Would the Lakers be better off waiving LeBron?

[Wally450]

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.

[Yes or No]

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.

No.

[ImKobe]

East is wide open so they could probably get something useful in return if he were ok with the idea.

[kawhileonard2]

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.

Yes. Luka was in the finals the year before and then lost in round 1 with Lebron.

[Duffy Pratt]

LeBron would be excellent for the Lakers coming off the bench to spell Luka, and in games where Luka is not available.

[beasted]

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.

[John8204]

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.

[Real Men Wear Green]

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.

[Full Court]

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.

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.

[1987_Lakers]

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.

It's a contract that expires after this season. LeBron also made All-NBA team last season.

Lakers really "shot themselves in the foot".

[Real Men Wear Green]

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.

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.

[Hey Yo]

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.

[Real Men Wear Green]

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.

Or maybe don't be a loser that makes a big deal out of minor issues? Just a thought.

[Hey Yo]

Or maybe don't be a loser that makes a big deal out of minor issues? Just a thought.

Or maybe don't blame others for not thinking the obvious is in front of them when it's clearly not.

[beasted]

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.

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.