Not-so-veteran extensions

[Garf]

Everybody says Morey is smart, signing his 2nd-rounders to 4-year contracts. But isn't he shooting himself in the foot? A guy like Parsons (or Stephenson in Indy) is guaranteed to become an UFA after his 4th year. (Coon Q58 says you can only extend a non-rookie scale contract using up to 107.5% of his last salary - clearly not an option for either of these two.) Yes, that 4th year is cheap (and 3rd, and 2nd in extreme cases), but isn't is waaay safer to sign them for 3 years originally and enjoy the benefits of RFA? What am I missing here?

[HartfordWhalers]

Everybody says Morey is smart, signing his 2nd-rounders to 4-year contracts. But isn't he shooting himself in the foot? A guy like Parsons (or Stephenson in Indy) is guaranteed to become an UFA after his 4th year. (Coon Q58 says you can only extend a non-rookie scale contract using up to 107.5% of his last salary - clearly not an option for either of these two.) Yes, that 4th year is cheap (and 3rd, and 2nd in extreme cases), but isn't is waaay safer to sign them for 3 years originally and enjoy the benefits of RFA? What am I missing here?

It is definitely safer. And for most teams I would think the 3 year deal is the better choice.

However, if you are convinced that a team/market is desirable and the player would stay with there for equal money, then the advantage of a rfa versus a ufa is diminished and maybe a 4 year deal makes sense over 3. But either way, a 3 year deal would seem to fit the word 'safer' much better than a 4 year deal.

[Three34]

It behooves the agents. So, yeah.

[giberish]

I believe Parsons has a team option for the 4th year. So (I think) Houston could decline the option, then resign Parsons as an RFA after 3 years if they want - or they could get the extra cheap year and deal with him as an UFA the next year. Their choice will depend on how tight they are against the cap (or tax) next year, and how confident they can make a reasonable deal as an UFA.

[DBoys]

1 Is Parsons relevant here?
Sham has Parsons as non-guaranteed in the final year. Other reports show the final year as a team option. There is a practical difference in how those work if they want to keep him.

2 Zach Lowe's article today was a good discussion of the differences in the various choices.

3 RFA rights have control value, but not as much financial value. You can match someone else's bid, but you can't keep the bid from being bigger than you want it to be.

4 On the other hand, while the 4th year at the minimum doesn't confer longer term control, it does provide financial advantage. That 4th year at the minimum is the best financial deal possible for a team, for that 4th year, and having it set can be a big plus with teams so dollar conscious on their payroll.

[Three34]

Sham has Parsons as non-guaranteed in the final year. Other reports show the final year as a team option.

I benefit from other people's refusal to acknowledge/lack of awareness of the difference.