Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Steve Bozek]

I hope he acquires his grandfather's scoring ability

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

What are you basing your assessment of 50/50 on? Considering that the amount of late first round draft picks that eventually become NHL players is less then that to begin with, I don't get where you're coming from. A player like Jankowski that's a massive project to begin with is in no way even close to comparing with the average late first rounder. So again, I'd stand by my comments of a slim chance when considering nothing but draft position and current path of progression. Button is even on the record pretty much saying he has a very long way to go at this point.

It was a miss to take this kid imo even if he does eventually crack the NHL. Kids like Ceci/Maatta are already proving to be highly capable players in a position of need and Feaster/Weisbrod passed them up. I have no doubt this is a huge contributing factor into Burke punting them both.

He has size, he has skill and he is improving greatly in every facet of the game. To think he won't reach the NHL for just a little bit is asinine, as is comparing his progress to other players when he is on a completely different path than them. You can't call this a miss just because other players reached the NHL sooner, for all you know they will peak sooner too.

You also shouldn't make false claims like "much less than half of late first round picks never become NHL players"

2010 has seen 24 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 11/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2009 has seen 29 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 14/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2008 has seen 26 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 12/15 in the 2nd half of the round.

They may not all become star NHL players but the majority do become NHL players. You may have been right in the 90s, but with the advancements in drafting and player development first round players more often than not become regular NHL players.

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

What are you basing your assessment of 50/50 on? Considering that the amount of late first round draft picks that eventually become NHL players is less then that to begin with, I don't get where you're coming from. A player like Jankowski that's a massive project to begin with is in no way even close to comparing with the average late first rounder. So again, I'd stand by my comments of a slim chance when considering nothing but draft position and current path of progression. Button is even on the record pretty much saying he has a very long way to go at this point.

It was a miss to take this kid imo even if he does eventually crack the NHL. Kids like Ceci/Maatta are already proving to be highly capable players in a position of need and Feaster/Weisbrod passed them up. I have no doubt this is a huge contributing factor into Burke punting them both.

It is definitely a 50/50. Either it happens or it don't.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

2010 has seen 24 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 11/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2009 has seen 29 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 14/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2008 has seen 26 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 12/15 in the 2nd half of the round.

They may not all become star NHL players but the majority do become NHL players. You may have been right in the 90s, but with the advancements in drafting and player development first round players more often than not become regular NHL players.

Depends on how you define "regular" NHL player. I can see by the results you found, you define it as having played 1 NHL game. By that definition, Greg Nemisz makes your cut as becoming an NHL player.

I did this last night, just didnt post it. I believe the numbers I used for "regular" NHL player were:

2008: 75 GP
2007: 100 GP (ex: Backlund has 225GP)
2006: 150 GP
2005: 200 GP
2004: 300 GP
1998-2003: 400 GP

I think these are pretty reserved, but kept them low so as to not eliminate the "late bloomer" guys. The % of picks drafted 16-30 reaching these GP was 42%.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I did this last night, just didnt post it. I believe the numbers I used for "regular" NHL player were:

2008: 75 GP
2007: 100 GP (ex: Backlund has 225GP)
2006: 150 GP
2005: 200 GP
2004: 300 GP
1998-2003: 400 GP

I think these are pretty reserved, but kept them low so as to not eliminate the "late bloomer" guys. The % of picks drafted 16-30 reaching these GP was 42%.

using those criteria, it looks like this:

2008: 75 GP - 7/15 (Gardiner, Sbisa, Del Zotto, Eberle, Tedenby, Ennis, Carlson). Colborne is close (70 GP)
2007: 100 GP - 5/15 (Gillies, Cole, Pacioretty, Backlund, Perron). Blum (95 GP) and Smith (93 GP) are close
2006: 150 GP - 6/15 (Lewis, Stewart, Giroux, Varlamov, Berglund, Foligno). Nobody is close
2005: 200 GP - 5/15 (Hanzal, Oshie, Cogliano, Niskanen, Downie). Kindl (197 GP) and Rask (180 GP) are close
2004: 300 GP - 8/15 (Chipchura, Korpikoski, Zajac, Wolski, Meszaros, Schultz, Fistric, Green). Nobody is close
2003: 400 GP - 9/15 (Bernier, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Stuart, Kesler, Richards, Perry, Eaves). Fehr (354 GP) and Boyle (366 GP) are close
2002: 400 GP - 7/15 (Gordon, Paille, Bergenheim, Eager, Steen, Ward, Slater). Nobody is close
2001: 400 GP - 6/15 (Umberger, Morrisonn, Goc, Armstrong, Gleason, Steckel). Colaiacovo (386 GP) is close
2000: 400 GP - 8/15 (Orpik, Frolov, Volchenkov, Boyes, Ott, Sutherby, Williams, Kronwall). Nobody is close

Using these numbers, 45.2 per cent of the players have reached the criteria. If we add those who are close, it rises to 51.1 per cent.

This 2003 draft was simply ridiculous. 21 first rounders have already played 400+ games ... plus Fehr and Boyle who will reach that milestone soon. Kostitsyn (398 GP) also fell just short. Nearly half of the first round (14 players) have already played 600+ games. Sick.

[Malkin]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I hope he goes out and works his arse off and turns into a huge #1 center we can build around.

I wish I had a million dollars and a Lambo

[Francis's Hairpiece]

Originally Posted by Malkin

I wish I had a million dollars and a Lambo

Go out, work your arse off, and it could happen.

[Calgary4LIfe]

In an effort not to further derail the "Flames Sign Russell" thread on the main board, I will reply to this post here.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Not to get too carried away with this subject as the thread is about Russell, but it is worth mentioning that whether or not this pick pans out, it's not a pick the Flames had the luxury to make. Feaster and Weisbrod do deserve to be fired by making this type of pick (along with the other idiotic things Feaster did)

Everyone knows Jankowski is a project and has a high ceiling, but the flames didn't need a project pick with a low chance of panning out. They needed a sure-fire NHLer who can step in sooner than 4-5 years after the selection. A team booming with solid prospects should of made this pick, not a team lacking depth, prospects and is rebuilding.

At this point we'll continue to wait and hope for the best. If he puts it together, he'll be ready to step into the NHL when the flames are on the upswing. But had that first rounder been someone currently in the NHL, they'd have plenty of playing time to develop in the NHL by this time or even last year.

I see this argument a lot when talking about the Jankowski pick.

Why does it matter so much that whomever the Flames drafted would make the NHL right away? Doesn't drafting like that 'feel' like picking Pelech and Nemisz? How do you feel about the Gaudreau pick (though it was a 4th, it was a project pick nonetheless).

I would prefer that the Flames continually pick BPA regardless of how quickly said player can make the NHL. What matters most is to what level will that prospect play - how big of an impact and how good of a career will that prospect have.

Also, considering where the Flames were when picking Jankowski (nowhere near contending) and where they are now (nowhere near contending in year 1 of the rebuild), does it matter? Isn't it more important that the Flames draft the best possible prospect who they feel will develop into the best possible player?

Nothing is guaranteed. Jankowski is not guaranteed to ever make the NHL, much less be a 1st line center. However, Maatta is not guaranteed anything either, and there have been prospects who made the NHL, and fizzle out, or just never develop any further.

As long as the Flames did their due-diligence (and by all accounts, they have with regards to scouting him not only thoroughly, but intensively), then I choose to look positively at that pick and agree with the theory behind the selection.

Also, you mention the other point that I see being brought up with regards to Jankowski:

A team booming with solid prospects should of made this pick, not a team lacking depth, prospects and is rebuilding.

You can look at it that way, sure. Because a team is thin on prospects, they should try and get as many prospects that are less of a 'gamble'? Two things here - Flames scouting felt that Jankowski is not a gamble, just a longer-term project.

Secondly, and just as importantly (imo of course) is that you can look at it the other way. Look at the Flames prospects today. How many are of the 'high-end' variety? Would you agree that today, the Flames have loads of depth? I would say that the statement: "Flames are booming at depth prospects" to be fairly accurate. I would definitely not argue that statement.

Now how many 1st line potential players are there in the system? How many 'high-end' prospects are there? Not very many at all.

Depth is easy to acquire for the most part - through drafting it, through signing as free agents, or from trading a 'high end player' for many depth ones (Phaneuf trade). What is very difficult to acquire are 1st line players, 1st pairing defenders, with 1st line centers being the very hardest of all to acquire.

If the Flames felt (after their exhaustive scouting efforts) that Jankowski can very well develop into the next Joe Nieuwendyk, I say good for them for sticking to their guns. IMO (not being a Feaster apologist at all), this was one of the few bright altruistic moves Feaster has made in his tenure here (though I did notice that he pushed the "Weisbrod fell in love with him", and "Wesibrod told me not to trade the pick", etc., which felt like he was setting up Weisbrod in case it didn't work out). It would have been easier for Feaster to select a more NHL-ready prospect and throw him on the team sooner, and say: "Hey, look how good I am" than listening to his scouting staff, and letting them pick who they thought was the best pick down the road.

Finding a 1st line player in the mid-first round and lower (especially centers with size) is about as common as finding Leprechauns and Unicorns. I am tempering my expectations here, but I do agree on the logic with them.

I would much rather the Flames continue to choose the best player available regardless of position and regardless of NHL-readiness, as it seems like the best way to continually build an NHL club towards that of becoming a contender. In light of the Flames seemingly improved drafting (that seemed to really turn around in 2010), it personally gives me more reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If I still hated the way the Flames were drafting, I would probably be siding more on your thoughts actually, as I would trust the scouts less (and thus, be more likely to evaluate picking Jankowski as just a big 'mess' of a pick).

I am cautiously optimistic on this pick, and think he will make the NHL, but if he doesn't I still won't fault the logic behind the pick, but rather the projection being inaccurate or the development environment not being enough (or both), but will still look positively on the Flames for sticking with their guns and placing the long-term future of the organization square in its' sights when they decided to select Jankowski, rather than trying to appease fans, 'win-now', or as a job preservation tactic.

[Enoch Root]

Completely agree.

Arguing that it wasn't the right time to gamble is silly. You don't draft for next season - you draft for the future of the franchise, the ongoing future.

The Jankowski pick wasn't going to help the 2012 or 2013 Flames regardless of who they took. Say they took Maatta - they probably don't grab Russell because they think Maatta might make the team this year. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same team except with one more defensive prospect and one less C prospect.

Doesn't change the rebuild at all.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I do agree with most of what you said. Believe me, I want Jankowski to succeed as much as any fan.

However, Jankowski was and is a boom or bust type pick. It was called a hail mary at the time and it's still unclear where this kid projects to be. Whenever you draft a kid out of high school it's hard to predict how he'll make the jump to a more professional level. He played a small kid skilled type of hockey and then became a tall lanky adolescent man. In theory that sounds great, but not everyone can play a big mans game. He's not a gritty player and it's hard to teach that after playing a certain way for your entire childhood.

I agree that we now have plenty of depth and have been fortunate that some of our 2nd-4th round prospects are looking very promising. If Sieloff didn't suffer a major setback, this could possibly look like a home-run decision by Feaster. But at the time we certainly didn't have much depth or players that looked to be stepping into the organization in the near future.

At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what happens in the next 3 years. If he progresses at his current rate, we can be looking at a solid 3rd line player with offensive upside. I think/hope his floor is a 3rd liner and ceiling can be a 1st liner, but nothing is ever guaranteed in this sport.

It's just tough seeing players drafted around his spot that are making great strides in the NHL. I stand by my opinion that Feaster should of gone with the safe pick at the time. Jankowski most definitely wasn't the BPA, as that factors in the likely hood of the player meeting his ceiling, as well as how long until their ready. A player that might be ready for the NHL after 4 years of college cannot be considered the BPA in the top 30 (even if it was a weaker draft year).

[Vulcan]

Responses in bold.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

In an effort not to further derail the "Flames Sign Russell" thread on the main board, I will reply to this post here.



I see this argument a lot when talking about the Jankowski pick.

Why does it matter so much that whomever the Flames drafted would make the NHL right away? Doesn't drafting like that 'feel' like picking Pelech and Nemisz? How do you feel about the Gaudreau pick (though it was a 4th, it was a project pick nonetheless).

That's where a project pick should go, in the later rounds.

I would prefer that the Flames continually pick BPA regardless of how quickly said player can make the NHL. What matters most is to what level will that prospect play - how big of an impact and how good of a career will that prospect have.

BPA needs to consider the progress of that player. The longer he takes to progress, the more chances to fall off the schedule.

Also, considering where the Flames were when picking Jankowski (nowhere near contending) and where they are now (nowhere near contending in year 1 of the rebuild), does it matter? Isn't it more important that the Flames draft the best possible prospect who they feel will develop into the best possible player?

Yeah, that has nothing to do with it, our poor prospect pool at the time, though does.

Nothing is guaranteed. Jankowski is not guaranteed to ever make the NHL, much less be a 1st line center. However, Maatta is not guaranteed anything either, and there have been prospects who made the NHL, and fizzle out, or just never develop any further.

I disagree strongly, Maatta has already shown as much as we can hope Jankowski shows in another three years.

As long as the Flames did their due-diligence (and by all accounts, they have with regards to scouting him not only thoroughly, but intensively), then I choose to look positively at that pick and agree with the theory behind the selection.

Also, you mention the other point that I see being brought up with regards to Jankowski:


You can look at it that way, sure. Because a team is thin on prospects, they should try and get as many prospects that are less of a 'gamble'? Two things here - Flames scouting felt that Jankowski is not a gamble, just a longer-term project.

I don't think the Jankowski pick had much to do with our scouts. It had everything to do with Weisbrod convincing Feaster how smart they are. As I've said a long term project is a gamble.

Secondly, and just as importantly (imo of course) is that you can look at it the other way. Look at the Flames prospects today. How many are of the 'high-end' variety? Would you agree that today, the Flames have loads of depth? I would say that the statement: "Flames are booming at depth prospects" to be fairly accurate. I would definitely not argue that statement.

Now how many 1st line potential players are there in the system? How many 'high-end' prospects are there? Not very many at all.

Depth is easy to acquire for the most part - through drafting it, through signing as free agents, or from trading a 'high end player' for many depth ones (Phaneuf trade). What is very difficult to acquire are 1st line players, 1st pairing defenders, with 1st line centers being the very hardest of all to acquire.

Yeah true but this goes back to, were we in a position to gamble? We weren't.

If the Flames felt (after their exhaustive scouting efforts) that Jankowski can very well develop into the next Joe Nieuwendyk, I say good for them for sticking to their guns. IMO (not being a Feaster apologist at all), this was one of the few bright altruistic moves Feaster has made in his tenure here (though I did notice that he pushed the "Weisbrod fell in love with him", and "Wesibrod told me not to trade the pick", etc., which felt like he was setting up Weisbrod in case it didn't work out). It would have been easier for Feaster to select a more NHL-ready prospect and throw him on the team sooner, and say: "Hey, look how good I am" than listening to his scouting staff, and letting them pick who they thought was the best pick down the road.

I think this pick was the, "Hey, look how good (smart) I am".

Finding a 1st line player in the mid-first round and lower (especially centers with size) is about as common as finding Leprechauns and Unicorns. I am tempering my expectations here, but I do agree on the logic with them.

I would much rather the Flames continue to choose the best player available regardless of position and regardless of NHL-readiness, as it seems like the best way to continually build an NHL club towards that of becoming a contender. In light of the Flames seemingly improved drafting (that seemed to really turn around in 2010), it personally gives me more reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If I still hated the way the Flames were drafting, I would probably be siding more on your thoughts actually, as I would trust the scouts less (and thus, be more likely to evaluate picking Jankowski as just a big 'mess' of a pick).

As said NHL readiness is an indication of BPA. Anyways this BPA mantra is over stated and is a big criticism of that special team up north.

I am cautiously optimistic on this pick, and think he will make the NHL, but if he doesn't I still won't fault the logic behind the pick, but rather the projection being inaccurate or the development environment not being enough (or both), but will still look positively on the Flames for sticking with their guns and placing the long-term future of the organization square in its' sights when they decided to select Jankowski, rather than trying to appease fans, 'win-now', or as a job preservation tactic.

Well I'm hopeful too even though the logic behind this pick stinks.

[FlameZilla]

The only thing which bothers me about the Janko pick is that Olli Maatta is playing so freaking well. How much of that is due to being on a stacked Penguins team? He looks great, and is playing some solid minutes, but the Penguins are so deep that they can shelter him a bit when he's not playing well.
I don't think Maatta would look as solid on a young Flames team where he would by default be a 1st-pairing defenceman and any weaknesses exposed on a game-by-game basis. That being said, Maatta is on an Olympic roster at his age which is damned impressive.

Argh... I still like the Janko pick though.

[flamesfan55]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

The only thing which bothers me about the Janko pick is that Olli Maatta is playing so freaking well. How much of that is due to being on a stacked Penguins team? He looks great, and is playing some solid minutes, but the Penguins are so deep that they can shelter him a bit when he's not playing well.
I don't think Maatta would look as solid on a young Flames team where he would by default be a 1st-pairing defenceman and any weaknesses exposed on a game-by-game basis. That being said, Maatta is on an Olympic roster at his age which is damned impressive.

Argh... I still like the Janko pick though.

This is 100% exactly how I feel. I like the pick but Maatta is looking solid.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

He has size, he has skill and he is improving greatly in every facet of the game. To think he won't reach the NHL for just a little bit is asinine, as is comparing his progress to other players when he is on a completely different path than them. You can't call this a miss just because other players reached the NHL sooner, for all you know they will peak sooner too.

You also shouldn't make false claims like "much less than half of late first round picks never become NHL players"

2010 has seen 24 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 11/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2009 has seen 29 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 14/15 in the 2nd half of the round.
2008 has seen 26 of 30 first round picks see NHL action. 12/15 in the 2nd half of the round.

They may not all become star NHL players but the majority do become NHL players. You may have been right in the 90s, but with the advancements in drafting and player development first round players more often than not become regular NHL players.

Before you start lecturing you might want to consider why you think you're some sort of authority to change someone's statements and put them in quotations? I said LATE first round picks (not first round picks) and its actually very true.

I recommend you run your numbers again and see how many players picked 20-30 actually have a shelf life in the NHL. Its few and far between beyond a cup of coffee in most draft years.

Yes it is a miss of a pick, a big one at that. No matter the statement you can't actually argue that the Flames wouldn't be better off with a player like Maatta or Ceci in the system right now (players they passed up) as opposed to this kid who is likely another 4-5 years away from even getting a cup of coffee in the NHL.

If the Flames were a team that can continually develop prospects and wasn't entering a rebuild it would be worth a gamble imo. Considering that this franchise needs/needed help much sooner and historically seems to struggle in bringing prospects along, there is really no logical reason to draft someone who is 6-8 years away from playing at the time with your first pick.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Before you start lecturing you might want to consider why you think you're some sort of authority to change someone's statements and put them in quotations? I said LATE first round picks (not first round picks) and its actually very true.

I recommend you run your numbers again and see how many players picked 20-30 actually have a shelf life in the NHL. Its few and far between beyond a cup of coffee in most draft years.

Yes it is a miss of a pick, a big one at that. No matter the statement you can't actually argue that the Flames wouldn't be better off with a player like Maatta or Ceci in the system right now (players they passed up) as opposed to this kid who is likely another 4-5 years away from even getting a cup of coffee in the NHL.

If the Flames were a team that can continually develop prospects and wasn't entering a rebuild it would be worth a gamble imo. Considering that this franchise needs/needed help much sooner and historically seems to struggle in bringing prospects along, there is really no logical reason to draft someone who is 6-8 years away from playing at the time with your first pick.

on dear I missed 1 word. A word which I accounted for when I showed the 2nd half of the 1st round.

And you can't call it a missed pick. It's a fallacy because you have no clue how they will turn out. Claiming you do just because someone is better 18 months later is laughable.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I do agree with most of what you said. Believe me, I want Jankowski to succeed as much as any fan.

However, Jankowski was and is a boom or bust type pick. It was called a hail mary at the time and it's still unclear where this kid projects to be. Whenever you draft a kid out of high school it's hard to predict how he'll make the jump to a more professional level. He played a small kid skilled type of hockey and then became a tall lanky adolescent man. In theory that sounds great, but not everyone can play a big mans game. He's not a gritty player and it's hard to teach that after playing a certain way for your entire childhood.

I agree that we now have plenty of depth and have been fortunate that some of our 2nd-4th round prospects are looking very promising. If Sieloff didn't suffer a major setback, this could possibly look like a home-run decision by Feaster. But at the time we certainly didn't have much depth or players that looked to be stepping into the organization in the near future.

At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what happens in the next 3 years. If he progresses at his current rate, we can be looking at a solid 3rd line player with offensive upside. I think/hope his floor is a 3rd liner and ceiling can be a 1st liner, but nothing is ever guaranteed in this sport.

It's just tough seeing players drafted around his spot that are making great strides in the NHL. I stand by my opinion that Feaster should of gone with the safe pick at the time. Jankowski most definitely wasn't the BPA, as that factors in the likely hood of the player meeting his ceiling, as well as how long until their ready. A player that might be ready for the NHL after 4 years of college cannot be considered the BPA in the top 30 (even if it was a weaker draft year).

Jankowski was a project. He was not a 'boom or bust' type pick. Gaudreau is a boom or bust pick; he's either going to be a top 6 star or he's not going to be in the NHL.

Jankowski, even if he isn't a top 6 player, is big enough, fast enough, and plays a position that would see him in the NHL in some capacity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

...Jankowski, even if he isn't a top 6 player, is big enough, fast enough, and plays a position that would see him in the NHL in some capacity.

"I'm big enough, I'm fast enough, and dog-gone-it! I play a position that would see me in the NHL in some capacity!"

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

...Yes it is a miss of a pick, a big one at that. No matter the statement you can't actually argue that the Flames wouldn't be better off with a player like Maatta or Ceci in the system right now (players they passed up) as opposed to this kid who is likely another 4-5 years away from even getting a cup of coffee in the NHL...

Sure, I can agree that the Flames are not better off right now, but why should we even care with regards to a 2012 draft pick? Jankowski was NOT selected to fulfil some sort of mandate to play in 2014, or 2015. (As an aside, I think your projection of "4-5 years away from even getting a cup of coffee" is absurd. Jankowski is probably two-to-three years out AT MOST right now). No matter the statement you can't actually argue that the Flames wouldn't be better off with Maatta or Ceci in the system 4 or 5 years from now, because it is still far, FAR too early to be making declarations about who were the best players selected in the 2012 draft. Your assessment of the Jankowski pick is at best short-sighted and at worst completely irrelevant. In the end, years down the road when ALL the 2012 draft picks are making their most indelible impressions on the face of the NHL is the time to be making such statements about hits and misses. NOT NOW.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

on dear I missed 1 word. A word which I accounted for when I showed the 2nd half of the 1st round.

And you can't call it a missed pick. It's a fallacy because you have no clue how they will turn out. Claiming you do just because someone is better 18 months later is laughable.

Would the Flames be benefiting more from one of the two aforementioned defenders now? Yes. Something you seem to glaze over every time you respond.

They would also have much safer bet to start moving the team in the right direction on their hands. I have not interest in arguing about who could be better in a few years, especially when you're not willing to concede that a 19 year old player who's a regular in the NHL is just as special as what we have with Monohan. If you can't see that, I find it equally laughable.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Sure, I can agree that the Flames are not better off right now, but why should we even care with regards to a 2012 draft pick? Jankowski was NOT selected to fulfil some sort of mandate to play in 2014, or 2015. (As an aside, I think your projection of "4-5 years away from even getting a cup of coffee" is absurd. Jankowski is probably two-to-three years out AT MOST right now). No matter the statement you can't actually argue that the Flames wouldn't be better off with Maatta or Ceci in the system 4 or 5 years from now, because it is still far, FAR too early to be making declarations about who were the best players selected in the 2012 draft. Your assessment of the Jankowski pick is at best short-sighted and at worst completely irrelevant. In the end, years down the road when ALL the 2012 draft picks are making their most indelible impressions on the face of the NHL is the time to be making such statements about hits and misses. NOT NOW.

The OP declaring him at worst a 50/50 shot at this point is a-ok though? Even though its "way too early to be making declarations"? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

In my books, its ill advised to invest in a massive project like this kid with a first round pick when you either need immediate help or have no track record of developing projects in recent history.

If you honestly believe that Jankowski can go from college to NHL in "2-3 years tops" (and actually stick), lets see some comparables to support. I can't see any scenario where he doesn't complete his college years and then does not need at least a year or two in the AHL before he's ready.

I'd really like it if the kid could play for the Flames next year or two as you believe but that's merely a pipe dream, at best. Is there inside information you're aware of that none of us are privy too?