I don't think Curry has done anything in his career to warrant any more than 10 million a year for five years. The most important thing that factors the most, is what has happened recently and that's Curry's ankle injury which seems quite chronic and that itself is a huge question mark.

As a player and PG Curry is very good and better than his averages show, but he just doesn't deserve more than the amount I said right now.

Raider1015 wrote:

32 wrote:

Raider1015 wrote:I'm not nearly as bullish as most of you on Curry. I'm a big believer that some players are injury-prone, and I'd hate to lock up the franchise on a guy who keeps missing time.

I think you have to let the season play out. If he gets hurt badly, you can cut ties and move on. If he plays great, he's a restricted free agent and you can match any offer. And if you extend him after a healthy season, you still leave open the option to trade him if a godfather offer ever comes along--which is only possible if he's healthy anyway. And if he gets hurt, you can resign him at a huge discount and trade him for something or keep him on the cheap.

Unless you get a MAJOR discount on him because of his history. But I doubt they'll receive a big enough discount that justifies the early extension.

Sure, but at the same time, do you honestly believe that Steph Curry is injury-prone because he rolled the same ankle 3 times in 2 weeks? That would put anybody on the shelf for a long period of time. And I'm not saying lock up the franchise by spilling the entire bank on Curry with a maximum-per-year contract, but I absolutely believe we need to retain him. The league sees him as our most talented player, opposing fan bases all ask for him in trades on other message boards, and he seems genuinely interested (along with Lee) at the proposition of turning this franchise into a winner - and not merely bolting once he hits the open market. Loyalty is a big deal to me. Its also relevant to understand that Curry is our most efficient player in nearly all advanced/sabermetric categories across the board. When he plays, he makes a bigger difference than anybody on this roster... and no one under 7-feet (ie, Bogut) can argue that position.

Yes, technically, the Warriors have another year of restriction before Curry can hit free agency, but Steph's camp has expressed interest in getting a contract extension before the season starts and, with the exception of Scott Boras clients in MLB, I always deal from the mindset that it's best to keep players happy. If Curry wants an extension, it's fair for the team to try and work one out with him. That's not to say that he won't get a lower salary (again, something in the $10-$12 million per year range), but if you let him play out the season and he's magically cured and averaged 20 points, 7 assists, and 2 steals over a period of 75 games, he's going to easily increase his asking price to to $15 million range.

I think it'd be most prudent to get Curry a reasonable deal that will satisfy him and restore his faith in the team while his asking price is relatively low. With Bogut and Lee both commanding over $13 million for the next couple years, it's imperative that you don't give Curry the idea that he can get $15 or $16 million from another team.

I respectfully disagree on a few points.

I hope Curry's seven ankle sprains were all the same injury re-aggravated, but I can't help but be skeptical. It feels like 90% of injuries in hoops happen to 10% of the players.

I do not think Curry will sign for less than the max. slightly sub-all-star players under 25 pretty much deserve it. If he's healthy come October 31st (he had damn well better be ), then he'll be asking for the max because he's more optimistic than any of us, his agent wants the green, and most importantly, even if he does sustain some minor injuries, some team will still offer him the max in the off season. Eric Gordon just got the max and he has injury concerns, and that's about as close a parallel to Curry as you can get. I can't see why he should want to give us a discount unless he himself knows his ankle will be a problem.

I know that Curry is efficient as all hell--he's basically not-so-poor-man's Steve Nash in his prime. And provided you're right about his ankle, I would love to retain him. There's very few PGs in the league who are better, and they're all perennial All-Stars.

Do you think I'd he's healthy by, say, the all-star break, they should extend him? Or do you think they need to evaluate the whole season?

migya wrote:I don't think Curry has done anything in his career to warrant any more than 10 million a year for five years. The most important thing that factors the most, is what has happened recently and that's Curry's ankle injury which seems quite chronic and that itself is a huge question mark.

As a player and PG Curry is very good and better than his averages show, but he just doesn't deserve more than the amount I said right now.

In a vacuum, I'd agree that a lot of players are overpaid. But he's worth whatever the market will bear. My point is that someone will offer him the max barring catastrophic injury, and as we know, all players are worth whatever the highest bidder says they're worth.

Based on what players have been offered the past off-season, its clear that owners are willing (or forced) to speculate on player development, and pay out based on how good they'll be at the end of the contract. Maybe its a sad commentary on the league's new weakest position, but Eric Gordon projects to be the NBA's best shooting guard in 3 or 4 years. Roy Hibbert will be an all-star mainstay for lack of competition. OKC hopes Serge Ibaka can become an all-defensive team mainstay. Stephen Curry's uber efficiency has many people (myself included) making Steve Nash comparisons--if healthy. These guys are all just 23 or 24, and the good ones can will only be entering their primes in year 3 or 4.

You can't trick a budding star into signing below market value.

32 wrote:

Raider1015 wrote:

32 wrote:

Raider1015 wrote:I'm not nearly as bullish as most of you on Curry. I'm a big believer that some players are injury-prone, and I'd hate to lock up the franchise on a guy who keeps missing time.

I think you have to let the season play out. If he gets hurt badly, you can cut ties and move on. If he plays great, he's a restricted free agent and you can match any offer. And if you extend him after a healthy season, you still leave open the option to trade him if a godfather offer ever comes along--which is only possible if he's healthy anyway. And if he gets hurt, you can resign him at a huge discount and trade him for something or keep him on the cheap.

Unless you get a MAJOR discount on him because of his history. But I doubt they'll receive a big enough discount that justifies the early extension.

Sure, but at the same time, do you honestly believe that Steph Curry is injury-prone because he rolled the same ankle 3 times in 2 weeks? That would put anybody on the shelf for a long period of time. And I'm not saying lock up the franchise by spilling the entire bank on Curry with a maximum-per-year contract, but I absolutely believe we need to retain him. The league sees him as our most talented player, opposing fan bases all ask for him in trades on other message boards, and he seems genuinely interested (along with Lee) at the proposition of turning this franchise into a winner - and not merely bolting once he hits the open market. Loyalty is a big deal to me. Its also relevant to understand that Curry is our most efficient player in nearly all advanced/sabermetric categories across the board. When he plays, he makes a bigger difference than anybody on this roster... and no one under 7-feet (ie, Bogut) can argue that position.

Yes, technically, the Warriors have another year of restriction before Curry can hit free agency, but Steph's camp has expressed interest in getting a contract extension before the season starts and, with the exception of Scott Boras clients in MLB, I always deal from the mindset that it's best to keep players happy. If Curry wants an extension, it's fair for the team to try and work one out with him. That's not to say that he won't get a lower salary (again, something in the $10-$12 million per year range), but if you let him play out the season and he's magically cured and averaged 20 points, 7 assists, and 2 steals over a period of 75 games, he's going to easily increase his asking price to to $15 million range.

I think it'd be most prudent to get Curry a reasonable deal that will satisfy him and restore his faith in the team while his asking price is relatively low. With Bogut and Lee both commanding over $13 million for the next couple years, it's imperative that you don't give Curry the idea that he can get $15 or $16 million from another team.

I respectfully disagree on a few points.

I hope Curry's seven ankle sprains were all the same injury re-aggravated, but I can't help but be skeptical. It feels like 90% of injuries in hoops happen to 10% of the players.

I do not think Curry will sign for less than the max. slightly sub-all-star players under 25 pretty much deserve it. If he's healthy come October 31st (he had damn well better be ), then he'll be asking for the max because he's more optimistic than any of us, his agent wants the green, and most importantly, even if he does sustain some minor injuries, some team will still offer him the max in the off season. Eric Gordon just got the max and he has injury concerns, and that's about as close a parallel to Curry as you can get. I can't see why he should want to give us a discount unless he himself knows his ankle will be a problem.

I know that Curry is efficient as all hell--he's basically not-so-poor-man's Steve Nash in his prime. And provided you're right about his ankle, I would love to retain him. There's very few PGs in the league who are better, and they're all perennial All-Stars.

Do you think I'd he's healthy by, say, the all-star break, they should extend him? Or do you think they need to evaluate the whole season?

I think it'd be a gamble either way - however, sometimes that's where you get good deals and prove that the gamble was definitely worth the try. I'd say sign him at the mid-point..probably get him slightly cheaper with hopes that he'll stay healthy the rest of the season and continue to perform at a high level. (Of course this depends on how his numbers look mid-point too).

32 wrote:Do you think I'd he's healthy by, say, the all-star break, they should extend him? Or do you think they need to evaluate the whole season?

The longer they wait the lower their risk is, I suppose. If I were the owner, I wouldn't be opposed to trading a small bit of risk for some goodwill from a key player--so I wouldn't be against the mid-season extension. If his ankle holds up for 40-50 games, I'll be comfortable with it going forward.

But like I mentioned earlier, I think he's in line for the max either way. We disagree on this, but I don't think that goodwill will earn them any tangible discount, so I therefore don't see much of an incentive for the Warriors to extend him early. I think they'll pay the same for him whether they sign him now, February, or June (barring injury of course).

And if (what I consider) a miracle happens and no one offers him the max in the off-season, then we actually would be able to match whatever lesser offer is tendered, or negotiate for even less. But I don't see this happening, unfortunately. The Mavericks and the Jazz sh/would love to jump in and snatch Curry up.

Raider1015 wrote:

32 wrote:Do you think I'd he's healthy by, say, the all-star break, they should extend him? Or do you think they need to evaluate the whole season?

The longer they wait the lower their risk is, I suppose. If I were the owner, I wouldn't be opposed to trading a small bit of risk for some goodwill from a key player--so I wouldn't be against the mid-season extension. If his ankle holds up for 40-50 games, I'll be comfortable with it going forward.

But like I mentioned earlier, I think he's in line for the max either way. We disagree on this, but I don't think that goodwill will earn them any tangible discount, so I therefore don't see much of an incentive for the Warriors to extend him early. I think they'll pay the same for him whether they sign him now, February, or June (barring injury of course).

And if (what I consider) a miracle happens and no one offers him the max in the off-season, then we actually would be able to match whatever lesser offer is tendered, or negotiate for even less. But I don't see this happening, unfortunately. The Mavericks and the Jazz sh/would love to jump in and snatch Curry up.

It's not that I think he'll offer a discount out of good will; its that I believe he has no option but to offer a discount if he's insisting they get a deal done before the season (which, according to reports, he is).

With Curry's camp advocating an early extension, I find it hard to believe they'd think the Warriors would essentially offer him a maximum deal when they'll have the option to match if any other teams do so after the year. The only possible reason Curry could want a contract extension this early would be that he's come to terms with his actual value, injury-history included, and he wants to compromise with the team. He has to understand that the team won't just give him max money off two seasons with spotty playing time. But perhaps he's more concerned with getting a multi-year deal while his value is still pretty high. I think this means, essentially, that he's ready to negotiate. And, the scary thing is; why in God's name would he want to do that unless he's worried that his ankle won't hold up...

The Eric Gordon example is a little bit of a stretch for me. The Hornets HAD to extend him to prevent pitch forks and torches from their fan base. After the CP3 exodus, they couldn't afford to just let Gordon walk and, essentially, had a gun to their head, which EG's camp used to get a laughable contract extension. The Warriors are not in a similar situation; if Curry got a max deal from Utah or Dallas, Warriors management is not nearly as obligated to bring him back. New Orleans lost the league's finest PG for a pick and a prospect... making it impossible to let the prospect walk. Curry is simply a different situation; the fan base knows of his injury history and half of them would tell you TODAY that they wouldn't wanna pay him max money.

That being said... if he's ready to talk turkey, I'm down to give him anything between $10 to $13 million per year. Obviously, if he wants max money, they can wait til after the year to retain him. But if he's pushing for an extension, I think he's willing to deal. What do you think he's worth at this point?

Raider1015 wrote:

migya wrote:I don't think Curry has done anything in his career to warrant any more than 10 million a year for five years. The most important thing that factors the most, is what has happened recently and that's Curry's ankle injury which seems quite chronic and that itself is a huge question mark.

As a player and PG Curry is very good and better than his averages show, but he just doesn't deserve more than the amount I said right now.

In a vacuum, I'd agree that a lot of players are overpaid. But he's worth whatever the market will bear. My point is that someone will offer him the max barring catastrophic injury, and as we know, all players are worth whatever the highest bidder says they're worth.

Based on what players have been offered the past off-season, its clear that owners are willing (or forced) to speculate on player development, and pay out based on how good they'll be at the end of the contract. Maybe its a sad commentary on the league's new weakest position, but Eric Gordon projects to be the NBA's best shooting guard in 3 or 4 years. Roy Hibbert will be an all-star mainstay for lack of competition. OKC hopes Serge Ibaka can become an all-defensive team mainstay. Stephen Curry's uber efficiency has many people (myself included) making Steve Nash comparisons--if healthy. These guys are all just 23 or 24, and the good ones can will only be entering their primes in year 3 or 4.

You can't trick a budding star into signing below market value.

I know what you're saying and you're probably closer to being right than me. If the likelyhood of Curry getting a max contract is high, then reality is it's probably better signing him now for 10-12 million than later for more. I haven't checked, but what is the max salary for Curry after this season? Probably starting at 13 million, averaging about 15.5 million over five years. If so, that's a significant amount more than 12 million a year, so honestly I'd sign him now, because even if he misses time with injury over the next two seasons, he is effective and valuable enough that he can be traded for a newer, younger PG that will appear over the next year or so.

That's risky, as you can't see the future and he'd have to agree to that amount, but it could really mean a very good business decision.