Printable View
He's unlikely to agree to a trade that will benefit the Lakers. Someone will pick him up which means they'll be off the hook for the salary for the rest of the year.
They're playing good without him and aren't likely to get better if at all. They might actually get worse.
It's time to move on.
No
Yes.
But [U]ONLY[/U] if they have a handshake agreement in place that he returns next year to play with Bronny and Bryce.
Then the Lakers will be truly ready to contend for a title.
Right now he deserves one last chance to win via the hardest road possible, a la OKC, DEN or HOU. Places where expectations and pressure are super high and the rosters are not assembled in a way he's used to. If he can win in one of those situations, he becomes the Ultra-Forever-GOAT
Hes tradeable. I doubt they get better by cutting him. Im all for which ever option makes the lakers a bigger shit show though!
Wait wait, I can't make a LeBron thread. We already have one thread about him. Sorry GOBB. ([I]dumb[/I] [I]f[I]a[/I]ggot[/I])
[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;15041535]Yes.
But [U]ONLY[/U] if they have a handshake agreement in place that he returns next year to play with Bronny and Bryce.
Then the Lakers will be truly ready to contend for a title.
Right now he deserves one last chance to win via the hardest road possible, a la OKC, DEN or HOU. Places where expectations and pressure are super high and the rosters are not assembled in a way he's used to. If he can win in one of those situations, he becomes the Ultra-Forever-GOAT[/QUOTE]
Okc certainly doesnt want him. Denver giving up murray for a broken down old man? Houston maybe with van fleet in package?
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041536]Hes tradeable. I doubt they get better by cutting him. Im all for which ever option makes the lakers a bigger shit show though![/QUOTE]
You don't think he's likely to disrupt their offensive and defensive flow?
LeBron has a shitty attitude, he's always had a shitty attitude. His talent has declined because of his age and he is no longer strong of a player enough to overcome all the bullshit. The Lakers clearly have some form of synergy going on right now and he's likely to shit all over that.
[QUOTE=Yes or No;15041541]You don't think he's likely to disrupt their offensive and defensive flow?
LeBron has a shitty attitude, he's always had a shitty attitude. His talent has declined because of his age and he is no longer strong of a player enough to overcome all the bullshit. The Lakers clearly have some form of synergy going on right now and he's likely to shit all over that.[/QUOTE]
Seems like he is fine spotting up in the corner
Gs maybe? Where old guys go to die. Kuminga and contracts to la
Or cluppers? Collins and contracts. Luka finally gets his rim runner. Lue and lebron
Knicks? Robinson and contracts. Another rim runner. Ayton to bench
[QUOTE=Yes or No;15041533]He's unlikely to agree to a trade that will benefit the Lakers. Someone will pick him up which means they'll be off the hook for the salary for the rest of the year.
They're playing good without him and aren't likely to get better if at all. They might actually get worse.
It's time to move on.[/QUOTE]
Dumb
Guess ny would need a new head coach though :lol
Wolves. Naz and contracts. Could play pg. Biggest team in league
The entire basketball world would be better off if LeBron just pulled his famous 4th quarter act and just.... disappeared.
Who says no?
[url]https://www.espn.com/nba/trademachine?tradeId=2cfcra38[/url]
When did the Yes or No account become something other than saying Yes or No?
Maybe he should go back to that because his takes are god awful.
[QUOTE=Wally450;15041556]When did the Yes or No account become something other than saying Yes or No?
Maybe he should go back to that because his takes are god awful.[/QUOTE]
No.
East is wide open so they could probably get something useful in return if he were ok with the idea.
[QUOTE=Yes or No;15041533]He's unlikely to agree to a trade that will benefit the Lakers. Someone will pick him up which means they'll be off the hook for the salary for the rest of the year.
They're playing good without him and aren't likely to get better if at all. They might actually get worse.
It's time to move on.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Luka was in the finals the year before and then lost in round 1 with Lebron.
LeBron would be excellent for the Lakers coming off the bench to spell Luka, and in games where Luka is not available.
Before the season I said this was the most realistic trade.
Lakers get a decent rotation player that defends and can be a 3rd option behind AR.
Miami is one of the few teams that due to his history with Spo he could fit in with fresh off of a mid-season trade. LeBron would have Herro, Powell, and BAM as his help.
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/GhGPTcJV/fanspo-nba-trade-machine-snap-h-11-8-2025-11-17-48PM.jpg[/IMG]
No, they are building a championship team at the moment but the pieces aren't in place yet. You aren't going to end up in a better situation when you waive Lebron and get the best player available. You wait until the MVP is ready and clear to come to you.
If he would truly make them worse then they should trade him. He likely does fit badly but he's too valuable to just pay him to go away. He's a smart guy and if he sees it's not working they should be able to work something out. Darius Garland covers a lot of his annual salary value, see if something can be worked out there or with another team. But you don't just pay the most popular player in the league to go away.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041745]If he would truly make them worse then they should trade him. He likely does fit badly but he's too valuable to just pay him to go away. He's a smart guy and if he sees it's not working they should be able to work something out. Darius Garland covers a lot of his annual salary value, see if something can be worked out there or with another team. But you don't just pay the most popular player in the league to go away.[/QUOTE]
There's a no trade clause in his contract. They can't trade him. The Lakers really shot themselves in the foot with this one.
[QUOTE=Full Court;15041746]There's a no trade clause in his contract. They can't trade him. The Lakers really shot themselves in the foot with this one.[/QUOTE]
It's a contract that expires after this season. LeBron also made All-NBA team last season.
Lakers really "shot themselves in the foot".
:roll:
[QUOTE=Full Court;15041746]There's a no trade clause in his contract. They can't trade him. The Lakers really shot themselves in the foot with this one.[/QUOTE]
If you read my post more carefully you will see that it is acknowledged that he would have to be on board. James had that no-trade clause to make sure that he has control. You have to construct a deal that he is ok with. I don't know for sure how he, the Lakers or the Cavs would feel about it but Cleveland has the talent to win the East, he's famously from the area and would be easy to sell the fans on, fits in as a point forward possibly better than the Garland/Mitchell small backcourt does defensively. It's the type of deal that could work for James if LA wants to move on.
Maybe saying "if he would waive his no trade clause" at the beginning of your opinion is an easier way for people to understand where you're going.... instead of "if things can be worked out" which doesn't specify anything or anyone.
It's that simple.
[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15041754]Maybe saying "if he would waive his no trade clause" at the beginning of your opinion is an easier way for people to understand where you're going.... instead of "if things can be worked out" which doesn't specify anything or anyone.
It's that simple.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe don't be a loser that makes a big deal out of minor issues? Just a thought.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041755]Or maybe don't be a loser that makes a big deal out of minor issues? Just a thought.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe don't blame others for not thinking the obvious is in front of them when it's clearly not.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041745]If he would truly make them worse then they should trade him. He likely does fit badly but he's too valuable to just pay him to go away. He's a smart guy and if he sees it's not working they should be able to work something out. Darius Garland covers a lot of his annual salary value, see if something can be worked out there or with another team. But you don't just pay the most popular player in the league to go away.[/QUOTE]
I really and honestly don't believe the Cavs would trade any of Mitchell, Garland, Mobley, or Allen for LeBron, so it makes them a non-starter. They are also an over the 2nd apron team so they cannot aggregate salaries.
[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15041762]Or maybe don't blame others for not thinking the obvious is in front of them when it's clearly not.[/QUOTE]
My fault for not anticipating your stupidity. Moving on.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041769]I really and honestly don't believe the Cavs would trade any of Mitchell, Garland, Mobley, or Allen for LeBron, so it makes them a non-starter. They are also an over the 2nd apron team so they cannot aggregate salaries.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they wouldn't but James is a highly profitable player for any franchise and likely an even bigger deal in Cleveland. The monetary aspect should never be disregarded. And he's also potentially a better fit for the team. With Garland you have a small backcourt that can be exploited by bigger guards. James allows the Cavs to matchup however they have to with anyone and Mitchell is still free to just be a scorer because James will be the point guard of the offense. If they are determined to get James (not a given but that would be the basis of this thread) then the Lakers are far better off finding a trade partner to get some value than they would be handing him his money so that he can leave (he's not going to give them any money back if he gets waived and it's not his idea for him to get waived). Darius Garland is a good player but the only edge he has over James as an asset is youth. That's important but we're talking about the most popular player in the league, still possibly a better player than Garland, also likely a better fit, and the greatest player in their franchise's history.
If they can't make the money match then that would be the end of it though, I concede that but the main point of they should be finding a trade, not just paying him to leave.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041769]I really and honestly don't believe the Cavs would trade any of Mitchell, Garland, Mobley, or Allen for LeBron, so it makes them a non-starter. They are also an over the 2nd apron team so they cannot aggregate salaries.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense for the cavs to break up their backcourt. Not sure why the lakers would want garland? They would want allen
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041773]Makes sense for the cavs to break up their backcourt. Not sure why the lakers would want garland? They would want allen[/QUOTE]
They world be better off with Allen. Would depend on how much of a bidding war they could create to get him and then of the team would still be good enough for him to accept that deal. The challenge when a player has a no-trade is always that you have to create a situation that they like. That's why they can't just pack him off to New Orleans or some team like that.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041770]My fault for not anticipating your stupidity. Moving on.[/QUOTE]
My stupidity... . I was just pointing out rhat full court didnt see what you called obvious. If it was obvious, then you wouldn't have been told that James has a no trade clause cause you sure as hell didn't say it in your post.
LOL @ Mr. Never-wrong. No wonder you're so fukkin miserable :oldlol:
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15041772]Maybe they wouldn't but James is a highly profitable player for any franchise and likely an even bigger deal in Cleveland. The monetary aspect should never be disregarded. And he's also potentially a better fit for the team. With Garland you have a small backcourt that can be exploited by bigger guards. James allows the Cavs to matchup however they have to with anyone and Mitchell is still free to just be a scorer because James will be the point guard of the offense. If they are determined to get James (not a given but that would be the basis of this thread) then the Lakers are far better off finding a trade partner to get some value than they would be handing him his money so that he can leave (he's not going to give them any money back if he gets waived and it's not his idea for him to get waived). Darius Garland is a good player but the only edge he has over James as an asset is youth. That's important but we're talking about the most popular player in the league, still possibly a better player than Garland, also likely a better fit, and the greatest player in their franchise's history.
If they can't make the money match then that would be the end of it though, I concede that but the main point of they should be finding a trade, not just paying him to leave.[/QUOTE]
James is on his way to missing the first 15 games of his 41 year old season, which may very well be his last. Who knows if he has a recurring injury of this sciatica. I don't think the Cavs would trade one of those for a potential rental of less than 1 season. If there was genuine interest it would have been explored in the summer.
I'm sure they would trade some combination of Hunter and loose change, but them we're back into the aggregation problem.
I get the premise of LeBron having more value being traded than let go for nothing. I'm only pointing out how difficult/ unrealistic a path that specifically the Cavs are.
The Lakers signed James son just to keep him happy. The Cavs and other teams wouldn't have gone after him because in the real world the Lakers aren't trying to get rid of James and most likely all you get out of going after him is a headline that that one of your stars was offered up in a trade and hurt feelings. If the Cavs had approached the Lakers they world have had to offer a lot while creating a team that James still thinks he can lead to a championship. That just isn't happening.
[QUOTE=beasted;15041780]James is on his way to missing the first 15 games of his 41 year old season, which may very well be his last. Who knows if he has a recurring injury of this sciatica. I don't think the Cavs would trade one of those for a potential rental of less than 1 season. If there was genuine interest it would have been explored in the summer.
I'm sure they would trade some combination of Hunter and loose change, but them we're back into the aggregation problem.
I get the premise of LeBron having more value being traded than let go for nothing. I'm only pointing out how difficult/ unrealistic a path that specifically the Cavs are.[/QUOTE]
If cavs owner wants him back it could happen. Lakers have what 3 1sts? Id give up garland before hunter. Lakers would give up their 1sts and more probably more for allen. Makes them a threat which they arent now. Cant see them wanting garland. Expiring contract is better for them. Cavs role the dice on one last run with old man river and replace the 1sts they gave up for mitchell.
I feel like lebron can still produce in spurts. He still averages All Star numbers.
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15041789]If cavs owner wants him back it could happen. Lakers have what 3 1sts? Id give up garland before hunter. Lakers would give up their 1sts and more probably more for allen. Makes them a threat which they arent now. Cant see them wanting garland. Expiring contract is better for them. Cavs role the dice on one last run with old man river and replace the 1sts they gave up for mitchell.[/QUOTE]
It seems people in this thread are trying to shoot me down as "hey, it's possible". Sure. Anything is possible, even trading Luka for Davis. But, what I'm trying to tell you it is insanely improbable.
To spell it out, a trade for LeBron means aggregating salaries which isn't allowed when you're over the 2nd apron. The Cavs have the highest payroll in the NBA of at least $229.9M according to B-R (HoopHype says $232M, Spotrac says $242M), and the 2nd apron is $207.8M for this season.
This means the trade for LeBron would need to simultaneously shed a minimum of $21M within the same deal. I don't see how the Cavs make that trade and end up a net positive or even an equivalent afterward -- or a team that Lebron waives his NTC because he believes can still win.
To also spell it out in contact combinations, it would take a combination like:
Garland, Hunter, Ball
Garland, Allen, Strus
Hunter, Allen, Strus, Wade
Garland, Strus, Ball, Merrill