I didn't see your view as argumentative, in the negative sense; hopefully my response isn't either. I'm not sure that drafting for need addresses the issue of risk any better than attempting to determine the BPA. Instead, after the first sure-thing picks are gone, you can try to reduce risk by going for a high-floor guy with a lower ceiling. Of course, no science is available to completely remove the risk of a complete bust, as has been seen many times in recent years. Need versus BPA seems to come out about the same: 1) if the player turns out to be a starter in MLB, you play him and figure out a way to trade away any excess, 2) if the player is a bust, it doesn't matter either way, and 3) if he's somewhere in the middle, you've addressed a "need" with a mediocrity, something that won't especially satisfy.