Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
Longer to develop =/= Higher Risk and more potential =/= higher risk
Have you thought for maybe just a split second that maybe just maybe the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player in the end? That's really all it comes to.
You know who were "safe" picks? Kris Chucko and Greg Nemisz, both were seen as very low risk because their "floor was higher"
This is why your logic is so flawed and why all picks should be viewed the same. All it comes down to is who the scouts feel will be the best player down the road.
|
Have I thought for a split second that the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player? Have you even read my post? Please try doing that first before responding.
If you can't acknowledge that drafting a really young kid playing in high school wasn't a higher risk than drafting players like Maata than ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thymebalm
So do you think the potential for him to become a good NHLer is over for him at 19? Or do you still see the potential for high reward? Because I sure see the potential of a kid with all the tools who is 6'3 186lbs and still just 19. The potential for Jankowski is still very high, as high as others drafted in the first. They gambled, and we got Sieloff as a consolation to that gamble, but the potential is still very, very high.
|
Trade freeze lifts in 8 hours. If you are Burke and the phone rings and it is Shero offering you Maata for Jankowski do you take it? Because there are 30 NHL GMs that almost certainly would take that trade.
My point isn't that Jankowski doesn't have potential. It is that drafting him wasn't the right decision given the Flames situation, the uncertainty around Jankowski, and the alternative prospects that were available to the Flames at both 14 and 21.