Trae Young is reportedly declining his player option, so what does that mean for his free agency?
When the Washington Wizards traded for Trae Young at the deadline, it didn't seem as though he had a robust market. If he had, he likely would have gone for more than just Corey Kispert and the expiring contract of CJ McCollum. He was, essentially, a cap dump, and rarely is the league especially interested in paying cap dumps.
Well, fast forward to June. Young, according to ESPN, is declining his $49 million player option for next season. That option is what the Hawks wanted to dump when they traded him to Washington. Now, Young will become a free agent at the end of the month.
So what does this mean? Maybe nothing. Maybe something. Let's break it down.
Could Young stay in Washington?
This is not only possible, but probably the likeliest outcome at this point. Washington is reportedly the frontrunner, and reports about an extension have been common since the trade. As recently as June 8, Marc Stein reported that the expectation was that Young would remain in Washington on a three-year, $120 million deal. That has been the number commonly suggested essentially since the deadline.
Young was extension-eligible. He could have picked up his option and tacked another $71 million onto the backend over two years. However, you could argue that opting out is actually advantageous for Washington. With Young on his player option figure, the Wizards would have only had about $11 million in room below the luxury tax line.
By opting out, Young could, in theory, lower his 2026-27 salary while still getting the same total money. Notably, the nontaxpayer mid-level exception is projected at about $15 million. Lowering Young's salary could open up that full exception below the tax, or clear out room for other trades. Sometimes teams prefer frontloaded contracts. Sometimes teams want balanced or backloaded ones. It's a matter of circumstance.
Of course, Young has a player option, not a team option, so this was not Washington's call to make. At least not unilaterally. While Young's preference may be to remain in Washington and he may even have an offer in this range, the fact that he's opting out means he will be free to explore his options with other teams. That seems notable in light of some other reporting.
Are there other suitors for Young?
On June 15, Jake Fischer noted that, while the expectation was that Young would remain in Washington, several teams were considering trade avenues to acquire Young. One of those teams was the Miami Heat, who reportedly view Young as a backup plan should they fail to acquire Giannis Antetokounmpo. In his report Wednesday, Spears noted that Young "expects multiple team max interest."
Opting out made a trade substantially harder. While Young could theoretically be signed-and-traded, there are apron-related concerns that come with that, and even if there weren't, matching money in sign-and-trades can get messy because of base-year compensation. In other words, if Young's preference was to get traded and there was a trade on the table that he, the Wizards and another team were all on board with, he probably wouldn't have opted out. None of this rules out a sign-and-trade, it just suggests that nothing was imminent.
If that max interest is coming, the obvious places to look would be the cap space teams. The Lakers have Luka Dončić and Austin Reaves, so they really don't need another defensively limited ball-handler. With LeBron James potentially returning as well, they may not even have the money to do this.
The Brooklyn Nets and Chicago Bulls are the two other teams projected for significant cap space. They're a bit more interesting. The Nets drafted several ball-handlers last season and could take another at No. 6 overall. However, none of their young players have proven that they are even long-term starters, let alone foundational pieces. The Nets just tanked away two years without getting a top-five draft pick. They don't control their first-round pick next season. If there's pressure for them to be good next year, well, paying Young might make sense as a floor-raising maneuver. It's not as though they have many other pending obligations anyway.
The Bulls traded away their two most notable guards, Ayo Dosunmu and Coby White, at the deadline. Josh Giddey is a bigger ball-handler, they took a flier on Rob Dillingham at the deadline and Tre Jones had a solid season for them a year ago. They may draft someone at No. 4 or No. 15 who needs the ball. All of this suggests that, while they could move forward with what they have, their roster is a pretty blank slate. There's no one here Chicago should be afraid of replacing.
The Bulls, unlike the Nets, do control their first-round pick next year, and the new lottery system incentivizes teams not to be terrible through the relegation zone. If the Bulls think Young could keep them out of the bottom three slots in the standings, he could be a worthwhile starting point for their rebuild. They may also simply view him as a star worthy of signing to a lavish contract.
If other teams are going to emerge here, they'd have to do so either by creating cap space unexpectedly or working with the Wizards on a sign-and-trade. Other than Miami, there has been no other substantive reporting linking Young to specific teams. However, we can apply a bit of common sense here. Young had a $49 million option. He wouldn't have given that up if he didn't expect there to be something better out there, and if a deal with Washington had been agreed upon, there was no reason not to announce it, as teams are free to negotiate with their own free agents as soon as the NBA Finals end.
Even if the Wizards are in pole position, this isn't an open-and-shut case. His camp has to believe there is a better deal out there for him than whatever Washington is currently offering, or that they can at least leverage Washington into a better offer. Again, this is all a bit strange considering where his market was in January, so it's worth wondering... has anything changed?
Why would Young's market look different now than it did during the season?
The answer shouldn't be much. Young played only five games after getting traded to Washington last season, and averaged less than 21 minutes in those games. However, it's possible that external events have changed the situation in Washington.
Here's a thought: has Jalen Brunson's championship run opened more teams up to the idea that it's possible to build a contender around a small guard? Note that Young was not the only small guard to see his trade market surprisingly shrink. Ja Morant has struggled to gain traction on the trade market over the past season as well.
This is possible, though it's worth noting that Brunson took a substantial discount on his latest contract extension in New York, and there is no indication that Young is willing to take less than he believes he is worth. Even the three-year, $120 million deal that has been floated, a pay cut from Young's max rookie extension he signed in Atlanta, would represent a higher average annual value than Brunson's deal. Still, it's possible teams saw what Brunson did and are wondering if Young could replicate some of it.
Here's something a bit more immediately noteworthy: the Wizards have the No. 1 overall pick in the NBA Draft. There's little reason to doubt Young's fit with two of three presumed candidates for that slot, forwards AJ Dybantsa and Cameron Boozer. The other candidate is Kansas guard Darryn Peterson, and ESPN has reported that he wants to play point guard. Might Young be trying to avoid a potentially awkward fit? There has been no reporting to this effect, but could the possibility of drafting Peterson have affected the sort of contract Washington is open to offering?
There's no real evidence behind any of that at this moment, and the likelihood remains that Young eventually lands a new deal in Washington. Still, there has been more reporting about a possible developing market for him over the past week than there was when he was available for a trade during the season, so for now, it seems as though Young is at least a realistic target for teams outside of the nation's capital.
Add CBS Sports on GoogleBadenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
