Rich Paul is one of the most successful agents in the modern NBA. Easily his biggest client is LeBron James, which whom he shares a well-documented friendship. That made his recent public conversation about Austin Reaves and the Los Angeles Lakers quite risky.
Paul obviously isn't directly affiliated with the Lakers, but given his relationship with James, he runs the risk of creating unnecessary locker room tension.
Los Angeles is in fine form at 17-6, with Reaves playing a co-starring role. He's averaging 28.4 points, 6.7 assists, 5.5 rebounds, 1.1 steals, and 2.9 three-point field goals made per game on .509/.370/.874 shooting. Despite that success, a shocking suggestion was seemingly endorsed by Paul.
During a recent episode of Game Over with Max Kellerman and Rich Paul, Kellerman expressed his belief that Reaves should be the Lakers' sixth man rather than a starter. Paul seemed to agree.
"Kellerman: 'Ideally, Austin Reaves, and who knows what happens by the playoffs, is [Manu] Ginobili. In an ideal world."
Paul: 'On a championship team?'
Kellerman: 'On a championship team, he’s the killer sixth man.'
Paul: 'Yeah. But he's paid as a starter.'
Kellerman: 'I get it. So it makes it harder.'
Paul: 'No, what I'm saying is, Ginobili was paid as a starter...the Spurs made that decision. And you know what Ginobili did? He embraced it. And how many championships did they win? Five. It's those type of decisions to be made."
Whether or not Kellerman and Paul are correct, it's a perilous move for someone who's known to be close with James to suggest that the player emerging as the Lakers' new No. 2 change their role.
Rich Paul seemingly agrees Austin Reaves should be Lakers' sixth man
Perhaps Paul's comments will never prove problematic, and Reaves and his teammates will tune the noise out as quickly as it registers with them. It's the ideal outcome in this scenario, as the Lakers are developing something meaningful and Reaves is one of the key contributors to their success.
The question that beckons when considering Paul's comments is simple: Why even risk the distraction?
Whether fair or foul, Paul's personal opinions will be perceived through the lens of James being his client and friend. As such, human nature becomes a factor when an individual with a close personal relationship with an athlete starts commenting on their teammates and the role they should be playing.
It's feasible that Paul was simply making an example of the type of sacrifices players must make to win a championship, but the room for interpretation is too vast to ignore.
It may have been a moment in which Paul was asked for his analysis, but his role in the NBA's ecosystem can't be disregarded when comments are made. One also can't realistically ignore the timing of the conversation and the context of the Lakers' current situation.
The hierarchy has seemingly changed in Los Angeles, with James not receiving a new contract from the Lakers over the summer and Reaves on his way to All-NBA recognition in 2025-26.
Perhaps Paul meant no harm, and James played no part at all in the comments that would seemingly suggest he take back the No. 2 role in the Lakers' offense. It'd simply be irresponsible to pretend the risk isn't there of Paul alienating James' teammates with his strangely-timed comments and the relationship he has with Los Angeles' former franchise player.
The Lakers will hopefully brush the comments off and move forward without it becoming a distraction, but Paul has created the potential for an issue that shouldn't exist.