Doesn't it make the most sense for IT to sign a 2+1 contract?

[incoherent]

Kyle Lowry signed for 3 years for 100m at the age of 31 this off season.  He averaged 22/7. Now I'm just going to roll with the premise that IT will be playing at a similar level of Kyle Lowry when he turns 31 which to me seems highly likely.

If I'm IT's agent and I want to maximize my clients money over a longer period of time I would urge him to sign a 2+1 max contract.  Opt out of the third year as long as you play how you are expected to and then sign a Lowry type deal at age 31 for 3 or 4 years.

This move could potentially make IT another 25 million more dollars over a 5 year period when compared to straight up signing a 5 year max contract next off-season.  It could also give him a much higher chance of being paid dramatically more in the 6th year (if he managed to turn that Kyle Lowry type contract into a 4 year instead of a 3 year)  Ultimately the move could generate him 35-45 million more over 6 years if he did get that 4th year (unlikely but possible).

After IT's proposed 2 year contract is up he will have more then 10 years experience making him eligible for 35% of the cap, and the cap is expected to be around 110 million in 3 seasons..... both of these things play a pretty big role in IT making 20% more money over 5 years. 

But it's not too outlandish to think about doing this considering it's exactly what Gordon Hayward just did, as he will be opting out in 3 years and signing a new much larger max deal that will have made him roughly 25 million more over the next 5 year.

The only way the plan would backfire is if he got very seriously injured in his contract year, but that is why you do a 2+1, opt into that +1 to get back to healthy and on the court to show people you can still play.  But, is that too great of a risk to take?

Also, I could be completely wrong since I am not a cap expert.  Someone set me straight and tell me the obvious reasons why IT would much rather just sign a 5 year max next off season.

[footey]

It may benefit the Celtics more as an organization, in the event IT breaks down in the 3rd year, and/or another PG emerges either on our roster or in free agency.

 I doubt IT will want to do this, though. He said a Brinks Truck, not a minivan.

[droopdog7]

You've answered your own question.  Taking less money now is a risk; plain and simple.  You might get more, he might get less.  And who's to say the Celts will want to offer IT the max when IT is 31?  Maybe Hayward becomes the man, Tatum blossoms into a star, and IT becomes an afterthought.

[saltlover]

When people talk about IT's desires for his next contract, bear in mind that Gordon Hayward will make more this season than IT will have made for his career, over seven seasons, when he hits free agency.  Jayson Tatum's rookie deal will pay more over four years than IT will have made over seven years.   He doesn't have a huge shoe contract that's making up for this, either.  This will be his only chance for a big contract, and he knows it.  He's going to try to get as much as he can, for as long as he can.  It's pretty simple.

[Rosco917]

The Celtics need to see that IT is 100% healthy this fall, and throughout the regular season, before anyone plans on re-signing him, or worries about his contract terms.

Kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

[keevsnick]

I mean sure, he could make more money doing it that way. But I really dont think he's gonna get the 35% max after a 2+1 deal anyway, i'm not even entirely sure Gordon Hayward will in 3 years at age 30. I  think in the end his choosing between a 2+1 or a 5 year deal will probably be a moot point because I really don't think the cletics will offer him a five year deal. The last two years have dried up free agent money, next year at age 29 I'm not sure there will be a four year max offer available, we saw how tight the free agent PG market got this summer. It wouldn't surprise me if a 3 year max from the Celtics was his best bet next year.

[jambr380]

It doesn't really make much sense for IT to worry about getting a bigger max 2-3 years after his next contract ends when he may not even get the max this time around.

I agree with SL here - Thomas should try and make as much money over the greatest period of time possible now and if he is still relevant after that contract ends, he can sign another one then.

Note: If IT wants a 5-yr max, I hope we aren't the ones that give it to him (I realize we are the only ones who can since he plays for us).

[tazzmaniac]

Lowry only signed that contract because he couldn't get more years and more money.  His market just wasn't that big and it dried up quickly.  IT could end up falling in the same boat but signing a 2+1 definitely does not make the most sense for him.