Originally posted by Typecast:
I did not say "could" because he will cost more this year to keep. He had a cap hit of 1M last year. He will have a minimum cap hit of 5.2M in 2025. Gone are the days of Mr. Irrelevant on a last-pick-of-the-draft contract. You brought up that the team has the choice of controlling him for at least three years. To control him for "at least three years" would require an extension, the use of the franchise tag, or both. He could improve. He could regress. He could be the same. He's going to cost more than 5.2M in 2026.
The context of the discussion was contract extension, though.
If we are talking about cap hit costs, of course he is going to cost more, and these things are all standard procedure and the way it should be, per the CBA. There are no alternatives outside of paying him more than a scaled rookie contract of the last pick in the draft, so I'm not sure where the point of contention is? There's no rush or emergency in our current situation cause as I said, he's locked in for another 3 years even without a full extension if we want to continue testing him out.
Which comes full circle to my original point: The numbers. Everything comes down to what the numbers will actually be.