His coach gives him next to zero offensive zone faceoffs, electing for Juniors that are 22/23 and of course Seniors. IMO that's a big reason his numbers don't match the eye test.
...But look who's taking most D-zone faceoffs, it's Jankowski. The only other guy to get D-zone faceoffs was Noel Acciari (Hockey East defensive player of the year, a guy the Flames had in Dev Camp a few years ago BTW).
I think the coach was simply sheltering his other lines. For instance #21 Kevin Rooney (15 points in 41 games) seemed to get every O-Zone start possible but not a single in the D-Zone.
Just an observation. It is what it is when it comes to commenting on the rookies. You look at what you see and comment on that. The opinions on this guy are so polarized that it's unfortunately hard to take anyones words at face value.
I do appreciate your comments though.
Personally I'm content to wait and see. I also thought someone else might be interested in watching that video. Most of us are never going to watch a ton of Providence games, so if you're only going to watch one half of one period, you could do a lot worse than watching the last 12 minutes of their season.
The opinions on this guy are so polarized that it's unfortunately hard to take anyones words at face value.
If we're being honest opinions on the guy aren't that polarizing. Sure you have 1-2 guys who've dug their heels in but the vast majority of people who've watched him seem to like him and agree he has NHL potential. No one knows what that potential is but most wouldn't call him a flat out bust after several viewings, especially after any games down the stretch and into the Frozen Four last season.
The true polarizing thing about Jankowski isn't his play or potential, it's the circumstances surrounding how/when he was drafted and the comments about his potential after the draft. Those are the things people can't get over, are arguing about endlessly and seem obsessed about.
His play and potential though? Most see an upside there.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
So despite of your thinking that Jankowski is a good pick that is going to work out you think that where he is as a 21 year old he would be buried behind other young players to the point that he wouldn't get a whole lot of ice time???
Do you think Hunter Smith (#54 2014) as a 20 year old would be ahead of him in the AHL? I think that the Flames would want quite a bit more than a 2nd round pick for Smith.
You don't really think that the Flames could trade the AHL guys that you deem to be better player than him at this point in time for a 2nd round pick do you?
Jankowski has the built in 2nd round pick #51 overall in 2017 should the Flames not sign him.
If it wasn't for the getting a 2nd round pick for not signing him the best place for him as Flame, by a wide margin, would be in the AHL.
The best place for Jankowski is the NCAA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
There is a difference what is good for the Flames and what is good for an individual player.
In almost all situations the team gets its way, it is up to player to adapt and make the best of his opportunities.
This is one of the few times in his career that Jankowski has viable options that he has some control.
Ricardodw, your eloquence and command of the English language pale in comparison to your concise, rational argument. You've sold it to me; Jankowski should stay in the NCAA.
Jankowski has the built in 2nd round pick #51 overall in 2017 should the Flames not sign him.
If it wasn't for the getting a 2nd round pick for not signing him the best place for him as Flame, by a wide margin, would be in the AHL. .
People are really confused about this 2nd round pick thing.
The Flames can't just walk away from Jankowski and get a 2nd round pick. They have to offer him a bonafide NHL contract, if Mark refuses that contract and goes UFA then the Flames receive a 2nd round pick as compensation the following draft.
Calgary cannot just say it isn't working out and walk away expecting a pick back in return.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
People are really confused about this 2nd round pick thing.
The Flames can't just walk away from Jankowski and get a 2nd round pick. They have to offer him a bonafide NHL contract, if Mark refuses that contract and goes UFA then the Flames receive a 2nd round pick as compensation the following draft.
Calgary cannot just say it isn't working out and walk away expecting a pick back in return.
Actually this is not true.
Quote:
(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.
I believe it was getBak who pointed out that in the CBA the team is not required to offer a bonafide offer to college players. "(except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)" is defined as the following in Jankowski's case:
Quote:
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
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 does
not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his
college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the
negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following
his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central
Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college
student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student
on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his
fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA
eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the
circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive
right of negotiation for such Player's services through and including the
August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college
student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to
retain such rights.
So the Flames can't fail to retain his rights by not offering a Bona Fide Offer, because they are not required to.
Last edited by sureLoss; 06-01-2015 at 07:46 PM.
Reason: forgot a relevant section in the quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
I believe it was getBak who pointed out that in the CBA the team is not required to offer a bonafide offer to college players. "(except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)" is defined as the following in Jankowski's case:
So the Flames can't fail to retain his rights by not offering a Bona Fide Offer, because they are not required to.
Serves me right for trying to read the CBA.
The thanks you receive will be funny however.
lmao @ the predictable thank group haha
Last edited by MrMastodonFarm; 06-01-2015 at 07:50 PM.
I believe it was getBak who pointed out that in the CBA the team is not required to offer a bonafide offer to college players. "(except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below)" is defined as the following in Jankowski's case:
So the Flames can't fail to retain his rights by not offering a Bona Fide Offer, because they are not required to.
I don't agree with your interpretation. The latter paragraph explains how long the rights are held for, and that no bona fide offer is necessary to retain them for that period. The first paragraph states that you only get a compensatory pick IF you make a bona fide offer. The reference to "as defined below" only explains what a bona fide offer is, it doesn't relate the two clauses.
So you retain the rights either way, but you only get the pick if you make an offer.
I don't agree with your interpretation. The latter paragraph explains how long the rights are held for, and that no bona fide offer is necessary to retain them for that period. The first paragraph states that you only get a compensatory pick IF you make a bona fide offer. The reference to "as defined below" only explains what a bona fide offer is, it doesn't relate the two clauses.
So you retain the rights either way, but you only get the pick if you make an offer.
That's how I was reading it too. To me it doesn't make sense any other way.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
I don't agree with your interpretation. The latter paragraph explains how long the rights are held for, and that no bona fide offer is necessary to retain them for that period. The first paragraph states that you only get a compensatory pick IF you make a bona fide offer. The reference to "as defined below" only explains what a bona fide offer is, it doesn't relate the two clauses.
So you retain the rights either way, but you only get the pick if you make an offer.
It says if the team loses exclusive rights "except as a result of failing to tender a REQUIRED Bona Fide Offer" and then later says a bona fide offer is not required for teams to retain exclusive rights to college players.
That to me says that a bona fide offer is not required to receive compensation in Jankowski's case
Last edited by sureLoss; 06-01-2015 at 08:25 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
It says if the team loses exclusive rights "except as a result of failing to tender a REQUIRED Bona Fide Offer" and then later says a bona fide offer is not required for to teams to retain exclusive rights to college players
Isn't that referring to the fact a bonafide offer is needed to retain some CHL players? So in this case, for college players it's not needed.
Subject to the provisions of subsection (iii) below and Sections (b), (c) and
(d) below, if, on or before June 1 of the calendar year next succeeding the
Entry Draft, the claiming Club makes a Bona Fide Offer (as defined
below) to its claimed Player of an SPC, the Club shall retain the exclusive
right of negotiation for the services of such Player up to and including the
second June 1 following the date of his selection.
Sections (b) is for players who leave major junior before the age of 20. Section (c) is for college players, and Section (d) is for players from outside North America. Subsection (iii) is for drafted 22 year olds.
So yes if Eric Roy was a 1st round pick of the Flames, they wouldn't have received a compensatory pick if they didn't make a bona fide offer last June.
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
I'm not a lawyer but I have stayed at Holiday Inns multiple times.
I have to disagree with the getBak interpretation, as well. Why include the bolded part in
Quote:
(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)),..."
if it wasn't meant to exclude the giving of a compensatory pick in this situation?
I believe the second paragraph is stating the circumstances under which a team retains its exclusive rights and up to what time it loses those rights unless it tenders a bona fide offer. My interpretation is that the second quoted paragraph doesn't make any reference to the compensatory pick, at all.
I'm inferring from these snippets of the CBA, that the team also had to tender a bona fide offer (within those timeframes defined in the second paragraph) or they are excepted from receiving the pick.
It says if the team loses exclusive rights "except as a result of failing to tender a REQUIRED Bona Fide Offer" and then later says a bona fide offer is not required for teams to retain exclusive rights to college players.
That to me says that a bona fide offer is not required to receive compensation in Jankowski's case
It's definitely ambiguous and resists an obvious interpretation, and I do this for a living. I see both sides. I still prefer my interpretation based on the contexts of each paragraph, but the word "required" does stick out.
Reading that horrific drafting helps me understand why Feaster could in good faith claim that his interpretation of the CBA was that O'Reilly would not be subject to waivers. At least, in theory. Maybe that section was pretty clear, but based on the above I have my doubts.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
For what it's worth I fired off an Email to the guys behind http://www.generalfanager.com/ I linked back to this thread and asked them what they thought. Here is the reply.
Quote:
The statement in the thread stating that the Flames do not need to submit a bona fide offer to retain his rights is accurate. They retain his rights until August 15th following his graduation, without a bona fide offer. On August 16th, he becomes a UFA.
However, retaining his rights and being eligible for a compensatory pick are separate items. They can retain his rights through August 15th, but they are not eligible for a compensatory pick unless they offer him a bona fide offer before he becomes a UFA.
This is my understanding of the rule. I'll be sending this along to a couple of our sources to confirm, will let you know once I get confirmation but pretty confident in the above.
Thanks,
Tom
generalfanager.com
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
I'm not against Jankowski as a Flames prospect, but sureLoss always delivers on the info and thanks are deserved. We're all smarter now.
Jankowski is still a good guy to have in the system. The one and only problem is that it was a horrible first round pick. Feaster was either completely out to lunch or trying to be the smartest guy in the room. One of only a few knocks against him as a GM. But a relatively big one as it was unecessary. If he was that high on him he more than likely coulda grabbed at two. If the rumours were true and some team was picking him at 29, than they're overpaying, let them have him.
Guy could still be a great 3rd line center with upside though. Never hurts to be deep on center.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
It's definitely ambiguous and resists an obvious interpretation, and I do this for a living. I see both sides. I still prefer my interpretation based on the contexts of each paragraph, but the word "required" does stick out.
Reading that horrific drafting helps me understand why Feaster could in good faith claim that his interpretation of the CBA was that O'Reilly would not be subject to waivers. At least, in theory. Maybe that section was pretty clear, but based on the above I have my doubts.
But if you read the whole context of 8.6, it specifically outlines in which cases a Bona Fide Offer is required to retain rights and for how long those rights are retained.
Without section 8.6, there is no other place that defines where a bona fide offer is needed to retain rights and for how long, thus making the statement
Quote:
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))
meaningless, because no where else is it defined how tendering a Bona Fide Offer can retain rights.
