The point is making an "argument" that we should improve our team is not an argument.
Everyone agrees the team should be improved to the best possibility. Everyone agrees that Sloan is a legend and a great coach. This is an intellectually vapid argument that takes us much originality and brain power as saying we "should" get a better center and we "should" improve problem spots. To say we "should" try to improve (as opposed to why we have to improve certain areas) is not an interesting or engaging argument.
We are obviously not on the same page. It's not an argument until reasons as to why we should improve in certain areas. I thought I provided some fairly clear reasons, although, at a high level. I could go in much more detail, but blogging and typing in forums is barely a hobby of mine. I do it when things get slow.
I rather get swept if it means MDA gets to be in the hot seat.