To me, this is an interesting one - FCP defense. These are backup options but both could be fascinating D3 contributors at the 4 or 5:

	Player A	Player B
ATH	50	55
SPD	45	30
REB	80	80
DEF	60	30
BLK	80	85
LP	20	90
PER	1	45
BH	20	25
PASS	25	20
Starting WE	87	68
ST	92	85
DU	66	70
FT	C	B+

Does the +70 and +44 LP & PER makeup for the -30 DEF in player B?

In a vacuum, who would you take?

Personally, I like player A better, that mainly comes from the fact that I value defense over everything else, and I usually run a perimeter centric offense, so I don't need my big men to necessarily be big contributors on the offensive end.

yes, it does make up for it. in a vacuum, you always take a capable 2 strength player over a 1 strength player. i don't really see this one as being close, especially for the stated purpose of being a backup big. you get some pretty quality offense with that ath/lp/per/ft out of B. both are reb strengths, neither is good at defense, so thats 1 strength vs 2 for A vs B. its worth a downgrade from a non-strength to weakness to pick up a clear substantial strength in offense (or anything else, usually).

slanted players, balanced teams...

just to add, i dont disagree with gorangers - he's just talking outside a vacuum, in the realm of his own personal team building style.

my take on that specific context - you typically want *some* big man offense in those schemes, not a ton, but a guy like this could really check that box for you, allowing you to focus on other stuff - while presumably there are significantly better reb/def types out there. so thats sort of my hesitation as far as taking A goes, but its definitely not completely clear. you'd have to know the rest of the team to state definitively which guy is a better fit.