: the input of one more guy [the GM] or the ability to listen and process info from 30 other people with an open mind? Ted no doubt had opinions about several players, some, no doubt, very strong. Ball’s opinions won’t be nearly as entrenched as Ted’s. Ball will absorb the info from these 30 other people like a sponge and the pure info will be less likely to be corrupted by Ball’s preconceived notions about the player’s skills.
Justin Harrell was the only puzzling pick I've seen Ted make. Did Ted use the unbiased raw consensus of the other 30 or so guys with input?
I could go on, but tell me WHY the GM MUST be a great talent evaluator! The above lays out an argument that a GM super scout is a DISADVANTAGE based on how egoless that GM is. I think Ted is as egoless as any GM can be. Most GMs like Dorsey and Schneider have HUGE egos, I’m certain Ball would be better than those to at GM, even though a lesser talent evaluator.
And this assumes Ball isn’t a great evaluator, he might be. As infants we were all as good as Ted in scouting, a great learner could be a great evaluator in 5-6 years.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn