LABron James Discussion: The Final Year?

Do you guys feel this way because LeBron has made 600m from his salaries? Or is it because he is 41?

Do people feel that Reaves or Luka should take less to give themselves the best chance to win as well? I don’t feel that way, I’m just curious since everyone feels Lebron should take a 45m cut on his max.

I anticipate it’ll be more like 30m than 20m. But I’d love if he took MLE money. I just don’t think he would with us.

 

Everybody seems to assume Bron would rather take a lower amount (i.e. one below his market value) from another team than the Lakers. Why is that exactly? He has clear incentives to stay with the team he already knows and the city his family has lived in for many years now. Would his pride suffer more if he gave the Lakers a discount for some reason? Is this due to the never ending tensions between him / his agent and the FO? I just don't get it.

 

both and

no. they're 26 and 27 and haven't made as much money in their careers (especially reaves, who probably won't get another really big contract). i don't see how this is being equated, tbh.

they also actually do have leverage, if we want to get nasty about it. lebron has none. don't care if every team wants him; there's no path to both money and contention for him. and i know everyone thinks we'll die without him, but we looked good without him for chunks of the season, and we can do it again.

part of it is that the highest max is actually being quietly successful in its aim (to kill teams that pay it, lol).

anyway, once again, if he wants his max above all else and chicago will give it to him, he should totally take it. we are not in a position to sensibly do this, and yes, replacing him with younger players via trade or FA is better than signing him to his max.

the last part is what gets me. why would laker fans be out defending a guy who they think would be willing to take less money to play somewhere else?

and you realize that pretty much all of your own offseason hypotheticals involve him topping out at 20m per, right? there's a reason for that--we probably can't build a contender with him over that number.

finally--and i know we don't agree on this--i don't think lebron is going to play past next year. if he does, it will be a farewell tour full of time on the IR. IF you believe he's got three years of all-star level play left, all the "why take a cut" stuff makes sense. i just don't. i think folks are being blinded a bit by the good postseason run and forgetting he missed the beginning of the year with an old man's back problem (i know, because i've had it, lol). the last guy we depended on heavily with old man back issues was steve nash.

 

yeah, said same above. we shouldn't be expected to pay him twice what cleveland can (that's AFTER clearing out like half their rotation, too!). if that's true, we already have a bad relationship, so why continue?

 

I think maybe the insult could come from the fact that we can give more but won’t, while other teams can’t give more but would. It’s like the parable of the widow’s donation.

I think LeBron has two more years. I’d hope that would be for a favourable rate. I just think logically it’s 30m and I’d hope it would be 15m. It’s why I’ve started doing team building with a higher wage for Lebron.

You’ve mentioned we did well to start the season a couple of times. But that was also in large part due to shot variance that isn’t sustainable. Luke and Reaves were averaging 70 and were shooting 40% from 3 while being the best two finishers at the rim amongst all players.

We were actually much better and sustainable in that stretch when Lebron was the third option.

 

Abeer answered well, it's both. At his age, it's about what he prioritizes.

He literally can't get paid 30+ in any team in the NBA and contend for the title. So does he want the money or a chance at another ring?

If it was before Luka, I wouldn't agree but would get his stance. We were far away of contention and him taking less didn't really made that much difference. I still think he should do it (like the paycut for Klay or Valanciunas, not them specifically but the context of it) but it was logical that it wouldn't get us that close to the contenders.

Now is different, we have Luka and a lot of avenues to build a roster capable of winning it all. I agree we will still be behind OKC and Spurs whatever we do this summer, but we can get as close as we ever was. I think that in itself justifies him compromising to a number that maximizes our chances.

It's not like he is a normal player. As abeer said, he had sciatica!! at the start of the season. He said himself he is forever tbd on any b2b. That's 15-20% of the season. There's clearly a high level of injury risk on him that no other player has and that is always reflected in a new contract. On top of that, even if he is injury free, there's a catering and management required that no other players have and that needs to be accounted.
Then you add how no team can give him more than 15M, and that impacts the offer we give him as it would with any other player under the above circumstances.

I get he might really trust himself and there's a good probability he will play up to a 40 million contract, but do you think we have any chance beating both Spurs and Thunder if he gets that contract?

 

wish this logic was applied to us when we're over the cap and there's a key FA we'd like to obtain for the tpmle. we're just poor widows. we REALLY, REALLY love jalen duren, though. you evil pistons can pay him a max but are balking, but we would gladly pay that...if only we had it!!

a good chunk of our fanbase also doesn't extend this to reaves. plenty of teams without the ability to pay him would do it! they'd gladly dump their crap on us to trade for him on a max, just like all these fake lebron suitors.

this was with 1/4 of the team's payroll on the bench. what if lebron was peyton watson here, for example? what if he was cam johnson, herb jones, and keon ellis? maybe luka and reaves don't need to be that good to win games in such scenarios.

sure. what's the going rate for third offensive options who are over 40 and tend to coast during the regular season?

horford was on the tpmle last year. keep in mind before you scoff: this is a guy who's consistently been in the 80th percentile defensively and overall in most metrics (including this past year). why is he getting/taking 5m per? because he's old and wants to win and has made a bunch of money already, that's why.

 

Lol..Yeah we won a few games earlier in the season without Lebron. That doesn't mean jack s*** either, because the season is 82 games long. Luka and Austin couldn't answer the bell, to start the postseason, and they are both in thier prime.

Folks should stop yapping about Austin's incrediblpe "10 game" MVP run too...

 

lebron only had about a 10-game "all-nba" run, too.

but i still want to know why lebron's worth 30 per and horford's worth 5 per.

 

Because Lebron is the superior player. Lebron is still a better player than Austin Reaves. You have no problem paying him 40M.

 

yeah, he's 27 and won't be retiring in a year.

i don't think the case that lebron is more valuable than reaves is as open and shut as you like to claim, but i don't even really need to argue that point.

lebron is also better than horford. but how much? a factor of 6? i don't think so at all.

 

Not that I think LBJ should get 30mil but Horford couldn’t have been the Lakers number one playoff option and still win the series like LBJ did.LeBron is a very difficult decision for the team

 

true, but...should you plan on that? should you plan on it again?

we'll see if it actually is. he's not in position to demand 30 million, so it's simply a matter of how it's all handled. the hardest part was removing the player option so we'd even be at this point.

i think our arguments on this site are not approximating any conversation being had in the front office. they probably have a dozen different options at different price points for lebron, based on what else might/could happen. it will be up to him if he wants to play ball on that or search for greener pastures.

if he does, it's bad, but not catastrophic. catastrophic could be bringing back the gang next year, only to have lebron get hurt and have 30 million in dead money that can't be traded.

i think he'll be back, and i think the number will be close to 20. much like those who don't want reaves paid, i guess if he gets 30 people on the forum will just have to live with me scrutinizing him pretty heavily next year.

 

I agree injury is a big possibility for a player his age. He’s still very good and his teammates seem to love playing alongside of him but for the organization he’s kind of holding up progress.

 

i think at the right dollar amount, he's not even really holding up progress! but it's hard to come up with a scenario wherein he gets paid 30 million next year and we're better next year or well-situated for his retirement.

this is why it's different than the reaves argument. reaves at 5m more than what people want a) has little to no effect on our ability to improve this summer, and b) at worst is a tradable contract in the future.

i think those are key differences.

 

Then Reaves isn't much better than Kennard following your logic.