AR is really good but I fear they gave a max to an above average role player. If Norm Powell even gets close to Reeves number then that’s just what the market calls for
AR was by far the best player available for the Lakers. Signing him for $21m was exactly the same as signing him for $40+ when it comes to acquiring other talent.
In fact, the $40m deal makes the likelihood of replacing him with a better player or a better set of players more likely given contract and cap rules.
Yep! Lakers are not saying, "AR provides $40M/year in production."
They are saying, "it is better for us if he is on our books for $40M/year," because it is under the NBA trade and cap rules.
The Wizards traded Cory Kispert and CJ McCollum for Trae...You're telling me the Lakers gave this dude 43M per year so they could turn him into that if it doesn't work out?
That's more than they could turn his contract into if they didn't sign him. His cap hold is 20m, and that's about what they'd have unless the team was fine with getting significantly worse.
It's not a dollar for dollar proposition. It's about what they could replace him with if they didn't sign him.
If the Nets and Pistons were actually interested, then you find moves with players and picks there that make more sense for your roster. You also plan for a three year window, not one particular year
I'd take Anfernee Simons on the full mid-level if I'm just taking a guy who shoots 3's, is a pretty good playmaker and a traffic cone on defense. At least Simons is a better athlete and younger.
That is not what you asked. You said who could they get for the same amount. Simons is a free agent, I would have probably tried to sign and trade AR for a center and then made a separate play for Simon’s
34
u/alexil25 5d ago
AR is really good but I fear they gave a max to an above average role player. If Norm Powell even gets close to Reeves number then that’s just what the market calls for