LABron James Discussion: The Final Year?

Wouldn't it make more sense to say you're not interested in long-term deals, so if you do discuss a trade for a player that goes beyond 2027, it can be viewed as a negative asset and give you leverage in negotiations with the other team? Note, our FO that is notorious for being incredibly quiet and tight-knit hasn't come out and said this. It's all speculation, or possibly even leaked strategically.

 

Would be smart if that is the case for sure.

 

I haven't thought too deeply about this, but would there have been any way to S&T DFS for NAW, involving Minny and a 3rd team with space?

 

For argument sake, what's the minimum type of package you'd feel comfortable with if we/LeBron agreed to cut ties?

 

You guys like it around that campfire .... dontcha?

 

@abeer3 .... don't you suppose the single year contract with LeBron and no more 1+1 with PO was simply the new Walters ownership instructing Jeanie/Rob that THAT crap was over with? And then letting Klutch say whatever the hell they wanted to say to not lose face .... like it was LeBron's idea to pressure the FO to improve the team now?

 

That's what I'm thinking. That new ownership said no more 1+1, or if they do, then at reduced price and/or no no-trade clause. LeBron was offended, opted in, and RP said that crap. The only way it makes sense for LeBron is if he actually wants to be traded to NYK or somewhere...which I would welcome for the assets, to be able to trade in the future and not lose LeBron for nothing.

 

Anything that is tradeable in a year or 2 for Giannis or another star. Either KAT, or Anunoby & MitchRob from NYK. If Cleveland can somehow get under the 2nd apron, Allen & Hunter. For the hilarity...Gafford, Washington, and Klay? Although that would hurt if DLo, Christie, LeBron & AD win a chip since they have Flagg and Lively next to them.

 

possible that it came from above, but also possible that rob just realized lebron's leverage was gone. POs are sometimes necessary to entice people, but we don't need to entice lebron. nobody has had max space to sign him, and he won't take paycuts for us, so if he wants to for someone else, screw 'em.

rob may also have used new ownership as a cover for his own idea. i've heard he's a reptilian liar, so that's possible. but then it would make him smart, which isn't possible (dumbest gm, factz).

yeah. lebron has the no-trade, but there just aren't many terrible contracts out there. i take anything but terrible contracts because they don't leave us with absolutely nothing. though if lebron were to walk next summer, we can just use cap space to, theoretically, snap up a couple starting caliber players and/or restock some trade assets.

 

"Shrewd moves Rob!"

--Lebron (Probably)

 

Trade him for Westbrook

 

Are you building a canal so I can kayak right up to it?

 

If we want to win, he would be third fiddle this coming season.

 

Guess that ruins lebron chances of being a Knick with the mike brown hiring

 

if winning was the only thing, lebron would be playing for less money in a hybrid draymond/horford role. but it's not. legacy is #1. winning helps that, but it's trumped by billing in various forms of the word.

 

3rd fiddle to who? This Lebron stuff continues to be ridiculous.

 

i think he meant reaves, and my like was really about the fact that lebron can play a tertiary role on offense given our current personnel, leaving him more energy to expend on defense, where we need the help. particularly at center, where he outweighs like, half the starting centers in the nba lol.