I understand that the premise of the discussion is when you're tanking." That was clear from the beginning.
I don't disagree that playing young guys is both a good way to ensure the tank is effective and a good way to utilize the PT made available by tanking. In fact, I agree strongly with it.
I have not advocated for some arbitrary limit on the number of prospects. I don't have strong feelings on the ideal ratio. However, I'm reasonably confident tanking FOs use some kind of subjective heuristic in deciding how many prospects to carry.
Nor would I necessarily pass on a legit good prospect in favor of some vet, if it came to that, particularly if that vet isn't in my long-term plans.
You keep assigning to me opinions I don't hold and assertions I haven't made. A pattern I've noticed going back to other exchanges. Honestly, my impression is that you're so intent on making your argument that you don't read or try to understand what the other person is actually arguing.
To be clear (yet again), my frame of reference IS NOT whether tanking is the right way to team build. My frame of reference is how to make tanking a more effective strategy. I've stated repeatedly and clearly that I am skeptical that throwing young players (prospects) into the deep end and making them swim, absent the mentoring, structure, and opportunity for playing competitive basketball offered by competent vets is the best way to develop talent, nor does it necessarily facilitate a timely pivot from losing to winning. I don't claim this is God's truth; it's a conclusion I've reached via the application of casual observation and learned experience. I could be wrong, I freely admit it. In contrast, you appear to believe that loading up on prospects and, in effect, making them swim, is the better player development strategy. This appears to be crux of our disagreement.
The burden of proof should be on my side? I'd argue that you have a greater burden of proof than I. In arguments and debates, the burden of proof typically falls on the person making a positive claim or assertion - especially one that challenges the status quo or existing beliefs. In an earlier post, you conceded that perhaps your position (i.e., "more prospects always better than fewer prospects") is not widely shared among FOs. Thus, what you call "appeal to authority" is rather establishing the status quo. (This convention isn't strictly true. If the status quo is to believe in, say conspiracies or other such patent nonsense, I don't agree that the burden of proof lies with skeptics. So, such conventions only go so far. I am also cognizant that I appear to be bucking the status quo where it comes to my skepticism of tanking as an effective team building strategy. So, it cuts both ways.)
So, as best I can tell, you're argument that I "don’t think there’s really such thing as having too many prospects" is not the same as "more is always better" hinges on the premise the the prospects are quality prospects, thus more isn't necessarily better if they aren't quality, while "no such thing as having too many prospects" implies they are quality prospects. Does this explain how you see the difference?
If so, one could as easily qualify the "more is always better" to imply more "quality" prospects. At the same time, I don't think anyone would argue that loading up on poor quality prospects is a good strategy. Thus, both statements seem to me to imply that the prospects are of reasonable quality. Thus, I struggle to see the difference between them.
If not, I'm genuinely curious how you distinguish them.
Finally, in my last post I offered an olive branch via a "let's agree to disagree," which is generally understood to be an acknowledgement that disputants aren't likely to reach a productive common ground and thus the best course is for both sides to move on. You apparently didn't take the hint. So, seeing how we appear to be at an unbreachable impasse, let's agree to disagree and move on. If you want the last word, it's yours.
