Smith was among the analysts who argued that the Los Angeles Lakers needed to bring James back if they wanted to contend for a title. Following James’s confirmed departure from the Lakers, Smith critiqued how the franchise treated him in his final years, discussing the situation on his show. He suggested that James, as a superstar earning a max contract, faced a difficult dynamic when asked to defer to younger players and assume a lesser role.
One focal point of Smith’s commentary was how the Lakers adjusted during the previous season. With James sidelined for the first 14 games, Los Angeles’ offense thrived under the playmaking of Luka Dončić and Austin Reaves. Upon James’s return, he embraced a prominent offensive role, but later in the season he was asked to step back to allow the backcourt duo to carry more of the load. While James continued to perform well as a third option, this arrangement drew mixed reactions from observers.
Smith also addressed the financial aspect, noting the tension around a potential pay cut for James. He argued that it isn’t simply a matter of labeling a star as mercenary for chasing the highest bid. To illustrate, Smith recalled the Chicago Bulls’ handling of Michael Jordan, emphasizing how Jordan was underpaid for much of his Chicago tenure and suggesting that, given his impact on the league’s financial growth, discussions about compensation should consider the broader economic benefits he helped generate.
The comparison to Michael Jordan is a key thread in Smith’s argument. Jordan’s era helped broaden the NBA’s global appeal, expanding revenue that benefited many. While Smith conceded that James has not matched Jordan’s historical impact in every respect, he contended that demanding a substantial pay cut from James did not seem fair given his contributions.
Overall, Smith’s perspective has some credibility. Even at 41, James posted strong numbers last season, averaging roughly 20.9 points, 6.1 rebounds, and 7.2 assists per game. By many measures, this performance would justify a max-contract consideration. However, the Lakers’ strategic moves to tailor the roster around Dončić may have conflicted with pursuing a max-level commitment to James.
Looking at the Lakers’ recent roster changes, some argue that parting ways with James was the prudent choice. The decision potentially benefits James as well, granting him the freedom to choose his next destination. Reports have indicated that his next team may not be driven primarily by finances, though several franchises remain positioned as potential landing spots. With title contention still a priority for James, only a select few teams appear to be realistically able to offer what he seeks in 2026 free agency.
