1. I think the point is that the D has needed to be addressed .. Its no secret to anyone who has watched this team. The forwards can maximize their potential if we have a strong D that can exit the zone cleanly.
2. It makes some sense not to bank on Sanderson and/or Brannstrom as top 4 D immediately and we need to maximize Chabot as well by having him play with a good steady partner. I have faith Sanderson will be but there will be an adjustment and we can expect he will need to add strength.
3. I hope the Sens have a move in store to improve the right side at a palatable price. I am not in the stay as is camp on D. Sens opted for 2 big tickets up front. We need one on the back end .
I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said, and not sure what I said would leave that impression.
I was just pointing out 2 things that I observed in Yost's article.
Focusing on more detail, and on a point-by-point basis, here is my feedback:
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed. Yost didn't seem to account for a more limited role for Sanderson initially but with increasing responsibility as the season progresses. He kind of played both sides of the fence on this subject (Sanderson and his role), so accordingly, its more difficult to respond to this. So, I'm just putting some emphasis on what I don't think was discussed enough in the article.
3. Agreed. I'd love to get a good RD to play in the top 4. I am just concerned about how our cap situation is shaping up noting that there's not much margin or big dollars available. Plus, it's not easy to get good RDs in combination with a shorter term contract. Its always good to have a backup parachute in case the main one fails.