Putting Mark Jankowski's Performance In Context

Kent Wilson
June 25 2012 12:19PM

 

 

The single biggest issue with the Mark Jankowsi selection by the Calgary Flames is the challenge of correctly putting his performance at Stanstead college in proper context. Both qualitatively and quantitatively: when viewing a player, his abilities are naturally gauged against those he is competing against - there are many all-star AHLers who are entirely ordinary in the NHL. Many high scoring juniors don't make it as professionals in the AHL, etc. In short, the lesser the league, the easier it is to look like a star.

Quantitatively, because the better known feeder leagues like the OHL, the NCAA and pro leagues across the pond routinely send players to the NHL, it's easier to see to what degree players retain their offense at the highest level and therefore estiamte roughly how much scoring is "worth" relative to the NHL.

Jankowski's 93-points in 53-games for Stanstead college sounds impressive (1.61 point-per-game) but the Canadian HS prep league is obscure and the competition is minimal as compared to, say, major junior hockey or NCAA. In the Hockey New draft preview they ranked Jankowski 37th overall. One scout interviewed for the piece said "Could (Jankowski have played in major junior this year? Sure he could have...Would he been a star? Probably not."

Estimating NHL Equivalence

I decided to use this Prep school-to-CHL comparison to estimate Jankowski's NHL equivalency, which as discussed frequently before is a method developed by Gabriel Desjardins for translating offense in various leagues to the NHL which allows us to compare numbers from across disparate divisions such as the CHL, NCAA and SEL. Essentially, we multiply a players point-per-game pace (PPG) by an established translation factor and then use that to calculate the estimated output over an 82-game NHL schedule. 

We know the translation factor for the CHL (0.30), so I used a range of estimated ratios to determine the Canadian prep school quality. Here are the results: 

Qual rel CHL PPG % of CHL translation factor NHLE
At 90% 1.63 0.9 0.27 36
At 75% 1.63 0.75 0.225 30
At 60% 1.63 0.6 0.18 24
At 50% 1.63 0.5 0.15 20
At 40% 1.63 0.4 0.12 16
At 30% 1.63 0.3 0.09 12

 

As you can see, the news gets bad pretty quickly. Things are encouraging if Jankowski's HS league is about at least 60-75% as good as the CHL (which is a long shot). Anything below 50% and he falls to the high-to-mid teens. For context, Sven Baertschi's NHLE in his draft season was about 32.

This is a rather clumsy, shotgun method of doing things I admit. Luckily Gabe Desjardins has looked at how highschoolers in Minnesota translate their offense to college and by, extension, to the NHL.

Initially, I looked mostly at leagues that sent players directly to the NHL, the idea being that we wanted to be able to make single year projections of minor-league and junior players. However, because it is derived from the performance of a large number of players, a League Equivalency is also a measure of League Difficulty. We can compare two leagues to one another either by looking at how players fare when they jump from one league to another, or how players from two different leagues fare in a third. More importantly, we can extrapolate to an NHL Equivalency, even for a league that doesn't send anyone to the NHL.
...
Overall, Minnesota hockey translates to the NCAA (NHLE = 0.41) at approximately 0.18, giving an NHLE of 0.073. The translation to the USHL is 0.195; its translation to the NCAA is 0.65; the overall NHLE is 0.052. Via a similar process, the NHLE via the NAHL is also 0.052. This puts the difficulty level of Minnesota H.S. hockey somewhere between 5.2% and 7.3% - which is not very high: the leading scorer in Minnesota over the course of a decade might be good for 20 points as an 18-year-old rookie in the NHL.

 Emphasis added.

Minnesota HS is not precisely the same league, but it's close enough for our purposes. As you can see, the level of competition relative to college and hockey and the NHL is minimal - even at the high-end, the translation factor is just 7.3%, which is below the 30% range I estimated for HS-to-CHL above.

First Round Forwards Comparison

Now that we have a translation factor for Jankowski, we can use it to put his output in context of the other forwards who were picked in the first round this year. This comparison, I think, will illustrate the level of risk the Flames took in selecting a player out of a second tier HS league with their first round pick.

Player PPG Translation NHLE
Nail Yakupov 1.64 0.3 40
Alex Galchenyuk* 1.22 0.3 30
Filip Forsberg** 0.4 0.39 13
Mikhail Grigorenko 1.44 0.3 35
Redek Faksa 1.06 0.3 26
Zemgus Girgensons 1.12 0.27 25
Tomas Hertl 0.66 0.61 33
Teuvo Tervainen 0.4 0.54 18
Thomas Wilson 0.55 0.3 14
Scott Lawton 0.82 0.3 20
Mark Jankowski 1.63 0.073 10
Brendan Gaunce 1 0.3 25
Henrik samuelsson 0.82 0.3 20
Stefan Matteau 0.69 0.3 17
Tanner Pearson*** 0.64 0.3 16

*Galchenyik was hurt all year, so I used his prior season to calculate his NHL

** As far as I know, there's no NHLE for the SWE-2 league that Forsberg played. I estimated the translation factor based on the SEL's ratio.

***Tanner Pearson was drafted as an over-ager this season, so I used his prior season in interest of a more apples-to-apples comparison.

The list is presented in the order they were picked.

Jankowski's NHLE is the lowest of the first round forwards this year, even if we take the "best case" translation factor from Desjardin's study. A couple of guys are within range - Stefan Matteau, Teuvo Tervainen, Thomas Wilson and Filip Forsberg. The caveat here is that with this sort of broad-brush method we're essentially blind to things like ice time and role. Teens playing in mens leagues like Forsberg and Teravainen, for example, will typically have lesser ice time and roles than guys in the CHL or HS hockey and, as result, will get less opportunity to put up numbers. 

Limitations

NHLE only describes a prospect's current level of output and what it means relative to the NHL. What it obviously doesn't tell us is how much better a kid is going to get. Some guys peak as teens while others guys (like Baertschi this past season) take giant leaps forward. A large portion of the scouting game isn't merely describing a kid's current skill level, but projecting it out 3-5 years down the line and beyond. 

The Flames must be at least dimly aware of the risks associated with scouting and picking a kid out of lower tier league. What they seem to be banking on is Jankowski's youth (youngest player drafted in the first round) and steep improvement over the last year or so to continue apace as he moves up to higher leagues.

Weisbrod and Feaster not only raved about Jankowski's raw skills at the draft this weekend, but also his hockey sense, intelligence and character. We can therefore assume it's those factors they believe will allow him to adapt and excel in more difficult circumstances - like how a kid with a high IQ can be expected to maintain high grades as he works his way through school, rather than an average kid who aced one test because it was simply too easy for him.

It remains tobe seen which it is for Jankowski.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current FN contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 T&A4Flames
June 25 2012, 04:21PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

I was really hoping that they would get this kid, only in the 2nd round. But, I'm not upset that he was chosen at 21. Who was left? Gaunce? It just seems like another ceiling of a 2 way, more defensive minded center. The same old type of pick we have complained about for so long. Feaster, in my mind, delivered what most on this site have been asking for, a high potential forward and a centerman at that.

People need to stop complaining about this pick. He has high potential but is a high risk, but enough of the safe picks. We need some homeruns and at the 14th spot, you either draft the safe, going to make the NHL but more likely as a bottom 6'r or #5,6 D, or that guy that is a high risk/potential type.

Also, we aquired a 2nd rounder and he may turn out to be a top guy. Weber was a 2nd round pick in a D heavy (I believe) draft. We either picked a 1st line C or a bust. But at least it's not the same old same old.

Avatar
#2 RKD
June 25 2012, 07:36PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

It is a huge gamble, but I did find out Jeremy Roenick was drafted out of high school.

Jankowski put up better numbers than Roenick in HS. Jankowski put up 73 and 94 points respectively. Roenick had totals of 65 and 84.

I believe David Backes is another, again Jankowski had higher point totals than Backes.

It is an uncommon route, but the scouts must believe he has a lot of upside.

Avatar
#3 clyde
June 25 2012, 08:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

Most of the comments are made based on quantitive research. Data is a great tool but only a part of the story. Also, consider the number of variables that are left out in any quantitative study. For example, what if we were told that Jankowski only played with 2 4rth line grinders all year in order to maintain team balance as their coach believed in rolling 4 lines equally? That would certainly skew things as just one example. But, this pick was based more on qualitative factors. More than one scout saw a great deal in this kid. A great deal of skill, growth and many more other things. It will be interesting to see how he turns out. As for BOB MACKENZIE crticizing, I remember him saying that Edmonton had an absolute steal one year based on the fact that this amazing future superstar had played with his son. The player is Andrew Cogliano. So, I think I will put a little faith in the guys that got us Sven and Gaudreau rather than Mackenzie.

Avatar
#4 clay
June 25 2012, 12:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good take,

I do like the pick. I dont think comparing prep hockey to Minnesota High School is as fair as it seems. The prep schools like Shattuck St Mary's and Notre Dame compete more as Midget AAA teams than high schools, dropping the 18 year olds they are allowed to carry as a Prep school (in the US anyway). Stanstead appeared to compete against US prep, which would include 18 year olds.

Given that, Prep can likely be seen as a hair above Midget AAA. A lot of Prep schools stopped coming to the Mac's Midget tournament because they refused to drop 18 year olds.

High performers in Midget AAA to CHL might be a little cleaner, and have more data used to compute the NHLE.

For the sake of hope, Zach Parise was an old player in his draft year, and he competed in Prep Hockey at 17 for Shattuck's. Sidney Crosby played on the same team at 14.

Avatar
#5 Greg
June 25 2012, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Definitely high risk / high reward. We've been aching for that over Sutter's pick-a-can't-miss-4th-line-grinder though no?

Given they were going to take him at 14, it was definitely the right move to trade down and get the extra 2nd at least.

Avatar
#6 Justin Azevedo
June 25 2012, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

ughhhhhhhh.

that's basically what I was thinking the entire time I was reading.

Avatar
#8 sanehockey
June 25 2012, 12:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Very interesting. Once he hits a more established league like the NCAA it will be more clear where he stands. He reminds me of when Zajac was picked 20th overall from the BCHL. A kind of 2nd tier league that was totally dominated by him.

Avatar
#9 Justin Azevedo
June 25 2012, 12:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Clay

the high school I attended had a varsity prep team at about roughly the same league level (high prep) as shattuck.

joe colborne played in the ajhl instead of that team at 17 because he dominated in a couple of exibition games. so yeah, I'm not exactly a fan.

Avatar
#10 Clay
June 25 2012, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@sanehockey

We also picked Kris Chucko, Zajac's linemate ahead of Zajac!

We had no hope without one of Kent's WOWOY analysis!

Avatar
#11 clay
June 25 2012, 12:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin

yeah, Im not a huge fan either of the qualcomp. I like the fact we are drafting skilled forwards finally and not coke machines. Some of the bigger schools are more 'factories' than anything else. I wish I knew where Stanstead fit into the spectrum.

Avatar
#13 sanehockey
June 25 2012, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@clay, if I remember correctly we took chuckles a bit after zajac and obviously zajac stirred that drink!

@kent, I guess the other issue is age. With Jankowski being on the brink of not being eligible you have to wonder if those months of development guys like zajac and turris had were beneficial to their draft year development over Jankowski.

I don't want to sound to apologetic, I think the flames reasoning was just that though. He's young, lots of questions, major upside.

Avatar
#14 Baalzamon
June 25 2012, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Ouch. I mean, wow, that's TERRIBLE.

would not quality of team be a bit of a factor, though? Perhaps if Jankowski had played among better players, he might have had an easier time scoring? grasping at straws, I know.

One slightly encouraging thing, though, is that Jankowski is characterized as a playmaker. and he scored more goals than assists last year.

Avatar
#15 Spencer
June 25 2012, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

My only hope is that Feaster and Co know what they are doing. I feel they had a strong draft last year, so I am willing to believe in them for this year. I just really hope they are right.

Avatar
#16 clay
June 25 2012, 12:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@sanehockey

You are right! my mistake

Avatar
#18 Casey
June 25 2012, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Taking a "wait and see" here. Let's let the kid get a season at Dubuque in the USHL and then we'll have a better take on where he is at. We have to keep in mind that he's a late bloomer, and it might take a couple of years to fill out his 6'4"+ frame. I do like the idea of a fast, highly skilled, and *BIG* center for the future.

If the kid is 2 days younger then he wouldn't have even been in this draft. If he dominates at Dubuque this year, then we effectively got a top 10 pick in 2013 at #21 in 2012.

Avatar
#19 Graham
June 25 2012, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

The Jankowski pick is going to be controversial for years. We have either got a big, offensive minded center, or one of the biggest first round flops in Flames history (and we have had our share). Given the tenure of hockey executives, its unlikely that Feaster will be around in five years, so his gamble if successfull, is likely to benefit the next GM. Credit due for taking a gamble to benefit the club, not Feaster himself. (you can bet Feaster gets the blame for a flop regardless). Overall, I just don't think it is a gamble I would have taken. I would have picked one of Ceci, Tervainen or Girgensons. Jankowski is the kind of gamble you take if you have two first rounders or two second's. Kents numbers are not encouraging...

Avatar
#20 bookofloob
June 25 2012, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Does anyone know if anyone has ever been drafted out of whatever league it is Stanstead College plays in? Is this pretty unprecedented?

If there is, I wonder if there are similar circumstances to gauge Jankowski on, as this league is pretty obscure and I feel like judging the qualcomp of it is harder to define than is being hypothesized here.

Avatar
#21 Triumph44
June 25 2012, 01:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Nice analysis, Kent. I do wonder when one gets that far away from NHL quality play just how much value NHLE has. It leads me to more philosophical questions about what talent is and how it's realized - players obviously get better by playing both with and against better players. So are Calgary counting on him improving as a result of increased competition/team prowess or do they think that he's already a '1st round draft pick' by virtue of what he's shown in this obscure league?

It sure sounds like they got married to one guy's skillset and shooed away questions about just how important it is.

Also, I would think that Zajac's dominance would have something to do with Chucko's presence and vice versa - Chucko is not an NHL player, obviously, but he looked like an average-ish player in the AHL, which is still significantly better than most BCHL players, most of whom don't have pro careers of any significance.

Avatar
#22 Mamie Jacouns Love Child
June 25 2012, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

The only thing that could have made JFee/Wbrod look worse on this is if they went on a Burke-like tirade ala Morgan Reilly -- "We had this guy ranked #1 on our list".

This pick is a real shot in the dark.

Avatar
#24 Olsy
June 25 2012, 01:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

i am a fan of the work you do here, love reading it!

Two things come to mind for me when I try to reconcile the figures in my mind:

1) Mark has been noted as a playmaker first that can also put the puck in the net by many souting reports I've read. Given the fact that he scored more goals than he assisted on, it makes me wonder if his quality of team mates he is passing to is worth a thought.

2) I think comparing him to Nail and others who maybe upto 11 months older than him is also worth an asterix.

Thanks for all the work you put into this!

Avatar
#25 everton fc
June 25 2012, 01:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Pretty gutsy move, picking Jankowski at 21... But Feaster's statement, "He'll be the best pick in this draft 10 years from now"...

Not prudent.

This could, indeed, go down as the worst pick in Flames history, in Round 1. He'll have to become a #1 centre producing 60-70 points a season, to make this a success, based on the talent passed over.

And that wouldn't make him the best pick in this draft, Mr Feaster. Not by a longshot.

What a wreckless statement to make to an already-upset and pessimistic fanbase....

Avatar
#26 thymebalm
June 25 2012, 01:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What do we want to see from Jankowski in the USHL next year?

If he was drafted as a rising talent, I'm interested in next years stats more than last year's.

Players that turned NHL success drafted in the 1st round from USHL:
Kyle Okposo 50GP 27G-31A-58P 1.16PPG
Joe Pavelski 60GP 36G-33A-69P 1.15PPG
Thomas Vanek 56GP 46G-45A-91P 1.63PPG
David Backes 57GP 28G-41A-69P 1.21PPG (2nd round)
Paul Stastny 56 GP 30G-47A-77P 1.38PPG
Blake Wheeler 58GP 19G-28A-47P 0.81PPG
Phil Housley 16GP 13G-13A-26P 1.62PPG

I realize that Jankowski's numbers are going to be post-draft and not pre-draft, but let's just test this out.

The average PPG rate for these USHL players is 1.25.

That has to be the target range for Jankowski next year. If he can produce around that level in the USHL... we'll have a way clearer picture of what kind of prospect we have.

Avatar
#27 bookofloob
June 25 2012, 02:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'd assume you're pretty close with the Miiny HS comparison Kent. But it's really quite an unknown.

Avatar
#28 sanehockey
June 25 2012, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yeah I was sure wheeler was drafted out of high school, it was a shocking pick then too.

Avatar
#29 RexLibris
June 25 2012, 02:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

First off, Kent, great article. Very good analysis and some good background work here. Not inspiring, for Flames fans, but as an ad hoc NHLE comparison it does put things into context.

Which leads me to my second point...

@evertonfc

I totally agree. One of the biggest issues I had with this pick was what Feaster said about the player, and the selection process, after the fact. Saying that a high school kid will become the best player taken in the draft and then quickly saying that this was Weisbrod's pick is just blatantly irresponsible. He is laying so much hope and pressure at the feet of such a young and inexperienced young man and then handing off the possible repercussions to his subordinate.

I know he was probably thinking that he was giving credit where it was due, but the best thing would have been to say that Jankowksi is a good player and they feel a wise investment for the long term. Not spout off about him being Joe Nieuwendyk.

Saying that it was Weisbrod's pick just means, in the end, that if things go sour (and with a pick this risky that is obviously a strong possibility) it is someone else's fault.

He ought to have kept his mouth shut on potential and just said that he and his entire staff chose Jankowski. Feaster strikes me, more and more, as someone who, when he speaks, is trying to convince the listener that he is the smartest person in the room.

Anyway, I hope Jankowski has an NHL career and I hope that he can manage the pressure that will undoubtedly come in the next few years.

Avatar
#30 FireOnIce
June 25 2012, 02:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Feaster's dyslexic and somehow got Gretzky and Jankowski mixed up.

This kid, on paper, seems to have the right stuff to be an awesome player. He also has a name that, for first rounders, sounds like a total flameout (see: Krahn, Brent and Daigle, Alexander). We will certainly have to wait a couple years before we ever find out whether Jankowski over Girgenson/Maatta/Finn et al. was the right decision.

Certainly, the statement that in "10 years this kid will be the best of this draft" is far reaching, AT BEST. In all likelihood, Feaster and Weisbrod will never have to face the music on this proclamation, as both will probably have been run out of town long before then.

Avatar
#31 gussey
June 25 2012, 02:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

My problem with the draft is not that Jankowski is a good kid or that he has potential. I've listened to Pat Steinberg defend the move all day today. But I just dont get it. Feaster said they were going to go best player available, by their list. You cant tell me that even the flames list had Jankowski ahead of Teravainen, Ceci, or Maata. Teravainen was top ten on almost everyone else's draft lists. Only Craig Button had Jankowski in the top 20 and he still had Teravainen 5th. The 2nd rounder is a whatever pick, defensive defensemen that may or may not have the talent to make the NHL. I have been a feaster supporter for the most part, but I think they are off on this one. I think they fell in love with a certain guy and were going to pick him regardless, rather than do what they said they would do and "pick the best player available."

Avatar
#32 negrilcowboy
June 25 2012, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

jankowski is a very big gamble. i wonder how much this pick was motivated by family ties. as for the minny high school loop, its a good league but is a step above aaa minor midget and a step or two below the lower junior loops. i wonder why jankowski didnt go the ophl route. his minor midget ohl draft stats are not very impressive. stanstead by all means isnt a notre dame or a shattuck program by any means, dont they play against elite academy a bit?

Avatar
#33 everton fc
June 25 2012, 02:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Even the description, the story, of how Jankowski was discovered...

It's seems so "rushed"...

The pressure this kid will have, going forward, and how he responds... Will tell a lot. How unfair to put such pressure on a kid who hadn't even received his high school diploma when picked.

Wreckless comments and projections by the top brass here. Almost bush-league.

The Sabres must be snickering a bit. And I, for one, still think a better GM would have parlayed more for Regehr at that time. Reagrdless of being saddled w/Kotalik.

Just my opinion.

Avatar
#34 negrilcowboy
June 25 2012, 02:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@ everton you gotta love the story, can't wait for the movie. blinding snowstorm then wham the chosen one is discovered. the spin doctors are reworking the dali llama selection.

Avatar
#35 freeze
June 25 2012, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Is it known where jankowski will play next year?

Never mind, found it: USHL Providence (Dubuque)

Avatar
#36 RexLibris
June 25 2012, 03:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@evertonfc

It seems we're in sync again.

I don't have a problem with trading down, or even, necessarily, the pick. I do have a problem with putting your team in a position where you need to trade down in order to recoup your very own pick a year after the initial trade.

Like you, I have a serious issue with the bluster here. When Feaster started prophesying about making the playoffs and finishing higher than the Oilers I, like many Oiler fans, was bemused/incensed/dismissive. But to start making claims like that of a player so young and taken so far off the beaten path that he likely hasn't had to deal with the exposure and media attention associated with being a high prospect, just seems to echo irresponsibility.

I think negrilcowboy has a good idea here. Start pitching the idea to Ken King and the Flames can film the whole thing here in Alberta. Daniel Ratcliffe could play Jankowski (we are talking chosen ones here, right), maybe Tom Cruise could be Weisbrod. Feaster could play himself, he is accomplished at delivering lines.

Avatar
#37 Reidja
June 25 2012, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Everyone is freaking out about this pick... wait 5 years before you freak out folks.

Can't we freak out about the fact that our team is still built around two 36 year olds with a combined cap hit of $13MM? You want something to get mad about, get mad about that.

Spare the kid, who I'm sure you have never seen play, of your wrath... please.

Avatar
#38 Sworkhard
June 25 2012, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

How does the beantown classic compare? I believe he played 13 games there and had a higher PPG in the classic than in his regular high school games despite the better competition. As far as I know a big part of the reason he ended up being ranked so high is due to his performance at the classic.

Edit: I hate NHLe, especially when comparing with such a large difference in both quality of team and quality of opposition. Biggest reason is that for each level of competition difference, the standard deviation increases dramatically.

Avatar
#39 Colin
June 25 2012, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rex @Everton

Yeah the comments made by Feaster are stupid, but guess what, he has to sell the kid, this risky a pick he has to sell to season ticket holders.

As for getting more for Regehr, WHY? He wasn't that great a defender when he was with us and after this year has shown, we wouldn't have gotten half of what we did get if we held on to him and his cap hit. Right now everyone would be wondering if it would be okay to buy him out rather than play him if we held on to him. We got a bonafide NHL defender that can easily be a 3/4 guy and can play(though not great) minutes in a top pairing. As well we got a decent forward that could step into the NHL next season. Yeah losing that 2nd sucks but ownership was not going to want to keep paying for him to be in Abbotsford or overseas, while also paying for the likes of Hagman and whatever else. So as much as Feaster sucks for losing that 2nd, he was put into that position by even worse management by D. Sutter.

As for Jankowski, the pick is fine, they drafted him earlier then they probably should, but it wasn't like picking a 4th rounder in the first.

We don't have any information on his deployments, did most of his points come in the form of ES or PP points, something I think is more important, because I think schremp had a ton of points and based off his points his NHLE would have been high, but history shows where he eneded up. Also we don't know the quality of the guys Jankowski played with or the Quality of Comp, was Jankowski on the best team in that league or was it the worst minus Jankowski.

There is so little tangibale information that calling the kid a bust right now is some of the most stupid/ignorant comments people can make. He's going to play in Dubuque this year, where we can get some tangible statistics and we get a lot closer look as to what his true potential may be. As the youngest kid of the draft, if he is putting up better numbers in Dubuque as the other guys who were drafted out of there this year, thats a good sign, if he gets his face beat in, well thats gonna be some serious egg on feasters face.

Avatar
#40 RexLibris
June 25 2012, 03:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@colin

I'm not calling Jankowski a bust. Not by any means. I'm just taking issue with what Feaster said after the pick. I realize that he has a product to sell, but he doesn't need to sell the Flames so badly to a disinterested audience that it justifies such hyperbole.

I'm glad you brought up Schremp because Prendergast did the same thing with a lot of Oiler prospects including Schremp. Everybody was the next Gretzky.

Yesterday I made the point about the Regehr trade that I think Feaster ought to have asked for less rather and used Regehr's value to cover the cost of dealing Kotalik. I think that would have been a far better long-term use of team assets than adding sweetener to a deal only to see a return of a two warm bodies instead of one.

But as I have already written on FN, I think this comes down to a fundamental difference of perspective on the state of the team.

Avatar
#42 everton fc
June 25 2012, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Colin:

I, for one, never said the kid's a bust. Any of the top-10 picks could be a bust. Ditto the next 10. And so on. Look at Daigle, Jessiman, as references...

You do make good points about Schremp, and what type of deployments Jankowski was exposed to. VEry good point. It'd be more relevant if his competition was better.

With Regehr, I still believe other GMs could have got more for him. I'll leave it at that.

We all hope this kid is everything Feaster's selling. Most have their concerns. Legitimate, I think. I base mine on Feaster's past. He's not had the best advice in prior drafts with the Bolts. And last year's draft, while encouraging, still has some question marks, outside Baertschi.

I'll say this; picking Brossoit in the 6th round might be the greatest steal this franchise has made in some time. So I, for one, am not entirely negative on our current regime.

Simply suspect.

And I'm still a little sore about losing Holland to the Habs. Especially since he's a right-handed shot.

But, hey, that's me. I can be cynical.

Probably genetics...

Avatar
#43 negrilcowboy
June 25 2012, 04:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@ rex, i bet feaster and the gang spin the jankowski pick in that he was so young that he is actually a first round 2013 selection. wouldnt the big steal in the draft have been to unload an asset then slyly pull jank o gate with say a 25 pick or so while retaining the 12 pick. i highly suspect doug weisbo, and papa jank have a past.

Avatar
#44 suba steve
June 25 2012, 04:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Could this be the worst draft choice in Calgary Flame history? I guess it's possible, I doubt it. To take the belt Jankowski will have to defeat some stiff competition:

Daniel Tkazuk #6 overall in '97

Rico Fata #6 overall in '98

Oleg Saprykin #11 overall in '99

Brent Krahn #9 overall in 2000

Chris Chucko #24 overall in '04

My personal vote goes to Fata. You know your Flames have made a terrible mistake when Bob McKenzie starts ridiculing his selection immediately after it is made.

I'm interested to see how Jankowski does with some better comp. and better linemates. If he has some skill guys to pass to, watch his assists outnumber his goals next year. Just trying to stay positive in the face of all this negativity.

Avatar
#45 T&A4Flames
June 25 2012, 04:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ negril

I believe he didn't go the OHL route because in his CHL draft year, he was only 5'7". He shot up 6-8" in that span and was subsequently drafted the next year I believe. I don't know why he has not since gone that route, though.

Avatar
#46 T&A4Flames
June 25 2012, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Re: Feaster's comments; I don't have issue with that. You can choose to view his comments as negative or putting undo pressure on this kid. Or, you could look at it as the Flames brass really do believe in this kid and the comments will add confidence to Janko going forward. Maybe Feast was a little over the top with it, but at least he has passion about the player. Who knows what the make up of this kid is. I'll gaurantee one thing, Feaster and his staff know it a whole lot better than us.

Avatar
#47 Derzie
June 25 2012, 04:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Ratings aside, elite players are generally elite at every level they play unless they get hurt or run into a bad coach/team. Even common sense says this pick is a pig in a poke. The equivalent of buying lottery ticket instead of a well touted stock or mutual fund. Too far into left field and the results are too far in the future.

Avatar
#48 Baalzamon
June 25 2012, 04:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

believe it or not, I actually found something slightly encouraging. The only other player ever drafted directly from Canadian highschool was Colin Greening. A 7th rounder. don't worry, I haven't gotten to the point yet.

Greening had a 1.31PPG in his draft year. In his first 106 NHL games (6/7 years later lol) he had a 0.47 PPG. That 7year translation factor is 0.62. Punch that into Janks' stats (1.63PPG) and you come to 1PPG!!! so logically (lol), because of this shoddy math, we can conclude that Jankowski will be a point per game player in 6/7 years. If he works out.

also interesting to note is, after being drafted, Greening headed for 1 year of BCHL (with modest production; 1.11PPG) before 4 years of NCAA (again, modest production; 0.86PPG). So, if Jankowski puts up really good USHL numbers (the USHL is a better league than BCHL) it will be a good sign.

Avatar
#49 T&A4Flames
June 25 2012, 04:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Was he not elite at the level he played? All be it a lower lever. His numbers would dictate it.

Also, re: Seiloff. I have seen some mock drafts that had him as high as 20th overall. So even if one of these guys hit, the trade down may prove to be worth it.

Avatar
#50 everton fc
June 25 2012, 04:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

A fair "skinny" on this kid (pun intended, of course!)

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/06/13/draft-profile-no-37-mark-jankowski/

And another.

http://thehockeywriters.com/mark-jankowski-the-next-ones-nhl-2012-draft-prospect-profile-the-wild-card/

My last post on this kid. Here's hoping all the upsides Weisbrod saw, and that others saw at the Beanpot Classic make this kid everything Weisbrod and Feaster see.

As for Seiloff, he may be a good one. We shall see. Seems like a tough, gritty kid.

Comments are closed for this article.