NBA Rumors: Signing Ty Lawson to Extension Would Be Huge Win for Nuggets
After Ty Lawson's career year last season, the Denver Nuggets would be wise to get the dynamic point guard locked up before the Halloween deadline.
That's because the 2009 first-round pick is a nightmare for his opponents these days.
According to the Denver Post, Nuggets executive Masai Ujiri said on Monday that talks concerning a contract extension have been "positive" with Lawson.
And although nothing is imminent at this point, it's important to note that Lawson said he'd prefer to stay in Denver in the spring, per the Denver Post report.
The 24-year-old exploded as the Nuggets' starting point guard last season, averaging 16.4 points, 6.6 assists and 1.3 steals while shooting nearly 49 percent from the floor and 36.5 percent from downtown. He also set a career high in PER (19.43) and registered a solid assist ratio of 28.4 (percentage of his possessions that ended in an assist), via John Hollinger of ESPN.
Lawson's sheer speed in particular has always been an asset for George Karl's offense, which emphasizes getting out on the break after an opponent's miss. Already boasting a multitude of electric athletes, Denver hopes Lawson—combined with rookies Evan Fournier and Quincy Miller—can produce even more in the 2012-2013 season.
Is Ty Lawson worth a lucrative contract right now?
While the Nuggets have been mighty happy with Lawson, Karl has noted that he needs to be more aggressive on the floor, whether he's driving to the hoop or commanding the team.
But Lawson is still young, and there's little doubt in anyone's mind that he has earned the right to be handed the reins moving forward.
The only question is, will Denver be able to reach an agreement with Lawson on an extension before he becomes a restricted free agent in 2013? If they do, it should be considered a great success for a team that went 38-28 last season, capturing the sixth seed in the Western Conference.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?