We have been getting plenty of quantity (see
this), the problem has always been quality. Look at Nash. To get him, we needed to trade Dubinsky, Anisimov, Horak, #1, #2, #2 (including the Erixon trade). That's 3 players and 3 high picks.
Sure, nobody wants an undersized player. It's just easier to pretend that a 6-3 225 pounder (whom we've never seen) has skill than to pretend that a 5-11 170 pounder has size. Height/weight can be gauged from the stat sheet, but skill cannot. And if need be, we can pretend that getting a point per game in high school or some second-rate junior league like (e.g., BCHL) is proof of skill. [See: Fogarty, Steven.]
When 90% of the big guys drafted around #20 or below wind up as 4th liners or AHLers (or ECHLers), we quickly forget about it, and whine about why we didn't draft Claude Giroux. But who wanted this undersized kid who was only 5-10 165 pounds in his draft year?
Who wanted to use a second rounder to draft Ray Whitney, Derek Roy, Brian Gionta and Michael Cammalleri, who're all averaging 65 points per 80 games?
We prefer to pretend that we can draft someone at #25 who is an all-around great player, but if someone is an all-around great player, he'll go in the top-3.
A large majority of those who became star scorers in the NHL after not being drafted in the top-10 were either injured, extremely raw or most likely undersized. Why do you think Marc Savard ("He can score in the OHL at will" - his Oshawa coach prior to his draft), Mark Recchi, Martin St. Louis and so many others fell so far down into the late rounds?
If you draft for skill, you won't get a ton of players, but you'll stumble upon enough Girouxs, Cammalleri and Savards to make it worthwhile.
If you draft safely and go for a nice player like Skjei and Miller, then be happy with a large quantity, where we'll occasionally have to move 6 assets (NHL players and high picks) for one star. That is, after all, our strategy.
But to expect to get Giroux when you are drafting J.T. Miller is not realistic. It's one strategy or the other.
Have you watched the kid play? Sorry but a #1 defenseman is someone who provides a solid all around game, and if there is any attribute that can be neglected while being a #1 defenseman it is the offensive side of the game. Subban is far from a solid defensive defenseman. He can throw the big hits but that doesn't make him a #1. Sorry, no dice. He has been undisciplined and taken himself out of position. I have watched him a lot in his first full year being up at school in Boston. He can be a horror show in his own end at times. Watch the kid play before you make statements like that. He only put up 30+ points the last two years. He has logged at least a 100+ penalty minutes in the last two seasons. He is 23 years old not some 18 year old blue chip prospect.
