Reply With Quote
Maxing Austin Reaves would not be wise. The point comparing his market rate to what Keldon Johnson makes is a good one, though.
They're lying. Of course the Lakers wouldn't match a stupid offer like that.
Maxing Austin Reaves would not be wise. The point comparing his market rate to what Keldon Johnson makes is a good one, though.
that would be the danger in offering a max to Reaves and calling the Lakers bluff. it'd be great, of course, if Reaves received a mx offer and forced the Lakers hand but I don't want the spurs to be the team that calls their bluff.
Tempt? He’d sprint to HOU for that.
I like Darius Garland and should fit Spurs age group. I doubt the Cavs would give him up.
Give it time.
Another season of him and Mitc being abused in the playoffs and eliminated in the first round will change their GM's mind.
Although I could see Mitc getting traded first.
Reeves is overrated. The guy plays with LeBron and Davis and the reason why he's so open. You take him away from that and he's at best a 4th option. And we want to Max that guy? Geez. I'd rather give the minutes to Malaki on a rookie contract.
Yup. It's good when your role players show out, but don't confuse them with being anything other than role players.
most nights he's going to produce more than he gives up
he's a net positive player. i just dont think he's enough of a net positive to justify his salary
Being stuck paying Reaves Max salary for the next 4-5 years would be a disaster. Lakers wouldn’t match that. No way in I’m taking that chance. Like what
and yet, some team out there may very well offer reaves the max (because it happens every year-a player gets way overpaid). it would be great if the lakers didn't learn anything from the westbrook fiasco and handicapped themselves with yet another bad contract.
Wouldn't Reeves also be the fourth option on the Spurs?
Wemba
Vassell
Johnson
Reaves
Sochan/Collins
When people say "max", it can create the impression than he's getting like $40 Million or something. He's getting $25 Million a year, which is about $18 percent of the cap. Because it's a flat deal, that percentage is only going to go down. To put that into perspective, that's basically what STers are hoping Vassell takes, and it's not hard to argue Reaves is better than Devin. Of course, the Spurs don't have to choose between the two of them. But if you buy the idea that Reaves might be this era's version of Green/Covington, it's not the money goes to waste as the team tries to build around Wemby. The odds that they were going to get their superstar through cap space weren't the best anyway.
Even if Reaves is guarded more heavily and thus doesn't come out of the gate with the same impact as he did with the Lakers, that extra attention means less on Vassell and Johnson, letting them get back to an efficient level of play. We're talking about replacing Tre Jones here. The upgrade in terms of spacing for the team would be massive, and there's not much they'd lose much in other facets. I'm not the hugest fan of Reaves, but money (especially in terms of salary-space allocation) isn't the main question mark. It's separating the Lakers hype from the actual player. You don't want another THT, but you should be fine he's as described here.
in 2015, Danny Green signed a 4 year $45 million deal with the spurs. at that time, the cap was 70mil, so that reflected about 16% of the cap. the max deal for reaves would have him taking about 18% of the cap
on a team that had as many good creators a the 2015 spurs (parker, manu, diaw, ascending kawhi, kyle anderson) and good post players in duncan/aldridge... green's skill set was what was needed. reaves on this current spurs team projects to be a of a fit
i dont think you necessarily have to give him the full max to land him. not sure the lakers really match anything north of 4/80 or 4/85. obviously cant dictate where the guy wants to live, but the spurs would also give him a good opportunity to shine from a basketball perspective, allowing him to even get some run at the point the same way we tried with branham
Malaki vs Reaves. Why would Spurs pay 25 yrs old Reaves 25mil, when they get the same production from Malaki on a rookie contract? I know Malaki's defense is not stellar, but I would argue that Malaki is 5 years younger and only on his 2nd year. He still has a lot to show before I write him off for a 25 yrs old who is not going to move the needle.
Malaki (top) vs Austin (bottom)
Games MPG FGM-FGA FG% 3PM-3PA 3P% FTM-FTA FT% RPG APG STLPG BLKPG PFPG TOPG PPG 66 23.5 4.1 - 9.3 0.44 1.2 - 3.9 0.302 0.9 - 1.1 0.829 2.7 1.9 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.2 10.2 64 28.8 4 - 7.7 0.529 1.3 - 3.4 0.398 3.6 - 4.1 0.864 3 3.4 0.5 0.3 1.7 1.5 13
Last edited by John B; 06-28-2023 at 12:24 PM.
I think discussions about Reaves are interesting, but hypothetical. I don’t really expect the Spurs to do anything to shore up the point guard position this summer because I don’t think they care all that much about how many games they win in 2023-24. As long as they have somebody functional who isn’t so ineffective at basic point guard tasks that they’re going to frustrate Wembanyama, I think they’ll roll with it.
Fred VanVleet approves this message.
The Rockets too.
I do think they care about wins, but not to the detriment of opportunities not yet seen. I agree that they won't spend money or assets for only marginal or dubious improvement. Reaves is too questionable and doesn't move beyond on a marginal improvement at the position compared to the cost. LAL has repeatedly said they're resigning him, so the point is moot.
I expect the Spurs to be drafting somewhere between 7-10 in 2024, and to pick BPA. If that’s a PG, then there you go. If that’s a wing, then they’ll shore up PG some other way that summer.
Reaves > Vassell is a wild take tbh
Regardless, I do agree that he’s an ideal fit with the current squad and something like $20MM a year wouldn’t be a bad deal. Wouldn’t be thrilled with it or anything, but it’s fair.
Even those stats show Reaves as a comfortably better player, but when you actually look at advanced stats, it's not even close. Branham was horrible last year. Absolutely abysmal. Reaves was elite. Like if you look up RAPTOR for young two-guards last year, Austin is at the top and Malaki is at 37 of 37. According to 82games, Reaves graded as the fourth-best Laker last year while Branham was the worst player in the Spurs rotation. Even in BBRef, Reaves grades out so much better than Branham that it's not even worth comment.
As I've said, Reaves reminds me a lot of Danny Green in terms of the arguments people use against him. Danny was arguably a top 5-8 SG in his prime when you factor everything in, but people used to find things to pick at him to put anyone they could think of over him. It's okay to not be the youngest or have a bunch of upside left. Branham would have to grow an absurd amount very quickly to out-value Reaves. Vassell still has to grow a lot too, but at least in his case I think they'd start together just fine. Branham would still get his chances if the Spurs did sign Reaves. They could play together as well, but if they were to give Reaves a four-year deal and Vassell and extension, it would be hard to see Malaki staying long term.
The Spurs could definitely use a guy who can raise the team's floor for where they expect their young talent to be. The Spurs should be patient with their youth, but they shouldn't feel beholden to their development. They have cap, and they have plenty of trade assets. It's okay to use them.
not to mention Reaves got better as the season went along. assist numbers really took off as they trusted him more (look at the usage rates)
and then that trend continued into the playoffs as well
I actually like Devin and would project them starting next to each other rather than competing, but Reaves definitely has the better resume and impact stats, whereas I think Vassell has flashed more and has shown to be a better volume scorer. But as I said, it's not hard to see how someone could think Reaves is better. It just depends on what you need. An elite role-player versus an inefficient but talented player that is still caught between project and star. Giving Devin $25 Million a year is more of a gamble in my mind than giving it to Reaves, assuming you don't think being in LA is boosting his perceived value.Reaves > Vassell is a wild take tbh
can someone give me some recent examples of the supposed LAL value boost?
ie a player who was on the lakers, put up good numbers, was overvalued and then went elsewhere and suddenly sucked?
Reaves is not a "young two-guard." He's 25. He'll shortly be entering his prime and is certainly not old, but Branham is five years younger. He's making $3.2 million vs. the $25 million Reaves may be making soon.
Comparing the two doesn't really make sense, anyway. They're not in compe ion with each other.
25 is definitely young. if you are pre-prime, im considering you young. if you are going to sign a multi-year contract and not expecting to decline by the end of it, i consider you young
there are obviously different magnitudes of young
and if the spurs did go out and acquire reaves, he would be competing with Branham to a large degree (though they can share the floor together)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
