This summer, Stephen Curry signed a 5-year, $201 million maximum contract, the largest in league history at the time. After years of being underpaid, the two-time MVP finally got his big deal.
Curry got the most money that the Warriors were allowed to give him by the current CBA. But according to The Athletic’s Marcus Thompson, the Warriors refused two sweeteners for Curry—a player option and a no-trade clause.
If Curry had gotten a player-option, he could have opted out of the last year of his five-year deal to become an unrestricted free agent. If he had gotten a no-trade clause, the Warriors would not have been able to trade him unless he voluntarily waived it.
Earlier in October, Thompson reported that Warriors owner Joe Lacob was thinking about offering Curry a less-than-max deal, but was persuaded by GM Bob Myers to simply offer Curry the max.
It is interesting that the Warriors are hesitant to give Curry the full benefits possible in his new contract. In fact, not giving Curry either the player option or no-trade clause seems a little contradictory to me: the absence of a player option means the Warriors want to lock him in for the full five years, but the absence of a no-trade clause means the Warriors want to keep their trade options open in the future.
It seems to me that the Warriors should’ve given Curry at least one of them; I would have given him a no-trade clause. I am sure all Warriors fans would love for Steph to be a Warrior for the rest of his career, given that he’s an awesome guy who pretty much singlehandedly turned the franchise around. At this point, it’s expected he’ll be a Warrior for a long time.
At the end of the day, the refusal to give Curry either sweetener probably won’t matter. Steph might feel a little hurt by it, and that’s certainly something to watch, but winning cures all. But if Curry or the Warriors decline sooner than expected, and the team is in an uncomfortable salary cap situation, it is possible that this decision could affect Curry’s tenure in the Bay Area.