HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Notices

2013 NHL Entry Draft

View Poll Results: Where will Dallas pick for the 2013 NHL Entry Draft?
1st-5th 14 22.58%
6th-10th 26 41.94%
11th-15th 16 25.81%
16th-20th 4 6.45%
21st-25th 1 1.61%
26th-30th 1 1.61%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2013, 08:24 PM
  #726
BennThereDoanThat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron View Post
So Boston only needs to make it to the second round of the playoffs correct?
Actually, Boston needs to make it to the conference finals for it to become a first rounder.

BennThereDoanThat is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 08:34 PM
  #727
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
I have a problem with it if it means they assumed certain guys wouldn't be there and thus didn't scout them as heavily as they could/should have. We'll have more info on this discussion in a few years to see if Grigorenko and Forsberg end up being steals at their draft spot.
What Washington did at their draft table indicates that that exact thing occurred.

Washington fans said that they typically picked a player to draft, and then had all the scouts run through all the possibilities for the future and make their case for their own player they thought should be picked, etc. It was basically a big circle discussion discussing any player they thought would be available. They were seen doing this at the actual draft when they were up to pick, and most people believed that they were doing exactly that but discussing Forsberg, whom it was speculated they didn't scout heavily as they expected him to be gone.

That's all speculation of course, but seems pretty likely.

Just think about it. Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon or Barkov if we didn't have plans on moving up? That'd be wasted time and effort when the whole hockey world knows they won't be there at 10.

I see what you're saying, and I do have a feeling Washington scouted Grigorenko, but Forsberg was the surprise that fell to them.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:02 PM
  #728
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,840
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
What Washington did at their draft table indicates that that exact thing occurred.

Washington fans said that they typically picked a player to draft, and then had all the scouts run through all the possibilities for the future and make their case for their own player they thought should be picked, etc. It was basically a big circle discussion discussing any player they thought would be available. They were seen doing this at the actual draft when they were up to pick, and most people believed that they were doing exactly that but discussing Forsberg, whom it was speculated they didn't scout heavily as they expected him to be gone.

That's all speculation of course, but seems pretty likely.

Just think about it. Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon or Barkov if we didn't have plans on moving up? That'd be wasted time and effort when the whole hockey world knows they won't be there at 10.

I see what you're saying, and I do have a feeling Washington scouted Grigorenko, but Forsberg was the surprise that fell to them.
Are we talking about the same Stars organization here? This team had a possible really high draft pick up until a hot streak late in the season...when most junior players were finished/finishing their regular seasons. Washington needn't scout the tippy top of the draft but the Stars are in no position to do the same.

Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon? Because at one point not so long ago it was possible we could have taken him with our own pick.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:27 PM
  #729
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Are we talking about the same Stars organization here? This team had a possible really high draft pick up until a hot streak late in the season...when most junior players were finished/finishing their regular seasons. Washington needn't scout the tippy top of the draft but the Stars are in no position to do the same.

Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon? Because at one point not so long ago it was possible we could have taken him with our own pick.
That's definitely a fair point I didn't think about.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-09-2013, 08:25 AM
  #730
Dallasman
Registered User
 
Dallasman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Any good scouting department will scout the good players, no matter what position they think they may end up in. If you don't, then you are really not using your resources to your best advantage. Plus, I'm sure a lot of these scouts also do video scouting too if they don't get out to games to see these guys play.

Dallasman is offline  
Old
05-09-2013, 09:03 AM
  #731
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,206
vCash: 500
It's just diligence. You have to prepare for anything.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-09-2013, 11:01 AM
  #732
Satan
why did she go
 
Satan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: exchange
Country: Germany
Posts: 39,524
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post

Just think about it. Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon or Barkov if we didn't have plans on moving up? That'd be wasted time and effort when the whole hockey world knows they won't be there at 10.
Remember all the NHL action that was ongoing in October to late January?

Satan is offline  
Old
05-09-2013, 12:31 PM
  #733
LordHelmet
Registered User
 
LordHelmet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Just think about it. Why would Dallas bother scouting MacKinnon or Barkov if we didn't have plans on moving up? That'd be wasted time and effort when the whole hockey world knows they won't be there at 10.
gs_35's point applies, as do a few others..

1) What if the team with pick #3 or #4 calls wanting to trade down, with a very reasonable offer? "uhh... sorry, we didn't scout these guys so uhh..."

2) Teams don't just scout for this year's draft. They probably put rankings on players as soon as they come in to juniors.

3) Player rankings swing in the season leading up to the draft. A guy that started at #3 might have a bad year or injury.. If you said "he's #3, and we should be a playoff team, so we won't scout him.." and by the end of the year, your team ends up with pick #17 and he "falls" to the 12-18 range.. You better have him scouted..

4) Scouts watch more than one player during games. Sure, maybe they want to check up on players that project to be in their drafting range, but they also watch players "ranked" higher and lower, and for future years' drafts at the same time..

Last thing.. Don't give too much weight to media rankings. We judge teams for 'reaching' and 'stealing' based on where they picked a guy vs. where the media had him ranked. But honestly, that's silly. If the media is the end-all-be-all judge of talent, then teams should just fold up their scouting departments and just take the next guy on McKenzie's (or whoever's) best available list.

LordHelmet is offline  
Old
05-09-2013, 08:37 PM
  #734
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards View Post
gs_35's point applies, as do a few others..

1) What if the team with pick #3 or #4 calls wanting to trade down, with a very reasonable offer? "uhh... sorry, we didn't scout these guys so uhh..."

2) Teams don't just scout for this year's draft. They probably put rankings on players as soon as they come in to juniors.

3) Player rankings swing in the season leading up to the draft. A guy that started at #3 might have a bad year or injury.. If you said "he's #3, and we should be a playoff team, so we won't scout him.." and by the end of the year, your team ends up with pick #17 and he "falls" to the 12-18 range.. You better have him scouted..

4) Scouts watch more than one player during games. Sure, maybe they want to check up on players that project to be in their drafting range, but they also watch players "ranked" higher and lower, and for future years' drafts at the same time..

Last thing.. Don't give too much weight to media rankings. We judge teams for 'reaching' and 'stealing' based on where they picked a guy vs. where the media had him ranked. But honestly, that's silly. If the media is the end-all-be-all judge of talent, then teams should just fold up their scouting departments and just take the next guy on McKenzie's (or whoever's) best available list.
Yea, going back I'm not really sure what I was thinking saying that. Washington was probably just some freak incident they weren't prepared for at all.

I absolutely don't. I'm one of the biggest believers in that you can expect for the media to get the first 2 or 3 picks right, and nothing else. All it takes is for teams to have one guy higher than one player for him to plummet.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-12-2013, 10:20 PM
  #735
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
The Stars have five of the first 68 picks entering the draft.

________ is offline  
Old
05-13-2013, 07:37 PM
  #736
DMaz16
@DMaz16
 
DMaz16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
I take a little more stock in Mckenzies rankings only because it's based on a combination of 10 different scouting lists rather than just one guys opinion

DMaz16 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 06:56 PM
  #737
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,733
vCash: 475
In the Dallas Stars Podcast today, Jim Nill mentioned "maybe Dallas could get a player in the draft who could contribute immediately."

Bruce asked him about how different the team could look, and that was a part of his answer. I think that means he feels there are guys in this draft who could be an immediate contributor, and for the people hoping he trades up, I'd say that's an indication he'd consider it.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:12 PM
  #738
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
In the Dallas Stars Podcast today, Jim Nill mentioned "maybe Dallas could get a player in the draft who could contribute immediately."

Bruce asked him about how different the team could look, and that was a part of his answer. I think that means he feels there are guys in this draft who could be an immediate contributor, and for the people hoping he trades up, I'd say that's an indication he'd consider it.
That's interesting. I'm really liking the idea of swapping with Edmonton somehow. I dont think it would cost too much and I'd feel pretty pretty good about the Stars chances of drafting a top flight player. I dont know that anyone we could get there would seem like they are NHL ready but who knows if Nill does or not.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:24 PM
  #739
Alistar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Azores
Posts: 8,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
That's interesting. I'm really liking the idea of swapping with Edmonton somehow. I dont think it would cost too much and I'd feel pretty pretty good about the Stars chances of drafting a top flight player. I dont know that anyone we could get there would seem like they are NHL ready but who knows if Nill does or not.
for what it's worth, the way Edmonton management has been talking lately they would be willing to accept established NHL players for their prospects or draft picks. They are looking to compete for the NW division next year.

Alistar is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:37 PM
  #740
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,733
vCash: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alistar View Post
for what it's worth, the way Edmonton management has been talking lately they would be willing to accept established NHL players for their prospects or draft picks. They are looking to compete for the NW division next year.
I think Dallas' only asset that could command a Top 10 pick is Loui, and I don't particularly want to trade him at all. If they do, I hope it's at least with Nashville so they have a legitimate shot at the 2nd best center in the draft ... either Barkov or Lindholm depending on who they prefer.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:40 PM
  #741
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alistar View Post
for what it's worth, the way Edmonton management has been talking lately they would be willing to accept established NHL players for their prospects or draft picks. They are looking to compete for the NW division next year.
Yeah the excitement of the draft has played out here. Three 1st overalls in a row and still stinking. Enough's enough. No more selling the fans on youth and prospects.

Personally I'd love to send a package for Gagner and the 7th.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:59 PM
  #742
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 157
Daley + 10th for 7th + 2nd/3rd.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:01 PM
  #743
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Daley + 10th for 7th + 2nd/3rd.
Daley + 10th + 27th (assuming)

for

Gagner + 7th

?

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:02 PM
  #744
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 157
What is the obsession with Gagner? I have no interest in him at all.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:04 PM
  #745
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,733
vCash: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Yeah the excitement of the draft has played out here. Three 1st overalls in a row and still stinking. Enough's enough. No more selling the fans on youth and prospects.

Personally I'd love to send a package for Gagner and the 7th.
Maybe they'd do Goligoski + 10 for Gagner + 7, Dallas could draft RR.

If Nashville would move the 4th for Eriksson, Dallas could end up with both Barkov and RR who seem to be projected as NHL ready.

The question is ... are you getting a net gain by swapping Eriksson, Gagner, and the 10th overall pick for Barkov, Gagner, and Ristolainen?

Whitney-Barkov-Chiasson
Benn-Gagner-Rookie
Rookie-Eakin-Cole
Nystrom-Fiddler-Roussel/Garbutt/MacDermid/Sceviour

Dillon-Robidas
Daley-Ristolainen
Rome/Larsen/Connauton/Gaunce

I don't know ... trading Eriksson scare me, but he's the best asset to get a top center probably. If Nill, Jackson, and Takko agree that Barkov is a legit All Star though, and obviously Nashville is willing to make the move, it'd be hard to pass up.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:06 PM
  #746
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
What is the obsession with Gagner? I have no interest in him at all.
yeah who needs a young right shot 2nd line playmaking center

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:08 PM
  #747
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,733
vCash: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
What is the obsession with Gagner? I have no interest in him at all.
I haven't seen anyone with what I'd characterize as an obsession. He's young and the exact same age as Jamie Benn (not even 24 years old yet), and more importantly his production has been consistent while on the rise lately.

He's a decent player with big upside. If you can get him for essentially a purely offensive, undersized D I say go for it.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:32 PM
  #748
usefulfiction
Registered User
 
usefulfiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: McKinney, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I think Dallas' only asset that could command a Top 10 pick is Loui, and I don't particularly want to trade him at all. If they do, I hope it's at least with Nashville so they have a legitimate shot at the 2nd best center in the draft ... either Barkov or Lindholm depending on who they prefer.

Would there be any objection to targeting Carolina at 5 rather than Nashville at 4? That puts you in relatively the same position in regards to selecting Barkov or Lindholm with the added benefit of keeping Loui out of the division. If they for sure want Barkov at that point we'd only have to work a trade to move up 1 spot. We'd have the 4th overall pick and didn't have to trade Loui to a new division foe.

usefulfiction is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:40 PM
  #749
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Maybe they'd do Goligoski + 10 for Gagner + 7, Dallas could draft RR.

If Nashville would move the 4th for Eriksson, Dallas could end up with both Barkov and RR who seem to be projected as NHL ready.

The question is ... are you getting a net gain by swapping Eriksson, Gagner, and the 10th overall pick for Barkov, Gagner, and Ristolainen?

Whitney-Barkov-Chiasson
Benn-Gagner-Rookie
Rookie-Eakin-Cole
Nystrom-Fiddler-Roussel/Garbutt/MacDermid/Sceviour

Dillon-Robidas
Daley-Ristolainen
Rome/Larsen/Connauton/Gaunce

I don't know ... trading Eriksson scare me, but he's the best asset to get a top center probably. If Nill, Jackson, and Takko agree that Barkov is a legit All Star though, and obviously Nashville is willing to make the move, it'd be hard to pass up.
I do that. Originally I brought up the possibility of dealing Loui and was flamed for it. But that's an example of a deal I would very much be up for, as good as Loui is. To me it's about age right now. Not that Loui is over the hill or anything, but if we can solidify our under 25 group with high end talent like that then by all means I pull the trigger. And positionally (Barkov being a center and RR being a defenseman) that's right up our alley.

Personally I'm not sure Edmonton would move Gagner in either of those deals. Maybe but I'm pretty sure they look at Gagner the same way we look at Loui - meaning we both have certain big holes that need to be filled and those guys are prime tickets to fill them. Nobody settling for any less in return. Edmonton needs size up front (primarily at center) and will NEED to fill that hole especially if Gagner is dealt. There's no way they go in to next season with RNH as their only offensive center. Doesn't mean they need to get it from us, but they need it to be assured it from somewhere in order to trade Sam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I haven't seen anyone with what I'd characterize as an obsession. He's young and the exact same age as Jamie Benn (not even 24 years old yet), and more importantly his production has been consistent while on the rise lately.

He's a decent player with big upside. If you can get him for essentially a purely offensive, undersized D I say go for it.
This.

Gagner is maturing and maturing nicely. His offense hasn't been what everyone had hoped for (here if you're not Gretzky or Messier you're a failure) but people tend to forget how young he is still. He's growing up fast and has displayed lots of intangibles (character, grit, leadership, etc). Plus his offense was up this season. Could be like his dad. Just needs to throw on that Stars jersey and boom

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:02 PM
  #750
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
In the Dallas Stars Podcast today, Jim Nill mentioned "maybe Dallas could get a player in the draft who could contribute immediately."

Bruce asked him about how different the team could look, and that was a part of his answer. I think that means he feels there are guys in this draft who could be an immediate contributor, and for the people hoping he trades up, I'd say that's an indication he'd consider it.
And then he said "who knows?" I read it more of the idea that you could potentially find the rare guy who can step in immediately, but that's not the goal.

Ambassador Of Fun is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.