Austin Reaves Discussion: How Much Is He Worth?

How about not worrying if they get a better second option by trading him and concentrate on getting a better team by trading him.If you trade for someone who is slightly below him offensively but much better defensively than that’s a wash.Then in the same trade add someone who is a much better 5/6 option than they have now that makes you a better TEAM

 

Who is this said player that we'll target? I have not seen a single trade scenario that makes any sense.

It seems we are going in circles.

 

Just off the top of my head Immanuel Quickley comes to mind.18-20 points a game better defensively and Averages more assists a game in less minutes.Much quicker and a better athlete .Also a better 3point shooter

 

Right, except he's actually a 16-17 pt scorer and his best scoring month in the past two years is 20.5 pts. Compare that to Reaves who's averaged 23.3 pts this year, with his best scoring months coming in at 32 and 27 pts. Quickley's TS% is below league average. Reaves' efficiency as a scorer is in the 99% percentile. Quickley is not in the same league as Reaves as an offensive engine. A tier below Reaves, maybe even 2 tiers below.

Yes, he's a better defender in a vacuum. Problem is, he's only 6'2 and struggles against bigger guards. Not a good look when we are trying to compete against OKC and the Spurs, with big 6'6 guards in SGA, Castle and Harper. So the gap is not as large as it seems on the defensive end, when you add context.

Next, please.

 

AR fans just have to lie I guess.No he is exactly league average TS% you know who else just below Quickly? Jaylen Brown so I guess they could never do that trade because He doesn’t shoot well enough.
AR has two inches on IQ but his reach is two inches shorter.AR can’t compete on the defensive end at all he might as well wear a cone on his head during the game.
Meanwhile IQ is a +DBPM and much better on the perimeter. People’s love for a player has blinded them.You lose very little on offense if any because IQ is better playmaker 26.4 assists % to Reaves 24.Less turnovers 9.3% to reaves 14% .less usage as AR is 26,7 IQ 21.1.Ar is the better offensive player but Quickly is the better overall player

 

OK, even at league average Quickley in the 50% percentile, AR is in the 99% percentile. Scoring volume and scoring efficiency have an inverse relationiship due to shot difficulty. A league average TS% at 17 pts suggests that Quickley really has no room to score more. AR is at 23 pts 64.1 TS%. Quickley is not as gifted as a scorer, it's not even close. You can't count on him to be a secondary playmaker/scorer behind Luka. That is a huge loss on the offensive end. Your take on usage rate and assist ratio is just nonsense. Usage rate goes up and assist ratio goes down as you score more.

As for Brown, he scores like 10 pts more than Quickley, which makes his scoring ability much more impressive. He's also a bigger body that can guard more positions. Yes, I would trade AR for Brown. I'll even include a pick or two.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that Quickley is the better defender. But we need to go through OKC and the Spurs to win a championship. We need a bigger guard/wing to slow down their star players is what I'm saying. Smaller guards with good POA defense are not hard to find. I'd rather just keep Reaves and pick up a player like Goodwin again if we need a small defender.

Overall, I feel Reaves gives us a better chance to compete for a championship.

 

If you give Quickly the 3 extra minutes that AR played and the 6% more usage rate IQ ppg avg goes to 21. So slightly less scorer better playmaker better defender

 

Fair enough.I have nothing against keeping AR as I have always said he’s a very good player.S
You should find on YouTube the thunder raptor game in OKC and then tell me IQ can’t guard OKC.Or be an effective secondary shooter/scorer against them

 

Nope that's not how it works. You're basically arguing that Luke Kennard would score 30+ pts if given the same opportunity as Curry. There's a reason why his usage and minutes are where it's at. It's because Ingram, Barnes, and Barrett are all better scorers than him.

Btw I think Reaves would be the 1st option, 2nd option at worst on that Raptors team.

 

Ok cool. You're free to bring up other players that you would trade AR for. Like I said, I have not seen a compelling scenario yet.

 

The LeBron age point doesn’t really change anything — it actually proves my point more than anything.

The Lakers made the AD trade because it was the best move to maximize a championship window. Not because of sentiment, not because of “do we need permission,” and not because of whatever narrative people want to attach to it. It was a basketball decision based on title odds.

That’s the part people keep missing.

Elite organizations don’t flip between “we ignore stars” and “we cater to stars depending on age or timeline.” That’s not how this works. It’s one consistent philosophy: maximize championship probability within cap constraints, and evaluate every non-superstar piece through that lens.

Same thing applies across sports too. The Dodgers argument isn’t about roster size, and the NBA vs MLB comparison misses the point. Structure is different, but the decision-making is the same. Good orgs don’t protect continuity or relationships if there’s a clearer path to winning.

So whether it’s LeBron, Luka, or whoever, none of that changes how contenders operate. Stars set the direction — they don’t override or get to decide roster construction.

At the end of the day it’s simple:

Maximize the window, evaluate every non-superstar asset, & adjust if it makes sense

Austin isn’t outside that just because he’s productive or liked.

 

That's another part: Austin has been playing next to a top 3 offensive engine in the league & even in this PO series has been playing next to James. I can probably assume if Austin is traded for another piece, that player will look twice as better than whatever situation he's in currently.

FYI: was doing some research, and most reporters, bloggers, think Austin should land in that $30-40 million range mostly due to cap constraints and limited flexbility going forward making improvements to the roster if he gets max money.

 

or lebron.

word.


quickley's a player i'd trade for to put next to reaves and luka (i've actually named him several times as a target). i don't think trading reaves for quickley improves us in the short or long term, though.

 

You also understand this wouldn’t be a one for one trade right.It would be Quickly and another player that improves the bench thus making the team better overall

 

i wouldn't freak out over reaves/vando/knecht for quickley/barrett. still not sure it actually improves us, but i could imagine in a world in which both teams are happy with this.

 

You guys on here have trouble reading and comprehending basic words.

I've written many times that if Dallas can get over the Luka-AD trade and just want to do business, then that's an option.

Obviously if they don't, then you move on.

And you don't know Dallas's internal meetings but speak on absolute. You work for the Mavs? I don't think so. So let's not act like it's out of picture.

 

To me this new model of team building means having two players who equal a 10 greater than 1 player who is an 8

 

There are 40 players I would take over Reaves right now.

There are probably 100's of combination of players I would take over Reaves that would match his salary.

This obsession over Reaves is strange. A couple of years ago, people had no issue saying he should be packaged for deals like Turner and Buddy Hield. Now, he's some untradeable player who anyone that dares recommends a trade should be sent to hell's pit.

Luka wants to keep him, fine. But that doesn't mean that he's right or wrong. He wants to keep Austin paid and he's his friend. That's fine, but let's not pretend that it is somehow an unstoppable 1-2 duo like Shaq-Kobe were. It'll win you games. Can it help you contend for the title as a dynasty? Nope.

The only untradeable players right now should be Luka and LeBron (assuming he takes a $20m price range).

Everyone else should be on the trading block if it helps the team. Maybe give that Reaves experiment by midseason or year. But 100% he is a tradable asset.

 

You and 52 years and Vlade do realize every year you have this TEAM with just Luka as the clutch scoring star and he is injured and out at the wrong time any season immediately turns to s***. If unable to bring in a # 2 “better” than Reaves. Most likely. Great defenders and “lower tier” offensive players, untested for that certain Lakers capability under the white hot lights of ring is the only thing Laker Nation doesn’t conjure up thoughts of dynasty either. Just a worse case crap shoot of luck with Doncic’s health each year. You act like 2 or 3 really solid players added in places of need with the garbage out to this year’s squad, with good health, wouldn’t have been right in the mix too. “Because” of Reaves.

 

I believe the disconnect is I believe it’s better to have a great scorer surrounded my multiple good scorers while you want a great scorer next to one other maybe two above average scorers.Either way if your top guy goes down they are not winning