Paying $52 Million for a 40-Year-Old Guard: Lakers Should Spend Money on Building Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves Instead of Trying in Vain
In the NBA, contract decisions are always a decisive factor in the future of a team. Recently, the imaginary story of the Los Angeles Lakers paying $52 million per year to a 40-year-old guard has caused a lot of debate among fans. This “huge” salary seems to be for a superstar, but in fact, it is an extremely risky investment, because the age and performance of this player are unlikely to be commensurate with the amount of money the team spends.
First of all, in terms of age, 40 years old is the stage when most NBA players have retired or can no longer maintain their peak performance. Declining physical strength, slower movement ability and high risk of injury make spending a huge amount of money on a player at this age ineffective. While his experience is undeniable, in modern basketball, speed, rebounding, and quick defense are key to building a competitive roster.
Next, if the Lakers spend $52 million on a 40-year-old player, they miss out on a golden opportunity to build around two rising young stars: Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves. Luka, with his outstanding talent and leadership ability, is at the heart of the team’s long-term plans. Austin Reaves, a promising shooter and defensive supporter, is gradually proving his worth and ability to become an important pillar in the future. Spending a reasonable budget on them will help the Lakers optimize the strength of the roster, instead of “throwing money out the window” for a player who is about to enter the peak of his career.
In addition, the $52 million salary per year takes up a huge portion of the team’s cap space. This would limit the ability to sign other young players with potential or recruit strategic players to support Luka and Reaves. In fact, investing wisely in young players, signing them on moderate contracts, would help the Lakers remain competitive for many consecutive seasons.
Another reason for the idea of paying a 40-year-old a high salary is the risk of inconsistent performance. An older player is more prone to injury, needs longer recovery time, and has difficulty maintaining stamina over an 82-game season. Meanwhile, Luka and Reaves are in their prime, are at their maximum potential, and are less risky. Clearly, the budget spent on older players does not bring benefits commensurate with the amount spent.
In the end, recruiting a 40-year-old guard with a huge salary is not only unwise financially, but also affects the team’s spirit and strategy. Young players, including Luka and Reaves, need a competitive environment, development, and a flexible roster. Investing too much in older players can tilt the balance and limit the development of young stars.
In short, the idea of paying $52 million for a 40-year-old guard is too risky and not worth it. Instead, the Lakers should focus on building around Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves, using the budget wisely to strengthen the roster, ensure long-term development, and maintain the ability to compete at the top. In modern basketball, investing in the future is always a wiser choice than spending money on the past.
