"Safe picks are worthless." Ha. Seems you haven't followed Wings prospects for very long. Larkin was a "safe pick." Seider was a "safe pick." I don't think "safe pick" is the term you mean to use here.
Yeah. I've heard this story for upwards of two decades from fans who get enamored with prospects who have a minuscule chance of success but who they perceive as having some crazy awesome upside. The AHL and SHL are littered with these guys (who seem to never be mentioned again by their draft-year fans, conveniently). And this story is just as silly now as it was when we drafted former #1 star defenseman Jakub Kindl in the 1st round in 2005, before he lead Detroit to its second dynasty.
Anyway. The reality is that you have a balance to strike in this process. Casting away anyone who doesn't show upper-echelon upside because they are "so easily replaceable" is just as short-sighted as rating high-ceiling/low-floor guys with very low proximity as high-ranking prospects. Those low-ceiling guys often wind up as key cogs on winning teams, and they aren't as easily acquired as the common narrative goes. Especially when it comes to ELCs and RFA contracts when a team is competitive.
I see what you did here though, tossing a guy who still has a range of outcomes into a pool of players from the past who have proven to be nobodies, in order to prove your point. Spicy. Unfortunately for your argument though, it's a bit disingenuous and lacks substance. If I believed Sebrango was going to for sure have the same degree of success as Emmerton, Andersson, or Ritola, you might have a point. But he still has a fairly wide range of outcomes. He can also become Ericsson, Helm, or Glendening. Guys who have been, or could easily be, key players on Cup teams, and who were not available "for cheap." We don't know yet, but Sebrango's proximity rating is high, and that matters.
Meanwhile, those high-ceiling/low-floor guys have a tiny chance of hitting. A vast majority will be outright busts who never sniff the NHL. So if we are playing the probability game, the chance-of-success vs. chance-of-stardom quotient matters. Mix the risky players with the safe players, that makes sense. But here at HFboards, the scale is quite a bit in favor of those super risky prospects with the [perceived] shiny ceiling.
