Posted on 02/02/2025 3:13:55 PM PST by nickcarraway
The blockbuster three-team trade early Sunday morning had major financial ramifications for Luka Doncic.
He was in line to receive a super-max contract from the Mavericks next offseason but is no longer eligible after being traded to the Lakers.
The super max would have allowed Doncic to sign a five-year, $345 million contract with the Mavericks this summer. Instead, the most the Lakers can offer him next offseason is a five-year, $229 million deal, according to ESPN, a whopping $116 million less than what he could’ve gotten from Dallas.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Mavs were smart to dump him. He’s an overweight drunk who probably won’t last another 5 years, if that long.
I’m all broken up about this. How will Luka make ends meet now? Poor under privileged round ball players.
Never mind the difference in income taxes between California (a lot) and Texas (none).
He’ll lose even more as California has state income taxes, and Texas doesn’t.
Could Dallas still potentially resign him?
I was not aware that Doncic drank a lot but I do know that he seemed to be injured too much..
I am surprised he didn't have a no trade clause?
I just read that Doncic does not drink. Where did you get your information? He supposedly had a beer with his father after making the playoffs. That was years ago.
Doesn’t play defense, poor conditioning. Not worth the money.
They don’t want to repeat what Jerry Jones did with Dak Prescott.
Also, interest in the NBA is waning, at some point these ridiculous salaries have to start coming down.
I think the point is that if he stayed with Dallas, he could’ve been sorta exempt from salary caps, but now he is not, and they’re really just guessing how much LA can afford to pay him.
No. There is an NBA rule. If he was with his original team, or he was on a team for four of the seven years, he’s eligible for a Super Max contract, which is 35% of the team’s salary. Because he is on a team for less time, he can only get 30% of the cap. It has nothing to do with the Lakers. If he was traded to any other team it would be the same.
What do you define as ridiculous? Yes, it seems ridiculous, but should only the owners be allowed to keep all the money they are making?
Your math makes no sense. 35% is only 17% more than 30%, Doncic is making a third more with LA. But other than that, if I had written “partially exempt” instead of “exempt,” I would’ve pretty much stated what you wrote (minus the incorrect math).
His defense is average, not nonexistent. Charles Barkley is is in the HOF with much worse defense. And conditioning, for that matter.
They said he doesn’t like Mark Cuban.
He isn't making any more with L.A. He's still under the same contract.
Your math makes no sense. 35% is only 17% more than 30%, Doncic is making a third more with LA.
My math is not wrong, I didn't even use math. I am just stating NBA rules.
By NBA rules, a player with 7-9 years experience can get 30% of his teams salary in a Max contract. A player with 7-9 years experience can get 35% of his team's salary cap under a Super Max contract. That is literally the NBA rule.
He singlehandedly took the Mavs to the finals last year. The Mavs won't be better Anthony Davis, and they will sink in the standings from this point on.
Last year Doncic was #3 in the MVP race, and right now he is #4, but could still win it.
You think the Mavericks traded one of the best players in the NBA because he's not that good?
Your argument is insane. Why do you think Mavs fans are screaming. They had a chance for the finals, and now they will spend the next 5 years rebuilding. They are a manifestly worse team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.