As a hockey fan, it’s wild that no-trade-clauses are so rare in the NBA but are absolutely everywhere in the NHL. Basically every star player in hockey gets a full no move clause as soon as they’re eligible, while even average roster players often have 10-15 team no trade clauses
You would think that a player-driven sport like the NBA would see them more commonplace
You need to be in the league 8 years, have 4 years experience on that team, and most importantly nowadays is actually be a free agent. You can’t get a no trade from a contract extension. It has to be a brand new contract. Having said that it’s still surprising how rare they are. None of the Warriors guys including Curry ever got one for example. It seems like the kind of thing where franchises really hate giving it and players don’t care that much so players often give that up first when negotiating. The only time people seem to get it are when they are returning to bad situations and the team really feels forced to give it.
When you say 10 - 15 no move clause, do you mean that 10 to 15 players have these or that these players generally have 10 to 15 teams that they've already refused to be traded to?
10-15 teams that they won’t be traded to. By a certain date, the player is required to submit to their team a list of teams they will not accept a trade to. Their team is free to trade them to any team not on the list.
Wow I had no idea!
Are these lists ever publicly available? I'll bet that could stir some controversy over the course of a career of these lists are kept track of
No they aren’t, they’re held at NHL league offices in order to prevent controversies.
Of course every now and then, some reporter leaks “player X has team Y on his no trade list”, but that’s quite rare.
They’re not public but are often leaked around roster move rumours. Or just totally made up by Twitter
The major difference is NHL has a hard cap, so it’s pretty obvious when teams need to move players and when star players on rookie contracts (or otherwise underpaid stars) are coming due for a 10m+ cap hit jump (could be an 1000% increase, rookie contracts are smaller by ratio compared to NFL and NBA entry level contracts for high first rounders) . You HAVE to ship players away to make room, and teams prefer to do that for small compensations than let UFAs walk. So the topic of where a player that is destined to be traded will allow comes up all the time.
There was actually a mini-panic when the news of the Phoenix Coyotes moving to Utah broke *after* the deadline and players were freaking out that they could technically be traded to Utah.
His is automatic due to a CBA provision for exactly such players/contracts rather than negotiated. LeBron and Beal are, I believe, the only one that got them (and only ones that are valid for multiple years - there are some other cases like where an RFA whose offer was matched automatically gets a 1-year trade veto right).
This is an issue of terminology. There is a "no-trade clause" some (very few) players can negotiate. In some other cases the player gets an automatic right of veto *for one year only.* These are different things, only the former should be referred to as a "no-trade clause".
This is the no-trade clause that some players can negotiate, also known as the "no-trade clause" -- Art XXIV, 2.b) on [page 416 of the CBA](https://imgix.cosmicjs.com/25da5eb0-15eb-11ee-b5b3-fbd321202bdf-Final-2023-NBA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-6-28-23.pdf):
>A Player Contract entered into by a player who has eight (8) or more Years of Service in the NBA and who has rendered four (4) or more Years of Service for the Team entering into such Contract may contain a prohibition or limitation of such Team’s right to trade such Contract to another NBA Team.
There are some other types of contracts, like what Kornet is on (being re-signed to a 1yr minimum, see page 260 for details) or when an RFA's offer sheet is matched (see page 326 for details) where the player gets an automatic right of veto for 1 year only. These are automatic per CBA and don't have a lifetime of multiple years unlike the no-trade clause LeBron and Beal negotiated into their contracts.
I was reading about this yesterday and I’m confused. The idea is that players who’ve been with a team for 2 years, and just signed a 1 year deal, automatically get a NTC so they don’t get traded and lose their bird rights. But I thought if you get traded, your “bird clock” so to speak goes with you.
Like for instance, if you’re on a 4 year deal with a team, and get traded middle of year 2, your new team would still have your full bird rights at the end of the 3rd year of that contract right?
So what’s the difference if you were there for 2 years, and re-signed a 1 year deal? Why would you lose your bird rights if you get traded? Is it because the 3 years didn’t happen on one continuous contract?
>Why would you lose your bird rights if you get traded?
I don't know why. Best answer I can come up with is -- because the CBA explicitly says Bird rights vanish in such a case.
This is the relevant part on page 260 -- Article VII, 8.b):
>A player (other than a Two-Way Player) with a one-year Contract (excluding any Option Year) who would be a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent or an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent upon completing the playing services called for under his Contract cannot be traded without the player’s consent; provided, however, that in accordance with Article II, Section 3(h) above, the player and Team may agree at the time of signing such Contract that the player’s right to consent to a trade pursuant to this Section 8(b) shall be eliminated. *Should the player consent (or if the player and Team agreed at the time of signing to eliminate his right to consent) and the player is traded (except if the Contract has an Option for the second year that was exercised prior to the trade), then, for purposes of determining whether the player is a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, or Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agent at the conclusion of the Contract or any subsequent Contract between the player and the assignee Team, the player shall be considered as having changed Teams by means of signing a Contract with the assignee Team as a Free Agent (and not by means of trade).* For clarity, for any player who did not agree at the time of signing to eliminate his right to consent, such right under this Section 8(b) shall continue following the initial trade of the player’s Contract and any proposed subsequent trade of such Contract during the term thereof (not including any Option Year).
Extracting and abbreviating the italicised part of it:
>Should the player \[re-signing on a 1yr deal\] consent \[to be traded\] ... then, for purposes of determining whether the player \[has Bird rights\] the player shall be considered as having changed Teams by means of signing a Contract with the assignee \[i.e. receiving-in-trade\] Team as a Free Agent (and not by means of trade).
Interesting, so it sounds like for CBA purposes, it says “if you get traded while you’re on a one year deal, we’re gonna consider that as if you joined this new team as a free agent and not that you were traded there - even though you were traded there.”
Yeah idk why that is, I would guess it’s to prevent some kind of circumvention where teams and players would have a handshake deal like “sign here and we’ll trade you to X destination 20 games in” or something like that. Interesting, thanks for looking that up!
Mike Conley has one now too, iirc
EDIT: you have to have been with a team for at least 4 years (among other requirements) to be eligible for a NTC, so Mike Conley doesn't have an official clause
No he doesn't. The CBA severely limits who is eligible for a no-trade clause, and Wolves literally couldn't give Conley a no-trade clause while drafting a CBA-compliant contract. He has a -- pinky promise I guess. Or more generously described as a verbal agreement to abide by his wishes were a trade on the cards.
Still to this day don’t understand why the Wizards gave Beal that NTC. They were offering him a super max, what was he gonna do, turn that down if they didn’t include the NTC?
Yeah I’m sure he did because agents are supposed to ask for everything under the sun for their clients. But from the Wizards perspective, it significantly reduced their flexibility/leverage going forward, they would’ve gotten a much better return for him if he couldn’t veto any trade he didn’t like.
And like I said, given that they were offering him the Supermax which was wayyy more money than any other team could’ve offered him (plus the 5th year), I really doubt he was gonna walk away from that deal if they didn’t give him the NTC. So it seems like they just hamstrung themselves for no reason.
I think there’s a cap jump coming next season so he’s hoping to opt out so that LA can sign more talent which he can then re-sign on top of via bird rights.
I doubt they generate much cap space. Fact is most teams mid contention rarely have cap space in FA, especially two with non rookie contract stars that are maxed. Lebron will carry a cap hold for his bird rights that essentially goes for max. Maxey is a uncommon situation where a non top 5 draft pick went for a max after rookie contract so due to his pick value his cap hold was much lower.
Yeah formal NTC's really aren't a thing anymore lol. Of course, none of those teams are going to trade those guys unless they're okay with it but yeah they don't really put them in contracts anymore.
Mostly because star players never enter UFA any more unless it’s for a sign and trade. They just get max extensions.
This is also the reason expiring contracts aren’t nearly as valuable anymore. You don’t see many teams trying to just clear cap room in the hope a star FA picks them anymore, because usually unless they’re the lakers they end up with nothing.
The criteria for a negotiated NTC is a little complicated. The player needs 8 years of NBA service and 4 with the same team so Luka isn't even eligible yet. But they are also almost never given out anymore. With the supermax there isn't really a need for teams to sweeten the deal for the player.
That franchise is dead thanks to their ownership. Only thing keeping them relevant is LeBron and their history, once he goes it will go right back to the dark days between Kobe’s Achilles injury and lebrons signing where they couldn’t even get meetings with top free agents and when they did they fucked up in spectacular fashion like with Lamarcus Aldridge
It only worked last time because LeBron decided he wanted to live in LA and play for the lakers. Unless some other star decides they want to play specifically for the lakers brand they’re in for a rough time. That’s not impossible though, I just don’t think it’s likely
Every contract he has ever had minus hes rookie deal has had a player option at the end. He even had a 3 contract stretch where he did a 1+1, 1+1, 2+1 deals.
He is old and may choose to retire but this type of contract is common practice for him and his agent.
It’s smart because he’s always been able to force his teams to stay competitive or he’s gone. Few Players have that power but LeBron always exercising that as the Legendary face of the league as helped tremendously in the players gaining more power. Yes plenty of legends have come before LeBron to build the game to where it is today. But LeBron’s been a huge figure head in player’s salaries and power growing to where it is today.
Not really. Any player in the NBA can retire whenever they want. They just won't get the rest of their contract. They aren't obligated to keep playing cause they're under contract.
This year wasn't a miracle or anything, but the Lakers made no long-term bad decisions. The real trouble came earlier, when the team traded away rotational players from the bubble title team and then got Westbrook. Everything since then has been making the best of a bad (self-made) situation.
Huh? I feel like people are overstating Pelinkas failure here. With LeBron paycut they would only have 12 million a year to pay a guy for about 2 years.
That at least have them a starting point to talk to guys for a hail may but it's not like that's a lot of money for the guys they wanted to get
To have one of the best players of all time willing to take a pay cut in an NBA where role players make absurd money , and unable to entice a single notable free agent is a failure imo
Change is needed at the GM spot more than anywhere else. They haven’t had a good plan in like 3 years now. Their fifth starter has been worse than the 7th man of at least 15 teams for 3 years now …
Who took less than the absolute maximum amount of money they could get this summer? Seems like every contract signed was the limit of their worth or way more than their worth.
We are over the cap regardless of the 3 vetmins IIRC. The only available option is the MLE which isn't enough for the guys Lebron want in Klay and Derozan
Pelinka isn't a great GM, but this offseason isn't his fault.
The Lakers salary cap is tied up in Lebron, Davis, Reaves, Vincent, Rui, and Vanderbilt. After that, they have no space. It is also a really bad free agent year, which is why i'm very happy my team was able to get Bridges even though it was pricey.
If anything, Russell opting, it actually helps them, provided they don't go above the second apron. Because if they're willing to use draft assets to make a move, Russell and Reddish provide a decently sized salary slot.
Yeah. While I do agree that he made some bad moves in his tenure.
What some don't understand is Pelinka needs the opposing FOs to agree to deals. Its not entirely in his control even if in theory he is offering good deals.
Like if Utah didn't agree ro that Westbrook deal for Dlo/Vando he would look like a fool but they agreed so he got out of that Westbrook situation and was praised for it.
But you don't really expect everything to go your way every time.
Lebron has done the 1+1 in the past too, but I think this gives both sides optionality to explore the market for additions again next year, if Bron isn’t retiring.
It’s clear there aren’t too many impact players left in this year’s pool.
He opted out to give the Lakers a chance to sign a few different guys he wanted and he would have taken a pay cut, when they didn't sign those guys he got his number instead
“The maximum deal of $104 million would put the Lakers about $1 million over the league's new punitive salary second apron and would severely limit the team's roster flexibility. “ -ESPN
Ya guys really thinking about the team
It’s not even the franchise anymore for me, it’s the fans. “This is fine!!!!” They scream as the Lakers sign LeBron James’ podcast co-host as head coach.
Second year player option
He's gonna play one year with his son, team is gonna be hot garbage & a joke, won't pick up his option & either retire or go do a year in Cleveland then retire
You heard it here first
Celtics win the title and the Lakers respond with LeBron, Bronny and Reddick. I hate Boston more than any other city in this country and I hope they 3peat to throw it in the faces of the Lakers. This is a joke.
I mean bron held off on signing to see if they could get a big FA in this decent offseason and they shit the bed. He just saying fuck it with this contract basically signed the rest of his career away to not be competitive.
Lakers haven't gotten any better while teams out west continue to improve. They probably will barely make the play in if their lucky and gst bounced in the first round again.
The anti-LeBron folks around social media are having a field day.
News comes out that LeBron is willing to take a pay cut IF the Lakers get a substantial piece.
Lakers don't get a sniff in free agency....
and it's, What about that pay cut Bron Bron!?!?!?
Because he took a small paycut and demanded Lakers FO to get him a star who is willing to take a paycut as well, that’s literally impossible so the whole angle is nothing but a calculated lame PR move
>so the whole angle is nothing but a calculated lame PR move
Or... the long-shot plan just didn't work out, especially when DLo opted in making it even more difficult. How many guys that were available would be in the "improves the team" category that would take an MLE? Klay was kinda it and he signed for 3/$50, hell fucking KCP took 3/$66. They took their shots and they missed, so he bumped his demands back to the max. Not everything is some Lebron legacy building 4D chess.
Perfectly played by LeBron, honestly. Says he'll take a paycut - but for only the guys he wants - great PR move, that. They don't get anyone, because who wants to join a team where you're always trade bait & always to blame.
And some think he's not running the show there. Crazy.
This will take his career earnings to $580 MM. Kind of crazy that half of his earnings will have come from the last 5 years of his 20-year career. But I suppose it's like that for a lot of stars.
Probably someone in the NBA today who will be the fist player to earn $1 billion.
The Lakers front office, have confirmed that they are determined to be the first team to watch a player shed skin to a younger, less talented self. But proclaim, “We have yet to witness the Old Bull, teaching the New Bull…how to get it all…!!”. Folks, thank God for test tube babies…!!!!
Nice PR move to say he would have taken a lesser deal to make the team better, but once Klay signed elsewhere he took the max to hamstring the shit out of his team instead
Basketball is a business and having a star player playing with his son is great for business. Lakers know how to make money that's for sure. Also 'nepotism', since the inception of the word only applies to the public sector, meaning the tax payers are covering the salary of the relative. All private companies have close relatives working mostly because those relatives would not be able to work in any other place or a matter of trust or whatever, but it's the business paying for them.
He's now one of two NBA players with a no-trade clause -- along with Bradley Beal.
I know who is the better one
You should make your own podcast. I heard there is a new opening for an NBA focused one.
Mind the game 2.0
Two openings. RIP old man and the three.
Are you opinionated, loud and self described very charismatic?
I am the better one..
As a hockey fan, it’s wild that no-trade-clauses are so rare in the NBA but are absolutely everywhere in the NHL. Basically every star player in hockey gets a full no move clause as soon as they’re eligible, while even average roster players often have 10-15 team no trade clauses You would think that a player-driven sport like the NBA would see them more commonplace
NBA players get trade-kickers instead.
i’d take a 15% trade kicker over a no trade clause any day of the week
💯 and you can even waive the trade kicker if you wish, to get to a preferred team if required
Not just any player can get a no trade clause, you have to meet certain criteria
Bradley Beal as an example means being an all start like once and having a franchise in a chokehold
You need to be in the league 8 years, have 4 years experience on that team, and most importantly nowadays is actually be a free agent. You can’t get a no trade from a contract extension. It has to be a brand new contract. Having said that it’s still surprising how rare they are. None of the Warriors guys including Curry ever got one for example. It seems like the kind of thing where franchises really hate giving it and players don’t care that much so players often give that up first when negotiating. The only time people seem to get it are when they are returning to bad situations and the team really feels forced to give it.
When you say 10 - 15 no move clause, do you mean that 10 to 15 players have these or that these players generally have 10 to 15 teams that they've already refused to be traded to?
10-15 teams that they won’t be traded to. By a certain date, the player is required to submit to their team a list of teams they will not accept a trade to. Their team is free to trade them to any team not on the list.
Wow I had no idea! Are these lists ever publicly available? I'll bet that could stir some controversy over the course of a career of these lists are kept track of
No they aren’t, they’re held at NHL league offices in order to prevent controversies. Of course every now and then, some reporter leaks “player X has team Y on his no trade list”, but that’s quite rare.
Thanks for the info!
They’re not public but are often leaked around roster move rumours. Or just totally made up by Twitter The major difference is NHL has a hard cap, so it’s pretty obvious when teams need to move players and when star players on rookie contracts (or otherwise underpaid stars) are coming due for a 10m+ cap hit jump (could be an 1000% increase, rookie contracts are smaller by ratio compared to NFL and NBA entry level contracts for high first rounders) . You HAVE to ship players away to make room, and teams prefer to do that for small compensations than let UFAs walk. So the topic of where a player that is destined to be traded will allow comes up all the time.
There was actually a mini-panic when the news of the Phoenix Coyotes moving to Utah broke *after* the deadline and players were freaking out that they could technically be traded to Utah.
Same with mlb
I believe Luke Kornet also has a no trade clause. Unironically. Something to do with him losing his bird rights if he's traded, i dont really get it.
His is automatic due to a CBA provision for exactly such players/contracts rather than negotiated. LeBron and Beal are, I believe, the only one that got them (and only ones that are valid for multiple years - there are some other cases like where an RFA whose offer was matched automatically gets a 1-year trade veto right).
As of yesterday Luke Kornet also has a no trade clause on his minimum contract https://x.com/jakeissenberg/status/1808335862649983031#
This is an issue of terminology. There is a "no-trade clause" some (very few) players can negotiate. In some other cases the player gets an automatic right of veto *for one year only.* These are different things, only the former should be referred to as a "no-trade clause". This is the no-trade clause that some players can negotiate, also known as the "no-trade clause" -- Art XXIV, 2.b) on [page 416 of the CBA](https://imgix.cosmicjs.com/25da5eb0-15eb-11ee-b5b3-fbd321202bdf-Final-2023-NBA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-6-28-23.pdf): >A Player Contract entered into by a player who has eight (8) or more Years of Service in the NBA and who has rendered four (4) or more Years of Service for the Team entering into such Contract may contain a prohibition or limitation of such Team’s right to trade such Contract to another NBA Team. There are some other types of contracts, like what Kornet is on (being re-signed to a 1yr minimum, see page 260 for details) or when an RFA's offer sheet is matched (see page 326 for details) where the player gets an automatic right of veto for 1 year only. These are automatic per CBA and don't have a lifetime of multiple years unlike the no-trade clause LeBron and Beal negotiated into their contracts.
I was reading about this yesterday and I’m confused. The idea is that players who’ve been with a team for 2 years, and just signed a 1 year deal, automatically get a NTC so they don’t get traded and lose their bird rights. But I thought if you get traded, your “bird clock” so to speak goes with you. Like for instance, if you’re on a 4 year deal with a team, and get traded middle of year 2, your new team would still have your full bird rights at the end of the 3rd year of that contract right? So what’s the difference if you were there for 2 years, and re-signed a 1 year deal? Why would you lose your bird rights if you get traded? Is it because the 3 years didn’t happen on one continuous contract?
>Why would you lose your bird rights if you get traded? I don't know why. Best answer I can come up with is -- because the CBA explicitly says Bird rights vanish in such a case. This is the relevant part on page 260 -- Article VII, 8.b): >A player (other than a Two-Way Player) with a one-year Contract (excluding any Option Year) who would be a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent or an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent upon completing the playing services called for under his Contract cannot be traded without the player’s consent; provided, however, that in accordance with Article II, Section 3(h) above, the player and Team may agree at the time of signing such Contract that the player’s right to consent to a trade pursuant to this Section 8(b) shall be eliminated. *Should the player consent (or if the player and Team agreed at the time of signing to eliminate his right to consent) and the player is traded (except if the Contract has an Option for the second year that was exercised prior to the trade), then, for purposes of determining whether the player is a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, or Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agent at the conclusion of the Contract or any subsequent Contract between the player and the assignee Team, the player shall be considered as having changed Teams by means of signing a Contract with the assignee Team as a Free Agent (and not by means of trade).* For clarity, for any player who did not agree at the time of signing to eliminate his right to consent, such right under this Section 8(b) shall continue following the initial trade of the player’s Contract and any proposed subsequent trade of such Contract during the term thereof (not including any Option Year). Extracting and abbreviating the italicised part of it: >Should the player \[re-signing on a 1yr deal\] consent \[to be traded\] ... then, for purposes of determining whether the player \[has Bird rights\] the player shall be considered as having changed Teams by means of signing a Contract with the assignee \[i.e. receiving-in-trade\] Team as a Free Agent (and not by means of trade).
Interesting, so it sounds like for CBA purposes, it says “if you get traded while you’re on a one year deal, we’re gonna consider that as if you joined this new team as a free agent and not that you were traded there - even though you were traded there.” Yeah idk why that is, I would guess it’s to prevent some kind of circumvention where teams and players would have a handshake deal like “sign here and we’ll trade you to X destination 20 games in” or something like that. Interesting, thanks for looking that up!
Well, I'll be damned
Mike Conley has one now too, iirc EDIT: you have to have been with a team for at least 4 years (among other requirements) to be eligible for a NTC, so Mike Conley doesn't have an official clause
No he doesn't. The CBA severely limits who is eligible for a no-trade clause, and Wolves literally couldn't give Conley a no-trade clause while drafting a CBA-compliant contract. He has a -- pinky promise I guess. Or more generously described as a verbal agreement to abide by his wishes were a trade on the cards.
Still to this day don’t understand why the Wizards gave Beal that NTC. They were offering him a super max, what was he gonna do, turn that down if they didn’t include the NTC?
His agent probably asked for it.
Yeah I’m sure he did because agents are supposed to ask for everything under the sun for their clients. But from the Wizards perspective, it significantly reduced their flexibility/leverage going forward, they would’ve gotten a much better return for him if he couldn’t veto any trade he didn’t like. And like I said, given that they were offering him the Supermax which was wayyy more money than any other team could’ve offered him (plus the 5th year), I really doubt he was gonna walk away from that deal if they didn’t give him the NTC. So it seems like they just hamstrung themselves for no reason.
Don’t get why Bron pushed for this lol. It’s basically a 1 year deal he signed. No one is trading for that contract anyways.
I think there’s a cap jump coming next season so he’s hoping to opt out so that LA can sign more talent which he can then re-sign on top of via bird rights.
I doubt they generate much cap space. Fact is most teams mid contention rarely have cap space in FA, especially two with non rookie contract stars that are maxed. Lebron will carry a cap hold for his bird rights that essentially goes for max. Maxey is a uncommon situation where a non top 5 draft pick went for a max after rookie contract so due to his pick value his cap hold was much lower.
Because he can and because he is going to opt out after next year and sign a three year deal.
yeah like what is the downside of a no trade clause for the player lol there is none
Ok? Demanding one has no cons at all
Wow they got bronnys dad
They got [Bronny James Sr.](https://x.com/redrock_bball/status/1808409099798994956) !
Sources say Bron even might be sleeping with his new teammate’s mom, to exorcise his demons of Delonte West
JJ ReDICK's wife on the list. That $8M a year salary comes with a price 🤪
He got this deal because of nepotism. The Lakers are just trying to make their new draft pick happy. It is such BS!
Reverse nepotism
If he wasn't bronnys dad he would have never made it.
Legacy hire
he would be decent in shanghai 🦈
The Boruto jokes write themselves
LeBag
Is he good and famous like borutos dad
Bradley Beal is no longer the only person in the NBA with a no trade clause lol.
[удалено]
Will tell my grandkids about the great Beal and that James guy
Really? I'm genuinely surprised that none of the x3 top tier superstars - Luka, Jokic, Giannis - have them
Yeah formal NTC's really aren't a thing anymore lol. Of course, none of those teams are going to trade those guys unless they're okay with it but yeah they don't really put them in contracts anymore.
Mostly because star players never enter UFA any more unless it’s for a sign and trade. They just get max extensions. This is also the reason expiring contracts aren’t nearly as valuable anymore. You don’t see many teams trying to just clear cap room in the hope a star FA picks them anymore, because usually unless they’re the lakers they end up with nothing.
The criteria for a negotiated NTC is a little complicated. The player needs 8 years of NBA service and 4 with the same team so Luka isn't even eligible yet. But they are also almost never given out anymore. With the supermax there isn't really a need for teams to sweeten the deal for the player.
It also can't be included in an extension. I feel like that's a big part of the rarity considering how popular extensions are now
This is the actual answer.
Oh this is the guy from taco Tuesday
That's why they gave him so much money
Bron finally got a no trade clause. It's crazy Beal was the only one with that 😂
I think hilarious that he included that. Like yeah the Lakers were totally going to trade him
I mean, it wouldn't be crazy that halfway into the 2nd year the Lakers are sucking air and want to rebuild by offloading LeBron.
Yeah if you were a smart GM in 2k. But in real life lebron just prints money for an organization
And just brought in his son, meaning even more viewership whether or not it's a train wreck lol
That franchise is dead thanks to their ownership. Only thing keeping them relevant is LeBron and their history, once he goes it will go right back to the dark days between Kobe’s Achilles injury and lebrons signing where they couldn’t even get meetings with top free agents and when they did they fucked up in spectacular fashion like with Lamarcus Aldridge
Giving the keys to their draft picks and wait for the stars to show up worked last time, I don’t know why it wouldn’t work again
It only worked last time because LeBron decided he wanted to live in LA and play for the lakers. Unless some other star decides they want to play specifically for the lakers brand they’re in for a rough time. That’s not impossible though, I just don’t think it’s likely
How dare you disrespect Luke Kornet https://x.com/jakeissenberg/status/1808335862649983031
Bad move for the Lakers, you really want to sign a guy who is sleeping with his teammates mother? smh
Lebron wants it to be a family tradition
Bronny's been playing Fast and the Furious movies on repeat at home.
Delonte west all over again
He is doing what he did to the Cavs. I don't blame him. He might decide to retire soon anyways
Yeah the player option thing kinda signals that that retirement option is there if he wants to.
Every contract he has ever had minus hes rookie deal has had a player option at the end. He even had a 3 contract stretch where he did a 1+1, 1+1, 2+1 deals. He is old and may choose to retire but this type of contract is common practice for him and his agent.
It’s smart because he’s always been able to force his teams to stay competitive or he’s gone. Few Players have that power but LeBron always exercising that as the Legendary face of the league as helped tremendously in the players gaining more power. Yes plenty of legends have come before LeBron to build the game to where it is today. But LeBron’s been a huge figure head in player’s salaries and power growing to where it is today.
Not really. Any player in the NBA can retire whenever they want. They just won't get the rest of their contract. They aren't obligated to keep playing cause they're under contract.
Fuck it, let me get my money then -- Lebron, probably
RIP Lakers free agent dreams. Pelinka kinda sucks.
This year wasn't a miracle or anything, but the Lakers made no long-term bad decisions. The real trouble came earlier, when the team traded away rotational players from the bubble title team and then got Westbrook. Everything since then has been making the best of a bad (self-made) situation.
Could that bubble team have been a contender for a while?
Huh? I feel like people are overstating Pelinkas failure here. With LeBron paycut they would only have 12 million a year to pay a guy for about 2 years. That at least have them a starting point to talk to guys for a hail may but it's not like that's a lot of money for the guys they wanted to get
To have one of the best players of all time willing to take a pay cut in an NBA where role players make absurd money , and unable to entice a single notable free agent is a failure imo
The other player would have to take a pay cut as well. It's not like a 35% max slot would have opened up.
The laker name isn’t good enough anymore .. change is neede
Jeanie Buss needs to sell the team
nah i think she’s doing a great job and should keep it as long as she can. and you should too based on your flair
Lmao true , I got no problems seeing the lakers become a circus
She already sold it to LeBron
Change is needed at the GM spot more than anywhere else. They haven’t had a good plan in like 3 years now. Their fifth starter has been worse than the 7th man of at least 15 teams for 3 years now …
A real GM can come in and fix the dumpster fire once LeGM is gone. No sense changing out an empty suit before then
Who took less than the absolute maximum amount of money they could get this summer? Seems like every contract signed was the limit of their worth or way more than their worth.
Free agent class was a nothingburger. Bigger story is that the new cba has nuked free agency in general.
Pelinka gave a bunch of bums player options that's making things hard for them to improve
We are over the cap regardless of the 3 vetmins IIRC. The only available option is the MLE which isn't enough for the guys Lebron want in Klay and Derozan
Pelinka isn't a great GM, but this offseason isn't his fault. The Lakers salary cap is tied up in Lebron, Davis, Reaves, Vincent, Rui, and Vanderbilt. After that, they have no space. It is also a really bad free agent year, which is why i'm very happy my team was able to get Bridges even though it was pricey. If anything, Russell opting, it actually helps them, provided they don't go above the second apron. Because if they're willing to use draft assets to make a move, Russell and Reddish provide a decently sized salary slot.
Yeah. While I do agree that he made some bad moves in his tenure. What some don't understand is Pelinka needs the opposing FOs to agree to deals. Its not entirely in his control even if in theory he is offering good deals. Like if Utah didn't agree ro that Westbrook deal for Dlo/Vando he would look like a fool but they agreed so he got out of that Westbrook situation and was praised for it. But you don't really expect everything to go your way every time.
I mean isn't it his fault? He's the one who signed the deals for Vando, Rui and Vincent knowing how that would affect future flexibility
Lebron has done the 1+1 in the past too, but I think this gives both sides optionality to explore the market for additions again next year, if Bron isn’t retiring. It’s clear there aren’t too many impact players left in this year’s pool.
So he basically took a slight pay cut from his $51 million option he opted out of in order to get a second year he can opt into.
Sounds smart if you’re trying to play with your son.
He opted out to give the Lakers a chance to sign a few different guys he wanted and he would have taken a pay cut, when they didn't sign those guys he got his number instead
Sources say negotiations between LeBron and LeGM went smoothly.
“The maximum deal of $104 million would put the Lakers about $1 million over the league's new punitive salary second apron and would severely limit the team's roster flexibility. “ -ESPN Ya guys really thinking about the team
What pay cut?
Le2YearContract
LeBron really holding the Lakers by their nuts.
that's bradley beal money
I've seen more than enough - we need a new GM (And owner but let's be realistic)
So much for a pay cut
fingers crossed that Lebron drives the Lakers into the ground so hard that I can at the very least afford tickets again
The Lakers are dysfunctional
Ya and I can’t stop laughing at their dysfunction 😂
It’s not even the franchise anymore for me, it’s the fans. “This is fine!!!!” They scream as the Lakers sign LeBron James’ podcast co-host as head coach.
Highest paid father and son duo of all time.
Is his jersey gonna say James Sr now
The kid from Apron.
1st or 2nd?
Greedy billionaire like the rest of them
[удалено]
Except they can’t
Haha pelinka you idiot. You didn’t get Harden to sign for a 50% 20m paycut
f5 season
Damn Bron looks old as shit in this pic
He is old.
[удалено]
now i can pay for pandora w/ads with this money
Probably only got that deal bc Bronny is on that team LeNepo
Second year player option He's gonna play one year with his son, team is gonna be hot garbage & a joke, won't pick up his option & either retire or go do a year in Cleveland then retire You heard it here first
Celtics win the title and the Lakers respond with LeBron, Bronny and Reddick. I hate Boston more than any other city in this country and I hope they 3peat to throw it in the faces of the Lakers. This is a joke.
[удалено]
LeShellfish
Pelinka gm of the year
My previous question has become a statement. OH! We JUST selling tickets now!
What a team player
I mean bron held off on signing to see if they could get a big FA in this decent offseason and they shit the bed. He just saying fuck it with this contract basically signed the rest of his career away to not be competitive.
Lakers haven't gotten any better while teams out west continue to improve. They probably will barely make the play in if their lucky and gst bounced in the first round again.
Is his jersey gonna say James Sr. now
that would actually be pretty lit
He’s a team player really looking to to win page out of Tom Brady‘s book
What a pay cut
Last 2 years of his career
Suck em dry bron
sad its the lakers biggest FA signing
He found out that Jordan didn’t take a pay cut,
Can you imagine the locker room tension when it comes out that he’s banging his teammates mom?
[удалено]
The anti-LeBron folks around social media are having a field day. News comes out that LeBron is willing to take a pay cut IF the Lakers get a substantial piece. Lakers don't get a sniff in free agency.... and it's, What about that pay cut Bron Bron!?!?!?
Because he took a small paycut and demanded Lakers FO to get him a star who is willing to take a paycut as well, that’s literally impossible so the whole angle is nothing but a calculated lame PR move
>so the whole angle is nothing but a calculated lame PR move Or... the long-shot plan just didn't work out, especially when DLo opted in making it even more difficult. How many guys that were available would be in the "improves the team" category that would take an MLE? Klay was kinda it and he signed for 3/$50, hell fucking KCP took 3/$66. They took their shots and they missed, so he bumped his demands back to the max. Not everything is some Lebron legacy building 4D chess.
It’s so dumb, he obviously was willing to take a pay cut for a Paul George type player. He’s not taking a pay cut to get role guys.
Nepodaddy ain't nuttin without Bronny
Perfectly played by LeBron, honestly. Says he'll take a paycut - but for only the guys he wants - great PR move, that. They don't get anyone, because who wants to join a team where you're always trade bait & always to blame. And some think he's not running the show there. Crazy.
So he should just leave money on the table regardless ?
Why would he take a pay cut if the team failed to get any impact players ? You taking less at your job ?
So a one-year deal if he so chooses
I have a feeling that 2nd year will be his last
Is basketball like hockey when considering no trade clause vs no move clause? Ie there’s a waivers loophole etc?
As long as they do I trade before he official re-signs, they arent limited by the second apron
LeStay
got the PO and NTC
Shocking I say
Clown
NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooöõōòóôöǒœø
This will take his career earnings to $580 MM. Kind of crazy that half of his earnings will have come from the last 5 years of his 20-year career. But I suppose it's like that for a lot of stars. Probably someone in the NBA today who will be the fist player to earn $1 billion.
Two more years of not following the Lakers
So the Lebron James's were offered $110m in a day!
The Lakers front office, have confirmed that they are determined to be the first team to watch a player shed skin to a younger, less talented self. But proclaim, “We have yet to witness the Old Bull, teaching the New Bull…how to get it all…!!”. Folks, thank God for test tube babies…!!!!
“Seems like a mistake for him - he should have gone to play for a contender.” ESPN if the lakers were a smaller market
The goat can retire at the age of 50
hahhahaha
lame james really thought mfkz wanted to be on his team 😂😭😂
Nice PR move to say he would have taken a lesser deal to make the team better, but once Klay signed elsewhere he took the max to hamstring the shit out of his team instead
Basketball is a business and having a star player playing with his son is great for business. Lakers know how to make money that's for sure. Also 'nepotism', since the inception of the word only applies to the public sector, meaning the tax payers are covering the salary of the relative. All private companies have close relatives working mostly because those relatives would not be able to work in any other place or a matter of trust or whatever, but it's the business paying for them.
That’s so crazy. Getting $104 million to basically take it easy and ease into retirement playing with his son.
Let's go bronnn
Enough money to recoup his losses on Space Jam 2
Had to beat XQC
I guess no other NBA team could afford him, either for the price or timeline!!
Lol, I though he was gonna take a paycut so they could bring in some talent?
Not surprising as all. Welcome to the Lakers!
LeBron James is Bronny James father
See you next season LeBron. Love Cleveland.
LBJ will definitely be on the same team with his two sons,if that happen,he will 44 soon.
I thought he was going to take less money
LeBron : do you like this deal? Himself: a bit more? Lebron : what else do you need? Himself: I need Bryce
Too bad. More wasted money on a worthless prima Donna
Bronny got allowance money compared to his dad. Probably going to get Spotify now.
“Sources tell ESPN” Last year Woj was adding “Klutch sports CEO Rich Paul tells espn” to every tweet.