Why Morey is right...we should never extend any contracts

The problem with your scenerio is every player or situation is different and should be treated accordingly. You cant have th same stance about every player all the time. This is a cookie cutter deal. Basically, you're saying after the good early years by Yao, if morey were in charge, they would have let him play out his rookie deal? What if he were the gm or the thunder and durant was coming up or even westbrook next season? Now I'm not saying brooks or any other rocket fits in that class of player, but to say we don't do it really puts your team at a disadvantage. The spurs are one of the best run organizations in the entire nba and you would never hear them say that. Maybe thats why they have been way more successful than the rockets also. Everything is about treatment and relationships. They could have let Tony or Manu go out and find a deal, but they didn't this time. With Manu, they did the first time and they matched. The rockets could have the same strategy, but I guess we will see.

 

The counterargument is that letting the market determine a player's salary does not necessarily mean he won't be overpaid. If some other team is willing to overpay for him, and you are forced to match because you really want to keep him, well then you have just overpaid, right?

 

i dare you to find the ratio of teams which have won a championship with players they've given extensions to, to teams which have won a championship without giving extensions to key players.

 

all about flexibility

 

Extensions make sense for players that are vital to your future success and who you have no intention of trading. The Rockets, more than most teams, like to be active in trade talks. They want to give themselves every opportunity to upgrade their talent. As a result, they are less attached to their players. But if they had a legit star without injury concerns, I could see them extending him. Right now, they're saying as a rule they won't give extensions. There's always exceptions to rules.

 

Thats my point in this whole deal.The rockets overpayed for lowry because cleveland had extra money. In a progressive world, lowry would make 4m, not 5.5. I also think the contracts of amir johnson,darko, and the international team boosted scola's contract. Now I'm not saying he's over paid, but I don't think the rockets thought he would get almost 8m in the 1st yr. In football, the raiders gave tommie kelly a huge deal right before haynsworth and other better players shook loose. Alot of gm's were shaking their head at the deal because he was avg and was paid like a defensive player of the year. No one made the redskins overpay for haynesworth, but it punched the ticket for him getting out of nashville. After the first franchise tag, the titans had a chance at a good deal, but didn't even negotiate with the guy. The Kelly deal then just killed any thought of him staying in nashville. They've since recovered,but they couldve avoided all of it by being aggressive.

 

Another argument is you have to get to the 25% rule. Think about how man contracts the rockets would have to give up to get to anthony's salary.

 

They could, in theory, pull it off with just a couple contracts. Martin + Jeffries + draft picks, for instance. Not saying Denver would go for that.

 

Good thread

 

Thats my point, jeffries is overpaid, but he's not a bad player. He's a 4m player probably, but he's overpaid. His bad contract can be used in a trade.

 

Like I just said in another thread, you're not going to give your very nice girlfriend a big ring when you have your sights set on some possible super models. Even if drawing it out until your girlfriend gives you an ultimatum ends up in you paying more to her, its still about the window of opportunity and flexibility of acquiring the high quality.

 

My problem with the way you're thinking about this is every player fits in a box. Let me use Kevin Martin as an example. The kings signed martin aug 29th 2007 to a 5yr 55m extension. If you look at his trajectory, it was almost the same as brooks. He was drafted in 2004 late in the draft. He avg 2.9,10.8, then boom 20ppg. That summer, they gave him the extension. The next year, he put up 24ppg. The kings were progressive and signed martin probably at or a littl below the going rate for a player of his caliber. Had they waited until after his 24ppg explosion, what do you think his market value would've been? Now, it didn't work out for him in sacramento, but most will agree he's paid about right especially if he stays on the court. He's not a max guy or a superstar, but he's a near all star caliber sg. By your reasoning, morey wouldn't have ever did what petrie did, right?

 

You think so? You don't think the 12m eddy curry makes had anything to do with that? You don't think the managments decision had anything to do with it either. If they were truly smart about it and just thought about getting 1 guy this year and 1 guy next year, they would still have jordan hill and their picks. They could have curry and jeffries coming off the books after this season.

 

If the talent is good enough to help you win it all, you should expect to over-pay for it. Any organization that want to win (it all) has to take the risk. No team has ever bargained their way to a championship caliber squad, which is why I'm calling BS on Morey not extending contracts. IMO, its all about being cheap, and saving money for the franchise, winning be damned. Unless Les/Morey have a change of heart, we are the the decade's clippers - a perennial "potential threat", nothing more.

 

I don't know what Morey plans are with Brooks. I don't know the Rockets long term plan. I have been very impressed so far with Morey's moves and his long term manuvering. Therefore, I trust what he is doing.