Hemsky was also getting a lot of third and fourth line minutes in his first year and also sat out quite a bit whereas near the tail end of last year Omark was being leaned on heavily for offence and it was still at a point every two or three game pace.
I don't buy into the "legend" of Linus Omark. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
Hemsky was also getting a lot of third and fourth line minutes in his first year and also sat out quite a bit whereas near the tail end of last year Omark was being leaned on heavily for offence and it was still at a point every two or three game pace.
I don't buy into the "legend" of Linus Omark. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
I don't know if that's that different from Omark. He's playing with Paajarvi and Belanger which is really creating no offense with anybody on it and I'll still say it those two shouldn't be separated. they're doing a hell of a job.
Anyways Hemsky got 1st line ice time after the trade deadline didn't he? Or was that the next year? Either way his production really isn't much better than Omarks.
on the oilers pregame show they were talking about it and they more or less agreed if Omark used the clause he was done as an oiler
I'd assume so, but I don't understand why they don't just talk to him.
He has flaws in his game and the AHL would help. If he doesn't sound like he wants to go to the AHL then send him there anyway and if he leaves he leaves. You own his rights until he's 27 so if he wants to play hardball then so be it.
Ales Hemsky, first year
2002-2003 OILERS 59 6 24 30
I know there's an age difference, but it's too early to say he can't be a top 6 player.He'll get a chance again, he's just gotta do something with it, I'd like to see him play with Smyth and Horcoff or on the Tre Kronor line.
Its unbelievable that you acknowledge the age difference, 5yrs at respective rookie seasons btw, and then go on to make the comparison anyway while suggesting that theres no difference in the potential development.
People comparing Omark to Hemsky as a rule are being intentionally disingenious. Hell why not compare Omark to Forsberg..
ftr and just to humor the comparison for a moment Omark last season was seeing over 3mins more toi/game than Hemsky's spot duty 12mins/game he got in his rookie year.
Its unbelievable that you acknowledge the age difference, 5yrs at respective rookie seasons btw, and then go on to make the comparison anyway while suggesting that theres no difference in the potential development.
People comparing Omark to Hemsky as a rule are being intentionally disingenious. Hell why not compare Omark to Forsberg..
ftr and just to humor the comparison for a moment Omark last season was seeing over 3mins more toi/game than Hemsky's spot duty 12mins/game he got in his rookie year.
What I was saying was that it's a bit simplistic to pick one stat about someone 50 odd games into a career and use it to define the quality of the hockey player. Hemsky was the easiest and most relevant as he's someone we've all watched mature into a wonderful player.
And I didn't compare him to anyone, just displayed Hemsky's stats to show that there's more to a player than just stats.
Omark shouldn't try to make his way into the top 6 by gimmicky flashy moves. He doesn't need to impress by doing unusual stuff, he just needs to be a solid NHL player. The cute stuff like that doesn't fly as much in the best league in the world.
I kinda disagree. Omark needs to keep improving on the thing that got him this far.. That is his creativity (flashiness if you may).
Instead of trying to round off his game and become another Petrell he needs to do what separates him from the rest.. That is creating offensive chances for himself and teammates.
I dont see a future for him on the Oilers but there should be a few teams that could use a player like him.
IMO he should focus on his offense instead of defense because that is what brought him here.
What I was saying was that it's a bit simplistic to pick one stat about someone 50 odd games into a career and use it to define the quality of the hockey player. Hemsky was the easiest and most relevant as he's someone we've all watched mature into a wonderful player.
And I didn't compare him to anyone, just displayed Hemsky's stats to show that there's more to a player than just stats.
??
Why its disingenious is its specifically revisionist and determining the best positive, increasing value example, and determining this as a comparison to Omark. i.e. false association with a known upward trajectory is no way to evaluate a player or stock independently. The comparison essentially means nothing.
Why not use MAP as a comparison? Or Schremp(the obvious one and most style compatibile player you could come up with.)
Anybody that is specifically making the Hemsky comparison is purposely comparing Omark to a player that is in every way better than Omark and that always was. Nobody here even heard of Omark at age 18 or 19. Hemsky was PLAYING here at that age.
You compared rookie years regardless of significant age differential ? Thats silly. Why not compare Hemsky's pts after a few pro seasons of play? Thats not fair either right?
I would think Pouliot, or Schremp to be more reasonable comparisons.
Last edited by Replacement: 10-29-2011 at 04:07 PM.
I kinda disagree. Omark needs to keep improving on the thing that got him this far.. That is his creativity (flashiness if you may).
Instead of trying to round off his game and become another Petrell he needs to do what separates him from the rest.. That is creating offensive chances for himself and teammates.
I dont see a future for him on the Oilers but there should be a few teams that could use a player like him.
IMO he should focus on his offense instead of defense because that is what brought him here.
The whole problem with Omarks game, and I saw this from the start, is theres very little in his "flashiness" that equates or transfers to NHL play. A lot of his success at SEL and KHL level was very predicated on breaking down lesser teams and players.
But a lot of the stuff just wasn't going to work at this level.
Theres very few teams, approaching zero, that are going to have a lot of use for a player that produces .5ppg if he's lucky while being a GA gongshow.
I just don't know what team would value that or why.
Why its disingenious is its specifically revisionist and determining the best positive, increasing value example, and determining this as a comparison to Omark.
Why not use MAP as a comparison? Or Schremp(the obvious one and most style compatibile player you could come up with.)
Anybody that is specifically making the Hemsky comparison is purposely comparing Omark to a player that is in every way better than Omark and that always was. Nobody here even heard of Omark at age 18 or 19. Hemsky was PLAYING here at that age.
Yet an age specific comparison is fair indication of progress? Why not compare Hemsky's pts after a few pro seasons of play? Thats not fair either right?
I would think Pouliot, or Schremp to be more reasonable comparisons.
Everyone who reads these forums knows you don't particularly like Omark. I posted a comparison to a fellow Oiler who put up nearly identical numbers his first 60 games, acknowledging the age difference. Development is not linear, if we had Datsyuk 10 years ago you might have said the same things about him (just an example, many players bloom later, not comparing Datsyuk to anyone but RNH). I was purposely comparing Omark's stats to the stats of one of the longest serving and most talented Oilers, stating that his goal totals over 2/3 of a season will not define the rest of his career.
Omark the closest thing to Schremp? In what ways, besides shootout trickery, are these two the most similar players? I was a Schremp supporter (I support virtually all the Oil prospects and players) but i really don't see a lot of comparison in their games, their roles may project to be the same, but the way they play the game isn't similar at all imo.
Edit: and the reason I initially did it was because i saw the 5 in 56 and it was so close to the 6 in 59, ftr.
Everyone who reads these forums knows you don't particularly like Omark. I posted a comparison to a fellow Oiler who put up nearly identical numbers his first 60 games, acknowledging the age difference. Development is not linear, if we had Datsyuk 10 years ago you might have said the same things about him (just an example, many players bloom later, not comparing Datsyuk to anyone but RNH). I was purposely comparing Omark's stats to the stats of one of the longest serving and most talented Oilers, stating that his goal totals over 2/3 of a season will not define the rest of his career.
Omark the closest thing to Schremp? In what ways, besides shootout trickery, are these two the most similar players? I was a Schremp supporter (I support virtually all the Oil prospects and players) but i really don't see a lot of comparison in their games, their roles may project to be the same, but the way they play the game isn't similar at all imo.
The way Schremp and Omark play and approach the game is VERY similar. I really have no idea how you don't see the similarity. I define it as two players with brutally incomplete games that learned to have some success at levels of lesser hockey with skills that are not very conducive to this level of hockey. While both ignored, and have shown limited interest in becoming more complete players.
As for Datsyuk I like players that can play a two way game. How would I not like Datsyuk at any point?
Note that I like useful players like Petrell, Lander, MPS, right now, because they regularly show intangibles and ability to play a solid two way game. A willingness to do that.
That this doesn't matter to you(and you stated that it doesn't) then you don't get which players are valuable and contribute to winning hockey teams at the NHL level.
The bolded is exactly why the comparison is offbase. It purposely selecting the best example of player progress over the last 12 years and postulating that somehow, Omark, even though he started his trajectory 5yrs later, will somehow be that player. Or even comparable.
Finally, presently I don't know why you'd bring up that "I don't like Omark". Fact is I don't like what he brings as a hockey player. A year ago I took a lot of flak for that view but if anything the board is converging on my view, which I just arrived at earlier.
Last edited by Replacement: 10-29-2011 at 04:25 PM.
That's just to confirm that he has 3 years or 60 NHL games before he has to clear waivers. He's played 56 games so far in the NHL so he has 4 games left.
All moot because he likely won't want to go down of course.
I think he does have trade value... he is at that age where he's developed enough where teams can see he has obvious talent and yet he still has upside room to develop further. I think he's easily worth a second rounder or equivalent prospect.
I can see him being a 40+ point a year player in the NHL or I can see him going to Europe and excelling over there as well. No idea how this will all play out but I agree I think his time in Edmonton is likely coming to an end.
Hartikainen is the player I think the Oilers would rather have in the lineup for his overall toughness.
I still say a deal of Omark for someone like Franson would be ideal. They are of similar age and both are spending time riding the pine atm.
How is it moot because he "won't want to go down"...It is in his contract that he has to if he is sent. he went before and he will again if asked. He might not be happy but frankly, he has been ineffective. On the other hand, I agree with PRV that moving MPS down would actually benefit more. Put Omark with Belange and Gags and let MPS get back his "mojo". after a while things will become more apparent and moves can be made...which ever those may be (not insinuating Omark should be moved...it truly could be anyone)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexttothemoon
Here's the waiver calculator on Capgeek for Omark:
That's just to confirm that he has 3 years or 60 NHL games before he has to clear waivers. He's played 56 games so far in the NHL so he has 4 games left.
All moot because he likely won't want to go down of course.
I think he does have trade value... he is at that age where he's developed enough where teams can see he has obvious talent and yet he still has upside room to develop further. I think he's easily worth a second rounder or equivalent prospect.
I can see him being a 40+ point a year player in the NHL or I can see him going to Europe and excelling over there as well. No idea how this will all play out but I agree I think his time in Edmonton is likely coming to an end.
Hartikainen is the player I think the Oilers would rather have in the lineup for his overall toughness.
I still say a deal of Omark for someone like Franson would be ideal. They are of similar age and both are spending time riding the pine atm.
If he was so good why does it matter who he was playing with?
Lots of guys get 20 goals in the KHL doesn't mean much. Cajanek, Weinhandl, Sushinski, Perezhogin etc.. all had 20 goals in the KHL but can't cut it in the NHL.
The point is it's not reasonable to assess a limitation on a player because of a 56 game sample size despite a history that suggests contrary. Omark may never be a scorer but saying that this early is premature.
He has a contract with Oilers so he might have a bit difficult to leave North America before season ends
His contract has in out clause in the second year of his contract that reportedly allows him the option to return to Sweden if he is to be sent to the AHL.
As for Datsyuk I like players that can play a two way game. How would I not like Datsyuk at any point?
Note that I like useful players like Petrell, Lander, MPS, right now, because they regularly show intangibles and ability to play a solid two way game. A willingness to do that.
That this doesn't matter to you(and you stated that it doesn't) then you don't get which players are valuable and contribute to winning hockey teams at the NHL level.
.
term 2-way game is overrated... The trio you mentioned combine for 1 point and a -2 this season. I dont see an offensive dimension to their game.. Lets just say you prefer grinders over flashy players.
There are big flaws in everyones game including the 3 kids.. There is no 2-way player on the team. Issue with Omark is that he is suppose to be an offensive player but hasnt put up any points.
term 2-way game is overrated... The trio you mentioned combine for 1 point and a -2 this season. I dont see an offensive dimension to their game.. Lets just say you prefer grinders over flashy players.
There are big flaws in everyones game including the 3 kids.. There is no 2-way player on the team. Issue with Omark is that he is suppose to be an offensive player but hasnt put up any points.
Smyth, Hemsky and I would say Horcoff too, at least this years version, are all good in both ends of the ice and push the puck in the right direction on a consistent basis.
Smyth, Hemsky and I would say Horcoff too, at least this years version, are all good in both ends of the ice and push the puck in the right direction on a consistent basis.
Horcoff - good checker... but probably leads the team in defensive zone giveaways by a forward.. mostly unforced errors.. He may have the stats but his offensive skills are very questionable aswell..
Smyth gets the job done at both ends I agree...
Hemsky took years to become tolerable in D zone. Still would not be considered a solid 2-way player by most.
There are flaws in everyone's games... but as long as you are doing what is expected of you u r good... Omark hasnt put up any points and thus sits up on PB
