It is about bang for the buck. Clarke offers a lot of bang, but for a lot of bucks.
True contenders rely on a proper mix of well compensated stars and rookie deals with rising stars. The more rookie deals, the less highly paid veteran stars, the more bang for the buck. It really all hinges on the quality of players that are on rookie deals, if the veteran stars can continue to play at a high level for the duration of their contract, and the luck factor known as injuries.
Injuries happen at a high rate and losing highly paid stars to injury are severely debilitating on multiple levels. Not only is the immediate services of the star lost, but his future becomes questionable depending upon the severity of the injury, and his expensive salary is eating up cap space into the future.
Here is what we know about Clarke. He has remained relatively healthy. He is a star. He may be worth the gamble of keeping around. The compensation for him if traded is a complete unknown. Entirely dependent upon predicting how good the compensated draft picks will be, how those rookies fit in, how healthy those rookies remain, how soon they can meaningfully contribute.
Development is a thing of the past for highly drafted rookies. Development occurs when former first rounders don't live up to their draft status and are acquired after their rookie deal has expired with the hope that their careers can be revived at either a much reduced price or a short term "prove it" deal with escape clauses built in. Still young enough to invest in, but not sell the farm for. Rookies that immediately contribute at a high level are the number one factor for success. Bang for the buck.
I'm good with keeping Clarke or getting well compensated for Clarke.
