Speaker 1: Grant. It's just time to ask questions. That's what we do,
that's what we get paid to do. We're just here
asking questions. And I have a question for him grand
Should the Lakers trade high sell high on one? Austin
read Well, what.
Speaker 2: We can agree on is that this would be the
high point, and if it's not, then you can't trade
him for anything because he's played about as well in
some respects better than anyone.
Speaker 3: I'm just looking through the numbers.
Speaker 2: If you care about this stat which maybe you should,
maybe you shouldn't, still cool to lead the league in
anything Number one in offensive wind shares so far this season,
and that's that's pretty good, even if that's a flawed stat.
So he's been spectacular. I guess the the counter question
is if they hold on to him, what's he going
to cost?
Speaker 1: Right, And it's that would be Isn't that the why
you would move him? It's because you're worried about affording
him and reagency, and they can pay him more money
and years than any other team. It's on the screen
for people watching on YouTube, but a three year max
in the Lakers is like one hundred and thirty five million.
Another team can only give them one hundred and thirty one.
A four year max in the Lakers about one to
eighty six or sorry, and then a four year max
from another team is like one seventy nine, and then
the Lakers can go to that fifth year, five years,
two hundred and forty million dollars. There was the report,
I think it was from ESPN, that that there are
executives around the league that believe he could be a
one hundred and eighty million dollar player, which is basically
saying some team would come in and give him the
max before we get to the teams that have cap
space again, because this is we agree that this is
why you would trade him, is that he's making thirteen
point nine million this year, he has the player option
for whatever it is fourteen and change next year. Is
that you're the Lakers and you don't want to pay
You think Austin Reeves might be a max player to
another team, and he's not a max player to your team.
Speaker 2: So if he's not a max player to you, then
that means you, I guess he can be a max player.
But if if you're the Lakers, what your argument is
portrading him? We already have our extremely high usage on
ball guy in Luka Doncic. We can't use a max
salary slot or one of the maybe two that will
have in addition to Luca on a guy who kind
of does the same thing. But isn't the counter to that,
Like the best teams Doncic has been on have had
some version of that, Like I guess if you think
about Kyrie, or you think about the Jalen Brunson Dallas
era where nothing like what Reeves is doing now, which,
by the way, just to get it, thirty four points
a game, leading the league in free throw attempts and makes,
had a sixteen assist game the other night.
Speaker 1: Looks that looks like.
Speaker 2: Game winning floater splitting the defense. Like so it's just
playing out of his mind. I don't know if it's
If it's me, I'm looking at that and saying, as
the Lake, I don't have to go the five two
forty because nobody else can. So it's a little bit
like the Siakam situation a few years ago, where all
you need to do is beat what another team can offer.
And let's say so the best anyone else can do
and free agency is four for one hundred and just
one hundred and seventy nine. So if you can get
be the Lakers the most they could do on a
four years four for one eighty five, that should be good.
And then the question is are you comfortable with that
number if you're the Lakers and you're getting someone who's
sort of redundant with Doncic, but also like you need
a secondary creator right like that? That's that's the push
and pull of this.
Speaker 1: I don't think that he's just a I can't envision
him as a MAX player in a vacuum. I honestly
think don't you believe that he might be more valuable
to a team that doesn't already have its primary creator?
That you could say that the Lakers need this player,
but they weren't even paying Kyrie a max salary for
most of his time in doubt, like de Luca Kyrie,
like especially if he was there now, I that's just
so tough. And then but then you look at what
he's doing when Luca Dacics and Lebron James have missed
time with the Lakers and defenses are pressing him as
soon as he gets the ball in the back court.
The screens that the Lakers have to set or basically
at the timeline or earlier. So maybe I just haven't
caught on to the Austin Reeves bandwacken fully yet the
idea of him will he be twenty eight twenty nine
going to that range, so he'll still be in his
prime for the duration of his next deal. I haven't
wrapped my head around the idea of him as a
MAX player. I think in large part because the way
for agency has worked these guys who haven't established themselves
as stars. It no longer feels like they're a given
to get a MAX deal or even like, just look
at we didn't think that Dearn Fox was a given
to get a MAX extension from the Spurs this past summer.
Speaker 2: I think maybe the way to stay sane on this,
and certainly this is what the Lakers would would want
to be thinking about if they were trying to get
a number in their heads that was like their walkaway number,
is let's just pretend these games haven't happened, and let's
look at last year, where he's getting you twenty a game,
just under six assists, good efficiency, thirty seven percent of
his threes, nothing like this year, but still getting to
the line fairly well for that player type five times
a game?
Speaker 3: What's that guy worth?
Speaker 2: Right, because you're he's at an age two where this
looks like a massive leap that he's making, But this
is his age twenty seven season, Like it's a little
late for like a leap like that or like this
to be real. So maybe even you add just a
little bit to last year's numbers, what's that guy worth?
That's not a max player? I don't think, and it's
certainly not a max player for the Lakers, which is
why this is a compelling question.
Speaker 3: What is the value?
Speaker 2: Like we would we agree that they that Luca needs
a second guy right to create shots like that?
Speaker 3: Like, you can't it can't truly be him alone?
Speaker 2: Is that guy? If it's Reeves? Can that be is
he's certainly worth thirty a year? I think, uh, you
get up towards forty, which is still below by a
little bit the three year max the Lakers could offer,
and it's basically what another team could offer that That's
where it gets hair like that really is a close
question to me. If you think this is crazy what
he's doing this year and he's actually twenty twenty three,
twenty four, or sorry, twenty four to twenty five Austin Reeves, Like,
that's where I really don't know.
Speaker 1: Does he become And look, part of it is we've
gotten through this with other players in the past to
where it's why would you give og On Andobi the
salary that the Knicks did over five years? It's because
you know there's a four year max out there. And
so I think part of the question needs to come
back to is there a team out there that would
give Austin Reeves the max? And so you look at
the teams that have cap space projected to have cap
space this year. Initially Portland was there, but by signing
Kamara and Sharp to those extensions, they're off the table.
So these are the teams that are projected to of Caspace,
in addition to the Lakers, by the way, the Nets,
the Hornets, the Bulls, the Pistons, the Wizards out East,
and then the Clippers and the Jazz in the Western Conference.
Is there a team that let's say, let's say Austin
Reeves settles into an in between from what he was
last year versus what he's been so far this year,
and look, depending on how much time. But because The
other variable in this is once Lebron returns and you
have these three guys all at once, will Reeves be
able to put up the same numbers. But let's say
he's like a twenty four point per game guy and
five assists, six assists on reasonable efficiency, still killing it,
and me, aren't he able to draw fouls? Do you
look at any of these teams and say I could
see them provided they carve out cap space identifying Reeves
as a guy that they're willing to go for for
one point seventy nine.
Speaker 2: There's one that absolutely leaps off the screen to me.
And it also happens to be the one you have
the picture of up which is coincidental. I would have
said this no matter what it to me, it's clearly
the Pistons one, because they gotta get secondary creation around
Kid Cunningham. We don't know if that's gonna be Jade
and Ivy. That's a free agent decision of its own,
because he's not getting an extension. Sample size is tiny
because of the injury last year, he's starting this year.
Hurt Reeves makes all the sense in the world there
because he allows Asar Thompson to just defend and do
the Usar Thompson stuff. Because he is a good enough
shooter to be off the ball, because he is a
good enough obviously based on this year on ball guy
to handle the non Cunningham minutes. Takes nothing away from
Cunningham playing together with him, that's the most. And because
the Pistons are much further along than the other teams
you have here, at least in the East, Net's Hornets, Bulls, Wizards.
The fact that Reeves will be playing his age twenty
eight season next year is not a deterrent That should
be a deterrent for a team like Brooklyn, Charlotte, Chicago.
I don't who knows. That's a little different. But like,
the Pistons are clearly the team here, right.
Speaker 1: They would be. And to get to a number that
you can max out Reeves, you're probably losing both during
and I you're definitely loving one of them. You're probably
not gonna have Ivy on the team anyway. If Austin
Reeves is.
Speaker 3: There, Yeah, that's the easy part. There is no Ivy.
Speaker 1: I do kind of love his fit in Detroit too.
If I was looking at another team, would the Jazz
If it's oh, we've played out four seasons post tear down,
and oh maybe Keyante George still looks good, but you
don't let you want another primary creator there for everyone else.
I mean his fit with Walker kessela lowry market and
even with Keyante George that could work. Are you worried
about that infringing upon what as Bailey? Because the Clippers,
based off what they're doing, it feels like they want
to be more of a year by year team, and
so signing Austin Reeves for three or four years doesn't
really jibe with that. The Hornets, man, I guess if
Sexton's coming up, you have conkoin Nipple though there, and
Brandon Miller's like Austin Reeves feels a little REDUNDI like
McNeely is William McNeely there as well too. I thought
about the Nets a little bit, just because they don't
own their own pick next year, So are they trying
to do any sort of fest or did they view
it as well? We could max out Reeves and we
think that's a tradable contract. We'll sign them and then
move them later. But the Jazz to me were the
second most interesting team on this have a ton of
cap space, but how how quickly are they going to
be looking to fast track themselves?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they they feel kind of natsy to me, and
that it's a little early for a late twenties at
that by this time next year, a high dollar signing
guy the Jazz just because they they have marketing. So
it's kind of like, well, we're already comfortable with guys
that are outside our timeline and the market. In Reeves
pairing as a core, that's pretty interesting offensively, and if
if Kessler is back, then there's your defensive anchor. I
don't feel like Reeves takes anything away if you're trying
to develop Keyante George if he sustains what he's done
so far this season, and you don't need to make
a decision on George just yet anyway, So I think
I would agree that the Jazz fit there. But if
the Jazz fit there, maybe just as a as a
third place finisher, aren't the bulls? Kind of like that,
wouldn't he make sense there? If Kobe White's gone, he
can play with Giddy like, are you not a great fit?
But it's better than some of these other are really
young teams.
Speaker 1: Right, I would almost prefer him in Washington because Chicago
is okay? So you did you trade Kobe White? Maintained
capsuvations decided to pay because what is Reeves has been?
I mean, this year's Kobe White hasn't played it, so
Reeves has been better, a lot better. Who who are
you more comfortable giving let's just use four and one
seventy nine to at this point. Is it Austin Reeves
or Kobe White? I think that's actually probably a real discussion.
But for the Bulls, what type of message does that
send if you're just going from Kobe White to Austin Reeves?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think Reeves is I think Reeves is
a better player than White. Maybe maybe not so much
that like I wouldn't consider White at all for like
anything close to the numbers you had on the screen
for Reeves, and maybe Reeves doesn't get those, but I'd
feel more comfortable with Reeves getting getting something like that.
The Wizards are interesting because if you're bringing him in
for what it's gonna cost, you're you're not giving up,
but you're saying either bub Carrington's not a starter going forward,
or Trey Johnson is probably not a starter going forward
because he's gonna right.
Speaker 3: You could kind of use.
Speaker 2: Him in either one of those positions, which and that'd
be fine. I think based on what we've seen, Austin
Reeves can be a point guard like and just forget
the combo guard stuff, and maybe that's where he's most valuable.
But if I'm the Wizards, I'm I guess it's easier
for me to say I'm Carrington's gonna lose that spot
because I don't know, he never really projected. I don't
think anyone thought he was gonna be a star. Maybe
Johnson doesn't really have that ceiling either, But because we've
seen less of Johnson, we're less certain about that. You know,
that's the problem you run into with all the young teams.
In addition to like why are you spending on a
twenty seven year old, it's who are we saying You're
not it about because you're gonna have to say it
about somebody.
Speaker 1: When you look at the number of free agency threats
out there that if you were to if you're making
the decision to move on from Austin Reeves, now, don't
you think it has to be purely compensation based rather
than we're afraid of paying him to where it's tm
X comes in and I'll throw some teams at you.
Tm X comes in with a godfather offer, and it Yeah,
we'd rather go the route of maybe they view Austin
Reeves as the player who gets them another caps lock star,
or do they want to go the path of he
got us a bunch of first round picks and prospects
and then we'll use that to trade for a bigger
star than Austin Reeves. Or is there an in between
where it's, oh, we got a role player or two
who helped us remain competitive now, and we got picks
and prospects as well. So we're still kind of loading
up the trade clip because just based off the list
of teams we've gone through, it feels like there might
be two real threats to come in and look, some
of those teams we named might just like if the
Pistons might just not have cap space. If they decide
they want to keep driving Jay and Ivy and Jaal
on Dirty, there goes your biggest threat or most sensible
fit off the board.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I the more we talk about this, the more. If
I'm the Lakers, I'm pretty comfortable going the thirty to
thirty five million a year. However far that needs to go,
Like I whichever of whichever of the year structures he
would prefer, I'd be okay as long as the annual
value is kind of the range I've said, because it
can't be for picks. And who is the player? I
don't know, if you have this maybe unfair. Who's the
guy you want to trade him for? As the Lakers
that you're gonna say, this is someone we want to
give the thirty thirty five forty a year?
Speaker 3: Two?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you would like, how high does that bar
need to be? Based off what Austin Reeves has already
done too, you would maybe need to believe that this
specifically what we're watching right now is very fly by
night and you want to sell it's sort of you're
selling a stock before you think it's about the crater
And just he played well enough last year to where
what we're seeing now. I don't think he's like thirty
five plus pois per game type.
Speaker 2: Of No, he's like a top five MVP candidate right now, right,
you know he's not that I think. I think if
you're the Lakers, it can be a financial decision and
it can also just be this isn't the player type
we're going to spend a max on.
Speaker 3: It's just like circling all the way back.
Speaker 2: It's like, give us the we need a Dallas Mavericks
Jalen Brunson level player, and we'll pay him accordingly twenty
million a year or whatever. That's good enough as our
secondary creator next to Luca. We want a center or
we want like a super versatile three slash four that
can guard the guys. We don't want Luca to chase
around like that. You're just deciding roster build wise. It
can't we can't spend this much on this type of players.
That would have to be their logic.
Speaker 1: Right, And I think so this is all to say,
I just be comfortable and this is what I'm the
Lakers looking to do. Is I'm taking this the free agency,
let him decline his player option, and you make the decision. Then, however,
I have a couple of teams that I'm just wondering
if they could come in and move the Lakers at all. Okay,
you mentioned the Mavericks. If there's something built around Derek Lively,
they have the Lakers as twenty twenty nine pick. And
then you throw in. By the way, the other challenge
here with trading Reeves is because he's making under fourteen
million dollars, it's and the Lakers are right up against
the first apron. It is very tough to extract what
you would deem adequate value out of that. It's hard
enough of player making that number, so you either need
to expand the deal to include other players or it
really is a picks in prospects based package. But Dallas,
just with Derek Lively, they have I think two tradable
first round picks, and you could get into it with
the like, is this or the Mavericks on that type
of timeline where they should be doing it? Ask Nico Harrison,
don't ask me.
Speaker 3: Just as a threshold issue.
Speaker 2: If I'm the Lakers, I'm trying to trade with the
Mavericks first, no matter what, forever, just to see because
you just.
Speaker 3: You know, you never know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, That's what I'm getting at, though, like Lively not
as good a player as Austin Reeves, just makes more
The best version of Lively makes a ton of sense
on the Lakers, right like that, that that solves your
center problem. I would that, But then but then immediately
When you said that, I'm like, can I also get
PJ Washington somehow? And then it's like, well no, because
Austin Reeves isn't making any money. So how like you're
just you gonna have to flow out this deal. Yeah,
you have to expand it, and I don't know if
you want to do that.
Speaker 1: And PJ also can't be traded this year after signing. Yeah,
the uh I have just two more teams to balance
a record. With the Pistons, we mentioned them as a
free agency suitor if they come in, deal needs to
be expanded. But the baseline is you're not getting us R. Thompson.
I think we could. We'll make that clear. What if
it's Isaiah Stewart Ron Holland and there's pick, there's a
first round pick, there's two first right, is that anywhere
in the And if you're the Pistons, is that even
something like okay, now we're really all jail and Duran
at the five round and Paul Read apparently.
Speaker 3: I thought you were gonna say Duran.
Speaker 2: But that's complicated too, because then the Lakers are in
the same position of like, what do we pay this guy?
Speaker 1: It could be Duran. You could make it work, but
it's would you rather pay Austin? I think I'd rather
would you rather pay Austin Reeves thirty five million a
year or jail and Durant twenty five million a year?
And I think I'd rather pay Austin Reeves.
Speaker 2: Thirty I think I would too, and especially if I
get to keep Stuart, And like, you know, there are
a lot of things that Stuart is better at than
Duran is, Like I don't know if he can be here,
you know, every downrunning back, Like he might just be
a change of pace kind of guy, but I mean
he's great room protector, can shoot it.
Speaker 3: It looks like again, uh so I might.
Speaker 2: My knee jerk reaction was like I'm ready to move
on from Duran and this same kind of like what
do we pay this guy decision that the Lakers.
Speaker 3: Would be moving off of in this trade.
Speaker 2: I think I need more than Durhan though, if I'm
the Lakers for Reeves for sure, Like I don't know
what else that needs to look like, Holland would be
an interesting player for the Lakers because you could just
use him as as like you're just gonna guard one,
two or three, that's your job. Hopefully you learn how
to shoot. But if he doesn't, then like how much
of a value value add is he for the Lakers
just to put a wing.
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: And it can't be Thompson because the what you want
is Cunningham, Reeves and Asar Thompson.
Speaker 3: And you just see what that turned on.
Speaker 1: Ideal that you probably also want to tell you his Stewart.
Speaker 2: The ideally you do want him there too. I just
want him on the Pistons since we've since I've.
Speaker 1: If you're the Pistons, though, because you can have cap
space at that point, you're probably just hoping he gets
the free agency right rather than because.
Speaker 3: It's the yeah, do you trade?
Speaker 2: Do you give up stuff to get a guy that
you could just sign, although as you said, if you
do sign Austin Reeves, it's because you've given up on
at least one or maybe both of Duran and Ivy,
so you're kind of quote unquote trading those guys.
Speaker 3: Anyway, if you have.
Speaker 1: At least your first round pick'd be like you've kept Yeah,
the other team, I have the rockets, which is just
it can't happen right now because they're you look at
they're not trading Shan Gun or a Men Thompson for
Austin Reeves. But if there was just a deal where
the comp you have to work out the salary filler,
it would have to be Tarry Easton and Picks plus salary.
Is that something where the Lakers are, okay, Tari Easton
fits exactly what they need. You could also argue that
if it was, but again, he's poison pilled like Jabari
Smith Junior could be kind of interesting in LA that
would be a very complicated trade. But so between Jabari Smith,
Tarry Easton and Picks as the baseline, and I do
really think what's gonna catch a lot of people rub
people the wrong way is like some of the packages
we've thrown out there is Lakers exceptionalism, like this is
what it's taking to get Austin Reeves one. I'm not
saying everything. I'm not saying four first round picks in
like Tari Easton and Jabari, but I think that Reeves
has entered a level to where like, no, this we're
in multiple first round pick territory, even with him being
on an expiring contract.
Speaker 2: Yeah, unless maybe the Lakers value one reads Shepherd as
this as an equivalent to a first I thought about.
Speaker 1: That, but look, you know, I love Read Shepherd and
the idea of Rechepherd next to Doncha should make so
much sense. But do you believe that the Lakers are
actually going to develop Read Shepherd and he has not
shown enough?
Speaker 3: Like I mean, it feels sinker.
Speaker 2: It's stupid because it's his second year and he's barely played.
But I'm kind of tired of waiting for Reed Shepherd
to develop.
Speaker 3: Let's see it.
Speaker 2: Maybe so maybe it's he is a change of scenery guy,
he's a second draft guy and the Lakers, but it
doesn't need to.
Speaker 1: But like, are the Laker what I mean? This would
be a team though that it feels like the compensation
unless you're really expanding it to get your Barie Smith
junior here, which I think Rockets fans of the Rocks
ways they get the hell out of here, Like we're
not giving your bar sure, but this is a future
focused trade that for the Lakers, So then maybe they
would be interested in because you're you're either saying we
want these picks to draft and develop or we want
to turn around and flip these picks in a separate deal.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, this gets down to like what is the
actual timeline for the Lakers, because they're clearly comfortable taking
a gap year now with Luca in the in mid
twenties prime. Uh Like, I guess if you're thinking of
it as we want these picks to flip, then okay
that that doesn't necessarily mean like you're going to use them,
and you're looking at like three years from now is
when we're really gonna peak, and.
Speaker 3: I'm sure Luca will hold up for that long.
Speaker 2: I just you can't beat the Pistons for me, that
the package is kind of there, and the the need
and the fit. I just I like every aspect of
it the best. From Detroit's side.
Speaker 1: I think the problem with the Pistons is that I
think of the teams that I named, they might have
the least incentive to trade for him, just because if
you're gonna have cap space this summer, I mean you
guarantee because you're not trading form without knowing he stays.
But the optics of giving Ron Holland recently a top
five pick and then you're gonna give up more first
round picks on top of Isaiah Stewart and maybe you
could do well. Are the Lakers gonna take Tobias Harris's
matchings out, and you're expanding it that way. I don't know.
I was just trying to come up with a baseline offer.
But the Pistons are by far my favorite fit. He
would be fun as hell on this version of Milwaukee.
They just don't have the assets to go out and
get him unless they're trading honest, of course.
Speaker 2: I think another small consideration is, like Jade and Ivy's
value just could hardly be lower given his draft pedigree
and like what he actually did last year when healthy.
Speaker 3: So the Pistons might look at this as.
Speaker 2: Like, we can keep Jade and Ivy restricted free agency
for less than half of what it's going to cost
to pay Reeves, and like he's not half, he's eighty
percent the player Reeves or something like that is just
the value proposition might just favor We'll just keep our
guy for way less, not trade picks, and and if
it turns out Ivy can't be what we know Reeves
might be able to be, well then we move on
and we didn't burn picks, and we did, you know
what I mean? Like that, I could see them thinking that.
Speaker 1: Would just asking questions here, would a challenge trade, and
it'd be a sign and trade of Austin Reeves for
Franz Wagner be interesting at all.
Speaker 3: Wow, I just don't think Orlando would give up.
Speaker 2: I think, I mean, I would be very interested in
that if I were running the Magic. I don't think
the actual Magic would trade Franz Wagner for Austin Reeves.
Speaker 1: They're already kind of light on wings too, sneakily, and so.
Speaker 2: The shooting from Reeves and the shock creation would be
an upgrade. But I mean, Franz was a better player
than Reeves last year. So we're again we're talking about
the five games of this year, Austin Reeves versus Franz.
But like Franz was just he was better.
Speaker 1: What about can Toronto do anything? Colin Murray Boyles picks salary?
Speaker 2: Then it's like, why are the what are the Lakers?
What's they're gonna wait for Clin Murray Boyles to hit
his prime?
Speaker 1: Honestly, defensively he already yeah, yeah, this rookie class man.
Speaker 3: There's some like Cedric Coward.
Speaker 2: We're getting uh, we're getting off topic, but yeah, Murray
Boyle looks really good.
Speaker 3: I don't know if You've seen a lot of him,
but he looks.
Speaker 1: Really Oh, I've seen a lot of Caulinary, but I've
actually not seen enough of Cedric Coward and have to
go back and watch him before we do.
Speaker 3: Like, all the rookies are good, They're all They're all
all of them, every last.
Speaker 1: One, even Mohammed Dijuara. He's ahead of Pocom Dottie and
the next rotation. That's like rookies just taken by storm.
There are any just teams you'd want to throw out
there as a potential, like pretty interesting? Is Austin Reeves?
Speaker 2: You said Milwaukee, right, Milwaukee's definitely one that would be fascinating.
Although is he gonna eat into Ryan Rollins?
Speaker 1: Could you imagine Reeves and Ryan Rollins in the back court? Though?
Speaker 2: That being said, yes, and I'm enjoying it. I'm doing
it right now. It's it's very enjoyable. Let's see, Dallas
would be a good fit, right. You could go down
the list of teams where it's like is there enough
creation here? Dallas certainly fits into that. We said Houston Orlando,
Like that's been a real issue for a lot of teams,
is like can somebody create shots?
Speaker 3: So any any place where that's an issue? Uh, what
about like? What about Miami?
Speaker 1: Like because I would run so counter. They spent this
entire preseason learning this new offense and what is so here?
Would be interesting? Though? What if they decide, okay, we
want to pay Austin Reeves instead of Tyler Hero? What
does Tyler Hero stuff needs to be a That's that's
a really awkward conversation to have.
Speaker 2: Does Tyler Herro get you more in a trade than
Austin Reeves?
Speaker 1: Probably?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Probably not? But should he? Like doesn't? Isn't that a
Hero a little under? Is it?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: I don't know, he's more of an off ball threat? Oh,
Reeves is cutting his bonkers? That's a really tough discussion.
Maybe it's I thinks is better on the ball. I
think I think you're right, he's a better facilitator. Well,
I think he could say Hero is a better scorer.
Speaker 2: But Reeves had fifty in the game this year, so
I don't know if that's true anymore?
Speaker 1: Is it? Are you trying to pair Reeves with Hero
in that situation? I don't be aware.
Speaker 2: It's a little like the Ivy situation where we're we're like, hey,
we're going in a different direction.
Speaker 1: It's funny because Austin Reeves kind of feels like what
Miami needs? Do you think he could play the way
that they're playing right now? Though?
Speaker 3: I got another one the Pelicans.
Speaker 1: I'm just they're not a real NBA team. I'm just joking.
Speaker 3: What about what about Minnesota? I don't know how they.
Speaker 1: Get Would you give up Jade McDaniels for him when
your defense is already so shaky.
Speaker 2: And if you're the Lakers, you're like, we could use
us a Jayden McDaniels next to Luca.
Speaker 3: Now here would compromise a lot.
Speaker 1: We haven't talked about this yet with the Lakers either,
but can you do a trade where it's Austin Reeves
for a non shot creator and you're also not sure
if Lebron is going to be back?
Speaker 2: Well, that gets back into like, can we get our
sort of bargain secondary creator? How how hard or how
easy would that be? What level of player does it
need to be for our offense to be functional with Luca?
I think generally speaking, you do need that guy. But
if you're just like triaging the Lakers situation, I think
you It's like you can get away with prioritizing a
lot before you get to that secondary creator guy. You
need one, but you need your center. You need your
guys that are going to hit a bunch of spot
up threes and defend. I think you need those more so.
I guess the answer is, yeah, you can absolutely trade
Reeves without getting and lose Lebron with without getting back
your your secondary creator.
Speaker 3: You can.
Speaker 2: The level for that is not super high. You you
absolutely must have the other stuff I mentioned. Does that
make sense?
Speaker 1: Like, no, that.
Speaker 3: It's still in need.
Speaker 2: You can't have it be all Luca, but it can
be like I don't know, Peak bogged On Bogdanovich or something,
could be that guy like that, that type of player.
Speaker 1: I don't that's Jade Mactarials is the player I'd want
if I'm Lakers. I don't think Minnesota can justify, especially
the way that Gobert has kind of looked this year.
It's and then you're gonna have Randall and Reeves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it would change the team a lot.
Speaker 1: You need the Lakers to be high on Rob Dillingham
and then you can only trade a swap right now.
I just I don't think there's a pathway to Minnesota
being able to get Austin Reeves. Oklahoma City function up.
Speaker 3: They're not allowed to trade it anymore. Portland Portland needs.
Speaker 1: That was the team Portland would be fun. I don't
know what the package is though.
Speaker 2: Mm, well, if I'm the Lakers, I'm asking for Kamara
and I who can't be traded.
Speaker 3: All this?
Speaker 2: You had these extension guys y, So then I think
deals off because if I can't get him, I'm not interested.
Speaker 3: You can what what would you what even would it
look like?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: Maybe you take take a test drive on Scoot? Would
you trade Scoot if you're Portland, if you're getting Reeves back?
Speaker 1: Probably yeah? Would I don't think I'm the Lakers. I
don't Scoot and Luca. I don't know what that is. Yeah, okay,
you get a second creator, but there's so much left.
Speaker 2: On you might need more shooting out of that second
creator because you're not getting a version of offul version
of Scoots not good enough.
Speaker 1: I do think if you're trading Reeves and you're not
getting a wing and or a big as part of
the deal, it probably just needs to be nixed, right,
and so who you're not Jeremy Grant expanding to you
to get Jeremy graz out doing anything for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, you're not getting a better secondary creator than Reeves.
If you're trading Reeves.
Speaker 1: Do need another guard? The Kings, they're only starting four
guards at this point.
Speaker 3: They they haven't tried five yet. Why not?
Speaker 1: I think the Pistons in Dallas. I like his fits.
I don't know if they're feasible trade destinations. The Rockets
would be interesting too, to Miami, who one's super interesting.
I just don't know what the package is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's the case for a lot of this,
just because, like you said, Reeve's salary number complicates it.
Just the the more we talk about it, the more
I think I'm taking it.
Speaker 3: I'm taking it too. Free agency. I want to clap
Boston Reeves and there's maybe a walkaway number.
Speaker 2: But really, by the time you get to free agency,
you'll have a much better idea of like where he
actually is between last year's production and what he's done
so far this year. So maybe thirty a year is plenty, right, Like,
maybe that that ends up being fine and you're good
with him as because then you still have room for
another Max guy potentially if you play it right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it really does depend how much he costs.
But I'm with you, I'm letting this. I wouldn't sell
how it would have to be on. Does the Desmond
Bane package even get you to move Reeves at this
point as the Lakers?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: If as the Lakers, I don't know, because you're banking
on being able to flip those for someone like Reeves?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Like? Then what did? What was the point?
Speaker 1: We're just asking questions? Are you ready to take us
out of here?
Speaker 2: Yep? Thanks everybody for listening, for watching, Member to rate,
review and subcribe, Tell your friends, tell your enemies, join
our discord. Uh link for that in YouTube and podcast description.
Speaking of YouTube, give us a thumbus up, give us
hype points. We're just we're still learning what high points are,
but we would like, we would prefer to have them
as not so we think there's a button there, we
think we think I don't Uh yeah, that's gonna do it.
Thanks again, shouts pregnant y and apologies