R-DAWG wrote:DOT wrote:poeman wrote:
?t=Jjfc-xcWL4topzkYVqlseg&s=19
I don't think you can call it "ideal, team-friendly" if the player gets to decide to skip out on the least-expensive year.
It's team friendly that the numbers decline as the cap increases which (a) provides more cap flexibility and (b) brings the contract closer to market rate for an average starting PG as the deal gets shorter.
Actually, it's kind of the opposite
It raises the AAV slightly because it becomes a 3 year deal for $80 million instead of 4/104
That's player friendly, because he can opt out for a bigger bag in 3 years while still getting the largest yearly payday
It would only be team friendly in the way you think if the last year was a team option, not a player option. It would be more team friendly if it were an increasing deal
Because the first 2 years will be more expensive than if it were increasing, and we're only gonna save like $2 million (if that) in his 3rd year vs an increasing, then we have to re-sign him in year 4 for more than he would have made, which more than offsets any gains
It's really not team friendly, it's very player friendly.


































