take on the 'leaving money on the table' argument

There is a sports argument that I cannot exactly wrap my head around, it has to do when people compare contracts for players.   This happens often but the conversation recently has been about Chris Paul who has been making a not so quiet plea to get out of the NBA Siberia of New Orleans to move to the NBA version of the Addams family in New York. With the new collective bargaining agreement the NBA continued its attempt to keep home-grown players on their original team by giving them a financial incentive to stay.   Although nobody is quite sure it sounds like the Knicks could sign Paul to a 4 year-$74 million dollar deal next summer while he could earn $100 million for 5 years if he stays put.    Even on a per-year basis there is no denying that that the Knick offer of $18.5million per year would be less than the New Orleans offer of $20 million per year but it's probably not a far fetch to think that he can make up at least a part of the difference in endorsements playing in NY although that really isn't the point

The point is about the argument which goes something like this..    'Chris Paul is leaving $25 million on the table if he goes to the Knicks'    The problem is that a lot of that is based on the value of the contract but doesn't take into consideration the amount of years of said contract.

Now I get that there is a $25 million dollar difference here but there is also a difference of one year.    In the NFL that might be a big difference but in the NBA where career ending injuries are very uncommon, The entire argument of 'leaving $25million on the table' is rubbish because it assumes he makes $0 in 2016 and it would be almost impossible to fathom that Paul would not at least get a decent one-year contract in 5 years.    In that fifth year he'll only be 32 and should still be able to garner an offer of $10-$15 on a one year contract if not significantly more. 

Look at the 2009-2010 salaries for point guards Jason Kidd $21 million, Marbury $21 million , Bibby $15 million, Arenas $15 million, Nash $15 million… most of these guys are well past 32 and most are bad.  I have to imagine that unless he completely falls apart there is no reason to think he wouldn't get at least something from one of the 32 teams.

So all of a sudden the amount he's leaving on the table is maybe $10 million which still is nothing to sneeze at but it's not $25 million either.

now i've also thought of the following..  Why doesn't a player sign a one year deal with a new NBA team and then immediately sign an extension since he is then officially under contract of that team.