08-10-2023, 01:28 PM
(08-10-2023, 12:37 PM)mvossman Wrote: The Powell extension was a long time ago. The lack of a Brunson extension was much more recent. If you are taking both together, the lesson should be better to sometimes get stuck with overpay (Powell) than miss huge value and lose player (Brunson). I think we would agree that if our options were to extend neither or extend both, we would choose the later.Might I suggest the possibility of the presence of lessons learned from the Powell extension in the Brunson situation? Maybe, at least a reinforcement of an already established practice.
As for price, I'm in line with you and the slightly over MLE (14 mil) guys. Giving him a little over MLE seems like a win for both sides as he may not get over MLE in a restricted market.
Not necessarily from an injury standpoint as opposed to when it isn’t a sure thing of what a player is gonna be worth in that near future. It’s easy to extend Luka for the max. When someone is inconsistent with their play and has shown flashes of potential, it’s a much more difficult situation. It is their job to know, but there is no perfect knowledge in that situation.
They bet wrong on JB and it sucks (or the established practice worked against them). It still looks like the “Powell lesson” might be a part of the process in this Green case though, right or wrong. Since Powell and other than Luka, have we extended a player in the offseason as opposed to later in the season (I don’t know, but if there are more than Luka, I’m pretty sure the list is very small)?
It doesn’t seem like even before Powell there were a lot of extensions either, so this may just be a team philosophy and not a “Powell lesson”, just can’t recall it to memory and not enough interest in looking it up (wouldn’t know where to start even).