Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by getbak

It doesn't happen all the time.

Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen enough that it's something a GM should rely on being available to him? No.

It's especially unlikely for elite top-line centres in their prime to be available in a trade. 23 of the 30 top-scoring centres in the league are still with the team that drafted them. The Thornton and Seguin deals are the exceptions, not the rule.

This is the biggest argument for drafting a forward at the top of the draft; franchise centres are absolutely the most valuable commodity in the NHL. Girgensons might be in the NHL; they didn't think he would be a top tier centre. They thought, rightly or wrongly, that Jankowski has a better chance of becoming a top tier centre, and he was available at 21.

So if the ceiling on a player is 'first line centre' at 21 vs 'top 4 d' at 21, I don't give a damn if the defenseman is already in the NHL. Take the centre if you think he projects to be an elite player.

I've said it before, franchise defensemen get traded or hit free agency all the time. Chris Pronger was a Whaler, a Blue, an Oiler, a Duck, and a Flyer. Scott Niedermayer didn't finish a Devil. Zdeno Chara was allowed to test free agency. Ryan Suter didn't get $98 million to stay in Nashville. Defensemen are available if you want to pay for them.

Centres are not. For that reason alone, I'll always support the Jankowski pick. This was never picking a Chucko or Nemisz, who were products of other players. This was picking a guy who was in a league of his own. It was a position of absolute need, and you can crap on the guys that made it or the guy that was picked till you're blue in the face, but the attitude and thought process that went into the pick is something to be commended. And the sort of thinking that leads you to take a chance on Jankowski should not be condemned because we could have had Olli fricking Maata.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What "facts"?! Do you honestly believe that by by virtue of their appearance in the NHL that every one of the 17 players you cited from the first round of the 2012 draft is a quality NHL player?

I will repeat myself: IT IS TOO EARLY TO KNOW. My purpose in recalling the 2007 draft was to illustrate that despite the fact that 1/3 of the players drafted in the first round had played a SIGNIFICANT number of games by the end of the following season, this did not show that it was a strong class. Similarly, by merely pointing to the number of games played by first rounders in 2012, this does not at all illustrate the relative strength or weakness of this particular class. We won't know for another few years.


That is NOT what I said. I said that an INDIVIDUAL first round pick was not SO SIGNIFICANT as to dramatically impede the direction or potential success of the franchise in the event that the player fails to pan out. The Flames had a poor prospect base for the past decade not because of any individual first round pick that didn't blossom into a solid NHL player, but rather the accumulation of several disappointing high picks in successive years. On its own, the Jankowski pick has a negligible impact. If it is part of a trend of poor picks, then that is a problem. If it turns out to be a great pick, then we are all happy.

If it's too early to know after a year and a half, than it was far too early for Weisbrod too write the 2012 draft off especially since the results say he was wrong.

The rest of your post is just splitting hairs by saying a first round pick has negligible impact. It may not cause the Flames to fold but for me as a fan it has a big impact, for you it doesn't.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

This is the biggest argument for drafting a forward at the top of the draft; franchise centres are absolutely the most valuable commodity in the NHL. Girgensons might be in the NHL; they didn't think he would be a top tier centre. They thought, rightly or wrongly, that Jankowski has a better chance of becoming a top tier centre, and he was available at 21.

So if the ceiling on a player is 'first line centre' at 21 vs 'top 4 d' at 21, I don't give a damn if the defenseman is already in the NHL. Take the centre if you think he projects to be an elite player.

I've said it before, franchise defensemen get traded or hit free agency all the time. Chris Pronger was a Whaler, a Blue, an Oiler, a Duck, and a Flyer. Scott Niedermayer didn't finish a Devil. Zdeno Chara was allowed to test free agency. Ryan Suter didn't get $98 million to stay in Nashville. Defensemen are available if you want to pay for them.

Centres are not. For that reason alone, I'll always support the Jankowski pick. This was never picking a Chucko or Nemisz, who were products of other players. This was picking a guy who was in a league of his own. It was a position of absolute need, and you can crap on the guys that made it or the guy that was picked till you're blue in the face, but the attitude and thought process that went into the pick is something to be commended. And the sort of thinking that leads you to take a chance on Jankowski should not be condemned because we could have had Olli fricking Maata.

I agree. No one knew we'd hit a home run with Monahan.

Even if Maata is in the NHL is his impact going to be so different than Sieloff's in the future. You could argue Sieloff's will be more due to his hitting ability.

Maata is valuable, don't get me wrong, but will he be better than Brodie, Russell or Wotherspoon...?

The issue is probably more that we could have drafted Hertl who is big and skilled and listed as a centre...

At the end of the day we still need years until we can properly judge it.

End of story.... Haha I wish! We'll debate it for another 4years, before he even steps foot on the NHL ice.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Reading this thread led me to think about Colborne and his long road to the NHL... then I look at this college stats compared to Jankowski and I am sad.

Not trying to pick on you, but you are comparing apples and oranges here.

When you happened to look up Colborne's and Jankowksi's stats, did you happen to look at each players team scoring?

Colborne Freshman
Jankowski Freshman

Colborne Sophomore
Jankowski Sophomore

Colborne played on much higher scoring teams, so it really is hard to compare their offensive outputs against one another knowing that.

Not to mention, Jankowski was 17 years +8 months old when drafted, while Colborne was 18 years +6 months old when drafted, so Janko basically started college a year sooner than Colborne.....and as if all that wasn't enough, Mark went directly from a lower tier high school hockey league straight to college, where as Joe had two full years of Junior A under his belt before making the jump.

Don't be sad about Jankowski's stat line, just sit back and wait to see what happens. Long ways to go yet before we have any concrete answers.

[Gord_Wappel]

I am still optimistic about the pic but think it could be several years before we really know what we have. I know its only 1 game but if you look at Tambellini as an example who just left US college after struggling with only 4 points and he comes to the Hitmen and gets 3 points his first game. Its a big jump to be a young kid growing into your body and playing high school hockey without any sort of structure, to playing with 22 year old men.

Alot of us myself included have criticized our drafting for taking "safe" players like Nystrom who would probably be NHL players but max out as 3rd liners versus "swinging for the fences" with a high risk/high reward pick like Janko. I know this type of drafting philosophy may work better for a prospect rich team rather than a team like us in a rebuild but personally i still think we could have a gem based on what i have seen l've and with his progression.

[Vulcan]

I'd say most everyone here hopes Jankowski turns out to be an NHLer including me but don't forget this pick is one of the reasons Feaster and Weisbrod got fired.

[getbak]

1 assist and a pretty solid game tonight for Jankowski against Johnny Gaudreau and the Boston College Eagles.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd say most everyone here hopes Jankowski turns out to be an NHLer including me but don't forget this pick is one of the reasons Feaster and Weisbrod got fired.

As has been said before, if this draft pick is a major factor in getting Feaster and Weisbrod fired, the Flames are in big trouble with the current leadership.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

As has been said before, if this draft pick is a major factor in getting Feaster and Weisbrod fired, the Flames are in big trouble with the current leadership.

I like how you change my "one of the reasons" to your "a major factor", nice try but even if so, I don't see any reason why the Flames would be in major trouble. We now have a guy in charge who is capable of evaluating players, before we didn't. I brought it up as the Flames current management agreeing that it was a poor pick.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd say most everyone here hopes Jankowski turns out to be an NHLer including me but don't forget this pick is one of the reasons Feaster and Weisbrod got fired.

I'm sure they weren't fired because of what Jankowski is or might be as a player. They were fired because they did something that was perceived as irresponsible by many in the hockey world when the consensus was they could not afford to take that risk.

Now to that I would say, it's the 21st pick. You take the guy you think will be the BPA for the duration of his career. Which they may well have.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

As has been said before, if this draft pick is a major factor in getting Feaster and Weisbrod fired, the Flames are in big trouble with the current leadership.

Burke may not have liked the pick, but I reallllyyy don't believe it was a major factor in firing Feaster & Weisbrod. If there's a single move you want to pin the majority of the blame on, it is probably O'Reilly.

Sorry to open up that can of worms again in the Jankowski thread.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I like how you change my "one of the reasons" to your "a major factor", nice try but even if so, I don't see any reason why the Flames would be in major trouble. We now have a guy in charge who is capable of evaluating players, before we didn't. I brought it up as the Flames current management agreeing that it was a poor pick.

Wasn't really being critical of your post. I just think the Feaster / Weisbrod draft strategy - focus on ability + "character" and hockey sense - was not so bad, and I think there were probably other more important issues/differences that led to the decision to can them. There will always be second guessing of late first round picks.

[Vulcan]

Okay, I'll say it again, it was one of the reasons, maybe not the major reason but Burke talks about Feaster's bad draft record here. Feaster did three drafts, 2011, 12, and 13. Burke has said the 13th draft was great so that leaves the 2011 and 12 drafts. The 2011 doesn't seem to be contentious except that the players are on the small side for Burke so that leaves what everyone here is talking about, the 2012 draft and Jankowski.

Here's Burke's quote.

“There’s only two ways to answer that question,” he replied, when asked for specific reasons Feaster did not come up to muster. “One way is to duck it, the other is to throw rocks at somebody. I think the general manager’s job consists of a certain number of discreet, very distinct jobs. One is putting your staff together. One is trades and there are three kinds of trades: Futures trades, standard trades and then there’s selling trades, deadline trades. You go back and analyze those and reach your own conclusion whether we received full value in those deals, you can evaluate our drafts and see whether we did the best we could.
“Obviously I reached the conclusion we haven’t.

Being smart he isn't going to dump on any one pick, because they are still unsigned assets.

Burke gives three responsibilities a GM has, one is putting together a staff, next is handling trades and third is drafting and Feaster came up short.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If it's too early to know after a year and a half, than it was far too early for Weisbrod too write the 2012 draft off especially since the results say he was wrong.

It was Weisbrod's job to know better than any of us which of the players drafted were more likely to make longer term impacts. As I have repeated now TWICE, the "results" are inadmissible, since they are so painfully premature.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The rest of your post is just splitting hairs by saying a first round pick has negligible impact. It may not cause the Flames to fold but for me as a fan it has a big impact, for you it doesn't.

Good lord! If you are going to respond to my posts, then please do me the courtesy of reading them correctly. I can't believe that you are so blatantly missing this critical point here, that

· an INDIVIDUAL first round pick was not SO SIGNIFICANT as to dramatically impede the direction or potential success of the franchise in the event that the player fails to pan out
· on its own, the Jankowski pick has a negligible impact.

High draft picks are extremely valuable, but the failure of a team to convert EVERY ONE into a good NHL player is actually more the status quo than it is an outlier. The St Louis Blues picked in the top-five twice between 2005–2008, and selected Erik Johnson and Alex Pietrangelo. For years, that Johnson pick looked bad, but Blues management turned it into a really solid return. The point here is that making a poor pick with the top draft choice (Toews, Backstrom, and Kessel were drafted #3–5) on its own did not affect the direction of the franchise, which today looks like a threat to win the Stanley Cup. In the long run, we will not be looking back and pining for what could have been with the Jankowski pick SO LONG AS management is doing their due diligence to ensure that the team is getting top value from its assets.

Unless you can point to a pattern and make an argument for how the drafting philosophy that produced Jankowski has clearly failed the franchise and set the Flames rebuild back, then it is really a vacuous complaint to expect the team to be much better off with one of Maatta or TT, sans Sieloff.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It was Weisbrod's job to know better than any of us which of the players drafted were more likely to make longer term impacts. As I have repeated now TWICE, the "results" are inadmissible, since they are so painfully premature.


Good lord! If you are going to respond to my posts, then please do me the courtesy of reading them correctly. I can't believe that you are so blatantly missing this critical point here, that

· an INDIVIDUAL first round pick was not SO SIGNIFICANT as to dramatically impede the direction or potential success of the franchise in the event that the player fails to pan out
· on its own, the Jankowski pick has a negligible impact.

High draft picks are extremely valuable, but the failure of a team to convert EVERY ONE into a good NHL player is actually more the status quo than it is an outlier. The St Louis Blues picked in the top-five twice between 2005–2008, and selected Erik Johnson and Alex Pietrangelo. For years, that Johnson pick looked bad, but Blues management turned it into a really solid return. The point here is that making a poor pick with the top draft choice (Toews, Backstrom, and Kessel were drafted #3–5) on its own did not affect the direction of the franchise, which today looks like a threat to win the Stanley Cup. In the long run, we will not be looking back and pining for what could have been with the Jankowski pick SO LONG AS management is doing their due diligence to ensure that the team is getting top value from its assets.

Unless you can point to a pattern and make an argument for how the drafting philosophy that produced Jankowski has clearly failed the franchise and set the Flames rebuild back, then it is really a vacuous complaint to expect the team to be much better off with one of Maatta or TT, sans Sieloff.

The results may be inadmissible to you, but to me and a lot of fans they are pretty black and white. As in these 17 guys have already had some success in the NHL while Jankowski looks to be at least three years away. There is a reason the Devils put off giving up their 1st, it's because the farther away a prospect is, the less value he has as the old saying goes 'a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush'.

The rest of your post, I don't know what to say. Sure draft picks are overvalued but they do have value and especially to teams that have little else. Blowing a first on a whim, is not good management. It's not a question of converting everyone, it's the question of converting our 2012 first round pick.

Does anyone stop to think why Jankowski was playing high school hockey? Sure the story goes he was too small for major junior at 5'9" but lots of players that size compete at that level or at least opt for Junior A. He either didn't have the talent or didn't have the drive. Myself, I think it's a question of drive as he didn't want to go to college but wanted to go the easier route with the USHL. I do agree though, Jankowski is on the path to having negligible impact and yeah, the Flames do have a bad track record with 1st round picks and their overall draft record, so this one was very important. We've been the butt of criticism for a few years by how few draft picks we have on our team and even now we only have 4, which is pitiful.

Flames management misjudged the 2012 draft and misjudged where the Flames were at at a compete level when they were considering trading their first and than they failed to look ahead to see how Jankowski's learning curve would be.

and you accusing me of being vacuous, you haven't contributed one solid bit of information to this discussion.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay, I'll say it again, it was one of the reasons, maybe not the major reason but Burke talks about Feaster's bad draft record here. Feaster did three drafts, 2011, 12, and 13. Burke has said the 13th draft was great so that leaves the 2011 and 12 drafts. The 2011 doesn't seem to be contentious except that the players are on the small side for Burke so that leaves what everyone here is talking about, the 2012 draft and Jankowski.

Here's Burke's quote.



Being smart he isn't going to dump on any one pick, because they are still unsigned assets.

Burke gives three responsibilities a GM has, one is putting together a staff, next is handling trades and third is drafting and Feaster came up short.

Of the three things you listed, the area Feaster actually wasn't horrible at is drafting. His three drafts have yielded a bevy of exciting prospects. And I don't care that they haven't played in the NHL; we didn't have this for the majority of a decade. These guys might not pan out, but that's a far cry better from the 'sure as sh*t won't' crowd we used to hype.

His horrific trading record and embarrassing the franchise with the ROR offersheet were enough to get him fired. Regehr, Iginla, Bouwmeester and Kiprusoff netted him a fringe goalie, a godawful 6th D, an undersized centre, two prospects with bottom six potential, an AHL D who can't crack the lineup of the worst team in the league, Klimchuk and Poirier.

His drafts are the only reason he stuck around as long as he did.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Of the three things you listed, the area Feaster actually wasn't horrible at is drafting. His three drafts have yielded a bevy of exciting prospects. And I don't care that they haven't played in the NHL; we didn't have this for the majority of a decade. These guys might not pan out, but that's a far cry better from the 'sure as sh*t won't' crowd we used to hype.

His horrific trading record and embarrassing the franchise with the ROR offersheet were enough to get him fired. Regehr, Iginla, Bouwmeester and Kiprusoff netted him a fringe goalie, a godawful 6th D, an undersized centre, two prospects with bottom six potential, an AHL D who can't crack the lineup of the worst team in the league, Klimchuk and Poirier.

His drafts are the only reason he stuck around as long as he did.

Hey I agree with what you're saying but the three things I listed, weren't from me they are what Burke said and he said drafting was a problem. The way it looks, he didn't like our team getting smaller and he didn't like the trend of our small draft picks.

I'm excited about our prospects also but I was excited about Boyd and all too. I try to remember this when they don't turn out as good as everybody thinks. Baertschi is starting to look like a good example. I still like him but he isn't what most everyone were predicting a year or so ago.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The results may be inadmissible to you, but to me and a lot of fans they are pretty black and white. As in these 17 guys have already had some success in the NHL while Jankowski looks to be at least three years away. There is a reason the Devils put off giving up their 1st, it's because the farther away a prospect is, the less value he has as the old saying goes 'a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush'..

Potential top ten pick, lottery area, yeah that's looking real smart.

This debate is interesting but is there any way we could move it to another thread? I keep hitting it when there are new posts but only one seems to be about Jankowski and how he played last night. This thread is about the player in the title, how he's doing, how he's playing. We really need to move all talk about should we have drafted him or not and the plethora of splinter topics to another thread.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Hey I agree with what you're saying but the three things I listed, weren't from me they are what Burke said and he said drafting was a problem. The way it looks, he didn't like our team getting smaller and he didn't like the trend of our small draft picks.

I'm excited about our prospects also but I was excited about Boyd and all too. I try to remember this when they don't turn out as good as everybody thinks. Baertschi is starting to look like a good example. I still like him but he isn't what most everyone were predicting a year or so ago.

I think Burke said the things he said to sort of take the heat off Feaster for any one decision. He could have just said 'not understanding the CBA AND not confirming the rule with the league could've cost us Sean Monahan and Keegan Kanzig, and that's unacceptable' and we all would've gone 'Fair enough'.

I attribute his comments more to not wanting to throw his friend under the bus than having a problem with the players we drafted, but maybe that's just me hearing what I want to hear.

[The Fonz]

Brian Burke:
"...you can evaluate our drafts and see whether we did the best we could. Obviously I reached the conclusion we haven’t."

That's about as obvious as it gets without Burke actually screaming out "2012!!!".

14. Girgensons (CGY's pick)
15. Ceci
16. Wilson
17. Hertl
18. Teravainen
19. Vasilevski
20. Laughton
21. Jankowski
22. Maatta

When you look at Feaster's options (I strike out Vasilevski as I don't believe we'd take a goaltender in the 1st round), every player drafted between our original #14 pick and #22 is already playing NHL games, except for Teravainen, who just won Gold with Finland and was arguably the tournaments best player, and Jankowski, who some are still blaming his less than stellar numbers on a growth spurt (it's called puberty, and it happens to everyone).

So depressing.

Obviously I want Janko to succeed. But you can't ignore that it was an awful pick, and a fire-worthy move for Feaster to make given how weak our prospect pool was/is.