To me a player can be important in the now but not a core piece. Nylander in my view is a core piece. Zaitsev is a good example of someone who I consider important to the franchise today, but largely interchangeable in the long term. We need Zaitsev today because we are very weak at D. But do I think we should have committed to him long term? I don't, because I don't think he's at that elite or near elite level. But at the same time, if we lost him today, who would we replace him with? Marchenko? Similarly with Bozak, if we trade him today, who replaces him? Ben Smith? Ideally it's Nylander, and long term I feel like he will be the answer, but it's by no means a sure thin, and especially not for this upcoming season. Going by what the coach has said, even though Nylander has played the middle at other levels, he's not ready to do it for 82 in the N. Having vet guys like Bozak allows you to experiment for a few games or even a few periods. If we have a 4-1 lead in the 3rd, why not let Nylander play the middle and shift Bozak down the lineup or to the wing. That gradual build allows Nylander time to learn the position without being thrusted into a role with pressure that he's not ready for.
The draft discussion is a waste. You're using best case examples. Simply put, if we each made a list of all the players drafted 31-60, and my list has busts, and your list has studs, my list would dwarf yours. If you think it's wise to have two lottery tickets instead of one, great. Mine would be to take advantage of NHL quality players while you have them.