Draymond Green curiosly remains unsigned over three days after LeBron James' decision to head to the Philadelphia 76ers, leading to speculation over what might be the hold up between the veteran forward and the Golden State Warriors.
One possible explanation is the potential inclusion of a no-trade clause, but that would only make Green's new contract look even worse if the Warriors also wind up giving him the $28 million annual salary that was reported by The Athletic's Joe Vardon and David Aldridge on Saturday.
Draymond Green's new deal could look worse if given a no-trade clause
Giving Green $28 million would be way overs anyway based on last season's form, but may be something Golden State are forced into after the 36-year-old opted out of his $27.6 million player option prior to free agency.
Adding a no-trade clause into the deal would just be the cherry on top of a disastrous contract, with ESPN's Brian Windhorst speculating on the possibility during an appearance on Monday's episode of First Take.
"Are they going to give Draymond Green a no-trade clause in this contract he's about to sign? Because he's eligible for it and I think he feels he almost got traded. If they give him a no-trade clause, they're obviously not moving him and that limits what they're going to do this season," Windhorst said.
The only positive to giving Green an ill-advised $28 million salary would be the opportunity to trade it, along with picks, for an upgrade once eligible mid-season. Giving the former Defensive Player of the Year a no-trade clause would prevent even that possibility, leaving the Warriors in a nightmare position and hoping that Green somehow improves his form from last season in his 15th year.
Draymond Green can get no-trade clause in the right scenario
While no-trade clauses are incredibly rare in the NBA, there is one scenario in which Golden State should be willing to consider giving Green one. He was clearly going to take far less on his deal had the Warriors acquired James, only for Green's good friend to head to the 76ers on Friday.
Is there another move out there -- potentially via the trade market -- that could convince Green to take significantly less, and where the trade-off for him is a no-trade clause and a major roster upgrade to help compete next season? For example, if Green's willing to take less than $10 million per year, that's when a no-trade clause should come into play.
Giving Green $20+ million and a no-trade clause? That's going to make a horror offseason even more painful and only lead to further criticism than what the Warriors have already faced over recent days.
Add us as a preferred source on Google