[Trade] Taylor Hall (50% retained) and Lazar traded to BOS for Anders Bjork and a 2nd

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Easier said in hindsight. Jankowski may not have looked like the top line center Weisbrod and Feaster tried hard to sell. But he was a big bodied guy who could skate really well. He had a good rookie season in the AHL and scored 27 goals in his first two years if you remove his 4 goal game. So at the time that looks a better asset than the 52 pick in the draft.

As for Hall...playing on the second line in Boston looks to be a decent fit. He may have chosen wisely here.

His time in the AHL was after they signed him.

I thought he was a poor investment at the time. I bet there were other hockey people a lot smarter than me who felt the same.

My point is that it is not all Feaster here. Treliving doubled down on him.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Could they have not made a standard offer, but instead one beneath a player of his standing's expectations?
Could they have told Jankowski they were not interested in him anymore and it would be in his best interest not to sign with them - though they had to offer him a contract in order to reclaim something from the investment?

The trouble is, ELCs are pretty tightly circumscribed by the CBA. Once you get past the top 5 or 10 draft picks, who can reasonably expect a contract with big performance bonuses, they all look pretty much the same. The contract Jankowski signed was pretty close to the minimum the Flames were allowed to offer.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not remotely true. You get a compensatory pick if the player refuses to sign. You get nothing if you choose to walk away.

Jankowski was made a pretty standard offer for an ELC, and he accepted it. If he had not received that offer, he would have been a UFA.

This plus Janko at the time he was drafted was ranked as a second rounder. So you a second rounder as compensation, even if they could have managed that somehow, wouldn’t have been an upgrade.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

My point is that it is not all Feaster here. Treliving doubled down on him.

Except that Treliving didn't double down. The alternatives were (1) sign him or (2) let him walk for nothing before even turning pro. You seem to be arguing for (2), which makes no sense at all. At the very minimum he was worth signing to play on the AHL team.

[TheScorpion]

That's not exactly true ^

The Flames would have received a compensatory second-round pick had they chosen to not sign Mark Jankowski out of college

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

That's not exactly true ^

The Flames would have received a compensatory second-round pick had they chosen to not sign Mark Jankowski out of college

?? I don’t think so. Only if the player refuses.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

That's not exactly true ^

The Flames would have received a compensatory second-round pick had they chosen to not sign Mark Jankowski out of college

No.

Section 8.3 of the 2013 CBA (the one in force at that time) clearly states that a team does NOT receive a compensatory pick if they do not ‘tender a Bona Fide Offer’, which is defined in section 8.6(e). If you simply choose not to sign a player, you get nothing.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not remotely true. You get a compensatory pick if the player refuses to sign. You get nothing if you choose to walk away.

Jankowski was made a pretty standard offer for an ELC, and he accepted it. If he had not received that offer, he would have been a UFA.

You only need to extend a "bona fide" offer within a year of drafting the player in order to keep his rights. As defined in the CBA, a bona fide offer is essentially a bare minimum contract. It's basically a paperwork formality and no player is expected to sign it.

Also, based on how the CBA is written, I believe this only applies to junior players and there are no bona fide offer requirements to keep your rights to college players.

Either way, everyone agrees the Flames had the rights to Jankowski when he finished college, so, they had met whatever requirements were in place.

[Jay Random]

It appears that you may be correct. However, I cannot remember any case where a team ever received a compensatory draft pick for a player to whom they chose not to make any contract offer. Do you know of such a case? If not, I have to think that no such compensatory picks are in play – which, if true, would make my initial interpretation correct.

Originally Posted by getbak

Either way, everyone agrees the Flames had the rights to Jankowski when he finished college, so, they had met whatever requirements were in place.

That is not necessarily the same question as whether they would have received a compensatory pick if they did not offer him any contract.

There was a lot of discussion at the time about the intent of Section 8.3 (and its predecessors under earlier CBAs). The intent was to give teams compensation if players refused to sign. It wasn't to give them a mulligan if they decided they had drafted a player they had no intention of signing.

[Sylvanfan]

I seem to remember something with A.J. Thelen of the Minnesota Wild.

First round pick in 04 played in the NCAA. But than switched to Junior after two years. I seem to remember the Wild wanting to pass on signing him to get a pick.

Cherepanov of the Rangers also rings a bell. Rangers never got a chance to make a bonafide offer before his untimely passing. But I think they got the 47 pick in 2009 for not being able to sign their pick given the circumstances.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I seem to remember something with A.J. Thelen of the Minnesota Wild.

First round pick in 04 played in the NCAA. But than switched to Junior after two years. I seem to remember the Wild wanting to pass on signing him to get a pick.

That's an interesting one, since the rules for retaining player rights are very different between NCAA and junior. I'd be interested in hearing more details about the timeline, but alas, that's probably not public information.

Cherepanov of the Rangers also rings a bell. Rangers never got a chance to make a bonafide offer before his untimely passing. But I think they got the 47 pick in 2009 for not being able to sign their pick given the circumstances.

If a player refuses to sign with you because he is dead, that could be construed to count just the same as refusing for any other reason. I suppose that example falls under ‘technically correct – the best kind of correct!’

(Now I am sad because my flux capacitor won't flux, and I can't go back and retroactively insert Section 8.3 in the CBA from the mid-1980s. Oh, what a franchise player we missed out on because we didn't get a compensatory pick for George Pelawa! More grist for the woulda-coulda-shoulda mill.)

[GreenLantern2814]

At what point do we think threads will no longer be Jankowski’d?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

At what point do we think threads will no longer be Jankowski’d?

When New Era finishes Bennetting them all.

[getbak]

Canucks' 2007 first-rounder, Patrick White, was the exact same situation as Jankowski: Traded to San Jose, who chose not to sign him after 4 years of college. San Jose received the 25th pick in the second round of the 2012 draft in compensation and picked Chris Tierney.


Conner Bleackley is another a recent example. Drafted by Colorado in 2014. In 2016, he was traded to Arizona specifically so they could get the compensatory pick: https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1036744 The Coyotes had no intention of offering him a contract.


----------


Looking at what the Flames would have received in compensation had they chosen not to sign Jankowski (21st pick in round 2 of the 2017 draft), no one picked anywhere near that spot has done much of anything in the NHL yet. That was 4 years ago, so Treliving probably made the right choice since Jankowski played over 200 games here.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by getbak

Canucks' 2007 first-rounder, Patrick White, was the exact same situation as Jankowski: Traded to San Jose, who chose not to sign him after 4 years of college. San Jose received the 25th pick in the second round of the 2012 draft in compensation and picked Chris Tierney.


Conner Bleackley is another a recent example. Drafted by Colorado in 2014. In 2016, he was traded to Arizona specifically so they could get the compensatory pick: https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1036744 The Coyotes had no intention of offering him a contract.


---------

Looking at what the Flames would have received in compensation had they chosen not to sign Jankowski (21st pick in round 2 of the 2017 draft), no one picked anywhere near that spot has done much of anything in the NHL yet. That was 4 years ago, so Treliving probably made the right choice since Jankowski played over 200 games here.

The smart thing to do would have been to take any one of Vasilevskiy, Hertl, Teravainen or Tom Wilson at 14 instead of trying to be the cleverest kids in class.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The smart thing to do would have been to take any one of Vasilevskiy, Hertl, Teravainen or Tom Wilson at 14 instead of trying to be the cleverest kids in class.

I guess the smart thing is always to make the pick which will eventually prove to be the best pick.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I guess the smart thing is always to make the pick which will eventually prove to be the best pick.

Ordinarily I say, sure, hindsight is easy. But in this case, the Flames were picking kin a spot where those named players were easily conventional choices. Instead the Flames traded down, not to get a guy ranked 21st where they picked, but to get a guy they probably had a good shot at in the second round, since that pick was 42nd and I don’t think Janko was ever ranked higher than 45th (and more often in the 70s). But I guess at least they got Seiloff with that pick, right?

[Geeoff]

IMO Jankowski was a player worth trying to develop

[powderjunkie]

Not offering Janko a contract might be the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Ordinarily I say, sure, hindsight is easy. But in this case, the Flames were picking kin a spot where those named players were easily conventional choices. Instead the Flames traded down, not to get a guy ranked 21st where they picked, but to get a guy they probably had a good shot at in the second round, since that pick was 42nd and I don’t think Janko was ever ranked higher than 45th (and more often in the 70s). But I guess at least they got Seiloff with that pick, right?

They got the 42nd pick by trading down. Which is pretty darn good value.

Flames would have picked 44th, if not for the Regehr trade (IMO the only true blunder Feaster made). It's too bad they didn't have that pick to trade up from.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Not offering Janko a contract might be the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.




They got the 42nd pick by trading down. Which is pretty darn good value.

Flames would have picked 44th, if not for the Regehr trade (IMO the only true blunder Feaster made). It's too bad they didn't have that pick to trade up from.

Ugh don’t remind me. Paying a second with Regher to dump Kotalik and then did they not turn around and trade Reggie for 2 seconds as well later?

That’s the equivalent of losing 3 second round picks and regher to dump Kotalik.