They weren't going to get anyone to play with Iginla immediately at 14 or anywhere in this draft, for that matter.But I digress. Janko might have alot of potential and well have to wait and see.
I just laugh at the pick because the Flames are in a win now mode with all of their players aging.
They have a 2-3 gap (closing fast) to be succesful and there were a couple of picks on the board that would have been smarter. They needed a prospect with #1 center potential to play with Iggy.
To me they had 2 choices to make that could have made them very good.
1. TT- smallish center prospect who fell in the draft. About 2 years away from NHL but still boatloads of potential
2. Trade up for Grigs. Definition of what the Flames needed. As per the boards flames fan are content with boom/bust picks (as the are with Jank) Grigs was pegged as a #2 pick most of the year and magically fell (attitude issues I dunno). He could have potentially stepped into the NHL this year and center Iggy while Iggy is still in his prime.
Now they picked Janko, a 4-5 year project. If he ever reaches potential he will enter the NHL when the flames are at their lowest. Iggy will be gone/ not playing at his highest level. Kipper is in the same position. So Jank will only be able to help them get from 29th to 26th place. And his best years will be for nothing
If Feaster wises up, realizes the playoffs are probaly not attainable, and trades Iggy, Kipper and Bouw for prospects/ young roster players then Janko will enter the NHL with a bounty of young players around him.
TL;DR Janko might have alot of potential but not a good fit for the Flames and their win now attitude
How does a smooth skating, rangy 6'3'' center with high-end hockey sense and vision not have a high ceiling?Ya... highest ceiling in a draft that includes Yakupov, Galy, Forsberg
But I digress. Janko might have alot of potential and well have to wait and see.
I just laugh at the pick because the Flames are in a win now mode with all of their players aging.
They have a 2-3 gap (closing fast) to be succesful and there were a couple of picks on the board that would have been smarter. They needed a prospect with #1 center potential to play with Iggy.
To me they had 2 choices to make that could have made them very good.
1. TT- smallish center prospect who fell in the draft. About 2 years away from NHL but still boatloads of potential
2. Trade up for Grigs. Definition of what the Flames needed. As per the boards flames fan are content with boom/bust picks (as the are with Jank) Grigs was pegged as a #2 pick most of the year and magically fell (attitude issues I dunno). He could have potentially stepped into the NHL this year and center Iggy while Iggy is still in his prime.
Now they picked Janko, a 4-5 year project. If he ever reaches potential he will enter the NHL when the flames are at their lowest. Iggy will be gone/ not playing at his highest level. Kipper is in the same position. So Jank will only be able to help them get from 29th to 26th place. And his best years will be for nothing
If Feaster wises up, realizes the playoffs are probaly not attainable, and trades Iggy, Kipper and Bouw for prospects/ young roster players then Janko will enter the NHL with a bounty of young players around him.
TL;DR Janko might have alot of potential but not a good fit for the Flames and their win now attitude
What proclamatiobs of fame? read the articles about him prior to the draft that basically all say what im saying. or are you too stubborn to try and grasp the definition if a boom/bust prospect?Ya... highest ceiling in a draft that includes Yakupov, Galy, Forsberg
Dont really know how you gauge highest ceiling after playing in a high school league. Kyle Turris was supposed to be a phenom after playing in a lower league like the BCHL.
Janko might be a very good player but pump the breaks a bit with all these proclamations of fame
Yeah, it's a real shame by the time Janks is ready that he'll have no impact wingers to play with.
Don't you know Sven and Gaudreau will have been offer sheeted to the oilers by the time jankowski is ready?
how far off is he on the world junior team ?
how far off is he on the world junior team ?
I'd say pretty far off the radar.
How does a smooth skating, rangy 6'3'' center with high-end hockey sense and vision not have a high ceiling?
Sure he's raw, but that doesn't mean he has a lower ceiling.
Oh, I didn't know that things like hockey sense were determined by where a player is playing.If he had "high-end hockey sense" he wouldn't have been playing at Stanstead College in his draft year.
If he had "high-end hockey sense" he wouldn't have been playing at Stanstead College in his draft year.
If he had "high-end hockey sense" he wouldn't have been playing at Stanstead College in his draft year.
He was under the radar because of his size. He was always told he was too small, dude grew like 8 inches in a year.. Obviously the kid has talent, he's been given to opportunity to play in the OHL, USHL, and College. He was called a 6'3 version of Johnny Gaudreau by J.Gs former coach, and if you don't think J.G. Has high end hockey sense, you don't have a clue.
But hey, I guarantee(!) you've never seen him play. Guarantee. In development camp he wasnt very far behind Baertschi and Gaudreau, while being better than everyone else.
Ya a guy whos family has generatiobs of successful hockey players in it has no hockey sense...
I've brought this up in another thread, but Feaster doesn't exactly have a great track record of keeping tabs on his player evaluation guys and moving swiftly in replacing them. From 2001-2006, Tampa had 60 picks combined and churned out 0 players (zero!!). Now, Feaster isn't from a scouting background, more of the business/contracts side so he obviously has only a secondary role in selections but I think it's very interesting how in 6 years of drafts you can produce literally no NHL players.
Now, Tod Button is Calgary's head scout. He's been in charge since 2001. To be fair, guys from 2007 onwards are still developing, so from 2001-2006 (6 drafts) he's produced 6 full-fledged NHL players that could play on any roster and would fetch you back an asset of even marginal value. His 2005 and 2006 drafts produced zero players in 16 picks. So Tod Button has a drafting record of 6 full-time serviceable NHLers (it's up to you to include Dustin Boyd (KHL) or Adam Pardy (still a 'tweener 8 years after being drafted)) in a span of 58 picks. The players were Kobasew, Moss, Lombardi, Nystrom, Phaneuf, Prust. Draft history via hockeyDB.
Calgary's draft hit rate on "true NHL players" from 2001-2006 is 10.3%, a team like Detroit in that span is 24.5%, Nashville is 22.9%, even Columbus is 18.8%. (For comparisons and convenience sake, Nashville's "true NHL players" are Tootoo, Hamhuis, Upshall, Weber, Klein, Suter, Rinne, Radulov, Santorelli, Hornqvist, Franson - a bit better of a list.)
Furthermore, Jankowski is a top-six forward project pick. In all Button's drafts from 2001-2006, he was never able to pick ONE top-six forward, Backlund has a chance ('07 draft) but I wouldn't say he is quite there yet. His expertise (if you want to call it that) lies in picking players like Prust, Lombardi, Moss, Kobasew and Nystrom - grinders, almost all fourth liners. I think the only players you could call a top-9 player are Lombardi and David Moss.
Now finally, you can say the Flames scouting staff has been focusing on different skillsets and attributes these past few years with the departure of Sutter but they employ almost the same team of scouts, and those are their results.
Just by the numbers - I think I'm going to go with Jankowski busting for now. The Flames haven't drafted a top-six forward in 11 years (Bartschi is still a prospect) but you're going to tell me that the one to break this trend and become a legit #1 centre is a Quebec high school hockey player? Also let me remind you again that Tampa didn't draft one single NHL player (!) under Feaster's tenure (6 entire drafts). Just to run the numbers again - Tod Button ('01-'06): 6 NHL players (0 top-6, 1 top-4 D)/58 draft picks, Jay Feaster ('02-'06): 0 NHL players/46 draft picks. That's a combined 5.8% success rate on drafting... I'll take my odds.
Did you know, oilsp1ll, that most GMs rarely get to see prospects play? Sure they'll come in an watch the odd game, but this job is divided amongst many other people.
There's more to being a good drafting team than having a good GM.
Feaster may have the final say on who the Flames pick, he's the one who announces it at the draft, but he's not the one who has made these decisions the last 3 drafts, when things started to change for the Flames in terms of drafting.
All a GM does in this position is tell the scouts what kind of players he wants, and then the scouts rank the prospects accordingly.
In 2009, before Darryl Sutter was even fired, it seemed the Flames had a shift in their mindset from drafting big, tough, Western Canadian kids, to more skilled players from any part of the world.
Tod Button has improved his drafting abilities immensely over the last 3 years. We're more excited than we've ever been for Flames draft picks. The Jankowski pick is on Tod Button (along with Weisbrod), along with the Erixon and Baertschi picks. He's had a fantastic last 3 drafts, I see no reason not to have faith in him for this one.
I stated multiple times in my post that Feaster doesn't have the scouting background and defers to his scouts. But the main problem is he doesn't pull the plug fast enough when those scouts aren't getting results and/or he has a misguided general draft vision. It's ok to delegate responsibilities if you can do it properly. Most of my post focused on Tod Button's atrocious record as a head scout, it is very clearly historically awful.
And to address Rolen: I used concrete examples from years of hard data and you are defending your stance off the conjecture of potential in the past few drafts. Of course a prospect is going to look better in the years immediately following his draft. I love Bartschi and Erixon as prospects and think they will be good players but I'm not ready to count them if they aren't top-9/top-4 players yet... It's not like I skewed and contorted the numbers to make my point, I literally went from Button's first year to the year where it's fair to say prospects are still developing, it benefits the numbers if anything. For all I know, the 2007-2012 Flames drafts could produce 15 NHL players but you can't really go off of that. And a head scout shouldn't exactly be given 6-7 years just to find his footing, he should be producing results in the first few years or he should be replaced just like any other job.
If he had "high-end hockey sense" he wouldn't have been playing at Stanstead College in his draft year.
I stated multiple times in my post that Feaster doesn't have the scouting background and defers to his scouts. But the main problem is he doesn't pull the plug fast enough when those scouts aren't getting results and/or he has a misguided general draft vision. It's ok to delegate responsibilities if you can do it properly. Most of my post focused on Tod Button's atrocious record as a head scout, it is very clearly historically awful.
And to address Rolen: I used concrete examples from years of hard data and you are defending your stance off the conjecture of potential in the past few drafts. Of course a prospect is going to look better in the years immediately following his draft. I love Bartschi and Erixon as prospects and think they will be good players but I'm not ready to count them if they aren't top-9/top-4 players yet... It's not like I skewed and contorted the numbers to make my point, I literally went from Button's first year to the year where it's fair to say prospects are still developing, it benefits the numbers if anything. For all I know, the 2007-2012 Flames drafts could produce 15 NHL players but you can't really go off of that. And a head scout shouldn't exactly be given 6-7 years just to find his footing, he should be producing results in the first few years or he should be replaced just like any other job.
Edit: With all that being said, it's not impossible the pick works out. John Weisbrod loves scouting obscure leagues, he found Richard Bacchman at Cushing Academy in Massachusetts and went to bat for two overage prospects at small schools in 2010 for the Bruins in Justin Florek and Zach Trotman, it's yet to be determined if that's a successful alternative to more conventional channels but Weisbrod displays intriguing preferences for sure. He obviously has lots of connections in the New England area (coming from Harvard and all) and leans towards high school/college guys. He himself is a product of that route so he has a natural aversion/familiarity/level of expertise/what have you with that kind of hockey.
Weisbrod was obviously very trusted with Bruins brass as they also signed Matt Bartkowski, Carter Camper and Kevin Millar as college free agents and traded for the rights of Colby Cohen and David Warsofsky during the time he was the Director of Collegiate Scouting for the Bruins. While doing some digging on Weisbrod, I came across a prospect Rob O'Gara who was drafted last year fifth round by Boston from Milton Academy with a very similar profile/story to Jankowski albeit as a defenseman - quite obviously a Weisbrod pick. Profile on him here: http://bruins2011draftwatch.blogspot.ca/2011/08/bruins-prospect-profile-29-rob-ogara.html
Not too completely jump into this argument, but if you look up the first page (and later) of the "underrated prospects thread" you will see the names:
Max Reinhart
Mark Jankowski
Markus granlund
Peter Holland
as well as
Sven Baertschi
TJ Brodie
Tim erixon
(mostly not by Flames Fans)
None of these picks earlier than 2008, and this doesnt even include some underrated guys like Michael Ferland or Laurent Brossoit or even some moderately overrated prospects like Johnny Gaudreau and Patrick Sieloff. The Flames drafting has taken a huge step forward over the last few years, which coincides not only with a change of draft strategy, but an increase in the scouting department funding period. Using data from 5-10 years ago just doesnt apply to an argument, and using teams who have had good success in the drafting department (like Detroit and Nashville) is also a poor argument since these teams successful scouting has lead to less turn over than that the flames SD endured. We wont truly know how the flames have drafted till the revamped regimes draft classes has had time to develop and make an impact.