Golden State Warriors point guard Stephen Curry may have signed what was at the time the richest contract in NBA history, but the two-time NBA MVP didn't get everything he asked for during negotiations in July.
The Athletic's Marcus Thompson II (h/t NBC Sports Bay Area's Drew Shiller) reported Curry hoped to get a no-trade clause written into the contract and wanted the final year of the five-year, $201 million deal to have a player option.
The Warriors declined both requests.
That the team remained steadfast about leaving out a no-trade clause is particularly interesting.
On the surface, trading a player who was instrumental in delivering two NBA titles in the space of three years would be a ridiculous move. Were he to spend his entire career with Golden State, Curry would be the biggest legend in franchise history.
With that said, the Warriors were smart to give themselves an easier road to trade Curry if the need ever arises. One must look no further than the New York Knicks' difficulties in dealing Carmelo Anthony to see how much of a headache a no-trade clause can be.
And while Anthony's situation in New York was far different from Curry's in Golden State, the Warriors' desire for as much flexibility as possible is understandable. Between Curry's deal and potential extensions for Kevin Durant, Draymond Green and Klay Thompson, the Warriors could be looking at a payroll approaching $200 million, which doesn't factor in the millions the team would potentially owe in luxury-tax penalties.
Read 0 Comments
Download the app for comments Get the B/R app to join the conversation