When the conversation turns to the NBA’s most burdensome contracts, De’Aaron Fox’s name is starting to come up more than you might expect-and not in the way Kings or Spurs fans hoped. A recent league-wide evaluation of contract value versus on-court production placed Fox among the top five worst deals in the league, and it’s sparking real questions about his long-term fit in San Antonio.
Let’s rewind the clock. Just over a year ago, Fox demanded a trade out of Sacramento after seven and a half seasons as the franchise’s lead guard and emotional engine.
His departure came shortly after the Kings parted ways with head coach Mike Brown, a move that reportedly sealed Fox’s decision to leave. It marked the end of an era in Sacramento-a chapter defined by flashes of brilliance, but ultimately limited postseason success.
The Spurs, meanwhile, looked like a promising landing spot. With back-to-back Rookie of the Year winners in Victor Wembanyama and Stephon Castle, San Antonio had a young, exciting core in place. Add in a deep supporting cast that had already proven it could hang with top-tier teams like the Thunder, and Fox’s veteran presence seemed like the missing piece to elevate the group.
And to be fair, Fox delivered what was expected-when healthy. He brought veteran leadership, experience, and a steady hand to a youthful roster. But now, with his massive contract extension looming, the calculus is changing.
Fox’s deal is set to pay him $260.2 million, but recent valuation models peg his on-court worth closer to $168.2 million. That’s a nearly $100 million gap-no small number in today’s NBA, where the salary cap and luxury tax apron rules are tightening the screws on front offices. Once Fox’s extension kicks in for the 2026-27 season, his salary spikes, and that number only grows as he ages and his impact potentially wanes.
That’s a tough pill for any team to swallow-especially one like San Antonio, which is building around two ascending young guards in Castle and Dylan Harper. Both players project as long-term foundational pieces, and their development could be stifled if Fox’s contract limits the team’s flexibility or forces tough roster decisions down the line.
This isn’t about Fox being a bad player. He’s still an effective point guard with plenty left in the tank.
But the issue is value. In a league where financial efficiency is as important as talent, paying top dollar for declining production can derail a rebuild-or at least slow it down.
That’s the concern for the Spurs.
From Sacramento’s perspective, the decision to move on from Fox is starting to look like the right call. The Kings are shifting gears, moving away from the "Beam Team" identity that Fox helped define. They’re clearly in a retooling phase, and they’re trying to avoid long-term financial commitments outside of their core-already locked in with Domantas Sabonis and Zach LaVine.
Bringing Fox back was never in the cards, and it shouldn’t be. His timeline no longer matches Sacramento’s, and his contract would’ve been a major obstacle in their attempt to reshape the roster. Letting him go when they did gave them a clean break and a clearer path forward.
For the Spurs, the next few seasons will be telling. If Fox can maintain his level of play and help guide their young stars through the next phase of development, maybe the financial hit is worth it. But if his production dips and his salary becomes an anchor, San Antonio may find itself in a tough spot-forced to make some difficult decisions to preserve the future they’ve been carefully building.
Fox’s story isn’t finished yet. But right now, it’s fair to say that both teams made the moves they felt they had to make-and only time will tell who comes out ahead.