Mason said he’s “not trying to break the bank” and that he’d be willing to re-sign with the Flyers, but not if it’s in a platoon situation. Hmm.*
“It doesn’t work. It’s shown throughout the league that it doesn’t work,” Mason said, according to the Courier-Post. “Tampa got rid of their situation (with Ben Bishop and Andrei Vasilevskiy). St. Louis got rid of their situation (with Jake Allen and Brian Elliott). It’s got nothing to do with Neuvy and I as people. I’ve got no issue with Neuvy. It just doesn’t work for the goaltending position.”
Some of this stuff seems a little … bold.
If Mason isn’t willing to share starts with Neuvirth, and Neuvirth’s already got a deal, does that already mean Mason is gone? Not necessarily.
The expansion draft could make things weird. Perhaps there are a few other scenarios that can play out.
On the other hand, does Mason really have the leverage to demand a clear No. 1 spot?
He’s certainly gained his proponents, especially if you only look at his time with the Flyers. He posted a fantastic .928 save percentage in 2014-15 and a nice .918 in 2015-16. Even then, you have to give him a mulligan for a letdown this past season, where he went 26-21-8 with a mediocre .908 save percentage.
Of course, there are also those dire Blue Jackets years, and the bottom line is that Mason’s never really had any playoff success.
When you consider his goalie resume in totality, how many teams would really look at him as a franchise goalie? Some might view him as an outstanding backup while others (more reasonably) would likely slot him in as a 1a/1b type. But it’s tough to imagine more than a few GMs who would make a big investment in a netminder with such a mixed track record.
But, hey, at least Mason has some swagger. That should count for … something.
* -For the sake of this post, let’s ignore the obvious cross-state rebuttal of the Pittsburgh Penguins winning a Stanley Cup with Matt Murray and Marc-Andre Fleury, among other examples of platoons working out.