Craig's List 2014 Prospects

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I disagree. I would do it in a heartbeat.

Even though some are saying that Ekblad may not be a franchise defenceman, and his ceiling maybe a #2 defenceman that is no reason not to acquire him.

When is the next time we will get a chance to get a 6'4" defenceman that can play a 200ft game? How much does it take to get that player via trade?

How much does it cost to get that player via free agency?

This is still a top end defenceman, and if we have to trade the 34th pick to get that player, it is totally worth it.

Yep. So Ekblad might not be a franchise defenceman (which I take to be one of the top 3-4 d-men in the league). I'd still jump at the chance to get a 6'4" top-pairing defenceman who can play in all situations. Because I have my doubts that any of the centres are true #1s either.

[Phanuthier]

I think I missed this, but why is Jankow considered a bad pick now? Just cause Maata/TT are looking good now? The only thing I see that was done wrong was Feaster made some silly comments and built unnecessary expectations, but that doesn't matter now.

[saillias]

^Some people are disappointed with his offense so far in college. But he'll only be a junior.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by saillias

^Some people are disappointed with his offense so far in college. But he'll only be a junior.

Was it that bad? Level off? I don't follow the prospects forum much, but wasn't he buried and put on wing because he was on a deep team (which he'll get more responsibilities next year) ?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think I missed this, but why is Jankow considered a bad pick now? Just cause Maata/TT are looking good now? The only thing I see that was done wrong was Feaster made some silly comments and built unnecessary expectations, but that doesn't matter now.

Jankowski doesn't need to stall to be a bad pick. If he progresses at normal rates he's still a bad pick because of how far behind he was when he was drafted. For him to be a good pick, his progress needs to be exceptional.

[Hackey]

A risky pick like Jankowski in the first round when you don't have much for prospects just doesn't make sense. If it was the 2nd or later or we had a ton of depth the risk might make more sense. With guys like Hertl Maata Teravainen all on the board and all showing a lot more promise it's a tough pill to swallow and these guys will be the guys Jankowski is judged against. I still haven't written him off and think he has time to prove Feaster and Weisbrod right but as of right now things don't look that great. We were told he would be a project but I think we should start seeing some more than average results in the next year or two or else I think it could be a wasted pick.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I really hope Bennett or Reinhart drop to us. But if not, a guy like Leon Draisaitl will still be a huge acquisition to the team. I would love getting a 1/2/3 punch of Backlund/Monahan/Draisaitl in a couple of years.

[Caged Great]

Jankowski nearly increased his scoring from his NCAA rookie season by nearly 40% finishing 3rd on his team in scoring. The leader had 35 points to his 25, and the 2nd place finisher had 2 more than Janko (Saracino assisted a lot on Mauermann's goals)

Janko's linemates both are very inferior, which is why his goal totals outstripped his assists.

Providence is basically Lemaire's Minnesota Wild of the NCAA. Not a lot of goals scored, for or against.

Also, Jankowski won 53.8% of his faceoffs.

He's a very good prospect. People just want instant gratification and cannot handle someone that needs 4 years to develop.

[dammage79]

Really guys. This whole Jankowski's law is getting ridiculous. This dead horse debate has it's very own thread where this conversation can be beaten to death some more. I'm sure you could break it down to an atomic level if you wanted over in that thread.

Can we please please please use this thread for 2014 draft eligible prospect talk?

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

A risky pick like Jankowski in the first round when you don't have much for prospects just doesn't make sense. If it was the 2nd or later or we had a ton of depth the risk might make more sense. With guys like Hertl Maata Teravainen all on the board and all showing a lot more promise it's a tough pill to swallow and these guys will be the guys Jankowski is judged against. I still haven't written him off and think he has time to prove Feaster and Weisbrod right but as of right ailnow things don't look that great. We were told he would be a project but I think we should start seeing some more than average results in the next year or two or else I think it could be a wasted pick.

Yeah, after the fact you can point to anyone you want.
The main reason Flames failed to pick a Euro is that they didn't have any Euro scouts that they trusted.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Really guys. This whole Jankowski's law is getting ridiculous. This dead horse debate has it's very own thread where this conversation can be beaten to death some more. I'm sure you could break it down to an atomic level if you wanted over in that thread.

Can we please please please use this thread for 2014 draft eligible prospect talk?

My previous post ignored that whole debate for a reason.

[Scoreface]

I think Conroy's talk about the top 6 now is to set us up for trading down. Maybe it helps massage the fanbase. I think they would be very happy with Ritchie/Ehlers at pick 5, since a trade with the Canucks at 6 (still can't believe them aholes tanked that bad) won't happen even if there was a blizzard at the draft.

The Isles may be open for business and with Snow (no draft snow pun intended there haha), I think Treliving will be open for business if his guy isn't on the table. I really could see a scenario like this unfolding. A second round pick, which could be low 30's would probably be all it takes and the Flames would still nab a guy in their "top 6".

This is all assuming Treliving and Co. aren't posturing much here and that the Isles are willing to deal, of course.

Wasn't it just a short while ago we heard from Conroy there is basically an interchangeable top 4? Now the wording has changed. Intersting to me. Just a thought.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by SebC

Jankowski doesn't need to stall to be a bad pick. If he progresses at normal rates he's still a bad pick because of how far behind he was when he was drafted. For him to be a good pick, his progress needs to be exceptional.

Other than Maatta so far nothing great was picked after him, by the look at that draft he'll only be a bad pick if he never plays a game.

A lot of "meh" players in that draft.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Yeah, after the fact you can point to anyone you want.
The main reason Flames failed to pick a Euro is that they didn't have any Euro scouts that they trusted.

It's not really after the fact at all. They went way off the board. If you check the draft thread you'd see a lot of people were hoping we would take Teravainen when he was still available at 14. Maatta was also a guy a lot of people wanted when we dropped down. He went the pick right after. Hertl was also on the radar. It is what it is though. All we can do now is hope Jankowski turns into the player Feaster and Weisbrod thought he could be.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by T@T

Other than Maatta so far nothing great was picked after him, by the look at that draft he'll only be a bad pick if he never plays a game.

A lot of "meh" players in that draft.

Except that we traded down from 14 to select him. Girgensons, Ceci, Hertl, Teravainen, Wilson, Laughton. Not a bad list to be selecting from.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I think they see Ritchie at 5.

When it looked like we would finish in 5th I was really hoping they'd take Ritchie, but I wouldn't take him at 4.
I see it as;
Ekblad
Reihnart
Bennett
Draisatl
Ritchi

I don't think so based on Treliving's comment about the consensus top 5, which to me would indicate Dal Colle is the 5th. I think 6 could be any of Ritchie/Nylander/Ehlers. Then again - Virtanen seems to be high on some people's lists too so who knows...

My preference before the WC would have been Ekblad, Reinhart or Bennett but after seeing Drasaitl playing against men, I'd be happy with him at 4.

[Scoreface]

They're trading down if their guy isn't available. CP explodes, but I can see it happening.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

It's not really after the fact at all. They went way off the board. If you check the draft thread you'd see a lot of people were hoping we would take Teravainen when he was still available at 14. Maatta was also a guy a lot of people wanted when we dropped down. He went the pick right after. Hertl was also on the radar. It is what it is though. All we can do now is hope Jankowski turns into the player Feaster and Weisbrod thought he could be.

There is no board

[Ashasx]

I have a hard time believing the team would trade down the first top 5 pick in Calgary Flames history.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

There is no board