There are big problems with what you are trying to argue here. I'm not sure if it's an honest attempt at debate or just trying to find a "loophole".
You can never assume development like Seider's. It would be as silly as if I rated Sanderson at #14 in the Wings pool because MAYBE Sanderson will totally bust. Nah, the reality is an expected development trajectory, being somewhat realistic, leads Sanderson comfortably on a path to being a #2-3D. Drysdale something similar, but I'd have his floor lower. That still means they're awesome, awesome prospects.
I'm not rating Veleno ahead of those guys you mention because I'm assuming he's going to explode, I'm simply seeing his development trajectory and projecting it in a somewhat realistic manner. Even his doubters are pretty much in agreement we're looking at a #3rd line C at worst. Guys like Abramov and Balcers really have to become pretty legit top 6 wingers to be more valuable than that, and I'm not sure I see the realistic expectations for those guys as being that caliber of player.
When talking about development trajectories it's also a lot easier to project players once they have at least 1 or 2 post-draft seasons, and especially once they play pro hockey. I don't need to see Veleno as a point-per game player in the AHL in his d+5 to know he could do that, and I can pretty safely say he will be an NHL regular faster than Balcers/Abramov.
It really does not matter one bit why Abramov "became older".. what matters it that he's older and Veleno is about 1 year ahead in the development trajectory.
A small age difference doesn't mean much if one prospect is clearly ahead of the other. Yes Veleno was a few months older, but he was clearly ahead of Abramov as a prospect. After that, Veleno became a pro 1 year earlier (8 months younger), and that means it becomes even tougher for Abramov to make up the difference in their status. Abramov would have needed to not only perform comparable to the younger Veleno, but clearly outperform him. He didn't.
You implied that Balcers performance in the Norway league was an indication he had not been set back. I countered that there's no way one can read his performance over there in any such way. It's a really weak league that anyone with NHL caliber skill should easily dominate.
I absolutely think he's a longshot. A 2015 late round pick that had 3 points in 15 NHL games last season? Come on. I understand these undersized, skilled guys are fun prospects but you also have to take into account how likely they are to actually make it.
Except JBD isn't more proven. There is some difficulty in comparing when players are at completely different leagues and levels, but most people would rate SHL as a much, much harder league than NCAA.
You can not compare Docker's performance at NCAA with what Seider has already proven at the pro level. You seem to think older= automatically more proven. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. Seider wouldn't really be more proven than Sanderson/Drysdale if he had just survived at the AHL and SHL level. If he had put up half the numbers he has, gotten less icetime etc. The reason he's more proven is because he has shown to be a dominant D-man at these levels which indicates a strong trajectory of reaching the more hopeful outlooks for his potential.
