[News] TSN.ca's 2014-15 NHL Season Preview: Calgary Flames

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But what would they do, then if he came back in his senior year and registers 2.0 pts/game? I mean, they put that 2nd round pick in ink! There is just no coming back from that.

Probably not because at that point Jankowski is a UFA and picks the team he wants to play for.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by dammage79

So you mean that the Flames will think he's a bust and would opt to take the second round pick over signing the kid and getting him into the AHL to develop him further.

I think more than a few people including myself will be at odds with this conclusion on your part because it really isn't how this works. And even if he doesn't put up a PPG in his senior year it does not equate to him being a bust.

If he doesn't put up a ppg in his senior year how is he a better prospect than Jooris or Knight or Agustino or Arnold or Hanowski?

Do you think the Flames could flip them all for a 2nd round picks?

If you are dropping a 22 year old into the AHL for a year or 2 you would rather have an 18 year old 2nd round draft pick.

A 2nd round draft pick is almost certainly going to be NHL ready at 22:

The Flames 2nd round picks: Hunter Smith (18), Granlund (21), Wotherspoon (21), Sieloff (20) are all ahead of a 22 starting out in the AHL for a year or 2.

Things have changed so much since the Flames drafted him as their next large #1 Centre... Monahan, Bennett , Backlund as Centres

and Bouma, Smith, Poirier, Ferland Van Brabrant, hankowski, Agustino, Knight, Colborne as large.

When Jankowski was drafted and projected to be the large #1C the was only Backlund and Bouma in the Flames system. Jankowski stood out as the only hope.

That was the same as Alui being the only great hope to be a power forward.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

If he doesn't put up a ppg in his senior year how is he a better prospect than Jooris or Knight or Agustino or Arnold or Hanowski?

Do you think the Flames could flip them all for a 2nd round picks?

If you are dropping a 22 year old into the AHL for a year or 2 you would rather have an 18 year old 2nd round draft pick.

A 2nd round draft pick is almost certainly going to be NHL ready at 22:

The Flames 2nd round picks: Hunter Smith (18), Granlund (21), Wotherspoon (21), Sieloff (20) are all ahead of a 22 starting out in the AHL for a year or 2.

Things have changed so much since the Flames drafted him as their next large #1 Centre... Monahan, Bennett , Backlund as Centres

and Bouma, Smith, Poirier, Ferland Van Brabrant, hankowski, Agustino, Knight, Colborne as large.

When Jankowski was drafted and projected to be the large #1C the was only Backlund and Bouma in the Flames system. Jankowski stood out as the only hope.

That was the same as Alui being the only great hope to be a power forward.

Enough with the what ifs already. The guy is 19, just going into his junior year (young for a junior by the way), is filling out his 6'4" frame, learning to be defensively responsible, is apparently his coach's go to guy.... Let him develop and we can have this conversation in a couple of years based on fact, not speculation that borders on hate.

[lanny9]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Enough with the what ifs already. The guy is 19, just going into his junior year (young for a junior by the way), is filling out his 6'4" frame, learning to be defensively responsible, is apparently his coach's go to guy.... Let him develop and we can have this conversation in a couple of years based on fact, not speculation that borders on hate.

Amen Brotha! Some people just can't seem to get over the pick and will go to all lengths to dis the guy. Especially when he is playing a role that is completely different than what his skillset may be best for. We will sign him you can bet on that!

[heep223]

My hopes are as high as anyone's for the kid, but I have to say it's tough when I know that Maatta was still available. It seems to me that our forwards, and particularly C, are stacked. As awesome as that is, we need help on D...I hope he proves me wrong.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

If you are dropping a 22 year old into the AHL for a year or 2 you would rather have an 18 year old 2nd round draft pick.



A 2nd round draft pick is almost certainly going to be NHL ready at 22:



The Flames 2nd round picks: Hunter Smith (18), Granlund (21), Wotherspoon (21), Sieloff (20) are all ahead of a 22 starting out in the AHL for a year or 2.

Well, that's actually false.

2nd round picks historically play over 200 games in their career only 30% of the time. Many don't ever make the NHL at all. So if by "almost certainly" you mean "without any certainty at all" then yes, you're correct.

By giving up on Jankowski at 22, you MAY get a player who, 4 years later at the same age Jankowski was when you gave up on him at 22, can play insignificant time in the NHL (Granlund, Wotherspoon). OR! You could have a 26 year old Jankowski, who has (by this point) likely spent actual time in the NHL, is in the midst of his prime, and will hopefully play in a role in a winning team?

Even if Jankowski only becomes a 3rd line center. In 6 years, when the Flames should be a playoff team, would you rather have a 3rd line center in his prime or an AHL player who only has a 30% chance of ever making the NHL?

Regardless, I don't understand why you named Hunter Smith and Seiloff. Neither are 22, and neither are NHL ready until they prove otherwise.

[megatron]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

This is as good a thread as any for this. 1-on-1 with Bob McKenzie and Brad Treliving. Interestingly enough, Treliving identifies offense/goal-scoring as the area he would address via trade, when he mentioned defense and depth on defense earlier in the calendar year. He also discusses the goaltender competition, individual prospects (Bennett, Gaudreau, Baertschi), analytics, his working relationship with Burke, the 2015 draft, and so on. Worth a watch.

http://www.tsn.ca/VideoHub/?collection=72&show=439474

I didn't see this in the thread yet, but as a follow up to the interview, there is an article on TSN recapping things:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=461674

[TheDebaser]

Can we keep Jankowski discussion in Jankowski threads?(Link for the lazy.)

Here is all Jankowski discussion boiled down to its bones:

Will Jankowski bust?
Maybe.

Was Jankowski the best option at the draft?
Probably not, but maybe.

Will Jankowski sign elsewhere?
Probably not, but maybe.

Could Jankowski become a first line center?
Probably not, but maybe.

Add a bunch of stats on both sides of each argument and toss in a couple of personal digs to taste and you've got yourself a Jankowski thread going.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Probably not because at that point Jankowski is a UFA and picks the team he wants to play for.

You don't understand how compensation for 1st round picks goes.

The team HAS to offer a contract. If they select a 1st rounder that doesn't do well, they can't just choose between the pick and signing the player. Your whole page of 'what ifs' has just wasted your time really.

Also, the league agrees as a whole to offer compensation. There are instances when compensation has been awarded (example, a 1st round pick has unfortunately died tragically), but being awarded because you don't think he developed enough? Not going to happen.

See what happens when you pick and choose stats, and just blindly go down a tunnel without looking around? There was no tunnel. You were just laying face-first in the mud making mud angels.

[Ashasx]

Are you sure the team has to make an offer to receive compensation?

Winnipeg was compensated with the 59th pick in the 2013 draft for not signing Daulton Leveille, who was an awful 1st round pick in 2008.

If the Jets offered him an ELC, I can't see why Leveille would decline a professional contract.

[getbak]

For College players, teams do not need to make a Bona Fide Offer to retain a player's rights. Here's what the CBA says about compensatory draft picks:

(b) In the event a Club loses its draft rights to an Unsigned Draft Choice drafted in the first round of the Entry Draft (except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)), who (i) is again eligible for the Entry Draft, (ii) becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent, or (iii) dies, a Compensatory Draft Selection shall automatically be granted to that Club, which Compensatory Draft Selection shall be the same numerical choice in the second round in the Entry Draft immediately following the date the Club loses such rights.

By way of example, if a Club cannot sign the third pick in the first round, it will receive the third pick in the second round as compensation.

The important part is the "as defined below".

Here is what follows regarding College Players who start college immediately following their draft (which is where Jankowski falls):

If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.

The only time you don't get a compensatory pick for losing the rights to a first round pick is if you don't provide a Bona Fide Offer. However, college players don't require Bona Fide Offers.

[Goodlad]

^^So, is it possible to get Getbak some kind of custom user title yet? Maybe something along the lines of "CBA Guru"? It seems like any time a question like this comes up it's always Getbak to the rescue.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

You don't understand how compensation for 1st round picks goes.

The team HAS to offer a contract. If they select a 1st rounder that doesn't do well, they can't just choose between the pick and signing the player. Your whole page of 'what ifs' has just wasted your time really.

Also, the league agrees as a whole to offer compensation. There are instances when compensation has been awarded (example, a 1st round pick has unfortunately died tragically), but being awarded because you don't think he developed enough? Not going to happen.

See what happens when you pick and choose stats, and just blindly go down a tunnel without looking around? There was no tunnel. You were just laying face-first in the mud making mud angels.

you may have been clarifying a point that I had my facts wrong on...

Now you being totally and clearly incorrect it doesn't reflect at all well upon you.


Why did you feel the need to add on the mud attack trash talk?

It devalues any valid opinion, comment or analysis that you may provide.

It hurts the quality of CP overall.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

That's interesting, it almost provides extra incentive to draft college players in the first round as the worst case scenario is you get a free 2nd in 4 years no matter what (unless you sign the player).

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

you may have been clarifying a point that I had my facts wrong on...



Now you being totally and clearly incorrect it doesn't reflect at all well upon you.





Why did you feel the need to add on the mud attack trash talk?



It devalues any valid opinion, comment or analysis that you may provide.



It hurts the quality of CP overall.

It seemed pretty light hearted to me, I think good jokes add to the quality of CP

You didn't laugh at the idea of being face-down making mud angels?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by getbak

For College players, teams do not need to make a Bona Fide Offer to retain a player's rights. Here's what the CBA says about compensatory draft picks:


The important part is the "as defined below".

Here is what follows regarding College Players who start college immediately following their draft (which is where Jankowski falls):



The only time you don't get a compensatory pick for losing the rights to a first round pick is if you don't provide a Bona Fide Offer. However, college players don't require Bona Fide Offers.

I stand corrected, and thanks (out of thanks). I always heard that teams need to make a player an offer. Now I know

Originally Posted by ricardodw

you may have been clarifying a point that I had my facts wrong on...

Now you being totally and clearly incorrect it doesn't reflect at all well upon you.


Why did you feel the need to add on the mud attack trash talk?

It devalues any valid opinion, comment or analysis that you may provide.

It hurts the quality of CP overall.

Yep, turns out I was wrong and I have egg on my face now. That's ok. Happens. As for it not reflecting well upon me - not sure what you mean by this? Will the Calgary Flames suddenly decide not to hire me? Didn't know I was a candidate to begin with. You make it out to be a bigger deal than it is. I am not afraid to be wrong - if I was, I would be double and triple-checking every last stat. Been wrong in the past, was wrong just now, and will be wrong in the future. Sucks, but that is life, and it isn't the end of the world for me.

The mud trash talk was how I see a lot of your posts in a way. You pick a few stats, and you build an entire case around it. When others show you that it is incorrect, you still seem intent on proving that it is correct. Your whole RGI for instance - you base it off of stats that are NOT accepted as hard stats (definitions of hits and takeaways vary considerably from one arena to another for instance, so you are going to get massively different values from players who play in those arenas), but yet you think it is a valid measurement and keep pushing it.

Tunnel vision is when we are so focused on one facet, that everything else is impossible to focus on. It is fine to throw a bunch of stats up and claim it shows something (heck, I love stats myself in hockey) but be aware that not everything you are posting has correlation, and not everything that has correlation implies causation.

So yes, my mud-angel posts was a metaphor for what I do think you do often - focus on some correlation so intently, that you become blind to what other posters are telling you with regards to your stat. You forget that just because you see a correlation, that it naturally must imply causation. This is when you get a lot of flack from a lot of posters.