Our latest mailbag delivered plenty of great questions, but one topic came up time and time again: LeBron James.
His future is going to be not just the biggest question of the Lakers’ offseason, but one of the biggest in the league as a whole. He’s already broken basically every record in terms of longevity while still showing he can perform at a high level this season.
But with the Lakers looking to move into the Luka Dončić era, does it make sense to also take part in the LeBron retirement tour?
Let’s dive into that debate with your questions.
So, let’s try to have that conversation with nuance, because I agree that there are multiple ways to come at this from both sides of the argument.
Depending on when you asked the Lakers during the season, their thoughts on LeBron’s future with the franchise would have been different. For much of the first half of the season, all the signs pointed to the two sides going their separate ways this summer.
Then, the team figured some things out heading into March, LeBron looked great as a willing third fiddle and the Lakers played their best basketball of the season. They legitimately looked like a contender for most of the month, including beating the team that is currently up in the NBA Finals in a rout.
For LeBron, when everything else went awry for the Lakers heading into the playoffs, he stepped up in a way that should also provide some encouragement that he has something to offer for a title-contending team.
Now, even taking that into account, there are other things that come with having LeBron on the team. No matter if he’s the best player on the team or the third option, he’s always going to be a focal point. Conversations will revolve around him.
He also brings pressure that will stress-test a team throughout the year. Whether it’s due to reasons on the court or off of it, there will be multiple times during the campaign where the team’s resolve will be tested.
You also have to account for a regular season in which he’s not going to be going all out throughout. He paces himself, which means you’re likely going to lose games in December and January because LeBron is pacing himself for the postseason.
It is also impossible to fully move into the Luka era with LeBron still on the team. Everyone can acknowledge that this is Luka’s team and Luka’s franchise, but with LeBron on the roster, it won’t fully feel like that.
And yet, even with all those qualifiers, he led the team to a playoff series win as the central figure with Luka and Austin Reaves. It truly can’t be understated, even if it came against an underwhelming Houston side, that LeBron still has enough juice to carry a team in the playoffs.
This is not an easy decision. There are pros and cons, as suggested in the comment/question, about parting with LeBron. Is it worth moving on and into the Luka era if it means moving on from a player who is still capable of contributing at a high level?
I think one aspect that hasn’t been discussed enough is that, if the Lakers should and do move on from LeBron, there is a huge statistical void that will have to be filled.
Last season, he averaged 20.9 points, 7.2 assists and 6.1 rebounds per game. If you take that off the team, that’s big, big numbers they have to replace. And that’s to speak nothing of the ways he impacts the team outside of the stat line. The knowledge and experience he has is invaluable and irreplaceable.
No one player can replace LeBron statistically. Even if the Lakers replace him in the aggregate, which is how they’ll have to approach things, and are able to find nearly 21 points and over seven assists and six rebounds per game, there are still ways they’re not going to be able to replace him.
And needing to do all that this summer with a free agent market that isn’t exactly brimming with top-end talent makes it more difficult. They could find solutions via trade, but that will be difficult given the other needs the team will also have.
Can they replace LeBron’s production while also finding athleticism on the perimeter while also finding a center option for the future? One player could fill multiple of those needs, but it makes a tough offseason even more difficult.
The Lakers may be better in the long run by parting ways with LeBron and entering the Luka era, but it will also likely hurt them in the short term.
I’m going to ignore all of the doom and gloom of the second comment because I want to focus a bit on LeBron’s upcoming contract and both of these questions commented on that.
I don’t think LeBron is under any illusion that he’s a massive contract guy anymore. Even if he is, the free agent market is going to let him know that’s the case. The only contending team that could offer him that type of money is the Lakers and they’d be bidding against themselves for that matter.
It’s hard to see a scenario where LeBron’s contract is much more than the mid-level exception — which will be roughly $15 million this year — because that’s what the market is going to dictate. Again, if you think he’s getting more than that, it’s because you think the Lakers are going to cave and just give him a bunch of money.
You can point to how the team handled the end of Kobe Bryant’s career, but I’d argue that…
- That was a different front office
- That was different ownership
- That was a Lakers team set for a rebuild and not one set to contend
I don’t disagree that giving LeBron a deal around $30-35 million basically dooms the rest of their free agency plans. I also don’t think that he is getting that deal.
Now, on the flip side of that, I’m not ever going to criticize someone for taking money. If the Lakers offer LeBron $30 million, my anger would be at the front office, not LeBron. By the same token, I’m not going to tell or expect a player to take less money to be competitive.
It’s nice if a player does take a discount to help the team win, but it’s not their job to take less money and if I was in their shoes, I can’t say I’d be willing to take less money to compete. This is life-changing money, even if LeBron is a billionaire. He came from nothing. I’m not going to criticize or expect him to take less.
Having said that, it is substantially easier to build a title-contending team if LeBron takes significantly less money, obviously. I’d question how much he wants to bring a title to Los Angeles on his way out, since he already brought the city a title. I doubt those are his motivations.
There was also the comment LeBron made about when he would decide his future. He gave a timeline of late June through August where he would make his decision. The Lakers aren’t going to wait on him, so if he wants to make a decision after the beginning of July, then he’s returning to the Lakers on a minimum. I’m not reading too much into that for now, but it did pique my interest.
If you want to make the case for why he would stay in Los Angeles, I think a more compelling argument would focus on the family roots he has in the city. Does he really want to relocate his family again for what will likely be a one-year retirement tour? Does he want to live alone during that time if they remain in LA?
Considering how much he speaks about his family and how close he is to them, I venture to think neither of those are options desires.
If I were to guess, I think LeBron is back in Los Angeles for one more season next year. I genuinely do not know what the contract will be. I don’t expect it to be north of $20-25 million because that really starts to handicap the Lakers this summer.
What I do know, though, is that moving on from LeBron this summer is going to create even more holes for the Lakers to plug in an offseason with plenty of them already.
You can follow Jacob on Twitter at @JacobRude or on Bluesky at @jacobrude.bsky.social.
