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
05-25-2013, 08:42 PM
  #851
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 3411
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
First time since '79.
Stars had two first rounders in 2002, but they traded one to Columbus for their second rounder and Ron Tugnutt.

Stars also traded down with their own first rounder that year (13th) for 26th, 42nd and a sixth rounder.


Last edited by ________: 05-25-2013 at 09:07 PM.
________ is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:44 PM
  #852
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Without a doubt they're taking a center. Been guaranteeing it for a month now. Willing to bet it's Monohan. Assuming he's still there. Either way though, he's not there at 10.
Monahan is the perfect pick for them, imo. They need size, leadership, and two-way play badly.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:44 PM
  #853
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Yes! Thats a pretty huge difference, too. Hell we could probably take that Boston 1st and draft up to the teens without giving up too much.
It would probably cost at least Vancouver's 2nd, and that honestly might not be enough. You're probably going to be looking to jump at least 9 spots since Boston's pick will be 28, 29, or 30. Pigs could fly, but Chicago is as good as done, and Detroit, San Jose, and LA would all pick 27 over Boston as the Western Conference loser.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:47 PM
  #854
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Monahan is the perfect pick for them, imo. They need size, leadership, and two-way play badly.
Yup. He's an oiler if he's still around by then. Book it.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:48 PM
  #855
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
It would probably cost at least Vancouver's 2nd, and that honestly might not be enough. You're probably going to be looking to jump at least 9 spots since Boston's pick will be 28, 29, or 30. Pigs could fly, but Chicago is as good as done, and Detroit, San Jose, and LA would all pick 27 over Boston as the Western Conference loser.
Id be perfectly happy giving up that vancouver 2nd if it meant getting another pick in the teens.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:57 PM
  #856
usefulfiction
Registered User
 
usefulfiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: McKinney, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Can't wait for the stars to go draft shopping!

usefulfiction is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 08:58 PM
  #857
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
First time since '79.
And what a 1st round that was for us. Craig Hartsburg at 6 and Tom McCarthy at 10. (Snagged Neal Broten at 42)

Technically they aren't all 1st round picks since there were less teams back then, but in '78 we had 3 in the first 24:

#1 Bobby Smith
#19 Steve Payne
#24 Steve Christoff (technically a 2nd rounder)

Anyways, those were huge drafts for us. Took us from a bottom feeder to a contender pretty quick. Hopefully we can have the same type of success in this draft.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:00 PM
  #858
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Id be perfectly happy giving up that vancouver 2nd if it meant getting another pick in the teens.
I think you could give up the 3rd to move into the high 20's ... I'm still really excited about Bowey. I'd like to see if they could land him.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:03 PM
  #859
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I think you could give up the 3rd to move into the high 20's ... I'm still really excited about Bowey. I'd like to see if they could land him.
they might hav ea shot at him with their own 2nd.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:15 PM
  #860
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 3411
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I think you could give up the 3rd to move into the high 20's ... I'm still really excited about Bowey. I'd like to see if they could land him.
Here's a good site for trades. Just change the year from this years.
http://www.prosportstransactions.com...Years/2013.htm

(Draft pick for Draft pick trades 1st round)
In 2012
Flames Traded 2012 first round pick (#14-Zemgus Girgensons) to Sabres for 2012 first round pick (#21-Mark Jankowski), 2012 second round pick (#42-Patrick Sieloff) on 2012-06-22

2011
Leafs Traded 2011 first round pick (#30-Rickard Rakell), 2011 second round pick (#39-John Gibson) to Ducks for 2011 first round pick (#22-Tyler Biggs) on 2011-06-24

Senators
Traded two 2011 second round picks (#35-Tomas Jurco) (#48-Xavier Ouellet) to Red Wings for 2011 first round pick #24-Matt Puempel) on 2011-06-24

2010
Kings Traded 2010 first round pick (#19-Nick Bjugstad), 2010 second round pick (#59-Jason Zucker) to Panthers for 2010 first round pick (#15-Derek Forbort) on 2010-06-25


Canadiens Traded 2010 first round pick (#27-Mark Visentin), 2010 second round pick (#57-Oscar Lindberg) to Coytes for 2010 first round pick (#22-Jarred Tinordi), 2010 fourth round pick (#113-Mark MacMillan) on 2010-06-25


Islanders Traded two 2010 second round picks (#35-Ludvig Rensfeldt) (#58-Kent Simpson) to Blackhawks for 2010 first round pick #30-Brock Nelson) on 2010-06-25

________ is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:22 PM
  #861
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
I'm glad you used that last example. Detroit has recently trade out of the late first at least twice recently. That was the trade I forgot, but they also moved back the year they took Ferraro's kid.

I think there's at least a reasonable chance we could see Dallas attempt to move up from 10 or stay, and then move back at 28-30. I don't know how or why, but late firsts have a pretty good track record of landing fairly high 2nd rounders. Since picks from essentially 20 to 50/60 have similar success rates, why not use a 2nd or two to sneak up, and then replace them by trading down a bit?

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:28 PM
  #862
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I'm glad you used that last example. Detroit has recently trade out of the late first at least twice recently. That was the trade I forgot, but they also moved back the year they took Ferraro's kid.

I think there's at least a reasonable chance we could see Dallas attempt to move up from 10 or stay, and then move back at 28-30. I don't know how or why, but late firsts have a pretty good track record of landing fairly high 2nd rounders. Since picks from essentially 20 to 50/60 have similar success rates, why not use a 2nd or two to sneak up, and then replace them by trading down a bit?
That is definitely the way to go if you are sitting on the board at 28 and there are several players you have equally ranked.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:31 PM
  #863
Chaos
3, 2, 1
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Chaos
Hopefully Edmonton doesn't want another small center if/when Monahan is off the board at 7, and we can use 10 and 40 to move up and grab Lindholm.

__________________
Chaos is always right.

-Vagrant
Chaos is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:32 PM
  #864
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 3411
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Detroit in 2006 and 2009 traded back. In 2007and 2008 they stood pat at 27th and 30th.

2009
Lightning Traded 2009 second round pick (#32-Landon Ferraro), 2009 (#75-Andrej Nestrasil) to Red Wings for 2009 first round pick (#29-Carter Ashton) on 2009-06-26

2006
Coyotes Traded two 2006 second round picks (#41-Cory Emmerton) (#47-Shawn Matthias) to Red Wings for 2006 first round pick (#29-Chris Summers), 2006 fifth round pick (#152-Jordan Bendfeld) on 2006-06-24

________ is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:35 PM
  #865
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
I previously did argue trading high 2nds to move up might not be worth it, but it might actually make some sense if you can replace some of the lost assets by trading down from Boston's pick.

Something like ....

To Dallas: 6th overall
To Calgary: 10th overall, 40th overall, 51/52/53 (Vancouver)

To Dallas: 36th overall, 54th overall
To Montreal: 28th overall

IDK if Calgary would bite on that, but they seem to be moving towards a classic rebuild. They could value 3 picks in the Top 55 much more than just the 6th overall. We'll see I guess.

Plus, Montreal would have to fall in love with someone they think they might not be able to get at 34. With three 2nd round picks though .... they could look to make that type of move.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:36 PM
  #866
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
That is definitely the way to go if you are sitting on the board at 28 and there are several players you have equally ranked.
For sure.

After 20 or so it's even more of a crap shoot. You could probably throw the next 25 guys in a hat and pick so I'd rather have quantity at that point. Maximize your odds.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:38 PM
  #867
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I previously did argue trading high 2nds to move up might not be worth it, but it might actually make some sense if you can replace some of the lost assets by trading down from Boston's pick.

Something like ....

To Dallas: 6th overall
To Calgary: 10th overall, 40th overall, 51/52/53 (Vancouver)

To Dallas: 36th overall, 54th overall
To Montreal: 28th overall

IDK if Calgary would bite on that, but they seem to be moving towards a classic rebuild. They could value 3 picks in the Top 55 much more than just the 6th overall. We'll see I guess.

Plus, Montreal would have to fall in love with someone they think they might not be able to get at 34. With three 2nd round picks though .... they could look to make that type of move.
That would be a pretty damn amazing scenario for Dallas and its also perfectly reasonable, you arent ripping anyone off there based on previous trades.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:40 PM
  #868
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Hmmm .....

28th to Montreal for 34th and 71st maybe.

I'd take that if Dallas used both current 2nd's to move up to 6th.

6th, 34th, 68th, and 71st

That's better than 10th, 28th, 51st-53rd, and 68th, right? Yeah .... I'd say it is. I really do believe Dallas would have their pick of Lindholm or Monahan their.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:46 PM
  #869
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Hmmm .....

28th to Montreal for 34th and 71st maybe.

I'd take that if Dallas used both current 2nd's to move up to 6th.

6th, 34th, 68th, and 71st

That's better than 10th, 28th, 51st-53rd, and 68th, right? Yeah .... I'd say it is. I really do believe Dallas would have their pick of Lindholm or Monahan their.
For sure. All those 28-71 picks are crap shoots. Absolutely no harm moving from 28th to 34th and so on. 6 and 10 are crap shoots as well you could argue but without a doubt we'd be able to land one of Monohan and Lindholm. So if one of those guys was your target then you do it.

I'm not in favor of moving any major pieces to jump up just the 4 spots, but if all it means is jumbling around all those 28-71 picks then I do it for sure.

tjcurrie is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:46 PM
  #870
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
That would be a pretty damn amazing scenario for Dallas and its also perfectly reasonable, you arent ripping anyone off there based on previous trades.
It's a smidge low on value for Calgary. Might have to get Calgary to add a 4th or 5th, and then Dallas throw in EDM 3rd possibly.

Another scenario .... hmm ..... Would Carolina do 5th for 10th, 28th, 68th?

I'd do it if Tampa Bay takes the Russian giving Nashville one of the Big 3. That means Barkov is available at 5. You'd think Carolina will look to D, and you'll have several quality D at 10 to pick ... potentially Ristolainen, Nurse, Zhardov, and or Pulock.

That's a hefty price to pay, but you'd be picking 5th, 40th, and 51st-53rd. You could easily add another 2nd or high probably moving a veteran D which you need to do anyway.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:47 PM
  #871
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Hmmm .....

28th to Montreal for 34th and 71st maybe.

I'd take that if Dallas used both current 2nd's to move up to 6th.

6th, 34th, 68th, and 71st

That's better than 10th, 28th, 51st-53rd, and 68th, right? Yeah .... I'd say it is. I really do believe Dallas would have their pick of Lindholm or Monahan their.
Thats definitely a better group of picks. I figured there were 6 top talents in this draft wihtout the inclusion of Nichuskin so 6th is definitely a great place to be in this draft. If Monahan and Lindholm were somehow both gone it would mean you have a shot at Barkov, Mackinnon or Drouin.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 09:49 PM
  #872
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
It's a smidge low on value for Calgary. Might have to get Calgary to add a 4th or 5th, and then Dallas throw in EDM 3rd possibly.

Another scenario .... hmm ..... Would Carolina do 5th for 10th, 28th, 68th?

I'd do it if Tampa Bay takes the Russian giving Nashville one of the Big 3. That means Barkov is available at 5. You'd think Carolina will look to D, and you'll have several quality D at 10 to pick ... potentially Ristolainen, Nurse, Zhardov, and or Pulock.

That's a hefty price to pay, but you'd be picking 5th, 40th, and 51st-53rd. You could easily add another 2nd or high probably moving a veteran D which you need to do anyway.
Yeah that could work too. Walking out of the draft with Barkov would be a huge win for Dallas. You should have absolutely no problem moving Daley for a 2nd, even if its a 2nd in next years draft it wouldnt be a big problem.

txomisc is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 10:02 PM
  #873
Chaos
3, 2, 1
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Chaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I previously did argue trading high 2nds to move up might not be worth it, but it might actually make some sense if you can replace some of the lost assets by trading down from Boston's pick.

Something like ....

To Dallas: 6th overall
To Calgary: 10th overall, 40th overall, 51/52/53 (Vancouver)

To Dallas: 36th overall, 54th overall
To Montreal: 28th overall

IDK if Calgary would bite on that, but they seem to be moving towards a classic rebuild. They could value 3 picks in the Top 55 much more than just the 6th overall. We'll see I guess.

Plus, Montreal would have to fall in love with someone they think they might not be able to get at 34. With three 2nd round picks though .... they could look to make that type of move.
Its weird, I can see both sides regarding Calgary. They dont have their 2nd this year, so they might want to recoup that pick. But they also could use a potential #1 center like we can, and there's a much better chance of getting one at 6 than at 10.

I still think the most likely trade up scenario(if it happens) is with Edmonton. Its also the simplest. If the top 6 go Jones, McKinnon, Drouin, Barkov, Nichushkin, and Monahan. And if Edmonton doesnt want another smallish center(or actually wants a d-man), flip 10 and 40 for 7.

If that happens, then I wouldnt mind them trading back from Boston's pick to re-gain a 2nd rounder.

Chaos is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 10:08 PM
  #874
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,799
vCash: 500
Regarding Calgary, they have 3 1sts already. I realize they need a big talent infusion, but I'd say they are better served drafting where they are instead of moving back.

Mr Misty is offline  
Old
05-25-2013, 10:10 PM
  #875
Chaos
3, 2, 1
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Chaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Misty View Post
Regarding Calgary, they have 3 1sts already. I realize they need a big talent infusion, but I'd say they are better served drafting where they are instead of moving back.
Yeah I completely forgot about that. So yeah, I cant see them being interested in trading back.

Chaos 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 09:41 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.