Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
This is exactly why I never got the line of reasoning from a handful of critics here that the Flames' situation with prospects made the pick a bad one—that they for some reason couldn't afford a "gamble" where another team would have been fine with the same pick, but under different circumstances.
At the end of the day, selecting Jankowski was a good decision. In hindsight I'm not sure it could even be characterized as a gamble. It looks more and more like due diligence on the part of Calgary's scouts, who were savvy enough to see what a lot of other observers missed.
|
I think its because when you litterally have no good prospects you'd like to hit with the opportunities you do have. Taking a kid out of high school who is a projected to take a good 4-5+ years to make the team comes with risk. Obviously all players have risk but I think its reasonable to see why some people may see this as more risk when other players are legitatemately a season or two away from the NHL. Projections a year or two away are always easier than 5 years away in anything. The way the team sits now I don't mind the pick because its basically icing on the cake. I'm happy with the team whether or not Jankowski makes it. When Jankowski was drafted though we didn't have a Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Poirier, etc. I guess its just a matter of opinion. If you're down by 3 runs in the bottom of the 9th do you prefer to swing for the fences or do you want to play safe and get runners on base?