RealGM

LAKERS
In:Bane
Out:Reaves/DFS/Knecht

The Lakers get a running mate for Luka, who fits perfectly stylistically, age-wise. ..they would still have the FRP to go for a center, after this.


GRIZZLIES
In:Reaves/DFS/Knecht
Out:Bane

The GRIZZLIES are going to give JJJ a lot of money, so they choose to improve their depth, they get 3x1 Reaves keeps Bane's scoring, DFS would be the 3D wing they have been looking for for a while and Knecht gives them a prospect ready to help, at the beginning of his rookie contract

Is DFS opting-in and extending or is this a S+T?

Grizz pass

I am not sure if any trade might happen between these teams that deeply hate each other. As to OP,
Bane is a high tier player unavailable for this type of mediocre assets. Nothing to discuss here from the Memphis perspective.

As others said, there's nothing to discuss here. None of these players the Lakers are giving up hold any meaningful value and the Lakers don't a lot of draft picks to offer.

Seems light for MEM.

Why are they downgrading for depth?

Bane - 19/6/5 on 60% TS%
Reaves - 20/4/6 on 62% TS%

Reaves carried the Lakers when Luka/AD and LeBron were out and had some great performances, I'm not sure what's insulting about the offer.
Neither team does this IMO, next to Ja, you need Bane shooting much more than Reaves rim pressure.

Is Bane really a better fit. They both offensive players with meh defense

Mavrelous wrote:Bane - 19/6/5 on 60% TS%
Reaves - 20/4/6 on 62% TS%

Reaves carried the Lakers when Luka/AD and LeBron were out and had some great performances, I'm not sure what's insulting about the offer.
Neither team does this IMO, next to Ja, you need Bane shooting much more than Reaves rim pressure.

You're highly overrating Austin Reaves if you don't believe this is a insulting offer. Desmond Bane came off of having a 23/5/4 on 46% from the field and 38% from the 3pt line season last and a 21/4/5 season on 47% from the field and almost 41% from the 3pt line the year before. Like true borderline all star level numbers. Even this year, he came of having a 19/6/5 season on 48% shooting from the field and 38% from the 3pt line. Austin Reaves is never reaching this level of efficiency. The Grizzlies wouldn't even do this for a player like Coby White and White is a better player than Austin Reaves. Reaves has a history of performing poorly in the playoffs, lack athleticism that Desmond Bane has, and there's major questions if his regular numbers this year were are just fluky and if he simply regresses to the mean next year. Even if he doesn't regress to mean next year, he's still many levels/tiers below Desmond Bane.

so you keep repeating this as if you just say it enough times it becomes true. Reaves in the only time he played meaningful playoff action was super efficient in the playoffs. But this recent tiny sample was bad and it fits a desired narrative so you discuss 5 games instead of 16.

Then Reaves was literally jsut more efficient than Bane last year, so how can he never reach the level of efficiency?

And even more fun is Reave's worst efficiency season is the same as Bane's best efficiency season. Austin is the more efficient scorer. This isn't a fluke season, its a standard season for him lol.

What Bane has is volume. And a much higher salary.

Mavrelous wrote:Bane - 19/6/5 on 60% TS%
Reaves - 20/4/6 on 62% TS%

Reaves carried the Lakers when Luka/AD and LeBron were out and had some great performances, I'm not sure what's insulting about the offer.
Neither team does this IMO, next to Ja, you need Bane shooting much more than Reaves rim pressure.

I don't think it's an insulting offer. Their impact is fairly comparable on the offensive side of the ball. Defensively, Bane is significantly better.

facothomas22 wrote:
You're highly overrating Austin Reaves if you don't believe this is a insulting offer. Desmond Bane came off of having a 23/5/4 on 46% from the field and 38% from the 3pt line season last and a 21/4/5 season on 47% from the field and almost 41% from the 3pt line the year before. Like true borderline all star level numbers.

On a terrible losing team, that he couldn't carry when Ja was out, the exact opposite of Reaves who carried the Lakers through a very unstable season.

facothomas22 wrote:Even this year, he came of having a 19/6/5 season on 48% shooting from the field and 38% from the 3pt line. Austin Reaves is never reaching this level of efficiency.

Austin Reaves is having better numbers, because he actually can get to the rim.

facothomas22 wrote:The Grizzlies wouldn't even do this for a player like Coby White and White is a better player than Austin Reaves. Reaves has a history of performing poorly in the playoffs, lack athleticism that Desmond Bane has, and there's major questions if his regular numbers this year were are just fluky and if he simply regresses to the mean next year. Even if he doesn't regress to mean next year, he's still many levels/tiers below Desmond Bane.

You keep repeating your baseless opinion as if it's a fact, you're just wrong, Reaves is a very good starting level guard with a very good offensive game, he scores at all 3 levels, and draws FTs at impressive rate and is a good playmaker, main knock on him is his defense, and Bane isn't good there either.

Texas Chuck wrote:so you keep repeating this as if you just say it enough times it becomes true. Reaves in the only time he played meaningful playoff action was super efficient in the playoffs. But this recent tiny sample was bad and it fits a desired narrative so you discuss 5 games instead of 16.

Then Reaves was literally jsut more efficient than Bane last year, so how can he never reach the level of efficiency?

And even more fun is Reave's worst efficiency season is the same as Bane's best efficiency season. Austin is the more efficient scorer. This isn't a fluke season, its a standard season for him lol.

What Bane has is volume. And a much higher salary.

Austin is a marginally more efficient scorer. Bane has been better from range, Reaves has gotten to the line more frequently. Both have been metronomes of consistency in TS%, with Bane having less deviation from his mean; Reaves career TS% is buoyed by one massive outlier season.

SkyHook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:so you keep repeating this as if you just say it enough times it becomes true. Reaves in the only time he played meaningful playoff action was super efficient in the playoffs. But this recent tiny sample was bad and it fits a desired narrative so you discuss 5 games instead of 16.

Then Reaves was literally jsut more efficient than Bane last year, so how can he never reach the level of efficiency?

And even more fun is Reave's worst efficiency season is the same as Bane's best efficiency season. Austin is the more efficient scorer. This isn't a fluke season, its a standard season for him lol.

What Bane has is volume. And a much higher salary.

Austin is a marginally more efficient scorer. Bane has been better from range, Reaves has gotten to the line more frequently. Both have been metronomes of consistency in TS%, with Bane having less deviation from his mean; Reaves career TS% is buoyed by one massive outlier season.

Reaves: 60.0%, 68.7%, 61.3%, 61.6%
Bane: 60.0, 59.2, 60.6, 58.9, 60.0

Even if we take out the outlier year(somehow implied this was bad and it would have been better had he stuck to career norms which is weird), the edge goes to Reaves though I agree its small.

However the defensive edge is small, not big as keeps getting suggested. Bane coming into the NBA was touted as a 3&D guy. The 3 has been true, but the D hasn't been nearly whats expected.

but he looks like a tank and Reaves looks like a choirboy and so assumptions get made. The actual defensive data isn't stellar for Bane either.

I have no issues with someone who thinks Bane is a better player. He might be, but the difference isn't enough to make up for the massive difference in pay. Now Reaves is going to get a lot more expensive too on his next deal but this idea that its insulting to get only Reaves but also the very useful DFS and a prospect for Bane is wild to me.

Nothing backs that up.

Texas Chuck wrote:

SkyHook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:so you keep repeating this as if you just say it enough times it becomes true. Reaves in the only time he played meaningful playoff action was super efficient in the playoffs. But this recent tiny sample was bad and it fits a desired narrative so you discuss 5 games instead of 16.

Then Reaves was literally jsut more efficient than Bane last year, so how can he never reach the level of efficiency?

And even more fun is Reave's worst efficiency season is the same as Bane's best efficiency season. Austin is the more efficient scorer. This isn't a fluke season, its a standard season for him lol.

What Bane has is volume. And a much higher salary.

Austin is a marginally more efficient scorer. Bane has been better from range, Reaves has gotten to the line more frequently. Both have been metronomes of consistency in TS%, with Bane having less deviation from his mean; Reaves career TS% is buoyed by one massive outlier season.

Reaves: 60.0%, 68.7%, 61.3%, 61.6%
Bane: 60.0, 59.2, 60.6, 58.9, 60.0

Even if we take out the outlier year(somehow implied this was bad and it would have been better had he stuck to career norms which is weird), the edge goes to Reaves though I agree its small.

However the defensive edge is small, not big as keeps getting suggested. Bane coming into the NBA was touted as a 3&D guy. The 3 has been true, but the D hasn't been nearly whats expected.

but he looks like a tank and Reaves looks like a choirboy and so assumptions get made. The actual defensive data isn't stellar for Bane either.

I have no issues with someone who thinks Bane is a better player. He might be, but the difference isn't enough to make up for the massive difference in pay. Now Reaves is going to get a lot more expensive too on his next deal but this idea that its insulting to get only Reaves but also the very useful DFS and a prospect for Bane is wild to me.

Nothing backs that up.

Glance upwards a few posts and it couldn't be more clear that I said that this wasn't an insulting offer.

And while Bane hasn't been at an all-defensive level by any stretch — solid, but not spectacular — he's been far better than Reaves, via eye-test and virtually every advanced defensive metric, by a much wider margin than what Reaves has on the other side of the ball.

esvl wrote:I am not sure if any trade might happen between these teams that deeply hate each other. As to OP,
Bane is a high tier player unavailable for this type of mediocre assets. Nothing to discuss here from the Memphis perspective.

High tier? What tier is he in? Who is in his tier just so I know how you value him.

I have Bane as about a notch higher in value that Reeves (but perhaps Reeves has always been too high?)

I have them both in the "Alfred" category of team building. 3rd scorer type. Obviously Bane is not the same detriment Reeves is on defense.

SkyHook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

SkyHook wrote:
Austin is a marginally more efficient scorer. Bane has been better from range, Reaves has gotten to the line more frequently. Both have been metronomes of consistency in TS%, with Bane having less deviation from his mean; Reaves career TS% is buoyed by one massive outlier season.

Reaves: 60.0%, 68.7%, 61.3%, 61.6%
Bane: 60.0, 59.2, 60.6, 58.9, 60.0

Even if we take out the outlier year(somehow implied this was bad and it would have been better had he stuck to career norms which is weird), the edge goes to Reaves though I agree its small.

However the defensive edge is small, not big as keeps getting suggested. Bane coming into the NBA was touted as a 3&D guy. The 3 has been true, but the D hasn't been nearly whats expected.

but he looks like a tank and Reaves looks like a choirboy and so assumptions get made. The actual defensive data isn't stellar for Bane either.

I have no issues with someone who thinks Bane is a better player. He might be, but the difference isn't enough to make up for the massive difference in pay. Now Reaves is going to get a lot more expensive too on his next deal but this idea that its insulting to get only Reaves but also the very useful DFS and a prospect for Bane is wild to me.

Nothing backs that up.

Glance upwards a few posts and it couldn't be more clear that I said that this wasn't an insulting offer.

And while Bane hasn't been at an all-defensive level by any stretch — solid, but not spectacular — he's been far better than Reaves, via eye-test and virtually every advanced defensive metric, by a much wider margin than what Reaves has on the other side of the ball.

As for the outlier, I didn't imply that it was bad, just that it's... an outlier... which inflates in the aggregate his otherwise stable year-to-year numbers. You said that this season wasn't a fluke for Austin and I agree.

SkyHook wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

SkyHook wrote:
Austin is a marginally more efficient scorer. Bane has been better from range, Reaves has gotten to the line more frequently. Both have been metronomes of consistency in TS%, with Bane having less deviation from his mean; Reaves career TS% is buoyed by one massive outlier season.

Reaves: 60.0%, 68.7%, 61.3%, 61.6%
Bane: 60.0, 59.2, 60.6, 58.9, 60.0

Even if we take out the outlier year(somehow implied this was bad and it would have been better had he stuck to career norms which is weird), the edge goes to Reaves though I agree its small.

However the defensive edge is small, not big as keeps getting suggested. Bane coming into the NBA was touted as a 3&D guy. The 3 has been true, but the D hasn't been nearly whats expected.

but he looks like a tank and Reaves looks like a choirboy and so assumptions get made. The actual defensive data isn't stellar for Bane either.

I have no issues with someone who thinks Bane is a better player. He might be, but the difference isn't enough to make up for the massive difference in pay. Now Reaves is going to get a lot more expensive too on his next deal but this idea that its insulting to get only Reaves but also the very useful DFS and a prospect for Bane is wild to me.

Nothing backs that up.

Glance upwards a few posts and it couldn't be more clear that I said that this wasn't an insulting offer.

And while Bane hasn't been at an all-defensive level by any stretch — solid, but not spectacular — he's been far better than Reaves, via eye-test and virtually every advanced defensive metric, by a much wider margin than what Reaves has on the other side of the ball.

Reaves on court def rating is 115, off court is 114
Bane on court defensive ratine is similar 115, off court Grizzlies are 111
Numbers barely change if we expand it to the last 3 years.

There is nothing here to suggest anything significant in defensive impact.

I have Bane as the better player, but I think the deal is good on value and will come down to fit and preference.