Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Vulcan]

You are right, the Weisbrod had advised Feaster to trade the pick as he thought at 14 (or later), the Flames would not be in a position to draft anyone notable, as he thought the draft was fairly weak in depth.

Which shows Weisbrod was misjudging the draft.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That logic seems backwards to me. If I'm broke, I should gamble what money I have left because that not won't mean much in the long run....?

The only time you can gamble a top pick is of you're stacked. Even then, it seems silly

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...have you never heard of the expression, 'You don't gamble with scared money'. You don't have nothing to lose unless you don't have nothing.

Lots of great posts on the last two pages, and I don't have much to add. However, I did want to respond to this rather popular notion of characterising the Jankowski pick like a poor or ill timed gamble.

Treating NHL draft picks like cash in a gambler's wallet is a really poor analogy. The "gambles" made at the draft are nothing like the gambles made at a craps table, especially considering the resources that factor into making picks at the draft. While we will tend to speak of teams with shallow prospect pools as "bankrupt", this is just a metaphor that does not very accurately communicate the reality of the situation. The reality in this case is that the success or failure of Mark Jankowski will not determine the sustainable future of the Calgary Flames. Unlike a gambler who is risking his last dollar, the Flames will be fine, even if Jankowski never plays a single NHL game. Because he is but ONE PIECE from dozens that are accumulated and traded on an annual basis, this individual draft choice is not nearly significant enough on its own to have that kind of impact. Replacing Jankowski with Maatta, Girgensons, or Hertl is almost certainly not going to affect the long term goal of the rebuild, and I think this is a better perspective of what we mean when we characterise this pick as a "gamble": the risk was minimal, the investment long, the outcome uncertain, but the potential is massive.

If you want to make a gambling analogy, a better one would be to equate the Jankowski pick to an expensive lottery ticket in the hands of a poor person who has a budget from which to purchase dozens of lottery tickets with every pay check. Better yet, the situation is more like an investment broker who spends his living tracking the markets, and who makes a sizeable purchase of a cheap stock based on his expert opinion that it will net an exceptional return.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Which shows Weisbrod was misjudging the draft.

Not really. It is still far too early to know much about the strength of the 2012 class only a year later. 2007 was a lousy draft in terms of depth, but there were still 9 players from the first round who were playing games in the NHL by the 2008–09 season.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Lots of great posts on the last two pages, and I don't have much to add. However, I did want to respond to this rather popular notion of characterising the Jankowski pick like a poor or ill timed gamble.

Treating NHL draft picks like cash in a gambler's wallet is a really poor analogy. The "gambles" made at the draft are nothing like the gambles made at a craps table, especially considering the resources that factor into making picks at the draft. While we will tend to speak of teams with shallow prospect pools as "bankrupt", this is just a metaphor that does not very accurately communicate the reality of the situation. The reality in this case is that the success or failure of Mark Jankowski will not determine the sustainable future of the Calgary Flames. Unlike a gambler who is risking his last dollar, the Flames will be fine, even if Jankowski never plays a single NHL game. Because he is but ONE PIECE from dozens that are accumulated and traded on an annual basis, this individual draft choice is not nearly significant enough on its own to have that kind of impact. Replacing Jankowski with Maatta, Girgensons, or Hertl is almost certainly not going to affect the long term goal of the rebuild, and I think this is a better perspective of what we mean when we characterise this pick as a "gamble": the risk was minimal, the investment long, the outcome uncertain, but the potential is massive.

If you want to make a gambling analogy, a better one would be to equate the Jankowski pick to an expensive lottery ticket in the hands of a poor person who has a budget from which to purchase dozens of lottery tickets with every pay check. Better yet, the situation is more like an investment broker who spends his living tracking the markets, and who makes a sizeable purchase of a cheap stock based on his expert opinion that it will net an exceptional return.

Drafting is more like baseball. You hope for a home run, you expect at least a double, but even a single gets you on base. You only walk away with nothing if you strike out, though granted the strikeout rate is fairly high in the NHL draft. So Jankowski may not end up the best player ten years after the draft, may not end up being the best choice the Flames could have made, but is fairly likely to at least be playing.

I personally would have preferred they go for a surer double than swing for the fences, but I'm still rooting for him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Drafting is more like baseball. You hope for a home run, you expect at least a double, but even a single gets you on base. You only walk away with nothing if you strike out, though granted the strikeout rate is fairly high in the NHL draft. So Jankowski may not end up the best player ten years after the draft, may not end up being the best choice the Flames could have made, but is fairly likely to at least be playing.

I personally would have preferred they go for a surer double than swing for the fences, but I'm still rooting for him.

I admittedly don't know anything about baseball, so help me out here with carrying your analogy a little further. I assume that the decision within the game made by the team to go for the home run or to hit a double will depend upon a variety of factors including the stage of the game, the score, and the implications from the outcome for the rest of the season, etc. Would you make the decision to go for a double in the first inning of a scoreless game with no outs, and no hitters on base?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I admittedly don't know anything about baseball, so help me out here with carrying your analogy a little further. I assume that the decision within the game made by the team to go for the home run or to hit a double will depend upon a variety of factors including the stage of the game, the score, and the implications from the outcome for the rest of the season, etc. Would you make the decision to go for a double in the first inning of a scoreless game with no outs, and no hitters on base?

Interesting angle. I was thinking baseball just from the perspective that a draft pick, like an at bat, is not an all or nothing proposition - it may not turn out as well as you'd like but it may still turn out OK. I read into others' posts that the Jankowski pick was not just not ideal but (therefore) wasted which doesn't necessarily follow for me.

Back to the baseball analogy, though, there's no question that the late inning game-winning home run is exciting - where were you when Joe Carter won the World Series? - but I think prevailing wisdom in baseball is that when you're down a few runs and struggling to get anything going what matters is getting runners on base. You can't score three runs on a homer if the bases are empty. Even within an inning, you'll take chances stealing a base with no or on out but rarely with two out.

I'm not sure this analogy holds up to much scrutiny, so I'll just go back to my main point that draft results are not binary star/bust but more of a continuum. It remains to be seen where Jankowski ends up on that continuum. With other picks there is (and probably was) less uncertainty about where they would end up.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not really. It is still far too early to know much about the strength of the 2012 class only a year later. 2007 was a lousy draft in terms of depth, but there were still 9 players from the first round who were playing games in the NHL by the 2008–09 season.

Okay maybe 07 was a lousy draft with only 9 players playing a year later but 2012 had 17 from the first round playing and another 3 from later rounds, so following the facts, it wasn't a bad class. Looking at the 2011 class which has had a year longer to see what it's done, it only has 1 more player with NHL games than the 2012 class. So Weisbried misjudged the strength of the draft and we ended up with a long term prospect. And the longer the term the more chances to fall off the train, I'd call that a gamble.

You say our 1st rounders aren't that big of a deal, but the way the Flames sit, we've backed ourselves into a corner so draft picks are pretty much all we have.

I'll post this link again.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2011e.html

[Husky]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I admittedly don't know anything about baseball, so help me out here with carrying your analogy a little further. I assume that the decision within the game made by the team to go for the home run or to hit a double will depend upon a variety of factors including the stage of the game, the score, and the implications from the outcome for the rest of the season, etc. Would you make the decision to go for a double in the first inning of a scoreless game with no outs, and no hitters on base?

I think tsi quite simple, you are over thinking it. At the end of the day a team in baseball will win more games in a season (IE be successful) when they consistently make it on base (regardless of how they get there) vs not making it on base. Easiest way to get on base is through singles/doubles.

So the more quality prospects you have (does not have to be home runs, the better). As weve seen in trade history, there are always teams down the road willing to trade a single quality player for a collection of quality players who may not have the same ceiling. IE a home run player for 3 singles base hit players.

[Alberta_Beef]

I like the baseball analogy the best. It's so simple it's prefect.

Home Run - 1st liner
Triple - 2nd liner
Double - 3rd liner
Single - 4th liner
Strikeout - Strikeout
Walk - Fails to sign and you get a compensation pick

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by alberta_beef

i like the baseball analogy the best. It's so simple it's prefect.

Home run - 1st liner
triple - 2nd liner
double - 3rd liner
single - 4th liner
strikeout - strikeout
walk - fails to sign and you get a compensation pick
beaned - drafted by the oilers...

fyp

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay maybe 07 was a lousy draft with only 9 players playing a year later but 2012 had 17 from the first round playing and another 3 from later rounds, so following the facts, it wasn't a bad class.

What "facts"?! Do you honestly believe that by by virtue of their appearance in the NHL that every one of the 17 players you cited from the first round of the 2012 draft is a quality NHL player?

I will repeat myself: IT IS TOO EARLY TO KNOW. My purpose in recalling the 2007 draft was to illustrate that despite the fact that 1/3 of the players drafted in the first round had played a SIGNIFICANT number of games by the end of the following season, this did not show that it was a strong class. Similarly, by merely pointing to the number of games played by first rounders in 2012, this does not at all illustrate the relative strength or weakness of this particular class. We won't know for another few years.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You say our 1st rounders aren't that big of a deal, but the way the Flames sit, we've backed ourselves into a corner so draft picks are pretty much all we have...

That is NOT what I said. I said that an INDIVIDUAL first round pick was not SO SIGNIFICANT as to dramatically impede the direction or potential success of the franchise in the event that the player fails to pan out. The Flames had a poor prospect base for the past decade not because of any individual first round pick that didn't blossom into a solid NHL player, but rather the accumulation of several disappointing high picks in successive years. On its own, the Jankowski pick has a negligible impact. If it is part of a trend of poor picks, then that is a problem. If it turns out to be a great pick, then we are all happy.

[OutOfTheCube]

As an aside, the guy we drafted at #14 overall we acquired from Calgary, Zemgus Girgensons, is looking like a great pick. 14 points, big and physical, flashes of high end skill. He'd have more points if the team wasn't so terrible as well.

Not to mention he's an Olympian too

[nightfx]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

As an aside, the guy we drafted at #14 overall we acquired from Calgary, Zemgus Girgensons, is looking like a great pick. 14 points, big and physical, flashes of high end skill. He'd have more points if the team wasn't so terrible as well.

Not to mention he's an Olympian too

He's the guy I wanted if the Flames kept that pick

[PeteMoss]

Reading this thread led me to think about Colborne and his long road to the NHL... then I look at this college stats compared to Jankowski and I am sad.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by nightfx

He's the guy I wanted if the Flames kept that pick

Ya, I remember being very excited Girgensons was still available, then we trade the pick, then I get excited that Maata is still available, then we draft Janko instead. Took me a minute to remember those highlights and I was a bit less upset, but for that minute I was so pissed off at the TV. Still sucks that the two guys I hoped we got are both playing well in the NHL right now and Jankowski is still such a project.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Husky

I think tsi quite simple, you are over thinking it. At the end of the day a team in baseball will win more games in a season (IE be successful) when they consistently make it on base (regardless of how they get there) vs not making it on base. Easiest way to get on base is through singles/doubles.

So the more quality prospects you have (does not have to be home runs, the better). As weve seen in trade history, there are always teams down the road willing to trade a single quality player for a collection of quality players who may not have the same ceiling. IE a home run player for 3 singles base hit players.

The problem with this analogy is that it's extremely rare, if not impossible, to trade a bunch of "base hit" players to get a "home run" in return.

Look at the top 30 centres in the NHL this year by points: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...rt=points&pg=1

There are some players listed as centres who aren't playing centre this year (like Hudler, who has taken 14 faceoffs all season), but it's good enough to make my point.


Of those 30 players, 23 of them are playing for the team that drafted them, and 16 were first round picks of their current team.

Of the 7 who aren't with their drafting team: three were the Bruins top picks - Thornton, Kessel, and Seguin - who were traded away; 2 were Wings picks (Hudler and Filppula) who were replaced from within and let go as free agents; Turris, who had his much-publicized difficulties with the Coyotes; and Bonino, who was traded to Anaheim without ever playing a game with the Sharks.


From the top 15 on the list: only Pavelski and Benn were not first round picks; and only Thornton, Kessel, and Seguin are not with their drafting team.



Now, let's take an example package of Backlund, Bouma, Brodie, and Reinhart. It can be argued that some of them may be more than a "base hit", but I'm sure most of us would agree that they're all at least a "base hit" for the purpose of this discussion.

Is there any one of the top 15 "home run" players who you could get in return for those 4 Flames "base hits"?


Pretty much the only way to get an elite first line centre is either to draft him, or hope the Bruins get annoyed at some prospect and decide to move him (and that's not always a cheap option).


We've seen so many "safe" picks who never panned out, or developed into the third or fourth liners they were expected to, that I have no problem with the team trying to swing for the fences, knowing there are going to be some strike outs along the way.

[Husky]

Originally Posted by getbak

The problem with this analogy is that it's extremely rare, if not impossible, to trade a bunch of "base hit" players to get a "home run" in return.

Look at the top 30 centres in the NHL this year by points: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...rt=points&pg=1

There are some players listed as centres who aren't playing centre this year (like Hudler, who has taken 14 faceoffs all season), but it's good enough to make my point.


Of those 30 players, 23 of them are playing for the team that drafted them, and 16 were first round picks of their current team.

Of the 7 who aren't with their drafting team: three were the Bruins top picks - Thornton, Kessel, and Seguin - who were traded away; 2 were Wings picks (Hudler and Filppula) who were replaced from within and let go as free agents; Turris, who had his much-publicized difficulties with the Coyotes; and Bonino, who was traded to Anaheim without ever playing a game with the Sharks.


From the top 15 on the list: only Pavelski and Benn were not first round picks; and only Thornton, Kessel, and Seguin are not with their drafting team.



Now, let's take an example package of Backlund, Bouma, Brodie, and Reinhart. It can be argued that some of them may be more than a "base hit", but I'm sure most of us would agree that they're all at least a "base hit" for the purpose of this discussion.

Is there any one of the top 15 "home run" players who you could get in return for those 4 Flames "base hits"?


Pretty much the only way to get an elite first line centre is either to draft him, or hope the Bruins get annoyed at some prospect and decide to move him (and that's not always a cheap option).


We've seen so many "safe" picks who never panned out, or developed into the third or fourth liners they were expected to, that I have no problem with the team trying to swing for the fences, knowing there are going to be some strike outs along the way.

Happens all the time, look at the packages for Seguin, the packages for J Thorton, Phaneuf, Brad Richards, Bobby Ryan, the list goes on and on and on. A couple guys might be considered double type guys but nothing special.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Reading this thread led me to think about Colborne and his long road to the NHL... then I look at this college stats compared to Jankowski and I was sad.

He must have handled the growth spurt better

[sureLoss]

Burke on Jankowski

On Mark Jankowski (2012 first round): “Jankowski has made a lot of progress since he came to PC. We feel that he’s still got some work to do, but he’s clearly a better player than he was a year ago. That’s what we’re looking for — progression. He’s physically stronger. He’s got to learn to play in some of the dirtier areas of the rink, but we think he can do that.”

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Husky

Happens all the time, look at the packages for Seguin, the packages for J Thorton, Phaneuf, Brad Richards, Bobby Ryan, the list goes on and on and on. A couple guys might be considered double type guys but nothing special.

It doesn't happen all the time.

Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen enough that it's something a GM should rely on being available to him? No.

It's especially unlikely for elite top-line centres in their prime to be available in a trade. 23 of the 30 top-scoring centres in the league are still with the team that drafted them. The Thornton and Seguin deals are the exceptions, not the rule.