{"id":46317,"date":"2025-07-07T15:42:10","date_gmt":"2025-07-07T15:42:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/46317\/"},"modified":"2025-07-07T15:42:10","modified_gmt":"2025-07-07T15:42:10","slug":"luka-doncic-kevin-durant-nikola-jokic-and-more-veteran-extension-situations-to-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/46317\/","title":{"rendered":"Luka Don\u010di\u0107, Kevin Durant, Nikola Joki\u0107 and more veteran-extension situations to watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

Have you noticed that not many NBA stars have hit free agency lately? It\u2019s a trade-driven league now, as I wrote last week<\/a>, and it\u2019s because of the more liberal rules on veteran contract extensions from the previous two collective bargaining agreements.<\/p>\n

A big part of the offseason now is negotiating these deals, as teams try to figure out which of their key players are worth paying into the future, and at what price. Those same veteran-extension rules also make multiple players on every roster eligible, multiplying the decisions for each front office.<\/p>\n

With league business officially beginning on the 2025-26 salary-cap year and with the first wave of free agency behind us, extension season has unofficially begun, and this year\u2019s extension-eligible class packs unusual star power and a lot of complicated decisions. Despite a great many veterans being extension-eligible, only three veteran-extension deals have been agreed upon so far: MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander\u2019s four-year, $285 million supermax in Oklahoma City (a no-brainer), Jaren Jackson Jr.\u2019s $235 million renegotiate-and-extend deal in Memphis (a complicated no-brainer) and Jakob Poeltl\u2019s four-year, $116 million extension in Toronto (a no comment).<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to cover every possible extension here, but 10 situations in particular interest me. All of them could very well result in extensions being signed in the coming days and weeks, but on what terms remains a hugely interesting question:<\/p>\n

Luka Don\u010di\u0107, Lakers<\/p>\n

Welcome to the NBA\u2019s most fraught contract-extension discussion. Don\u010di\u0107 is eligible to extend his deal on Aug. 2, and he can sign for up to four years and $223 million. However, it seems vastly more likely he will take a shorter deal that would make him eligible for 35 percent of the cap once he achieves 10-year veteran status in the summer of 2028.<\/p>\n

Contractually, Don\u010di\u0107 is a rarity: a superstar who was traded before his second contract ended. That makes him ineligible for the supermax deal that most players of his ilk can sign at the end of their second contract. Thus, the massive deals for Jayson Tatum and Gilgeous-Alexander the last two summers aren\u2019t there for Don\u010di\u0107 \u2026 yet. However, if he were to void his player option in 2026 and sign a three-year, $161 million extension with the Lakers with a 2028-29 player option, he would be a 10-year vet in the summer of 2028. At that point, he could sign a monstrous five-year deal worth up to approximately $406 million to remain in L.A.<\/p>\n

The tricky part for the Lakers is that where he plays in 2026-27 and 2027-28 doesn\u2019t matter that much; Don\u010di\u0107 gets the same bag in 2028 as long as he re-signs with whatever team employs him at that time. (There\u2019s one caveat: He\u2019d only be able to sign for four years and a projected $314 million as an early Bird rights free agent in 2028, but the annual salaries would be identical.)<\/p>\n

Don\u010di\u0107 could make the Lakers sweat out the season before extending his deal. He could also opt out and try someplace else next summer on his two-year wait for 2028, and it will cost him mere pennies relative to the rest of his deal (only about $1.5 million, something he might easily make up in state taxes if he left California).<\/p>\n

So, yes, L.A. is probably the best situation for Don\u010di\u0107, but you can understand why the Lakers might be a little nervous until he puts pen to paper. And for Don\u010di\u0107, he needn\u2019t be in a big hurry \u2014 he can extend any time between Aug. 2 and next June.<\/p>\n

The one thing that might persuade Don\u010di\u0107 to extend in L.A. is that it would set him up to prevent what happened in Dallas. Don\u010di\u0107, unlike virtually every other star, is highly incentivized to become an unrestricted free agent in 2028 rather than extending his deal again. He would have eight years of service and four with the same team if he remains a Laker until that time (partial seasons such as his 2024-25 campaign count). That, in turn, would enable him to add a no-trade clause to his 2028 deal \u2014 not available in extensions, only new contracts! \u2014 which would inoculate him against a midnight trade out of Tinseltown.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Hawks have reshaped their roster this offseason around Trae Young. (Harry How \/ Getty Images)Trae Young and Kristaps Porzi\u0146\u0123is, Hawks<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most perplexing contract-extension situation in the league is in Atlanta, where both Porzi\u0146\u0123is and Young can be free agents after the season if the Hawks don\u2019t extend their contracts. Porzi\u0146\u0123is, traded to Atlanta this offseason in a still-to-be-finalized deal, is eligible for a contract extension on July 12, while Young can extend his right away. However, both players can be extended during the season as well since they are potential 2026 free agents. (Several other players on this list must be extended before the season starts.)<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an interesting puzzle for a Hawks team that otherwise profiles quite young. Atlanta\u2019s other significant players are in their early to mid-20s, and the team is sitting on a golden first-round pick in 2026 (the better of New Orleans\u2019 or Milwaukee\u2019s, unprotected).<\/p>\n

On the other hand, this duo projects as the Hawks\u2019 two best players, and Atlanta doesn\u2019t control its own draft in 2027. There\u2019s no benefit to losing these two to free agency unless the Hawks can backfill their positions right away with cap space, which, again, seems unlikely given how rarely other stars hit free agency.<\/p>\n

Arguably, the trickier of the two is Porzi\u0146\u0123is, whose deal for $31 million expires next summer. He turns 30 in August and hasn\u2019t played more than 66 games in a season since his rookie year.\u00a0 The good news for Atlanta is that it can do a bit of a trial run before it commits, as Porzi\u0146\u0123is is eligible to be extended in-season.<\/p>\n

Even with the injury issues, my BORD$ formula (more on the methodology here<\/a>) places a value of $38.5 million on Porzi\u0146\u0123is for the coming season, but that figure will likely decline in future seasons as he gets into his 30s. The additional tricky part is that extending Porzi\u0146\u0123is at any realistic number likely pushes the Hawks into the tax a year from now, given Atlanta\u2019s existing commitments plus likely extensions for Young and Dyson Daniels and salary for a 2026 lottery pick.<\/p>\n

There seems to be a solid resolution here that would keep Atlanta\u2019s flexibility: a new deal with 5 percent raises that would keep Porzi\u0146\u0123is trade-eligible. Extending him for two years and $67 million would more or less be in line with his market value without stunting any of Atlanta\u2019s deal-making options.<\/p>\n

Beyond that is probably a devil-in-the-details situation. A third-year team option? A partial guarantee on a third year? What if Porzi\u0146\u0123is wants a player option in there? But going out two years on Porzi\u0146\u0123is would line him up with the end date on Zaccharie Risacher\u2019s rookie contract. It also guarantees that the Hawks wouldn\u2019t have more than a two-year window of expensiveness even if their 2026-27 and 2027-28 cap numbers surge.<\/p>\n

As for Young, his player option in 2026-27 opens the possibility of him waiting until after the season to resolve his future with Atlanta. However, that\u2019s a high-wire game for the Hawks to play; Young leaving for nothing would be a tough outcome. On the other hand, do the Hawks feel great about paying full freight (four years and a projected $223 million) on a minus defender whose offensive play has slipped the past two seasons?<\/p>\n

BORD$ has a $44 million valuation on Young, and that number is likely to decline bit by bit as he gets into his late 20s and early 30s on his next deal, even with a rising cap. On the other hand, Young already has $49 million in his pocket for 2026-27 no matter what; he\u2019s not taking a haircut on that number unless there is some notable payoff later.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think paying Young his max extension is realistic, especially given his limited trade value at that price (something the Hawks likely found out before they dealt Dejounte Murray two years ago), but the compromise number probably involves that $49 million in 2026-27 salary.<\/p>\n

One play might be to have Young opt in to that salary, and then bump up that number to his max of $54.6 million in 2027-28, but only on a two-year extension that has no raise in 2028-29 but contains a player option. (The total would be reported as three years and $155 million.)<\/p>\n

That would allow both team and player to pivot to whatever comes next in 2028 after the two-year window I referenced above, and Young could hit the market as a 10-year vet eligible for 35 percent of the max. Going any longer, via an expensive 2029-30 season when Young would be 31, probably isn\u2019t advisable unless it\u2019s with a partial or conditional guarantee and no player option.<\/p>\n

Nikola Joki\u0107, Nuggets<\/p>\n

Joki\u0107 is eligible to sign a three-year extension worth approximately $206 million starting on July 8. This isn\u2019t a question of value, obviously; Joki\u0107 might be worth double this in an unconstrained marketplace. Instead, the only real drama is whether Joki\u0107 would be willing to sign now, or if he\u2019d rather wait until next summer and sign a four-year max extension. Either way, it surely will contain a player option, a 15 percent trade bonus and whatever other cap-legal bells and whistles Joki\u0107 wants.<\/p>\n

Logic probably dictates Joki\u0107 sign now because it starts the clock sooner on when he can sign his next\u00a0extension, three years from now. By then, he\u2019d be 33 but probably still one of the best players in the league and could lock himself in until his late 30s.<\/p>\n

The other tricky piece is that Joki\u0107\u2019s people may want more insight into projected salary-cap rises before inking an extension this summer. If the cap rises by 10 percent annually, it\u2019s a win for him to sign the deal and replace his $61.9 million player option in 2027-28 with a $63.7 million max number. However, if the cap raises are lower, that max figure decreases, to the point that he might be better off opting in to that $61.9 million as a platform for the rest of his contract.<\/p>\n

Joki\u0107 can extend his deal in the offseason, but once the season starts, he can\u2019t extend until July 1.<\/p>\n

Darius Garland, Cavaliers<\/p>\n

Garland is eligible to sign a two-year extension worth up to $125 million as of July 8, a deal that would take his tenure in Cleveland until 2030, when he would be 30. Unlike Don\u010di\u0107, Garland doesn\u2019t have a player option on his current deal, so there are no wait-and-see elements to this particular extension. If he gets the 30 percent max on his next deal in 2028, whatever that total turns out to be will be a sharp rise from his $45 million salary in 2027-28.<\/p>\n

As ever, devils will remain in the details. Would Garland rather wait another year and sign a three-year extension if he has a good year, including being eligible for a supermax at 35 percent of the cap if he makes an All-NBA team? Would the Cavs feel as comfortable going all-in a year longer into the future with a small guard, even if he plays well in 2025-26? Would Garland want a player option on the final year of a two-year extension, and would Cleveland rather do that than wait and be on the hook for a three-year deal later?<\/p>\n

Ultimately, I think it makes some sense for both sides. On Garland\u2019s end, he starts the clock for the next extension sooner, and the Cavs give themselves some protection from long-term downside just as their core is likely aging. But I can understand why both sides might prefer to wait a year.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Mikal Bridges has a down year after New York acquired him last offseason. (Luke Hales \/ Getty Images)Mikal Bridges, Knicks<\/p>\n

Bridges can sign an extension worth up to four years and $156 million; a year ago, this would have seemed like a no-brainer for New York, but now it seems like a wild overpay. His value took a hit with an off year, and the extension would be paying him for his age-30 through age-34 seasons.<\/p>\n

The other piece that might give New York pause is how expensive the rest of the team has become. If Bridges extends his contract for the maximum allowable amount, New York\u2019s five highest-paid players alone will have the Knicks at the tax line for 2026-27. Even staying under the second apron would be all but impossible, especially if the Knicks also extend Mitchell Robinson\u2019s deal.<\/p>\n

Again, the Knicks can wait because Bridges is in the last year of his deal and remains extension-eligible in-season. While it\u2019s a risky game to play with an expiring contract, Bridges\u2019 BORD$ value for the coming season is $22 million, and his maximum extension would bump up next year\u2019s salary to $37 million.<\/p>\n

As a result, it seems like the Knicks have some space to negotiate. For starters, one wonders if a three-year deal that lines up with the contracts of OG Anunoby and Jalen Brunson is more appropriate. Even if New York had to concede a player option, getting Bridges\u2019 annual salary closer to the $25 million to $30 million range would be a massive win in terms of navigating the tax aprons the next three years.<\/p>\n

Would three years, $85 million with a player option get it done? That number also makes Bridges immediately trade-eligible if the Knicks need to pivot, or if he has to be part of the salary match in a larger blockbuster.<\/p>\n

Devin Booker, Suns<\/p>\n

Booker is eligible for a two-year, $150 million extension beginning Tuesday, one that would take him through his age-33 season in 2030. It seems like the Suns are bullish on going ahead with this, and in their current position, I\u2019m wondering what the hurry is. Booker is signed for three more seasons with no options, so he\u2019s not a flight risk.<\/p>\n

The bigger issue, however, is that the Suns need to have a reality-based view of their situation, which is \u2026 not promising. At some point, this reality likely involves trading Booker to rebuild their depleted asset stash, as they try to avoid the downside consequences of their impulsive foolishness since Mat Ishbia took over.<\/p>\n

The question I\u2019d be asking if I worked in Phoenix\u2019s front office is whether Booker has more trade value on this extension or less. I think the answer is pretty clearly the latter. The Suns shouldn\u2019t be doing this deal unless they can get a significant haircut from the max, especially since they have zero time pressure to do it right now. But, this being the Suns, it seems like they\u2019re going to do it anyway.<\/p>\n

Kevin Durant, Rockets<\/p>\n

Despite just being traded, Durant is immediately eligible for an extension that can be up to two years and $119 million. That number increases by nearly $2 million if he waits until early January to extend his deal.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s a realistic number here, though? An extension pays Durant for his age-38 and age-39 seasons, after he already showed some slippage in Phoenix from his superstar peak. He\u2019s also only played more than 62 games once in the last six seasons.<\/p>\n

As great as he is, it\u2019s unrealistic to project him to still be a max player in those two seasons. BORD$ projects him as a $43 million player for the coming season, and this extension covers the two seasons\u00a0after, when age presumably won\u2019t be doing Durant any favors.<\/p>\n

Trading a lower dollar figure for a player option is probably good business on Houston\u2019s side and also helps the Rockets manage a very expensive future when rich extensions for Tari Eason and (especially) Amen Thompson will likely kick in. Is two years, $80 million with a player option enough, especially since that annual salary matches what Durant\u2019s contemporaries Kyrie Irving and James Harden got this summer? Does Durant prefer to drag this into the season, knowing the Rockets can\u2019t lose him in free agency? With no deadline spurring action and the clear potential for disagreement on valuation, this staring contest could go on for a while.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

De\u2019Aaron Fox looks on during the first quarter of his return to Sacramento. (Ed Szczepanski \/ Imagn Images)De\u2019Aaron Fox, Spurs<\/p>\n

Fox can sign a four-year extension in San Antonio worth approximately $223 million on Aug. 3, the six-month anniversary of his trade from Sacramento. Both sides seemed headed for a deal like this when Fox came from the Kings at midseason, but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.<\/p>\n

San Antonio unexpectedly landed the second pick in the draft and added guard Dylan Harper, and another guard (Stephon Castle) ended up winning Rookie of the Year. Both players are much closer to Victor Wembanyama\u2019s timeline than Fox. Finally, Fox did not play particularly well once he arrived, although an injury shortened the Spurs\u2019 part of his season to just 17 games.<\/p>\n

So \u2026 we still doing this? One wonders if the Spurs can get a haircut on Fox\u2019s max that begins at $49.6 million. BORD$ values him at $44.6 million for the coming season, and an extension would pay him during years of gentle decline in his age-29 to age-32 campaigns. On the other hand, the cap will be rising in that same span.<\/p>\n

Fox and San Antonio could approach this in two ways. The riskier one is a \u201cone-plus-one\u201d extension for two years and a projected $113 million with a player option. That gives Fox his max and potentially lets him opt out in 2027 as a 10-year veteran eligible for 35 percent of the cap and protects the Spurs long-term if Fox doesn\u2019t fit. In the short term, San Antonio can handle paying him in the max just fine; the Spurs are currently nearly $100 million from next year\u2019s tax line.<\/p>\n

A more realistic scenario is one in which nobody gets exactly what they want: San Antonio locks in for a three-year, $150 million extension with a player option at a flat $50 million a year. That structure allows the two sides to extend the deal again in 2027, possibly by wiping out the player option year.<\/p>\n

Toumani Camara, Trail Blazers<\/p>\n

And now for something completely different<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Camara signed a four-year minimum deal with Portland after being selected with the 52nd\u00a0pick in the 2023 draft, but he is already eligible for an extension. His potential deal would be \u201cThe Nembhard,\u201d almost exactly matching what Indiana did with guard Andrew Nembhard a year ago in a similar situation. For Camara, the deal could wipe out his team option for $2.4 million in 2026-27 and instead start an extension that can go for up to four years and $83 million.<\/p>\n

\u201cFour for 83\u201d doesn\u2019t sound bad, but the new money here is really \u201cthree for 81,\u201d which seems on the rich side for Camara at this point. His defense is unbelievable, but it\u2019s pretty unusual to see a player with his offensive output get paid nearly double the nontaxpayer MLE.<\/p>\n

Camara and the Blazers likely have a few ways to split the baby. The most preferable from Portland\u2019s viewpoint might be to lock in the 2026-27 year at $2.4 million and then kick off a three-year extension for a maximum of $65 million. That one keeps some cap-room possibilities alive for Portland in the summer of 2026.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the Blazers might determine that jumping Camara from $2 million to $19 million in one offseason in 2027 isn\u2019t great for their cap planning, in which case they could smooth out the same number instead.<\/p>\n

For instance, if the total is four years and $67 million either way, Portland could make it a flat $16.75 million a season. The Blazers could even set it up as declining money, starting Camara at his maximum of $18.4 million in 2026-27 and then declining in 8 percent annual increments until he makes $15.7 million in each of the final two seasons. (The declines could be further, actually, but you can\u2019t end up at $67 million that way.)<\/p>\n

Big picture: Portland has some options. Either way, the Blazers should be motivated to ink their defensive ace long-term.<\/p>\n

(Top photo of Luka Don\u010di\u0107 and Nikola Joki\u0107: Garrett Ellwood \/ NBAE via Getty Images)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Have you noticed that not many NBA stars have hit free agency lately? It\u2019s a trade-driven league now,…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":46318,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[3119,3128,3134,3136,3141,1260,3122,1721,3133,3138,62,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-46317","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-nba","8":"tag-atlanta-hawks","9":"tag-cleveland-cavaliers","10":"tag-denver-nuggets","11":"tag-houston-rockets","12":"tag-los-angeles-lakers","13":"tag-nba","14":"tag-new-york-knicks","15":"tag-phoenix-suns","16":"tag-portland-trail-blazers","17":"tag-san-antonio-spurs","18":"tag-sports","19":"tag-united-states","20":"tag-unitedstates","21":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114812717926883111","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46317"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46317\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46318"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}