This situation could present itself as a major dilemma for the Lakers, though, according to NBA insider Shams Charania, Simply put, LA might not be able to match whatever offer Reaves is able to receive in free agency in the offseason: “The most the Lakers can offer outright is four years, a bit over $50 million,” Shams said. “… But then, if you’re Austin Reaves, what can you get out in the marketplace? I think more and more teams around the league, teams with cap space, teams like Houston (and) San Antonio, you have to look at a guy like that because he’s not old. He’s not super young either. He’s kind of that middle-of-the-pack age range guy that is still young enough career-wise that can come in, fit among your group, be a veteran leader to an extent, but still grow and develop with your group. I think there is a concern for sure if you’re the Lakers that he’s gonna get potentially an offer sheet way, way, way higher than 50.”
Reaves is the restricted agent that I could see leaving teams this summer. I don't think that Grant will be a big offer, but you've got to imagine that Reaves will get, bare minimum, Evan Fournier money, right?
Man, I really wanted to grab Reeves when he went undrafted. Bummer the Lakers got him.
That said, I don’t think he even plays on the Celtics. I’m not convinced he’s significantly better than Pritchard.
He's like a 6'5" Pritchard.
Reaves is WAAAAAAY better than Pricthard.
Reaves shoots 60+% from 2 point range, as opposed to under 50% from Pritchard. He's way better at scoring at just about every spot inside than ARC than Pricthard, still a good three point shooter (tho on lower volume) and gets to the line alot, vs almost never for Pritchard. All of taht makes him a massively more efficient scorer than Pricthard.
Also, he's bigger. Which matters defensively.
Yeah... I'm not seeing the Pritchard comparison. They're both white, I guess, and 24 years old. Reaves is quantitatively better, though.
Wake me up when Pritchard puts up 15 / 5 / 4 in the playoffs with good defense.
It wasn’t a Pritchard comparison, exactly. It was that he wouldn’t get any playing time on the Celtics, like Pritchard, as liam was bemoaning a binkie not acquired. I stand by that — Reaves wouldn’t play here, and Pritchard could play elsewhere. I think we’ll see that next season, and if given the opportunity, the overall impact would be similar, even if they are not identical players.
I took the comment to mean Pritchard would be as good as A Reaves if Pritchard were 6 foot 5. Similar to comments by Chuck Daly (?) that said if Isiah Thomas were 6-6, he'd be the best player in the league. That the difference between Isiah and MJ was MJ was taller and that allowed him to be the more dominant basketball player. If their heights were switched, MJ 6-1 and Isiah 6-6, the results would be Isiah as the best player in the NBA.
But that Pritchard at 6-1 is equal to Reaves at 6-5 ... No.
A Reaves is a certifiable starter. He is a plus ball-handler & passer. He is a plus shooter. He can drive. He rebounds. He defends. He is a well rounded SG with size and skill.
Pritchard is a small PG who can shoot but is deficient in ball-handling & passing (important skills to be lacking in a PG) and does not impact the game much on D despite his best efforts due to his lack of size. Pritchard is a serviceable backup PG.
A Reaves would play on any team in the league. He'd be one of our top bench players here (backup SG/SF) if not our starting SG in our small ball lineup (replacing D White).
Pritchard has a place in this league as a low end backup PG on a minimum or near minimum contract. A Reaves is a starting caliber SG who will probably earn $20-25mil a year on his next deal.
