Why exactly is Mason negative value? He's on his last year of his contract, they could waive him if they really have to, or they could buy him out (perhaps an amnesty clause in the next CBA).
Adding Mason to a deal doesn't suddenly mean they'll accept less for Nash.
His play the last three years and the abundance of goalies compared to actual jobs is why. Waiving him only gets him off the cap if they assign him to the AHL because nobody is going to claim him.
Unless they give teams a window to buy them out with that clause prior to the season, they won't have a buyout option. Chances of an amnesty buyout are slim as it is anyway.
His play the last three years and the abundance of goalies compared to actual jobs is why. Waiving him only gets him off the cap if they assign him to the AHL because nobody is going to claim him.
Unless they give teams a window to buy them out with that clause prior to the season, they won't have a buyout option. Chances of an amnesty buyout are slim as it is anyway.
Well, the CBJs aren't exactly in cap trouble. I'm pretty sure the GM and owners would rather sell Nash for more and deal with Mason on their own, then sell Nash for less just to get rid of Mason. Negative value only makes sense if he had a really long contract. His contract ends after the next season, so it really isn't a big deal.
Well, the CBJs aren't exactly in cap trouble. I'm pretty sure the GM and owners would rather sell Nash for more and deal with Mason on their own, then sell Nash for less just to get rid of Mason. Negative value only makes sense if he had a really long contract. His contract ends after the next season, so it really isn't a big deal.
The Jackets are still a cash-strapped franchise so burying 2.9 million or having it ride the pine the whole year is not likely in the cards. Even if it is just one year, they will have to pay in assets in some way to move him out. This is especially true because they've already leaked out plans to move on from him.
The Jackets are still a cash-strapped franchise so burying 2.9 million or having it ride the pine the whole year is not likely in the cards. Even if it is just one year, they will have to pay in assets in some way to move him out. This is especially true because they've already leaked out plans to move on from him.
Guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure they can find a suitor for Mason without having to give up too much. He isn't as much of a negative value that people are making him out to be; adding Mason to the Nash deal doesn't suddenly make that deal enticing. They'd be better off trading them separately.
Guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure they can find a suitor for Mason without having to give up too much. He isn't as much of a negative value that people are making him out to be; adding Mason to the Nash deal doesn't suddenly make that deal enticing. They'd be better off trading them separately.
Maybe but I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to just take Mason off their hands.
Do not want Nash. He doesn't fix the speed issues on this team.
I don't want Nash either, but that isn't true. If Marleau goes the other way, then yeah it doesn't help. But Nash is a fast skater, certainly a lot faster than Clowe.
I don't want Nash either, but that isn't true. If Marleau goes the other way, then yeah it doesn't help. But Nash is a fast skater, certainly a lot faster than Clowe.
I disagree. He's above average and certainly faster than Clowe but I wouldn't label him as a fast skater. He's like a quicker Thornton. Very good initial burst and deceptive but not fast.
Do not want Nash. He doesn't fix the speed issues on this team.
Do you guys ever worry about us trying to "fix" our speed issues. Will adding two fast wingers really "fix" our team speed? I'm not so sure. Thornton, Clowe, Pavelski, Couture, etc don't play a "speed" game.
I feel like if we try to play copycat we're going to get worse. We did when we tried to "fix" our speed by getting Burns and Havlat. But then we ended up a not so fast not so big team. Doesn't seem like we'll ever be a "fast" team with our core.
However, fast teams lose when the get hit/beat up. To me it seems like we might be better off getting tougher and more physical, wearing teams down so that our possession/cycle game improves. If we can bang bodies more I think we'll improve more than just adding speed.
Do you guys ever worry about us trying to "fix" our speed issues. Will adding two fast wingers really "fix" our team speed? I'm not so sure. Thornton, Clowe, Pavelski, Couture, etc don't play a "speed" game.
I feel like if we try to play copycat we're going to get worse. We did when we tried to "fix" our speed by getting Burns and Havlat. But then we ended up a not so fast not so big team. Doesn't seem like we'll ever be a "fast" team with our core.
However, fast teams lose when the get hit/beat up. To me it seems like we might be better off getting tougher and more physical, wearing teams down so that our possession/cycle game improves. If we can bang bodies more I think we'll improve more than just adding speed.
Burns and Havlat being added weren't necessarily done to try and fix our speed issues. Burns was brought in because they need a future #1 when Boyle's time is up. Havlat was brought in because they really wanted to get rid of Heatley. Getting slower and more physical doesn't mean much if you aren't quick enough to get your body on the other team.
Pick one or the other is my whole thing. The Sharks this year were neither a fast team or a physical team. They were slow and soft. That's not gonna win in the long run.
Burns and Havlat being added weren't necessarily done to try and fix our speed issues. Burns was brought in because they need a future #1 when Boyle's time is up. Havlat was brought in because they really wanted to get rid of Heatley. Getting slower and more physical doesn't mean much if you aren't quick enough to get your body on the other team.
I don't agree, both of those players were brought in because of their speed.
Scott Stevens was one of the best hitters in the history of the game and he wasn't fast at all.
Pick one or the other is my whole thing. The Sharks this year were neither a fast team or a physical team. They were slow and soft. That's not gonna win in the long run.
I agree with the pick one or the other. Play to your strength. Our core is slow, but big. We want to play a "possession/grind" game. Seems like we are more suited to add physicality rather than speed.
Pick one or the other is my whole thing. The Sharks this year were neither a fast team or a physical team. They were slow and soft. That's not gonna win in the long run.
That's a fallacy. Quick and speedy players can also be tough.
I know but you're not gonna build your team to be full of all fast skaters who can lay the body, it's not like it's something that is in major supply around the league.
I know but you're not gonna build your team to be full of all fast skaters who can lay the body, it's not like it's something that is in major supply around the league.
That's not really the intent. This team simply isn't quick enough to win a Cup.
