Should the Lakers offer LeBron a 2 year, $97.1 million extension on Aug 4?

[BobbyPortisEyes]

Absolutely. Lebron is a cash cow that generates about $70 million per year for the franchise. Combined with the brand relevance factor (as much as the Lakers suck, they will always be relevant outside of LA with Lebron on the team) and the importance of the organization's reputation as a franchise that takes care of their superstars, this is really a no-brainer.

The Lakers aren't going to be particularly good with or without him the next few years so there isn't any reason to throw money or their reputation as a superstar coddling franchise (which is extremely important in today's NBA unless you are a masterfully run organization) down the drain.

[durden_tyler]

Lakers already made that mistake in signing Kobe those latter years in his career but of course you have to do it because it's Kobe. If they see LeBron as the same status as Kobe in Lakers history, then they'll do the stupid thing and give him the huge extension.

[Pointgod]

What year is Bronny eligible for the league? I assume Lebron would want to be a free agent to coincide with that. Don’t get it twisted, Lebron with a bunch of shooters and defenders is still a playoff team.

[Jables]

Absolutely. Lebron is a cash cow that generates about $70 million per year for the franchise. Combined with the brand relevance factor (as much as the Lakers suck, they will always be relevant outside of LA with Lebron on the team) and the importance of the organization's reputation as a franchise that takes care of their superstars, this is really a no-brainer.

The Lakers aren't going to be particularly good with or without him the next few years so there isn't any reason to throw money or their reputation as a superstar coddling franchise (which is extremely important in today's NBA unless you are a masterfully run organization) down the drain.

What are you talking about, it's the Lakers lmao

LeBron went to them to make his brand bigger, not the other way around.

They re-sign him because he can still potentially play at a high level

[Dan Z]

Trading marquees players without their knowledge/support damages trust between players and the franchise which makes future acquisitions impossible.

Knicks problem is also trust related. No player in the NBA trusts the competence of Knicks management. This bothers me but I can't blame players.

We haven't re-signed a first round pick in quarter century which shows we're impatient.
We have the worst winning percentage of any franchise this century which shows we're incompetent.
We have an owner who is visibly incompetent.

All of that reduces trust players have in franchises. A lot of posters on realgm, not necessaily you, think signing players is like a video game. Offer 1 dollar more and you can sign em. Develop a reputation as someone who trades players against their will, doesn't matter as long as you offer 1 dollar more.

That isn't true. In a world of max salaries teams can't offer more money beyond the supermax. In the world of maximum contract lengths teams can't compete by offering greater financial security. I think it is a bad thing. But the owners love max salaries because it makes it easy to divide the union and most posters on realgm love max contract lengths because they hate the idea of a bad contract crippling their franchise for a decade. The result of the CBA is player acquisition of top players has very little to do with contracts

Teams compete for players in the NBA mainly through amenities. Some of them franchises can't control: most prefer LA/NY to New Orleans/SLC or state income tax vs no state income tax. But a lot of em you can control (competent management, listening to players, not doing trades behind their back, etc)

A franchise that tries to operate as if it was in a video game is dooming itself. Signing a player than trading him to a city they don't want to live in will have negative consequences. Acting like morons, as my knicks have, also has consequences.

You can't do a sign and trade against a players will. If it were to happen LA, LeBron and the new team would all have to agree with it.

Thanks for explaining it to me. I didn't get that about sign and trade rules. How soon after signing someone can you trade em?

I'm not sure. I know for regular signings a team has to wait until the later of 3 months after they sign or December 15th.

[BobbyPortisEyes]

Absolutely. Lebron is a cash cow that generates about $70 million per year for the franchise. Combined with the brand relevance factor (as much as the Lakers suck, they will always be relevant outside of LA with Lebron on the team) and the importance of the organization's reputation as a franchise that takes care of their superstars, this is really a no-brainer.

The Lakers aren't going to be particularly good with or without him the next few years so there isn't any reason to throw money or their reputation as a superstar coddling franchise (which is extremely important in today's NBA unless you are a masterfully run organization) down the drain.

What are you talking about, it's the Lakers lmao

LeBron went to them to make his brand bigger, not the other way around.

They re-sign him because he can still potentially play at a high level

Meh, Lebron went there because the team happens to be in Los Angeles where there are more opportunities for him to grow his brand. It's no mystery why Lebron is the only superstar that wanted to join the Lakers in the post-Dr. Buss era, they basically had the reputation of being the new Knicks in terms of how badly they were run up until Lebron joined. The Lakers were obviously completely desperate to acquire his services, which is why they' allowed Klutch Sports to wrap its tentacles around the team. This would have been unfathomable under Dr. Buss. Still a powerful brand of course but nowhere what it used to be.