Rather do what Columbus did -- draft someone in the top 10 and/or trade for a promising young defenseman with a team overloaded on defense. Much more viable plan.
We can, but where is the rest of our D coming from? I'm looking at Chicago, and where was Keith and Hjalmarsson drafted? Where was Letang drafted? Doughty was a 2nd overall, but Voynov was 2nd rounder and Martinez was grabbed in the 4th. That's what I mean by having to hit on some of those later round picks if we really want the rebuild to go somewhere.
I'm all for grabbing top D however and wherever we can, but looking around the league and the really good teams hit on a number of these guys outside of the first round.
I'm not talking about the Wings today. I'm talking about BPA as a long term strategy. If you go with it, you will, most likely, be overflowing with wingers and maybe-centers.
If we use a 100 point scale, just for clarity's sake, you should, absolutely, take a guy rated 95 over a guy rated 80. Every time. It's why, even though I really, really wanted a D this year, I was ecstatic to see Zadina fall. But, if you have two guys, one who's an 86 and one who's an 85, and the 86 plays the same position as the rest of your even slightly-above-average prospects, and the 85 plays a position you desperately need, taking the 86 'because BPA' isn't a successful strategy.
BPA is functional when you're terrible and need everything, or when you're good and need nothing (and are drafting low to boot). It leads to an unbalanced prospect pool in the NHL when you're drafting fairly high (but not #1 high).
I really just don't think this is a worry. At what point do you have too many great forwards? 5? 8? 10? So, we're talking eight years drafting in the top10, and only having wings pop up? And if you do get a bit of concentration in one area, you deal from that area.
I also don't buy into the framing of the evaluation into over all number grades. Walking into the draft, especially for the top picks, I'm betting the Wings know who they want and what order they want them, and they have that list for a reason. We can disagree with their reasons, we can say they might just be lousy at scouting D and aren't ranking them appropriately in relation to other talent, but think there's very little debate at the table, at that point in the draft.
I'm sorry if my response seems flippant or anything, but I just don't buy into this concern.
edit: something I keep trying to work into a reply somewhere but can't find the room/place is also where do we factor in where a likely first round pick compares with a likely second round pick. For instance, how far apart do we see Bouchard and McIsaac? Because I don't think there is that great of a gap there. Meanwhile, I think there was a much larger gap between Zadina and Veleno. If we're letting considerations other than BPA come into play, do we take into account the likelihood of grabbing a similar player later?