What is an example of a bad pick? I keep hearing people say that we "needed" a "big bodied physical and offensive presence". Why do needs factor into the equation at all? The Canucks were at a point in time where the cupboards were almost entirely empty and there was just an aging declining core that everyone felt could be leveraged into futures. Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, Corrado were the few notable prospects. Looking at that prospect pool you would easily notice that the Canucks needed just about everything from forwards to defenseman and even goalies as Luongo and Schneider had both been traded. So why prioritize anything over the other? Why not just select the best player on your draft board and not put any thought into team needs.
Imo this should be the goal for almost every team when you walk up to the draft board. Its maddening to me that fans want to see the team draft for what is lacking in the current team rather than what maybe lacking in the team 3-4 years from now. You have to as a GM have enough foresight to be able to look past what is required today as opposed to what is required in the future. If you are expecting a draft pick to solve your issues with size and toughness then you are a poor GM. I say this because it takes 2-3 years for all but the best of picks to make an impact at the NHL level. You are trying to solve today's problem with a solution that isn't going to available in that 2-3 years time frame. A lot can change in one years time let alone 2-3.
Getting back to the point about a "bad pick". Let me ask you a question. The Rangers picked Dylan Mcilrath at 10th overall above Cam Fowler. Most Rangers fans hated the pick but a few continued to defend that pick citing the reason that there was no one on the Rangers blue line at the time who could be a big physical presence. Opponents were taking easy liberties with the Rangers defense and did not have to take any punishment for taking up key positions in the Rangers zone. So by this logic, is Mcilrath not a good pick? The logic being that the Rangers were addressing a need while they made the selection.
I judge picks by what value they bring to your team over the course of their career compared to what was available at that spot. I don't factor in the logic behind the selection as you can justify every single selection. To give you an example a guy like Hugh Jessiman was a terrible pick considering all the talent in the 1st round went on to have good careers. Jessiman on the other hand only played like 5 games or so. I don't really care what reasons the Rangers cite for making that pick. A bad pick is a bad pick.