Los Angeles Lakers: 5 reasons not to trade for Chris Paul

2. Chris Paul’s contract is too big

Paul has two years left on his contract, the second of which is a player option. For each season, he will be owed over $40 million, which is a gargantuan number.

If he were to come here and his first season goes well, you’d think he’d opt-in to that last year. After all, who would want to pay an aging star even more than $44.2 million, which is how much he’d make in the 2021-22 season if he remains on his current contract?

Taking on such a contract will hurt the Lakers’ ability to keep improving the rest of the roster to keep it fresh.

Role players are so important when it comes to winning a championship. If you’ve been a Lakers fan for a while, you undoubtedly remember such contributors as Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Trevor Ariza, Ron Artest and Lamar Odom, just to name a few.

One of the problems the Lakers had back then in the Kobe Bryant era is that they failed to keep the roster freshly stocked with viable role players.

Not only did they not draft well, but since they were always over the cap, they were limited to picking up free agents who were on their last legs, such as Ron Harper and Mitch Richmond.

The NBA is much stronger these days, and relying on geriatrics like them won’t get it done.

Trading for Paul would put the Lakers deep in luxury tax territory, which would greatly reduce the value of their mid-level exception under the league’s salary cap rules. That could mean the difference between signing a pretty good player in his prime and only being able to sign a greatly flawed role player.

With James racking up more miles on his odometer, and with Paul’s injury history, having a strong supporting cast will be perhaps even more important than it was in the days of Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal.