[Shams] Marcus Smart to the L.A. Lakers 2 years/$11 million, after Wizards buyout

[Froob]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

[Slava]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

If he starts, it will be in Ruis spot to defend wings. Reaves is too good to be on the bench and lakers won’t do that to him in his contract season.

[OriginalRed]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

There's no way Reaves is going to accept a bench role in a contract year after turning down that extension. He's already proven he's a starter.

[Invictus88]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

There's no way Reaves is going to accept a bench role in a contract year after turning down that extension. He's already proven he's a starter.

This. Reaves will be gone next year if they send him to the bench.

[picc]

Thats exactly what I was rebutting.

It would actually behoove him to come in as the 6th man if he wants to maximize touches and usage. He can still play starter minutes. Just with less other scorers and creators on the court. Of which the Lakers now have 3 outside of Reaves in the starting lineup.

Luka: demands touches. Lebron: demand touches. Ayton: demands touches. Vincent, Laravia, Hayes: do not demand touches. Reaves: gets to cook

Why that is good enough for Manu Ginobli and Jet Terry but not good enough for Austin Reaves, I dont understand.

[picc]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

He will be defending smaller players on the Lakers regardless. Because he’s simply the best option at it. Because everyone else sucks. Who else is gonna guard them? Luka? Rui? Bron? Lets be real here.

[cupcakesnake]

I think Lakers had to do something about their depth. They had the options to keep DFS but ultimately decided to go the other route. It's not like DFS is getting younger either, plus he just had ankle surgery. As the reports from insiders are coming in, they're still not done and are actively looking for even more depth via trade.

So instead of keeping DFS, Lakers managed to get Ayton, LaRavia, Smart and they drafted a potential direct DFS replacement for the future in Adou Thiero.

Lakers bench was 2nd worst in the league last season, Pelinka had to do something.... With Luka coming back probably better than ever, having more depth on all positions is still a better gamble than simply keeping DFS and risking not having a proper starting center and more depth.

Losing DFS had nothing to do with Ayton and Laravia. You're making it sound like DFS was signed to a huge contract, and the lakers used that room to sign multiple players. DFS signed for 13m/year. The Lakers had some cushion below the 1st apron, and bird rights on DFS. They could have signed DFS, Laravia (6m/y), and Ayton (8m/y). Adding Smart is slightly trickier, since they signed him to 5m/y and needed to cut Shake and Goodwin to get back under the 1st apron to do so. The Lakers might have been able to sign all 4 guys, but it would have been trickier and they would have gone over the 1st apron.

It wasn't a choice between DFS and the trio of Ayton/Laravia/Smart. All of those guys were signed to contract the Lakers could afford. DFS is the most expensive of that group, assuming the Lakers would have signed him to a similar number that Houston did.

They signed Ayton into MLE as they did with LaRavia. They couldn't have MLE if they resigned DFS. They are going to sign Smart into Bi-Annual.

The Lakers, according to team sources, offered two years against the four-year, $53 million deal he got with Houston because they wanted to maintain as much future flexibility as possible to be in position to land a superstar down the line to pair with Dončić.

Also, Lakers are lining almost all of their contracts to have max cap flexibility in 2027, they couldn't do that with what DFS was seeking.

Not sure I'm following your math on the MLE part. Were the Lakers below the tax before these signings? Either way, Laravia and Ayton account for more than the taxpayer (5m), or non-taxpayer (8m) MLE. Laravia and Ayton cost 14m. There's also a timing factor. They had DFS's bird rights. I can't remember what his cap hold would have been. I don't know all the numbers here, and I've never said the Lakers could have signed all 4. The only point I was contesting was that the Lakers had to decide between DFS and Ayton/Smart/Laravia, as your original post made it sound.

I don't think the Lakers had a great chance to retain DFS either way, I'm more saying it sucks to lose a guy like that. They always feel easy to replace but then you lose one and it's like damnnnnn when you get to the playoffs and realize you don't have enough 2-way rotation guys to beat a good opponent.

It's sort of interesting to see the Lakers pursue the cap room route. Maybe it works out because they're the Lakers, but it feels like a strategy from a bygone era when free agency classes were more ripe. Now it feels impossible to even guess who could be a free agent, with so many stars signing extensions every summer to maximize contract length at the right time. The Sixers tried this last year and found out their options were: Paul George or nothing. They felt lucky to get Paul George, signed him to a monster deal, and the deal immediately became one of the worst contracts in the league.

[kbitboc]

Losing DFS had nothing to do with Ayton and Laravia. You're making it sound like DFS was signed to a huge contract, and the lakers used that room to sign multiple players. DFS signed for 13m/year. The Lakers had some cushion below the 1st apron, and bird rights on DFS. They could have signed DFS, Laravia (6m/y), and Ayton (8m/y). Adding Smart is slightly trickier, since they signed him to 5m/y and needed to cut Shake and Goodwin to get back under the 1st apron to do so. The Lakers might have been able to sign all 4 guys, but it would have been trickier and they would have gone over the 1st apron.

It wasn't a choice between DFS and the trio of Ayton/Laravia/Smart. All of those guys were signed to contract the Lakers could afford. DFS is the most expensive of that group, assuming the Lakers would have signed him to a similar number that Houston did.

They signed Ayton into MLE as they did with LaRavia. They couldn't have MLE if they resigned DFS. They are going to sign Smart into Bi-Annual.

The Lakers, according to team sources, offered two years against the four-year, $53 million deal he got with Houston because they wanted to maintain as much future flexibility as possible to be in position to land a superstar down the line to pair with Dončić.

Also, Lakers are lining almost all of their contracts to have max cap flexibility in 2027, they couldn't do that with what DFS was seeking.

Not sure I'm following your math on the MLE part. Were the Lakers below the tax before these signings? Either way, Laravia and Ayton account for more than the taxpayer (5m), or non-taxpayer (8m) MLE. Laravia and Ayton cost 14m. There's also a timing factor. They had DFS's bird rights. I can't remember what his cap hold would have been. I don't know all the numbers here, and I've never said the Lakers could have signed all 4. The only point I was contesting was that the Lakers had to decide between DFS and Ayton/Smart/Laravia, as your original post made it sound.

I don't think the Lakers had a great chance to retain DFS either way, I'm more saying it sucks to lose a guy like that. They always feel easy to replace but then you lose one and it's like damnnnnn when you get to the playoffs and realize you don't have enough 2-way rotation guys to beat a good opponent.

It's sort of interesting to see the Lakers pursue the cap room route. Maybe it works out because they're the Lakers, but it feels like a strategy from a bygone era when free agency classes were more ripe. Now it feels impossible to even guess who could be a free agent, with so many stars signing extensions every summer to maximize contract length at the right time. The Sixers tried this last year and found out their options were: Paul George or nothing. They felt lucky to get Paul George, signed him to a monster deal, and the deal immediately became one of the worst contracts in the league.

I believe if they had re-signed DFS, Lakers would only have the taxpayor MLE available. I'm not sure if Ayton would have taken that. That means they would probably have only DFS and Smart.

[Archx]

They signed Ayton into MLE as they did with LaRavia. They couldn't have MLE if they resigned DFS. They are going to sign Smart into Bi-Annual.

The Lakers, according to team sources, offered two years against the four-year, $53 million deal he got with Houston because they wanted to maintain as much future flexibility as possible to be in position to land a superstar down the line to pair with Dončić.

Also, Lakers are lining almost all of their contracts to have max cap flexibility in 2027, they couldn't do that with what DFS was seeking.

Not sure I'm following your math on the MLE part. Were the Lakers below the tax before these signings? Either way, Laravia and Ayton account for more than the taxpayer (5m), or non-taxpayer (8m) MLE. Laravia and Ayton cost 14m. There's also a timing factor. They had DFS's bird rights. I can't remember what his cap hold would have been. I don't know all the numbers here, and I've never said the Lakers could have signed all 4. The only point I was contesting was that the Lakers had to decide between DFS and Ayton/Smart/Laravia, as your original post made it sound.

I don't think the Lakers had a great chance to retain DFS either way, I'm more saying it sucks to lose a guy like that. They always feel easy to replace but then you lose one and it's like damnnnnn when you get to the playoffs and realize you don't have enough 2-way rotation guys to beat a good opponent.

It's sort of interesting to see the Lakers pursue the cap room route. Maybe it works out because they're the Lakers, but it feels like a strategy from a bygone era when free agency classes were more ripe. Now it feels impossible to even guess who could be a free agent, with so many stars signing extensions every summer to maximize contract length at the right time. The Sixers tried this last year and found out their options were: Paul George or nothing. They felt lucky to get Paul George, signed him to a monster deal, and the deal immediately became one of the worst contracts in the league.

I believe if they had re-signed DFS, Lakers would only have the taxpayor MLE available. I'm not sure if Ayton would have taken that. That means they would probably have only DFS and Smart.

Yeah, this sums it up nicely.

Read on Twitter

[UglyBugBall]

Thats exactly what I was rebutting.

It would actually behoove him to come in as the 6th man if he wants to maximize touches and usage. He can still play starter minutes. Just with less other scorers and creators on the court. Of which the Lakers now have 3 outside of Reaves in the starting lineup.

Luka: demands touches. Lebron: demand touches. Ayton: demands touches. Vincent, Laravia, Hayes: do not demand touches. Reaves: gets to cook

Why that is good enough for Manu Ginobli and Jet Terry but not good enough for Austin Reaves, I dont understand.

You can do the same thing with him still starting. Just sub him out sooner and sub him back in with the bench.

[picc]

Thats exactly what I was rebutting.

It would actually behoove him to come in as the 6th man if he wants to maximize touches and usage. He can still play starter minutes. Just with less other scorers and creators on the court. Of which the Lakers now have 3 outside of Reaves in the starting lineup.

Luka: demands touches. Lebron: demand touches. Ayton: demands touches. Vincent, Laravia, Hayes: do not demand touches. Reaves: gets to cook

Why that is good enough for Manu Ginobli and Jet Terry but not good enough for Austin Reaves, I dont understand.

You can do the same thing with him still starting. Just sub him out sooner and sub him back in with the bench.

Why bother? Whats the point to convoluting the process for some formality. It makes sense to start defense with Luka in the backcourt and sub Reaves in when the 3 other offensive starters arent all on the court together.

No team is going to scout Reaves all season and lowball him because he played 28mpg off the bench instead of 28mpg as a starter, especially when his stats will be better off the bench. The Lakers certainly won’t.

[Stanq]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

If he starts, it will be in Ruis spot to defend wings. Reaves is too good to be on the bench and lakers won’t do that to him in his contract season.

Everyone is in a contract year in this Lakers roster. Smart, Ayton, Gabe, Rui, Reaves, Hayes, Kleber... heck even Bron.

[Up-And-Coming]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

Via BBall Index advanced analytics Smart has remained a very good perimeter defender (B+ and A grades in screen navigation, off-ball chaser, passing lane defense, pickpocketing rate, etc) the last couple of seasons and the role fits tool places him as a clear fit as a point of attack defender. His physicality allowed him to defend up as a Wing Stopper as well but his shortcoming in defensive rebounding is what holds him back guarding Wings.

His defense fits perfectly with the starters but it's his offensive fit with them that should be in question. Smart is best offensively with the ball in his hands with some playmaking capability and his pull-up jumper. He's shot very poorly off-ball with catch and shoot situations.

[picc]

Reaves off the bench makes sense for both the Lakers and for Reaves.

The Lakers get a plus defender in their starting lineup who can guard almost all positions.

Reaves gets to cook in a lineup that doesn't feature 3 other scorers and creators (Luka, Lebron, Ayton) in his contract year. How many touches is he getting on the court with those three, vs on the court with the Lakers bench guys?

There's no reason not to do it tbh.

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

Via BBall Index advanced analytics Smart has remained a very good perimeter defender (B+ and A grades in screen navigation, off-ball chaser, passing lane defense, pickpocketing rate, etc) the last couple of seasons and the role fits tool places him as a clear fit as a point of attack defender. His physicality allowed him to defend up as a Wing Stopper as well but his shortcoming in defensive rebounding is what holds him back guarding Wings.

His defense fits perfectly with the starters but it's his offensive fit with them that should be in question. Smart is best offensively with the ball in his hands with some playmaking capability and his pull-up jumper. He's shot very poorly off-ball with catch and shoot situations.

You're right that his offense is a clunkier fit with the starters than Reaves. But the starters don't need his offense or spacing. Luka can make an offense hum playing with Derrick Jones Jr., PJ Washington, and Dwight Powell. Marcus Smart isn't capable of offensively sinking a unit that has Luka, Lebron, and Ayton in it. It's not even within his capability.

Meanwhile, while Reaves' offense is far superior you have to consider the practicality of it when there are that many chefs in the kitchen. How much mileage do you get from his offense while Luka is being aggressive scoring in the 1st quarter as he typically is, Luka and Lebron are spamming PnR's with Ayton, Ayton is demanding post touches and elbow isolations, and Lebron is secondary playmaking? Are you even getting the full Reaves offense experience at that point? Likely not, right?

So whats the point of starting Reaves and losing all that defense while also not taking full advantage of his offensive tools? How does that help the Lakers?

How does it help Reaves, who should want to maximize his touches and usage in a contract year?

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Up-And-Coming]

Are you starting Smart, then? Just feels like a weird fit with starting lineup.

Smart is probably better off defending bigger players these days, the quicker guards were cooking him end of his career with Boston

Via BBall Index advanced analytics Smart has remained a very good perimeter defender (B+ and A grades in screen navigation, off-ball chaser, passing lane defense, pickpocketing rate, etc) the last couple of seasons and the role fits tool places him as a clear fit as a point of attack defender. His physicality allowed him to defend up as a Wing Stopper as well but his shortcoming in defensive rebounding is what holds him back guarding Wings.

His defense fits perfectly with the starters but it's his offensive fit with them that should be in question. Smart is best offensively with the ball in his hands with some playmaking capability and his pull-up jumper. He's shot very poorly off-ball with catch and shoot situations.

You're right that his offense is a clunkier fit with the starters than Reaves. But the starters don't need his offense or spacing. Luka can make an offense hum playing with Derrick Jones Jr., PJ Washington, and Dwight Powell. Marcus Smart isn't capable of offensively sinking a unit that has Luka, Lebron, and Ayton in it. It's not even within his capability.

Meanwhile, while Reaves' offense is far superior you have to consider the practicality of it when there are that many chefs in the kitchen. How much mileage do you get from his offense while Luka is being aggressive scoring in the 1st quarter as he typically is, Luka and Lebron are spamming PnR's with Ayton, Ayton is demanding post touches and elbow isolations, and Lebron is secondary playmaking? Are you even getting the full Reaves offense experience at that point? Likely not, right?

So whats the point of starting Reaves and losing all that defense while also not taking full advantage of his offensive tools? How does that help the Lakers?

How does it help Reaves, who should want to maximize his touches and usage in a contract year?

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, I'm not saying Smart shouldn't start I was just responding to a post in regards to his perimeter defense the past few seasons which has remained very good. I do think there should be an open spot in the starting lineup, specifically for a point of attack defender which Smart would help tremendously. A part of me wonders if JJ will roll out with the same lineup to start and have a battle for the position and have the challengers earn the spot.

Barring no further acquisitions I think Smart eventually gets promoted but I'm not sure if JJ will bench Rui or Reaves in his place. There's arguments for both and it'll be interesting to see how it shapes up.

[picc]

Via BBall Index advanced analytics Smart has remained a very good perimeter defender (B+ and A grades in screen navigation, off-ball chaser, passing lane defense, pickpocketing rate, etc) the last couple of seasons and the role fits tool places him as a clear fit as a point of attack defender. His physicality allowed him to defend up as a Wing Stopper as well but his shortcoming in defensive rebounding is what holds him back guarding Wings.

His defense fits perfectly with the starters but it's his offensive fit with them that should be in question. Smart is best offensively with the ball in his hands with some playmaking capability and his pull-up jumper. He's shot very poorly off-ball with catch and shoot situations.

You're right that his offense is a clunkier fit with the starters than Reaves. But the starters don't need his offense or spacing. Luka can make an offense hum playing with Derrick Jones Jr., PJ Washington, and Dwight Powell. Marcus Smart isn't capable of offensively sinking a unit that has Luka, Lebron, and Ayton in it. It's not even within his capability.

Meanwhile, while Reaves' offense is far superior you have to consider the practicality of it when there are that many chefs in the kitchen. How much mileage do you get from his offense while Luka is being aggressive scoring in the 1st quarter as he typically is, Luka and Lebron are spamming PnR's with Ayton, Ayton is demanding post touches and elbow isolations, and Lebron is secondary playmaking? Are you even getting the full Reaves offense experience at that point? Likely not, right?

So whats the point of starting Reaves and losing all that defense while also not taking full advantage of his offensive tools? How does that help the Lakers?

How does it help Reaves, who should want to maximize his touches and usage in a contract year?

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, I'm not saying Smart shouldn't start I was just responding to a post in regards to his perimeter defense the past few seasons which has remained very good. I do think there should be an open spot in the starting lineup, specifically for a point of attack defender which Smart would help tremendously. A part of me wonders if JJ will roll out with the same lineup to start and have a battle for the position and have the challengers earn the spot.

Barring no further acquisitions I think Smart eventually gets promoted but I'm not sure if JJ will bench Rui or Reaves in his place. There's arguments for both and it'll be interesting to see how it shapes up.

Yeah for sure, understood. That was more directed toward posters still opposed to Smart starting or Reaves off the bench.

It makes a lot more sense to bench Reaves than Rui though, as Rui is a great spot up shooter and can guard larger players. Reaves is in no mans land defensively and is best with the ball in his hands. Which he'll have much less of with Luka/Bron/Ayton than with Vincent/Laravia/Hayes.

[cupcakesnake]

You're right that his offense is a clunkier fit with the starters than Reaves. But the starters don't need his offense or spacing. Luka can make an offense hum playing with Derrick Jones Jr., PJ Washington, and Dwight Powell. Marcus Smart isn't capable of offensively sinking a unit that has Luka, Lebron, and Ayton in it. It's not even within his capability.

Meanwhile, while Reaves' offense is far superior you have to consider the practicality of it when there are that many chefs in the kitchen. How much mileage do you get from his offense while Luka is being aggressive scoring in the 1st quarter as he typically is, Luka and Lebron are spamming PnR's with Ayton, Ayton is demanding post touches and elbow isolations, and Lebron is secondary playmaking? Are you even getting the full Reaves offense experience at that point? Likely not, right?

So whats the point of starting Reaves and losing all that defense while also not taking full advantage of his offensive tools? How does that help the Lakers?

How does it help Reaves, who should want to maximize his touches and usage in a contract year?

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, I'm not saying Smart shouldn't start I was just responding to a post in regards to his perimeter defense the past few seasons which has remained very good. I do think there should be an open spot in the starting lineup, specifically for a point of attack defender which Smart would help tremendously. A part of me wonders if JJ will roll out with the same lineup to start and have a battle for the position and have the challengers earn the spot.

Barring no further acquisitions I think Smart eventually gets promoted but I'm not sure if JJ will bench Rui or Reaves in his place. There's arguments for both and it'll be interesting to see how it shapes up.

Yeah for sure, understood. That was more directed toward posters still opposed to Smart starting or Reaves off the bench.

It makes a lot more sense to bench Reaves than Rui though, as Rui is a great spot up shooter and can guard larger players. Reaves is in no mans land defensively and is best with the ball in his hands. Which he'll have much less of with Luka/Bron/Ayton than with Vincent/Laravia/Hayes.

With all the slow feet on the Lakers, there's a premium on the more mobile guys, Rui and Smart being the best of this group. Laravia isn't bad either. Kleber and Vando will be in the rotation at some point.

Luka, Lebron, and Reaves are their 3 best offensive players, but they all share the same weakness of not being mobile rotators on defense. All three of those guys on the floor together make it pretty hard to do much defensively, and the Lakers saw their "pack the paint" scheme that made these lineups work, get royally dismantled in the playoffs (it's basically a zone that also struggles with size). It would be one thing if the other two players were a DPOY-level rim protector and an all-defense level perimeter pest, but they don't have the former on the roster, and the closest thing they have to the latter is Smart or Vando.

The Lakers will almost surely have to break up that trio for most of the minutes. I agree the smart, aggressive move is to commit to Reaves as a 6th man with a proper lineup built around his skills.

[picc]

With all the slow feet on the Lakers, there's a premium on the more mobile guys, Rui and Smart being the best of this group. Laravia isn't bad either. Kleber and Vando will be in the rotation at some point.

Luka, Lebron, and Reaves are their 3 best offensive players, but they all share the same weakness of not being mobile rotators on defense. All three of those guys on the floor together make it pretty hard to do much defensively, and the Lakers saw their "pack the paint" scheme that made these lineups work, get royally dismantled in the playoffs (it's basically a zone that also struggles with size). It would be one thing if the other two players were a DPOY-level rim protector and an all-defense level perimeter pest, but they don't have the former on the roster, and the closest thing they have to the latter is Smart or Vando.

The Lakers will almost surely have to break up that trio for most of the minutes. I agree the smart, aggressive move is to commit to Reaves as a 6th man with a proper lineup built around his skills.

There'd be more of an argument for starting Reaves if Ayton hadn't been acquired. But now they have another player who can score, can iso, and presents a juicy PnR target for Luka and Lebron. No matter what, his presence will sap some usage from Reaves in the starting lineup; they simply don't need Reaves' offense as much. While simultaneously needing an infusion of defense.

There's literally no reason not to do this. It not only benefits the Lakers, it benefits Reaves and his numbers in a contract year. Its a win-win all around. The opposition to it is reflexive, and I think if JJ sat Austin down and explained this to him he'd see it makes sense.

[Vae Victus]

Losing DFS had nothing to do with Ayton and Laravia. You're making it sound like DFS was signed to a huge contract, and the lakers used that room to sign multiple players. DFS signed for 13m/year. The Lakers had some cushion below the 1st apron, and bird rights on DFS. They could have signed DFS, Laravia (6m/y), and Ayton (8m/y). Adding Smart is slightly trickier, since they signed him to 5m/y and needed to cut Shake and Goodwin to get back under the 1st apron to do so. The Lakers might have been able to sign all 4 guys, but it would have been trickier and they would have gone over the 1st apron.

It wasn't a choice between DFS and the trio of Ayton/Laravia/Smart. All of those guys were signed to contract the Lakers could afford. DFS is the most expensive of that group, assuming the Lakers would have signed him to a similar number that Houston did.

They signed Ayton into MLE as they did with LaRavia. They couldn't have MLE if they resigned DFS. They are going to sign Smart into Bi-Annual.

The Lakers, according to team sources, offered two years against the four-year, $53 million deal he got with Houston because they wanted to maintain as much future flexibility as possible to be in position to land a superstar down the line to pair with Dončić.

Also, Lakers are lining almost all of their contracts to have max cap flexibility in 2027, they couldn't do that with what DFS was seeking.

Not sure I'm following your math on the MLE part. Were the Lakers below the tax before these signings? Either way, Laravia and Ayton account for more than the taxpayer (5m), or non-taxpayer (8m) MLE. Laravia and Ayton cost 14m. There's also a timing factor. They had DFS's bird rights. I can't remember what his cap hold would have been. I don't know all the numbers here, and I've never said the Lakers could have signed all 4. The only point I was contesting was that the Lakers had to decide between DFS and Ayton/Smart/Laravia, as your original post made it sound.
Snip

Agree for the most part. If the Lakers really wanted to, they couldve kept DFS to a similar to HOU deal (2 yr guarantee) and if Ayton wasn’t willing to take TPMLE, can look to trade Kleber or Vincent into someone’s cap space at the cost of a SRP to get access to the NTPMLE. Then use BAE on Laravia or Smart.

It does appear that Lakers are prioritizing 2026 cap space at all costs to retool around Luka. I don’t like it as it really constrains moves to improve the team. Keeping DFS at around 12mil should be a no brainer and shouldn’t be too hard to dump him if needed.

[Archx]

They signed Ayton into MLE as they did with LaRavia. They couldn't have MLE if they resigned DFS. They are going to sign Smart into Bi-Annual.

The Lakers, according to team sources, offered two years against the four-year, $53 million deal he got with Houston because they wanted to maintain as much future flexibility as possible to be in position to land a superstar down the line to pair with Dončić.

Also, Lakers are lining almost all of their contracts to have max cap flexibility in 2027, they couldn't do that with what DFS was seeking.

Not sure I'm following your math on the MLE part. Were the Lakers below the tax before these signings? Either way, Laravia and Ayton account for more than the taxpayer (5m), or non-taxpayer (8m) MLE. Laravia and Ayton cost 14m. There's also a timing factor. They had DFS's bird rights. I can't remember what his cap hold would have been. I don't know all the numbers here, and I've never said the Lakers could have signed all 4. The only point I was contesting was that the Lakers had to decide between DFS and Ayton/Smart/Laravia, as your original post made it sound.
Snip

Agree for the most part. If the Lakers really wanted to, they couldve kept DFS to a similar to HOU deal (2 yr guarantee) and if Ayton wasn’t willing to take TPMLE, can look to trade Kleber or Vincent into someone’s cap space at the cost of a SRP to get access to the NTPMLE. Then use BAE on Laravia or Smart.

It does appear that Lakers are prioritizing 2026 cap space at all costs to retool around Luka. I don’t like it as it really constrains moves to improve the team. Keeping DFS at around 12mil should be a no brainer and shouldn’t be too hard to dump him if needed.

Takes two to make a deal. They tried but couldn't do it. DFS also wanted 4 years, Lakers were willing to give 2. They also tried to move Goodwin but ultimately waived him. Lakers insiders reporting Pelinka would basically need to attach any draft capital to those trades and obviously refused to do that.