Everyone following the Los Angeles Lakers knows it: The Lakers are fully down to bring back LeBron James on a new contract this offseason, provided LA's front office and LeBron's camp can agree on a number. It's the right business decision for the Lakers. LeBron's a global icon, and he puts butts in seats.
But that doesn't mean bringing back Bron is the correct basketball decision for the Lakers. That's because re-signing James would prevent the Lakers from spending money on multiple other depth pieces that could reinforce the strengths (and protect against the weaknesses) of Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves.
Bringing back LeBron James for another season delays the start of the Luka Doncic Era (yet again)
Ever since the Lakers acquired Luka in February 2025, they've been in financial purgatory when it comes to surrounding Luka with the right players. This isn't anyone's fault -- the Lakers never expected to have Luka fall into their lap when he did. They weren't prepared for such a miraculous situation.
With that in mind, the summer of 2026 (i.e., right now) was always seen as the time when the Lakers would FINALLY have some cap space to surround Luka with the right guys. It's been a waiting game for a year and a half, but Lakers fans have been patient. Now has arrived the crucial opportunity that everyone's been counting down the days to.
Sadly, signing LeBron -- and adding his presumably sizable salary to the cap sheet all over again -- would only have the Lakers back in purgatory for a year and delay the real start of the Luka Era. Opportunity squandered.
As aforementioned, no one's denying that re-signing LeBron is the correct decision from a revenue perspective. But let's be honest, the Lakers as a business entity are doing quite all right. What most fans want to see is the team make good basketball moves.
Moving on from LeBron would be a "counter-business" move, but the business side of the NBA always seems to win out, doesn't it? This is why I believe that the Lakers' ownership and brass don't have the gall to move on from Bron, though I'd love to be proven wrong this summer.
We don't know how long Luka Doncic's prime will last
Why am I getting so worked up about the Lakers delaying the start of the Luka Era one more year? Well, it's because every season with Luka is precious. He's not healthy all the time. His body breaks down fairly easily, and he's probably not going to age well unless he becomes a fitness addict/psycho in the next few years (I wouldn't bet on it). What if Luka ends up like Larry Bird, with the latter stage of his prime spoiled by a body that betrays him?
It's very possible that when we look back on "now" in 10 years (when Luka's career is either over or close to being over), we'll view the Lakers wasting a full year of Luka's prime as nothing short of malpractice.
The Lakers should move on from LeBron James, but they won't
NBA analyst Iztok Franko was speaking some truth about this situation when he appeared on the Buha's Block podcast this week:
"I think the best [move] for the Lakers ... would be to move on [from LeBron] and to build this new identity because I think ... all the actions that they [took] in the last couple of years ... [were to build up] this optionality [for] this summer ... I think there is a pathway [without LeBron] that you can add like three new starters in this offseason. ... You can build like a totally different team around Luka and Austin."
Amen to that. Sadly, the Lakers aren't aligned with such truth, or at least don't appear to be.
Add us as a preferred source on Google