[News] Flames reassign Mark Jankowski to Stockton - Page 6 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GioforPM · 11-25-2016, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saillias

The glue gun thing is definitely the worst part of all this.

Just finding a word in the English language that sounds like someone's name and then calling them that as a derogatory insult doesn't work. It's cringe-worthy.

It actually sounds like a compliment to me whenever I see it - like he's a guy that glues everyone together.

FlamesFan68 · 11-25-2016, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What about going all in on Brad Richards? Twice he was saved from himself.

This was at a time no big name centers even "wanted" to come to the Flames. At that time Richards would have been an upgrade and a veteran presence for the up and coming Monahan to learn from. Much like what Hudler was to both Guadreau and Monahan for a few years. Richards went where? Chicago? Can't remember if they won the cup that year or not. However, not a bad upgrade from our top veteran centerman at the time being Stajan.

devo22 · 11-25-2016, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesFan68

Richards went where? Chicago? Can't remember if they won the cup that year or not.

Rangers. He won the cup with the Hawks later ... after the Rags bought out his ugly contract.

Flash Walken · 11-25-2016, 12:36 PM

This is some of the hardest trolling i've ever seen.

FlamesFan68 · 11-25-2016, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

Rangers. He won the cup with the Hawks later ... after the Rags bought out his ugly contract.

Thanks, memory was a bit vague on what came of Richards. Would still have been an upgrade and welcome addition for the Flames at that point in time.

scotty2hotty · 11-25-2016, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saillias

The glue gun thing is definitely the worst part of all this.

Just finding a word in the English language that sounds like someone's name and then calling them that as a derogatory insult doesn't work. It's cringe-worthy.

Glue Gun was originally just an autocorrect on some random post (not mine). It was never meant to be some genius level derogatory insult.

It was just semi-funny and it stuck (pardon the pun). No biggie.

Cali Panthers Fan · 11-25-2016, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayswin

Thank you for properly preparing the fan base for his debut. We were lost in the woods, but now we're ready!

Sorry, you don't think that was warranted with all the extreme reactions around here lately? Normally, I would never bother, but this forum clearly needs someone to say it preemptively.

automaton 3 · 11-25-2016, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

When I think of risky gambles by Feaster 2 come to mind. Jankowski certainly tops the list as the pick was way off the board. The other was the RoR offer sheet where he was willing to gamble the 1st and 3rd round pick in a year that was very top heavy in the draft by signing a player to an offer sheet. Luckily the Flames didn't trade the Monahan pick to the Avs while gifting the Blue Jackets O'Rielly on waivers.

This again.

IIRC other teams were very interested in Jankowski (Montreal?) and he was going to be picked soon after regardless.

IIRC the most likely result of the ROR fiasco was the league rejecting it/voiding it. Both the Flames and Avs were incorrect in their assumptions. One journalist's navel gazing about what "could" have happened is not factual.

Street Pharmacist · 11-25-2016, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by automaton 3

This again.

IIRC other teams were very interested in Jankowski (Montreal?) and he was going to be picked soon after regardless.

IIRC the most likely result of the ROR fiasco was the league rejecting it/voiding it. Both the Flames and Avs were incorrect in their assumptions. One journalist's navel gazing about what "could" have happened is not factual.

The league said the rules were the rules and had things have gone divergent they wouldn't have changed them IIRC. I don't think it would've just been voided. That seems completely made up

IamNotKenKing · 11-25-2016, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The league said the rules were the rules and had things have gone divergent they wouldn't have changed them IIRC. I don't think it would've just been voided. That seems completely made up

They actually changed the wording from the Memorandum of Understanding that was in place at the time of the offer sheet to that in the actual CBA.
By the wording in the MOA, Feaster's interpretation was correct.

MrMastodonFarm · 11-25-2016, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannon7

Of all the Flames prospects, Jankowski is the one I worry least about at the NHL-level, no matter where he slots in.

Never thought I'd hear this about that prospect on Calgarypuck.

automaton 3 · 11-25-2016, 01:18 PM

I don't recall the league officially saying anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

GioforPM · 11-25-2016, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

They actually changed the wording from the Memorandum of Understanding that was in place at the time of the offer sheet to that in the actual CBA.
By the wording in the MOA, Feaster's interpretation was correct.

I don't see how that's correct. The offer sheet was Feb. 28. The language requiring ROR to go through waivers was reported by Sportsnet on March 1.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/c...-ryan-oreilly/

ETA: The MOU language you might be thinking of only applied to the team with rights over the player (the Avs).

GioforPM · 11-25-2016, 01:24 PM

The league didn't say much IIRC. But voiding the contract wouldn't have been an option. Other players had already had to go thru waivers.

automaton 3 · 11-25-2016, 01:28 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle9226312/

The NHL declined to clarify whether O’Reilly would have had to clear waivers if the Avalanche refused to match Calgary’s offer sheet.

“We agree with the Flames in the sense that the entire issue has become an academic point,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email to The Canadian Press. “Ryan O’Reilly has signed a contract with the Colorado Avalanche and the contract has been registered. We have nothing further to say on the subject.”

MarkGio · 11-25-2016, 01:30 PM

I betcha as soon as Janko laces up, Feaster will call him and wish him luck. If Janko truly does pan out, Feaster could find another job one day.

mdubz · 11-25-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I betcha as soon as Janko laces up, Feaster will call him and wish him luck. If Janko truly does pan out, Feaster could find another job one day.

It was Weisbrod that really pushed for him.

Erick Estrada · 11-25-2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I betcha as soon as Janko laces up, Feaster will call him and wish him luck. If Janko truly does pan out, Feaster could find another job one day.

I can just hear it now. Team owners sitting around talking about the hot new GM candidate Jay Feaster because of his brilliance in unearthing that Jankowski kid who ended up turning into a nice 3rd line NHL center.

AcGold · 11-25-2016, 01:37 PM

The sky's the limit for this kid. He has lateral movement like Johnny, I don't know of any big players that have ever had lateral movement like he has. Big players with unique skillsets make for huge potential.

IamNotKenKing · 11-25-2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't see how that's correct. The offer sheet was Feb. 28. The language requiring ROR to go through waivers was reported by Sportsnet on March 1.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/c...-ryan-oreilly/

ETA: The MOU language you might be thinking of only applied to the team with rights over the player (the Avs).

Regarding the edit: They changed the wording from "a team" to "the team". The original wording merely needed "The Player to be on a Team's list...", and was changed to having to be on the list of the team actually signing him.