Waived: Linus Omark

[joshjull]

The fact that teams consistently devote a spot to an otherwise useless fighter hurts fringe finesse players for sure

No it doesn't. A player like Omark will NEVER be a full time 4th liner. So no Scott has no bearing on him being in the league.


The thing thats most comical about this is the disconnect from reality. Omark isn't a defensive specialist or even good defensively, isn't a grinder and isn't physical. Those skills are the bread and butter of a 4th liner's skill set (I'm not even including fighting). Yet Scott occasionally getting 4th line minutes is holding him back? If Scott wasn't in the lineup someone with those skills is taking his place not an Omark.


What holds Omark back is his talent level isn't high enough to do the things he did in Europe and the AHL in the NHL. If he can't produce offense he brings nothing else to the table so he doesn't belong in the lineup. D'Agostini has chance to prolong his NHL career because he can bring some of those 4th liner attributes to the table.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The fact that teams consistently devote a spot to an otherwise useless fighter hurts fringe finesse players for sure

Ya those fringe finesse players could do so much with his 6 mins a night... Even without gunboat John I wouldn't want an Omark type on the fourth line. It's irrelevant to the discussion with 6 mins a night he still wouldn't produce, and wouldn't have any other way to contribute. The problem with a fringe finesse player is that they're fringe finesse players, a type of player that doesn't survive on an ultra talented, small, NA ice rink. There aren't enough bodies to populate a fourth line with enough good players to make it relevant in any way as a consistent scoring threat. Even if there was you couldn't afford it in a salary cap because there will be a ****** team, like Buffalo, with cap space and a need for scores that would suck up those players.

 

[enthusiast]

No it doesn't. A player like Omark will NEVER be a full time 4th liner. So no Scott has no bearing on him being in the league.

The idea that there needs to be a dedicated "4th line" to stash goons and energy players is symptomatic of the same enforcer culture.

The thing thats most comical about this is the disconnect from reality. Omark isn't a defensive specialist or even good defensively, isn't a grinder and isn't physical. Those skills are the bread and butter of a 4th liner's skill set (I'm not even including fighting). Yet Scott occasionally getting 4th line minutes is holding him back? If Scott wasn't in the lineup someone with those skills is taking his place not an Omark.

He is, arguably, a specialist more useful to a contending team than any grinding 4th liner. Even if you hate it you know why. In any league where shootouts matter a player like Omark is infinitely more valuable than a goon or chip-n-chase 7 min forward.

What holds Omark back is his talent level isn't high enough to do the things he did in Europe and the AHL in the NHL. If he can't produce offense he brings nothing else to the table so he doesn't belong in the lineup. D'Agostini has chance to prolong his NHL career because he can bring some of those 4th liner attributes to the table.

He's been able to do it, though. Sure, not consistently over a season, but he managed some nice stretches of offensive ability in Edmonton to justify a spot on an NHL roster.

 

[joshjull]

The idea that there needs to be a dedicated "4th line" to stash goons and energy players is symptomatic of the same enforcer culture.

Wrong again. The best teams win with defensive stalwarts/ high energy physical players on their 4th lines. Guys like Paille, Drew Miller, Kruger, etc. not guys like Omark (or Scott for that matter). You're creating yet another red herring (the enforcer culture) to go off on a another pointless tangent.

He is, arguably, a specialist more useful to a contending team than any grinding 4th liner. Even if you hate it you know why. In any league where shootouts matter a player like Omark is infinitely more valuable than a goon or chip-n-chase 7 min forward.

To be a specialist of value you have to actually specialize at something or bring something to the table. I can't think of one Cup winning team that dressed a finesse offensive forward on the 4th line that can't play defense or produce offense. In fact the suggestion a team would want such a player in the lineup is absurd.

He's been able to do it, though. Sure, not consistently over a season, but he managed some nice stretches of offensive ability in Edmonton to justify a spot on an NHL roster.

Omark is not unlike 100s of players before him. A finesse offensive player that couldn't quite make the jump to the NHL but showed a flash here or there. This lamenting of the league and its roster spots for John Scott is a diversion away from this reality.


I would love to see a league without goons and the only fighting would be spontaneous. IMO the only way that happens is dropping the number of skaters that dress to 16 instead of 18. That ups the skill level of those that do dress and their ice time. In that hypothetical world neither John Scott nor Linus Omark are playing in the NHL.

 

[enthusiast]

Wrong again. The best teams win with defensive stalwarts on their 4th lines. Guys like Paile, Drew Miller, Kruger, etc. Your creating yet another red herring (the enforcer culture) to go off on a another pointless tangent.

If you want to paint Paille and Drew Miller as dime-a-dozen examples of fourth liners, go right ahead~

To be a specialist of value you have to actually bring something to the table. I can't think of one Cup winning team with a finesse offensive forward that can;t play defense or produced offense on the 4th line. In fact the suggestion a team would want such a player in the lineup is absurd.

Come on, shootouts are incredibly important in today's NHL. to understate that is disingenuous

Omark is not unlike 100s of players before him. A finesse offensive player that couldn't quite make the jump to the NHL but showed a flash here or there. This lamenting of the league and its roster spots for John Scott is a diversion away from this reality.

Not at all. John Scott is a known zero quantity. Even if Omark is that 5% of players who bloom late he still brings meaningful point-relevant skills to the table.

I would love to see a league without goons and the only fighting would be spontaneous. IMO the only way that happens is dropping the number of skaters that dress to 16 instead of 18. That ups the skill level of those that do dress and in that world neither John Scott nor Linus Omark are playing in the NHL.

That's probably true. But in an 18 player NHL without enforcers there's room for a shootout specialist or "project" player.

 

[joshjull]

If you want to paint Paille and Drew Miller as dime-a-dozen examples of fourth liners, go right ahead~

4th liners come in all stripes except one…. Omark. To pretend as you are that its nothing but goons is disingenuous.

Come on, shootouts are incredibly important in today's NHL. to understate that is disingenuous

Cup winning teams have never relied on a shootout specialists to win the Cup.

And feel free to enlighten me as to all the players that are kept on rosters solely because they are good at shootouts. I'll wait.

Not at all. John Scott is a known zero quantity. Even if Omark is that 5% of players who bloom late he still brings meaningful point-relevant skills to the table.

Late bloomers bloom late for a variety of reasons. But one commonality is the do it in the top 6 or top 9. They are given a 2nd or sometimes 3rd chance somewhere and run with it. Matt Moulson was mentioned earlier. he was put on the top line in New York and ran with it. He was never a 4th liner that tried to work his way up to that line.

Late bloomers are not going to bloom playing on the the 4th line. Omark's inability to crack the top 9 of the two worst teams in hockey is why he isn't blooming at this late date. Thus the idea that John Scott or anyone else of the 4th line community is holding Omark back from blooming is absurd.

That's probably true. But in an 18 player NHL without enforcers there's room for a shootout specialist or "project" player.

Again. Finesse offense players like Omark are not played on the 4th line. But he can still be a project that comes in and out of the lineup in the top 6/9.


Omark may get another shot after the trade deadline if roster spots are opened up. Maybe he gets his offensive confidence up in Rochester and runs with it on a call up.

 

[enthusiast]

And feel free to enlighten me as to all the players that are kept on rosters solely because they are good at shootouts. I'll wait.

JJ, that's exactly my point. They inherently have considerably more relevance and importance than goons by nature of actually affecting point count and yet they're heavily outnumbered!

Late bloomers bloom late for a variety of reasons. But one commonality is the do it in the top 6 or top 9. They are given a 2nd or sometimes 3rd chance somewhere and run with it. Matt Moulson was mentioned earlier. he was put on the top line in New York and ran with it. He was never a 4th liner that tried to work his way up to that line.

Late bloomers are not going to bloom playing on the the 4th line. Omark's inability to crack the top 9 of the two worst teams in hockey is why he isn't blooming at this late date. Thus the idea that John Scott or anyone else of the 4th line community is holding Omark back from blooming is absurd.

Burrows, Franzen, Lang all started the ball rolling there iirc

 

[Jim Bob]

Come on, shootouts are incredibly important in today's NHL. to understate that is disingenuous

Omark is 0 for 2 as a Sabre in the shootout.

In his NHL career, Omark is 2 for 9 in the shootout.

He's far from automatic in the shootout, regardless of what YouTube might tell you.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Omark is 0 for 2 as a Sabre in the shootout.

In his NHL career, Omark is 2 for 9 in the shootout.

He's far from automatic in the shootout, regardless of what YouTube might tell you.

Kotalik was automatic in the shoutout, didn't see this argument much for him though. I guess I'd hope that there would be enough top 6 players who can take shootouts that you wouldn't need to have an Omark laying around the fourth line. Even though his shootout statistics seam to be dramatically overblown.

 

[Chainshot]

He wouldn't be the first skilled player who didn't make the jump. It isn't about linemates or ToI, it's about how Omark has performed in the time he's been on the ice. Do what is necessary on the lower lines to work up to scoring lines and do not be a liability in the time given are old hockey traditions. Omark didn't fulfill much of either -- some ill-timed penalties and over-stickhandling into turnovers is not going to earn him more time. Yes, he has skills... it's up to him to do what is necessary to translate that. At this point, the clock seems to be tolling on his NHL options.

 

[enthusiast]

There are more shootouts than NHL shootouts yall, he's got a very good history

Also yes Kotalik would be a good example as well but that contract was really bloated

 

[Disengage]

There are more shootouts than NHL shootouts yall, he's got a very good history

Also yes Kotalik would be a good example as well but that contract was really bloated

Yeeeeeaaah, scoring in SHL and KHL shootouts isn't going to help the Sabres.

 

[enthusiast]

Yeeeeeaaah, scoring in SHL and KHL shootouts isn't going to help the Sabres.

By that metric McDavid's just a crapshoot

 

[Karate Johnson*]

I'm with you on this. I was excited when we signed him, knowing that he has the potential to be extremely entertaining. For a team that keeps harping on how they need to add skill, you'd think they'd want to cultivate the skill part of Omark's game.

I know people keep saying he didn't get a shot, was played on the wrong line or whatever. To me, the missed opportunity here is how he was played for 10 minutes for two games then scratched for two. Repeat. To get the value out of Linus he should have been given his full 14 games back to back to back to build confidence and be encouraged to play to his strengths.

In stead he was given the Rolston treatment, play two games then sit to mull over his 'compete level'. And yes, I think this is mishandling of a potential asset and yes, I blame it on poor coaching.

If he isn't giving effort then it's his own fault for not "cultivating" whatever.

It's a pretty simple equation.... Try hard every shift = staying on the ice.

 

[dire wolf]

Yeeeeeaaah, scoring in SHL and KHL shootouts isn't going to help the Sabres.

That wasn't his point.

New Jersey or Nashville should sign him just for shootouts. NJ is 0-8 in the SO, and currently sitting 3 points out of a wildcard spot, and 5-points out of 3rd place in the Metro division. NSH is 1-7 in the SO and 4 points out of the wildcard spot.

A guy like Omark could theoretically be the difference between making and missing the playoffs for some teams. Use him for primarily shootouts, PP and possibly 4 on 4 situations. Give him some sheltered offensive zone starts in limited minutes, or give him more ice time when your team is already down by 2 goals in the 3rd and you need some creativity. I appreciate all of the deficiencies in his game, but I still want to believe that a really good coach could (a) find a way to exploit his relatively unique talents, and (b) help him improve his tenacity and defensive awareness.

But maybe not.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

The fact that teams consistently devote a spot to an otherwise useless fighter hurts fringe finesse players for sure

A role on the fourth line is never ever going to be a fit for a player like Omark.

I'm not saying I want John Scott on my fourth line, but I certainly don't want Omark.

This thread going on this long is amazing. The guy isn't an NHL level talent. He's too slow and too small and not physical enough, and his exploration of lesser talent and bad defensive dicipline isn't going to translate to a league like the NHL.

If being awesome at shoot outs were important Kotalik would be a superstar.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

He is, arguably, a specialist more useful to a contending team than any grinding 4th liner.

Who is arguing that except you and a few other posters on a message board?

How many NHL teams carry a small, slow, dangler who brings nothing in regards to a physical game on their 4th line?

Unless you're planning to revolutionize hockey?

 

[enthusiast]

If he isn't giving effort then it's his own fault for not "cultivating" whatever.

It's a pretty simple equation.... Try hard every shift = staying on the ice.

this is the most irrelevant post

like what how far are you moving the goalposts here

Who is arguing that except you and a few other posters on a message board?

How many NHL teams carry a small, slow, dangler who brings nothing in regards to a physical game on their 4th line?

Unless you're planning to revolutionize hockey?

recall what's referred to as evolution

 

[Karate Johnson*]

recall what's referred to as evolution

Haha....

So why do you love Linus Omark? Swedish or YouTube?

 

[enthusiast]

Haha....

So why do you love Linus Omark? Swedish or YouTube?

honestly I don't really care about him outside of the pun for my avatar

 

[Matte99]

Im mostly surprised by the inability to understand what a player brings before you trade for him. It cant come as a shock that Omark isnt the most rounded player in the game today.

What you need todo is to look at how he succeeded before, and yes he did have success in NHL too, not just SEL, KHL, NLA, AHL, and then evaluate if you cant put him in a similar situation again without hurting the team.

Omark can be an interesting as a potential 3rd liner (if you can match him with the right players and if you want to have 3 scoring lines) who can play top 6 during injuries. He is excellent on PP and will do "ok" in shootouts.

To bring a player with Omarks ability into a team and put him on the 4th line and play dump and chase is incompetent. Its been done already and it simply won't work. He needs to play as a playmaker with people who have interest in moving the puck and getting into the lanes to receive the puck.

 

[omglolnub]

Im mostly surprised by the inability to understand what a player brings before you trade for him. It cant come as a shock that Omark isnt the most rounded player in the game today.

What you need todo is to look at how he succeeded before, and yes he did have success in NHL too, not just SEL, KHL, NLA, AHL, and then evaluate if you cant put him in a similar situation again without hurting the team.

Omark can be an interesting as a potential 3rd liner (if you can match him with the right players and if you want to have 3 scoring lines) who can play top 6 during injuries. He is excellent on PP and will do "ok" in shootouts.

To bring a player with Omarks ability into a team and put him on the 4th line and play dump and chase is incompetent. Its been done already and it simply won't work. He needs to play as a playmaker with people who have interest in moving the puck and getting into the lanes to receive the puck.

This is why I didn't why I didn't understand the trade for Omark. Some argue that it was cause the Sabres needed -a- body for the roster due to the Amerks in Europe or whatever. But why did they specifically trade for -Omark-, who is useless for dump and chase grinder hockey instead of "another body" that can be another 4th line drone dump-and-chase worker bee. The waiver claim a few weeks later for Zenon Konopka was the perfect pickup for this purpose. D'Agostini is another "body" player off waivers who plays simple hockey.

 

[joshjull]

This is why I didn't why I didn't understand the trade for Omark. Some argue that it was cause the Sabres needed -a- body for the roster due to the Amerks in Europe or whatever. But why did they specifically trade for -Omark-, who is useless for dump and chase grinder hockey instead of "another body" that can be another 4th line drone dump-and-chase worker bee.

It was argued because thats what was done. We needed a body and at the time we needed a body Edmonton was willing to move Omark. 1 + 1 =2. Its really that straightforward

The waiver claim a few weeks later for Zenon Konopka was the perfect pickup for this purpose. D'Agostini is another "body" player off waivers who plays simple hockey.

When players become available through waivers you can claim them. But these guys were not on waivers at the time we needed a body. So we did what we needed to do.

You act is if there is some way for team, when needed, to just grab filler vets like this on demand during the season. There isn't. The time for that was the summer but we all know what Darcy chose to do instead.

And if Omark stays in the AHL, we got a free roster filler for 13 games and someone that can be a huge boost to the Amerks. Also, if he stays down, the Oilers gave away Omark for nothing. Which is essentially the same effect as if we claimed him on waivers.

 

[joshjull]

Im mostly surprised by the inability to understand what a player brings before you trade for him. It cant come as a shock that Omark isnt the most rounded player in the game today.

What you need todo is to look at how he succeeded before, and yes he did have success in NHL too, not just SEL, KHL, NLA, AHL, and then evaluate if you cant put him in a similar situation again without hurting the team.

Omark can be an interesting as a potential 3rd liner (if you can match him with the right players and if you want to have 3 scoring lines) who can play top 6 during injuries. He is excellent on PP and will do "ok" in shootouts.

To bring a player with Omarks ability into a team and put him on the 4th line and play dump and chase is incompetent. Its been done already and it simply won't work. He needs to play as a playmaker with people who have interest in moving the puck and getting into the lanes to receive the puck.

I think what you're not understanding is he wasn't acquired to fill a specific role in the lineup (as in a 4th liner grinder). Nor were the Sabres unaware of what he is as a player. They needed a body and he was available. Once you understand that you shouldn't be confused about his acquisition any more.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

Im mostly surprised by the inability to understand what a player brings before you trade for him. It cant come as a shock that Omark isnt the most rounded player in the game today.

What you need todo is to look at how he succeeded before, and yes he did have success in NHL too, not just SEL, KHL, NLA, AHL, and then evaluate if you cant put him in a similar situation again without hurting the team.

Omark can be an interesting as a potential 3rd liner (if you can match him with the right players and if you want to have 3 scoring lines) who can play top 6 during injuries. He is excellent on PP and will do "ok" in shootouts.

To bring a player with Omarks ability into a team and put him on the 4th line and play dump and chase is incompetent. Its been done already and it simply won't work. He needs to play as a playmaker with people who have interest in moving the puck and getting into the lanes to receive the puck.

I think a few posters have an inability to understand the Sabres motivation.

They needed a player cheap. Edmonton had an expendable player. They made a deal.

Omarks development, his career, etc, wasn't/isn't important to the team.

If it clicked for him and he hung around it cost us a 6th rounder.

If it didn't, no big deal.


I don't get the obsession with this guy....

He hasn't made the custom two terrible teams and every team in the league has had a shot at him for free and passed.

Could everyone just be missing out? Sure. But I doubt it.