Kyle Lowry's contract

[WigginsNation]

So we signed Kyle to a 4 year 48 million contract, with a player option to opt out after year 3. What was the rationale in Masai proposing/agreeing to this player option?

12 million per year for Lowry is a bargain, and it would have been preferred to sign him to the 5 years he was asking for, rather then have him opt out after 3 years and ask for more.

5 years 60 million for Lowry wouldve been a steal!

[ballislife]

I dont understand the thread. If it is "what was Masai's rationale," I think you answered it.

His deal is a bargain if you consider that he's our best player and leader, and we got him for $3 million less per year than Chandler Parsons. Masai is a genius GM.

[hyper316]

if lowry was 23 years-old like DeRozan, then sure go ahead and offer 5 years. but lowry is gonna be 31 years-old in 3 years, those extra 2 years (32-33 years-old) may be declining real fast, especially the way Lowry plays like a bulldog, definitely going to see wear and tear on the body (see wade's decline and he's 32 years-old)

[Lake Forrest]

I don't doubt Lowry will still be effective at 32, however I believe this is a good contract, most of our core guys are still young and I think it's essential to have flexibility going forward with these guys.

[Badonkadonk]

If the opt-out is Lowry's, then it's irrelevant whether the contract turns out to be a 'steal' since the player holds the power.

In other words, even if Masai wanted 5 years, Lowry had good leverage so it's a moot point.

[Ackshun]

who cares.

Let's NBA

[Dan2087]

Its great for both sides. I think Lowry will be productive for the length of the contract. We get him at a bargain and he's still making decent money. If we aren't competitive or if he thinks he can make more money, he has an out with his option

5 years is too risky with a player like him IMO

[LondonShoutout]

He's prone to injuries and his age are factors (even though he's the little engine that could). But as you said it was a bargain.

[The Business]

The most applicable statistics in my estimation that can best infer the rate of decline of a player is still MINUTES PLAYED. Several players decline noticeably after roughly 30,000 minutes played in their careers. This of course doesn't factor in career threatening or longevity threatening injuries (i.e wade meniscus removal, derrick rose knees, grant hill ankles). If a player takes a noticeable leap in improvement later in their career say...(25-28 years old), if they haven't seen relatively high amount of minutes, it's SAFER to bet that they won't decline as drastically when they hit 32-33, so by all means offer the 5 year contract. But if they have been logging 35+ minutes per game and playing anywhere from 66-82 games a year for the past 10 years and they are now reupping for a 5 year contract at the same age (25-28) I would say - especially in the case of a guard - you want the 3 years contract and not 5.

[WigginsNation]

Just to clarify, though Lowry signed a 4 year contract, I think it's highly possible he'll opt out after 3 years simply because he can get more money. Which is why i think we shouldve just signed him for 5 years to get even more bang for the buck.

Lowry doesnt have as much mileage as say Dwade, so I'm sure he can still be a very effective player when he's 32-33. And if Masai saw that his productivity was declining, he could easily trade him. I really think signing him for 5 years wouldve been even better.

[RonaldArtest]

Who cares? If he plays great and opts out for more money, depending on where we are as a team, just sign him again. Like others have mentioned, 5 years may have been too long given his style of play and current age.

[WigginsNation]

Who cares? If he plays great and opts out for more money, depending on where we are as a team, just sign him again. Like others have mentioned, 5 years may have been too long given his style of play and current age.

Is there any doubt he wont play well?? Lowry's best years are ahead of him, and he'll be gunning to be an allstar for many years to come. Which is why signing him to 5 years wouldve been better instead of him opting out after 3 years and then re-signing him for significantly more.

If the concern is his play possibly declining, then we have the best trader in the business. Problem solved.

[cammac]

He's prone to injuries and his age are factors (even though he's the little engine that could). But as you said it was a bargain.

So tired of idiotic comments in he is prone to injuries can you please illuminate me on those injuries that you are talking about? It is such a over worked canard by people too lazy to understand his history of games lost especially his last year in Houston.

[cammac]

The most applicable statistics in my estimation that can best infer the rate of decline of a player is still MINUTES PLAYED. Several players decline noticeably after roughly 30,000 minutes played in their careers. This of course doesn't factor in career threatening or longevity threatening injuries (i.e wade meniscus removal, derrick rose knees, grant hill ankles). If a player takes a noticeable leap in improvement later in their career say...(25-28 years old), if they haven't seen relatively high amount of minutes, it's SAFER to bet that they won't decline as drastically when they hit 32-33, so by all means offer the 5 year contract. But if they have been logging 35+ minutes per game and [url]playing anywhere from 66-82 games a year for the past 10 years and they are now reupping for a 5 year contract at the same age (25-28[/url]) I would say - especially in the case of a guard - you want the 3 years contract and not 5.

Yes I agree with you lots of players who are 15 years old log those heavy minutes in the NBA for 10 years

[barrist]

Just to clarify, though Lowry signed a 4 year contract, I think it's highly possible he'll opt out after 3 years simply because he can get more money. Which is why i think we shouldve just signed him for 5 years to get even more bang for the buck.

Lowry doesnt have as much mileage as say Dwade, so I'm sure he can still be a very effective player when he's 32-33. And if Masai saw that his productivity was declining, he could easily trade him. I really think signing him for 5 years wouldve been even better.

Do you really see him getting more than 12 in year 4?

This was a contract year and he may have peaked. I'll be happy if he's 80% of what he did last year for the remainder of his contract.

[Mascot]

Contract works well for both sides

If Lowry is playing poorly then we have less years of the salary burden in a 4 year contract instead of 5.

If Lowry is still preforming after year 3 he can opt out and cash in for another three year contract.

There is also a high chance that their are incentives built in like DeMars contract.


remember DeMar was slated to make $9,500,000 this year but because of last year hes now going to make $10,100,000

[The Business]

The most applicable statistics in my estimation that can best infer the rate of decline of a player is still MINUTES PLAYED. Several players decline noticeably after roughly 30,000 minutes played in their careers. This of course doesn't factor in career threatening or longevity threatening injuries (i.e wade meniscus removal, derrick rose knees, grant hill ankles). If a player takes a noticeable leap in improvement later in their career say...(25-28 years old), if they haven't seen relatively high amount of minutes, it's SAFER to bet that they won't decline as drastically when they hit 32-33, so by all means offer the 5 year contract. But if they have been logging 35+ minutes per game and [url]playing anywhere from 66-82 games a year for the past 10 years and they are now reupping for a 5 year contract at the same age (25-28[/url]) I would say - especially in the case of a guard - you want the 3 years contract and not 5.

Yes I agree with you lots of players who are 15 years old log those heavy minutes in the NBA for 10 years

Why not actually discuss the idea I brought up instead of nit picking a technicality/typo. 7-10 years of experience instead of 10 fine with you? I'm surprised someone with as many posts as you do, would even care to comment on something so inconsequential...

[mintsa]

I disagree. The I have no problem at all with the opt out. If KLow keeps on getting better and we keep on winning. Give the man more money after 3 years.

[Blast Tyrant]

He's prone to injuries and his age are factors (even though he's the little engine that could). But as you said it was a bargain.

So tired of idiotic comments in he is prone to injuries can you please illuminate me on those injuries that you are talking about? It is such a over worked canard by people too lazy to understand his history of games lost especially his last year in Houston.

Yeah I have so many friends who throw around the "injury prone" label with Lowry and it's just a straight up fabrication. It's weird, because you don't really hear the media call him injury prone. It's just some delusion fans have concocted over the years and ran with.

[MVP-]

Wasn't it rumoured that Kyle was asking for 5 years but Masai was hesistant to give him 5 so Lowry and his agent strong-armed them into 4 years with the 3rd being an option? I swear that's what I read somewhere on here...

P.S. If he plays at the level he did last season for the duration of the contract..... we literally have to build Masai a statue and just pay him $1,000,000,000 a year for the rest of his life.