Agreed. My over arching point to BPA vs needs discussion is that the terms themselves can have different meanings, so the various good points made can get lost in the wash.
But I do think the preponderance of thinking lists BPA agnostic of attributes for a given scheme, which is how the national websites tend to do it. So when GMs pick the 45th ranked player with pick 33, many criticize the pick as "reaching" for a need because they they don't stop to think that 5 or 6 players ranked in between weren't even considered a good fit for the team to begin with.
You're putting your own "spin" on this. It has everything to do with what Ballard chose to do.
Ballard could have prevented his players from hitting free agency at all by overpaying them in the first place.
He doesn't want to overpay, so he "allows" them to hit free agency, find out that no team will overpay, then "brings" them back at their true value.
Yes I know, I wasn't going to list all possibilities. I just listed one possibility to illustrate there is more to it than one person "letting" him test the market then "bringing" him back.
My point was about the tone of the comment coupled with the lack of substance supporting the tone of the comment.
But I see throughout the thread that typical sensitivities about broader things have surfaced so y'all carry on.
It is an interesting thought and worth considering. The thing that makes me nervous is we have only added one new starter, Funchess, in FA. That pretty much leaves the draft as the most likely spot to find a couple. Picks 26 and 34 would be the obvious spots. To pick a player to groom there for a year seems kind of early for pick 34 IMO. I have to think they will want to keep Costanzo unless his play falls off sharply. I think he has quite a few years left and I would imagine he would be agreeable to extending with the Colts.