NHL Entry Draft POLL: Would You Be Fine With Sanderson At 5?

[Tkachuckycheese]

I cant see it happening, especially with all the chatter from direct sources to the team going around. Id be shocked if its not Drysdale or Raymond.


The right side needs the boost not the left. Left defense right now is the stongest position in the organization. The sens have to pick a player that wont miss here, he has proven the least of the majority of players being projected to be picked in the top 10. Dont get me wrong I trust the scouting department, however id rather go with a safer option personally. I just dont see how Drysdale isnt at worst a guy that can carry the second pair. Upside for him could be Nierdermayer. Thats as safe as it gets. With all the other picks and the forward depth of the draft i just want the team to take as many shots at getting a star in the late first and second round.

Get the center get the d man then swing for the fences 5 times in the top 60 after you solidify the most important positions.

As far as I'm concerned the only legit LHD dmen are Chabot and Wolanin. I see Brannstrom on the right side since he's more impactful on that side. Lajoie is most likely a career AHL player. Tychonick is really a player I don't have confidence becoming a legit NHL player. The right side seems more promising with JBD, Thomson, Brannstrom, Jaros, Guenette (trending in the right direction to be a late round gem), Zaitsev, Zub.

But like I said I'm hoping for Raymond or Rossi. But if they go for a dman I'd rather Sanderson for the intangibles he would bring.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

I'm assuming Detroit is taking Raymond, so sure.

 

[FormentonTheFuture]

i'm surprised there are this many no votes. I don't expect them to pick Sanderson, but after all the fans wanted Zadina, you think the Sens scouts would get some leeway and the benefit of the doubt until the pick is proven to be good or not.

 

[coladin]

I will make the Montreal Canadiens lady face when they drafted Kotkaniemi if they pick Sanderson

 

[BondraTime]

One of 4/5 guys I’d be fine with at 5, though I do think he will be the most impactful NHLer

 

[Alf Silfversson]

How many physical, shutdown monsters with offensive upside are there? If you're looking for rare, Sanderson has the potential to be just that. The question is more about whether he will reach that potential.

Lets say Sanderson is a 40 pts Dman, there were only 30 of those in 2018-19, 30 in 2017-18, and 23 in 2016-17.

Of those ~30 dmen that are good for 40 pts, how many are elite defensive players? Jones, Hedman, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Giordano, Weber, Suter? Maybe a dozen guys in a given year check both the boxes.

Now of that dozen, how many are also really physical, throwing big hits? Weber, and Jones?

If Sanderson becomes a 40+ pts dman, he's going to be pretty special for whatever team picks him imo. If he ends up being more of a 30 pts guy, you double the number of similar players there are, still not a dime a dozen guy, but leaves me wanting more out of a 5th OA even if historically that would be a decent result.

These are all huge leaps though.

1. 40 points is, as you pointed out, rare for even offensive D-men; why are we thinking that Sanderson will come close to that being that he's never been a big point producer at lower levels?

2. Sanderson is very good defensively, but it's against mostly second rate junior aged players. Could that translate into the NHL? Maybe. But again it's far from a given. Jared Cowen, Duncan Siemens and Griffin Reinhart were absolute beasts defensively leading up to their draft.

3. He will likely continue to play physical as a pro but again so did Cowen and Dylan McIlrath. Plus, that style of play can often lead to a player that plays 50-60 games a year.

IMO drafting a D-man in the top 5 who plays more of a defensive style is how you end up with Zach Bogosian or Erik Gudbranson. I know Sanderson LOOKS to be a better player than those guys are now but at the time of their draft they projected very well too.

I won't be devastated by Sanderson as a pick but I think we can do better.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

I'd be happy. Starting to feel more and more certain about him as my #4, leaning more towards putting him in the Stutzle/Byfield tier than the one below. If anyone has a chance at becoming a Pietrangelo type D in this draft - and I think he certainly does have that chance - its him. He'll be the best, most unique D in the draft imo and Perfetti, Raymond & Rossi all scare me a little.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

These are all huge leaps though.

1. 40 points is, as you pointed out, rare for even offensive D-men; why are we thinking that Sanderson will come close to that being that he's never been a big point producer at lower levels?

2. Sanderson is very good defensively, but it's against mostly second rate junior aged players. Could that translate into the NHL? Maybe. But again it's far from a given. Jared Cowen, Duncan Siemens and Griffin Reinhart were absolute beasts defensively leading up to their draft.

3. He will likely continue to play physical as a pro but again so did Cowen and Dylan McIlrath. Plus, that style of play can often lead to a player that plays 50-60 games a year.

IMO drafting a D-man in the top 5 who plays more of a defensive style is how you end up with Zach Bogosian or Erik Gudbranson. I know Sanderson LOOKS to be a better player than those guys are now but at the time of their draft they projected very well too.

I won't be devastated by Sanderson as a pick but I think we can do better.

You're misreading the player entirely, in my view.

Sanderson started producing as the season went on, and if you watch tape on him the offensive skills are evident. Walking the line, very hard and accurate shot, good patience and puck movement - all the tools are there, he just took time to be comfortable deploying them. He erred on the side of caution as he adjusted but by the end of the year he was doing everything you can ask offensively.

Sanderson also played many of his best games against college kids - the tougher competition got, the more impactful he was.

Sanderson is physical in a very different way than those guys - he's much more measured, and uses his strength and speed rather to contain and ride guys off, rather than light them up. His physicality is efficient. Also, unlike those other guys, his best trait is his skating. He skates players into bad scoring position and then rides them off with strength; he doesnt rely on his strength to neutralize guys, rather he uses his speed to do so and then relies on strength once he has contained them.

Also, total sidenote, but had Bogosian not run into such awful injury troubles, he would have been one hell of a player. Sanderson does not play the game in the same way as him, though.

 

[KnuckChuckinTkachuk]

I'm okay with any of Raymond, Sanderson, Holtz, Quinn or Drysdale (in order of preference). The more I read/view Sanderson the more I like him and realize my initial assessment was dead wrong.

I put Quinn and Holtz in there because I really like their scoring touch, something we absolutely lack on the current Sens roster and prospect pool. The only shoot first players we have are Duclair and Norris, to some extent Tkachuk but not really.

I like the following combos:

Byfield + Sanderson
Stutzle + Raymond
Stutzle/Byfield + Holtz
Byfield + Quinn

If we end up picking someone like Rossi or Perfetti at 5 I won't be disapointed, our scouting staff has earned that trust.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

You're misreading the player entirely, in my view.

Sanderson started producing as the season went on, and if you watch tape on him the offensive skills are evident. Walking the line, very hard and accurate shot, good patience and puck movement - all the tools are there, he just took time to be comfortable deploying them. He erred on the side of caution as he adjusted but by the end of the year he was doing everything you can ask offensively.

Sanderson also played many of his best games against college kids - the tougher competition got, the more impactful he was.

Sanderson is physical in a very different way than those guys - he's much more measured, and uses his strength and speed rather to contain and ride guys off, rather than light them up. His physicality is efficient. Also, unlike those other guys, his best trait is his skating. He skates players into bad scoring position and then rides them off with strength; he doesnt rely on his strength to neutralize guys, rather he uses his speed to do so and then relies on strength once he has contained them.

Also, total sidenote, but had Bogosian not run into such awful injury troubles, he would have been one hell of a player. Sanderson does not play the game in the same way as him, though.

Maybe I am misreading the player but his sample size of playing good offensive hockey is incredibly small. I know that means he could very well be on a steep learning trajectory but it could also mean that he's just not that gifted with the puck.

I'd bet that at least two out of Raymond, Perfetti and Rossi will be more valuable players. I also like the odds that Drysdale becomes the better player.

 

[Hale The Villain]

He's in my third tier with Perfetti, Drysdale and Rossi.

I want Raymond or Perfetti at #5, but I wouldn't be furious if we go for a D. Drysdale or Sanderson have all the makings of stud top 4 D, just not sure either one will be a star like Heiskanen or Makar.

 

[benjiv1]

Yah, I’d be fine with it, but would prefer a forward or Drysdale (due to his handed ness)

However, if you move Brannstrom to the right, this is could a stacked blue line .

Chabot-JBD
Sanderson-Brannstrom
Wolanin-Thomson

 

[bert]

He's in my third tier with Perfetti, Drysdale and Rossi.

I want Raymond or Perfetti at #5, but I wouldn't be furious if we go for a D. Drysdale or Sanderson have all the makings of stud top 4 D, just not sure either one will be a star like Heiskanen or Makar.

I mean Drysdale is ahead of Makar at the same age. He has the most upside of any d in the draft and the lowest floor. He has intangibles too, I dont understand the narrative that Sanderson has more intangibles. Drysdale has captained the 02 age group in Canada and has experienced winning the WJC in a prominent role as a 17 year old. Playing in all situations. I think most people who are this commited to prospects likely watched the WJC. You had the opportunity to see him thrive at the highest level a north American 17 year old can. Thats not youtube highlites it was real time high pressure hockey.

 

[BigCanadian]

If the Sens think Sanderson is their guy, I would be disappointed if we picked him at #5. I feel like there would be an opportunity to trade back and get him then. Teams like NJD at 7 or even ANA at #6 should be willing to pony up to move up into the top 5. Using that high of a pick on a player that most feel will be a little later seems like a "waste" only in that we could likely get him a few picks later with some value add coming back for dropping down a bit.

 

[BondraTime]

If the Sens think Sanderson is their guy, I would be disappointed if we picked him at #5. I feel like there would be an opportunity to trade back and get him then. Teams like NJD at 7 or even ANA at #6 should be willing to pony up to move up into the top 5. Using that high of a pick on a player that most feel will be a little later seems like a "waste" only in that we could likely get him a few picks later with some value add coming back for dropping down a bit.

Teams don't move back to take a player they want, especially when teams like Anaheim and especially Jersey would be all over a guy like Sanderson.

Look at Detroit with Seider, Arizona with Hayton, Columbus with Dubois, Jets with Scheifele, etc. Teams take the guy they want at the top of the draft, even if it's considered a reach at the moment, because nobody wants to risk losing their guy over an extra 2nd or 3rd.

The Sens will be taking their highest rated guy, and they will take him at 5 even if the consensus says he is the 12th rated guy on the big board. There will be a subsection of the board who lament the pick as there always is, no matter who is chosen, whether that's Perfetti, Drysdale, Sanderson, Raymond, Rossi, or even someone who isn't in the usual conversation, which makes sense as there are a dozen different viewpoints on each player depending on which poster here is talking.

 

[Xspyrit]

1- Raymond
2- Drysdale
3- Rossi
4- Holtz
5- Perfetti/Sanderson

 

[BigCanadian]

Teams don't move back to take a player they want, especially when teams like Anaheim and especially Jersey would be all over a guy like Sanderson.

Teams do trade back in a draft to obtain other assets. I'm not sure why you would say they don't... It may not occur as often with higher level picks, but it happens, often later in the first round and/or definitely in the latter rounds.

In 2016, the Sens traded #11 to NJ for #12 & #80. Dropped 1 spot for the extra asset.

It really comes down to whether you feel your preferred player is at risk of being picked by the teams you are leaping behind. If concensus is that Raymond, Perfetti, Drysdale and Rossi will go 4-8 (in some order - or Lundell, Holtz, Quinn, etc.) then moving back a few spots and taking Sanderson is a good bet. It has risk, of course, but the question is risk/reward. It is exactly how we got Karlsson in the first place...

Personally, I am not sold on Sanderson. If the scouts really believe he is the BPA, and that other teams will take him, then they make that pick. If they don't believe that ANA or FLA will take him, then there may be a trade to be had to move back a couple of spots -- but a trade needs to work for us to make the risk worthwhile.

Which is better, Sanderson at #5 or Raymond/Rossi/Drysdale/Perfetti & another good pick (or if you are fortunate, whichever guy you wanted initially & the good pick if he isn't chosen by the other teams you fell behind)?

 

[BondraTime]

Teams do trade back in a draft to obtain other assets. I'm not sure why you would say they don't... It may not occur as often with higher level picks, but it happens, often later in the first round and/or definitely in the latter rounds.

It really comes down to whether you feel your preferred player is at risk of being picked by the teams you are leaping behind. If concensus is that Raymond, Perfetti, Drysdale and Rossi will go 4-8 (in some order - or Lundell, Holtz, Quinn, etc.) then moving back a few spots and taking Sanderson is a good bet. It has risk, of course, but the question is risk/reward. It is exactly how we got Karlsson in the first place...

Personally, I am not sold on Sanderson. If the scouts really believe he is the BPA, and that other teams will take him, then they make that pick. If they don't believe that ANA or FLA will take him, then there may be a trade to be had to move back a couple of spots -- but a trade needs to work for us to make the risk worthwhile.

Which is better, Sanderson at #5 or Raymond/Rossi/Drysdale/Perfetti & another good pick (or if you are fortunate, whichever guy you wanted initially & the good pick if he isn't chosen by the other teams you fell behind)?

Teams do trade back, of course. Not sure why you’re making it seem as though I stated they don’t. That usually occurs when they have someone rated much higher than consensus, or they don’t like anyone in range of their pick, neither of which would apply to taking any of Sanderson/Rossi/Drysdale/Raymond/Perfetti at 5 if they wanted to as all are rated at least as high as 5 by teams in the league.

Is Sanderson the player we have rated 4th/5th? If he is, the player we wanted is better than the risk of getting a guy we have rated lower and an extra 2nd/3rd round pick.

Like you said, it doesn’t happen very often at the top of the draft, because teams want the players they have rated higher. They aren’t going to risk moving back and losing him.

Only time I can remember offhand a team trading back in the top 10 in recent memory is 2008 with the Isles, though I’m sure I’m missing some.

That’s not how we got Karlsson, we got Karlsson because we traded up in order to secure him, not trade back and hope nobody takes him. Thankfully the Preds wanted to waste a pick on a goalie and moved back in the teens, which happens nearly every year.

 

[BigCanadian]

Teams do trade back, of course. Not sure why you’re making it seem as though I stated they don’t. That usually occurs when they have someone rated much higher than consensus, or they don’t like anyone in range of their pick, neither of which would apply to taking Sanderson at 5 if they wanted to.

Is Sanderson the player we have rated 4th/5th? If he is, the player we wanted is better than a guy we have rated lower and an extra 2nd/3rd round pick.

Like you said, it doesn’t happen very often at the top of the draft, because teams want the players they have rated higher. They aren’t going to risk moving back and losing him.

Only time I can remember offhand a team trading back in the top 10 in recent memory is 2008 with the Isles, though I’m sure I’m missing some.

My point is just that Sanderson at #5 is a reach and I would be surprised if we selected him there.

Does it happen where teams reach, of course. I believe some teams may have wanted to trade back but couldn't as there wasn't a team willing to pay up enough for that risk to be worth it. I think Sanderson is around #8-#11, so drafting him much earlier than that is a reach that has risk in itself. Now, if we are talking Rossi vs. Raymond vs. Perfetti vs. Drysdale, I get it. Who knows which player would get picked in the next couple of picks as that cluster is pretty well regarded as the next batch. If you want one of those players, you pick the one you have highest ranked.

To me, Sanderson is next level below that, and if you realy want him, you could afford to trade down a few spots for the extra asset(s), so that NJ could pick the player they wanted from the afforementioned, highly touted players.

 

[Leafmealone11]

They should pick him. He is big fast and would fit in with the size and style of forwards they have been drafting. Every team needs at least one big hard nosed dman.

 

[BondraTime]

My point is just that Sanderson at #5 is a reach and I would be surprised if we selected him there.

Does it happen where teams reach, of course. I believe some teams may have wanted to trade back but couldn't as there wasn't a team willing to pay up enough for that risk to be worth it. I think Sanderson is around #8-#11, so drafting him much earlier than that is a reach that has risk in itself. Now, if we are talking Rossi vs. Raymond vs. Perfetti vs. Drysdale, I get it. Who knows which player would get picked in the next couple of picks as that cluster is pretty well regarded as the next batch. If you want one of those players, you pick the one you have highest ranked.

To me, Sanderson is next level below that, and if you realy want him, you could afford to trade down a few spots for the extra asset(s), so that NJ could pick the player they wanted from the afforementioned, highly touted players.

It isn’t really a reach though, we know teams have Sanderson as high as 3rd, and we know other teams have him 5th, and we know more than a few teams have him as the highest D in the draft.

It’s one thing to think he’s a reach personally using your own rankings, that’s perfectly fine, but at this point it isn’t a reach whatsoever using consensus rankings and information we have recieved.

Moving back in the top 4-10 in this draft hoping to pick a guy doesn’t work, the variances of the guys from 4-8 on McKenzies list (Drysdale/Perfetti/Raymond/Rossi/Sanderson) was razor thin, betting on a guy still being there when moving back isn’t one any team would make. They would just pick the guy they had rated highest.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

1- Raymond
2- Drysdale
3- Rossi
4- Holtz
5- Perfetti/Sanderson

This is pretty much how I would rank them too. At this point though I'd have Sanderson ahead of Perfetti.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

It isn’t really a reach though, we know teams have Sanderson as high as 3rd, and we know other teams have him 5th, and we know more than a few teams have him as the highest D in the draft.

It’s one thing to think he’s a reach personally, that’s perfectly fine, but at this point it isn’t a reach whatsoever.

Moving back in the top 4-10 in this draft hoping to pick a guy doesn’t work, the variances of the guys from 4-8 on McKenzies list (Drysdale/Perfetti/Raymond/Rossi/Sanderson) was razor thin, betting on a guy still being there when moving back isn’t one any team would make. They would just pick the guy they had rated highest.

Absolutely. If Sanderson (or Drysdale, Raymond, Perfetti, Rossi) are the Sens guy they need to just go ahead and pick him. No need to get cute; if you feel he's the best player you just take him . We have a million picks as it is.

Now if the Sens have someone like Lundell or Jarvis at #4 then maybe they should think about moving back. You could probably move back to 9-10 and get one of those guys, and the asset received for moving back from 5 to 10 could be significant.

 

[Masked]

Teams do trade back in a draft to obtain other assets. I'm not sure why you would say they don't... It may not occur as often with higher level picks, but it happens, often later in the first round and/or definitely in the latter rounds.

In 2016, the Sens traded #11 to NJ for #12 & #80. Dropped 1 spot for the extra asset.

Other way around. The Sens wanted Logan while NJ apparently rated multiple players the same at #11.

If you want someone, you take them. If you're indifferent between multiple choices, you can move back.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

There'd be no moving back thinking Sanderson would be available later.