nickhx2 wrote:Bobbymcgee wrote:madmaxmedia wrote:
Signing him to 4 years is only going to be compounding the problem now. At the time the basis for the trade was generally acceptable. But giving him a max now now guarantees likely 2 really bad years at the end, and significantly decreases his trade value IMO.
I think a 3 year deal is still value positive, a 4 year/$220 max is value negative no matter what we traded to get him originally.
I don't disagree with you. I would love to see the Clippers move on from the 213 era which has failed much like the lob city era has. But, the Clippers decided to extend the 213 era by signing Leonard to a new three year deal. The problem has already been compounded. How do you salvage next season, the next three years, by letting PG13 walk away with nothing in return?
it seems like the FO has pretty clearly tapped into this line of thinking, which i suppose is why PG hasn't been handed a 4 year max thus far, and i would imagine they think exactly what we think: try to get him for 3 because he's playable and tradeable at 3, but at 4 we're better off gritting our teeth and letting him go, in spite of everything we gave up to acquire him in the first place.
i imagine also they're kinda banking on other teams having no interest in giving him the 4 year max possible, either.
whatever the case, while i understand the sentiment of wanting to move on as fans, especially after the emotions of the series and season ending the way it did, i'm glad to see that we have people (mostly) thinking about how to extract maximum value for what we have. like i get it if people wanna move on, but yo, cmon, let's think like we're a divorce lawyer so we can try to get whatever we possibly can for the client lol. some assets are always better than none, and given how asset-starved we are to begin with, each one has much greater relative value to us.
Yeah that is exactly my thinking. In a vacuum, 3 year deals for Kawhi and PG are reasonably fine- each has their own risks but are not value negative signings IMO. But 4 year contracts would be, for either player. The main risk factor for both is age, but slightly different in each case. Kawhi is holding up better on the court, but isn't on the court enough. PG has had better health, but his game seems to be declining faster. Hypothetically if both had demanded 4 years, giving it to them would make us better next year but significantly worse in the back half of those deals and also reduces their trade value significantly IMO.
Of course, one could have the opinion that there's not that much difference between 3 and 4 years, that they'll hold up reasonably fine all 4 years. From that perspective the obvious choice is to try for 3 but give them 4 if needed to get the deals done.
