Mark Jankowski Goes to College

Arik
July 31 2012 09:23AM

 

 

In a move that's only surprising in how long it took, Flames first round pick Mark Jankowski has announced he'll be attending Providence College right away instead of joining the Dubuque Fighting Saints for a year.

From Vicki Hall's article in the Calgary Herald

“I think this is the right way for me to go,” Jankowski said Monday afternoon from his off-season home in Hamilton, Ont. “I believe I’m ready for the jump"

While it seems like this was mostly Jankowski's choice, it's hard to imagine the Flames are particularly upset by it. Any first round choice should be good enough to be playing competition harder than that of the USHL. When given how good he looked at development camp against older players with more experience, the NCAA level seems much more appropriate. He'll also probably the most skilled player on the Friars, which means prime ice time and power play experience.

The Providence Friars might be a far cry from Johnny Gaudreau's and Bill Arnold's Boston College Eagles, but that's not to say he's still basically playing in the USHL. Despite a low quality of teammates (only two players on the Friars last year have been drafted) he'll be playing against top competition in one of the best NCAA hockey conferences- Hockey East. This means games against Boston College, Boston University, UNH, Northeastern, and the University of Vermont— among others.

In addition to giving Jankowski a better setting for development, this move will give the organization and the fans a better context in which to judge him- especially with two other prospects in the exact same conference. 

Only time will tell with Mark Jankowski, but this move to the NCAA instead of the USHL gives hope that he might not have been as much of a reach as most fans initially assumed. 

89f9ff18b1b3e325c6f96a48ff40560a
Arik works in Search and Rescue in the United States Coast Guard and is a former managing editor of the SBN Flames blog, Matchsticks and Gasoline.
Avatar
#1 jeremywilhelm
July 31 2012, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Taking safe prospects is exactly what made the Flames system one of the worst in the NHL.

Avatar
#2 Bean-counting cowboy
July 31 2012, 09:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It will be interesting to see how his numbers compare to Gaudreau this upcoming year.

Avatar
#3 Colin.S
July 31 2012, 09:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Very good move for him, especially after how well he did at Development camp. He was easily one of the top 5 players at Dev Camp, so the fact he would be in one of the weaker leagues just didn't seem right.

He should easily be getting top 6 ice time if not top 3, I'm guessing that factored into his decision as well.

Avatar
#4 Steve
July 31 2012, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I was really hoping to hear that he would go the NCAA route. I really think a year in the USHL would have been a wasted one. Could be an exciting year in prospect development as Gaudreau gets a chance to take on more of the offensive burden at BC, Granlund gets a chance to show what he can do without his brother, Max Power shows he can continue to produce and be a leader as a pro, Michael Ferland gets a chance to show he can fight and score at the pro level, hopefully Brossoit gets a chance to redeem himself at the Memorial cup. And we'll see what the 2012 crop of defensemen can do. That's where we could really use a pleasant surprise.

Avatar
#5 smtorsch
July 31 2012, 10:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I've seen a lot of comments about Jankowski's decision lately, but I remain confused by a few things.

First, I get that Jankowski was playing in an obscure league that made his selection in the first round seem a bit odd. Why was he planning to go to the USHL in the first place? Because college hockey was going to be too big a step from where he was playing before? And how does the USHL compare with CHL hockey? Is it tougher? Easier? About the same? There doesn't seem to be an easy way to consider all of these leagues in context. Maybe NHLE?

Second, the Flames used a first round pick on a guy that, at the time, might not have been ready for US college hockey? Like, holding aside for a moment the fact that he wasn't ready to be a dominant force on a top-flight US college team, he wasn't even ready to play for a middling team at all? And Feaster used a first round pick on a guy like that? Nothing against Jankowski (it's not like he asked for all the pressure and expectations that go along with being a first round pick for a Canadian NHL team), but shouldn't we be a lot more concerned about this?

Avatar
#6 Bean-counting cowboy
July 31 2012, 10:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ smtorsch

It was risky. High risk high reward type pick.

IMO he was playing in that obscure league because when he started playing he was 5'8 skin & bones & was younger. He rose swiftly up the draft rankings because of his huge 6" growth spurt & young age. A few days younger and he may have been a top 10 pick at next year's draft.

I like the ballsy move by Feaster. Especially seeing now how he played at development camp.

Avatar
#7 Bean-counting cowboy
July 31 2012, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Does anyone know - I assume the rules are the same for when you have to sign an entry level deal for a college prospect as compared to a CHL prospect? Same time frame?

When do we need to sign Jankowski by?

Avatar
#8 Steve
July 31 2012, 10:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@smtorsch

My take on your concerns - Jankowski was one of the youngest picks in the draft, a couple of days away from not being eligible until next year. I think it's mostly a matter of making sure he's both physically and mentally mature enough to compete against others who are significantly older and bigger. Others please correct me if I'm wrong, but a year ago I don't think he was even considered a prospect. He's higher risk, higher reward because we got a chance to draft him young.

Avatar
#9 Colin.S
July 31 2012, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BCB

We don't need to sign him at all, we have his rights till he leaves College, unless the CBA is changed it would be the same as Schultz, once Jankowski is done his 4 years in school or whatever he would be a UFA 2 weeks after his classes end. However during that entire time we retain his rights. We CAN'T sign him or he loses "amatuer" status per NCAA Regulations.

Avatar
#10 Justin Azevedo
July 31 2012, 10:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Bean-counting cowboy

aug. 15th of his graduating year, which will probably be 2016 or 2017.

Avatar
#11 Colin.S
July 31 2012, 10:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin, should be 2016, going with a typical 4 year program, however he can always declare early.

Avatar
#12 Bean-counting cowboy
July 31 2012, 10:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Ahh. that makes sense. Thanks

Avatar
#13 T&A4Flames
July 31 2012, 11:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Where does Jankowski rank in our prospect list. Last year after the draft, Baertschi went stright to #1. I suspect he will retain that rank but Janko must be considered at least top 5, wouldn't he?

Avatar
#14 Austin L
July 31 2012, 11:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm glad Jankowski is skipping the USHL, that pretty much trims off one more year that we'd have to wait to see him in a Flames jersey. Can Jankowski still attend Flames training camp in the fall? And play a few preseason games? Or does the NCAA schedule interfere with that?

Avatar
#15 the-wolf
July 31 2012, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Calgary took a big gamble by passing on a guy Girgensons (who went at their original draft spot #14) and Teravainen.

Only time will tell, enough time that Feaster may not even be here by then.

It's not Jankowski being chosen that bugs me so much as the fact that a lot of other players are far closer to stepping in.

It's like Calgary selected Jankowski with the belief that their team is already stocked full of top young talent and so there's no hurry on this guy.

Makes sense if you were Edmonton picking at 21, not so much Calgary.

Plus, I'm always wary of players selcted based on just a few viewings. Most players are heavily scouted for 1-2 years now.

Still, a lot of people say he did great at development camp, so hopefully his 'curve' keeps trending upwards exponentially.

Avatar
#16 T&A4Flames
July 31 2012, 12:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

a THE WOLF

"Calgary took a big gamble by passing on a guy Girgensons (who went at their original draft spot #14) and Teravainen."

I'm ok with the choice to pass on Girg. and pick up a 2nd and then draft Janko. Girg was the safe pick that could make the NHL as a 2nd liner. Janko is a bigger risk, yes, but his ceiling is much higher, 1st line potential. CGY has enough 2nd line potential guys with Backs, Horak, Reinhart etc. We need a guy with that potential 1st line offensive skill. I think Janko showed at camp he has that.

Avatar
#17 Baalzamon
July 31 2012, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

I ranked Jankowski 5th (with potential to move sharply in either direction)--sandwiched between Gaudreau and Arnold FYI--when I did an updated list shortly after the draft.

if Janko does end up being Providence's 1st line center (that would put him on a line with Schaller, wouldn't it?) and Gillies nails the #1 goalie position, that would be cool. I think in that case, we should consider the season a success if the Friars finish with a winning record. That conference is brutal.

Flames' college contingent is looking great these days. Ramage, Arnold, Gaudreau, Gillies, Jankowski. Oh yeah, DeBlouw too.

Avatar
#18 beloch
July 31 2012, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

Calgary has one prospect, Baertschi, with clear top 3 potential. After that there are a lot of 2nd liners and support players, with the possible exception of gambles like Gaudreau. Feaster needed to address the fact that the Flames just don't have much elite talent in their system. In order to get elite prospects with mediocre picks Feaster had no choice but to gamble. Girgensons might have been a safer bet with a shorter development curve than Jankowski, but he doesn't have nearly as much offensive potential.

After years of Dutter robbing the cupboard for one more shot at 8th it's nice to see Feaster make picks that prioritize long-term upside over what the team needs right now. If the Flames can keep doing that we might one day have a prospect system that yields elite NHL'ers on a semi-regular basis.

Avatar
#19 SmellOfVictory
July 31 2012, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf: The thing with the Flames is they have tons of mid-range prospects at forward; they need high end ones, and where they were in the 2012 draft, there wasn't much of that in terms of guys who were nearly NHL-ready. Girgensons isn't projected to be anything beyond a 2nd line C (at best), and Teravainen (sp) is considered a significantly risky pick for different reasons (physical ability in the NHL). In terms of the opportunity to grab top-end talent, Janko was about it; high risk, but given the scouting on him, potentially very high reward.

Avatar
#20 the-wolf
July 31 2012, 01:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Oh, I get the argument, but lets not forget that Janko was also a consensus 2nd rounder. Not that he won't exceed that, just saying that a guy Teravainen was called the next Selanne ans is only a year or 2 away vs. 3-5 years (depending on whose opinion you read).

Like the player actually, but I wouldn't call him a slam dunk quite yet.

Avatar
#21 McRib
July 31 2012, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Baalzamon

Honestly hope that you are not calling the Hockey East Brutal..... You mean the conference that has produced four of the last five NCAA champions?

Avatar
#22 suba steve
July 31 2012, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

the-wolf

I hear what you're saying but, I'm gonna go with the Flame's scouts take on Jankowski. The draft is a great big crap shoot and no player is a sure thing--not Girgensons, not Teravainen, not Jankowski. Obviously, Flames scouts saw him as their best option in the long term with the pick they had, plus they picked up that 2nd rounder at (apparently) no cost. Well done in my opinion

I have low hopes for the upcoming season (as I think do a lot of FN readers), so I'm fine if Janko takes 3 or 4 years to develope. The rebuild is gonna take at least that long. Hey, if things go really well I can see him as NHL ready after 2 seasons in Providence.

Everything considered, I like what Feaster/JW/Button/etc. have done at the draft over the last 2 years. In 5 years I may be singing a different tune, but today am content.

Avatar
#23 Ryan Pike
July 31 2012, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Most high-end college prospects take things a year at a time, particularly with the potential NHL pay-day dangling in front of them.

Gaudreau was originally set to stay in the NCAA for four years, now he's probably looking at one more.

Jankowski probably is approaching things the same way.

FYI: Flames prospects have been on the Hockey East All-Rookie team in each of the past two years (Bill Arnold in 2010-11, Gaudreau in 2011-12).

Avatar
#24 McRib
July 31 2012, 01:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Think Jankowski's development is more like 2-3 years after he made the jump directly to NCAA. He will light up the NCAA for a couple years and put on 20-40 pounds and he's ready, see very little risk with Jankowski considering how good he looked in camp compared to a Greg Nemisz. You would have though Nemisz was the one who was yet to play a NCAA game. Worst case scenario Second Line Centre. He already has shown up against the likes of Bartschi & Gaudreau he has the top skills just needs to fill out. Said he is more than willing to leave school early.

For all of you who don't understand why Jankowski picked Providence its because their Coach Nate Leaman is one of the best in all of College hockey. He took Union a team with no star recruits and brought them to the NCAA Tournament two years in a row.

Avatar
#25 McRib
July 31 2012, 01:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ryan Pike

Got to watch Bill Arnold on the USA World Junior Team up in Edmonton, was pleasantly surprised to say the least was one of the most consistent forwards for them.

Not sold on John Ramage but you can't win them all.

Avatar
#26 Justin Azevedo
July 31 2012, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

he meant "brutal" as in tough.

Avatar
#27 McRib
July 31 2012, 02:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

Ahhhh, That makes much more sense my apologizes. Hockey East will be even better when Notre Dame/UConn join in the next two years. The Flames could have three of the Top Forwards next year in the Hockey East. Haha. Going to be interesting.

Avatar
#28 RexLibris
July 31 2012, 02:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

I tend to be in agreement with you (sorry for that), about Feaster and Weisbrod's decision to gamble at that point in the draft.

My points have been made on this forum before, so I won't repeat them. But your assessment that the Flames don't really appear to have the organizational depth to afford missing on Jankowski is pretty much in line with my perspective on it.

I use the metaphor that Feaster and Weisbrod hit the blackjack table with their rent money. The system needs solid, dependable prospects. The high-risk, high-reward players are nice to have, but ought only be taken when a team can afford the worst-case scenario coming to pass. The Flames can't. The fact that Feaster traded down only to regain his own 2nd round draft pick only adds emphasis to his earlier mistake.

The Flames scouting staff soiled the sheets in the 2006 draft and the gap that it and the follow-up drafts created in the prospect pool are, in my opinion, what lead to Darryl Sutter's being removed from his position.

If Jankowski ends up somewhere in the Mikael Backlund to Greg Nemisz range of NHL success (not ability, his skill set is very different), I would argue that the gamble had failed.

Like I said at the time, it isn't the pick or the player with which I take issue. It is the timing for an organization like the Flames and their prospect situation that makes me think it was a very poor decision in the long run. In my view, it speaks to a greater issue of failure to adequately evaluate the health of the franchise.

Avatar
#29 Baalzamon
July 31 2012, 02:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

actually, the pick the Flames got in that trade was technically buffalo's (43rd). The Flames' was 45th.

I don't think we have to worry about Jankowski being a mediocre player. IMO he'll either be a complete bust or a #1 center. it's the way his flaws work out; his skillset is fine in all categories, but he's weak and has never played at a decent level. If he doesn't reach his potential, it's either because he continues to be weak, or because he just can't process the game at higher pace--in both cases, resulting in a non-NHL career and a bust of a pick. If neither of those things is an issue, then he reaches his potential and becomes a 1st line player. just my read on the situation.

Avatar
#30 Steve
July 31 2012, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

Can't disagree with this comment more. First of all, I don't think giving up the second round pick was a 'mistake'. That was what it took to get Mike Cammalleri, and more importantly to get rid of Rene Bourque. To be able to get that pick back and still have the first round pick you wanted is very sound asset management.

Secondly, I resoundingly disagree that the Flames are at a point where they can't afford to take chances. I don't think there are very many safe choices. Unless you're going to try for top 5 picks, which they've made clear they're not. I think all good organizations take chances, otherwise you're guaranteeing continual mediocrity.

Avatar
#31 T&A4Flames
July 31 2012, 02:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ RexLibris

"The high-risk, high-reward players are nice to have, but ought only be taken when a team can afford the worst-case scenario coming to pass. The Flames can't."

I don't agree Rex. I think it is the exact opposite. All I ever hear from the EDM fan base that likes to chime in is that CGY is stuck in mediocrity. If they keep drafting mediocre players with mediocre upside, how will they ever get out of it? They went off the board and went for a guy with a high reward capability. If he fails, I don't think we are off much worse than we may already have been. If he does pan out, we have a HUGE piece to help move us back to the top. Just my opinion.

Avatar
#32 Bean-counting cowboy
July 31 2012, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Rex

How else is Calgary to land a true top line center when we always pick mid draft, but to take a gamble?

How many years has Iggy played here without one?

How many trades have we seen where a team lands a top line center? How many of those players would have waived to go to Calgary?

How many UFA top line centers would choose to sign in Calgary?

Which tree have I not heard of that these centers are growing on?

How many players does Calgary have that could potentially fit the bill for #2 line center?

I respect your opinion, but it's a bit easier to say not to gamble if you're an Oilers fan and have a can't miss top pick 3 years in a row. When you have to pick 12th to 14th every year I think you have to be a bit more creative than the sure pick.

They could have easily gone with the safe pick in the draft. If it didn't work out, no one would have blasted them as it was the consensus "best player available". They knew they would get roasted for that gutsy decision, but still stuck to their guns. Impressive considering the typical lifespan of an NHL GM.

Avatar
#33 suba steve
July 31 2012, 03:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Rex

I respect your opinion, and am sure it is well thought out but, I don't agree. Since when is taking the best player available (as determined by your staff) a bad move for the Flames, or Oil, or any organization? In the Sutter era, we have been told that Darryl had major input into who the team selected (especially in round one)--that generally didn't work out for the best. He also tended to trade away the 2nd round pick. I assume that left the 3rd round and later picks as the time when Button and staff got to take "their" picks (eg. Reinhart, and yes, a bunch of turds too).

The "new" approach seems to have worked well in the 2011 draft, though time is the ultimate decider. I am happy with the Janko selection and very happy that Sieloff was also added due to their best (correct) guess that they could still get their man at #21 overall.

I have seen way too many players who were highly rated by central scouting (Dan Tkaczuk & Radek Bonk as but a few examples) that really never "paid out", to be upset that we passed on a small Fin (that 17 other clubs passed on) or a big Latvian (who's central scouting ranking actually dropped from mid-term ratings).

Janko was central scouting's 43rd ranked NA skater at the draft, having climbed from 74th at mid-term on a team that got little attention. That is something to pay attention to, add to it his size (or at least his potential size as he fills out), his position, his age, his bloodlines. All good stuff.

Put a more NHL ready prospect (Girgensons) in the lineup (this year or next) of a bad team and you still have a bad team. I'm gonna end this, don't want to steal your long post crown.

Avatar
#34 Colin.S
July 31 2012, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rex, it's easy for the Oilers to take the BPA and immediately insert him into the NHL and run with it when you are always picking #1 overall. Where Calgary always pick, that just isn't feasible, if they want to add true skill and impact to their line-up they have to take a gamble pick every now and then. Girgensons, has good potential, but that potential isn't very high at all, most figure he'll top out at 2nd liner at best, and in some cases thats not a bad thing to help take pressure off a top line.

However what the flames need is top line skill, not more depth players. And yes they can wait a few years for that. Especially because they have control of Jankowski through all of his college career. If the Flames crash and burn with the current line up, we could be looking at some top tier picks, and if we combine those with a potential #1 overall center we could be setting ourselves up for a much shorter rebuild if that truly comes to pass.

Avatar
#35 RexLibris
July 31 2012, 03:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Hmmm, so I'm not going to get a lot of christmas cards from the 403 region? ;-)

First let me be very clear here, I'm not panning Jankowski as a bust. I wouldn't even rate the draft for many of the teams this early (Montreal being an exception).

My criticism is aimed at how the Flames management have assessed the team and it's relative strengths and weaknesses.

I'll respond to a few of the points made above:

The second round pick Feaster acquired was actually Buffalo's, good point, but it was acquired to make up for the Kotalik trade, not the Cammalleri one. That 2nd round pick is in 2013.

Trading for a top-line center is tough. Feaster might have been able to land one in Jeff Carter earlier this year, likely without having to trade away Sven Baertschi. Signing one through free agency is virtually impossible.

So I agree, draft one by all means.

However, to go back to my first point about forecasting players a month after they were drafted, banking on Jankowski as the future 1st line center is not a good idea. Trust me on this, I've been there. Watch him, cheer for him, cheer like heck for him, but allow some space for him to be able to disappoint you without the world crashing down.

If Oil fans like to tell Flames fans about being stuck in mediocrity its because we spent a long time there. We know all the potholes and all the best bars. My comments aren't meant as pot shots or easy jabs at an organization trying to find it's feet again, but from someone who watched intently, and tried to support every decision, as their home team fumbled around the NHL for almost a decade before the bottom finally fell out.

Thanks for the feedback though. I enjoy the conversations. Also, I think the-wolf is safely off the hook now. ;-)

Avatar
#36 Kevin R
July 31 2012, 03:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Rex & Wolf: I hear you guys, was my first thought after the draft, in fact I was a little choked. But, they are the guys driving the boat and decided to take this scenic view. Thing is, in 2 years time, there is a very good possibility Kipper & Iggy are moved on & we will be hitting the pithole whether we took Girgensons or Tervanian or not. What we need to do is give Feaster & Wisebrod the benefit of the doubt that had they not calculated the gamble with Mark, he was their guy right from the get go, they would have probably traded this 1st rounder for either an almost ready prospect & a 2nd or one of our roster players & and our first for a 2013 1st. That would have had a few heads shake as well. This team is going to have to do the long rebuild as they are not willing to fast track with Kipper/Iggy trades, is what it is, so I do understand the rationale of this pick. If it doesnt pan out, I think we are heading for some pretty tough years coming up anyway.

Avatar
#37 RexLibris
July 31 2012, 03:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Colin.S

When I comment on the Flames drafting it is never in comparison to the position that the Oilers are in. While I am an Oilers fan, I try to take that hat off to some extent when I write here. Sorry if that doesn't always come through.

That being said, you make a very good argument and from that perspective I could agree with the overall strategy.

I still have reservations about Feaster trading away picks in the middle of the season only to try and acquire replacement picks on the draft floor, where the price usually goes up. That type of behaviour is generally a sign of someone too brash or arrogant to admit an error, but who instead costs their organization more in the long run in order to correct a mistake to which they have no intention of admitting.

Your point that Jankowski might be a prospect put on layaway while the team eventually falls apart and drafts in the top five, setting up a sort of synergizing of prospect development, is intriguing. It kind of raises questions about the faith fans ultimately have in this management group.

Avatar
#38 RexLibris
July 31 2012, 04:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

See above. I like your comment though. Very appropriate.

Avatar
#39 Craig
July 31 2012, 05:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Its funny to see the ebb and flow of comments about Jankowski, If he didn't perform the way he did in camp there would be a lot more people criticizing the pick. I'm glad he's going to college, and even if he struggles in his first year I'm going to reserve judgement to see how he fully develops. Let's hope he bulks up a lot this coming year and starts ripping it up.

Avatar
#40 Steve
July 31 2012, 06:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

"The second round pick Feaster acquired was actually Buffalo's, good point, but it was acquired to make up for the Kotalik trade, not the Cammalleri one. That 2nd round pick is in 2013."

Ok, fair enough, my mistake. I still don't think you can call it a mistake. There needed to be a change of direction, salary had to be unloaded, I don't claim to know what it takes to get deals done, but I'd rather have be moving in the new direction than not. I don't think you can call doing what it takes to clean up a complete mess a mistake.

Avatar
#41 Baalzamon
July 31 2012, 06:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Steve

thing is, though, if Feaster hadn't included Kotalik in the Regehr trade, he could likely have gotten the same return without moving the 2nd rounder. And Kotalik left for the Czech league anyway.

but yeah, Feaster hasn't mortgaged anything in regaining those 2nd round picks. The 2 2011 picks were acquired in a trade he was forced into--a trade that also brought Roman Horak to the Flames, whereas Erixon has since moved on to Columbus. The 2012 2nd rounder was recouped in a trade down, in which the Flames ended up drafting the same player they would have taken at 14th. I too disagree with Rex that Feaster has been irresponsible in doing this... at least so far. We'll see. There's still the 2013 2nd rounder, after all, and he has yet to decisively win OR lose a major trade.

Avatar
#42 smith
July 31 2012, 07:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Safe picks seem to be closely related to bad picks. 1 Guadrea(successfull) is worth 20 Neimtz, Pelech's, Chucko's. Any pick after the first couple is risky. Eberle was a risky pick as was Getzlaf(laziness questions?) Giroux(size) etc.

We have(probably) some second line players but need 1st liners. Taking some risks is needed.

Avatar
#43 Steve
July 31 2012, 11:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

thing is, though, if Feaster hadn't included Kotalik in the Regehr trade, he could likely have gotten the same return without moving the 2nd rounder. And Kotalik left for the Czech league anyway.

but yeah, Feaster hasn't mortgaged anything in regaining those 2nd round picks. The 2 2011 picks were acquired in a trade he was forced into--a trade that also brought Roman Horak to the Flames, whereas Erixon has since moved on to Columbus. The 2012 2nd rounder was recouped in a trade down, in which the Flames ended up drafting the same player they would have taken at 14th. I too disagree with Rex that Feaster has been irresponsible in doing this... at least so far. We'll see. There's still the 2013 2nd rounder, after all, and he has yet to decisively win OR lose a major trade.

Yeah? Like I said I have no idea what happens in discussions between general managers, but I find it difficult to believe that the deal was all done, and Feaster said wait a minute, I really want to unload a first round pick too. No, no we can't take a first how 'bout a third? Well, okay take our second, please. Obviously no one wanted Kotalik (why would you), so I still think he made a the best deal he could to get rid of a lot of salary, get some decent return (Butler anyway, not sure about Byron). I stand by his moves, can't say I disagree with any of them to this point.

Avatar
#44 44stampede
August 01 2012, 12:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm curious why he is on a team that only has 2 players drafted. Couldn't he get a scholarship at a better school? Is he at that particular school for academic reasons?

Avatar
#45 the-wolf
August 01 2012, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just to chime back in here, my comments weren't intended to be a direct comparison of Janko vs players X or a knock on Janko. The players I used were just convenient examples.

I used Girgensons because a lot of people on here were very high on him pre-draft (where they've suddenly gone to, I don't know) and only 1 guy on here ever mentioned Janko.

My point was merely in regards to timeline/development curve and that with the lack of top prospects in Calgary's system and the fact that consensus top guys were available that have a shorter projected development time....

Also, consensus top prospects fall every year and then some team picking later gets a steal. Happens every year, so knocking a guy for free-falling a little on draft day is a poor way to evaluate a talent.

Avatar
#46 RexLibris
August 01 2012, 10:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

The first time I read Jankowski's name on FN was in a conversation I was having with ColinS about potential Flames targets. I can't remember who brought him up (it doesn't really matter), and perhaps somebody else mentioned him earlier in another thread.

ColinS and I were discussing potential targets at #14 and bandying around names like Girgensons, Gaunce, Maatta, Trouba, and so on. I felt that of those three in particular, Gaunce was the one most likely to still be available at #14. Then eventually we turned to Jankowski as a player that Feaster and Weisbrod would probably be interested in, but it was in the context of trading down and using a 2nd round pick on him, not as a first rounder (if I recall corrrectly).

Anyway, shall we start the clock ticking on the comparison between Jankowski and Teravainen/Girgensons? ;-)

Avatar
#47 the-wolf
August 01 2012, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rex - like I said, just a convenient example, though admittedly I was one of the people who mentioned him as a possible target at 14.

What's ironic is that Calgary moved that 14th pick to Buffalo and then Buffalo subsequently took Giregensons at 14.

So, perhaps there is no way around it. As you said, start the clock.

Avatar
#48 BurningSensation
August 01 2012, 12:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
RexLibris wrote:

Hmmm, so I'm not going to get a lot of christmas cards from the 403 region? ;-)

First let me be very clear here, I'm not panning Jankowski as a bust. I wouldn't even rate the draft for many of the teams this early (Montreal being an exception).

My criticism is aimed at how the Flames management have assessed the team and it's relative strengths and weaknesses.

I'll respond to a few of the points made above:

The second round pick Feaster acquired was actually Buffalo's, good point, but it was acquired to make up for the Kotalik trade, not the Cammalleri one. That 2nd round pick is in 2013.

Trading for a top-line center is tough. Feaster might have been able to land one in Jeff Carter earlier this year, likely without having to trade away Sven Baertschi. Signing one through free agency is virtually impossible.

So I agree, draft one by all means.

However, to go back to my first point about forecasting players a month after they were drafted, banking on Jankowski as the future 1st line center is not a good idea. Trust me on this, I've been there. Watch him, cheer for him, cheer like heck for him, but allow some space for him to be able to disappoint you without the world crashing down.

If Oil fans like to tell Flames fans about being stuck in mediocrity its because we spent a long time there. We know all the potholes and all the best bars. My comments aren't meant as pot shots or easy jabs at an organization trying to find it's feet again, but from someone who watched intently, and tried to support every decision, as their home team fumbled around the NHL for almost a decade before the bottom finally fell out.

Thanks for the feedback though. I enjoy the conversations. Also, I think the-wolf is safely off the hook now. ;-)

I disagree with you in general Rex, but in particular the '2nd rnd pick is to make up for...X' makes me crazy.

When evaluating the Jankowski selection it should be viewed for the transaction itself (Janko+Sielof for Girgensons)', and not include 'to replace pick lost for Kotalik'

Whatever your opinion on the Regehr's deal (I call it a slight win), Kotalik is a part of it and not the Jankowski selection.

Avatar
#49 the-wolf
August 01 2012, 12:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ BurningSensation

"When evaluating the Jankowski selection it should be viewed for the transaction itself (Janko+Sielof for Girgensons)', and not include 'to replace pick lost for Kotalik'"

This makes a lot of sense on one hand, but not so much on the other. This was a trade of picks, not players. Who knows who Buffalo would've taken in the 2nd round and which player Calgary might have possibly lost out on by trading down?

In other words, Calgary didn't necessarily pass on Girgensons (though because that's who Buffalo took there it will bear watching), but rather the 7 players (Girgensons being one of them) taken from the 14th to 20th spots.

If Teravainen turns into a superstar, for example, Calgary will be criticized for not taking Teravainen, not for not taking Giregensons.

Not saying that's what will happen, just the way the trade should be viewed.

Avatar
#50 suba steve
August 01 2012, 01:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

More simply stated, the Flames could have had:

A) Jankowsky at #14

OR

B) Jankowsky at #21 AND Sieloff at #42.

Given that Janko was their guy, trading down and still getting him at 21 as well as another strong prospect is a HUGE win.

Did Feaster screw the pooch in the exchange of our 2nd rounder with Kotalik? Perhaps. Not sure what was involved in convincing Kotalik to cross the ocean, probably a cash payout? In that case Flame ownership may have determined that that dollar amount was worth more to them then a 2012 2nd rounder? What is the cash value of a mid 2nd rounder?

Comments are closed for this article.