People keep saying wait a few years, wait a few years.
Do we not take a player blowing up the AHL as a good sign? Do we still say "wait a few years" for that? Or do we take it as a reason to be optimistic and expect good things when they transition to the NHL? Do we not expect more from #6 picks? Why then is a player who doesn't do as well as we hoped in the AHL not reason to be pessimistic? Do we only urge "caution" about judging picks when it's possible we made a drafting mistake, in the hopes that 4 years from now no one will care enough to be upset?
There's just no way around it. One player is kicking ass in the NHL, helping a team many thought wouldn't be close to playoffs earn a spot. The other is doing pretty good at best in the AHL. You can say "wait a few years" all you want but we use past results to estimate and predict future results all the time and no one thinks that's crazy. Until apparently it means we made a rather obvious mistake.
And then people will come back with "we were never taking Hughes" which to me translates into "we were always going to **** this up somehow." Not sure how that's a defense that people think is okay. Like if I partied instead of studying for the test, I come back with "I was never going to study anyway. If I didn't party I would have just played video games instead." That's not a defense. That's an admission of stupidity.
I'm not calling Zadina a bust, but there's absolutely no getting around the fact that he's been a disappointing #6 pick compared to what we could have had and that people knew about. Plus it's not like a guy like that drops from #3 for no reason. What did the other teams know that apparently we didn't? Why was Hughes not higher on our radar? I definitely heard his name mentioned on this board plenty before the draft.
The teams ahead took the no brainer 1 and 2, two opted for the premium position in a center, and the final one took a player in Tkachuk who many thought could or should be in the discussion as a top 3 pick.
As for why people preach patience, it's because we are talking about kids on development curves that aren't equal. Very rarely do you see first year players explode on the scene as kids that can't hack it over the course of their careers, but the most common occurrence for drafted prospects requires multiple years to establish themselves and reach their peak. And very few players actually make the NHL in a "kick ass" manner.
9 players from the 2018 draft have played more games than Zadina. We have discussed Quinn Hughes at length here so I will remove him and the 4 others in their second season (Dahlin, Svechnikov, Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk).
The 4 others are Lundestrom, Farabee, Hayton, and Gustafsson. Those 4 players have played a combined 51 NHL games more than Zadina and have produced a combined 8 more points than Zadina. It's almost as if 1 year and 10-20 games removed from their draft is a f***ing stupid time frame to assess prospects.
It's like bragging about not going to college and avoiding student loan debt compared to the guy who decided to enroll in med school. Obviously shit can play out a number of ways in the future, but all that matters is where things up at the end of the day.