Thoughts about Jankowski?

[Johnny Hoxville]

Need to definitely replace it internally if we can't come to an agreement. Backs reminds me of Flipper a few years back, great middle 6 centre that plays both ends well; simple gets let go because stars need protection.

If Bennett continues to improve; Tkachuk develops into what I believe he can be... And one of the developmental C's pans out (Pollock, Jankowski) I think we will be alright. Backlund for the grief he got in the early parts of his career is an excellent NHLer; the way he plays will be absolutely difficult to replace when another team will offer him north of 5.5x5 easily.

You gotta figure we'll be paying a goalie at least 5. We have no more room for big contracts on the backend (see Wideman). Gaudreau is going to get paid, Bennett and Tkachuk should in time surpass what Frolik and Brouwer are getting paid. One or both of Kylington or Andersson will probably turn into something like a Klefbom. It's essential that we get an internal replacement for Backlund who is basically a good possession, 2-way 45-50pt center. His next deal is easily over 5.

Backlund cannot be on this team long term. He will be a cap casulity like what happens to Chicago every year.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

You gotta figure we'll be paying a goalie at least 5. We have no more room for big contracts on the backend (see Wideman). Gaudreau is going to get paid, Bennett and Tkachuk should in time surpass what Frolik and Brouwer are getting paid. One or both of Kylington or Andersson will probably turn into something like a Klefbom. It's essential that we get an internal replacement for Backlund who is basically a good possession, 2-way 45-50pt center. His next deal is easily over 5.

Backlund cannot be on this team long term. He will be a cap casulity like what happens to Chicago every year.

Screw that. If Brouwer and Backlund are on the team and you have to shed cap, you buy out Brouwer and turn Backlund into a winger.

 

[InfinityIggy]

You gotta figure we'll be paying a goalie at least 5. We have no more room for big contracts on the backend (see Wideman). Gaudreau is going to get paid, Bennett and Tkachuk should in time surpass what Frolik and Brouwer are getting paid. One or both of Kylington or Andersson will probably turn into something like a Klefbom. It's essential that we get an internal replacement for Backlund who is basically a good possession, 2-way 45-50pt center. His next deal is easily over 5.

Backlund cannot be on this team long term. He will be a cap casulity like what happens to Chicago every year.

Maybe. If Backlund is moved though I think it's more likely because Bennett has established himself and someone like Jankowski is ready to take the reigns at #3C.

I think there are easier targets to move on from to create cap space than trading Backlund. Stajan, Wideman (will be gone), Bollig, Engelland.

 

[Skobel24]

If Bennett becomes a top 6 center, and Janks somehow becomes a solid #3, I'd just move Backlund to the wing. Having a guy who moves the puck the way he does should do well on the wing, and in the event an injury occurs, he can slot in at center. It would also put someone else on the ice who can win faceoffs.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I would prefer Backlund over Frolik or Brouwer TBQH if there's a cap crunch.

 

[InfinityIggy]

When Backlund was tried at wing a few seasons ago, he didn't look great as I recall. Now, I think it was a small sample size and I can't remember whom he was playing with. However, I have doubts about how effective he would be on the wing.

 

[Skobel24]

When Backlund was tried at wing a few seasons ago, he didn't look great as I recall. Now, I think it was a small sample size and I can't remember whom he was playing with. However, I have doubts about how effective he would be on the wing.

If I recall correctly, he played on the wing in the Swedish league during the lockout, and looked pretty good. I think he'd transition well.

As someone else said, I'd take him over Frolik or Brouwer.

 

[Calculon]

There's an off chance the Flames lose Brouwer or Frolik to expansion depending on how things go with them, Ferland and Shinkaruk. Bennett's probably getting a bridge deal unless he puts up 60 points and Stajan's contract expires at the same time as Backlund's and he's most definitely not coming back (look for him to continue to the trend of overrated Flames players that struggle to get contracts after being let go - Glencross, Jones, Hudler, Russell, and soon, Wideman). If Tkachuk doesn't make the team this year but does so the following season, then his ELC will expire at the same time as Brouwer's.

Basically, there's room for Backlund if needed. And he'd have to put up 55+ points in each of the next two seasons to get over 5M on his next contract. But if he continues to produce at roughly the same rate as he is now and the cap remains relatively stagnant, I'd say he could be signed for somewhere around 4.5M per. Also keep in mind, if Backlund is pushed to the third line by Bennett, then his point totals will also decrease and potentially make his next contract slightly cheaper.

But I guess it'll also depend on how Backlund see's himself as a player and whether he's okay with playing wing if necessary. He does fit with what Treliving is trying to build so I do think they'll make an extended effort to keep him.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Backlund-Bennett-Tkachuk
Backlund-Monahan-Gaudreau
Ferland-Jankowski-Backlund

Tell me any of those lines is not inherently awesome. Not that I have ever not thought Backlund is an amazing centre.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

I want to see Gaudreau-Monahan-Jankowski.

 

[Skobel24]

Backlund-Bennett-Tkachuk
Backlund-Monahan-Gaudreau
Ferland-Jankowski-Backlund

Tell me any of those lines is not inherently awesome. Not that I have ever not thought Backlund is an amazing centre.

I like the first option. The second option wouldn't work that well IMO, as they need someone who is more physical and can chip in those dirty type goals. The 3rd option just seems off to me. I don't think Ferland and Jankowski would mix well.

Tkachuk - Bennett - Ferland

 

[SmellOfVictory]

If I recall correctly, he played on the wing in the Swedish league during the lockout, and looked pretty good. I think he'd transition well.

As someone else said, I'd take him over Frolik or Brouwer.

Yeah, he and Berglund just laid waste to Allsvenskan with Backs on LW.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I The second option wouldn't work that well IMO, as they need someone who is more physical and can chip in those dirty type goals.

They really don't. They need a skilled player who can think and skate with them and hang on to the puck. Something they have never had, as Jones/Frolik were too North-South, Ferland/Jooris can't score, Hudler can't skate, and Colborne can't think with them. Backlund is arguably the best forward for that line as he can cycle with them, he's a fantastic shot suppressor with his two-way play, and can think with Johnny and Monny.

No Backlund isn't the perfect forward for that line (Tkachuk might be if you wanna separate him from Bennett or Jankowski) but he's a great fit

The 3rd option just seems off to me. I don't think Ferland and Jankowski would mix well.

Ferland mixed fine with Stajan.
Ferland mixed fine with Monahan.
Ferland mixed fine with Backlund.

He would mix just fine with Jankowski, who is basically a cross between Backlund and Monahan. Only question is if Ferly can individually figure out the offensive side of his game or if he's just a 6'3" 215lb Paul Byron. (which is still good enough for your 9th forward IMO)

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Screw that. If Brouwer and Backlund are on the team and you have to shed cap, you buy out Brouwer and turn Backlund into a winger.

You have can 5 or 6 big money players, at the most. Chicago for years had Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Seabrook and Keith. Keith's contract is a steal so that let them lock up Crawford. Well now Sharp is out and Panarin is in. Seeing how they had to deal Saad says a lot.

For the Flames, we'll have:

Gaudreau
Monahan
Bennett
Tkachuk
Gio
Brodie
Hamilton
Goalie

Frolik, Brouwer, and Backlund will all be gone along with deadweight in Stajan, Wideman and Smid. We all need to replace these guys internally with Shinkaruk, Poirier, Jankowski, Klimchuk, Kylington, Andersson, Hickey and Fox.

It's the salary cap world, it's why Colborne was let go. Why would you pay Backlund over 4 when you can pay Janko a lot less to do the same job?

 

[SmellOfVictory]

You have can 5 or 6 big money players, at the most. Chicago for years had Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Seabrook and Keith. Keith's contract is a steal so that let them lock up Crawford. Well now Sharp is out and Panarin is in. Seeing how they had to deal Saad says a lot.

For the Flames, we'll have:

Gaudreau
Monahan
Bennett
Tkachuk
Gio
Brodie
Hamilton
Goalie

Frolik, Brouwer, and Backlund will all be gone along with deadweight in Stajan, Wideman and Smid. We all need to replace these guys internally with Shinkaruk, Poirier, Jankowski, Klimchuk, Kylington, Andersson, Hickey and Fox.

It's the salary cap world, it's why Colborne was let go. Why would you pay Backlund over 4 when you can pay Janko a lot less to do the same job?

Depends heavily on what the other contracts are. Hawks didn't hit a huge cap crunch until the Toews/Kane UFA deals. Prior to that they had the core six guys, plus Hjalmarsson, Oduya and Sharp all making medium to large dollars (not to mention the horrendous Bickell contract). 4 million is easy to fit into a team where all the stars are on RFA contracts.

 

[thadd]

Was looking at the score sheet of the Flames destruction of the Lighting and I noticed Janowski's name there.

It's been a few years since the draft, but I'm pretty sure I'm spot on with the details here. Please do correct my mistakes if I'm wrong.
So the guys covering the draft on TSN said that Feaster said that he had a scout said that he heard about some wiz kid and spent a few hours driving through some crazy snow storm to watch Janowski play and that night he was convinced that he'd found the next Wayne Gretzky.

Obviously at the time we knew it was some kind of crazy exageration. I was under the impression that something had gone wrong to spoil their plans and the guy they thought would be available wasn't there so they went with Janowski, who probably would have fallen to the 3rd round.

That being said, on to the matter at hand:

I'd curious to know around what % of the Flames fanbase here thinks they've got an NHL player in Janowski and where he probably fits onto a team's depth chart assuming he makes it.

 

[SaintMorose]

Was looking at the score sheet of the Flames destruction of the Lighting and I noticed Janowski's name there.

It's been a few years since the draft, but I'm pretty sure I'm spot on with the details here. Please do correct my mistakes if I'm wrong.
So the guys covering the draft on TSN said that Feaster said that he had a scout said that he heard about some wiz kid and spent a few hours driving through some crazy snow storm to watch Janowski play and that night he was convinced that he'd found the next Wayne Gretzky.

Not "Wayne Gretzky" the best comparable at the time was Joe Nieuwendyk. And the main over-statement was "best player from the draft in 10 years".
Now to be fair as much of an over-statement as that was the Flames weren't high on Yakupov and considered Galchenyuk the guy to beat in 10 years.
Obviously now Forsberg is the guy + a number of good Dmen but the 2012 draft wasn't very deep and the chance Jankowski will be a top 10 player within the next 5 years isn't too bad.

Obviously at the time we knew it was some kind of crazy exageration. I was under the impression that something had gone wrong to spoil their plans and the guy they thought would be available wasn't there so they went with Janowski, who probably would have fallen to the 3rd round.

No 2 teams behind us were taking a good look at Janko in the first round hence why we didnt trade back again and even tsn didn't see him falling to 40

I'd curious to know around what % of the Flames fanbase here thinks they've got an NHL player in Janowski and where he probably fits onto a team's depth chart assuming he makes it.

Yes he's an NHL player now. There are very few people who watch Calgary that think he hasn't earned a spot and many of use would like to see his role increased even now (well I'm actually pretty happy at this point as he's playing both PP and PK).
Where does he fit on a depth chart?
Who knows the things Jankowski has always had going for him is potential and drive he grew something like 8 inches pre-draft year and has been filling into his body and pushing his skill limit.
We now see a guy with top 6 skating, hands, shooting, and hockey sense attempting to translate his ability into NHL production and for me I see a guy who can easily slot into the top 6 as a centre with 1.5 years. Depth-wise we down have a clear cut top 10 in the league centre (as good as Monahan is), so we need to keep Janko so we can match up with playoff teams in depth if we dont have that all-star middle man.
There's still a chance when all is said and done he'll be our best centre but there's a ways to go to catch Monahan.

 

[DFF]

I'd curious to know around what % of the Flames fanbase here thinks they've got an NHL player in Janowski and where he probably fits onto a team's depth chart assuming he makes it.

There is no doubt that he is a full time NHL player. You will never see Jank in the minor again.

The only question is how good is he going to be. I think he top out a solid 2nd line center.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I think Jankowski has 60-70pt upside. No I’m not kidding. He really has no holes in his game, I love him defensively and he’s just scratching the surface of his offensive ability. He’s such a talented player with soft hands and deadly shot.

 

[Lunatik]

Yeah, I think Janko is an NHL player now too. I think he's looked great since getting the call-up. He's now playing in all situations, he is the heir apparent to Backlund on the second line. I'm not sure he'll be a 60-70 point guy like Harv thinks, but I do think he will be a high end two-way #2C.

It took a little bit for him and Bennett to get things going, but once they did they have been pretty productive. Once Janko hit the scoreboard, he has 15 points in his last 28 games which is a nice pace he has going for a rookie. Looking forward to see him continue and maybe improve on that. I think he could get 35 points by the end of the year.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Jankowski has been good in his first half season. I'm still skeptical of high end upside, because a) he's already approaching his mid 20s and b) while he's got solid skills and brain, I don't think he's particularly fast in any sense of the word. His stickhandling is good, but not speedy; he skates fluidly, but isn't a burner; he makes good decisions, but not instantaneously. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up as a 2nd line C, nor would I be surprised if he was more of a 3rd line C. I would be a little surprised if he passed 50 points in a season, though.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I think Jankowski has 60-70pt upside. No I’m not kidding. He really has no holes in his game, I love him defensively and he’s just scratching the surface of his offensive ability. He’s such a talented player with soft hands and deadly shot.

I agree. But this kind of post always got me blasted for being a homer so be careful.

 

[crackdown44]

Tough to say, he is a little older than most top end prospects when they come into the league. That being said, he’s right on schedule. There’s also something to be said for the fact that his offensive production increased every year in NCAA and he had an amazing year in the AHL. He still hasn’t completely filled into his body. Once he hits 225-230, at 6’4 I think he could turn into a poor man’s Ryan Getzlaf with a bit less of a mean streak. He could also top out as a 30-40 point 3C.

I will say that if this team can get 3 lines rolling at the same time once Frolik gets back, we can challenge for 2nd in the division. Maybe even first if vegas falls off a cliff (which I have been expecting since the beginning of the year, but just doesn’t seem to happen)

 

[Tofveve]

Jankowski has been good in his first half season. I'm still skeptical of high end upside, because a) he's already approaching his mid 20s and b) while he's got solid skills and brain, I don't think he's particularly fast in any sense of the word. His stickhandling is good, but not speedy; he skates fluidly, but isn't a burner; he makes good decisions, but not instantaneously. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up as a 2nd line C, nor would I be surprised if he was more of a 3rd line C. I would be a little surprised if he passed 50 points in a season, though.

This.

I'm going to repost my post from the GDT:

"I'm not totally convinced on Jankowski as I've alluded to before.

That goal was sick. His hands are obviously silky smooth. It seems his IQ and positioning are good.

But my concern is his speed and agility. I mean sometimes it seems he needs half of the ice surface to make a turn. There were a few instances where the offensive momentum was killed or stalled because he was unable to make the quick turn and keep the puck in the zone or return it to the zone quickly inhibiting the other team from changing. Obviously he's not going to have Johnny agility that way, but I've described his skating and agility as lumbering a few times. So, basically, I'm not sure if I'm seeing it completely accurately. He does look a bit like Jagr out there. And his hands are super good. I'm just not sure he'll take that next step to a first or second line player with what I see as lacking agility/overall quickness. I could be wrong. Thoughts?"

 

[Lunatik]

I agree. But this kind of post always got me blasted for being a homer so be careful.

Always the victim. That kind of post would get you replies that actually start a discussion. Some that disagree might think you are a homer, but the majority would just reply, either asking why you think that, or agree with you. The posts you get blasted for is crap like saying a guy with 80 career points in 3 seasons in the league would be a perennial hart candidate if not for the coach.