This is exactly the wrong way of thinking about the MLS draft, like the polar opposite of what an intelligent draft strategy would be. Maybe 10% of these draft picks end up being difference makers, 15% might be regulars for a while, 25% are mere roster filler, and 50% will soon be in the lower divisions or out of soccer entirely. The best draft strategy is to take the best player available, not to draft based on need. If you select a player based on position, even though he isn't "pick X worthy" you've likely thrown away your pick on some guy who is going to be in the third division soon enough. Also, a lot of these players take 2-3 years to fully develop after being selected, so it doesn't matter if you're set at their position at the time of the draft because that will almost certainly change over the next few years. Philly didn't need a goalkeeper in 2014 when they took Andre Blake, people made jokes about how they had so many goalkeepers. A couple years later he's the starter and one of the best in the league. Seattle didn't need a midfielder when they drafted Cristian Roldan in 2015. Now Ozzie Alonso is on his last legs and Roldan is getting called up to the USMNT. If you draft a guy who ends up roster filler (a "replacement level" player) or not even MLS level, you've turned the asset into nothing... in fact it's worse than nothing because you're wasting time / money / a roster slot. What's the worst case scenario if you draft the best player available? There's no such thing as too much depth, given the long grind that is the regular season. But if you really have an embarrassment of riches at any one position (a "problem" the Quakes have not really had at any position since their return to MLS a decade ago), you can always trade one of your assets for allocation money or help at a position of weakness.