yes, back in 2003 when rafer was a 10 day contract reject. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=49700 I thought he would be a better PG than SF3 and he would be good value at a vet minimum.
I was not wrong, he didn't extend him.....he could have extended him for multiple years....... The point your are trying to ding me on is moot, if he only extended him by ONE year then sure he becomes an unrestricted free agent.....but who does that? DD
I'm not trying to ding you so much as get to the bottom of the issue. Are you sure he had the option of extending him for multiple years as opposed to just one? Either way, by allowing him to go to RFA before he becomes a starter and blows up statistically, increasing his value, he's going to be able to keep control of him for more years than had he just extended his contract.
I believe he extended Brooks just a few months ago. Edit: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/6693952.html
He picked up brooks team option on his rookie contract, exactly the same as Lowry. Lowry was drafted 2006, will be RFA in 2010. Brooks drafted 2007, will be RFA in 2011. Same thing
So what was it that Morey passed up on extending a few months ago in Lowry's case? Was it not the same thing: a team option/extension? I may just be using the wrong terminology.
I don't think he passed up anything, he didn't do an extension beyond the rookie contract, but then again he hasn't done that for anyone.
I see, you're right. I just re-read worzel's post. He said that Lowry was eligible for a contract extension. He didn't have a team option, which is a different thing. I don't even know what being eligible for an extension means. How does that work? How is it different from a team option?
See Brandon Roy and Lamarcus aldridge this summer, what happens is that you can extend someone beyond their rookie contract one year before they hit RFA. Usually teams only do this with MAX or near max players
Thanks, I see. So, even after the extension, he would have remained an RFA. That answers my initial question. Regardless, like you said, resigning Lowry to multiple years this summer before he potentially blows up as a starter and during a down economy should be a good situation for the Rockets. How much do you think Lowry will end up getting and for how many years? I imagine at least a few teams will make offers even after Morey made it clear he's going to resign him.
see Ramon Sessions, Lowry should get at least Sessions money, and maybe a contender will throw the full MLE at him. If rockets match, then Brooks is gone for sure, I don't see how Rockets can afford both, since Brooks will want a significant pay raise from Lowry money.
That's a really good point I hadn't even thought of. I made the argument that Brooks is likely to be traded this summer but I wasn't even thinking about the cost of keeping both of them. I was just thinking that Morey will trade Brooks to take the decision out of Rick's hands next season.
I can see it now. " Yao is being doubled all nite keeps passing out of it 2 lowry and he's missing wide open jumpers.... u guys kill me... Brooks could be traded and that would be the only way lowry would start.
i dont think kyle should really start. for instanst say the starters dont do well and the bench comes in, there gonna want to control the game. lowry is the man reason we have so many wins when trailing by 10 +. thats been the case in many of our games, and most of the road games. that really gets he rockets fired up and the starters come and light it up.so i dont think its neccesarry [sorry if i spelt it wrong] if he starts.
We know how good Lowry is, no reason to start him and raise the cost to resign him. We will trade Brooks in the offseason, he takes touches away from Yao/Martin, who are more efficient scorers. Lowry will get us into our offensive sets quicker and get the ball in Martin and Yao's hands, as well as D-up on opposing PGs.
