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

[uraverage]

I think at this point he needs one more ring. Duncan and Kobe with more rings will not look as good in 20 years.

My vote is he takes the MLE and chases for 1.

[MarcusBrody]

I know this is gonna get crapped on and it's his money and all that, However I find it odd that this is even a thing.
Lebron is one of the richest athletes ever and also by all accounts has made a furtune in other ventures as well and will continue to do so post retirement.
While true he has been incredibly productive per game, continuing his Goat-ish career and just being an outlier all around really, he has also missed a lot of games these 4 Lakers seasons and it's unlikely that will be any different going forward.

That means that on his Super max, Any team he plays for is Hamstrung with almost 50 Million for a good player but also one that misses alot of games, this production needs to be replaced right? and not so ez to replace without cap room

My point is I just don't get Lebron the human being, not taking a pay cut for these last couple of years of his career.
Say he signs for 10,15 or even 20 a season instead of 48, after taxes and assorted related expenses what is that worth to his bottom line?
5m? sure it's a lot of money but not for Lebron. Especiallly if taking a paycut increases his chances at another ring, that has moneteray value as well 'legacy' and all that.

It's not like he'll be doing a favor to whichever team he signs with, he will also significantly improve that team's chances to compete thus be operating in his own self intrest as well, so How come he doesn't? isn't that what he wants? why is he so adamant on not going this route?

I think that it comes down to how he feels about the owner of the franchise. LeBron is one of the few guys who has been legitimately underpaid his entire career even while earning max salaries (or close to it in Miami). We can certainly cry crocodile tears for him, but I think he is galled that the obscenely rich owners have colluded to ensure they make more money at the expense of the merely very rich players and taking less money so a team can sign more good players under the salary cap is rewarding them with a discount for the rules they've set up to hold down the earnings of players like him.

So it really depends on how he feels about the owner. I could not imagine him taking a discount that benefits Dan Gilbert (save for maybe a "one last run in Cleveland" scenario before retirement), but I don't know he feels about the Buss family/Lakers.

[Exp0sed]

I know this is gonna get crapped on and it's his money and all that, However I find it odd that this is even a thing.
Lebron is one of the richest athletes ever and also by all accounts has made a furtune in other ventures as well and will continue to do so post retirement.
While true he has been incredibly productive per game, continuing his Goat-ish career and just being an outlier all around really, he has also missed a lot of games these 4 Lakers seasons and it's unlikely that will be any different going forward.

That means that on his Super max, Any team he plays for is Hamstrung with almost 50 Million for a good player but also one that misses alot of games, this production needs to be replaced right? and not so ez to replace without cap room

My point is I just don't get Lebron the human being, not taking a pay cut for these last couple of years of his career.
Say he signs for 10,15 or even 20 a season instead of 48, after taxes and assorted related expenses what is that worth to his bottom line?
5m? sure it's a lot of money but not for Lebron. Especiallly if taking a paycut increases his chances at another ring, that has moneteray value as well 'legacy' and all that.

It's not like he'll be doing a favor to whichever team he signs with, he will also significantly improve that team's chances to compete thus be operating in his own self intrest as well, so How come he doesn't? isn't that what he wants? why is he so adamant on not going this route?

I think that it comes down to how he feels about the owner of the franchise. LeBron is one of the few guys who has been legitimately underpaid his entire career even while earning max salaries (or close to it in Miami). We can certainly cry crocodile tears for him, but I think he is galled that the obscenely rich owners have colluded to ensure they make more money at the expense of the merely very rich players and taking less money so a team can sign more good players under the salary cap is rewarding them with a discount for the rules they've set up to hold down the earnings of players like him.

So it really depends on how he feels about the owner. I could not imagine him taking a discount that benefits Dan Gilbert (save for maybe a "one last run in Cleveland" scenario before retirement), but I don't know he feels about the Buss family/Lakers.

Interesting take.
Even if that's the case it's still odd since that discount wouldn't benefit the owner, not really - the owner would still be expected to hit the max salary cap but use that money either for a couple of MLE players instead of Scrubs..not to mention - it would Benefit Lebron himself. Seems odd that he would shoot himself in the foot just for that 'principle'.

[Ruma85]

I would say if he was turning 36 next season, instead of 38 i would give it to him, it's alot of money to be paying a person until 41.

[rickbrunson]

Signing and trading him would be more in the best interest of the franchise but I doubt that will happen.

A sign and trade against his will would be a disaster for the franchise. No one would sign in LA if they did that

Rich coming from a Knicks franchise that bends over for every star every FA period and still cant sign anybody.

[rickbrunson]

Signing LeBron at this point isn't about winning.
He's a money tree whether the team is winning or not and he knows his value even as a losing franchise.

His road games fill stadiums. His jersey sales are still at the top of the league.

Lakers don't have to pay him but someone happily will and draft his son to make it happen.

Face it, NBA basketball is more about business than it is about winning titles.

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using RealGM mobile app

Is this James Dolan's burner account?

[sp6r=underrated]

Signing and trading him would be more in the best interest of the franchise but I doubt that will happen.

A sign and trade against his will would be a disaster for the franchise. No one would sign in LA if they did that

Rich coming from a Knicks franchise that bends over for every star every FA period and still cant sign anybody.

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 necessarily 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.

[RoyceDa59]

Obviously.

[rickbrunson]

A sign and trade against his will would be a disaster for the franchise. No one would sign in LA if they did that

Rich coming from a Knicks franchise that bends over for every star every FA period and still cant sign anybody.

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 necessarily 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.

Cool story. Now explain why the Lakers, who have traded tons of players against their will, can't develop draft picks at all, and have incompetent ownership, have no problem signing major free agents. Don't blame it on the big market, Knicks market is huge. There is no correlation between trading players and signing free agents. You really think 5 years from now, a guy like Zion won't sign with the Lakers bc they were mean to Lebron? Lol nodody cares, its a business.

[MarcusBrody]

I know this is gonna get crapped on and it's his money and all that, However I find it odd that this is even a thing.
Lebron is one of the richest athletes ever and also by all accounts has made a furtune in other ventures as well and will continue to do so post retirement.
While true he has been incredibly productive per game, continuing his Goat-ish career and just being an outlier all around really, he has also missed a lot of games these 4 Lakers seasons and it's unlikely that will be any different going forward.

That means that on his Super max, Any team he plays for is Hamstrung with almost 50 Million for a good player but also one that misses alot of games, this production needs to be replaced right? and not so ez to replace without cap room

My point is I just don't get Lebron the human being, not taking a pay cut for these last couple of years of his career.
Say he signs for 10,15 or even 20 a season instead of 48, after taxes and assorted related expenses what is that worth to his bottom line?
5m? sure it's a lot of money but not for Lebron. Especiallly if taking a paycut increases his chances at another ring, that has moneteray value as well 'legacy' and all that.

It's not like he'll be doing a favor to whichever team he signs with, he will also significantly improve that team's chances to compete thus be operating in his own self intrest as well, so How come he doesn't? isn't that what he wants? why is he so adamant on not going this route?

I think that it comes down to how he feels about the owner of the franchise. LeBron is one of the few guys who has been legitimately underpaid his entire career even while earning max salaries (or close to it in Miami). We can certainly cry crocodile tears for him, but I think he is galled that the obscenely rich owners have colluded to ensure they make more money at the expense of the merely very rich players and taking less money so a team can sign more good players under the salary cap is rewarding them with a discount for the rules they've set up to hold down the earnings of players like him.

So it really depends on how he feels about the owner. I could not imagine him taking a discount that benefits Dan Gilbert (save for maybe a "one last run in Cleveland" scenario before retirement), but I don't know he feels about the Buss family/Lakers.

Interesting take.
Even if that's the case it's still odd since that discount wouldn't benefit the owner, not really - the owner would still be expected to hit the max salary cap but use that money either for a couple of MLE players instead of Scrubs..not to mention - it would Benefit Lebron himself. Seems odd that he would shoot himself in the foot just for that 'principle'.

(Most) Owners want to get the best team while making the most money. This absolutely benefits them by making them - at worst - get a better team that's more likely to get substantial attention (which is good for business) while spending the same amount of money.

And it could actually save them money. LeBron's potential salary is so large that it likely pushes the team into luxury tax territory. In a resigning with the Lakers scenario (or a sign and trade), it's unlikely that all the savings from the salary he is giving up could be used towards other players' salaries as the Lakers would be using his Bird Rights to pay above the cap. The best he could hope would be to get it down so that they could use one of the MLEs and getting to there would make that the owner is probably paying less tax.

[sp6r=underrated]

There is no correlation between trading players and signing free agents

What players of Lebron's staturs have the Lakers done what you've suggested?

[Bolts]

I hate the Lakers so yes, yes they should.

[madmaxmedia]

He's still far and way their best player and worth keeping, even at that contract amount IMO. I don't think there are avenues this offseason to significantly improve the team, so the worst case scenario is to have a mediocre next season and then lose him to FA.

So I think they need to choose one of the following:
1. Offer that extension now, or
2. Trade him this offseason and start your rebuild a year early

[FrobeBryant]

This would set the lakers back much like the Kobe contract did.

[Dan Z]

A sign and trade against his will would be a disaster for the franchise. No one would sign in LA if they did that

Rich coming from a Knicks franchise that bends over for every star every FA period and still cant sign anybody.

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 necessarily 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.

[CS707]

This would be the nail in the coffin for any hopes of LA fielding a credible team while he's there.

Questionable whether they even make the playoffs without him.

[CptCrunch]

Bron is gonna sign a 1 + 1 with player option.

He need that one last ring to eclipse Jordan.

[sp6r=underrated]

Rich coming from a Knicks franchise that bends over for every star every FA period and still cant sign anybody.

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?

[kodo]

Bron is gonna sign a 1 + 1 with player option.

He need that one last ring to eclipse Jordan.

Do you mean 3 more rings?

[Apz]

They must. But I dont think Lebron takes it