OMARK GOING TO OKC

Jason Gregor
November 01 2011 06:09PM

Linus Omark has been sent down to OKC. He does have an out-clause in his contract to go to Sweden, but he will report to the AHL. It is a smart move on his part. He wants to play in the NHL, and staying in North America makes the most sense for him.

He doesn't have to clear waivers, so if he plays well the Oilers can recall him without worrying about losing him on re-entry waivers. He needs to play and he is better off playing in the AHL than eating popcorn in an NHL pressbox.

The Oilers will also recall Colten Teubert with Cam Barker still questionable. Tom Renney said today he wasn't sure when they would call up Teubert, but it sounds like he will join them sooner than later.

Smart move by the Oilers and Omark to go to OKC. He'll get lots of icetime under Todd Nelson and if he can find some consistency I think he'll find himself back in the NHL.


Omark will join the team in Abbotsford and likely play Thursday and Saturday. If the Oilers announced the demotion today he would have had to fly to OKC today and join the team. However, since OKC is flying out to Abbotsford tomorrow, they can wait and announce it tomorrow and then he can join them in Abbotsford.

Strange rule, but that is why the Oilers won't announce his re-assignment until tomorrow.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#51 BGH - Team Squee
November 02 2011, 09:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

As I said in the poll comments, leave the Kids line alone and please for the sake of all that is holy, leave the Horc line alone as well. Those 2 lines are working so don't mess with them.

To those who are saying that the kids have played poorly on the road, lets remember we have only had 2 road games so far this year and Hall didn't play in Calgary. So IMNSHO, 1 game is not enough to say they play badly on the road.

As for Hemsky,play him with Gagner and MPS. Our need on this team right now is secondary scoring.

Omark and Lander going down for 40 games will not be the end of their world or careers. It gives us time to evaluate Hemsky and gagner and see if there is any chemstry between them and MPS.

This season is not about challenging. It is about figuring out what we got and plugging holes via trades at the deadline this year.

Avatar
#52 WTF
November 02 2011, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

Too funny to go to Flames nation and see the "blow it up" comments.

Avatar
#53 @Oilanderp
November 02 2011, 09:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

I am excited by this move. It points to the organizational depth that has been slowly but surely compiled over the last few years. Every winning organization has young and probable 'NHL-ready' players playing on their AHL affiliate. This is a good move for Omark, and a good position for the organization to be in.

Things have changed. Put your time in, work hard, get results, and you should be rewarded with some time in Oiler silks.

This is a far cry from recent years where guys were just given their job since they had noone else.

Arrows are pointing in the right direction, and rip it up, Omark.

Avatar
#54 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Max Powers - Team HME Evans

He's 1/3 of the Oilers most successful line - They're doing the heavy lifting on offense and defense.

This is like claiming Ringo Star was 1/4 of the reason for the Beatles' success.

So far I have seen zero reason to believe that Omark couldn't or wouldn't be more successful than Jones given the same spot with the Smyth line.

Everyone is so quick to claim Omark isn't playing defense but the same people are happy watching Jones run around in his own zone with his head cut off, it's absurd. I will never understand how a guy can look competent on the PK but lost at evens, but Jones is living proof.

What is it that Jones brings to the table that is so necessary? He can PK from the 4th line like Petrell. Does everyone just like how he tries so hard that he can't stand up all the time?

...one of the best players so far

I fear greatly for this team if this is true.

and replacing him with someone who's been a HS 5 games in a row.

The fact that Renney sat someone is not proof that Renney was right to sit them.

Finally, enough with the youtube comments. It's absurd and has nothing to do with anything.

Avatar
#55 BGH - Team SQUEEE
November 02 2011, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Tigerunderglass

- agreed on the youtube comments being irrelevant

- Don't forget as people get healthy, we need to send people down. Why risk someone to waivers when we can send omark down for seasoning and play time while we sort out the remaining players and line combinations

Lastly, why change the second line for the sake of change. It is working so leave it alone. When it stops working (and not just for 1 or 2 games, but an extended period) that while be the time to change things.

Sometimes the best thing a coach can do is not tinker and stay out of his own way and let the players play.

Avatar
#56 Dipstick
November 02 2011, 10:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

This is one situation where I agree with Tambo's lengthy assessments. They need time to see if Hemsky's latest injury problems are likely to be chronic and if Gagner is going to finally develop into the player that they thought they had a few years ago. Once they have figured that out they will know which of those two and Omark are expendable. They are not perfectly interchangeable, but they can't all exist on the same roster with the pieces that are already there.

Avatar
#57 Archaeologuy
November 02 2011, 10:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
mayorpoop wrote:

it's clear objectivity is long past you on this topic so i won't waste much time talking about this with you.

he was as consistent as whom else this year? MPS, Gagner (same number of games so far). they aren't sitting/on a bus any where best i can tell.

i don't disagree he was the likely choice to go down. he isn't only your goat me thinks. *cough* Renney.

he didn't fit in the plan now he rides a bus. whatever. moving on.

Is it truly that difficult to believe that it isnt just his lack of offense that is keeping Omark out of the lineup?

I know I like to get all over Omark at every chance that I get, but I'm not making up his poor play at the Oiler end of the rink. He isnt very good.

I dont know the exact reasons Renney doesnt play him over others, but the same choice was made last season too. He wasnt trusted then and he isnt trusted now.

He is a replacement player in the NHL 2 years running despite being given an extended look at the NHL level (50+ games). RNH takes his spot on the PP and does it much better, and players like Gagner, MPS, and Belanger either bring more to the table than their offense or have a more proven track record of providing the offense that Omark wasnt bringing.

But I guess poor little Omark didnt get a fair shake.

Avatar
#58 mayorpoop
November 02 2011, 10:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Is it truly that difficult to believe that it isnt just his lack of offense that is keeping Omark out of the lineup?

I know I like to get all over Omark at every chance that I get, but I'm not making up his poor play at the Oiler end of the rink. He isnt very good.

I dont know the exact reasons Renney doesnt play him over others, but the same choice was made last season too. He wasnt trusted then and he isnt trusted now.

He is a replacement player in the NHL 2 years running despite being given an extended look at the NHL level (50+ games). RNH takes his spot on the PP and does it much better, and players like Gagner, MPS, and Belanger either bring more to the table than their offense or have a more proven track record of providing the offense that Omark wasnt bringing.

But I guess poor little Omark didnt get a fair shake.

"I dont know the exact reasons Renney doesnt play him over others, but the same choice was made last season too. He wasnt trusted then and he isnt trusted now. " - your quote.

this is what i'm saying. it is not simply consistency that killed Omark here.

never have i said i am a big Omark supporter (not saying you said that but emphasing my point) and i am not tearied eyed in the least he his in AHL. we are winning that's what matters.

did he get a fair shake compared to others who have not contributed this season? this is my question? i think you answered that already in the paragraph i quoted.

Avatar
#59 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
November 02 2011, 10:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

Renney won't be tweaking the young line. He wants them to learn. They'd need to struggle mightily for more than two games for that to happen.

Keep in mind the PP won't have to worry about line matching. IF they keep producing there it won't matter.

You are likely to see 83 play with 89 and 91 on Tuesday.

Hey Gregor, is 83/89/91 something you are hearing from the team? Or just a hunch on your part?

Avatar
#60 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
November 02 2011, 10:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
WTF wrote:

Too funny to go to Flames nation and see the "blow it up" comments.

Have a feeling Feaster will do a retooling and not a rebuild like the Oilers are doing. He'll make a couple big deals and do in one yr what it's taken Tambellini 3 yrs to do to date.

If Feaster lands Turris in the next few weeks, you could see Iginla in a Capitals jersey for that first pick they got from Colorado for Varlomov. Kipper+ to Pheonix for their first selection. Jay could have the Flames retooled in one draft without the infinibuild mindset for the fans to swallow.It's Calgary that could hold two of the top five picks in next summers draft. Watch Feaster do what needs to be done if things don't change in a hurry 3 hrs south of here.

Avatar
#61 zenoil
November 02 2011, 10:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I have only one rule in hockey - trust the coach and give him heart and soul. That means you O'mark.

Avatar
#62 Hemmertime
November 02 2011, 10:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Next up, is Connor McJesus.

Ya, Feaster will make a move, likely move even more draft picks and youth for another 33 year old and call that success. The team will finish between 8-11 and they can flounder in mediocrity for a few years before falling to the bottom.

Avatar
#63 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
November 02 2011, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Apparently mine and OB1's argument with melancholyculkin has spurned him into writing an article at CnB. If you want to read an article that defends Omark and gives the false impression that he is as offensively capable as Hall and Eberle then here you go.

http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/11/1/2528166/linus-omark-shooting-percentage-and-the-illusion-of-validity

The team is finally winning and apparently Tom Renney is dead wrong to drop a player who cant understand his system or contribute on the PP. Okeedokee.

I wonder what the excuses are going to be when he's back in Europe sometime in the next 18 months or so.

Avatar
#64 D-Man
November 02 2011, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. wrote:

Have a feeling Feaster will do a retooling and not a rebuild like the Oilers are doing. He'll make a couple big deals and do in one yr what it's taken Tambellini 3 yrs to do to date.

If Feaster lands Turris in the next few weeks, you could see Iginla in a Capitals jersey for that first pick they got from Colorado for Varlomov. Kipper+ to Pheonix for their first selection. Jay could have the Flames retooled in one draft without the infinibuild mindset for the fans to swallow.It's Calgary that could hold two of the top five picks in next summers draft. Watch Feaster do what needs to be done if things don't change in a hurry 3 hrs south of here.

You seem to forget that any first round draft pick past #4/#5 overall - is a guess for making an impact in their first year... Turris would help the Flamers a bit down the middle, but if they deal Iginla and Kipper in one season - they're guaranteed a 30th place finish next year... They have no additional depth with scoring or goaltending...

Feaster's only chance is to take the Burke approach and attempt to 'rebuild' through UFA signings... He's got 11 UFA next year, of which many won't be resigned... I don't envy the work he has to do (inheriting Sutter's mess), but he won't build an immediate winner with 3 first round draft picks in the 2012 draft (especially if only 1 of them has the potential of being a top five pick)..

Avatar
#65 Archaeologuy
November 02 2011, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@mayorpoop

Well I think it is clear that Tom Renney would rather play others instead of Omark. I'm just not sure that it's a case of him being unfair so much as it is a case of him not having room for Omark on the big club to work out his issues.

I keep coming back to roles and players' success at those roles. Right now it seems like everybody has a role and knows what's expected of them. Omark was in a role where he needed to produce offensively because he was getting prime PP time, but it wasnt happening.

He wasnt alone, but for Omark that was his biggest objective from the coach, so failing to produce was a much bigger problem than say Lennart Petrell's failure to score.

My take on it.

Avatar
#66 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
November 02 2011, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
D-Man wrote:

You seem to forget that any first round draft pick past #4/#5 overall - is a guess for making an impact in their first year... Turris would help the Flamers a bit down the middle, but if they deal Iginla and Kipper in one season - they're guaranteed a 30th place finish next year... They have no additional depth with scoring or goaltending...

Feaster's only chance is to take the Burke approach and attempt to 'rebuild' through UFA signings... He's got 11 UFA next year, of which many won't be resigned... I don't envy the work he has to do (inheriting Sutter's mess), but he won't build an immediate winner with 3 first round draft picks in the 2012 draft (especially if only 1 of them has the potential of being a top five pick)..

I do respect what you've written but Feaster and Tambellini are two very different people. 11 UFA's next summer, what an opportunity to quickly burn the whole thing to the ground.

You have to admit there is the potential there for a second top five pick next summer with Iginla,Kipper,Bourque and Glencross available for the right price. A difficult 2012-2013 season would be certain but lets just see what one motivated GM can do. Over the next 9 months, watch Feaster be the GM we wish we had here in Edmonton. Feaster won't use the rebuild word once to disappoint the Flames fanbase and he'll use the Oilers goings on as his how not to do it example. Jay will sell it as a two yr reloading plan.

Avatar
#67 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 10:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Well I think it is clear that Tom Renney would rather play others instead of Omark. I'm just not sure that it's a case of him being unfair so much as it is a case of him not having room for Omark on the big club to work out his issues.

I keep coming back to roles and players' success at those roles. Right now it seems like everybody has a role and knows what's expected of them. Omark was in a role where he needed to produce offensively because he was getting prime PP time, but it wasnt happening.

He wasnt alone, but for Omark that was his biggest objective from the coach, so failing to produce was a much bigger problem than say Lennart Petrell's failure to score.

My take on it.

So what is your take on the fact that Gagner has been plugged into precisely the same role Omark was supposed to play and has had the same results?

Avatar
#68 Archaeologuy
November 02 2011, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

So what is your take on the fact that Gagner has been plugged into precisely the same role Omark was supposed to play and has had the same results?

Unlike Omark, Gagner actually registered a point this season, albeit only one.

To many people's eyes he has looked better with each passing game.

He is coming off of a high ankle sprain after just 4 weeks of rest for an injury that many say takes 6 weeks to heal.

He has a much longer track record of success in the NHL that can be traced back all the way to his draft pedigree and followed him until last season when he was the team's most productive C.

The same coach that has deemed Omark an AHL player 2 years running has likened Gagner to Doug Gilmour. So it stands to reason that Gagner has a little more rope than Omark.

Avatar
#69 Clarko
November 02 2011, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

I realize that Renney wants the kids to learn (we all do), but they can still learn if they are on separate lines.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing them play together, but I'm more concerned about Hemsky. The guy has been our best player for a few years now and has been frustrated by the lack of talent around him. Now that we have talent, we want to stick him on the third line with guys who have a combined 1 point in 16 games? I like Paajarvi and Gagner, and maybe Hemsky can get them jump started, but Hemsky is a clear 1st line player when healthy.

There are only so many minutes to go around. If the Horcoff and RNH lines take up the bulk, and then you have PK's where Hemsky doesn't play, how many minutes will that leave for the new 83-89-91 line?

Avatar
#72 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 11:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Archaeologuy

Unlike Omark, Gagner actually registered a point this season, albeit only one.

Right. That brilliant play where the puck accidentally touched his foot.

He is coming off of a high ankle sprain after just 4 weeks of rest for an injury that many say takes 6 weeks to heal.

Yet we hear repeatedly how Renney makes a big deal about testing players to ensure they are at full health and full fitness before he allows them to play.

He has a much longer track record of success in the NHL that can be traced back all the way to his draft pedigree and followed him until last season when he was the team's most productive C. The same coach that has deemed Omark an AHL player 2 years running has likened Gagner to Doug Gilmour. So it stands to reason that Gagner has a little more rope than Omark.

This is kind of the the issue isn't it? Gagner gets more rope. He can put up no results for weeks and it wont matter, yet in the same role Omark puts up no results in 5 games and he isn't good enough?

I don't have a problem with Gagner getting more rope, I have a problem with the conclusions made about Omark based purely on the fact that he isn't getting the same amount of rope.

I have a problem with saying Renney made the right choice because it was the choice Renney made.

Maybe, if Gagner isn't producing in the same role either, Omark isn't the problem...maybe other factors need to be examined.

Avatar
#73 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
November 02 2011, 11:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

I'm struggling to reply because I'm not really seeing you're point. Or at least why you decided to reply to my post.

So do you think that Omark should have drawn in for Jones? Or are you just nit picking my post? Or you just tired of all the love for Jones and all the hate for Omark?

Avatar
#74 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Max Powers - Team HME Evans wrote:

I'm struggling to reply because I'm not really seeing you're point. Or at least why you decided to reply to my post.

So do you think that Omark should have drawn in for Jones? Or are you just nit picking my post? Or you just tired of all the love for Jones and all the hate for Omark?

Let me reiterate:

This is like claiming Ringo Star was 1/4 of the reason for the Beatles' success. So far I have seen zero reason to believe that Omark couldn't or wouldn't be more successful than Jones given the same spot with the Smyth line.

I'm not sure how this is unclear unless you are too young to know about the Beatles.

Avatar
#75 Clarko
November 02 2011, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

To me, it doesn't make much sense either when one of your most gifted players offensively comes back and you put him on the 3rd line when you rank 26th in the league in offense.

As it currently sets up, Ryan Jones would be getting more minutes than Hemsky. That doesn't make any sense either. I just think you need to find minutes for a guy who can score a point a game. I'm not saying you need to break up the kid line, but it was just an idea.

Avatar
#76 Archaeologuy
November 02 2011, 12:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Gagner's point was on Cam Barker's goal. He made the pass to an open Barker who came in and made a nice move. Not a spectacular pass, but one that directly lead to the goal.

Being fit enough to pass a test and 100% health are not the same thing. He missed the end of last season, had surgery, played in an exhibition game, was out for a month, then came back into Regular season hockey. Are you suggesting that is a schedule that should have kept any rust off? As for the fitness test, it isnt a test for 100% health, it's to see if they can handle playing at a decent level.

There isnt any issue at all with spotting a vet who has an established level of play a few games after returning from such a long time away from hockey. He can put up very few points but still have the trust from the coach that the points will be there eventually.

I hardly think Omark has the same excuses as Gagner, but, even if you did eliminate all of the reasonable factors that go into a slow start from Gagner, then it certainly isnt proof that Omark has no blame for failing to produce.

Avatar
#77 Walter Sobchak
November 02 2011, 12:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. wrote:

I do respect what you've written but Feaster and Tambellini are two very different people. 11 UFA's next summer, what an opportunity to quickly burn the whole thing to the ground.

You have to admit there is the potential there for a second top five pick next summer with Iginla,Kipper,Bourque and Glencross available for the right price. A difficult 2012-2013 season would be certain but lets just see what one motivated GM can do. Over the next 9 months, watch Feaster be the GM we wish we had here in Edmonton. Feaster won't use the rebuild word once to disappoint the Flames fanbase and he'll use the Oilers goings on as his how not to do it example. Jay will sell it as a two yr reloading plan.

Some of the players you mentioned have no movement clauses. Feaster is in a world of hurt and his only 2 bargining chips have no trade clauses. Calagry has absolutly the worst prospect's in the NHL and a Turris trade would not help Calgary at all. It's easy to say trade these players but try moving a Jay Bo's contract. What UFA's would want to go there? How easy was it for the Oilers to get players here? They have to rebuild there whole orginization from AHL to NHL and thats not happening in 1 to 2 years.

Also-Even if Feaster doesnt sign any of his own UFA's he will have to go out and pick up contracts to bring his numbers (both for roster and cap) up, which adds time for the rebuild.

Avatar
#78 chowatt
November 02 2011, 12:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. wrote:

Have a feeling Feaster will do a retooling and not a rebuild like the Oilers are doing. He'll make a couple big deals and do in one yr what it's taken Tambellini 3 yrs to do to date.

If Feaster lands Turris in the next few weeks, you could see Iginla in a Capitals jersey for that first pick they got from Colorado for Varlomov. Kipper+ to Pheonix for their first selection. Jay could have the Flames retooled in one draft without the infinibuild mindset for the fans to swallow.It's Calgary that could hold two of the top five picks in next summers draft. Watch Feaster do what needs to be done if things don't change in a hurry 3 hrs south of here.

If Feaster can do this under the cap he would be my vote for GM of the year.

*Washington is a Cap team and can't absorb Iginla's salary.

*Pheonix is not going to take for Kipper+ unless the plus is a new owner.

*When was the last time a team traded a top 5 pick that they new was going to be a top 5 pick? But you are right, the way Calgary is going they could get a top 5 pick.

Avatar
#79 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 12:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Gagner's point was on Cam Barker's goal. He made the pass to an open Barker who came in and made a nice move. Not a spectacular pass, but one that directly lead to the goal.

Being fit enough to pass a test and 100% health are not the same thing. He missed the end of last season, had surgery, played in an exhibition game, was out for a month, then came back into Regular season hockey. Are you suggesting that is a schedule that should have kept any rust off? As for the fitness test, it isnt a test for 100% health, it's to see if they can handle playing at a decent level.

There isnt any issue at all with spotting a vet who has an established level of play a few games after returning from such a long time away from hockey. He can put up very few points but still have the trust from the coach that the points will be there eventually.

I hardly think Omark has the same excuses as Gagner, but, even if you did eliminate all of the reasonable factors that go into a slow start from Gagner, then it certainly isnt proof that Omark has no blame for failing to produce.

I hardly think Omark has the same excuses as Gagner, but, even if you did eliminate all of the reasonable factors that go into a slow start from Gagner, then it certainly isnt proof that Omark has no blame for failing to produce.

I already agreed that it's ok to give Gagner more rope. I did not say that this is proof Omark has no blame.

What I said was that maybe if Gagner is also not producing in the exact same role then maybe there is something else going on. It makes no sense to decide Omark is done for performing just like Gagner.

Avatar
#80 DieHard
November 02 2011, 12:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Hemsky, Omark and Gagner are trade potentials. All are top 6 players not bottom. All must be showcased but not all can play at once. Omark can be demoted (for now) but the others cannot. With the way the team is playing, Oilers had no choice. Hall, RNH, Eberle and PRV are 4 of our top 6 futures. I believe other GM's are sniffing around these guys and Tambo wants full value and has the advantage of not having to be in a hurry. Kudo's to the Org for not (yet) sending an NHL player away for "picks".

Avatar
#81 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
November 02 2011, 12:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Let me reiterate:

This is like claiming Ringo Star was 1/4 of the reason for the Beatles' success. So far I have seen zero reason to believe that Omark couldn't or wouldn't be more successful than Jones given the same spot with the Smyth line.

I'm not sure how this is unclear unless you are too young to know about the Beatles.

So what is your point? That Ryan Jones is the worst hockey player on that line? I agree completely.

"So far I have seen zero reason to believe that Omark couldn't or wouldn't be more successful than Jones given the same spot with the Smyth line."

Ok. But Tom Renney thinks Jones is a better fit on that line and I think the coach is a lot more in tune with the team than you are. That coach also thinks that Omark should be playing in OKC. So there's a bit of a rift there on where you stand and where the informed professional stands.

Avatar
#82 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
November 02 2011, 12:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Walter Sobchak

Its never been easier to trade a player with a no movement clause. It allows the player to call his own shot. Involved players would probably even welcome a chance to play on a playoff team, especially if he's getting on in years and hasn't won before.

They just have to worry about their NHL franchise first, their AHL affiliate is much less important than the parent clubs roster is. Spots on the Flames roster will be givin to kids much like they were here in Edmonton. Career AHL'ers are easy to find, Calgary should have no problem filling out that roster in Abbotsford.

Bouwmeester wouldn't be as difficult to move as some think. Just need to find a team scrambling to get to the cap floor in August.

Avatar
#83 Romanus
November 02 2011, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Maybe we should be relishing the fact that we actually have some depth rather than trying to trade it away. I think the depth situation has created competition for ice time, and has helped get some of the results we have had so far this year.

I prefer the situation where we need to send a guy like Omark down vs. the last couple of years where we basically filled roster spots with AHL players because we lacked depth. When the time comes for Omark to get a shot again, he will know he needs to make the most of it, as there are other guys competing for that spot.

I do realize we can't keep them all forever, but its still early and would rather get a better assessment over the year to see who fits longer term vs trading someone while his value is low.

Unless we truly believe that we are going to be a playoff team, why not wait until later when we can get more?

Avatar
#84 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
November 02 2011, 12:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
chowatt wrote:

If Feaster can do this under the cap he would be my vote for GM of the year.

*Washington is a Cap team and can't absorb Iginla's salary.

*Pheonix is not going to take for Kipper+ unless the plus is a new owner.

*When was the last time a team traded a top 5 pick that they new was going to be a top 5 pick? But you are right, the way Calgary is going they could get a top 5 pick.

Washington has 50 games worth of injuries that may begin to accumulate. Come the dealine the cap won't be an issue once the LTIR's are deducted. Caps will have more than enough room for a player due only 1.5-2 over the last quarter of the season.

The Coyotes still have to put fans in those seats, if they don't have anyone then who better than Kiprusoff if their No. 1 goes down. The NHL has to do as much as possible to pimp that franchise and make it look more attractive to a potential buyer. If the league has to kick in a few more dollars to help their cause they'd best do that.

Two top 5's would just be the bomb in a good draft next summer. Watch Feaster go out and do it instead of thinking about the speed bump or two in his path.

Avatar
#85 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Max Powers - Team HME Evans

I see. So I say I disagree with Renney and your response is that Renney disagrees with me? Thank you for the news flash.

Avatar
#86 Dennis
November 02 2011, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

they played together last year too and were on the same line the night 83 got three points at Mtl before he got hurt again.

this makes a lot of sense for the three line balance and also the fact of getting something offensively out of 91

Avatar
#87 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Next up, is Connor McJesus.

Let me make sure I have it right...Feaster will avoid rebuilding by dealing everyone away and collecting draft picks?

Avatar
#88 Archaeologuy
November 02 2011, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@DieHard

Agreed. I think the time for acquiring picks as the primary return for trades is over. Live bodies from here on out. Prospects are fine, but I suspect that when Tambellini gets offered a first his next question is "And?"

Avatar
#89 gord962
November 02 2011, 12:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Gagner has exactly the same amount of EV points as Omark does. Gagner needed to get away from Belanger and PRV to get a point on the PP. Perhaps Omark and Gagner are not the problem but it just might lie with Belanger and PRV not being offensively gifted?

Avatar
#90 Clarko
November 02 2011, 12:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Max Powers - Team HME Evans

So why do we have discussion boards if we should just all agree with the "informed professional". That is the great thing about sports...nobody is right all the time (including the coach). That is why we have a discussion about it.

Avatar
#91 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
November 02 2011, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Gagner's point was on Cam Barker's goal. He made the pass to an open Barker who came in and made a nice move. Not a spectacular pass, but one that directly lead to the goal.

Being fit enough to pass a test and 100% health are not the same thing. He missed the end of last season, had surgery, played in an exhibition game, was out for a month, then came back into Regular season hockey. Are you suggesting that is a schedule that should have kept any rust off? As for the fitness test, it isnt a test for 100% health, it's to see if they can handle playing at a decent level.

There isnt any issue at all with spotting a vet who has an established level of play a few games after returning from such a long time away from hockey. He can put up very few points but still have the trust from the coach that the points will be there eventually.

I hardly think Omark has the same excuses as Gagner, but, even if you did eliminate all of the reasonable factors that go into a slow start from Gagner, then it certainly isnt proof that Omark has no blame for failing to produce.

I think part of the issue is that people are thinking this decision is (and/or should be) based on 5 games.

It took injuries for Omark to make the team last year and from the Oil change show it was clear Omark was on the outside looking in starting this year.

Gagner had niether of those two hurdles.

Avatar
#92 EL PRESIDENTE
November 02 2011, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

How about trading L.Omark for K.Turris?

It would help us get a little bigger at centre and poop on Calgary's "secret" rebuild.

Or does this K.Turris kid want too much $$$?

Avatar
#93 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 12:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

I think part of the issue is that people are thinking this decision is (and/or should be) based on 5 games.

It took injuries for Omark to make the team last year and from the Oil change show it was clear Omark was on the outside looking in starting this year.

Gagner had niether of those two hurdles.

FFS read the conversation please.

Avatar
#94 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
November 02 2011, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Ok. So all I got from our back and forth here is that:

a) You disagree with my initial post, and b) You're a total dink

Right on. Thanks for the riveting discussion!

Edit: I see you edited your last post to exclude the demeaning comment

Avatar
#95 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
November 02 2011, 01:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Clarko

I was just trying to make a point.

Avatar
#96 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
November 02 2011, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Clarko wrote:

To me, it doesn't make much sense either when one of your most gifted players offensively comes back and you put him on the 3rd line when you rank 26th in the league in offense.

As it currently sets up, Ryan Jones would be getting more minutes than Hemsky. That doesn't make any sense either. I just think you need to find minutes for a guy who can score a point a game. I'm not saying you need to break up the kid line, but it was just an idea.

Pretty sure that 3rd line would get more minutes than your average 3rd line.

Hemsky will get his extra minutes on the PP.

Not sure why we have to put all our eggs in one basket. Try having 3 lines that you can roll with confidence will get us further.

Avatar
#97 SLURVE
November 02 2011, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Is it truly that difficult to believe that it isnt just his lack of offense that is keeping Omark out of the lineup?

I know I like to get all over Omark at every chance that I get, but I'm not making up his poor play at the Oiler end of the rink. He isnt very good.

I dont know the exact reasons Renney doesnt play him over others, but the same choice was made last season too. He wasnt trusted then and he isnt trusted now.

He is a replacement player in the NHL 2 years running despite being given an extended look at the NHL level (50+ games). RNH takes his spot on the PP and does it much better, and players like Gagner, MPS, and Belanger either bring more to the table than their offense or have a more proven track record of providing the offense that Omark wasnt bringing.

But I guess poor little Omark didnt get a fair shake.

I disagree with you. You are misjudging Omark by a country mile. When Hemsky was injured last year, Omark stepped up playing with MPS on the pp. A few critics proposed that the pp should center around Omark because of his ability to make plays and be creative. He was great playing on the half-boards.

My question is Gagner and Jones better than Omark on the defensive zone? No. Gagner can't win face offs and has problem in the defensive zone coverage. Jones has not contribute much except for his size. If Omark could add scoring and play on the second unit pp, then why not give him a shot. How bad a defensive liability can he be as compared to Jones and Gagner.

Move Gagner to wing with Horc and Smyth. Put Omark with MPS together on a line esp on the second unit pp. We could use more scoring now that our defensive play is working along with the goalies playing well.

Avatar
#98 KidsInTheHall!
November 02 2011, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
WTF wrote:

Too funny to go to Flames nation and see the "blow it up" comments.

It made my day to go over there and read the comments yeah. Their tears will fuel us!

Avatar
#99 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Max Powers - Team HME Evans wrote:

Ok. So all I got from our back and forth here is that:

a) You disagree with my initial post, and b) You're a total dink

Right on. Thanks for the riveting discussion!

Edit: I see you edited your last post to exclude the demeaning comment

Of course - after all comments like "So there's a bit of a rift there on where you stand and where the informed professional stands" are purely for informative purposes only and contain no intent at all right?

Which demeaning comment do you mean anyways? I erased some stuff I assumed would go over your head since you keep asking what my point is no matter how clearly I make it, but I don't even remember what was in there. I'm immersed in drafting a contract today and commenting in here every so often to rest my brain.

Avatar
#100 TigerUnderGlass
November 02 2011, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Max Powers - Team HME Evans wrote:

I was just trying to make a point.

That Renney agree with you so you mush be right? There is no other possible inference to get from that. That's not a point, it's a logical fallacy.

Comments are closed for this article.