Unless you think you had information that other GMs didn't have, and that is why they chose other players instead of the ones you liked, all it means is a difference in preference, and in most cases you can't conclude that they have erred until more information comes to light.* Obviously anyone can think Gadjovich or whomever "should have gone earlier" in the abstract, but then obviously each of the GMs who picked earlier preferred someone else (even if they liked that player too), and presumably would again, so you can't really determine that your GM "did well" right there and then until you have some new information.
But also it generally means that your own GM hasn't really done anything but taken those players who fell to their spot. Like, I don't know that it's really praiseworthy that the Kings took Kopitar in 2005, for example, when he was only available because others didn't, even though a Kings fan would probably have been really happy that the occasion arose. But it's not like their GM engineered it.
*Note: I do think there are times, however, where you can immediately conclude the opposite – that a mistake was likely made on the evidence. Like when a team goes noticeably off the board (which "board" arises for a reason) or teams use picks on historical no-hopers like Sawyer Hannay or whatever.