Linus Omark Recalled

Jonathan Willis
November 06 2013 08:01AM

 

So. That happened.

It feels like it's been a long time coming, but the Oilers have decided to call-up Linus Omark.

The Lineup

The interesting item here (or at least one of them) is the timing. Ryan Smyth played last night, which went some distance toward neutralizing the Oilers' need for a left wing. Here's what the forward lines looked like against Florida:

  • Hemsky - Nugent-Hopkins - Eberle
  • Smyth - Gagner - Yakupov
  • Jones - Gordon - Arcobello
  • Gazdic - Acton - Eager

Where does Omark fit in that group, and who comes out for him?

The first task is to find him a spot in the top-nine, and that seems pretty straight-forward even if we assume no injury. The fourth line struggled badly last night, and I'd guess that Ben Eager rotates out and Ryan Jones moves down to right wing. Smyth gets bumped down to the third line with Gordon and Arcobello, and Omark slots in with Gagner and Yakupov on an all-offence line.

There are other ways to do it, but there seems at least to be a spot for him in the rotation.

The window for Omark to make an impression is narrow here: Taylor Hall and Jesse Joensuu and David Perron are all out of the lineup with injury, and if even one or two of them get back and Omark hasn't done much he'll be on his way back to the farm.

More to Come?

Rumour has it the Oilers and the New York Rangers have been talking trade, with the Rangers in bad need of a skilled winger. Could it be that there's a trade in place for one of the Oilers' wings? 

Because that's certainly one way to read this recall. If an Ales Hemsky (or maybe even Nail Yakupov) is heading out of town, there's suddenly a slot on a skill line that needs filling and Omark's the only really viable candidate for the role. 

Maybe there's nothing more to this than the coach being unhappy with his lines and deciding those guys from the farm did such a nice job injecting some scoring into the lineup that it makes sense to add one more. But it's certainly possible that there's another shoe left to drop.

Recently by Jonathan Willis

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#51 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:09AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

This is a completely valid point. Age is a very good indicator of true talent. That's why you don't evaluate "rookies" (for example) when one is 18 and the other is 24 (unless you are giving away meaningless awards).

Age is a great caveat to this conversation. As are birth month and things like lockouts.

All that said, we need to add even more caveats and ask why you are making the four month difference in age between the two do so much work here? It makes your analysis sketchy at best and certainly clouds the value of it.

A couple of factual questions for you: what counts as a player's "age year" for you?

Why not simply use "draft year +"?

Generally speaking, although there are certainly exceptions, the physical maturation of young men changes drastically from the age of 18 to 20.

Often, observers of the draft miss the obvious that one player taken may be almost a year older than another and then are amazed when the younger player takes a major step forward.

While "draft year +" makes it easier to compare players, it lacks the age context.

In any event, Yakupov played 70 professional hockey games last season and, while he performed quite well, much of his production came in garbage time and against teams that were already comfortably in the playoffs.

Using your "draft year +" approach even with the caveat that Yakupov is older than Stamkos in the year, the comparative production looks pretty dreadful for Yakupov.

Now, some of that difference may be team effects but it's worth noting that Stamkos posted his numbers on a team that finished 25th overall that season but Stamkos managed to finish 4th in league scoring with 95 points and led his team in scoring.

I don't think there is any danger than Yakupov will do any of those things.

Avatar
#52 oilerjed
November 06 2013, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
DSF wrote:

Generally speaking, although there are certainly exceptions, the physical maturation of young men changes drastically from the age of 18 to 20.

Often, observers of the draft miss the obvious that one player taken may be almost a year older than another and then are amazed when the younger player takes a major step forward.

While "draft year +" makes it easier to compare players, it lacks the age context.

In any event, Yakupov played 70 professional hockey games last season and, while he performed quite well, much of his production came in garbage time and against teams that were already comfortably in the playoffs.

Using your "draft year +" approach even with the caveat that Yakupov is older than Stamkos in the year, the comparative production looks pretty dreadful for Yakupov.

Now, some of that difference may be team effects but it's worth noting that Stamkos posted his numbers on a team that finished 25th overall that season but Stamkos managed to finish 4th in league scoring with 95 points and led his team in scoring.

I don't think there is any danger than Yakupov will do any of those things.

Is it not also important to note who each player was playing on a line with?

Avatar
#53 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 06 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Generally speaking, although there are certainly exceptions, the physical maturation of young men changes drastically from the age of 18 to 20.

Agreed complete. Said as much. However, your mark of which year of play to count as which age year is in question here.

Often, observers of the draft miss the obvious that one player taken may be almost a year older than another and then are amazed when the younger player takes a major step forward. While "draft year +" makes it easier to compare players, it lacks the age context.

Completely agreed. I mentioned it even.

One of the reasons Barkov (September 2, 1995 (age 18) was given such a big lead on Monahan last year (October 12, 1994 (age 19)… nearly a full year older.

Teams are getting smarter on this score… but still ignore its effects to their peril.

In any event, Yakupov played 70 professional hockey games last season and, while he performed quite well, much of his production came in garbage time and against teams that were already comfortably in the playoffs.

His KHL scoring is an interesting note. It certainly bolsters his Pro performance.

The "garbage time" doesn't apply to most his pro year and is certainly a wash if you are comparing it to Stamkos' 08-09 Lightning.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?season=20082009&type=LEA

I have no idea what you think this caveat accomplishes, esp. vs. Stamkos.

Using your "draft year +" approach even with the caveat that Yakupov is older than Stamkos in the year, the comparative production looks pretty dreadful for Yakupov.

You haven't explained how 4 months makes the comparison dreadful. But if we look at draft +2 year, there is no way to cover for Yakupov. He's had a dreadful year and by this point Stamkos was rolling. No argument there.

Only to note that Yakupov's career is still very young.

I also agree. the chance that Yak's sophomore will come anywhere near Stamkos' is pure fantasy.

Avatar
#54 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 06 2013, 11:48AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
DSF wrote:

Hint.

Stamkos was drafted in 2008.

In 2009/10 one year after being drafted he scored 51G 44A 95P.

Unless you are calling rookie seasons Draft Year +1.

Yes. rookie season = "draft year +1"

07-08 (draft eligible junior season = "draft year")

08-09 (rookie NHL season = "draft year +1")

09-10 (sophomore NHL season = "draft year +2)

etc.

Avatar
#55 2004Z06
November 06 2013, 02:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

@David S

On most of your points, I would agree with your comments albeit one.

It has been mentioned many times that in order to change the make up of the top six, you may have to move out a point producer in exchange for a player that may not necessarily produce the points on par, but brings more of what the team needs overall ie. grit, defensive responsibility, size, puck possession, face off% etc.

I agree that teams are not eager to trade these types of players hence the comment about using Gagner in a package to get the return.

You are correct in the fact that every GM knows what we need, but there are many teams out there that have size and are lacking scoring. Sam could be well insulated on a team like that as the size of his linemates would not only protect him against the Kassians of the world but would allow him more time and space as well as cover up for some of his defensive short comings.

Avatar
#56 Joy S. Lee
November 06 2013, 05:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
David S wrote:

Unfortunately that was the stat that got Sam a new contract and would be the evaluation point for the rest of the league too. That and his outstanding PK and PP play.

He may not fit into your definition of success because he doesn't punch faces much or deliver crushing body checks, but Sam is a pretty valuable player because (healthy) he helps a team put up W's by contributing the things team success is determined by in the standings - G's and A's.

He helps a team put up W's? Um, hate to break it to you, but Sam's lifetime NHL record would pretty much suck about as bad as you'll find. Not all his fault, but THAT is a FACT....even more factual than his fictional 65-point season. When Sam starts dominating, let me know. Great attitude helps, but does not guarantee wins, quite the opposite.

Of all the guys on the Oilers we allow excuses for, who on the team is perhaps the weakest defensively? Would Sam be amongst that group? If so, this is what, season 7 for him? I think he's had time to figure it out. That doesn't sound very promising.

And, I hope I'm wrong.....but don't think I am.

Avatar
#57 Taylor Gang
November 06 2013, 06:51PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
DSF wrote:

Stamkos posted those numbers as an 18 year old...Yakupov is 20.

When Stamkos was 19, he scored 51G 44A 95P

When Stamkos was 20, he scored 45G 46A 91P

Also worth noting, Nail Yakupov has the worst plus/minus in the NHL at -13.

Treating someone's ascent to stardom as a linear one is folly. When Crosby and Ovechkin came into the league, most people claimed Ovechkin was the better of the two. Nowadays, it's Crosby, and it's not close.

You're splitting hairs to say that Yakupov is behind in his development just because Stamkos progressed differently. Bottom line: Yakupov broke Stamkos' records for Sarnia so it's far too early to jump to conclusions just yet.

Avatar
#58 oilerjed
November 06 2013, 09:01AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

@JW

Is there any word if LO will play tomorrow night?

Hemsky/Hall-RNH-Eberle Smytty-Gags-Yak Acro-Gordon-Omark Gadzig-Acton-Jones

If hall comes back move Hemsky to 3L and Acro moves to 4C. Acton and Eager can share popcorn.

Avatar
#59 Doomoil
November 06 2013, 09:06AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Keon14 wrote:

Jon: do you know if Yak has to clear waivers to be sent down to OKC? If not, then a stint in OKC could boost his confidence.

He's not eligible to go down to OKC and would have to return to Juniors.

Avatar
#60 derrickhands
November 06 2013, 09:40AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

In part it has do to do with Omark size, but on the whole Omark is a puckhog that likes to hold on to the puck too long looking for the perfect shot. This results all too often of him getting stripped of the puck giving the opposition a odd man rush advantage. He still hasn't learned that hockey is a team game and to play in his own end.

Avatar
#61 tileguy
November 06 2013, 10:42AM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

DSF I would be interested in your thoughts with the rangers on who should come back for Yak. Hemsky is off the table as he has low value to all teams except the oilers.

Avatar
#62 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:13AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
shanetrain wrote:

@DSF

You are going to compare Yak to Stamkos?

Ok. Elite company.

However, I do not see a Lecavalier or St Louis on Edmonton's roster.

No I'm not.

Some other poster tried to though.

They're not even in the same area code.

Avatar
#63 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:45AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

that's draft year +2. (hint: "draft year" = the year you are drafted)

not sure why you would fudge on that. I don't think anyone is trying to run Stamkos down around here.

Hint.

Stamkos was drafted in 2008.

In 2009/10 one year after being drafted he scored 51G 44A 95P.

Unless you are calling rookie seasons Draft Year +1.

Avatar
#64 2004Z06
November 06 2013, 04:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

@David S

Not a fan of that stat. I prefer actual numbers rather than predictions. A lot can happen over the other 34 games. Too many variables.

Avatar
#65 dangilitis
November 06 2013, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
DSF wrote:

Hint.

Stamkos was drafted in 2008.

In 2009/10 one year after being drafted he scored 51G 44A 95P.

Unless you are calling rookie seasons Draft Year +1.

Back to your original argument - no way I would say Yak will become Stamkos, but many thought Stamkos wouldn't become Stamkos. Not every 1st overall pick has to be the best goal scorer in the league, but they are the most likely bets at an extremely young age, before they are allowed to buy liquor or vote. I would settle for a legitimate top line forward, and there's still no indication to me that he cannot become this.

But if you want to talk purely about production early in NHL careers and use stats to prove your point, here are some stats that prove that Yak is better, even with this horrendous slump he finds himself in, than Stamkos.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1815423-breaking-down-nail-yakupovs-trade-value-for-edmonton-oilers

You see how I just took a few credible numbers, inserted them in an argument to make myself look smart? This post is straight from the DSF school of logic. Thank you, and please, from here on out, lets only talk about Yak's value as being greater or equal to that of one of the game's elite forwards...

Avatar
#66 Deep Insider
November 06 2013, 09:48AM
Trash it!
13
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Jeremy S. wrote:

Omark has been recalled so the Oilers can finally pull the trigger on that Shea Weber deal. It is about time!

Wrong!!! Big Oiler-Ranger trade going down in hours - involves 8-10 players in total!

Avatar
#67 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:12AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
Why not simply use "draft year +"?

Because that doesn't help him here. He will do so when it is beneficial, not before.

Draft year + helps me just fine.

How did Stamkos do in his draft year +1?

51G 44A 95P

Avatar
#68 oilerjed
November 06 2013, 11:18AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
DSF wrote:

Generally speaking, although there are certainly exceptions, the physical maturation of young men changes drastically from the age of 18 to 20.

Often, observers of the draft miss the obvious that one player taken may be almost a year older than another and then are amazed when the younger player takes a major step forward.

While "draft year +" makes it easier to compare players, it lacks the age context.

In any event, Yakupov played 70 professional hockey games last season and, while he performed quite well, much of his production came in garbage time and against teams that were already comfortably in the playoffs.

Using your "draft year +" approach even with the caveat that Yakupov is older than Stamkos in the year, the comparative production looks pretty dreadful for Yakupov.

Now, some of that difference may be team effects but it's worth noting that Stamkos posted his numbers on a team that finished 25th overall that season but Stamkos managed to finish 4th in league scoring with 95 points and led his team in scoring.

I don't think there is any danger than Yakupov will do any of those things.

Is it not also important to note who each player was playing on a line with?

Avatar
#69 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
oilerjed wrote:

Is it not also important to note who each player was playing on a line with?

Sure.

Who did Stamkos play with in his rookie season?

In 2008/09, Stamkos was 8th among TB forwards and still managed to score 23G 23A 46P.

The following season, his "draft +1" year, he was moved to the top line and was second among TB forwards in ice time and his production absolutely exploded.

You need to remember that Barry Melrose was the coach in TB during Stamkos' rookie season and one of the major reason he was turfed was because of the way Stamkos was mishandled.

I would imagine that, if Yakupov was producing at the same level as Stamkos was in his second season, he would be getting top line minutes with Hopkins and Hall.

But he isn't.

Avatar
#70 DSF
November 06 2013, 11:38AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:
Generally speaking, although there are certainly exceptions, the physical maturation of young men changes drastically from the age of 18 to 20.

Agreed complete. Said as much. However, your mark of which year of play to count as which age year is in question here.

Often, observers of the draft miss the obvious that one player taken may be almost a year older than another and then are amazed when the younger player takes a major step forward. While "draft year +" makes it easier to compare players, it lacks the age context.

Completely agreed. I mentioned it even.

One of the reasons Barkov (September 2, 1995 (age 18) was given such a big lead on Monahan last year (October 12, 1994 (age 19)… nearly a full year older.

Teams are getting smarter on this score… but still ignore its effects to their peril.

In any event, Yakupov played 70 professional hockey games last season and, while he performed quite well, much of his production came in garbage time and against teams that were already comfortably in the playoffs.

His KHL scoring is an interesting note. It certainly bolsters his Pro performance.

The "garbage time" doesn't apply to most his pro year and is certainly a wash if you are comparing it to Stamkos' 08-09 Lightning.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?season=20082009&type=LEA

I have no idea what you think this caveat accomplishes, esp. vs. Stamkos.

Using your "draft year +" approach even with the caveat that Yakupov is older than Stamkos in the year, the comparative production looks pretty dreadful for Yakupov.

You haven't explained how 4 months makes the comparison dreadful. But if we look at draft +2 year, there is no way to cover for Yakupov. He's had a dreadful year and by this point Stamkos was rolling. No argument there.

Only to note that Yakupov's career is still very young.

I also agree. the chance that Yak's sophomore will come anywhere near Stamkos' is pure fantasy.

Of course the lockout makes things a little wonky but there's nothing that can be done about that.

I think the "garbage time" aspect of Yakupov's rookie season IS something that needs a closer look.

He scored 34 NHL points last season with 10G and 15P coming in April.

His shooting percentage in April was 30.3%.

Clearly an unsustainable run for anyone.

Avatar
#71 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 06 2013, 11:42AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
DSF wrote:

Of course the lockout makes things a little wonky but there's nothing that can be done about that.

I think the "garbage time" aspect of Yakupov's rookie season IS something that needs a closer look.

He scored 34 NHL points last season with 10G and 15P coming in April.

His shooting percentage in April was 30.3%.

Clearly an unsustainable run for anyone.

It's not much of an argument. esp. against a player playing on a terrible, terrible team.

What you really want is an argument about sample size.

Avatar
#72 David S
November 06 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
DSF wrote:

65 points?

What?

Gagner has never broken 50 in 6 years in the NHL and sure isn't going to do it this season.

Sam got 38 points in last year's shortened season with a slow start and patended "Gagner mid-year slump".

That's a 65 point equivalent over a full NHL season.

Avatar
#73 David S
November 06 2013, 04:29PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
2004Z06 wrote:

Not a fan of that stat. I prefer actual numbers rather than predictions. A lot can happen over the other 34 games. Too many variables.

Unfortunately that was the stat that got Sam a new contract and would be the evaluation point for the rest of the league too. That and his outstanding PK and PP play.

He may not fit into your definition of success because he doesn't punch faces much or deliver crushing body checks, but Sam is a pretty valuable player because (healthy) he helps a team put up W's by contributing the things team success is determined by in the standings - G's and A's.

Avatar
#74 Stack Pad Save
November 06 2013, 06:28PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Joy S. Lee

I agree. I don't like Sam Gagner with the Oilers. He is a servicable NHL player as an offensive specialist, but the Oilers have a much better version of him in RNH. Also Arcobello has proven to be a better all around option as he is a better forechecker, better defensively and better at the face off. Gagner fans are out to lunch, the guy is invisible unless he does something horrendous most nights that cause goals against. He than puts up a great game here or there and gets in the occasional scrap and some fans love him for it. I personally would use him in a trade for something we really need if I was GM. ...... but than again, I am not the GM.

Avatar
#75 Word
November 06 2013, 10:58AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

This is a completely valid point. Age is a very good indicator of true talent. That's why you don't evaluate "rookies" (for example) when one is 18 and the other is 24 (unless you are giving away meaningless awards).

Age is a great caveat to this conversation. As are birth month and things like lockouts.

All that said, we need to add even more caveats and ask why you are making the four month difference in age between the two do so much work here? It makes your analysis sketchy at best and certainly clouds the value of it.

A couple of factual questions for you: what counts as a player's "age year" for you?

Why not simply use "draft year +"?

I have to think that people trashed you before they read the entire post. I "propsded".

Propers.

Avatar
#76 Deep Inside ....
November 06 2013, 11:30AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

No, no… the entire 23 man roster of both teams is being swapped and then swapped again, but the second time only 22 players are swapped, one remaining (like in musical chairs). they'll do that 22 more times until they are back to where they started except they will have exchanged vendors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3eNPO8nAE0

You will see in 1-2 hours!!!! I hope Oiler fans are ready for this- includes a couple surprises!

Avatar
#77 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 06 2013, 11:31AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

Draft year + helps me just fine.

How did Stamkos do in his draft year +1?

51G 44A 95P

that's draft year +2. (hint: "draft year" = the year you are drafted)

not sure why you would fudge on that. I don't think anyone is trying to run Stamkos down around here.

Comments are closed for this article.