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

What? No, it would tell the players they value him and this is what they think the market price is for him, if he doesn't agree, play the year and raise the market price.....but at least it tells the player they want him.

Actually, Scola could be but Lowry could not be, and we can not trade him without his permission for an entire year and not to the Cavaliers who want him.

Limited tradeability due to Morey's policy.

DD

 

I was under the impression that Morey was saying that he doesn't do extensions before the CBA negotiations are ongoing, not that he doesn't do extensions ever. He can say all of that now because we don't have a franchise player under a rookie contract, so he can wait out the new CBA. If we did have someone like Durant, you really think Morey would tell him he wouldn't be extended and let the market determine his price? No, everyone knows that Durant would get a max deal. Superstar players, like Durant, are underpaid because max deals are artificial ceilings compared to their value to the team. This is why Morey is really keen on Superstars on max contracts and good players on rookie contracts.

Besides the fact that it's just prudent to maintain flexibility given all the uncertainty in the CBA and that given AB's RFA status we still have better bargaining power, not jumping the gun on a player with many questions is good personnel management. Managers with chummy relations with their employees don't necessarily get results. While antagonizing employees is not good practice, a good manager knows how to incentivize good performance. A good manager knows that there's often a big jump in performance when players are in their contract year and why there's often a dropoff in players who get their big contract extension. AB has every incentive to show that he can perform and be a good team player and not let his disappointment affect the team. Getting labeled a malcontent is a good way to kill your value to other teams. So why should Morey reward AB with an extension when the jury is still out on whether he brings that much value to the team, given his lack of defense? This is very well documented stuff in the management literature.

 

I don't buy it. The market set the value of Eddy Curry at over 11 mil. Does anyone truly believe the total value of his contribution is worth that? If we like a player, we ought to try and lock him up as cheaply as possible. Worst case scenario is a Conley situation, but your front office has to be pretty dumb for that to happen. Best case scenario is that you get your guy at a discount. Look at Howard and Durant.

If you don't extend your RFAs, you have to catch a lot of breaks to get your guy at a good rate. If a GM wants to offer your player a dumb contract like the Bulls did with Redick, or just wants to screw you like the Blazers did with Millsap, you can end up paying a lot more than you wanted to. You need every franchise in the league to pass on your guy if you want a bargain, and that's not going to happen if he's at all worth keeping to begin with. Teams rarely find bargains in free agency; they pick up cap-killing contracts all the time.

Basically, I understand the OP's point, but your chances of getting a bargain once your RFA hits the open market are very slim. Best case is you pay about what he's worth, but it's much more likely that at least one dumb GM overpays your guy, and you're forced to match or lose him for nothing. I don't see how it hurts to at least offer an extension and try to get a bargain. If he says no, you're no worse off.

 

I'm pretty sure Curry got his contract through sign and trade, in other words the Knicks were the only team willing to pay him that. So no.

The rest of your post just shows that you do NOT understand the OP's point. Especially since one of them was that signing players to "bargains" is not that important.

 

no, their bad gm cost the knicks carmelo and hill.

 

Players dont turn down real money because of the injury risk. Via agents, they also have a idea about their value,but once a couple of dumb contracts come down, their value goes up. Like I mentioned earlier, Martin signed 5yr 55m extension in the summer of his breakout yr. The next 2 yrs, his ppg went up even higher. If they had waited because they want to let the market set, they wouldve either lost him or overpayed for him. You have to have a open mind about every situation. Lets say sacramento offers brooks 9m per and the rocket say no thanks to that.The next best thing is snt,but the rockets would only get half of his 1st yr ,4.5 as a trade except. So now i ask, how much better are the rockets vs the kings who still have bigtime flexibility and young talent?

 

Good post.

 

You see it all the time in football. You have to be very careful if you try to extend someone. Lowball them and they get their feelings hurt too. If they are a restricted FA, they then take that offer and show it to other teams. You then have bidded against yourself. Very tricky situation.

 

Extensions should only be used to secure a franchise or star player. Non stars like Brooks should shut up and play the contract he signed until he proves he has star power, meaning the ability to carry a team by himself to the playoffs. Until he is worth an extension, he needs to just do his job and silently earn his keep. As far as his feelings, who cares? His opinion isn't going to make a difference in our efforts to recruit a star.

 

I really hate to bump up this thread but a thought/question popped in my head.


With the new CBA on the horizon we are probably going to see 1 of 2 things (imo)

1) contracts for less value right now so if the max extension is 60/5 years for a player the new cba may place the value lower it could be 50/5 years or 45/5 years

2) the contract value will be the same but the max number of years offered will be less so the max extension would be 36/3 instead of 60/5


now no way Brooks was going to get the max of course but I would assume that this maybe the case for all contracts, either the # of years stay the same and less money per year or same amount but less years. If the owners some how were able to negotiate less money and less years more power to them then.


Anyways so to my point on this lets say the Rockets did extend Brooks on the new CBA it would hurt them at the trade deadline. Chances are if they wanted to trade Brooks OR if another team wanted Brooks they may not now since he has his extension. Part of the reason why Brooks is such an attractive trade piece is his rookie scale contract.


Now if the Rockets do decide to extend him once the new CBA passes at least we get the same talent without having to pay as much or be "locked in" as long.

The same would apply if Brooks is used in a trade at the deadline. If I was Team B a player like Brooks on his rookie scale contract w/o having the extension sign is far more attractive than someone on a rookie scale w/ a signed extension. Team B can extend/resign Brooks into the new CBA themselves and save money and get a player for far less than what it would have cost previously.

I mean only Durant, Noah, Horford, Dudley and Conley I believe got extensions in this rookie class (the first 3 were no brainers the last two were bad decisions) Jeff Green, Thaddeus Young, Rodney Stuckey, Wilson Chandler and Arron Afflalo all weren't extended and all of them were solid first round picks that year in addition to Brooks.

It has to do with timing more than anything had Brooks been drafted a year earlier (like Lowry was) or a year later maybe he would have gotten his extension during the season.

But it looks like Morey likes to be able to offer any teams a talented player on a rookie contract WITH the option to resign via bird rights to teams rather than a player on a rookie contract already in line to get a larger pay raise.


By no means does this mean Brooks will or even should be traded its just keep options open for the team at the trade deadline if Brooks is not extended. And I dont agree with the "never extend any contracts" in the title if we had a stud like Durant or Horford then you got to extend him right away. Brooks (Lowry and Scola last season) aren't in that same class of players at all and so the team should try to be as flexible as possible.

 

Yo yo, thats pretty much the essence of the whole situation. The cba is not going to be doom and gloom. They will probably reduce the yrs by 1 and the top scale by 1m. I know u live in the bay area and in football, the raiders always mess up the value of players. When tommie kelly got his deal, it sent shockwaves through gm's veins,but look at philly jow they get their young talent cheaper because they lock them up earlier. Every situation has to be treated different.

 

Unfortunately, Brooks thinks his is a star player, just like certain idiot on this board believes he is the best player on the team. This is just laughable.

 

I view it the other way in regards to the new CBA, I think Morey could have used it as leverage to sign Brooks to a smaller deal.

Either way, it is his policy....we shall see how it works out in the end, based upon the body of work Morey creates.

DD

 

I'm fine with Morey waiting to sign all players except max players. You end up paying the market value, and no body has grounds to complain. Even if you managed to sign at a bargain by jumping the gun, you end up with a possibly disgruntled employee for years to come. In Brooks case, he may be disgruntled, but he can't let it effect his play as it will effect his contract, and all will be forgotten once he gets his new contract.

Sure, he could end up getting a contract out of our range, but I suspect Morey can somewhat predict this. In which case, no put in signing him early, he is probably not as tradable.

I think it's also worth pointing out then when a player's value is greater then the MLE, most teams are going to need a sign and trade to get him. Many teams would rather use thier MLE to get a Lowry then have to give up assets to get a Brooks.