As usual, I think I have managed to come off like a dick or something...
My main point was just to say that it isn't in player's interests to avoid re-signing after their rookie deal. True free agency in the NBA doesn't start until the end of contract #2 (at least for first round picks). The thing to watch is the management of the team, not whether or not we imagine a player would like to live in a certain city. The single most important part of having a legitimate NBA team is its management (and obviously, ownership). I don't think you can overestimate how important that is to the equation.
When I was looking at what it might take to re-sign Jeff Green down the road, I looked at three guys that had similar attributes to Green in terms of value. I wound up looking at Josh Howard, David West and Josh Smith. Little did I realize what a good example it would be in the difference between organizations.
First Howard...When his rookie deal ended, Dallas signed him for 5 more years at roughly $9-$10 million per. The interesting part is that the terms of the contract back load the money, starting the salary lower and escalating the deal every year. Then, the final and richest year of the deal is a team option year. This is a great deal for the Mavs in that they are in full control to negotiate his next deal. They can see how they like his development and if they decide to continue with him as a foundation player, then they've got all the leverage during what could be up to two years of negotiations. If they decide to part ways, they can dump him prior to the priciest year of the deal. Great deal and an example of why Dallas has become such a stable franchise...
Then look at West...He also signed a 5-year extension worth around $9 million per year. The big difference here is that his was built the opposite way. New Orleans front loaded the money, paying the most in the first year and dropping every year after that. Then the fifth and poorest year of the deal is a player option year. So this deal is designed to help the team manage salary down the road, but maybe isn't the best way to keep a player long term. West is now going to have major leverage with New Orleans when it comes time for a new deal. Its a great example of a mediocre management team doing things in the short term and obsessing over year by year costs. The deal not only undermines their ability to keep him down the road, but also makes it likely that as the end of the deal nears the team may have to trade him to recoup some value.
Finally, there is Smith. This is a great example of why you just absolutely don't ever want to let your guy get to restricted free agency. I would say most people would agree that Smith is clearly the least accomplished of the three guys we're talking about, but he just signed for 5 years at around $11 million per, with no option years or qualifying offer. Atlanta was basically a mess and didn't know what Smith's value was or where he fit in their plans. Then he gets to RFA and gets the offer sheet and after all the bad publicity and with the threat of losing a valuable asset for nothing they were compelled to match the offer. So now they have a talented, but overpaid and likely unmotivated player locked in for five years, a guy who, by the way, was getting booed by Hawks fans in the playoffs this year (year one of the deal). So its pretty easy to see where Smith will be a Hawk for a couple more years, then when he gets toward the end of the deal other teams might be willing to take him on and he winds up getting dealt to a contender so the Hawks can cut payroll. A great example of why the Hawks are so, so terrible...
I hope this novel was worth it or interesting, but the thing it really should tell us is that for all the people that complained about wishing we could have kept Chris Paul and the Hornets, we should be thanking our lucky stars that we've got Sam Presti running the show. Once this team gets on its feet, it is gonna be a quality, stable franchise because Sambo does it the right way.
Sterling and Dunleavy however...
