Boogie! wrote:ForeverTFC wrote:Dennis 37 wrote:
If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.
2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.Boogie! wrote:Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…
And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.
He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.
The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.
That last line is why I constantly criticize people’s ability to evaluate players…
The thing is, if GTJ was such a superior prospect you lock him up for 4 years. Otherwise what was the point? He becomes great and at the end if the 2nd year he opts out and is too expensive. If you're not willing to lock him up, then you don't believe he is any better than Norm.
