Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Than you interpreting them incorrectly. If he ends up as an average player he isn't a bust. He is an average player. What I am saying is we didn't need to take a huge risk on a project to end up with an average player.

Sorry Kehatch. You read my post before the edit. You're still wrong though. If he becomes even a decent NHLer it will end up being a good pick, especially if Seilof becomes one too.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I think the problem is you viewing it as a "huge risk" more so than his interpretation of what you said.

I can't believe anyone is saying saying that if he's an average player he's not a bust, but he still isn't good enough because it was a risk.

Newsflash:
EVERY PICK IS A RISK!!

This is the problem. A majority of the pro Jankowski supporters lack any objectivity at all. You know how to point out the really nonobjective flawed argument? It is the one that fails to concede even the most obvious counter points. (Usually it also has really big all cap words as well).

Are you suggesting that selecting a high school project who is years away from the NHL isn't a higher risk than the other 1st round picks in the draft? Jankowski was always a HIGH RISK / HIGH REWARD player. We got the HIGH RISK. We are experiencing the HIGH RISK. If we don't get the HIGH REWARD than ....

The ONLY reason to select Jankowski instead of the other quality prospects in his range was because the Flames believed he had MORE potential than those other players.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

Sorry Kehatch. You read my post before the edit. You're still wrong though. If he becomes even a decent NHLer it will end up being a good pick, especially if Seilof becomes one too.

Maata, a guy who was the obvious pick at 22 (so we still have Sieloff), is already a decent NHLer. So you are going to have to do some work to convince me why taking a bigger risk and a long wait on Jankowski was worth it if Jankowski doesn't end up as the better player.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by kehatch

This is the problem. A majority of the pro Jankowski supporters lack any objectivity at all. You know how to point out the really nonobjective flawed argument? It is the one that fails to concede even the most obvious counter points. (Usually it also has really big all cap words as well).

Are you suggesting that selecting a high school project who is years away from the NHL isn't a higher risk than the other 1st round picks in the draft? Jankowski was always a HIGH RISK / HIGH REWARD player. We got the HIGH RISK. We are experiencing the HIGH RISK. If we don't get the HIGH REWARD than ....

The ONLY reason to select Jankowski instead of the other quality prospects in his range was because the Flames believed he had MORE potential than those other players.

Longer to develop =/= Higher Risk and more potential =/= higher risk

Have you thought for maybe just a split second that maybe just maybe the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player in the end? That's really all it comes to.

You know who were "safe" picks? Kris Chucko and Greg Nemisz, both were seen as very low risk because their "floor was higher"

This is why your logic is so flawed and why all picks should be viewed the same. All it comes down to is who the scouts feel will be the best player down the road.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by kehatch

This is the problem. A majority of the pro Jankowski supporters lack any objectivity at all. You know how to point out the really nonobjective flawed argument? It is the one that fails to concede even the most obvious counter points. (Usually it also has really big all cap words as well).

Are you suggesting that selecting a high school project who is years away from the NHL isn't a higher risk than the other 1st round picks in the draft? Jankowski was always a HIGH RISK / HIGH REWARD player. We got the HIGH RISK. We are experiencing the HIGH RISK. If we don't get the HIGH REWARD than ....

The ONLY reason to select Jankowski instead of the other quality prospects in his range was because the Flames believed he had MORE potential than those other players.

So do you think the potential for him to become a good NHLer is over for him at 19? Or do you still see the potential for high reward? Because I sure see the potential of a kid with all the tools who is 6'3 186lbs and still just 19. The potential for Jankowski is still very high, as high as others drafted in the first. They gambled, and we got Sieloff as a consolation to that gamble, but the potential is still very, very high.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by kehatch

This is the problem. A majority of the pro Jankowski supporters lack any objectivity at all. You know how to point out the really nonobjective flawed argument? It is the one that fails to concede even the most obvious counter points. (Usually it also has really big all cap words as well).

Are you suggesting that selecting a high school project who is years away from the NHL isn't a higher risk than the other 1st round picks in the draft? Jankowski was always a HIGH RISK / HIGH REWARD player. We got the HIGH RISK. We are experiencing the HIGH RISK. If we don't get the HIGH REWARD than ....

The ONLY reason to select Jankowski instead of the other quality prospects in his range was because the Flames believed he had MORE potential than those other players.

I think the problem here is your interpretation of HIGH REWARD. I don't think it means "best player in the draft". That was ridiculous hyperbole from Feaster and Weisbrod, now departed. It may turn out to be a wasted pick, Jankowski may not work out, but calling it a bad pick if he doesn't turn out to be a star but just a decent player, at 21st overall in a so so draft year, is just wrong.

[undercoverbrother]

This is turning into the dog poop thread of the TBB subforum

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Longer to develop =/= Higher Risk and more potential =/= higher risk

Have you thought for maybe just a split second that maybe just maybe the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player in the end? That's really all it comes to.

You know who were "safe" picks? Kris Chucko and Greg Nemisz, both were seen as very low risk because their "floor was higher"

This is why your logic is so flawed and why all picks should be viewed the same. All it comes down to is who the scouts feel will be the best player down the road.

Have I thought for a split second that the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player? Have you even read my post? Please try doing that first before responding.

If you can't acknowledge that drafting a really young kid playing in high school wasn't a higher risk than drafting players like Maata than ...

Originally Posted by thymebalm

So do you think the potential for him to become a good NHLer is over for him at 19? Or do you still see the potential for high reward? Because I sure see the potential of a kid with all the tools who is 6'3 186lbs and still just 19. The potential for Jankowski is still very high, as high as others drafted in the first. They gambled, and we got Sieloff as a consolation to that gamble, but the potential is still very, very high.

Trade freeze lifts in 8 hours. If you are Burke and the phone rings and it is Shero offering you Maata for Jankowski do you take it? Because there are 30 NHL GMs that almost certainly would take that trade.

My point isn't that Jankowski doesn't have potential. It is that drafting him wasn't the right decision given the Flames situation, the uncertainty around Jankowski, and the alternative prospects that were available to the Flames at both 14 and 21.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

I think the problem here is your interpretation of HIGH REWARD. I don't think it means "best player in the draft". That was ridiculous hyperbole from Feaster and Weisbrod, now departed. It may turn out to be a wasted pick, Jankowski may not work out, but calling it a bad pick if he doesn't turn out to be a star but just a decent player, at 21st overall in a so so draft year, is just wrong.

I am simply saying it was a bad and unnecessary gamble given the quality of the other prospects on the board. It was true the day the pick was made. It is more true today given the progression of the prospects. Now we are left hoping he just might catch up to one of the players we should have picked.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Have I thought for a split second that the Flames felt Jankowski would be the better player? Have you even read my post? Please try doing that first before responding.

If you can't acknowledge that drafting a really young kid playing in high school wasn't a higher risk than drafting players like Maata than ...



Trade freeze lifts in 8 hours. If you are Burke and the phone rings and it is Shero offering you Maata for Jankowski do you take it? Because there are 30 NHL GMs that almost certainly would take that trade.

My point isn't that Jankowski doesn't have potential. It is that drafting him wasn't the right decision given the Flames situation, the uncertainty around Jankowski, and the alternative prospects that were available to the Flames at both 14 and 21.

Then that would mean you don't agree with a decision made by the previous management. Why keep rehashing the merits of their decision long after the people who made that decision have been dismissed? It just seems pointless and comes across as dumping on a 19 year old kid. There are no more people to fire now. Stop attaching this stigma to a guy who is now just another developing prospect, at least not in a thread which was created to follow his development.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

Then that would mean you don't agree with a decision made by the previous management. Why keep rehashing the merits of their decision long after the people who made that decision have been dismissed? It just seems pointless and comes across as dumping on a 19 year old kid. There are no more people to fire now. Stop attaching this stigma to a guy who is now just another developing prospect, at least not in a thread which was created to follow his development.

You keep telling people to stop arguing their points about the prospect. Yet here you are arguing your points about the prospect. It was a controversial pick, he is a controversial prospect, this is a Mark Jankowski thread on a hockey message board, clearly there is going to be discussion regarding peoples opinion of the pick / prospect.

It was a bad gamble. That is my opinion. As far as I know I am welcome to have one. Will it turn out to be a bad pick? Time will tell, but right now it doesn't look very good (again, my opinion).

EDIT: To your point, I agree with you that the pick is made, the management that made the pick is gone, and the only thing left to do is cheer for the prospect to be successful. I am cheering for the prospect. I am excited when he manages a two goal weekend. I thought he looked really good at development camp and I am looking forward to seeing him this summer. On an academic level the debate continues on whether it was the right gamble to select him, and I have my opinions on that. Debating and discussing Flames hockey is fun, its why we are here, and none of what we do is particularly purposeful.

[edslunch]

How about we all just agree to disagree. I agree with Kehatch that the pick was probably not the best but time will tell. It cannot be proven one way or other at this point; it is simply opinion.

At this point the drafting question is kind of pointless - he was drafted and is Flames property. I'm looking forward to seeing how he turns out. I like New Era's take on where he is right now - it makes me hopeful.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Trade freeze lifts in 8 hours. If you are Burke and the phone rings and it is Shero offering you Maata for Jankowski do you take it? Because there are 30 NHL GMs that almost certainly would take that trade.

My point isn't that Jankowski doesn't have potential. It is that drafting him wasn't the right decision given the Flames situation, the uncertainty around Jankowski, and the alternative prospects that were available to the Flames at both 14 and 21.

Why wasn't it the right decision? After drafting Erixon in the first round only to have him spurn the organization?

Maybe they thought they wanted to pick a big center, because that was the primary need at the time.

The sample size is so small with Maata that parading his numbers on perennial contender Penguins carries such little weight.

Is defense the primary need of the Flames? I don't think so. Was it then, I don't think so.

How would Maata do in the much stronger western conference? Maybe he doesn't even make the line up in the west.

Jankowski is exciting as a pick. If the optics of him playing on a low-scoring college club as a teenager fail to impress you, then we don't share the same perspective.

[thymebalm]

I'd say the jury is still out on Jankowski, but clearly the seers here know that if Maata was on the Flames, they'd be contenders, and Jankowski is bound to fail.

yawn.

People who give up on 19-year-olds during their sophomore season lose a lot of credit with me.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I'd say the jury is still out on Jankowski, but clearly the seers here know that if Maata was on the Flames, they'd be contenders, and Jankowski is bound to fail.

yawn.

People who give up on 19-year-olds during their sophomore season lose a lot of credit with me.

This is why the debate continues. This stereotype that people that didn't think it was a smart gamble have given up on the prospect or are trying to be seers.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

I cannot believe that yet another person came into this thread and re-ignited all the same arguments again.

It's been said!

Can we please discuss Jankowski the prospect, and not whether or not it was a risky pick?

[FBI]

I like jankowski.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Calgary did not have the luxury to roll the dice on a long term project given our position at the time.

Actually, Calgary was in the perfect position to take a risk at a long term project. They were in no position to draft a player that could step into the NHL immediately and they were staring a rebuild in the face. There was no one at their draft position they were confident would be able to step into the league and help the team, no matter how much hindsight you care to try and use. The wise play was to take the player with the greatest potential at the highest impact position. Considering we've been looking for a big talented center for two decades, Jankowski was a good gamble. 2016 or 2017 appears to be our time frame for the Flames to be somewhat competitive again, which just happens to coincide with when Jankowski should be ready for the league.

But unless he truly ends up as "the best player in the draft" this is STILL a bad decision because taking a high risk to get normal results is a bad decision.

Best player in the draft is now "normal results?" Jesus, no wonder you've got no perspective on this issue. You have unreasonable expectations of what type of players are available outside the top 10, let alone at when the Flames picked. How many guys drafted after Jankowski are playing in the NHL with any regularity? One. Maatta. How many players drafted before Jankowski, outside of the top 10, are playing with any regularity and looking like they belong? Hertl? Hell, even if you include the top 10, what does the list of players from this draft that are contributing and looking like they belong look like? Murray, Galchenyuk, Reilly and Lindholm? The number one over all pick hasn't looked like he's a NHL player for crying out loud. But the Flames were supposed to get a guy, the best player in the draft, at their mid round pick without any development time. Like I said, unreasonable.

And there is NOTHING in Jankowski's game to suggest he is going to be a high end player in the NHL.

Says who? You?

Jankowski is a good prospect with a great skill set. We'll see how he develops, but at the pace he has been going it is looking good. He's doing everything asked for by the Flames and the coaching staff of the team he plays for. So all the basement bloggers will have to just suck it up and accept the fact that he's progressing well and still displays those skills that made him a draft pick sought after by multiple teams in the first round.

[gargamel]

For you guys who care more about the pick that was used on Jankowski than his development as a player, why aren't you over in the Gaudreau thread ignoring anything that he does in the games and just repeatedly felating Feaster for making such a high value pick in the 4th round? I'm sure you could find a lot of guys we could have selected with that pick who would have shown less than Gaudreau at this point, so maybe you could tell us over and over again how Feaster made the right pick there. Or can you recognize that that would be annoying?

[sureLoss]

Unfortunately Jankowski's progress or lack of progress will be forever linked to the circumstances of how he was drafted.

If you don't like certain posters continually bringing it up, add them to your ignore list.