Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[JiriHrdina]

No one expected Janko to be in the NHL now. That is a horrible evaluation criteria to use to call the pick bad

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

No one expected Janko to be in the NHL now. That is a horrible evaluation criteria to use to call the pick bad

You're right about nobody expecting him to be in the NHL now. He was picked as a high risk high reward project, likely not playing NHL hockey until 4-5 years after his draft.

That's not the type of pick the Flames were in a position to make, and it shows how truly out of touch Feaster/Weisbrod were with not only where the Flames were at summer 2012, but where the team was trending.

[JiriHrdina]

Why isn't that a good strategy. Flames are that long away from competing anyways.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why isn't that a good strategy. Flames are that long away from competing anyways.

It isn't a good strategy because of the risk. There's a good chance Jankowski never establishes himself as an NHL player. Girgensons, Ceci, Hertl, Wilson, and Maata already have, and are well on their way to becoming impact players.

If you're team is competitive in the NHL, and has a solid foundation of prospects, I can see how you are able to justify taking that risk on Jankowski. The Flames however, were neither.

[JiriHrdina]

A lot of those guys were perceived to have lower ceilings. The Flames took a home run swing to try and get an impact player. We'll see

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It isn't a good strategy because of the risk. There's a good chance Jankowski never establishes himself as an NHL player. Girgensons, Ceci, Hertl, Wilson, and Maata already have, and are well on their way to becoming impact players.

Ah, I think there's a significant reach to say all those players have established themselves as NHL players.

And still talking about who has an hasn't played in the NHL is pretty poor argument. Burmistov was drafted in 2010, played in the 2010-2011 season but he's in the KHL now. Even if he wasn't a flight risk and Winnipeg was actually using him improperly, no one would take him over Schwartz and Tarasenko in St. Louis today. Yet they didn't play until the 2012-2013 season, 2 years after Burmistov.

Paarjavi was drafted in 2009 and played in the 2010-2011 season but at this point Kreider, who was also 2009, is looking much much better despite this being his rookie NHL season.

Josh Bailey was drafted in 2008, played the entire 2008-2009 season. While Erik Karlsson, drafted the same year, didn't touch NHL ice until the 2009-2010 season and Pietrangelo first real season was 2010-2011.

Playing in the NHL before another prospect isn't the best indicator of determining who's the better prospect. Making an actual impact in the NHL is a bit different.

Not that I'm saying anything about Jankowski, just that making the NHL earlier isn't always the biggest decider.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I guess it would be nice to see Janko put up a few more points, but isn't this pretty much exactly what most of us expected? A player that would be a project, that would be a few years away?

As Jiri said, it was a home run swing. He's got a ways to go before he's ready, but man, way too early to call him a bust. Still lots of time for him to improve and put it all together.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I guess it would be nice to see Janko put up a few more points, but isn't this pretty much exactly what most of us expected? A player that would be a project, that would be a few years away?

As Jiri said, it was a home run swing. He's got a ways to go before he's ready, but man, way too early to call him a bust. Still lots of time for him to improve and put it all together.

Most aren't calling him a bust (I'm not at least), but I'm not very optimistic for sure. We all expected a project, but the lack of production is still worrisome.

As with most things on this board or life in general, it doesn't have to be all one way or the other. The promise of a Joel Otto is certainly looking far off. To soon to call a bust for sure, but isn't this thread designed to discuss his development? If so, my contributions have been about uncertainty in his production.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Anyone know how he looked last night?

Got a point but I'd like to hear beyond that since the game is more then just points.

[FBI]

I would like to see the goal, everyone said it was a great play and he had a great 2nd period..

I would also be interested in revisiting what people said would be considered acceptable or a "success" for Jankowski in year 2 and see how many have jumped off the bandwagon despite him likely reaching their criteria.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by FBI

I would like to see the goal, everyone said it was a great play and he had a great 2nd period..

I would also be interested in revisiting what people said would be considered acceptable or a "success" for Jankowski in year 2 and see how many have jumped off the bandwagon despite him likely reaching their criteria.

I said that around ppg is what I expected of him this year, and playing first line centre minutes, since Leeman said as much in the summer. He's hasn't achieved either of those benchmarks yet, but season is far from over. Definitely less optimistic about him than last year, but will be very happy if he can still turn it around this year.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by FBI

I would like to see the goal, everyone said it was a great play and he had a great 2nd period..

I would also be interested in revisiting what people said would be considered acceptable or a "success" for Jankowski in year 2 and see how many have jumped off the bandwagon despite him likely reaching their criteria.

I had said ppg.

I'll be happy with .75

[MrMastodonFarm]

I think if Mark had done a year in the USHL then a PPG in his 2nd year of College would be good but having skipped that and taken the massive jump from Canadian High School hockey to College I had him at PPG in his third year.

It's really all about getting better each year though. If he misses a PPG next year by 4-5 points I'm not going to get bent out of shape.

I think he's at .60 right now in his 2nd year, I'd like to see him come on strong in this second half, make it better then the first half.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Anyone know how he looked last night?

Got a point but I'd like to hear beyond that since the game is more then just points.

The BC radio guys mentioned him a quite few times, seemed very involved.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Most aren't calling him a bust (I'm not at least), but I'm not very optimistic for sure. We all expected a project, but the lack of production is still worrisome.

As with most things on this board or life in general, it doesn't have to be all one way or the other. The promise of a Joel Otto is certainly looking far off. To soon to call a bust for sure, but isn't this thread designed to discuss his development? If so, my contributions have been about uncertainty in his production.

I wasn't aiming my post at you, or even just at people in this thread. I get the feeling reading a bunch of posts throughout the forum that many feel he is either a bust, or will quickly become one. Maybe he will, but it is just so early in his development. Doesn't help that some players drafted around him are either already in the NHL or looked good at the WJC. I can understand why some may be anxious with Janko after seeing those players do well.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by 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.

While its possible or even probable that Burke meant he hates the Jankowski pick... there are other issues that could annoy him. It could be trading the pick for what they got back (and let's be honest.. Burke would picked Tom Wilson). It could be some of the other picks he's made.. It could be Poirier or Klimchuk (he said we had the best draft.. not that he agrees with every pick we made). I just don't think we can just assume like its certainty that it was picking Jankowski when we did that is the issue.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I wasn't aiming my post at you, or even just at people in this thread. I get the feeling reading a bunch of posts throughout the forum that many feel he is either a bust, or will quickly become one. Maybe he will, but it is just so early in his development. Doesn't help that some players drafted around him are either already in the NHL or looked good at the WJC. I can understand why some may be anxious with Janko after seeing those players do well.

I don't think many are saying he is a sure fire bust. I think many people are saying he is progressing at a rate that defends the Flames decision to draft him where they did.

So far I am unimpressed with Jankowski and the Flames decision to go off the board the way that they did. Feaster's routine exaggerated sales job didn't help either. A lot of people are expecting boy wonder out of this kid because we were told that is what he is. So far I am not seeing it.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

While its possible or even probable that Burke meant he hates the Jankowski pick... there are other issues that could annoy him. It could be trading the pick for what they got back (and let's be honest.. Burke would picked Tom Wilson). It could be some of the other picks he's made.. It could be Poirier or Klimchuk (he said we had the best draft.. not that he agrees with every pick we made). I just don't think we can just assume like its certainty that it was picking Jankowski when we did that is the issue.

Feaster was the GM for three drafts. 2011 is widely considered the best draft in a long time for the Flames (though time will tell). Burke is on record as saying we nailed it for the 2013 draft. He has said that numerous times. That leaves the 2012 draft. I can't imagine Burke is upset over Sieloff or Gilles, and the later rounds aren't worth firing a GM over.

That leaves the Jankowski pick. A guy they drafted out of high school that they only saw a couple of times. An admitted project when the Flames needs prospects that can help now. A guy that they passed on Ceci, Wilson, Hertl, Teravainen, Maatta, Subban, etc to get. Probably the most controversial first round pick by the organization since the cap was introduced.

Sometimes the quack is indeed a duck. You don't have to get all Sherlock Holmes to make a very strong guess that Burke didn't like the Jankowski pick.

[JiriHrdina]

Again why do they need prospects to help now? Now isn't important at all

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I don't think many are saying he is a sure fire bust. I think many people are saying he is progressing at a rate that defends the Flames decision to draft him where they did.

So far I am unimpressed with Jankowski and the Flames decision to go off the board the way that they did. Feaster's routine exaggerated sales job didn't help either. A lot of people are expecting boy wonder out of this kid because we were told that is what he is. So far I am not seeing it.

I am high on Jankowski and love the pick, but it is because I am buying what Feaster was peddling? You may not like the pick, but don't try and rationalize that the only reason I (or others) like it is because we drank Feaster's Kool-aid.

I like Jankowski regardless of what Feaster had to say about him. Why? Because I read the scouting reports. I watch the occasional game when I can. I watch whatever highlights are available. I watched him in 2 prospect camps. I like to read what others write down about him who have been able to follow him better. I base my 'like' for the pick on a variety of factors, and NONE of them have anything to do at all with Feaster.

How about I just turn the argument around and say: "The only fathomable reason someone wouldn't like the Jankowski pick was because they don't like Feaster."

How true would that be for you? Ridiculous argument, wouldn't you agree?

There are some very good reasons to really like Jankowski. There are some really good reasons not to like him either. I can understand both sides. However, Feaster is not a reason to support either side.