03-08-2015, 02:39 PM
|
#2121
|
Franchise Player
|
was never a fan of this pick because it seemed to be a bit of a reach, esp with TT available.
now, that said, Jankowski is a good/very good skater, which is a huge asset to have in today's NHL.
While it seems that he won't get to the level that Feaster <infamously> trumpeted, he could still come in and be a contributor in the vein of a Colborne; big body, good skater, decent hands to chip in offensively...
the bigger question is attitude. Does he have the aggression to play in that 3rd line checking role at the NHL level? Will he want to?
Right now, you'd have to think he is fighting to earn a spot on the roster, considering there are a number of prospects that are capable of filling that role
|
|
|
03-08-2015, 04:36 PM
|
#2122
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
How could he be wrong if you don't know what they were considering trading the pick for? Turris was an oft mentioned name and would've helped at centre quite a bit at the time.
It does look like a below average draft year overall. I'm still fine with the Jankowski pick and yes, it is still early early to write him off. I mean seriously people, he was a long term project when we picked him. He likely won't be NHL ready for another 3 years. Doesn't mean he won't turn into something useful.
|
Trading the first round pick for Turris, yeah would have been a good move if that was offered but the reasoning for him looking around to trade the pick, not so good. One more thing is when Weisbrod was thinking of trading the pick, Turris had already been traded to Ottawa, so Turris wasn't available.
Really I don't know anyone who has written him off, that's just a made up argument. The problem is IMO Feaster could have easily made a better pick. Not fair to Jankowski, I admit.
|
|
|
03-08-2015, 04:49 PM
|
#2123
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
One more thing is when Weisbrod was thinking of trading the pick, Turris had already been traded to Ottawa, so Turris wasn't available.
|
Weisbrod was thinking of trading the pick during the 11/12 season, prior to the draft. Turris was traded in Dec 2011, about half a year prior to the draft. So yes, Turris was available for part of that season.
|
|
|
03-08-2015, 10:13 PM
|
#2124
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Ya know, watching today's Flames/Sens game and seeing guys like Jooris and Gaudreau be so creative in-game I can't help but wonder if NCAA is the primo place to develop players. The AHL has its distractions (callups and senddowns), while the CHL has no defense to really challenge players.
Suffice to say I'm of the side thinking Jankowski can and probably will transition to the NHL game well-and-fine. He needs one more year of NCAA and at least a year of AHL.
__________________

"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 11:05 AM
|
#2125
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
|
I've been pretty positive on Jankowski in the past, but I think any neutral observer would have to say the chances of his making the NHL at this point are rather slim.
I sure hope I am wrong, and hopefully he can improve in his senior year with added ice time and responsibilities.
If not, that 2nd rd pick in 2017 will be the better asset.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 12:22 PM
|
#2126
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Menace
I think any neutral observer would have to say the chances of his making the NHL at this point are rather slim.
|
Why would that be?
__________________

"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 05:28 PM
|
#2127
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I wouldn't say he is a slam dunk either - and I am not sure there is a bigger "pro-Jankowski" poster on these forums than myself. I did expect more offence from him as well, but at the same time, he hasn't been bad. You do still see progression, and as long as I see that, I think Jankowski will eventually be signed and will get a shot.
Offensively, he does have moments that wow you. They don't happen as often as I would like, but at least it shows that he does have that potential. I also really like the fact that he seems to be harder to knock off the puck, and he is going to the dirty areas much more frequently, and with more determination.
In trying to figure out what how the organization views him, the best I can do is try to look at him a bit more objectively and compare him to what the Flames are trying to build - what the Flames' identity is - and how he does or doesn't fit. I do see a fit there.
He is big (Flames want to get bigger)
He is a great skater - I think in Hartley's system, that is a mandatory trait.
He has a good 2-way game already - something that again, is mandatory in Hartley's system.
Unless his progression stalls, I don't see the Flames giving up on Jankowski. I think at the very least, he will provide Stockton with a good utility center that will help others develop. The potential is still there that he becomes much more than that, and given his faceoff abilities and his ever-growing defensive game, he may end up being that 3rd line center for Calgary. There is a lot of competition in the depth roles, however.
You may be right - the chances are probably smaller that he reaches his ceiling as "the next Joe Nieuwendyk". However, I do think his floor has risen dramatically. I think the potential to bust is much lowered because he has put on the weight (which was a question mark), and he has become a good defensive player (again, the other big question mark at the draft).
Still, I wouldn't write off his offence at the moment. I haven't been encouraged by his offensive production, but I haven't exactly been discouraged either. He is only 20 and there is still time for him to start putting it together - the rest of this season, the following season, and then a look at how he does once he turns pro. The main thing with projects (and this is exactly what Jankowski was at the draft) is that you don't get too high or too low, and just remain patient and see where things go.
Teravainen for me is the guy that I personally compare Jankowski to - this organization needed a center badly. Teravainen is not much further along than Jankowski is, and has turned into a project himself. Maatta sure looks like a great pick - but then again, will he be able to keep remaining healthy? Will he continue to take steps forward in his progression? Point is, not only is it too early to tell who the best of the 2012 draft is, it becomes even more difficult when you factor in a project pick.
My personal summary of Jankowski is:
Project pick with a few moments of sheer offensive awesomeness, but an ever growing ability defensively and in the faceoff dot. He is a project, but I do think you have to be a bit overly negative to be down on him considering the strides he has made, and only being 20 years old (doesn't turn 21 until September). Keeping all of that in mind, and I don't look at him as a disappointment thus far.
|
Brilliant!
I was going to post a similar argument until I came across yours and there is no way to articulate it any better than you did..
Big centermen that can win draws and contribute offensively are in demand on any team. You don't move on from one that you have invested in who has no desire to leave the organization.
Develop him and see what becomes of it. Trade him if you can get a similar age-ranged player on D that has similar/more upside or another area of need on the team. But other than a sweet deal coming along you may as well develop him further and see what he brings to the pro ranks.
In retrospect the only picks that may have been better for us is Ceci or Maatta as we have a derth of potential top4 talent on the back end.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 06:00 PM
|
#2128
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Windsor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Menace
I've been pretty positive on Jankowski in the past, but I think any neutral observer would have to say the chances of his making the NHL at this point are rather slim.
I sure hope I am wrong, and hopefully he can improve in his senior year with added ice time and responsibilities.
If not, that 2nd rd pick in 2017 will be the better asset.
|
Whats with all this talk of a 2nd round pick?
A team only receives that compensation if the player REFUSES to sign with said team ala Kevin Hayes.
Don't feel like searching through the CBA but this is from a draft FAQ on hfboards-What are the exceptions to the '30 players per round' rule?
The league will award a compensatory pick to a team that made a bona fide offer to a former first-round selection, but was unable to sign them to an NHL entry-level deal. The team is compensated with a second-round pick for an upcoming draft in the exact same selecting position as when the player was originally drafted. For example, if a club drafts a player fifth overall, but is unable to sign that player despite making a bona fide contract offer, then the club will be awarded the fifth pick in the second round of a subsequent NHL Draft.[/CODE]
Last edited by druetetective; 03-09-2015 at 06:02 PM.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 06:35 PM
|
#2129
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
Whats with all this talk of a 2nd round pick?
A team only receives that compensation if the player REFUSES to sign with said team ala Kevin Hayes.
Don't feel like searching through the CBA but this is from a draft FAQ on hfboards-What are the exceptions to the '30 players per round' rule?
The league will award a compensatory pick to a team that made a bona fide offer to a former first-round selection, but was unable to sign them to an NHL entry-level deal. The team is compensated with a second-round pick for an upcoming draft in the exact same selecting position as when the player was originally drafted. For example, if a club drafts a player fifth overall, but is unable to sign that player despite making a bona fide contract offer, then the club will be awarded the fifth pick in the second round of a subsequent NHL Draft.[/CODE]
|
While this is true, a bona fide offer is usually league base salary with no signing bonuses or performance bonuses. Pretty much a slap in the face for a former first round pick.
If that is all the Flames are offering Jankowski, he will likely refuse to sign and try his luck with another organization that may pay him more or the same but will perhaps in his mind have an easier path to the NHL.
And yes another organization will likely take a chance on him, if all it costs is money and won't cost a draft pick or a prospect in trade.
Last edited by sureLoss; 03-09-2015 at 06:37 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-09-2015, 06:58 PM
|
#2130
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Windsor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
While this is true, a bona fide offer is usually league base salary with no signing bonuses or performance bonuses. Pretty much a slap in the face for a former first round pick.
If that is all the Flames are offering Jankowski, he will likely refuse to sign and try his luck with another organization that may pay him more or the same but will perhaps in his mind have an easier path to the NHL.
And yes another organization will likely take a chance on him, if all it costs is money and won't cost a draft pick or a prospect in trade.
|
Interesting. Has this happened before? I can't see the flames withholding Group A incentive bonuses in an effort to have Jankowski decline.
I don't thinks they'll give him Group B anyways since it would be mostly a waste of cap space. I'm pretty sure he would need to finsh top-5 voting for major awards to get these and they count against the cap no matter what.
Not sure how signing bonuses work. Can you offer a base $925 000 salary without any signing bonus?
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 06:58 PM
|
#2131
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
Whats with all this talk of a 2nd round pick?
A team only receives that compensation if the player REFUSES to sign with said team ala Kevin Hayes.
Don't feel like searching through the CBA but this is from a draft FAQ on hfboards-What are the exceptions to the '30 players per round' rule?
The league will award a compensatory pick to a team that made a bona fide offer to a former first-round selection, but was unable to sign them to an NHL entry-level deal. The team is compensated with a second-round pick for an upcoming draft in the exact same selecting position as when the player was originally drafted. For example, if a club drafts a player fifth overall, but is unable to sign that player despite making a bona fide contract offer, then the club will be awarded the fifth pick in the second round of a subsequent NHL Draft.
|
Bona Fide offers are not required for a team to maintain their draft rights to College players. Here's the quote from the CBA:
Quote:
8.3 Compensatory Draft Selections.
(a) In addition to the seven (7) rounds of the Entry Draft, there shall be an additional number of Compensatory Draft Selections not to exceed the number of Clubs to be in the League in the following League Year.
(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 of that with regards to Bona Fide offers is the "as defined below" part. Here is what the CBA says below about College Players...
Quote:
College Players.
(i) 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.
|
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:10 PM
|
#2132
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Windsor
|
After some digging I dont think it would be possible to offer him a "slap in the face" contract like you suggest.
Poirer and Klimchuk don't appear to have any bonus incentives. Also every rookie contract i looked up (about 12) included a signing bonus. The only way I see us getting a 2nd round pick is he pulls a Hayes/Schultz.
Now if the Flames don't see a future and work out a "deal" with his agent where they offer the kid a contract and he refuses, that's another story.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:16 PM
|
#2133
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Windsor
|
Thanks Getbak
That's pretty confusing to me and I don't see where it says for certain The Flames get a 2nd if they choose not to sign a player, only something about retaining negotiating rights.
But I'll take your word for it.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:17 PM
|
#2134
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
After some digging I dont think it would be possible to offer him a "slap in the face" contract like you suggest.
Poirer and Klimchuk don't appear to have any bonus incentives. Also every rookie contract i looked up (about 12) included a signing bonus. The only way I see us getting a 2nd round pick is he pulls a Hayes/Schultz.
Now if the Flames don't see a future and work out a "deal" with his agent where they offer the kid a contract and he refuses, that's another story.
|
It doesn't matter what other players signed for. A bona fide offer defined by the CBA is:
Quote:
A "Bona Fide Offer" is an offer of an SPC which is for a period corresponding to
the Player's age as required under Section 9.1(b) of this Agreement, is to commence at the start
of the next League Year, offers at least the Minimum Paragraph 1 Salary as set forth in Section
11.12 of this Agreement for each League Year covered by such offer and remains open to the
Player for at least thirty (30) days after receipt of the offer by the Player. A Bona Fide Offer
may be conditioned upon acceptance by the Player within thirty (30) days and carries no right to
salary arbitration.
|
Minimum Paragaraph 1 Salary is $525k for a 2012 draft pick. While it is customary to have a 10% signing bonus, it is not required by the CBA. The CBA specifically states that a signing bonus CAN BE up to 10%.
Also a common misconception is that like in football, the base salary for a 1st round pick is higher than a 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick etc. This is not the case. Do 1st round picks in the NHL customarily recieve more money than other draft picks? Yes, but again there is no rule preventing them from getting less money.
Last edited by sureLoss; 03-09-2015 at 07:20 PM.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:39 PM
|
#2135
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Windsor
|
My point was it wouldn't be a big deal if he wasn't offered performance bonuses.
Your right though if they offer him $525k he will probably refuse. I guess the 2nd round pick is an option then. (especially if getbaks right and no offer is needed at all)
I was aware of the NFl/NHL difference, The NBA is even Worst.
1.$4,750,000
2 $4,250,000
3$3,820,000
4 $3,440,000
5 $3,120,000
6 $2,830,000
.....
25 $1,030,000
26 $990,000
27 $960,000
28 $960,000
29 $950,000
30 $940,000
Imagine how screwed the Oilers would be.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:58 PM
|
#2136
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
Thanks Getbak
That's pretty confusing to me and I don't see where it says for certain The Flames get a 2nd if they choose not to sign a player, only something about retaining negotiating rights.
But I'll take your word for it.
|
There are three ways in which you can lose your draft rights to a player: - You fail to make a required Bona Fide contract offer to the player prior to June 1 in the year following the player's draft (this is only required for players drafted from a North American league who have not become bona fide College Players by that date)
- You don't sign him to a contract before your rights expire
- The player dies before you can sign him
You get a compensatory pick if you lose the draft rights to a first round pick unless the reason you lost those rights was a failure to make a Bona Fide offer.
Teams are not required to make Bona Fide offers to College Players in order to retain their rights. This means that a team can't lose a College Player's rights because they failed to make a Bona Fide offer, which means a team can't lose the compensatory pick for the same reason.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:31 PM
|
#2138
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
Bona Fide offers are not required for a team to maintain their draft rights to College players. Here's the quote from the CBA:
The important part of that with regards to Bona Fide offers is the "as defined below" part. Here is what the CBA says below about College Players...
|
I take that as they retain his rights until August 15 but doesn't say we will get compensated if we don't offer a contract.
I'm with Sureloss here, if we don't want to sign him and still get a second, we need to offer him a base salary with no bonus. What was the contract that was offered to Roy so that he'd return to Brandon?
I'm pretty sure all of our rookie contracts contained signing bonuses.
Here's Poirier's getting $92,500 per year.
http://web.archive.org/web/201407131...om/player/2848
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:37 PM
|
#2139
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
|
Did you read the full story? Montreal received a compensatory pick for Fischer despite not making him an offer (pick 50 in 2011, which they traded to the Islanders).
The story says that Montreal made a bona fide offer to him a year after his draft (which is the only time the CBA says one is required, but not for College players) to keep his rights. So, the fact that everyone can agree that the Flames still hold Jankowski's rights, they've done everything required to keep him, which means he'll be in the same situation as Fischer was when he graduates if the Flames choose to not sign him and the Flames will receive a compensatory pick if they don't sign him.
I don't know what the story is with Thelen, but he was drafted in 2004, so his rights would have been governed by the pre-lockout CBA.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:46 PM
|
#2140
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
Did you read the full story? Montreal received a compensatory pick for Fischer despite not making him an offer (pick 50 in 2011, which they traded to the Islanders).
The story says that Montreal made a bona fide offer to him a year after his draft (which is the only time the CBA says one is required, but not for College players) to keep his rights. So, the fact that everyone can agree that the Flames still hold Jankowski's rights, they've done everything required to keep him, which means he'll be in the same situation as Fischer was when he graduates if the Flames choose to not sign him and the Flames will receive a compensatory pick if they don't sign him.
I don't know what the story is with Thelen, but he was drafted in 2004, so his rights would have been governed by the pre-lockout CBA.
|
The thing is Montreal offered their pick a contract in his first year, which they didn't need to do as he was still in college but in that way they were able to say they had offered him a contract. If the Flames have done the same, I guess it will work the same and we'll get a 2nd if we don't sign him.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.
|
|