HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
05-07-2013, 06:45 PM
  #701
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
BPA. Every time in the first round.
I agree, but enter Jack Campbell. Watch for someone to go off the board for Fucale if the Mooseheads stay undefeated through the playoffs and Mem Cup. He's been playing real well.

Karitimes is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:05 PM
  #702
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karitimes View Post
I agree, but enter Jack Campbell. Watch for someone to go off the board for Fucale if the Mooseheads stay undefeated through the playoffs and Mem Cup. He's been playing real well.
How is Campbell not a case of management thinking he's the BPA?

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:13 PM
  #703
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
How is Campbell not a case of management thinking he's the BPA?
Does anyone know where Campbell was projected to go before the draft? I think his point was that we could see another goalie go high, which would surprise everyone here based on the projected top 10's of most people.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:19 PM
  #704
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Is it best player according to you or according to rankings? Bit of a difference.

The Stars believed there was 3 franchise players in the draft - Hall, Seguin, and Campbell. Taking Campbell at 11 means we took the best player available - according to us. Wonder if we would have taken him at 3rd?

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:22 PM
  #705
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Does anyone know where Campbell was projected to go before the draft? I think his point was that we could see another goalie go high, which would surprise everyone here based on the projected top 10's of most people.
Was really no different than Fucale now. Some people had him pretty high, but it was always frowned upon to see him up there. It is a pretty similar situation, with Fucale being a bit higher caliber, but you've also got to wonder just how much the team in front of him is affecting his play.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:34 PM
  #706
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Is it best player according to you or according to rankings? Bit of a difference.

The Stars believed there was 3 franchise players in the draft - Hall, Seguin, and Campbell. Taking Campbell at 11 means we took the best player available - according to us. Wonder if we would have taken him at 3rd?
Id like to think they would have been smart enough to realize he was not likely to go to another team that early and at least traded down.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 07:52 PM
  #707
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Id like to think they would have been smart enough to realize he was not likely to go to another team that early and at least traded down.
And if you look at who all went ahead of him after those top 2, probably would have been a good idea. I don't really see any of them as being ahead of him at this point. Not by any notable margin anyways (besides I guess Skinner).

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 09:06 PM
  #708
Rune Forumwalker
Registered User
 
Rune Forumwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Does anyone know where Campbell was projected to go before the draft?
Wasn't it in the teens, or am I misremembering?

Rune Forumwalker is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 09:30 PM
  #709
usefulfiction
Registered User
 
usefulfiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: McKinney, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
I'm in fantasy land over here but a couple of the trade proposals in the trade section got my wheels turning.

Trade Eriksson to Nashville for 4th overall.

Trade package not involving pick 10 to Edmonton for pick 7.

Then walk away with 3 of the top 10 picks and potentially Sam Gagner.

usefulfiction is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 09:32 PM
  #710
Henderson33
Registered User
 
Henderson33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Does anyone know where Campbell was projected to go before the draft? I think his point was that we could see another goalie go high, which would surprise everyone here based on the projected top 10's of most people.
Rankings/Mock drafts I could find.

Bob McKenzie: 9th
Kimelman: 13th
Morreale: 13th
Holland: 14th

He was the 2nd ranked North American goalie behind Calvin Pickard

Henderson33 is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 09:46 PM
  #711
Frozen Failure
Best Threadkiller
 
Frozen Failure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,510
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Frozen Failure Send a message via Yahoo to Frozen Failure
Campbell wasn't a huge stretch draft position wise, but it was a surprise positionally.

Frozen Failure is offline  
Old
05-07-2013, 10:35 PM
  #712
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by usefulfiction View Post
I'm in fantasy land over here but a couple of the trade proposals in the trade section got my wheels turning.

Trade Eriksson to Nashville for 4th overall.

Trade package not involving pick 10 to Edmonton for pick 7.

Then walk away with 3 of the top 10 picks and potentially Sam Gagner.
This isn't feasable, and without the 10th there is no chance of getting Gagner and the 7th.

Mr Misty is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 02:23 AM
  #713
SolidusAKA
Registered User
 
SolidusAKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Is Lindholm (5th) + Rask good from Carolina for Eriksson?

Depth chart looks pretty badass

X– Lindholm (5th) – Benn
Stransky- Faksa/Rask/Shore – Chaisson
Roussel – Eakin – Ritchie
Fraser – Faksa/Rask/Shore – R.Smith

Oleksiak – Ristolainen (10th)
Morrow – Dillon
Goligoski – Connauton
Nemeth/Gaunce


Last edited by SolidusAKA: 05-08-2013 at 02:29 AM.
SolidusAKA is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 02:53 AM
  #714
Captain Awesome
Registered User
 
Captain Awesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,005
vCash: 500
I think getting a pick any higher than 4th (Barkov) isn't worth trading Eriksson for. Guys at 5th overall aren't anywhere close to surefire 1st liners.

Captain Awesome is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 04:09 AM
  #715
English stars fan
Registered User
 
English stars fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 408
vCash: 500
Vancouver's first round exit locks the value of that 2nd round pick in the 52-56 range, depending upon how many (and which) other division winners are knocked out before the conference finals.

Similarly, the Bruins pick I believe will be either 27-30 or 50-54 if I've done my calculations correctly!

English stars fan is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:57 AM
  #716
Pohlow
Registered User
 
Pohlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Frisco, Tx
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
I'd trade Eriksson for Grabner + Strome

Pohlow is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 12:19 PM
  #717
oconnor9sean
Benn & Seguin
 
oconnor9sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 3,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pohlow View Post
I'd trade Eriksson for Grabner + Strome
I like that. A lot. I'm gonna make a thread on trade section about that.

oconnor9sean is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 12:53 PM
  #718
FrailSwan
A-B-We Stole Your C
 
FrailSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Does anyone know where Campbell was projected to go before the draft? I think his point was that we could see another goalie go high, which would surprise everyone here based on the projected top 10's of most people.
I remember almost all of the NHL.com mock drafts putting him in the top 10, around 7-9 I think.

FrailSwan is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 02:45 PM
  #719
ginblossoms
Registered User
 
ginblossoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,184
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ginblossoms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Failure View Post
Campbell wasn't a huge stretch draft position wise, but it was a surprise positionally.
agreed. i think most of us thought dallas would pick fowler after his surprising precipitous drop... but we've discussed that before here ad nauseum.

ginblossoms is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 02:52 PM
  #720
ginblossoms
Registered User
 
ginblossoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,184
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ginblossoms
i'm not sure where all this eriksson trade talk is coming from, but i'll share my opinion that i would not trade him unless it gets dallas into the top 3. he's entering his prime years. he's coming off a disappointing season (thereby reducing his trade value). he has a ridiculously cheap contract for a guy of his caliber/role.

ginblossoms is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 03:21 PM
  #721
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginblossoms View Post
agreed. i think most of us thought dallas would pick fowler after his surprising precipitous drop... but we've discussed that before here ad nauseum.
It's no different than Forsberg and Grigorenko dropping this year. Most teams stuck to their guns and went with who they scouted, instead of the big name fallers. Dallas did that, and I don't have a problem with it.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 06:19 PM
  #722
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginblossoms View Post
i'm not sure where all this eriksson trade talk is coming from, but i'll share my opinion that i would not trade him unless it gets dallas into the top 3. he's entering his prime years. he's coming off a disappointing season (thereby reducing his trade value). he has a ridiculously cheap contract for a guy of his caliber/role.
100%. All of this trade Loui talk is getting way out of hand.

Mr Misty is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 07:55 PM
  #723
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
It's no different than Forsberg and Grigorenko dropping this year. Most teams stuck to their guns and went with who they scouted, instead of the big name fallers. Dallas did that, and I don't have a problem with it.
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.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 08:15 PM
  #724
catters078
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 3,051
vCash: 500
so we look like we will have picks 10,27,40,52

Pretty much 4 picks in the top 50.

I really hope they use the ammo and give up one or two of the picks from 27,40,52 to move up into the top 7 range to grab Barkov, Lindholm or Monahan


obviously 27 and 52 is still conditional depending on order and bostons success but both are quite likely

catters078 is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 08:18 PM
  #725
Nemeth
Mo Money Mo Problems
 
Nemeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by catters078 View Post
so we look like we will have picks 10,27,40,52

Pretty much 4 picks in the top 50.

I really hope they use the ammo and give up one or two of the picks from 27,40,52 to move up into the top 7 range to grab Barkov, Lindholm or Monahan


obviously 27 and 52 is still conditional depending on order and bostons success but both are quite likely
So Boston only needs to make it to the second round of the playoffs correct?

Nemeth 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 05:56 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.