What I find fascinating is that the idea behind their draft strategy is to minimize the risk associated with the players they draft (i.e. spread the wealth for depth and not put all the eggs in one basket).  However, the methdology of achieving that actually introduces additional risk.  We have to be "cute" when negotating with both the top pick and the above slot picks later on and, if any one of them falls apart, then the whole thing starts to spiral out of control.  The success in 2012 encouraged the continued use of the approach and the flaws were not revealed until last year.  I'm not saying I disagree with it going forward as the situation with Aiken has never occurred before, but one could see other scenarios that introduces the same result (i.e. players or agents changing their mind about what they will take after being drafted).  I guess my point is to not focus solely on the end desire to reduce risk while forgetting about the potential cost associated with the actions required.