BLUES CLAIM CHORNEY..UPDATE ON INJURIES

In a surprising move, the St. Louis Blues claimed Taylor Chorney off waivers today from the Edmonton Oilers. Chorney, the 36th overall pick in 2005, tallied one goal, seven points, 16 penalty minutes and was -30 in 56 games as an Oiler.

I don’t see Chorney’s departure as a big loss for the Oilers. It will hurt their AHL depth, but he wasn’t going to make this team any better.

Some will argue that this hurts the depth, and in a sense that is true, but at this point if the Oilers get into injury problems I’d rather see Colten Tuebert than Chorney.?

I severly doubt the Blues would have claimed him if Carlo Colaiacovo didn’t get injured. Chorney is a stop-gap guy at this stage of his career. I hope for his sake he gets a chance in St. Louis and proves me wrong, but I don’t see him as a regular NHLer on a winning team.

The Blues have Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Jackman, Nikitin, Polak and Huskins, so Chorney will likely battle Huskins for playing time until Colaiacovo returns, then they will have to make a decision.

Right now Corey Potter is a better option than Chorney, and when Ryan Whitney returns it’s likely that Potter will be the one heading to the minors, so the Oilers really had no choice regarding Chorney today. I don’t think his loss as something Oiler fans should fret about.

"I feel I’m an NHLer, and I’m happy to be getting a chance in St. Louis," said Chorney. He has to believe he is an NHL player, or he will never become one, but he wasn’t a fit in the Oilers’ puzzle moving forward.

He isn’t big enough to be a shut down D-man, and he doesn’t provide enough offence to warrant icetime. He has NHL skill and speed, but to stay in the best league in the world, borderline players need to be very good or great at one aspect of the game to stick around. Right now I don’t see him fitting into any area.

QUICK HITS

  • Either Linus Omark is in Tom Renney’s doghouse already or he is banged up, and the way he skated at practice this morning it looks like the former. Omark was skating on the "Baby Blue Aces" with Sam Gagner and Ben Eager. Normally the extra forwards are called the Black Aces, but today the 5th line was all in baby blue jerseys. I will find out after practice if he suffered an injury.
     
  • **UPDATED**…Some line rushes and contact drills start and Omark puts on white jersey and rotates in on 4th line…Eager put on dark blue jersey, first time he wasn’t wearing baby blue. Clearly Omark’s play earned him demotion. Will find out after if Eager will be cleared to play by Thursday..
     
  • Omark didn’t get demoted for his missed shot in the shootout, but more for his less-than-inspired play in regulation time. Renney vowed that this year the leash on players who didn’t play well would be much shorter, and it looks like he is sticking with that line of thinking.
     
  • Ryan Jones was skating in Omark’s spot with Shawn Horcoff and Magnus Paajarvi. The top-two lines stayed the same, while Anton Lander skated between Lennart Petrell and Darcy Hordichuk.
     
  • Ryan Whitney skated with Potter, so he likely isn’t ready for Thursday in Minnesota. I think the Oilers will be very cautious with his ankle/foot. I’ll find out after practice how much closer, if any, he is to returning.
  • @Archie

    The thing I don’t get about this Arch is that you are usually fairly even keeled but on the topic of Omark you sort of go into raving lunatic mode.

    Pretend it isn’t Omark for a second. A rookie comes into the league with a reputation as a sniper and the numbers to back it up in the next two hardest leagues in the world, but as a rookie he is snakebit.

    9/10 times you would be the guy claiming history is a more important indicator of what he can do than a sample size of 50 odd games and that we should give him a bit more time to settle in. Instead you have declared that he cannot score goals and as a result should be sent away immediately regardless of his track record.

    It doesn’t make any sense.

    Someone noted the fact that Gagner has results on his side, yet in his first 50 odd games in the NHL Omark has already matched Gagner in scoring pace. Gagner scored 2.09 points per 60 minutes and Omark scored 2.07. Give him just one more goal and he put up points at a higher rate than Gagner, and given his track record as a shooter this is not an unlikely occurrence.

    This occurred despite the fact that Gagner got playing time with guys like Penner, Hall, and Hemsky. Omark did not.

    Another interesting fact – it took Gagner 52 games to score his 5th goal. 58 for number 6.

    He is not the first player to come from Europe at that age and struggle for a time before finding a groove, yet you talk as though it is now impossible even though he already scores at the same rate as Gagner.

    I know Gagner was and is younger and I agree that it matters (ie. I do think Gagner is better), but most European players, even if they are already 23 when they get here, take some time to adjust to the NHL game, so why in your mind doesn’t Omark deserve that time?

    As far as I can tell it’s because you’ve decided you don’t like him.

    I dunno…I like both guys a lot, and I hate the idea of trading either one of them. I would trade anyone for value, but there is no chance of getting value for either of these guys right now. The only guy I see getting something close to a fair return is Hemsky, but even then it doesn’t look good. Something has to give.

  • O.C.

    Max. Thanks.

    Tiger n Arch.

    O’amievergreatMark has less trade value than Gagner.

    I don’t see any chance of O’Mark being a legit first liner or shut down player. Gagner might still be one or the other…

        • So your idea here is that Gagner, playing the same type of game he plays now, could become a “shut-down” type player?

          I think we may have different definitions of “shut-down”.

          If there is one thing Gagner will never be it’s a shut-down center.

          • O.C.

            Strike two.

            Point is, Sam could change his game to that, if all else fails, and hope to catch a ride that way. A la Marchant…

            O’lorditshardtobehumbleMark is one dimensional, and hasn’t proven he can crack top six. Failing that, he’s got no shot.

          • Strike two? You haven’t given me a real response yet. You just keep repeating that he could do it. HOW?

            Please explain how you think Gagner is remotely suited to a shut-down role and why you think he could ever manage it. He can’t. I doubt even Archeologuy would back you on this. I doubt even Gagner would back you on this.

            A la Marchant? This is not possible. Marchant relied heavily on blazing speed to accomplish the role. Gagner does not possess the physical tools to play a shut-down role. He needs to score.

            As for your comment about Omark – I don’t know why it’s there. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Gagner could become a shut-down center.

            Do you believe somehow I am arguing that Omark is going to become a shut-down player? I don’t understand what point you could possibly be making, despite your *clever* takes on his name. Omark is irrelevant.

            Also….stop giving yourself props. It’s sad.

          • Quicksilver ballet

            He certainly has the look of a shut down center if you squint real hard and turn the lights off. As long as he doesn’t have to outskate the opposition or knock them off the puck he should be fine. A shut’er down Sam who we can all agree is a threat at both ends of the ice, is just what this club needs. Is it Friday yet?

          • O.C.

            Whoa, let’s clear something up.

            I NEVER give myself props.

            And no, I’m not making the “Sam will succeed as a shut down player argument” either.

            (Strike Three.)

            A trick that you might want to learn may be that you might want to rethink why your statements have all started with a “so what you are saying is…” angle.

            All I have said (and am saying), is that Sam has a more adaptable skill set than Linus.

            Read the posts again. No where did I say he could succeed. The comparison with Marchant was solely to demonstrate that Marchant found a niche that he probably didn’t see himself in on draft day. Sam may need to do that IF he can’t crack top six. He may not have to. If he does, he may not succeed.

            The point is (what I am saying is), Sam has a better shot at a lengthy career in comparison to Linus.

            Linus doesn’t have the tools to try something else.

            Then again, I’ve not seen him in goal pads, so I could be wrong.

            (Hopefully someone props this). 😉

  • O.C.

    I really like what I’m reading. Glad Chorney is gone, glad Renney will keep the lazy one-dimensional forwards on a short leash, and glad to see the Nation ripping on Omark and Gagner!

    Neither Gagner nor Omark score enough to justify their lack of defensive play or even bigger lack of physicality. And they are both so far from being even passable in these aspects that I’m not holding my breath that they can transform their game in any reasonable timeframe. How long are we supposed to wait on these guys anyway?

    Style means nothing when a player lacks substance.

  • Peterborough

    Trading Omark makes no sense . . . not right now at least. The kid needs time to learn the game over here and grow into it. MPS needs a Tre Cronner to speak with and help his adjustment.

    Also the Oilers are rebuilding, let them rebuild.

    • Lander is a swede and appears a complete player… a novel concept in itself with the backdrop of the gags vs omark argument taken into account.

      FWIW and IMO… any argument based on 89s ability to play a shutdown role is completely laughable.

  • Little Buttcheeks

    As long as we stay healthy, our forwards will need to play consistent or they run the risk of riding the pine. If they aren’t hungry, then the next guy just might be.

    Best of luck in St. Louis, Chorney.

  • Let’s see, first it was…

    I don’t see any chance of O’Mark being a legit first liner or shut down player. Gagner might still be one or the other…

    Then you said…

    Point is, Sam could change his game to that, if all else fails, and hope to catch a ride that way. A la Marchant…

    Now suddenly…

    And no, I’m not making the “Sam will succeed as a shut down player argument” either. Read the posts again. No where did I say he could succeed.

    If you say so.

    The point is (what I am saying is), Sam has a better shot at a lengthy career in comparison to Linus.

    Linus doesn’t have the tools to try something else.

    In your very first post of this conversation you explicitly stated that Gagner could become a “shut down player”. These were your exact words. I disputed this statement. I have no idea how this could have anything to do with Omark, but I’ll address is anyways…neither of these guys is going anywhere in the NHL if they aren’t scoring.

    Neither one is suited to the “shut down” role and neither has much hope of succeeding at it if they tried. I have no idea which tools you believe Gagner has to better suit him to that job than Omark, but they are imaginary and exist only in your mind.

    (Strike Three.) A trick that you might want to learn may be that you might want to rethink why your statements have all started with a “so what you are saying is…” angle.

    That’s a “trick” I should learn is it? Now I’m embarrassed. I just realized I’m arguing with someone I should probably just leave alone. You’re making me feel like a bully.

    It isn’t an “angle”, it’s an attempt to make sense of your mangled logic.

    I’ll props myself this one time, just so you won’t feel so alone.

    • O.C.

      Aw, come on Tiger. I’m not bullying, and I don’t prop myself.

      You owe me an apology for openly assuming and stating I’m a self-propper.

      This is a point that might help… I’m reaching out here… Can I suggest your questions change from “so what you are saying” to “are you saying” (or similar)? That way we can respond to your interpretations instead of defending ourselves from incorrect conclusions.

      To your points.

      In your very first post of this conversation you explicitly stated that Gagner could become a “shut down player”. These were your exact words. I disputed this statement.

      My exact words? Those weren’t my exact words…

      here…

      “I don’t see any chance of O’Mark being a legit first liner or shut down player. Gagner might still be one or the other…”

      … those are my exact words from my opening statement.

      My opinion in shortest terms.

      – Linus has “No Chance”

      – Sam “Might”

      Neither of those points has me saying that either “Will Succeed”

      Maybe I can word this another way for you.

      I’m suggesting that both Linus O’Mark and Sam Gagner have not proven that they are legit top two liners.

      Sam is close. He has shown enough that he might be the starting first or second line centre. If not, he could try adapt into a checking line centre. If Belanger was hurt, he could try fill that void.

      Linus. He is the best player he knows. He’s beyond immature for his age. You look up “self-absorbed”, and there’s a picture of Linus O’Mark.

      His options are pretty straight forward. He’s a horrible back checker. He’s not physical (and that doesn’t mean that Sam is, cuz he isn’t either). That takes O’Mark out of a potential checking or energy line role.

      So we’re down to this.

      O’Mark. Trying to become full time first or second line player. He’s gotta change a lot to get there.

      Gagner. Same, but less to change. He’s closer to top one / two full time. If not, he could try to find a spot on the third or fourth line. His pedigree is to take the role he’s given, and do the best he can with what he has.

      On the odd game where you’re matching speed vs speed, like against Chicago or Detroit or Montreal, the Oil could go with three skill lines and then both could easily slot in on the third skill line. The problem is, the Oil play a lot of games where you need to respond to hitting and grinders. Calgary, Minnesota, Anaheim… that’s not opening up a third scoring line for all solutions.

      A guy like Hartski (in my opinion), is the perfect fit. Energy, scoring, size… neither Gagner or O’Mark have that tool set either.

      The odds are against O’Mark as he has fewer options if he doesn’t seal a first or second line spot.

      Both guys are solid “alternatives” for injuries.

      — Now, you made an excellent point that I can argue with,

      “neither of these guys is going anywhere in the NHL if they aren’t scoring.”

      I agree on O’Mark. I don’t know that you drop Gagner, cuz between the two, he has a better chance of then seeing if he can hitch a ride as a “jack of all trades, master of none” role.

      *insert witty comment here*

      • Are you for real?

        In your very first post of this conversation you explicitly stated that Gagner could become a “shut down player”. These were your exact words. I disputed this statement.

        My exact words? Those weren’t my exact words…

        here…

        “I don’t see any chance of O’Mark being a legit first liner or shut down player. Gagner might still be one or the other…”

        I have helpfully underlined the important parts. Notice how the part in my comments with quotation marks is identical to part underlined in your quote?

        Aw, come on Tiger. I’m not bullying, and I don’t prop myself.

        1. Read it again. I said you make ME feel like a bully.

        2. Nobody else would give that props.

        I can’t believe I’ve allowed myself to have this conversation. I’ve had some incredibly stupid arguments on this site but this is by far the worst. Usually I love to argue, but how am I supposed to enjoy an argument with someone who doesn’t understand how question marks or quotations work and doesn’t bother reading what has been written?

        • O.C.

          Agreed. Neither of us were bullying. We were arguing on misinterpretations.

          Arguing a position is great. Making up statements to support a position is wrong.

          I said that O’Mark can’t be a shut down player and tried to convey that Gagner MIGHT need try that route if he he can’t make it as a first liner.

          Somehow that was twisted into your interpretting that I said Gagner COULD BE a shut down player. I didn’t say that. You said I said that.

          Now… again I’ll reach out. My initial, “short tweet like” statement was non-descript – i.e. poor phrasing on my part. Poor interpretation by others resulted. My bad. Sorry if that was confusing.

          —-

          But the fact you are intimating that I am now a liar…

          “2. Nobody else would give that props.”

          …is offensive.

          If you can’t accept my word, and if you are are openly questioning my integrity, then I question your motivations.

          You CAN’T GO OFF CALLING PEOPLE LIARS – that’s a line that can lead to bigger problems for you.

          Retract or Not, your choice.

  • Max Powers - Team HME Evans

    I think I’m gonna start giving myself props. Heck, Arch is an admitted chronic masturpropper. If he does it all the time, and TigerUnderGlass can do it…. then why can’t I?

    I feel free now.

    Edit: Theeere it is. Nice.

  • do people really seriously give themselves props? honestly do this happen?

    that only screams pathetic if that were the case.

    like me love me prop me or don’t i shall still sleep well tonight at least until my daughter and son wake me up at 3am.

  • O.C.

    Ya know… this gives me a good idea.

    Wouldn’t it be great if you could click on the “Props” tab and see the names of all who agreed with any poster’s statement?

    It already knows if you propped someone already, so the link is a simple line of code.

  • Gagner might still be one or the other

    Gagner COULD BE a shut down player.

    So what you are saying is that these statements are somehow different? I have posted a constant stream of direct quotes, so this isn’t “poor interpretation”, you said something stupid and instead of rescinding you are pretending it’s my fault.

    The two statements quoted above mean the same thing, even if you wish they didn’t.

    If you can’t accept my word, and if you are are openly questioning my integrity, then I question your motivations.

    I appreciate your attempts to make this conversation interesting, but it think it’s too late for that. You should props yourself for the effort.

      • Not all statements are open to interpretation. The two statements mean and imply the same thing, and it doesn’t matter if you wish they didn’t.

        Listen, I haven’t even been to bed yet because I’ve been up all night drafting court documents, so excuse me if I don’t care about your pathetic attempt at creating a legal issue.

        Wow – “TigerUnderGlass” doesn’t believe that “Oilcruzer” is telling the truth. What a terrible blow to your reputation…whoever you are. Don’t be stupid.

        Why are you so serious, this is a hockey site. Stop throwing a tantrum because I don’t believe you. Who the hell cares? Not anybody here I can promise you.

        • O.C.

          I am as far from a serious person than you have likely ever met. Never met Wanye tho, he might trump me.

          Integrity is something I will always protect tho.

          You lose that, you never get it back.

          Get some sleep. Best to debate when fresh.