I'm kind of wondering about this. I don't have a strong opinion, but am interested in understanding the rationale behind it better. Is this really the smartest policy? Because you basically let the highest bidder determine market value. So if there is one crazy team out there, but you really want to keep your guy, you have to match. If you had extended him yourself before he could really test the market, you might have gotten him for a lot less. Like...if you asked 29 GMs now "what's Aaron Brooks' market value" (in terms of salary)...they might come up with an average of about 6-7 M/year. Rather than risking to enter free agency (and possibly have an injury between now and then), he might be content with a 6.5 M/year long-term contract. Security over possibly having to go to the Clippers or whatever. But if you let him enter free agency and say "we can always match", there might be one desperate team willing to pay him 9 M, even though his average estimated market value, and where you would value him, is lower. Now you have a dilemma, no? Similar situation with Battier. I'm wondering why Les and Morey are so adamant about this. I guess the other consideration is that depending on the situation, it allows you to go after the higher profile free agent stars first, before re-signing your own players?
I think the "policy" is a bit misunderstood. The "no extension" idea, I believe, is only due to the impending lockout. Until that is cleared up, no need to sign players just to sign them especially if salaries/length of contracts will be reduced.
Mo Williams makes 9.3 mill AB is at least as good. IMO He's better than him. The CBA muddies the water, but if he hits free agency he'll make much more than the MLE.
Also, in your example, if somebody is willing to pay AB $9m/yr, then you know that there is somebody out there that would be willing to trade for AB at a $9m/yr salary. AB will not have an untradeable contract if another team has already proved they are willing to pay his "market value".
AB getting 9 million scares the crap out of me. Would you give up Cousins for Brooks and friends, Sac? Jordan Hill+Demarcus Cousins Would be sooooo much damn fun...
Or, you may have paid too much. You don't really know what the players value is until other teams make an offer.
You should know what the player is worth to you before other teams make an offer. Plus, as I tried to explain, you will always pay the price that only one out of 28 other teams in the league thinks the player is worth. Everyone else thinks he is worth less.
Maybe the answer is him not starting over Lowry and he goes for that much? That could also cause him to leave for a place he is starting as a consequence.
I think he knows at this point that we don't NEED him all that badly, so even If we make him a starter in the near future, does he really believe he is worth more than Lowry? I think he would be happy with 6 million in a longterm deal.
