Trade & FA 2025-26: Free Agency Starts 5pm CST/6pm EST

[DallasMaverick]

Just an observation about negotiations between a team and a player:

In theory, a team should only be willing to pay a player what he’s worth to them, taking into account the market for similar players.

So, for example, some on this board have argued against Gafford’s contract on the grounds that we’ve already got a starting center in Lively, AD is really a center, etc.

Other have argued that the market for a player of his skills and numbers fully supports the contract he received.

Fine.

But instead, I see both players and teams arguing from the position of cap space.

I remember the Wesley Matthews promise that they’d give him “whatever was left over” after chasing other free agents.

I think leverage is applied both ways: teams will tell prospective players’ agents “we only have X amount left. Will your client take it”?

On the other hand, players will make the case that “you’ve got a bunch of ability to pay me, so I’m holding out for the max”.

Thinking about guys like Giddey, Grimes, and Kuminga…

And observing how few teams actually have cap space available, even really bad teams…

Perhaps teams have found it very useful in negotiations to keep cap space to a minimum.

[F Gump]

Just an observation about negotiations between a team and a player:

In theory, a team should only be willing to pay a player what he’s worth to them, taking into account the market for similar players.

So, for example, some on this board have argued against Gafford’s contract on the grounds that we’ve already got a starting center in Lively, AD is really a center, etc.

Other have argued that the market for a player of his skills and numbers fully supports the contract he received.

Fine.

But instead, I see both players and teams arguing from the position of cap space.

I remember the Wesley Matthews promise that they’d give him “whatever was left over” after chasing other free agents.

I think leverage is applied both ways: teams will tell prospective players’ agents “we only have X amount left. Will your client take it”?

On the other hand, players will make the case that “you’ve got a bunch of ability to pay me, so I’m holding out for the max”.

Thinking about guys like Giddey, Grimes, and Kuminga…

And observing how few teams actually have cap space available, even really bad teams…

Perhaps teams have found it very useful in negotiations to keep cap space to a minimum.

I'm sure all those issues come into play for both players and teams (although not on every deal). 

Leverage is helpful at times. But if used in the wrong way or the wrong time (we would call it "playing hardball") the other party may simply decide they are disrespected and wish to look elsewhere for a deal. See Turner, Myles for a recent example imo.

However, I do think a realistic stance that "this is all we have" or "this is what we have as our limit, because of overall cap limits" is being seen already in this hard cap world to some degree, and something that will be seen more and more. As a result, players will have to pick between getting more money on a crappy roster (who has more available money because they have less talent to spread it among) or taking a suitably-sized amount on a good team who is budgeting to have more talent and thereby a better shot at winning titles.

[Kidnova]

I'm sure all those issues come into play for both players and teams (although not on every deal). 

Leverage is helpful at times. But if used in the wrong way or the wrong time (we would call it "playing hardball") the other party may simply decide they are disrespected and wish to look elsewhere for a deal. See Turner, Myles for a recent example imo.

However, I do think a realistic stance that "this is all we have" or "this is what we have as our limit, because of overall cap limits" is being seen already in this hard cap world to some degree, and something that will be seen more and more. As a result, players will have to pick between getting more money on a crappy roster (who has more available money because they have less talent to spread it among) or taking a suitably-sized amount on a good team who is budgeting to have more talent and thereby a better shot at winning titles.

If things continue to move in this direction, with just a few players on max/supermax deals making huge amounts and everybody else making MLE or less, then you'd think there should be some pushback from the players in the next CBA to reign in the % for the SMax/Max deals.  I know the stars have unequally weighted amount of power, but there's not much left to go around for simply above average to good vets these days.  I suppose that would just put us back where we were when there were a bunch of non-stars getting close to max deals, but that has to be better for the players overall.

As an example, as we sit today, 85% of OKC's 2027-2028 is committed to 3 guys. Now that % will lower as the cap moves up, but it's still going to be hard to sign other veterans to anything except lowball deals.

[mvossman]

I'm sure all those issues come into play for both players and teams (although not on every deal). 

Leverage is helpful at times. But if used in the wrong way or the wrong time (we would call it "playing hardball") the other party may simply decide they are disrespected and wish to look elsewhere for a deal. See Turner, Myles for a recent example imo.

Finney-Smith, Dorian might be another example.

[KillerLeft]

Finney-Smith, Dorian might be another example.

And Brunson, Jalen.

[F Gump]

If things continue to move in this direction, with just a few players on max/supermax deals making huge amounts and everybody else making MLE or less, then you'd think there should be some pushback from the players in the next CBA to reign in the % for the SMax/Max deals.  I know the stars have unequally weighted amount of power, but there's not much left to go around for simply above average to good vets these days.

I hear the complaints, but have a different pov whenever this topic is raised.
1 The players have had this issue raised before --- EVERY TIME they do a new CBA. Not new at all.
2 So what we have now is the end result of that pushback the last time - and the time before - and the time before - and ....
3 When this all began, there was NO limit on how much of a team's payroll or cap a star player could get. His last year as a Bull, Jordan got 123% of CHI's cap (that would be like 190M this season!).
4 The argument can be made that stars are not worth so much - and then another one could be made that without the stars, the league is nothing because the stars are what sell the tickets, so the stars should make even more.
5 It's not like a non-star hooper is hurting at all - he can make a fortune every year. NBA player salary AVERAGES about the MLE, and 14M a year for playing a game is not starving. It's lottery money. Every year. At one time in the past 14M was the whole cap, and not so long ago it was a max deal. Michael Jordan only made more than $4M 2 years in his entire career, and now a 3rd stringer can sometimes get that much. The rich are getting richer.

Ultimately, this issue is inevitable, and will not change, because of the setup of the league and its success. Players and owners sell a product, split the money, and then the players get half. The players half of the pie gets bigger and bigger (massively). But then the players all continue to think their own personal share of that pie needs to be bigger (because look what someone else is getting!!). Unless you can mandate away greed and jealousy and "I want more" from the fabric of people, a new CBA will not make it go away, any more than the last one did.

/rant

[F Gump]

OK, first part does make it basically impossible. However, I don't understand which rule would be broken in the second sentence? GSW is not hard capped at the second apron, if I am not mistaken.

Edit: sorry, they would be. They can't aggregate salaries in a trade, they would need to be under the second apron to make it possible. In that case, including one of Butler, Curry or Draymond is the only possible way.

Spitballing:

LBJ for Butler [salaries are close enough to be legal as a simple one-for-one, or perhaps add a tad to make it work]

Who says no? What would YOU do if that was on the table?

[omahen]

Spitballing:

LBJ for Butler [salaries are close enough to be legal as a simple one-for-one, or perhaps add a tad to make it work]

Who says no? What would YOU do if that was on the table?

I would say both say no. GSW doesn't get much better with LeBron instead of Butler. Perhaps even worse, because LeBron positionally overlaps with Draymond, unless you go all in with Draymond as a small ball center. They would have a hole at SF, although they do have the assets and ability to do some additional moves. 

Lakers would have exactly same problems with Butler as they have with LeBron. They don't don't get better and Butler has another year - a year they could give to LeBron, but they didn't want to, because it would be preventing them to trully build around Luka after this season. Same as with LeBron - you can't really hope to move Butler in some good trade due to all the difficulties of trading such a huge contract. Of course, if some draft assets would be attached, it would make things more appealing, but why would GSW do that. 

However, lets say LeBron would be dead set on moving on and GSW would be willing to do this deal. I guess I would be forced to take the deal, just to avoid all the drama. Look hard if there is a possibility to move Butler for better long term pieces.

[F Gump]

Thanks for your pov.

I was thinking they both might say yes ... the rationale being to perhaps better satisfy a bit different window for each

Lebron right now is slightly better imo, but possibly a shorter timeline (and might even be ready to bolt LA now, and LA gets something rather than nothing from the parting of the ways, and GS might be one of the few places who would appeal to LBJ, welcome him, have a trade match, and be a fit) ... GS wants that immediate upgrade (even if it means they sacrifice the potential for longer) ....

whereas maybe LA would prefer the potentially longer timeline of Butler with Luka, perhaps another 4-5 years while also knowing Butler contract ends by summer of 2027 if needed

[Mavs2021]

I would say both say no. GSW doesn't get much better with LeBron instead of Butler. Perhaps even worse, because LeBron positionally overlaps with Draymond, unless you go all in with Draymond as a small ball center. They would have a hole at SF, although they do have the assets and ability to do some additional moves. 

Lakers would have exactly same problems with Butler as they have with LeBron. They don't don't get better and Butler has another year - a year they could give to LeBron, but they didn't want to, because it would be preventing them to trully build around Luka after this season. Same as with LeBron - you can't really hope to move Butler in some good trade due to all the difficulties of trading such a huge contract. Of course, if some draft assets would be attached, it would make things more appealing, but why would GSW do that. 

However, lets say LeBron would be dead set on moving on and GSW would be willing to do this deal. I guess I would be forced to take the deal, just to avoid all the drama. Look hard if there is a possibility to move Butler for better long term pieces.

 
This. 

Lakers want to move to the Luka timeline and Butler just delays this without getting significantly better. Though I do believe they get better, it´s not by much.

While the Lakers flat out got their ass handed to them by the Wolves, the Warriors can at least be pretty confident, they´d have made the West finals. Adding Horford/Melton + whatever they get for Kuminga should make them better.

[SleepingHero]

https://marcstein.substack.com/p/the-lat...eshest-nba

Why is Beal's highly anticipated buyout from Phoenix and subsequent foray into free agency unfolding so slowly?

The Stein Line has identified one potential snag.

League sources say Beal's current contract stipulates that he is owed a 25% advance payment on his 2025-26 salary on July 15. As in this coming Tuesday.

The early payment is valued at more than $13 million.

While sources say that Beal will ultimately receive that amount no matter how his eventual exit from the Suns plays out, it is believed that he could elect to wait for that payment to go through before proceeding with his departure from the desert.

The Clippers, Lakers, Warriors, Timberwolves and, yes, Giannis' Bucks are teams with a confirmed interest in signing Beal once he reaches the open market ... with the Clippers widely regarded as a particularly strong contender to land the 33-year-old former All-Star.

For the Suns to waive and stretch his contract like Milwaukee did with Lillard, Beal would be required to surrender at least $13.9 million of the nearly $111 million he is currently owed over the next two seasons.

A buyout, of course, would terminate Beal's original five-year deal worth in excess of $250 million signed with Washington in the summer of 2022 and, courtesy of that termination, erase one of the NBA's two active full no-trade clauses. The Lakers' James holds the other one.

[From Dirk to SCREW YOU Nico]

https://marcstein.substack.com/p/the-lat...eshest-nba

The link is for paid subscribers....cliffs please?

[HoosierDaddyKid]

The link is for paid subscribers....cliffs please?

Stein has been charging for his content a while now. No thanks. I'll get the intel eventually for free.

[DallasMaverick]

The link is for paid subscribers....cliffs please?

I think the part that begins with “Quote” is the relevant section from the article.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2522...ident-says


Looks as if Giannis is staying put, for now...

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6490659...offseason/



Much of the Lakers' tension appears to stem
from their desire to keep their salary cap
as clean as possible.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n...712290007/


Jalen Green says he and Booker will be a deadly scoring duo from now on.

[SleepingHero]

Okay. So. Take ALL of this with a grain of salt. A rando anonymous Twitter "insider" earlier this week posted this:

@SMHighlights1
I’m in Vegas right now, I just spoke with an agent and something big is happening with the Mavericks. Trade incoming.

WOW.

He then followed it up with this:

@SMHighlights1
I believe it’s a three team deal, Cavs are involved, don’t know the other team.

The deal is reportedly about to go through, Nico and Kidd are working through it. It could get off’ed if Nico and Kidd don’t mutually agree.

THEN the other twitter insider for this year's free agency who has actually broken some news (but has also been wrong on some things) posted this:

@Ary_Report
Dallas *eyes looking emoji*

NOW back to the other guy. 10 minutes ago he has tweeted this:

@SMHighlights1
A DEAL IS COMING WITHIN 48 HOURS, STAY TUNED

And if you click on his tweets in the replies, the dude is adamant that a deal is happening. He also said that it's not a massive deal (like an AD level deal) but its a relatively big deal.


Again, this is ALL unsubstantiated. However, this is what FA fun as heck. I wonder theoretically a 3-team deal between Dallas, Cleveland, and Mystery Team could be....

[KillerLeft]

Okay. So. Take ALL of this with a grain of salt. A rando anonymous Twitter "insider" earlier this week posted this:


He then followed it up with this:


THEN the other twitter insider for this year's free agency who has actually broken some news (but has also been wrong on some things) posted this:



NOW back to the other guy. 10 minutes ago he has tweeted this:



And if you click on his tweets in the replies, the dude is adamant that a deal is happening. He also said that it's not a massive deal (like an AD level deal) but its a relatively big deal.


Again, this is ALL unsubstantiated. However, this is what FA fun as heck. I wonder theoretically a 3-team deal between Dallas, Cleveland, and Mystery Team could be....

My half-cocked, wildly irresponsible, spur of the moment not thought out reaction: Darius Garland? Surely not Donavan Mitchell.

[SleepingHero]

LOL dude all the twitter insiders are all over this:

@playoffzinzy
Dallas, LA, Memphis, don’t sleep