Just as a little aside, does anyone feel like they are almost being too obvious? Sounds horrible right after the Lincoln and Alexander the Great selections, and I don't mean it as an insult (as those are two selections that had me waffling), because they are guaranteed top picks in something like this.
I am really waffling about a lot of potential picks. The educator in me feels like the more...not necessarily 'obscure' but lesser known figures I pick, the better my list will be. Almost like it is a cop-out to pick Da Vinci because, well, duh.
On the other hand, the very practical part of me was so shocked he was available that I was compelled to select him, just so he wouldn't drop, which is pretty irrational because this is, like most things for me, non-competitive.
For instance, I like DFF's pick a lot because I am generally uninterested in art, and had never heard of his selection, and now, really quite like his stuff.
Forming my criteria is also so hard. I probably put an inordinate amount of weight to certain characteristics I have an affinity with. A big part of my selection of Hamilton is his pragmatic enthusiasm, and confidence in his ability to convince, at times several parties, to agree on common terms out of necessity.
That kind of loyalty to an idea and not a person (for instance, his threatened resignation to George Washington if Hamilton was not given a command in battle), is something I identify, or want to identify, with, even though as philosophers and orators, I prefer Madison and Jefferson. And Eisenhower.
Which brings me to my next point:
Because I took over a team after the first round of the draft, I have a roster member that I am not altogether pleased with. I suppose I could trade Genghis Khan to Eastern, but I have a good pick in mind for that spot.
Can anyone come up with an amenable way to solve this?
|