This is a key consideration in my opinion. Let's not kid ourselves, we're going to be terrible again next year. This will be the same team as this season. Add a little more experience for the young players and maybe a fun rookie or two, but subtract some decline in our veterans and subtract Pageau. We're not going to be finishing outside of the bottom 5 barring some miracle development from our youngsters.
Now, let's imagine we take Sanderson this draft at #5 and then next year the BPA at our pick is Carson Lambos, Luke Hughes, or Owen Power (all LHD). One of Chabot, Sanderson or Lambos is either going to have to play on the third pairing moving forward, or be traded.
I completely understand that the premise of the BPA approach: you take the best player available, and then trade him for an equivalent calibre player at the position you actually need. But in the real world, this means two things need to happen:
- A team actually has an asset at the position you need that they are willing to trade. Trades of young high-calibre players don't happen that often in the modern NHL. And as we know too well, making a trade as the GM of the Ottawa Senators is even more difficult because we're hamstrung by the Melnyk's financial considerations.
- You are actually able to develop the BPA you take so that their trade value is maximized. This is another thing that's no guarantee. If we take a young talented defenceman but their opportunities are limited because of the players ahead of them (e.g. Chabot) and they aren't playing with a forward group that can take advantage of their talent, they're not going to develop properly and they're not going to put up the kind of production needed to maximize their trade value. And frankly, I don't think either of Stutzle or Byfield would benefit as much from having another top d-man behind them as they would having someone like Raymond to play with either on their line or on the powerplay.
Obviously, I'm not an NHL scout and it's possible that the Sens are firmly of the belief that Drysdale and Sanderson are going to turn out much, much better than any of the forwards available at 5. Then you have to take one of them. But my position is that if they think there are forwards available who are close to JD/JS as prospects, it's a better strategic decision to draft the forward even if you think Drysdale or Sanderson might have marginally higher potential in a vacuum.
Another caveat is if the Sens are firmly convinced they can land a top-line calibre forward at the Isles pick or with their 2nd rounders. But I would rather shoot my shot at getting another top-line forward at #5 and draft a d-man project later in the first or in the second.
Anyway, I'm not going to lose sleep if the Sens taken Drysdale or Sanderson, but I'd be a little disappointed.
(very hypothetical I know).
)
