Austin Reaves Discussion: How Much Is He Worth?

Nm

 

Facing adversity is separate from playing yourself back into game shape after injury.
He had a bad game, but there are REASONS as to why and the loss isn’t all on him.
You can expect guys to perform at an All Star level coming back from injury, but that’s not realistic.

 

He just had a good game against tough Houston defense!

Some people just refuse to believe why other folks might not be as forgiving

 

If we're going to go all in on the Luka boat with a bunch of 3rd/4th options. Then you sort of need to wrap your main guy in cotton wool for the regular season, if he is out because he was going for MVP and got injured, you're in the playin or bounced in the first round.

 

Or, you build a properly balanced roster so you don’t feel the need to run your two best players into the ground by the time the playoffs start.

 

You can continue to put all the blame on one player.
Enjoy.

 

I mean, to be fair, the Lakers have a good roster.

Outside of OKC, which basically cheated by tanking for many years, the Lakers roster isn't any better or worse than the average NBA team.

Yeah, it's top-heavy but that's what happens when you have top-heavy talent.

If Reaves can't provide the load needed for the Lakers to be a championship contending team for the foreseeable future, than maybe the best course for the Lakers would be to trade him for a better player or for multiple players who can contribute.

I mean, if Reaves isn't getting his FT calls and his shots aren't falling, can he supplement with defense? At times, he can playmake and create for others. But then other times, the possessions are stagnant and he heaves up a three.

Are we so sure the Lakers wouldn't trade AR for KD? What if Kawhi becomes available? I think if AR can't elevate his game in these remaining playoffs, there will be options available. I think at that point, you keep LeBron and try to trade AR for KD, Kawhi, or Kyrie + PJ.

 

He's a 16.5/4.5/4 playoff performer. Is that worth a max contract? Im not sure... but in todays effed up NBA/market it just might be...

 

historic

 

Elite company though

 

I think a lot of people are not informed about what the max means for AR. It's a capped max at 42 million, not the max that the best players get that go over 60M like SGA or Tatum got.

At this price range you have guys like Garland, Zion, Ja, Wagner, Ingram or Lamelo. Question is, is he as good as those guys? I think it's close.

Or he can be at the 35 million range where you have Bane, Suggs, Jalen Green or Quickley. I think he is definitely in this range and arguably in the upper one.

Now, he definitely needs to improve in the playoffs and the "tough matchup" against OKC, Rockets or Minny can't be an excuse because we gotta beat those teams to be champions and if he's to be treated as the 2nd best player he needs to perform in those games.

I'm still in the same place I have been on AR. I think we can be title contenders around him and Luka as long as we get a good 3rd option, 2a type that can together with AR support Luka in shot creation. Watson's ceiling gives you that but you're betting in potential. I don't see other FA this year that can give you that, so if it's not Watson we may need to trade for one or wait for the deadline or a year more to find that 3rd guy

Another thing is you gotta value his resolution. He could have said he wasn't healthy and not comeback, protecting his value. But he came back early than expected to play for us, knowing he would be rusty while having for sure the best defender of 2 elite defensive teams on him. I value that a lot and that's worthy money too, imo

 

so many reasons why this ongoing conversation is pretty dumb, but this is the main one. he could miss his next 40 shots and still be considered more valuable than the second group. don't think most would trade him for garland, ingram, or even ja, either (hell, maybe not even laker-killer wagner!).

he's not taking 30 million, and he's not being traded for walker kessler.

 

If Reaves is a third option, he should be in that 30m range and we can be ok with him being an ok post season performer at those numbers.

If he is meant to be a second option on a contender, I'm happy for him at the 41m max. But he will get crushed if he underperforms.

 

That's when you contact the Mavs, Rockets, or Clippers and offer them Reaves for Kyrie, KD, or Kawhi. Proven playoffs performers who fit better on the Lakers.

Not the same age timeline as Luka but their contracts will expire.

Luka+KD or Kawhi or Kyrie + LeBron and you still have $30m to play with assuming LeBron takes $20 million.

Take advantage of Reaves younger age and trade him for an older proven star.

The Luka+Reaves fit ain't the greatest besides being white and we can make jokes about it. Neither really compliment each other well whereas KD is more of a spot-up shooter who can bail you out with ISO's driven by Luka+LeBron's leadership and passing. Kawhi, we all know what he can do IF he's healthy, which I think he will be motivated considering it will be a contract season for him, and Kyrie has proven to step up when it matters despite coming off of an injury.

Let's assume Reaves completely wets the bed this playoffs. Any of us opposed to trading him for any of those three guys I mentioned?

Why are we here acting like Reaves is an ideal fit, anyways? He kinda isn't. The only reason people are saying to keep him as 2nd option over LeBron is because of LeBron's age and building for the future. But otherwise, LeBron is right now, a much better player than Reaves. I think for the next 3 years, LeBron as an individual player will still be better than Reaves. I'm looking at Reaves games, if the guy isn't getting the FT calls, his game really starts to fall apart because so much of his game depends on trying to create contact and expecting calls.

 

You have an asset. Keep it or trade it for future asset or assets

 

I expect Austin to have a better game tonight

 

all old and not playing right now.

how? kawhi makes 50 and kd and kyrie make about 40. unless they're taking vando you're eating 20-30 million of your space just to bring in an old broken down player.

we only have 48 in room. lebron at 20 means 28 left. you're losing rui, and probably at least one of kennard and smart in addition to reaves to bring in kevin durant? who's killed like three consecutive franchises? kyrie irving? who missed the entire year and is 35? kawhi leonard, who averages 55 games a year?

yes, all three. if you can't get a young player of similar value, you simply don't trade him or heaven forbid let him walk in FA.

in all three cases, you're also handing a 27 year old all star level player to a conference rival in exchange for someone in their mid-30s.

this week or this season? different answers entirely (advanced stats have them nearly identical this season on both ends of the floor). when lebron was fresh off injury early in the year, he also looked like a steaming pile of crap.

that's insane, man.

 

1) Not playing is your standard as to who is better? By your logic, is Curry not better than Reaves? Logic doesn't correlate here. Lakers would pack Austin's bags for Curry so what argument are you making here other than to be snarky? I mean, Reaves would have missed the playoffs as well if Rockets were up 3-0 against the Lakers and the Lakers would rather choose to just rest Reaves instead of trying to make a comeback.

2) Depends on what Reaves makes. Max he can make next year is $41 million, right? That's a straight trade for KD or Kyrie. Vando only comes into play if you're trying to get Kawhi who just came off an elite season and will be coming into next season on a final year so he'll be motivated to play because there's nothing Kawhi loves more than money.

3) How are you losing Kennard/Smart to bring in KD? We've already established why KD as a leader on a team doesn't work. It's like you ignored that part. I wouldn't do Kyrie for Reaves straight up but if Mavs would take Vando+Knecht for PJ as well, you absolutely do that deal. And yes, Kyrie at 35 will still be an automatic 20/4/6 player shooting 40% from three. Let's not kid ourselves. Already went through the Kawhi discussion. Contract year, motivated to play, and realistically, you only need to make sure he's healthy by the playoffs. Sit him out some games if you have to but guaranteed no one wants to see a Luka+Kawhi+LeBron trio in the playoffs and you know that.

4) LeBron changed his game to fit Reaves. Reaves didn't change anything. Not a single person here thinks Reaves is better than LeBron. Stop it. It goes beyond the shooting stats and efficiency. LeBron's ability to control the pace and lead the team is something Reaves can't do. Yeah, LeBron looked bad entering the season. What about now?

5) Really not insane at all. LeBron will be a guaranteed 20/6/6 player on any team he wants for the next 3 seasons minimum. His size and versatility > Reaves. The only reason we're not having a discussion about LeBron getting paid is because we know his capacity as a player is reached. You're paying for potential. Reaves has more potential that could be reached but LeBron is still, IMO, going to end up being a more impactful player on a title contending team.

Again, I am basing this off of what Reaves is able to do these remaining playoffs games. If he wets the bed 3x more and the Lakers get swept, why should we not raise these concerns? He wants max dollars but can't win a game for the Lakers but 41 year old LeBron willed the team to a Rockets series win? Why are we pretending otherwise here?