Anybody else think that the extension rule in the NBA is terrible? Oladipo will be an UFA when the season concludes in a couple of months where HOU will be able to offer him a 5yr max contract; however, right now, they can only offer him a 2yr/$45M contract. It's the exact same reason we lost Kyrie for nothing. The extension amount we were able to offer wasn't even close to being acceptable so we had to take our chances in trying in the offseason.
If a player like Oladipo or Kyrie could actually decline a 5yr max (or near max) offer from their current team before hitting UFA, the team would know that they weren't serious about staying and would be able to trade him. I know the CBA has their reasoning for these types of rules, but if a team is going to be able to sign a player to a certain contract after the season, why can't they just agree to terms in that last year?
I doubt even if Kyrie could be offered max before season ended, he would have stayed
He didn't like the coach, Ainge (wouldn't add a 10 year vet) and how some of the younger guys on the team played
He basically wanted to run the show. Like what Lebron was able to pull in Cleveland and LA. Ainge told Kyrie NO. I still run the show
That was kind of my point, though. Before the season, he was ready and willing to commit to Boston; but then everything went sideways and he was ready to bolt. If we were able to sign him when he said he wanted to stay, we would have had that security. If he didn't mean what he said and had declined a true max extension, then we absolutely could have shopped him at the deadline.
Funny enough, if we did trade Kyrie, we could have actually then traded for AD and had him for two post-season runs rather than one. Another awful rule the NBA has on its books (can't trade for a 2nd player on a rookie max extension). We may not have retained him, but at least LAL wouldn't have won a Title last year.