Skip navigation
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Report: Clippers thought they were close to trading DeAndre Jordan to Cavaliers

Los Angeles Clippers v Atlanta Hawks

ATLANTA, GA - NOVEMBER 22: DeAndre Jordan #6 of the LA Clippers reacts during the game against the Atlanta Hawks at Philips Arena on November 22, 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Getty Images

Like with Lou Williams, the Clippers were working multiple fronts on DeAndre Jordan in advance of Thursday’s trade deadline – a trade or extension.

Unlike with Williams, who signed an extension, there was no deal with Jordan.

But did anything come close?

Clippers executives Lawrence Frank and Jerry West said the team offered Jordan an extension. And he certainly came up in trade talks.


The pieces were in place Thursday, and the Los Angeles Clippers thought they were close to a deal that would have sent starting center DeAndre Jordan to the Cavaliers, when news surfaced of the blockbuster trade that Cleveland instead had with the Lakers, sources have told ESPN’s Brian Windhorst.

Jordan, via Broderick Turner of the Los Angeles Times:

“I tell the truth,” Jordan said Friday. “No offer.”

This is all so cloudy.

Just because the Clippers thought they were close to trading Jordan to Cleveland doesn’t mean they were right. It’s can be very hard to ascertain another team’s thinking. The Cavs, of course, made a couple blockbuster trades elsewhere.

If Jordan set parameters for an acceptable extension and the Clippers proposed less, was that an “offer”? They might say yes. He might say no.

What’s clear: Jordan is still with L.A. and will be for the rest of the season. He holds a $24,119,025 player option for next season, and he’s still extension-eligible until he opts out (or Jun 30, 2019 if he opts in).

It’s too late to unilaterally trade him. Now, it’s predicated on him opting in. And there’s at least miscommunication – and maybe even, especially now, mistrust – interfering with a possible extension.