Except that wasn't his strategy, nor was he agreeing with OP. He specifically said he was just playing devil's advocate. And even this aside, nowhere do I recall OP saying we should "cap [ourselves] out with a bunch of mid-level free agents" -- as you had originally claimed. So at best, all we have is one more instance of you putting words in someone else's mouth.
Really? So, how would we not cap ourselves out and sign even 3 out of: Afflalo, Asik, Jeff Green, Hibbert/Jefferson, and Danny Green? Those guys aren't signing for $2 million/year.
Can't say I know without running over the numbers myself yet, but I'd be willing to look into it if you were able to prove it wouldn't just be a further waste of my time. All you need to do is show me where /u/angelino11 says he favors signing three or more of those guys and I will give you your answer. That shouldn't be too hard if indeed you aren't just spinning strawmen, right?
Player signings and trades might also be just as contingent on Mluck as drafting, but there is still one very important difference: with the former, you make your own luck. The latter is always a zero-sum expense.
You're assuming that if we sign Jeff Green or Aaron Afflalo that we'll somehow be able to package them for a star, and the chances of that happening are even lower than drafting a star player from the 1-5 slots. ... If we don't have young players to trade that teams actually want, then all of these veteran "assets" don't mean a thing. And the way we get those young players is by drafting them. Of course, but trying to package Green, Afflalo, et. al for a star directly isn't the only possibility you have, now is it? You can trade them for picks or other young players, who can also be traded, and so on and so forth. Do this enough times and it's only logical that at some point you will have the right assets for a star. Do it as quickly as the Rockets did and you may even capitalize on an opportunity before the market has a chance to re-adjust. The point is, rebuilding through the middle needn't sacrifice your long-term flexibility or success for short-term gains, as you roundly assert it must. Every asset you trade is subject to a multiplier effect not unlike as in economics. The only permanent cap on this multiplier and what it can bring you is your own incompetence. An overdependence on trades will naturally result in your team becoming the Knicks, Nets or 2011 Magic just as an overconfidence in drafting will lead your team trapped in a downward spiral like the Hornets of old or the Cavs, pre-LeBron. Avoid that, however, and your odds of a successful turnaround are much, much higher than a 32% chance of drafting a star if everything else goes right.1
First of all and FWIW, I didn't actually say you would never agree to trade the pick either. Oh, really? That pretty much doesn't jibe with your statement below. At least most of the pro-tank crowd that I've spoken to has left the door open to trading the pick for a proven player, but you seemingly allow no scenario for that either. I merely said your logic doesn't permit that to be a possibility, If you think we can trade for a star player with our lottery pick and what we have on the roster, then go with God, but you're living in a fantasy land. Ever noticed how often you start a sentence with some variation of “if you think this...” or “if you assume that...”? Well, I'll let you in on a secret: whatever “this” or “that” you may believe someone is referring to almost never is. you resort to it, the more it reveals how little you actually understand not only about what other people have written but How is the reward "smaller"? If we successfully tank next year, we'll have a pick in the 1-3 range. That seems to me to be a greater reward than picking in the 4 or 5 range.