For me, and I'm not saying it's the only way, but the Draft is all about asset acquisition, not about instantly filling holes in the lineup. If you can do both great. But get the best possible player available every time in order to accrue organizational value and have more flexibility to fill the holes in the future. I'd much rather fill a hole in free agency or via trade than to have to rely on draft picks working out.I understand that, but when you have players cemented in position, like their skates are cemented on the ice sometimes, there has to be a choice made.
Right now we have two real good veteran goaltenders, they are making some 10 bell saves, then letting little shit get thru.
The current push for teams is having a big center who will also run you over like McDavid. Last night Haydon had plenty of chances to just steam roll puck carriers with legal hits and he backed off, apparently the thought is you get on the top line, you have to play with Finesse, whether thats your game or not. It happened back with carbomb. Put the lunatic on the line to keep the finesse guys clean and pay back when they get hit, since our D men dont seem to like to do that.
I personally see draft picks as being more valuable to get the pieces you need than actually being the pieces you need. Luckily not all GMs feel the same way which is why so are very hot on trading for young unknown players to turn out to be the next Kane. While you draft in hopes of that, more often than not the player is not NHL level vs. is NHL level. I'd take the safer route, especially when rebuilding. If we were loaded and set for year, then maybe you get more risky.