Top Shelf Prospects: Flames Edition

[Commandant]

Every Summer I go team by team listing 3 or 4 prospects (pre 2013 draftees) to watch for on each team.

Today is the Flames edition.

Hope you enjoy
http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/07/...gary-flames-2/

[GreenLantern]

Read the whole thing, I liked it. Thanks for your perspective.

[Stupid]

Very nice to have something interesting to read!
Thank you!

[BigRed]

"Jay Feaster has made it clear that other veterans such as Mike Cammalleri are on the block."

Is that so? I didn't realize it was explicit.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by BigRed

"Jay Feaster has made it clear that other veterans such as Mike Cammalleri are on the block."

Is that so? I didn't realize it was explicit.

Well when responding to rumours re: Cammalleri at the draft he said he was surprised at the rumours because he hadn't seen any interest and that if GM's were interested they should phone him.

Wasn't an explicit, "we're shopping Cammalleri" but at the same time he certainly didn't deny they would move Mike.

Given Cammalleri's age and contract status it is pretty easy to guess that Cammalleri will be on his way out by next season's trade deadline.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well when responding to rumours re: Cammalleri at the draft he said he was surprised at the rumours because he hadn't seen any interest and that if GM's were interested they should phone him.

Wasn't an explicit, "we're shopping Cammalleri" but at the same time he certainly didn't deny they would move Mike.

Given Cammalleri's age and contract status it is pretty easy to guess that Cammalleri will be on his way out by next season's trade deadline.

If not traded, I wouldn't mind him being re-signed at say $3.5M per. It's not like we need to trade every vet.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If not traded, I wouldn't mind him being re-signed at say $3.5M per. It's not like we need to trade every vet.

a) Cammalleri is a proven playoff monster, and I think he is easily worth a 1st rounder at the deadline.

b) I think he's also worth a lot more than $3.5m on the open market.

I agree that it's a horrible idea to trade every vet, but Cammalleri might be the only vet with the club that is worth more on the market than he is worth to the team on the ice.

[4oh3]

Can someone explain what the deal with gaudreau is?
Why won't he sign?
Why won't feaster sign him?
Why isn't he on contract if he's such a talented prospect?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 4oh3

Can someone explain what the deal with gaudreau is?
Why won't he sign?

The moment Gaudreau signs an NHL contract, he loses his scholarship status as BC, and effectively is no longer allowed to play in the NCAA. In several recent interviews he has stated very clearly that his intentions are to play a third year at BC alongside his little brother (the two of them have only rarely had the opportunity to play on the same team), and that he hopes to sign a contract with the Flames as early as spring 2014, once his college season ends.

Originally Posted by 4oh3

Why won't feaster sign him?

Because it is really pointless to sign a prospect like Gaudreau at this stage of his career. The concerns with Gaudreau have always been his size, and the uncertainty of how well his game will translate at the NHL level. Playing in the NCAA has allowed him to make a more gradual adjustment to bigger, older, more seasoned players, and a faster and more difficult game. The deadline to sign Gaudreau does not approach until summer 2015, and it would have been foolish for the Flames to rush into this contract any earlier than this year. When you listen to the Flames and to Gaudreau when talking about this, it is pretty clear that both sides are confident about signing a contract when the time is right for both parties, and that time appears to be next spring.

Originally Posted by 4oh3

Why isn't he on contract if he's such a talented prospect?

Because the rules for prospects playing in the NCAA are substantially different than for players in the CHL. The NCAA is absolutely inflexible in that they will not allow any players to receive any sort of renumeration for services in their time in college (it is one way to protect from individual college programs paying buying the best players to fill their own teams—the NCAA is still in principle if not in deed committed to the idea of amateur collegiate sports). The Flames can't sign Gaudreau until he is ready to end his college hockey career. They can't even offer to pay for his attendance at their prospect camps or any other club events; nor can they provide him access to their fitness, health, and training programs and facilities. Gaudreau's want for a contract has very little to do with his skill level or how he projects to be an NHL player. It has everything to do with the circumstances of his development: as an undersized NCAA player, the road to the NHL is understandably longer, and a little less direct.

Now you know. Please stop wringing your hands and flailing your arms in every post about this.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^^ good answer

[Textcritic]

^
Thanks!

[4oh3]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The moment Gaudreau signs an NHL contract, he loses his scholarship status as BC, and effectively is no longer allowed to play in the NCAA. In several recent interviews he has stated very clearly that his intentions are to play a third year at BC alongside his little brother (the two of them have only rarely had the opportunity to play on the same team), and that he hopes to sign a contract with the Flames as early as spring 2014, once his college season ends.


Because it is really pointless to sign a prospect like Gaudreau at this stage of his career. The concerns with Gaudreau have always been his size, and the uncertainty of how well his game will translate at the NHL level. Playing in the NCAA has allowed him to make a more gradual adjustment to bigger, older, more seasoned players, and a faster and more difficult game. The deadline to sign Gaudreau does not approach until summer 2015, and it would have been foolish for the Flames to rush into this contract any earlier than this year. When you listen to the Flames and to Gaudreau when talking about this, it is pretty clear that both sides are confident about signing a contract when the time is right for both parties, and that time appears to be next spring.


Because the rules for prospects playing in the NCAA are substantially different than for players in the CHL. The NCAA is absolutely inflexible in that they will not allow any players to receive any sort of renumeration for services in their time in college (it is one way to protect from individual college programs paying buying the best players to fill their own teams—the NCAA is still in principle if not in deed committed to the idea of amateur collegiate sports). The Flames can't sign Gaudreau until he is ready to end his college hockey career. They can't even offer to pay for his attendance at their prospect camps or any other club events; nor can they provide him access to their fitness, health, and training programs and facilities. Gaudreau's want for a contract has very little to do with his skill level or how he projects to be an NHL player. It has everything to do with the circumstances of his development: as an undersized NCAA player, the road to the NHL is understandably longer, and a little less direct.

Now you know. Please stop wringing your hands and flailing your arms in every post about this.

yeah thanks a lot man , i wasnt sure what the deal with him was and that was a phenomenal answer!

[SebC]

0.5 ppg in the NCAA shouldn't put Jankowski in the top 3. I'd go with Monahan in that spot instead.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

0.5 ppg in the NCAA shouldn't put Jankowski in the top 3. I'd go with Monahan in that spot instead.

Points per game is not a good measure of whether a player had a good development year or whether they have top end talent. Jankowski had a very good development year and put on some substantial weight, answering a couple of the questions about him after last year's draft. We'll see how he does producing this year when he moves back to his natural position and has a year of experience at a high level of play. Judge his production after this season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SebC

0.5 ppg in the NCAA shouldn't put Jankowski in the top 3. I'd go with Monahan in that spot instead.

The writer of the article intentionally omitted the whole 2013 draft class from his review, and says as much right in the opening paragraph. Outside of the most recent picks, it is difficult to argue against Jankowski's slot at #3.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

Points per game is not a good measure of whether a player had a good development year or whether they have top end talent. Jankowski had a very good development year and put on some substantial weight, answering a couple of the questions about him after last year's draft. We'll see how he does producing this year when he moves back to his natural position and has a year of experience at a high level of play. Judge his production after this season.

NHL-equivalent PPG is a pretty good predictor of a prospect's ceiling, actually, and Jankowski's is not very good. I don't care how much weight he gains - until he starts scoring, he's not a top prospect. He might someday become a top 3 prospect in the system, but today he isn't.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The writer of the article intentionally omitted the whole 2013 draft class from his review, and says as much right in the opening paragraph.

That's what I get for skimming, but I'd still argue against Jankowski in the 3 spot. The choice becomes a bit murky then, but I'd actually take Wotherspoon.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SebC

...That's what I get for skimming, but I'd still argue against Jankowski in the 3 spot. The choice becomes a bit murky then, but I'd actually take Wotherspoon.

Yeah, Jankowski or even Sieloff are solid replacements in the top-three, but I think the writer is judging individual players' ceilings and factoring in their respective development over the past year. Wotherspoon too great strides this past season towards establishing himself as a future NHL defenseman, but his top-end is still likely at the level of second pairing. Regardless of how well he produced in his first NCAA season, Jankowski still projects (based on his skill-set, age and size) to be a potential top-line centreman.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SebC

NHL-equivalent PPG is a pretty good predictor of a prospect's ceiling, actually, and Jankowski's is not very good.

Of course it isn't, but this is likely not because he does not project to be a very good player in the NHL. As a NCAA rookie and one of the youngest players in the entire league this past year, his NHL equivalency is going to be badly skewed and practically meaningless. It is really only applicable after his second or third year in college, especially for a prospect as raw as Jankowski was—don't forget that this is a player who entered a top-level development program at Providence for the first time in his entire life.

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't care how much weight he gains - until he starts scoring, he's not a top prospect. He might someday become a top 3 prospect in the system, but today he isn't.

I guess this all depends on how one defines a "top prospect". Is he presently a high-scoring player who projects to be a high-scoring player in the NHL? Is he a highly skilled player that projects to be a highly skilled player in the NHL? The metrics for determining the answers to these questions are considerably different, and in Jankowski's case, his skill-set is what observers are excited about.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Looking forward to the next season for both Jankowski and Sieloff.

Sieloff acquitted himself very well at the world juniors for a guy who may not top out as a spectacular point producer

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

NHL-equivalent PPG is a pretty good predictor of a prospect's ceiling, actually, and Jankowski's is not very good. I don't care how much weight he gains - until he starts scoring, he's not a top prospect. He might someday become a top 3 prospect in the system, but today he isn't.

That's what I get for skimming, but I'd still argue against Jankowski in the 3 spot. The choice becomes a bit murky then, but I'd actually take Wotherspoon.

Yeah, NHL-equivalent PPG is a farce stat. Ron Schremp, Dave Bolland and Alex Picard should have been superstars because of their junior exploits. Curtis Glencross, Rich Peverley and Vicktor Stalberg never should have translated to NHL players with scoring ability. Context is lost with many stats and NHL-equivalent PPG is one where context is everything.

Jankowski was the youngest player from his draft, the youngest player in the league, jumped to a much tougher league, played for a team that was expected to be horrible, played out of position, and was still adjusting to his body after a huge growth spurt. These are all factors that NHL-equivalent PPG cannot properly quantify. Players on weak teams that play a very regimented team game are going to get crushed in this stat, while guys that play on powerhouse teams that have the freedom to play for points are going to be grossly over-rated. First year stats from any league are also a very poor predictor of any future success.

When I look at Jankowski's stats from last season I see a kid that was tied for 4th in scoring and was only six points from the team lead. This was done in 4 less games played and done against players 4 years his senior. He was 17 and the other guys leading the team were 21 year olds. The scoring was spread out across the team and Jankowski was one of the top scorers, especially in the final half of the season when the team was pushing for the playoffs. He bulked up, played at a higher level, improved every aspect of his game, and did not look out of place, all as the youngest player in his league. NHL-equivalent PPG does not account for any of this. Useless stat.