Or, it could be that Boldy is just better than Hughes, Kakko, Dach, Cozens, Podkilzin, Caufield, and other first-rounders taken before or around him who have struggled. Are those guys all subject to development and deployment problems?
I'm not saying the Kings are particularly good at those things, but picking a couple of guys out of a draft and using it as an example when there are many more examples to the contrary doesn't hold much weight as an argument. The top three picks all have had preferential deployments and development, yet they've all disappointed. Caufield has been put in the best possible position to succeed, yet he's been outplayed by a guy we picked up in the second round and put with a couple of energy/grinder guys.