I mean taking 5th and 6th new rookies instead of late round picks, definitely not re-rookieing players. Often the argument has been keep the Jerrett type because you can give them one year, whereas a draftee has to be given two. That logic no longer applies, or at least kicks in two list spots later now.
On your last point, I disagree that rookies are a longer shot in a shallow draft. There’s no reason why the quality of the first 40-50 picks would reflect on the quality of the next 40-50 players (or whatever size buckets you want to divide it into). I suspect that debate ends in us arguing over what shallow means and what years were shallow, and what a good strike rate in the rookie draft is, etc, etc.
With the proviso that making finals and performing well (eg making a prelim) would change my opinion, I’d always err on the side of bringing in a new player over keeping a mid-sized player with 6 years on the list who can’t break into the team, no matter how much of a long shot the new player is. The kind of mid/small depth that is on the list solely as depth is, to me, something for grand finalists and wooden spooners.
I don’t feel as strongly about it as the length of this post would suggest, though.