Posted November 10, 2017 - 01:28 PM
As I mentioned earlier, a no-move-clause is exactly what it sounds like unless there are any exceptions added to it. It means that a team cannot send down a player or trade a player without the players explicit permission. And I was using Toronto specifically as an example because your were, I talked about a potential trade from Chicago's point of view equally as much and said that not trading Kane has probably already worked out better just because since then, they've won another cup. Sure they might be able (might being a key word) to challenge for a few more if they traded Kane, but would they come out with more than the 1 cup.
I didn't ever say Turris was failing miserably, I thought he played fine. What I said was that the management probably didn't think he fit their system as well as they wanted which is why they might not want to pay Turris the 6mil he deserves. It'd be pretty awesome if Ottawa ends up upping their budget or even removing it.
Posted November 10, 2017 - 07:21 PM
Chicago would have a much better statistical chance at more than one. Take that for what you think its worth.
Posted November 10, 2017 - 10:38 PM
Switching gears, how about Winnipeg?! I knew bringing in Mason was a stupid move when you already have Hellebuyck on the team!
Dunkirk Sea Hawks | GHL | Lumber
Prairie City Steers | SHL | Clapper
Otego Arrowheads | SHL | Dangles
Bushong Hill Giants | GHL | UAT Mitts
Posted November 12, 2017 - 12:17 AM
The best I can explain Mason is that his occasional flashes of brilliance in Philadelphia convinced management that he was better for some reason. I would have never signed him.
Posted November 23, 2017 - 05:43 AM
Mason is not consistent, but neither is Helle, who also lacks experience. I think splitting time between the two of them might be good idea - not split starts, but riding hot hand. For example Mason was superb yesterday, I would start him until he blows it, which he will sooner or later.