Confirmed with Link: Flames acquire Curtis Lazar and Kostka for Jokipakka and a 2nd

[Mr Snrub]

No. Don't forget, as soon as we lose a C to injury, we need someone to step up into that role. Having depth at C should not be taken lightly. If we have too many, we shift them to the wing. Much easier than shifting a winger to C.

Lmao which reminds me....remember when our buddy Moss was our #1 C during that stretch of injuries.

Good times.

Anyway, unless you have a whole bunch of C prospects itching to crack the line up, you must leave our C depth alone. Especially with the group of C's in the western conference.

Centre depth is indeed important, but we're not gonna be paying Backlund or Jankowski five million to play 4C long term, that's poor asset management, not to mention a waste of their potential.

Our goal should be to put Bennett at LW if Tkachuk can play the right side and run with that for as long as we can afford it. But if all our centres pan out, one is going to be sold off for a promising winger or goaltender. That's the rationale of drafting best player available, you can trade your depth to fill need effectively later.

Not to mention a David Moss situation is not going to happen because if one or even two of our guys get injured we have plenty of guys who can capably play C at a high level, and that's not at all counting our resources currently in the AHL and ones that will be there next year, too.

Moving one of these players will happen eventually if Bennett is ineffective at wing/management insists on him playing centre, it's the most cost effective way to field the best team possible.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Bennett has been awesome at C of late.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Bennett has been awesome at C of late.

Yes, but I'd rather play him at wing than any of Jankowski, Monahan or Backlund considering that he's the only one of any of those players who has any significant experience at wing.

 

[Calculon]

Didn't Jankowski play left wing his first season at Providence? Backlund's also played left wing previously (lockout year in Sweden for example).

Regardless, no point in worrying about it now. Currently, the top three centres are Backlund-Monahan-Bennett. If Jankowski ends up being as as good as people think, somebody gets moved to wing. But maybe Jankowski's offense doesn't translate and he ends up being a Boyle type of fourth line centre. Tough to say either way until Jankowski makes the team.

 

[BVicious]

Ok. Maybe I'm wrong about Jankowski.

But I also recall Ben Street, Kris Kolanos, Drew Shore among others also have success in the AHL. But I could be wrong.

I just see Benett with an edge over Jankowski considering age and how he's developing nicely at C and not disrupt that progress.

Then again this is Hockey's Future, not Hockey present.

 

[Lunatik]

Ok. Maybe I'm wrong about Jankowski.

But I also recall Ben Street, Kris Kolanos, Drew Shore among others also have success in the AHL. But I could be wrong.

I just see Benett with an edge over Jankowski considering age and how he's developing nicely at C and not disrupt that progress.

Then again this is Hockey's Future, not Hockey present.

OK now name 22 year old players with Jankowski's level of success so far in the AHL. Everyone you mentioned was at least 24 and only Shore was seen as a prospect and his AHL success was quite moderate

 

[Mr Snrub]

Didn't Jankowski play left wing his first season at Providence? Backlund's also played left wing previously (lockout year in Sweden for example).

Regardless, no point in worrying about it now. Currently, the top three centres are Backlund-Monahan-Bennett. If Jankowski ends up being as as good as people think, somebody gets moved to wing. But maybe Jankowski's offense doesn't translate and he ends up being a Boyle type of fourth line centre. Tough to say either way until Jankowski makes the team.

Definitely no guarantees either way until we see Jankowski at the next training camp, I agree. I have no idea whether he played LW as a freshman, I've always remembered him as a centre. Backlund was good at LW, but I'd move any other player before I shifted Backlund from centre if I were Gulutzan.

Bennett on the other hand is the only one of any of those guys who's played wing in the NHL, and he spent a pretty sizable amount of time there in junior: he was drafted as someone who could play either position. If my options were between Monahan, Backlund, Jankowski and Bennett (assuming we keep all of them), Bennett would be the first one I'd move to wing, without a doubt. Not a knock on his skill at all, if anything it's because I think he would be a far better winger than any of the other three.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Janko is solid but I don't see why he can't be tried at wing as well.

He also could be our 4th line Center for all we know.

 

[BVicious]

OK now name 22 year old players with Jankowski's level of success so far in the AHL. Everyone you mentioned was at least 24 and only Shore was seen as a prospect and his AHL success was quite moderate

Ok they had 2 years on him. But thinking success at AHL can translate into NHL success is foolish. Especially at Center. Hunter was doing great on the wing in the AHL, and is barely making a case to be called up.

All I'm saying is, if Calgary lacked depth at Center, then sure bring him in as a Center. But we don't lack that depth, so bring Jankowski in as a winger, like they did with Bennett, before transitioning him to Center

EDIT: the more I think of it, I would be willing to bet that Matty Franchise is re-signed on a 1 or 2 year contract next year at a much lower salary. If he doesn't decide to play over seas.

 

[Calculon]

Definitely no guarantees either way until we see Jankowski at the next training camp, I agree. I have no idea whether he played LW as a freshman, I've always remembered him as a centre. Backlund was good at LW, but I'd move any other player before I shifted Backlund from centre if I were Gulutzan.

Bennett on the other hand is the only one of any of those guys who's played wing in the NHL, and he spent a pretty sizable amount of time there in junior: he was drafted as someone who could play either position. If my options were between Monahan, Backlund, Jankowski and Bennett (assuming we keep all of them), Bennett would be the first one I'd move to wing, without a doubt. Not a knock on his skill at all, if anything it's because I think he would be a far better winger than any of the other three.

Fair enough. Personally, I'm ambivalent as to who plays at centre and who moves to wing at this point; it's a good problem to have.

 

[Lunatik]

Ok they had 2 years on him. But thinking success at AHL can translate into NHL success is foolish. Especially at Center. Hunter was doing great on the wing in the AHL, and is barely making a case to be called up.

All I'm saying is, if Calgary lacked depth at Center, then sure bring him in as a Center. But we don't lack that depth, so bring Jankowski in as a winger, like they did with Bennett, before transitioning him to Center

EDIT: the more I think of it, I would be willing to bet that Matty Franchise is re-signed on a 1 or 2 year contract next year at a much lower salary. If he doesn't decide to play over seas.

Thinking AHL success can translate is not not foolish, thinking it will translate would be

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Ok. Maybe I'm wrong about Jankowski.

But I also recall Ben Street, Kris Kolanos, Drew Shore among others also have success in the AHL. But I could be wrong.

I just see Benett with an edge over Jankowski considering age and how he's developing nicely at C and not disrupt that progress.

Then again this is Hockey's Future, not Hockey present.

Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.

Not to compare Jankowski to Backlund, but Trelivings comments about Backlund being first over the boards in all situations rings true with Jankowski at the AHL level. First PK, PP and #1 C.

Plus, I'm a huge fan of how the Canucks handled Horvat. Something similar with Jankowski could be practical should he make a push onto the big club in September.

 

[Volica]

Janko is solid but I don't see why he can't be tried at wing as well.

He also could be our 4th line Center for all we know.

We have absolute no idea how this kid is going to translate. What he's done in the AHL this year is pretty good, but I mean, there are 5 rookies ahead of him in the scoring race (4 are team leaders, like Janko, or would be if they weren't called up to the NHL) in the AHL. It's not like the kid's reinventing the wheel or anything; he's putting up reasonable numbers for a first round pick in year 5 of development. Don't get me wrong, I hope we get a Backlund out of him, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think moving Bennett, who might be the best pure centre we have (for his age), to wing is particularly a good idea. Until further notice I think that the trio of Monahan - Backlund - Bennett down the middle is just the way to go.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

We have absolute no idea how this kid is going to translate. What he's done in the AHL this year is pretty good, but I mean, there are 5 rookies ahead of him in the scoring race (4 are team leaders, like Janko, or would be if they weren't called up to the NHL) in the AHL. It's not like the kid's reinventing the wheel or anything; he's putting up reasonable numbers for a first round pick in year 5 of development. Don't get me wrong, I hope we get a Backlund out of him, but I'm not holding my breath.

Just saying he's sits 6th in rookie scoring is slightly misleading (not greatly) but it's is. Accuse me of cherry picking an argument here all you want, but there is some relevance:

- He sits 4th in PPG of those 6 players. Which given the disparity in GP due to call ups and California teams playing fewer games, it's probably the best route to take. (1. Guentzel 2. O'Reagan 3. Fischer 4. Jankowski 5. Quenneville 6. Poturalski).
- He also sits 4th in the percent of teams offence each of the 6 players are in on. I like to see this as high scoring teams/low scoring teams can inflate scoring statistics. (1. Fischer 2. Poturalski 3. O'Reagan 4. Jankowski 5. Quenneville 6. Guentzel).

Like I say, not overly misleading, but it does fair better to delve a bit deeper than pure counting stats.

Plus, I prefer to evaluate the player, not the stats. Which leaves me high on Jankowski.

 

[Volica]

Just saying he's sits 6th in rookie scoring is slightly misleading (not greatly) but it's is. Accuse me of cherry picking an argument here all you want, but there is some relevance:

- He sits 4th in PPG of those 6 players. Which given the disparity in GP due to call ups and California teams playing fewer games, it's probably the best route to take. (1. Guentzel 2. O'Reagan 3. Fischer 4. Jankowski 5. Quenneville 6. Poturalski).
- He also sits 4th in the percent of teams offence each of the 6 players are in on. I like to see this as high scoring teams/low scoring teams can inflate scoring statistics. (1. Fischer 2. Poturalski 3. O'Reagan 4. Jankowski 5. Quenneville 6. Guentzel).

Like I say, not overly misleading, but it does fair better to delve a bit deeper than pure counting stats.

Plus, I prefer to evaluate the player, not the stats. Which leaves me high on Jankowski.

I'm just saying, he's not reinventing the wheel here. He's been good, but we really need to taper expectations. Some people are willing to throw Bennett on a wing or Monahan on a wing so that Jankowski can play centre; when we don't even know he can produce at this level. He's been Stockton's most consistent forward; but it's not saying much with a young team like that... I'm just using numbers as a good gauge as to why we shouldn't think Janko will be handed the third line C duties out of camp next year and that we should treat him like he's a can't miss like Tkachuk, Bennett, Monahan or Gaudreau; he's not doing anything that's not expected of him (i.e he's the best player, on a team that he has the most amount of development years + pedigree and not counting AHL scrubs).

I would love it if he outperformed the vets and took a job; but I also don't see it happening.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

I'm just saying, he's not reinventing the wheel here. He's been good, but we really need to taper expectations. Some people are willing to throw Bennett on a wing or Monahan on a wing so that Jankowski can play centre; when we don't even know he can produce at this level. He's been Stockton's most consistent forward; but it's not saying much with a young team like that... I'm just using numbers as a good gauge as to why we shouldn't think Janko will be handed the third line C duties out of camp next year and that we should treat him like he's a can't miss like Tkachuk, Bennett, Monahan or Gaudreau; he's not doing anything that's not expected of him (i.e he's the best player, on a team that he has the most amount of development years + pedigree and not counting AHL scrubs).

I would love it if he outperformed the vets and took a job; but I also don't see it happening.

Sure, but how many prospects that reach expectations actually reinvent the wheel at the AHL level? I'm projecting him as a 2C/3C type tweener, at which I wouldn't expect him to be reinventing the wheel as an AHL rookie.

I'm perfectly fine with where my expectations are. I've seen him enough to feel strongly about what he does and how it will translate.

It's like when Poirier had his big rookie season, and despite the production, I never saw him as a consistent NHL player because of his abilities and tools.

Whereas I'm confident in my projection for Jankowski - his production doesn't wow you when you first look at it, but it's where expectations should have been and I'll maintain that I expect him to be an NHL'er despite that.

 

[Fig]

Sorta back on topic regarding Lazar, if we fix C, our C depth becomes...


Mony
Backlund
Bennett
Lazar (C training?)
Janko (Training at W?)
Stajan (Convert to W?)
Bouma (Perma W?)
Hamilton (Perma W?)
Vey (Perma AHL?)

And based on my scan of the prospects, we might have Lindstrom at most for C. Everyone else looks like Perma W at the NHL level.


So... next season... (X = not a C)

X - Mony - X
X - Backlund - X
Janko - Bennett - X
Stajan - Lazar - F Hamilton (X?)

??

C Depth "problem" aside, I think we need to get rid of 2 forwards, right? Because for 6 Xs, we have: Gaudreau, Ferland, Frolik, Brouwer, Tkachuk, Chiasson, Versteeg, Bouma, F Hamilton and that's not including guys like Hathaway who are knocking at the door.

It looks like 1 will move due to expansion, but I think we need to move 1 more?

But this is assuming Janko plays his way onto the team which I think is completely possible, unless management thinks he MUST play onto the team as a C vs a winger?

 

[Mr Snrub]

Sorta back on topic regarding Lazar, if we fix C, our C depth becomes...


Mony
Backlund
Bennett
Lazar (C training?)
Janko (Training at W?)
Stajan (Convert to W?)
Bouma (Perma W?)
Hamilton (Perma W?)
Vey (Perma AHL?)

And based on my scan of the prospects, we might have Lindstrom at most for C. Everyone else looks like Perma W at the NHL level.

Pribyl is also a natural centre, and I think he'll be an NHLer someday, just not with the Flames.

 

[Fig]

Pribyl is also a natural centre, and I think he'll be an NHLer someday, just not with the Flames.

I saw that... but I only ever recall management calling him a RW. I haven't paid attention to his play in Stockton. How is his.. knee was it that he had surgery on?

I am surprised he hasn't received a cup of coffee. I wonder if it's more to do with the low injuries, or if there's something wrong with his game.

Shame to see him go the way of the Nakladal and the Wolf.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I saw that... but I only ever recall management calling him a RW. I haven't paid attention to his play in Stockton. How is his.. knee was it that he had surgery on?

I am surprised he hasn't received a cup of coffee. I wonder if it's more to do with the low injuries, or if there's something wrong with his game.

Shame to see him go the way of the Nakladal and the Wolf.

I mean at centre we have sufficient depth - and if there's an injury we'd call up Jankowski. If there's an injury at RW, we'd call up Shinkaruk or Hathaway. He just plays positions that we have more exciting prospects at. If he's still with the organisation when Stajan retires I'd be fine with seeing how he does at 4C. I didn't know he'd had surgery, hadn't noticed anything to make me think he wasn't playing at his best, knee or otherwise.

 

[Fig]

I mean at centre we have sufficient depth - and if there's an injury we'd call up Jankowski. If there's an injury at RW, we'd call up Shinkaruk or Hathaway. He just plays positions that we have more exciting prospects at. If he's still with the organisation when Stajan retires I'd be fine with seeing how he does at 4C. I didn't know he'd had surgery, hadn't noticed anything to make me think he wasn't playing at his best, knee or otherwise.

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hoc...-czech-forward-daniel-pribyl-to-two-year-deal

ACL surgery in Calgary.

I guess with the 2 year deal, they explained and expected Pribyl's first season to be a write off anyways with ACL healing and learning the NA game?

 

[tfong]

OK now name 22 year old players with Jankowski's level of success so far in the AHL. Everyone you mentioned was at least 24 and only Shore was seen as a prospect and his AHL success was quite moderate

Filppula and Nyquist both were in the AHL at 21/22 but both were technically way too good for to be there at that time.

 

[BVicious]

After the Jets game, with Wideman drawing in due to Stone's injury, one has to wonder if the coach saw the same amount of suck from Brouwer as I did. I think we can afford to put Lazar on 3rd RW with Bennett and Versteeg, let Brouwer watch and rest for a game or two.

I was all for not disrupting the lineup while winning, but why wait to lose? Why not ice the best possible roster. Lazar would be fired up, for sure. And so would Brouwer after being a healthy scratch. Can't see Lazar being worse than Brouwer on Monday.

I just have that feeling, the GG has seen enough. And it's time to see what Lazar can do

 

[Lunatik]

After the Jets game, with Wideman drawing in due to Stone's injury, one has to wonder if the coach saw the same amount of suck from Brouwer as I did. I think we can afford to put Lazar on 3rd RW with Bennett and Versteeg, let Brouwer watch and rest for a game or two.

I was all for not disrupting the lineup while winning, but why wait to lose? Why not ice the best possible roster. Lazar would be fired up, for sure. And so would Brouwer after being a healthy scratch. Can't see Lazar being worse than Brouwer on Monday.

I just have that feeling, the GG has seen enough. And it's time to see what Lazar can do

Other than the fact Lazar has shown absolutely no reason this season to think he'd be better than even a bad Brouwer? Don't fix what ain't broke.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Other than the fact Lazar has shown absolutely no reason this season to think he'd be better than even a bad Brouwer? Don't fix what ain't broke.

This. Just because Brouwer hasn't been good doesn't mean you sub him out for no reason