RealGM

I think it is about time Roger had his own thread. He got off to a bad start this season but has been on a roll lately. He shot 41% from 3 last month and is shooting 44% from 3 this month. He has a quick release and can shoot 3s on the move which isn't easy to do.

Plus he isn't a ball stopper. He either shoots it fairly quickly or passes. He is a professional on and off the court. He is a limited player but knows his role. I would be fine with it if they signed him for next season.

tontoz wrote:I think it is about time Roger had his own thread. He got off to a bad start this season but has been on a roll lately. He shot 41% from 3 last month and is shooting 44% from 3 this month. He has a quick release and can shoot 3s on the move which isn't easy to do.

Plus he isn't a ball stopper. He either shoots it fairly quickly or passes. He is a professional on and off the court. He is a limited player but knows his role. I would be fine with it if they signed him for next season.

i was thinking we can sign Roger for next year. or maybe a 2 year deal.

As long as he stays as an end of the bench guy and doesn't take cap room, I don't mind him on the team.

There's no reason to give Mason a two-year deal, and there's no reason to pay him anything more than the league minimum. He's a nice 3pt shooter and a good guy, but he's 31 years old and he's highly replaceable. Bring him back at the league minimum (which for someone with his experience will be about $1.3 million) or let him depart.

Nivek wrote:There's no reason to give Mason a two-year deal, and there's no reason to pay him anything more than the league minimum. He's a nice 3pt shooter and a good guy, but he's 31 years old and he's highly replaceable. Bring him back at the league minimum (which for someone with his experience will be about $1.3 million) or let him depart.

He is a solid role player for a playoff team witch i hope we are next year.

truwizfan4evr wrote:

Nivek wrote:There's no reason to give Mason a two-year deal, and there's no reason to pay him anything more than the league minimum. He's a nice 3pt shooter and a good guy, but he's 31 years old and he's highly replaceable. Bring him back at the league minimum (which for someone with his experience will be about $1.3 million) or let him depart.

He is a solid role player for a playoff team witch i hope we are next year.

Overpaying for role players is foolish -- unless you're a title contender. Which the Wizards won't be. Makes no sense to pay a lot for a specialist in the Wizards situation. Only way I could see it is if the Wizards are below the salary floor and decide to burn it on a one-year deal with Mason because...dunno...they're feeling generous or something. Even that wouldn't make much sense: they could just stay below the salary floor and divide the difference between the players on the roster at the end of the season.

Mason is worth keeping around for another year or two -- at the minimum. But I wouldn't go more than a year at a time with him.

Yeah i think Roger is a good guy to have for the 1 year min. I am certainly not suggesting a longer or more lucrative deal.

By the way, while Mason could be signed for the veteran minimum of about $1.3 million, he'd count for only about $850k. The league actually pays the difference between the minimum for 2nd year players and the minimum required by the player's years of service.

I would love to have Roger Mason back for whatever he's making this season, max two years.

I think the Wiz have had a hard time finding shooters, I'd see if he bites sooner than later. 2 years wouldn't be the end of the world if he balked at one year and had another offer.

Nivek wrote:

truwizfan4evr wrote:

Nivek wrote:There's no reason to give Mason a two-year deal, and there's no reason to pay him anything more than the league minimum. He's a nice 3pt shooter and a good guy, but he's 31 years old and he's highly replaceable. Bring him back at the league minimum (which for someone with his experience will be about $1.3 million) or let him depart.

He is a solid role player for a playoff team witch i hope we are next year.

Overpaying for role players is foolish -- unless you're a title contender. Which the Wizards won't be. Makes no sense to pay a lot for a specialist in the Wizards situation. Only way I could see it is if the Wizards are below the salary floor and decide to burn it on a one-year deal with Mason because...dunno...they're feeling generous or something. Even that wouldn't make much sense: they could just stay below the salary floor and divide the difference between the players on the roster at the end of the season.

Mason is worth keeping around for another year or two -- at the minimum. But I wouldn't go more than a year at a time with him.

that what im trying to say. unless he plays 2 years for a pay cut?