Title windows aren’t guaranteed. You might as well go all in.
LeBron James picked up his $52.6 million player option with the Los Angeles Lakers for next season. Whether or not the former Cleveland Cavaliers’ draft pick is happy about opting into the deal is another thing.
James’s agent, Rich Paul, released a statement along with the announcement from ESPN’s Shams Charania that made it clear his client “wants to compete for a championship” and that he understands that the Lakers are “preparing for the future.”
In short, it wasn’t the type of press release we get from an agent when their client is thrilled with how things are going.
The Cavs are the natural landing spot that comes up whenever you think of other destinations for LeBron. Ending his career back home on a championship-caliber team would be a storybook ending. But fictional stories don’t have second-apron restrictions.
Making moves in the second apron is difficult. There were reportedly conversations with the Phoenix Suns about a possible Kevin Durant deal with the Cavs. That didn’t seem to get off the ground, and Durant didn’t want to come to Cleveland. The same obstacles that made the mechanics of a Durant trade difficult — presumably minus the whole not wanting to come to Cleveland thing — would still be present.
James is set to make $52.6 million next season. Since the Cavs are above the second apron, they aren’t allowed to receive more money back in a trade than they send out. Additionally, Cleveland doesn’t have anyone on their roster who currently makes that much money, which means they’d have to add multiple contracts together to reach James’s $52.6 million mark.
The second apron prevents the Cavs from aggregating contracts in a trade. That means that Cleveland would need to get under the second apron in a prior deal or the actual trade that brings back LeBron.
In short, they’d need to send out at least $70,4 million to make it work.
The Cavs could reach that number if they moved Darius Garland, Jarrett Allen, and Max Strus. All three couldn’t go to the Lakers, so a third, or possibly fourth, team would need to be involved to make the mechanics work.
Cleveland would be giving up a lot. Let’s take a look at whether it’d be worth it.
Is LeBron still good?
This is undoubtedly a yes. He isn’t the same player he was five years ago, but he’s still playing at an All-NBA level. He averaged 24.4 points, 8.2 assists, and 7.8 rebounds on .513/.376/.782 shooting splits.
Older players typically struggle to get to the rim like they did in their prime. James is no exception, as only 35% of his shot attempts came at the basket last season (29th percentile). This is the lowest percentile of his career. However, he still finished 74% of his looks in the restricted area (82nd percentile).
Not getting to the rim as well has coincided with fewer free-throw trips. He was only fouled on 11% of his shots (43rd percentile), which is his lowest since the 2005-06 season.
James’s playmaking and outside shooting have offset the decline he’s seen inside. Last season, LeBron connected on 38.2% of his above-the-break threes (72nd percentile) and 42% of his catch-and-shoot triples. Both are impressive numbers.
Additionally, he’s still the same level of playmaker he’s always been. He was once again in the 99th percentile for assist percentage and the 97th percentile for assist-to-usage rate. Those are both in line with his incredible career-long averages.
While these are impressive, it’s fair to point out that the defensive and impact metrics aren’t nearly as good.
For the first time in his career, his team performed better when he was on the bench. The Lakers were 6.9 points per 100 possessions worse with James (18th percentile) than they were without him. That is a concern.
While James is still a fringe top ten player, he isn’t without flaws. In watching the Lakers closely last season, it seemed like a lot of that is due to the inconsistent lineups he was forced to carry with Anthony Davis missing so much of the first half of the season, and the lack of front-court depth after the Luka Doncic trade. That said, it’s also because LeBron just doesn’t move like he once did, and was asked to carry the bulk of the offensive burden at 40 years old.
LeBron is still one of the best players in the league and can recapture his former highs for stretches. The consistency just isn’t near where it was in his prime.
Would the Cavs be better next season?
This type of move would gut the Cavs’ current roster. They would have five open roster spots in the wake of that type of deal, which they would only be able to fill with minimum-contract players.
There’s a lot to unpack with a trade that would send out that many pieces. The first thing we need to tackle is whether or not this would make them better next season, since this would be a move to prioritize the short term.
The depth chart is a good place to look when evaluating the short term. This is what it currently looks like:
This is what it would look like if you moved Garland, Allen, and Strus for James:
The Cavs have already sacrificed some of their depth this summer. They essentially swapped two key rotation players from last year in Sixth Man of the Year Finalist Ty Jerome and Isaac Okoro, for a point guard who, on paper, fits well in Lonzo Ball. But notably, Ball has played only 70 combined games in the last four seasons.
They will undoubtedly be relying on Craig Porter Jr. — who could be overextended in a more regular role — and Jaylon Tyson for minutes that they may not be ready for. This could be an issue if they aren’t ready.
That will put more pressure on a starting lineup that hasn’t proven it can coalesce well in the postseason, given the compromises inherently involved with their four best players. This isn’t an ideal position for a team that has consistently underperformed in the playoffs as is.
Conversely, the starting lineup with James would theoretically fit much better. James could take the playmaking burden, Donovan Mitchell could assume the scoring load, and Evan Mobley could be the interior defensive anchor. These were all roles that James was tasked with carrying by himself for stretches of last season in Los Angeles.
The depth would be an issue, but James’s diverse skillset would allow bench lineups to flow much better. Groups with James, Ball, Sam Merrill, and Dean Wade should be able to operate smoothly on offense. And then lineups without James could be carried by hybrid bench units featuring Mitchell and Mobley, like they were for most of last season.
Yes, the Cavs would have less depth in a way that would hurt them in the regular season. But, they may have more optimal bench lineups when fully healthy that should transfer well to the playoffs.
For next season, I believe the starters would be better in the postseason, and there would be a similar number of functional bench lineups. For those reasons, I believe the Cavs would be better with James in the short term.
Would the Cavs be better five seasons from now?
Trading two core players that are entering or in their prime for a 40-year-old is a tough sale five years down the road. Even if James gave you two good All-NBA seasons, he likely won’t be playing at 44 or 45 years old. And if he is, even James (probably) won’t be at an All-NBA level then.
Meanwhile, a 29 or 30-year-old Garland should still be an All-Star caliber player.
On the surface, it seems like the obvious answer would be that you’d be better off if you didn’t move the Garland and Allen for James. But I don’t think it’s that simple.
The Cavs will be in a bad spot with the second apron as long as they have three max contract-level players on their team.
This CBA is designed to keep teams from being title contenders while retaining three players on at least their third max contracts together. That’s where the Cavs will functionally be in ‘29 (given Mobley’s contract bonus) if they still have their three best players together. If you don’t believe me, just look at last year’s Suns.
There will likely come a time when the Cavs will need to choose only two of Mitchell, Mobley, and Garland. Of that group, Garland seems like the odd man out of that conversation, but that could change as Mitchell may not age as gracefully as we assume now, due to the wear and tear he puts on his body with the force he plays with at his size.
Trading for James now sidesteps that issue.
The Cavs will be in a bad spot salary-wise as long as James is on the team, but his money coming off the books when he retires would open up flexibility for the Cavs to re-tool their roster with more depth, similar to how most teams currently look that are built around two max-level players.
Cleveland wouldn’t necessarily be in a better spot in ‘29 or ‘30 because they traded a package that included Garland for LeBron. However, there probably won’t be a scenario where Garland, Mitchell, and Mobley are all still on the Cavs by that time unless a few of them take meaningful pay cuts to stay together.
The question isn’t, would this team be better with Garland in ‘29? Instead, it should be, were they better off until ‘29 with Garland, and what trade package could you have gotten around that time that would’ve better set up this team?
In essence, you’d be accelerating the inevitable and doing a soft reset whenever James retired instead of launching the soft reset whenever you inevitably have to trade Allen and one of your other three best players.
Final verdict
I would personally make this deal. I believe James, even at 41 years old which he’ll be next December, significantly raises the playoff ceiling of this team. He’s still the chessmaster who has a counter for every obstacle thrown his way. Pairing that ability with Mitchell and Mobley should allow them to get over the hump in the postseason.
The state of the Eastern Conference calls for an all-in move like this. The Cavs don’t have a Giannis Antetokounmpo-led team or the full-strength Boston Celtics in their way. Instead, they have to get through a maxed-out New York Knicks team and the revamped Orlando Magic. The calculation would be very different if this were last year.
Things change quickly in the NBA. Just because the East looks one way now doesn’t mean that it’ll look that way again next season or the year after. This very well could be the best chance Cleveland has at a title in decades.
One championship is worth everything in this business. And with how quickly windows open and close, tomorrow isn’t guaranteed. If you have a chance now, you might as well go all in.
And besides, I wouldn’t be able to come up with a more fitting end to LeBron’s career if I tried.
Just go for it.