Another Beauty On the Way

Lowetide
August 28 2011 10:34AM

Lost among all of the excitement over the electric foursome of Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi and Linus Omark, Teemu Hartikainen established himself as an outstanding prospect in 2010-11. Hartikainen displayed a wide range of skills, posted solid AHL numbers at age 20 and impressed when called to the show. How good is he?

There's nothing worth looking at here

Not true. Over the years, Edmonton's AHL teams have sent a lot of quality up the pipeline. It's true that their "pure skill" players like Michel Riesen and Rob Schremp haven't found the range at the NHL level, but Hartikainen has a nice range of skills and could be an actual NHL player down the line. The Oilers have shown an ability to develop that player type quite well.

Like who?

There are a few. Allow me to post Hartikainen's numbers at 20 years old and then add in a group of players who also arrived in the AHL at 20 with the organization. These players may not be ideal comparables, but do fit the "wide range of skills" we're looking for and have played at least some NHL games.

  • LW Teemu Hartikainen (10-11 Oklahoma City Barons). 66gp, 17-25-42 .636ppg Hartikainen is a big kid who can win battles and drive to the net (we saw a beauty example early in his NHL career) and he scored pretty well for the Barons. He doesn't have big time speed but brings some nice things to his game. His 42 points represents 17.5% of the Barons offense, which is a nice number.
  • C Jarret Stoll (02-03 Hamilton Bulldogs) 76gp, 21-33-54 .711ppg Although the PPG is higher and Stoll is a center, there are some good things about this comparable. Stoll played on a very strong team (this was a shared team with the Habs) so the number may be inflated a little. Also, footspeed was also an issue with Stoll and he's had a solid career (if sidelined some by concussion problems). His 54 points in 02-03 represents 20% of the Bulldog offense that season, and he's an interesting comp for Hartikainen.
  • LW Jason Chimera (99-00 Hamilton Bulldogs). 78gp, 15-13-28 .359ppg One of the things we need to factor in (without being able to) is playing time. Chimera played a full season but one doubts he was seeing a lot of PP opportunities. The speed issue is the other roadblock for this comp, but I think it's worth listing him here. Hartikainen was far superior to Chimera as a 20-year old rookie but Chimera's improvement was impressive over the following seasons and of course he's had an NHL career. His 28 points represent 12.8% of Bulldog offense.
  • RW Kyle Brodziak (04-05 Edmonton Roadrunners) 56gp, 6-26-32 .571 His AHL debut at 20 came on a very poor offensive team, and his 32 points reprsent 18.6% of the Roadrunner offense. His slow and steady rise through the organizational depth chart was given a huge boost when he arrived in TC fall 2007 in top condition and with an attitude that suggested he belonged. I hesitate to use him as a comp because his career path was unusual, but do believe that original team was so bad that Brodziak's offensive ability took some time (and a better team) to establish itself at the pro level.

I think the Stoll comp is the strongest, and we know that he has in fact been a top 6F for much of his NHL career. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Hartikainen could emerge as a legit top 6F on an NHL team.

 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

It could mean all kinds of things. It could force a move to center for Taylor Hall or Jordan Eberle or Magnus Paajarvi. It could mean Ryan Smyth doesn't get a contract next summer, it could mean Ales Hemsky is dealt sooner than later and it could mean that someone steals Linus Omark before the Oilers discover how good he is.

However, I don't think there's much bad news about Teemu Hartikainen. If he is sent to Okla City this fall and continues to rip it up, the Oilers hand will be forced.

The AHL team that produced Linus Omark and Jeff Petry a year ago is ready to offload another gem.

C2a6955161684b5e3189319acfa5ebe4
Lowetide has been one of the Oilogosphere's shining lights for over a century. You can check him out here at OilersNation and at lowetide.ca. He is also the host of Lowdown with Lowetide weekday mornings 10-noon on TSN 1260.
Avatar
#52 cr_
August 28 2011, 06:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Oh joy! Yet another young stud to get all excited about. As Oiler fans are you guys not yet getting tired of hearing about how bright your future will be? I thought Canadian hockey fans were supposed to be intelligent. How can you keep drinking the force fed crap the Oilers are making you endure. By the time this team is close to actually competing with the upper echelon of the Nhl all of your stud youngsters will be on big ticket contracts and nobody decent to play with. Lowe and his puppet have proven to be completely inept at filling out a roster with decent nhl players. So as a Flames fan i am going to enjoy watching your team struggle yet again, while Oiler fans attempt to feed me the same crap that Oiler management is feeding them. You have some great young players but your team still sucks just as much as your city. Enjoy yet another race to the draft lottery.

Avatar
#53 justDOit
August 28 2011, 06:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@cr_

A flambe fan dissin us about management? ROFLMAOAPMGO!

You might want to read through ALL the comments on this article, especially where I pointed out the flambes losing St. Louis and Savard for NOTHING! And then there's all those prospects you guys have on your farm team...

Thanks for that - this chuckle will keep me going through a tough week at work.

Avatar
#54 justDOit
August 28 2011, 06:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Datsyuk's defensive awareness and shooting percentage in his 1st year were head and shoulders above Omark, who couldnt even make the worst team in the league out of camp due to his inability to grasp Renney's system.

How much do you want to lay on the line that Omark will have a Datsyukian career? Pick a dollar amount, I'm game.

Datsyuk is one the league's very best players. He is an exceedingly poor comparable for Omark.

Agreed that Datsyuk is a bad comparable for Omark, but the reason Omark was sent down had more to do with numbers, waiver eligibility and contracts.

I'm glad that you're bracing yourself for Omark to make you look bad, because that is exaclty what's going to happen - unless he makes me look bad. And I usually don't need any help with that!

Avatar
#56 SS
August 28 2011, 06:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
cr_ wrote:

Oh joy! Yet another young stud to get all excited about. As Oiler fans are you guys not yet getting tired of hearing about how bright your future will be? I thought Canadian hockey fans were supposed to be intelligent. How can you keep drinking the force fed crap the Oilers are making you endure. By the time this team is close to actually competing with the upper echelon of the Nhl all of your stud youngsters will be on big ticket contracts and nobody decent to play with. Lowe and his puppet have proven to be completely inept at filling out a roster with decent nhl players. So as a Flames fan i am going to enjoy watching your team struggle yet again, while Oiler fans attempt to feed me the same crap that Oiler management is feeding them. You have some great young players but your team still sucks just as much as your city. Enjoy yet another race to the draft lottery.

... and we Oiler fans will watch Calgary secure another 9th place finish ... just out of the playoffs ... and the worst draft position of all the bottom feeders. Congrats on that Flames fan!

Avatar
#57 Jaime
August 28 2011, 06:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

Obvious troll is obvious.

Avatar
#58 Matt Henderson
August 28 2011, 06:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@justDOit

Oh, my being in the opposite corner almost guarantees Omark an MVP season. I do recall several mentions about Omark having a tough time picking up what Renney was puting down during training camp. Here's an example:

http://oilersnation.com/2010/9/18/training-camp-day-two

I also normaly dont need anyone making me look like a fool. I'm generally pretty good at doing it myself.

Avatar
#59 TigerUnderGlass
August 28 2011, 06:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Datsyuk's defensive awareness and shooting percentage in his 1st year were head and shoulders above Omark, who couldnt even make the worst team in the league out of camp due to his inability to grasp Renney's system.

How much do you want to lay on the line that Omark will have a Datsyukian career? Pick a dollar amount, I'm game.

Datsyuk is one the league's very best players. He is an exceedingly poor comparable for Omark.

Absolutely none of that addresses the point at hand. When you are done brushing off the remnants of your newly formed mushroom cloud of straw perhaps you could address my questions.

It has nothing to do with whether or not he is a comparable and you know it. Are we seriously at the point now where I can't compare their rookie seasons without some unspoken implication of a sweeping comparison of every aspect of their game?

Comparing their rookie seasons does not mean that I believe Omark is as good as Datsyuk. Is that clear? Can we get that out of the way now?

It is as I said in my first response to you - every knock you made against Omark applied as well to Datsyuk, yet here you are defending his rookie season, and Omark's similar rookie season (unless it now your sincere belief that Omark is going to remain a 6.6% shooter) is just barely deserving of a second look.

One last attempt at clarity:

Datsyuk very obviously grew a lot after his 23 year old rookie season, which was not significantly better than Omark's rookie season. Can we not take this to mean that Omark may too grow after his 23 year old rookie season?

Sometimes I feel anger toward whoever started making "comparables" fashionable. Suddenly you can't compare any little similarity without someone pointing out completely unrelated flaws in your supposed "comparable."

I'm waiting for next week when someone tells me that Gretzky is a bad comparable for Horcoff after I mention that they both played Center for the Oilers.

Avatar
#60 TigerUnderGlass
August 28 2011, 06:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

I also normaly dont need anyone making me look like a fool. I'm generally pretty good at doing it myself.

Not as good as me.

As proof, here I am arguing with you - knowing that you are mostly messing with me - instead of working on the pile of work sitting in front of me on my desk on a Sunday evening.

Why do I do this to myself?

Avatar
#61 justDOit
August 28 2011, 07:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

I knew we could find common ground. Did milk shoot out your nose too, when you read cr's comments? Hilarious, and a bit weird, because I wasn't DRINKING milk!

Interesting points from last year's camp. Also from that blog:

"It is only one day, but Linus Omark looked pretty good. Everything he shot seemed to go in, and it was funny to see how often he was deking the goalies." (feel free to school me on how html italics work)

So I would say go with the guy who has the skill - the system can be taught. I mean, we're talking about a guy in his FIRST NHL camp! I don't care if he's played pro hockey before, he hasn't been close to this kind of competition. Plus, he's not working in his primary language.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on NHL scouting, but seriously - watching him from his call-up onwards, he made tremendous strides in his game. Keep in mind, his game is not defence, and I don't want him playing defence. I want him cheating up ice and making the other team worried. Because if he gets a chance, it's in the net. There can be no better defence than playing in the other team's end, and if Omark is being a liability, then he's not being used or supported properly.

Avatar
#62 justDOit
August 28 2011, 07:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

that's exactly what I'm doing too.

Avatar
#63 justDOit
August 28 2011, 07:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@cr_

once again, thanks!

Avatar
#64 justDOit
August 28 2011, 07:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

More from the blog you quoted:

"(Renny speaking on Omark) He is a case in point to the interpretation of what I'm giving the players might be lost a little bit in translation, because he was the first forechecker on just about every drill and that wasn't necessarily his need, but we like him."

So those comments from Renny say that language might have been an issue. But they also suggest that Omark was trying too hard to play defence, and that Renny doesn't want him to do that.

He was more a victim of numbers/waivers. And to think we kept Reddox over Omark. Ugg.

Avatar
#65 Shapeman
August 28 2011, 07:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Datsyuk's defensive awareness and shooting percentage in his 1st year were head and shoulders above Omark, who couldnt even make the worst team in the league out of camp due to his inability to grasp Renney's system.

How much do you want to lay on the line that Omark will have a Datsyukian career? Pick a dollar amount, I'm game.

Datsyuk is one the league's very best players. He is an exceedingly poor comparable for Omark.

What he said =P

Avatar
#66 Shapeman
August 28 2011, 07:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

But I do believe Omark will still be the 3rd line winger on this team. I'm not expecting him to be a world beater and and be disappointed if only puts up 40 something points. For me that would be reasonable after how he played in his relatively brief stint. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying but both of these players were drafted in later rounds so having NHL careers should be beyond expectations for all of us.

Avatar
#67 Matt Henderson
August 28 2011, 08:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

I just pointed out 2 ways in which he was not comparable. Datsyuk was measurably twice the shooter that Omark was and his defensive abilities are uncontested.

Other than offense and defense I cant think of other ways in which they are un-alike that matter. So I guess thats it for me.

Avatar
#68 The Beaker
August 28 2011, 09:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

This is not necessarily meant as a defense of Omark but theoretically dont spikes in shooting %'s normally even out to career averages? Omark was on a severe downward spike last year when called up. (I'm sure there are many contributing factors)

Maybe that means hes not as cut out for the big leagues as some think. Maybe that means he really is going to be better than others give him credit for.*

*= in that area of his game.

Avatar
#69 Matt Henderson
August 28 2011, 09:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@The Beaker

I'm sure his average will climb, but until it actually does it is important to note that it is ONLY a guess.

Avatar
#70 speeds
August 28 2011, 09:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

I'm sure his average will climb, but until it actually does it is important to note that it is ONLY a guess.

There's always uncertainty with projection.

That said, Omark shot 6.6% in the NHL this season, but he shot 19.4% in the AHL. He was, according to this Willis article, a 19% shooter in 09/10.

http://oilersnation.com/2011/3/6/is-omark-worth-keeping.

Avatar
#71 CanaDave
August 28 2011, 11:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I like that the Oilers brought in Eager and Hordichuk to presumably take the roster spot that many in Oilers Nation had penciled Harski into at the end of last season. I have no problem with a player having to earn his way onto the team in training camp as opposed to getting it based on acclimation, and I don't think a 15 game sample at the end of the season was enough to conclusively say that he 100% deserved to be on the team this fall. If he comes into camp and blows everyone away with his performance and forces his way onto the team, I'd consider that a good problem to have.

As far as the Omark discussions that have come up in this thread, anyone is trade-able in my opinion and if moving him brought this team a top end defenseman back then I think it would be foolish not to entertain the idea. As long as the trade isn't Miro Satan bad and benefits the Oilers in the short and long term then I'll take tangible assets that fit the teams long term plan over potential any day.

Avatar
#72 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 01:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

I just pointed out 2 ways in which he was not comparable. Datsyuk was measurably twice the shooter that Omark was and his defensive abilities are uncontested.

Other than offense and defense I cant think of other ways in which they are un-alike that matter. So I guess thats it for me.

Fine - Since you are going to ignore my point and insist on the comparison:

IIRC Datsyuk played most of his rookie season with Hull and Devereaux - His +4 to Hull's +18 and Devereaux's +9 does not really suggest he was a defensive wizard just yet. Hull also had 63 points that year - Omark didn't get anything like Hull to play with as far as I know.

Datsyuk did nothing as a rookie to suggest he was going to be anything special defensively. I have no idea why you are claiming otherwise. It's also worth noting his softer minutes on a deep team helped him in this regard tremendously.

Interestingly, in their 22 year old Russian seasons both put up identical points per game of .64, and Omark had a higher goal scoring rate of .36/Game to Datsyuk's .24/Game.

Imagine how many shots Omark must have had to take to score that many more goals with his obviously inferior shot. It's funny how coming into the NHL Omark had a better track record offensively than Datsyuk, yet 50 games later you consider it inconceivable that he could put up similar offensive numbers.

The biggest difference in their rookie seasons was that Omark ended up getting thrown into the deep end while Datsyuk had a nice cushy introduction to the NHL.

Now if I may go back to the actual point - if Datsyuk can grow after the age of 23 why can't Omark? Was Datsyuk's rookie season also fake? Was he a finished product?

The comparison of their rookie seasons was drawn to make the simple point that he likely has plenty of room for improvement - you can chase the straw man that Datsyuk is better all day but it doesn't address my point. It just gets me to post long winded and unnecessary comments which I shouldn't be taking the time to write tonight.

Avatar
#73 Dman09
August 29 2011, 09:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
SS wrote:

... and we Oiler fans will watch Calgary secure another 9th place finish ... just out of the playoffs ... and the worst draft position of all the bottom feeders. Congrats on that Flames fan!

Not to mention half the teams retires and they have no prospects that are worth bringing up.

Avatar
#74 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 10:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Ok, here's the thing. I dont think that trotting out one of the very best, top 5%, NHLers is the way to make the point that "he likely has plenty of room for improvement."

The scenario you describe and the comparison you make is to the exception not the rule. It would be like me saying that Stamkos had a good but not spectacular rookie season so therefore it's likely that Hall will go supernova in his sophomore year too.

Sure, it's possible, but I wouldnt use the word "likely" as you do with Omark. It isnt likely at all. I will fully admit the possibility exists, but I disagree with the notion that it is likely.

Comparing Omark to Datsyuk and saying that it's likely he has plenty of growth is no different than assuming that the waitress from Iowa who moves to Hollywood is likely to become a movie star. We're talking about a scenario that happens infrequently. Likely is not the word I would use.

Avatar
#75 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 29 2011, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

For me, Omarks rookie season was fine. I just don't see him having much upside from here.

While Hall/Eberle/MPS all have decent chances of doubling their point totals from last year withen the next couple of years (points not PPG) I don't think Omark really has that much room to grow (PPG wise).

Now 40 - 50 points in a secondary scoring role is pretty decent, and would probably scratch him self out a nice career with those numbers, I wouldn't lump him in with the others.

Avatar
#76 D-Man
August 29 2011, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

For me, Omarks rookie season was fine. I just don't see him having much upside from here.

While Hall/Eberle/MPS all have decent chances of doubling their point totals from last year withen the next couple of years (points not PPG) I don't think Omark really has that much room to grow (PPG wise).

Now 40 - 50 points in a secondary scoring role is pretty decent, and would probably scratch him self out a nice career with those numbers, I wouldn't lump him in with the others.

I won't be surprised if Omark is around this year... Don't get me wrong - he did have a fine rookie season, but I just can't find a spot for him on our roster... On the right side, we'll have Hemsky and Eberle eating up top 6 minutes, with Hall/Smyth/MPS on the left wing... Omark isn't a better center than Gagner or Horcoff, meaning he's slotting into a 3rd or 4th line checking role... As tenacious as Omark is along the boards or with the puck - he doesn't have the foot speed to be an effective forechecker... He's also too small to fit that role and isn't a physical presence on the ice... Omark also has the option of going back to Europe to play should he not make the big club...

As talented as Omark is, he doesn't fit into the role we need him to play. He isn't better than any of the other wingers I've mentioned earlier; I won't be shocked if Tambo trades him for prospects or draft picks...

Avatar
#77 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Ok, here's the thing. I dont think that trotting out one of the very best, top 5%, NHLers is the way to make the point that "he likely has plenty of room for improvement."

The scenario you describe and the comparison you make is to the exception not the rule. It would be like me saying that Stamkos had a good but not spectacular rookie season so therefore it's likely that Hall will go supernova in his sophomore year too.

Sure, it's possible, but I wouldnt use the word "likely" as you do with Omark. It isnt likely at all. I will fully admit the possibility exists, but I disagree with the notion that it is likely.

Comparing Omark to Datsyuk and saying that it's likely he has plenty of growth is no different than assuming that the waitress from Iowa who moves to Hollywood is likely to become a movie star. We're talking about a scenario that happens infrequently. Likely is not the word I would use.

Only if you assume that "will definitely become Datsyuk" follows from "plenty of room for improvement." It doesn't. I didn't say that he will improve to Datyuk type levels, just that he will improve and that there is room for the possibility of quite a bit of improvement.

To fix your example of Hall - "Stamkos had a good but not spectacular rookie season but improved tremendously afterwards, so therefore it's likely that Hall also has a very good chance to improve."

See how I didn't mention that he will put up the same numbers Stamkos did? Do you know why I didn't mention that? Because it doesn't follow and is no part of the claim.

In the case at hand, "likely" doesn't mean "likely to become Datsyuk," it means "likely to improve."

This is why I said "room for improvement" instead of "will progress exactly like Datsyuk."

Based on your logic in considering Omark expendable Datsyuk too would have been highly expendable to Detroit after his rookie season. It would have been a mistake to trade him.

Now we have a player the same age as Datsyuk was with better offensive credentials than Datsyk had and has put up a remarkably comparable rookie season after a remarkably comparable 22 year old season in Russia.

Should he really be expendable?

Now leave those straw men alone for a while. I am working on my CPLED assignment and can't spend any more time compulsively responding to your comments.

Avatar
#78 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

For me, Omarks rookie season was fine. I just don't see him having much upside from here.

While Hall/Eberle/MPS all have decent chances of doubling their point totals from last year withen the next couple of years (points not PPG) I don't think Omark really has that much room to grow (PPG wise).

Now 40 - 50 points in a secondary scoring role is pretty decent, and would probably scratch him self out a nice career with those numbers, I wouldn't lump him in with the others.

He was tied for 4th on the team in EV scoring per 60 minutes with Hall.

His shooting percentage is all that kept it from being higher, and it is not staying at 6.6%.

He was second to Hemsky in first assists per 60, meaning that his passes are creating goals. This was done with linemates who were not exactly sniping.

I cannot understand why so many people just assume he has maxed out after 51 games in the league.

Avatar
#79 albertabeef
August 29 2011, 01:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
cr_ wrote:

Oh joy! Yet another young stud to get all excited about. As Oiler fans are you guys not yet getting tired of hearing about how bright your future will be? I thought Canadian hockey fans were supposed to be intelligent. How can you keep drinking the force fed crap the Oilers are making you endure. By the time this team is close to actually competing with the upper echelon of the Nhl all of your stud youngsters will be on big ticket contracts and nobody decent to play with. Lowe and his puppet have proven to be completely inept at filling out a roster with decent nhl players. So as a Flames fan i am going to enjoy watching your team struggle yet again, while Oiler fans attempt to feed me the same crap that Oiler management is feeding them. You have some great young players but your team still sucks just as much as your city. Enjoy yet another race to the draft lottery.

to quote the famous philosopher, Bugs Bunny " what a maroon"

Avatar
#80 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 29 2011, 01:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

He was tied for 4th on the team in EV scoring per 60 minutes with Hall.

His shooting percentage is all that kept it from being higher, and it is not staying at 6.6%.

He was second to Hemsky in first assists per 60, meaning that his passes are creating goals. This was done with linemates who were not exactly sniping.

I cannot understand why so many people just assume he has maxed out after 51 games in the league.

I don't think he's maxed out, but I think he's close.

ie on a PPG pace metrix I would guesstimate the following up side potential from last year:

Hall 75%

Eberle 50%

MPS 65%

Omark 20%

It's obviously just a guess, but I'd base that off age, experience, typical athletic progression and my eye balls.

Avatar
#81 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

"Based on your logic in considering Omark expendable Datsyuk too would have been highly expendable to Detroit after his rookie season. It would have been a mistake to trade him."

How is that based on my logic? Based on my logic it might have been foolhardy to EXPECT Datsyuk to improve so greatly, but he was hardly expendable.

Simply looking at that 2001-2002 Redwing team shows you exactly why Datsyuk wasnt expendable. Look at the names who outscored him. Larionov, Chelios, Shanahan, Hull, Robitaille, Fedorov, Yzerman, and Lidstrom. Only Lidstrom is still around. They didnt have any long term potentials to remain top 6 forwards. Why would Datsyuk be expendable?

Now look at the Oilers. Hall, Eberle, MPS, RNH, Gagner, and Hemsky could all play another 10 years for the Oilers if the contracts could be worked out.

Omark is expendable, especially if he can net a decent defenseman or Goalie in a trade.

Avatar
#82 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 02:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

I don't think he's maxed out, but I think he's close.

ie on a PPG pace metrix I would guesstimate the following up side potential from last year:

Hall 75%

Eberle 50%

MPS 65%

Omark 20%

It's obviously just a guess, but I'd base that off age, experience, typical athletic progression and my eye balls.

Those numbers are beautifully arbitrary.

Avatar
#83 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 02:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Those numbers are beautifully arbitrary.

Just like the idea that he will get better

Avatar
#84 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 02:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

"Based on your logic in considering Omark expendable Datsyuk too would have been highly expendable to Detroit after his rookie season. It would have been a mistake to trade him."

How is that based on my logic? Based on my logic it might have been foolhardy to EXPECT Datsyuk to improve so greatly, but he was hardly expendable.

Simply looking at that 2001-2002 Redwing team shows you exactly why Datsyuk wasnt expendable. Look at the names who outscored him. Larionov, Chelios, Shanahan, Hull, Robitaille, Fedorov, Yzerman, and Lidstrom. Only Lidstrom is still around. They didnt have any long term potentials to remain top 6 forwards. Why would Datsyuk be expendable?

Now look at the Oilers. Hall, Eberle, MPS, RNH, Gagner, and Hemsky could all play another 10 years for the Oilers if the contracts could be worked out.

Omark is expendable, especially if he can net a decent defenseman or Goalie in a trade.

I see. So if Datsyuk was a rookie for Edmonton last season he would have been expendable.

Avatar
#85 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Just like the idea that he will get better

Really? Is it really such a long shot to predict that he will be a better player than he was last season? There is every reason to believe he will improve because nearly every player to ever have a decent career became better than they were as a rookie. The only question is how much.

There is zero reason to believe in randomly chosen numbers based on nothing.

Is it really arbitrary to claim that a player who has been a sniper everywhere except for 51 NHL games last year will improve from 6.6% shooting?

Avatar
#86 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

If he was, like Omark, a player that couldnt make the team until injuries hit and had serious problems defensively, he would have been seen as that going into this coming season. He would be playing behind superior talent that was younger and with better pedigree. Any player who has an Omarkian season and is buried on the depth chart behind younger more promising players is likely going to be seen as a spare part.

It's ok, TUG, Omark has a whole season to show off his stuff. Unless of course the Oilers can get someone who will actually help them win long term.

Avatar
#87 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 29 2011, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Those numbers are beautifully arbitrary.

Yes they are, which is why I made sure to point out twice that it's just a guess.

With that said, I don't think it's that far fetched to say the oldest, with the most pro experience who also is the smallest and probably the slowest in the group, probably has the least upside from here.

Avatar
#88 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 03:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Yes they are, which is why I made sure to point out twice that it's just a guess.

With that said, I don't think it's that far fetched to say the oldest, with the most pro experience who also is the smallest and probably the slowest in the group, probably has the least upside from here.

Oh I don't deny your awareness, I was just soaking it in.

Avatar
#89 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 03:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

a player that couldnt make the team until injuries hit

I hate it when you go to this because you may be the only person alive who believes it.

Avatar
#90 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 29 2011, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Oh I don't deny your awareness, I was just soaking it in.

So do you think it's resonable to believe that the oldest/smallest/slowest/most experienced likely has the least room to improve?

Avatar
#91 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 03:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
a player that couldnt make the team until injuries hit

I hate it when you go to this because you may be the only person alive who believes it.

Yeah, I hate believing in things that are FACTUAL.

Did he make the worst team in the league out of camp? No.

Did he only get recalled after injuries? Yes.

Was he a defensive nightmare? Yes

Was he on pace for double digits in the Goals category? No

Facts, people. Facts.

Avatar
#92 TigerUnderGlass
August 29 2011, 04:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Yeah, I hate believing in things that are FACTUAL.

Did he make the worst team in the league out of camp? No.

Did he only get recalled after injuries? Yes.

Was he a defensive nightmare? Yes

Was he on pace for double digits in the Goals category? No

Facts, people. Facts.

How can you possibly claim to know why he was demoted as fact? It's absurd.

Here, I'll play.

Fact - Everyone with a forum to air predictions predicted that regardless of performance he would be demoted due to contract considerations.

Fact - He was demoted.

You're right....logical fallacies are fun.

Avatar
#93 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 05:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

In the statement you quoted I never mentioned the reason why he didnt make the club. I just said that he couldn't, which is true.

For someone who complains about strawmen you sure don't have a problem taking a run at a few yourself.

Avatar
#95 Matt Henderson
August 29 2011, 08:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Lowetide wrote:

I think we'll know a lot more about Omark this time next season. Here's hoping he's an Oiler by then.

I think that the only way he is an Oiler this time next year is if he can prove to be an impact player. So while it isnt my prediction, I also hope that under those conditions he is here this time next year.

Comments are closed for this article.