No, teams can outperform their picks expected value consistently. But, one, focusing on the one later pick that ends up a star is generally pointless. If you can consistently, hit singles with the odd extra base hit you will maintain a strong core assuming you have a decent allocation of picks. Not every pick needs to be a home-run swing. Cheap effective players on ELCs and team control have value in a cap world. Would I rather get the next David Pastrnak than the next Michael Bunting or Andrew Shaw? Absolutely, but that's not a consistently realistic outcome.
If you have good processes you will eventually hit a home-run or two, you'll strike-out a bit, and hopefully hit some singles and doubles along the way. Scouting and player development play key roles. But, ignoring likely probabilities of certain ranges would be absurd. Pretty much any pick outside the top 15 or so has a high-risk of becoming a bust. The gap between the certainty of the top 5 picks or so, and the likely outcomes of a late first is bigger than the gap between late firsts and 3rd rounders.