Nope. I disagree with plenty of posts that are sound and a matter of preference.
A bad take is a bad take because it's poorly grounded. That has nothing to do with preferences.
I've been wrong about plenty of prospects insofar as my confidence in their likelihood of reaching their ceiling. But when talking prospects, it's pretty baseless to assert with certainty that a 19 year old will or won't become something. That kind of take is about as useful as claiming with certainty that a coin flip will land head or tails. Hence, poorly grounded.
Fischer? Was decent pick, didn't work out. I appreciated the rationale and still do. Of the 10 players picked after him in the first round, only 4 went on to success at the NHL level.
Kotkaniemi... Also a decent pick. I maintain, like with Galch, that terrible development contributed to his stunted progression. That others picked below him have had a much better U25 career doesn't really change either assessment. I was wrong about how quickly he'd cement himself as a top 6 NHLer, especially after going to Carolina... But frankly, I still think there's a good chance he gets there in his 25-30 seasons... We'll see.
To your question... Yes, absolutely a player can be the "right pick" even if they don't realize their full potential. Was Yakupov the "wrong pick" because many picked after him ended up having a better career? Hindsight is an addictive drug, I get it, but it's pretty silly as a lens to assess a past decision.
Some decisions are poor at the time they are made, others are the right decision with a bad outcome. If one can't understand the difference between the two, it's likely that their ability to make good assessments is quite limited, and their takes likely quite poor.
Does a person who plays the lottery for 20 years instead of investing (in themselves or in a sound portfolio) making a good decision? Does the quality of their decision making improve if they win one day? By your logic, I suppose so
