HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Niemi + ??? for Nash?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2012, 07:37 PM
  #51
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 07:40 PM
  #52
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 07:46 PM
  #53
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 07:52 PM
  #54
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 07:55 PM
  #55
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 07:58 PM
  #56
Lazyking
Never Forget
 
Lazyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 3,586
vCash: 500
Do not want Nash. He doesn't fix the speed issues on this team.

Lazyking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:08 PM
  #57
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
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.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:13 PM
  #58
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:18 PM
  #59
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
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.

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:20 PM
  #60
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Nash is explosive, he doesn't really start in the d zone so it's hard to say how he is in a foot race.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:26 PM
  #61
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:29 PM
  #62
Lazyking
Never Forget
 
Lazyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 3,586
vCash: 500
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.

Lazyking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:30 PM
  #63
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
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.

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:32 PM
  #64
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
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.

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:32 PM
  #65
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:34 PM
  #66
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
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.
Speed is one of their assets but it's not the entire reason why they were brought in. What Scott Stevens did doesn't mean a whole lot now.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:35 PM
  #67
Lazyking
Never Forget
 
Lazyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 3,586
vCash: 500
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.

Lazyking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:38 PM
  #68
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That's a fallacy. Quick and speedy players can also be tough.
Who do you think the Sharks are?! A bunch of Jamie McGinns?!?

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:38 PM
  #69
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
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.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:42 PM
  #70
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
That's not really the intent. This team simply isn't quick enough to win a Cup.
Our team could play exactly like Los Angeles. With the exception of Quick/Niemi.

Physicality makes other teams look slow.

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:48 PM
  #71
SJSharkz
Registered User
 
SJSharkz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SJSharkz Send a message via MSN to SJSharkz Send a message via Yahoo to SJSharkz
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
Our team could play exactly like Los Angeles. With the exception of Quick/Niemi.

Physicality makes other teams look slow.
No we couldn't, we don't have the players with that kind of attitude to play physical all the time.

SJSharkz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:55 PM
  #72
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJSharkz View Post
No we couldn't, we don't have the players with that kind of attitude to play physical all the time.
Nor do we have the players to play fast all the time.

My point remains I believe our team is better suited to add physicality rather than speed.

We just need to find our identity again

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 08:59 PM
  #73
SJSharkz
Registered User
 
SJSharkz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SJSharkz Send a message via MSN to SJSharkz Send a message via Yahoo to SJSharkz
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
Nor do we have the players to play fast all the time.

My point remains I believe our team is better suited to add physicality rather than speed.

We just need to find our identity again
I think we need a new identity but that won't happen.

SJSharkz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 09:06 PM
  #74
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,503
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
Our team could play exactly like Los Angeles. With the exception of Quick/Niemi.

Physicality makes other teams look slow.
No we can't because the Kings are faster up and down their lineup.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2012, 09:13 PM
  #75
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
No we can't because the Kings are faster up and down their lineup.
Huh??? The only fast players they have on there team are Dustin Brown, Kopitar and Richards. Their system makes them seem faster than they are.

This is a team with Dustin Penner, Willie Mitchell, Matt Greene, Jeff Carter, Jarret Stoll and Rob Scuderi that you are calling fast??

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.