Austin Reaves Discussion: How Much Is He Worth?

i still don't think there's a line. if he were supermax eligible, ok. but 41 million isn't outrageous. the FA market sucks, and nobody is dumping players of his caliber into space, so the gained space will do little.

you're more likely to get that player in trade for reaves than you are with space.

i'm also not as convinced as everyone that it's not a workable pairing. we're watching towns and brunson on the cusp of a title. it's about who's playing around them.

or forwards who can defend guards.

you're assuming people won't match RFA offers. great way to get burned. i don't know if 80 million is enough to get two of those via RFA, lol, as i'm sure their agents are seeking max, too (won't get it, but...). maybe that's overstating it...

most optimistic case is that you could get watson for 32 (again, pretty sure denver will move to match, but for the sake of argument...) and kessler or duren for about the same. that's going to eat almost all the space. and again, pretty sure all three of those teams have zero interest in losing their homegrown player for nothing (for the same reason we should have no interest in losing ours).

do we have the salaries to move for herb and portis? would we have the room to re-up hayes? did we assume smart opted in? can we count on smart being a 30mpg player (he'd need to be) for 82 games and the playoffs?

it's an interesting thought, but i don't trust RFA as much as you do. teams generally match, and then you're REALLY screwed, as the rest of FA has already played out without you. you end up wasting a year of luka's prime with stopgap signings made to be traded when everyone knows you're doing that.

edit: two closing thoughts on this. the fear that reaves is an overpay at 41 (or 35?) is driving this. but...are we sure that kessler/watson/duren won't be overpays at 35ish themselves? you're talking about one guy who's been hurt a lot, one guy who's still largely theoretical, and another guy who just got benched in some crucial playoff games. if their team is willing to let them walk for that money, do you want them?

second--all of these also involve losing lebron next year, and i agree with his supporters that he's probably more valuable than any of those guys next year.

i still like the idea of trying to get one of these RFAs, though, and i'm willing to let rui/kennard types walk to try it.

 

They were saying teams can go up to 44.5. I don't really get our number, it's been said it's the 41.5 but then we can give him a max of 240 in 5 years. I guess it's progressive? That would mean it ends at 50 million.
But yeah to one of your latter points, how much is AR an overpay at that value vs the same amount for Watson or Duren/Kessler. I'm also iffy in paying those guys that, only strong argument in favor is that they fit better Luka's needs.

My thought about AR's fit is that with him and Luka it's 2 guys you're protecting on defense. And what has come out in these playoffs and Finals os how much full and half court press teams do. We know what we suffer with Wallace and Brunson can't do 2 dribbles without pressure in half court, regardless of who switches on him. That really messes up how you set up plays and you're constantly on edge. We probably can't do it with Luka either but if we have AR it's pretty much impossible.

Agree with you on RFA risk. It can backfire A LOT. You can always pay a bunch to Bron but it's a tough proposition to keep Luka happy.

Yeah Smart's point is a good one. We can't rely on him for a long season as an everyday starter. It just won't happen. We need him to exercise the PO in any scenario though. I think the math work on the rest using Ayton, Vando, Knecht and the 7.5 you can add on a trade under the apron that one of our trade psychos here have mentioned.

My thought to bring the topic is that I found it interesting how my first reaction if AR leaves was sort of panic but then saw it as maybe an opportunity to do something different and maybe set the stage in a different way. I think it's not the end of the world if it happens for some reason, although hopefully we avoid it and maximize this asset

But I think that roster although more athletic, long and very good defensively would struggle a lot in case of any injuries and shot creation in non-Luka minutes.

 

LAKERS SEASON REVIEW: Austin Reaves Forces Rob Pelinka To Know The Unknowable

 

Hehehe - if the shoe fits I guess!

 

JK!!

 

If Reaves is not taking a discount, I'm still signing him, because as @abeer3 said, we're probably not going to sign anyone better with the space and the contract isn't great, but still tradeable unless his numbers absolutely tank.

With that said, if it doesn't work out next season, he'll be first on the trade block.

There have to be consequences if he doesn't take a discount, otherwise why would he do it? out of the goodness of his heart?

Would you take a 40M pay cut just to increase the likelihood of winning a ring with the Lakers?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Whether he took a pay cut or not. Let's not go into the season predisposed to having a whipping boy AR just because he finally got a contract paying him what he is worth after over delivering and being underpaid for what he brought for 5 seasons.

 

And honestly fat chance that predisposition doesn't happen.

 

I would sign him to $41M for 5 years. His cap hit is $14.9M in Year 1. So just give him the full $41M, it's irrelevant for this upcoming season. The contract would be $205M over 5 years and that would make AR and his agent happy. He took a pay cut with his old contract so it's only fair that we reward him the most amount allowed for his first year.

In terms of what it means for the Lakers, the inflation rate of the NBA salary cap has been 7.2% on average (over the past 5 years) That means his $41M salary, in terms of actual cap hit in today's value, would equate to:

2027-28: $38.05M
2028-29: $35.1M
2029-30: $32.1M
2030-31: $29.2M

No biggie. Just make the salary flat over 5 years. His contract would become more team-friendly and more tradeable as we go.

 

btw, through three nba finals games, the presumptive finals mvp is shooting 37% from the floor with 13 assists and 13 turnovers. just sayin'.

 

Was listening to Trevor Lane last night - basically echoed what Pete said, Austin isn't a max player, but a very good player, nonetheless. You just don't want to overpay Austin has a 2nd option when he's likely the 3rd best player on a good team.

These are huge fans of AR, fyi. However, they do think he will get paid handsomely; they were just comment on the "max" reports, which could be BS. So, yeah, we shall see.

 

Austin’s cap hit is 20.9m this offseason. But that’s not so important anyway.

I like him at 5 years 200m or there abouts. The flat contract is interesting. The only reason I would offer a lower starting wage this season is to give us more space below the first apron for trades.

Effectively a 35m offer at 8% yearly increases will stay around 35m with inflation. That’s fair value for Reaves in my opinion - the upper end of elite role player territory.

 

yeah, that's striking me as the compromise. 40 per flat over 5 years. end of the contract it's only 20% of the projected cap, basically twice the mle, or 30m in current money.

people don't like descending deals because they feel like it starts negotiations for their next contract from a lower point. i think that's not a big concern, particularly in bird rights/over cap situations, but whatever.

we'll know soon!