Skip to content

As expected, Richard Jefferson picks up $11 million option

May 29, 2013, 12:28 PM EDT

Golden State Warriors' Jefferson gets tangled up with Denver Nuggets' Brewer during their NBA Western Conference quarter-final basketball playoff in Denver Reuters

Congratulations Golden State, you get another year of Richard Jefferson.

As everyone expected, the 32-year-old swingman picked up his $11 million option for next season, his agent Todd Eley told Chris Haynes at

“Richard has exercised his option to include the 2013-14 season in his current contract,” Eley said.

Combine Jefferson with Andris Biedrins, who picked up his $9 million option recently, and that is $20 million for a couple guys rarely used by the Warriors.

Jefferson played a total of 39 minutes across seven games in the Warriors recent playoff run. He’s not part of the team’s future and not even really part of it’s present — he averaged 3.1 points a game in the 56 games he got in this season, with a PER of 10.3. With good and improving players such as Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes, it’s hard to see Jefferson getting much run. He could be moved as salary in a big trade, but that is not likely.

  1. wgray981 - May 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    Not good, but at least the team will be able to get rid of him before signing their current stars to better contracts.

    • beerwolfhlc - May 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM

      You would hope so, but as a SPURS fan who saw them OVERPAY RJ for his lackluster performance as a SPUR, I dont think ANY other team would accept his salary for what they would get out of him.

  2. goraidersgospurs - May 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

    Damn R.J holding Warriors back from adding a key piece that will help instead of joking & playing around on the sideline like he was durning the Spurs match up!!!

    • beerwolfhlc - May 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

      You woulda thought he would “light” up the SPURS for getting rid of him,but all he did was show why the SPURS got rid of him.

  3. rca26 - May 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    Headline for this (and the Biedrins option pickup) may as well be “Why did the Warriors amnesty Charlie Bell?”

    • dubsgiantsniners - May 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM

      they reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needed that $4 mil.

    • jazynaz - May 30, 2013 at 8:25 PM

      different ownership and management, unfortunately, for the present FO/team!

  4. edwardemanuelson - May 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    So glad my Spurs were able to dump this guy. They should’ve never traded for him in the first place.

    • beerwolfhlc - May 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

      ME TOO !! Didnt think they would ever be rid of him and his OVERPAID contract!!

      • edwardemanuelson - May 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM

        It was kind of a crafy move by the FO, in a way. He opted out of the final year of the 15M he was due in 2010-11, which both parties saw the impending lock out. They re-signed him to the 11M a year deal he’s in now, and traded him in early 2012 to the W’s for Stephen Jackson.

  5. bucrightoff - May 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    Another guy who should be picking up his checks with a ski mask and a gun.

  6. azarkhan - May 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

    The NBA needs to go NFL and get rid of guaranteed contracts, or at least find a way to limit them. I understand, of course, that the union would fight tooth and nail to stop that.

    • redbaronx - May 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      The union would never allow that as you said. Besides, I’m not sure it’s a good idea. If I’m not mistaken, in the NFL a player can quit without consequence. If that were in play in the NBA, players could suddenly decide to ‘Opt Out’ and resign with another team the following year.

      NBA teams only have 15 contract roster spots that they can use, and the loss of even minor players is huge. Unlike the NFL, finding tall athletic talent that can play in the NBA is VERY difficult to find. In the NFL you have guys that aren’t in the league, keep themselves in shape, and still make roster spots on NFL teams.

      So NBA teams would be at a very severe loss if contracts were not guaranteed. So it’s not in the best interest of players (guaranteed money is good), it’s not in the best interest of teams (losing players), and it’s not in the best interest of fans. Just my opinion.

      • nbascreed - May 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        You make ZERO sense…AT ALL! First you only LOSE the players you don’t want (from a team PoV), second there are a plethora of guys in Europe and the D-Leagu who can do what RJ did (or will do) for a fraction of the cost. Third, I would think the fans would be chomping at the bit to rid themselves of Jefferson in an effort to shore up the finances for guys in the mid to long term plans.

        What you really meant to say is that this makes NO sense from the players point of view but it’s perfect for owners and for fans (with competent ownership).

      • redbaronx - May 30, 2013 at 7:43 PM

        @nbascreed – Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t mean I’m not making sense. This isn’t JUST about Richard Jefferson. The real problem is ownership groups paying for guys and making stupid business decisions. I had my eyebrows raised when the SPURS took on RJ. Teams make mistakes. They shouldn’t be rewarded by giving them a magic wand to cut contracts.

        Professional players have a very short shelf life, and limited employment opportunities. That’s why the union fights tooth and nail for this.

        Cutting players makes more sense for the teams in a league like the NFL just because players get injured often and they’re effectiveness gets diminished. The average NFL player only stays in the league 3 years.

        Unfortunately that’s not very fair to players. They risk serious injury (in some cases debilitating like brain damage which is now becoming a big issue following suicides of former players over the last 3 years)

        Bottom line for the NFL is that they need to take better care of their players. The NBA already does so by guaranteeing contracts.

      • edwardemanuelson - May 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM

        Can’t find tall, athletic talent?

        Oh well. I guess we have a shorter league, with guys playing for less, and trying harder!

      • herkulease - May 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        There are consequences to quitting in the NFL. Teams now have the ability to go after a players signing bonus which is really their only true guaranteed money with they decide to just quit for reasons other than injury.

        Also if you sign a 5 year deal, the team holds your rights for 5 years until they waive them. You can’t just quit after 1 year and resign with another team. That applies to the NBA too. Derek Fisher is a good example. Utah and Dallas had to relinquish their rights to him before he could sign with the Lakers and Thunder.

      • raylangivens2 - May 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        Players can’t just quit or “opt out” as you put it in the NFL. They can retire at which point they are placed on the retired list, if they try to come back the next year the same team still controls their rights.

      • redbaronx - May 30, 2013 at 7:35 PM

        @raylangivens – Good point. I’m just not sure that allowing teams to cancel contracts is a good idea. I don’t know enough about it.

        One thing that raises a flag for me is that teams pay ridiculous contracts and then look to cancel them through collective bargaining agreements. They should be making prudent decisions and not overpaying for guys or for deals that are 4-5 plus. That’s what gets them into trouble. No one knows what condition a player is going to be that far out.

      • cured76 - May 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM

        redbaronx, the NBA getting a contract situation like the NFL has would only make the NBA a better league. Unless you are advocating that dead weight guys like RJ are good the teams they play on. I don’t see it that way. The Warriros had a great season and are now an attractive option for NBA free agents. But guess what? The Warriors don’t have any money to go and sign players that can help their team because they decided to take on a monster contract for a player who is clearly not worth the money. The only way these guys are valuable now is as high-salaried trade bait when their contracts are close to expiration.

        In the NFL, if a player is not up to snuff, he gets cut and another player is brought in. The carousel of players switching teams is high, but there are also tons more roster spots available. NFL players are very rarely caught with bad contracts because they don’t have to endure the entire contract if the player decides he’s “made it” and doesn’t need to work on his game.

        Face it, NBA players fall off like this by the dozens. After the big contract is signed, there have been many instances of players dropping off because there is no penalty for doing so. The money every dollar, is guaranteed.

        Perhaps the biggest reason for non-fully-guaranteed contracts is to save NBA executives from themselves.

      • superjpaul55 - May 29, 2013 at 9:02 PM

        In a vacuum, non-guaranteed contracts might be a worthwhile idea to explore. But in today’s climate? Players could instantly go to Europe to play and make guaranteed money. So, although some feel it’s a good idea, it’s not practical .

        NBA players deserve guaranteed money. I mean, in the contract world, why wouldn’t an employer guarantee money as an incentive to attract talent. The fact that the NBA is the destination for the world’s top talent is certainly because of the guaranteed money.

        As for Richard Jefferson? We took a gamble on him. He’s probably been a really good influence on the young players… And it is what it is. The Warriors get out from under a lot of money next season, anyhow. So, it’s one of those situations that you just accept and move on. If the Warriors need to make a move, they’ll find a way to make it.

      • deadeyedesign23 - May 30, 2013 at 12:12 AM

        If you want non guaranteed contracts then you need to live with players holding out for more money. You can’t have a system where players have to see a contract through to the end, but teams can cut them at any time without compensation for the rest of that agreement.

        If owners REALLY wanted to pay market value for their players then there should only be 1 year deals and no salary cap. Charlie Finely proposed this in baseball back in the 70s and was laughed out of the room. Then every player is always playing for his next contract and is always getting paid exactly what market value is. The problem is that teams would lose the ability to rob people like Kyrie Irving blind so they’ll deal with having to bite the bullet with the occasional RJ contract.

  7. sportsnut101 - May 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    Wonder if they gonna trade him and his expiring contract

    Why didn’t they offer him if he opts out 2 yr deal at 5.5 mil. To save them cap money I’m sure no one is giving him 5 mil anywhere else

    Well the lakers can still trade d12 to warriors for Bogut Jefferson. N a pick No way warriors trade Klay or Barnes Barnes is in 2nd yr. Klay is in 3rd yr still cheap

  8. patfic15 - May 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    Worst contract of 2014 award winner. Of course, whoever picks up Bynum will take that honor shortly after…

  9. jadaruler - May 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    The ghost of the Charlie Bell amnesty comes back to haunt GSW again.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (2069)
  2. K. Irving (1678)
  3. A. Davis (1577)
  4. R. Rubio (1477)
  5. L. James (1471)
  1. K. Durant (1470)
  2. K. Bryant (1417)
  3. T. Thompson (1248)
  4. J. Clarkson (1188)
  5. A. Aminu (1151)