Jankowski/Gilmour signing watch. (Friedman: "Arm-wrestling" over bonuses)

[Camronius]

So this is the Jankowski/Gilmour signing watch, Gilmour hasn't signed yet either right? If not then isn't all this speculation on the time line premature? I don't think Gilmour has leverage like Jankow, thus when he signs that's probably the benchmark of the earliest a Flames deal could be done. I'd only be concerned if Gilmour had signed already...

[goodyear]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I will also say this - if I was agent - I'd tell him not to sign unless the Flames are willing to burn the year. I'd tell the Flames - we will give you the same shot we give every once when his free agency hits but if you aren't going to burn the year we have zero incentive to sign this contract without hearing from every other team.

Exactly! If they played Van Brabant, Agostino and Hanowski then they can give a graduating senior, a national champion and a first rounder a game.

Seems like Treliving is being petty because Jankowski wasn't his draft pick and want to wash his hands from the last vestige of Jay Feaster.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Racki

Maybe they feel that the extra second, which would give us 4 in total (likely Dallas isn't a top 4 team) has as much value as Jankowksi. You could certainly make some moves with 2 firsts and three seconds or one first and 4 seconds.

Jankowski wouldn't become a free agent until August 2016, therefore the 2nd round compensatory pick would have to be in 2017.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Has it been confirmed that Janko wanted to sign last summer? I think he thought about it, but I thought i read that he decided he wanted one more year ( along with the flames) in college. Could be wrong.

I don't know if anything definitive was ever reported, but I believe the reports the time suggested that Jankowski wanted to sign but the Flames told him he would be better served with another year of college.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Each have their pros and cons. And at the end of the day, no one can know which is better (and history doesn't seem to lean one way or the other).

That's why, for me, it comes down to the asset management and risk management.

If he signs, no harm no foul. But if he doesn't...

I think the risk versus reward is heavily in favour of sending him back for his 4th season.

He put up disappointing numbers in his 3rd season. The Flames apparently felt he wasn't ready and that it was best for him to go back and develop in college.

If he doesn't sign, we get the 51st pick in the 2017 draft, which I think is very close to Jankowski's value today. It's a hedged bet that makes sense to me. We won't lose a ton either way.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Camronius

So this is the Jankowski/Gilmour signing watch, Gilmour hasn't signed yet either right? If not then isn't all this speculation on the time line premature? I don't think Gilmour has leverage like Jankow, thus when he signs that's probably the benchmark of the earliest a Flames deal could be done. I'd only be concerned if Gilmour had signed already...

We don't even know if Gilmour was offered an ELC. It's very possible they decided they don't need another Left D prospect under contract and only Jankowski was offered a contract.

I for one am not liking how long this is taking.

Originally Posted by goodyear

Exactly! If they played Van Brabant, Agostino and Hanowski then they can give a graduating senior, a national champion and a first rounder a game.

That was Burke, not Treliving, though.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by goodyear

Exactly! If they played Van Brabant, Agostino and Hanowski then they can give a graduating senior, a national champion and a first rounder a game.

Seems like Treliving is being petty because Jankowski wasn't his draft pick and want to wash his hands from the last vestige of Jay Feaster.

Lol. You nailed it

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That was Burke, not Treliving, though.

Was Treliving that let Gillies burn a year without suiting up though.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If I'm Treliving, I have no problem giving Jankowski a game or two in the NHL if he wants it. But I doubt very much that a game or two is the sticking point. I'm sure Jankowski and his agent are more concerned with where he slot sin next season and whether or not he'll be buried in the AHL. That and maximizing his ELC.

And what would the reason be that Flames are not saying that Jankowski will be given every opportunity to play in the NHL next year?

He will slot in wherever his talent puts him.

Not many NHL level players don't dominate the AHL. Mason Raymond is a ppg player on a low scoring AHL team. If Bill Arnold were to be a ppg player for 20 AHL games he would get some NHL games.

[mdubz]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think the risk versus reward is heavily in favour of sending him back for his 4th season.

He put up disappointing numbers in his 3rd season. The Flames apparently felt he wasn't ready and that it was best for him to go back and develop in college.

If he doesn't sign, we get the 51st pick in the 2017 draft, which I think is very close to Jankowski's value today. It's a hedged bet that makes sense to me. We won't lose a ton either way.

Wouldn't it be the 61st pick?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Was Treliving that let Gillies burn a year without suiting up though.

So... that says the organization considered Gillies important for the future, and with Jankowski is willing to accept a 2nd rounder instead. Presumably, we have had many scouts and many managers watch this guy play/practice for many hours, so, I am ok if they think that's best going forward...

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by mdubz

wouldn't it be the 61st pick?

21+30=51

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Wow this thread has turned into a tire fire. So many people trying to jump to conclusions.

-he'll probably sign
-it wasn't in his best interest to go pro last year

Those are my opinions.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Wow this thread has turned into a tire fire. So many people trying to jump to conclusions.

-he'll probably sign
-it wasn't in his best interest to go pro last year

Those are my opinions.

Whatever man. Pretty sure we have conclusive proof that the reason Janko hasn't signed yet is that Treliving is being petty because he's a Feaster pick.

[Camronius]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

We don't even know if Gilmour was offered an ELC. It's very possible they decided they don't need another Left D prospect under contract and only Jankowski was offered a contract.

I for one am not liking how long this is taking.



That was Burke, not Treliving, though.

Based on what? Is there any actual data or reasoning based on our current AHL/NHL teams that we wouldn't offer him a contract? What about historical comparable? Seems like more jumping to conclusions imo.

[Ashasx]

I have a different definition of the word 'conclusive'.

(or I am likely missing the joke)

[442scotty]

Still hoping for a signing but reality is that he may have better long term options elsewhere... If he doesn't sign its bad asset management in my opinion and time for a lot of teams to question why they would even risk drafting college players unless you know they will leave before the 4 year.. The college players have too much leverage...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I have a different definition of the word 'conclusive'.

(or I am likely missing the joke)

Yeah Five-Hole was being sarcastic. Some of the stances posters have taken in the last four pages of this thread are ridiculous.

Some people apparently like to work themselves into hysterical leaps of logic when a signing takes a day longer than expected lol

[The Fonz]

If Treviling isn't willing to give Jankowski a few NHL games this year, then I think it's clear that he values the 51st pick more than he values Jankowski. This would be his 'fair' contract offer, which Jankowski will not accept.

I'm not saying that is my opinion... Only saying that IF that is the hangup, I think it's pretty clear what the end game is here.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Camronius

Based on what? Is there any actual data or reasoning based on our current AHL/NHL teams that we wouldn't offer him a contract? What about historical comparable? Seems like more jumping to conclusions imo.

Acknowledging that something is "possible" is not jumping to conclusions. It's pointing out realistic alternative scenarios.

We have the following young LHD developing:

Jokipakka (NHL)
Wotherspoon (Pending RFA)
Kulak (ELC)
Culkin (ELC)
Kylington (ELC)
Sieloff (ELC)
Kanzig (ELC)
Gilmour (Unsigned)
Hickey (Unsigned)
Ollas-Mattsson (Unsigned)
Rafikov (Unsigned)

And we may potentially draft a guy like Sergachev/Chychrun/Juolevi/Bean if that's the BPA in the first round this year. I don't see why it's out of the question that they pick a couple to cut bait with, and Gilmour is the oldest of the bunch, and the smallest. Sieloff and Kanzig might be the worst, but they're both signed for another year and two years respectively.

I like Gilmour and I'm one of his fans on this board. I want him signed. I'm just pointing out what's possible, not what's actual.