Image ImageImage Image

Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

Moderators: HomoSapien, RedBulls23, Payt10, Ice Man, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, DASMACKDOWN, fleet, GimmeDat, Michael Jackson

User avatar
GoBlue72391
RealGM
Posts: 11,310
And1: 7,440
Joined: Oct 26, 2009
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1601 » by GoBlue72391 » Thu Apr 1, 2021 9:48 pm

PaKii94 wrote:I think there is a good chance that bulls resign lauri and move on from thad next season.

Vuc is a good big man mentor for Lauri to emulate. When Vuc's contract expires in 2 years Lauri should be getting into his prime which could help balance out vuc getting older.

The reason to move on from thad is because vuc is a better offensive hub than thad and thad isn't a high impact defender anymore at this age so it's a redundant/poor fit with Vuc also.

Ideally we need a strong defender at PG/SF/PF next to Lavine and Vuc. PWill could be the SF/PF hybrid. We need bench depth after him.

The oversized lineup last night didn't look bad.... I still have hopes PWill/Lauri/Vuc could develop as a front court
Unfortunately I think Lauri is as good as gone. The writing is on the wall and I'm sure Lauri can see it.

We're going all in on Zach and Vuch, and unless we shift to a D'Antoni style offense-over-everything-else philosophy or that jumbo lineup with Lauri at SF turns out to be a success or Lauri turns it up and somehow proves he and Vuch can coexist defensively over these last 25 games, then we just can't have our top 3 players be below average defenders. Especially when 2 of the 3 are paired together in the frontcourt. We need to have an elite, versatile, switchable PF next to Vuch like Jonathan Isaac. Maybe PWill can become that player eventually.

So that leaves Lauri as the 6th man as the other option, and I can't see AK paying $15M+ for a bench player, nor can I see Lauri accepting a full time bench role. Hopefully we'll at least be able to S&T him so we don't lose him for nothing.

It's tough, because I've always been a big believer that if Lauri ever learns to play aggressively on a consistent basis then he'll be a major player in this league. It's a loss that I think could come back to bite us down the road if he reaches his potential with another team, especially if the Vuch thing doesn't work out, what with him being 30.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
GoBlue72391
RealGM
Posts: 11,310
And1: 7,440
Joined: Oct 26, 2009
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1602 » by GoBlue72391 » Thu Apr 1, 2021 9:57 pm

WindyCityBorn wrote:
Robin Jones wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:People are using the term "bust" far too liberally. It's like you're either a star or a bust. That's not how it works. Obviously Lauri is not going to be a star or a cornerstone, and that's disappointing after the hope some of us had for him earlier on, but to say he is a bust is laughable. I expect him to get a decent contract this summer, whether it's us or another team, and I expect he will have a career where he is either the 4th/5th best player in a starting lineup or a perennial sixth man type provided he can stay healthy, and that to me is not a bust. Seven-footers with his shooting ability don't grow on trees.

That doesn't necessarily mean I think he should be in our long-term plans - I'm unsure atm, as I don't know if we will have our pick or not or if we will make the playoffs, etc.


Exactly this!

If people expected Lauri to become an all star and are disappointed that he has not (yet?) been one, or has not been as consistent as hoped, this does not mean that he is a bust. He is still much closer to become an all-star than a bust when all is said and done.

However, most lottery picks are neither. The expectation is to get a star caliber player with picks 1-3, perhaps 1-4, and a starter level player or so with picks 5-12. Only a few players from each draft become all stars or busts. If someone wishes to label 80% of the lottery picks as busts, that's fine, but I do not feel that many share the same view'.

For some reason people are always very fond of first round picks, even the non-lottery ones. However, even with lottery picks (or even the early lottery picks) it is more probable to get a worse rather than a better player than Lauri is.

The negativity of one of the 'bust' comments earlier in this thread disturbed me so much (cannot understand why people are so negative - I understand that some get emotional supporting their teams, but still), that I did some research, i.e. went through the picks 1-12 from all drafts 2010-2019.

I them classified the players as:
1) Steal in the draft and/or an all-star.

2) Better than Lauri. These players are stars in their teams, and clear #1 or #2 options for most of their careers.

3) About the same as Lauri. These players are starters or sixth men most of their careers.

4) Worse than Lauri. These are good NBA rotation players, i.e. no busts, but no starter level players either

5) Busts. The criteria for picks 1-4 is higher than for picks 5-12 to be classified as a bust. If picked 5-12 and the career lasts just a few years or the player does not play regularly 20+ minutes etc., he is a bust.

Here the list. The number after the name is the draft pick #.

2010
1) Wall (1), Cousins (5) and George (10)
2) Hayward* (9) (*I was generous to Hayward here, as it could be argued also that he is not a better player than Lauri is.)
3) Turner (2), Favors (3), Monroe (7)
4) W. Johnson (4), Aminu (8)
5) Udoh (6), Aldrich (11), Henry (12)

2011
1) Irving (1), Walker (8), K. Thompson (10)
2) -
3) Kanter (3), T.Thompson (4), Valanciunias (5), Knight (7), Markieff Morris (12)
4) Biyombo (6), Burks (11)
5) Williams (2), Fredette (9).

2012
1) Davis (1), Beal (3), Lillard (6), Drummond (9)
2) -
3) Waiters (4), Barnes (7), Ross (8)
4) Kidd-Gilchrist (2), Rivers (10), M. Leonard (11), Lamb (12)
5) T. Robinson (5)

2013
1) Oladipo (2), McCollum (10)
2) -
3) Porter Jr (3), Caldwell-Pope (8), Adams (12)
4) Zeller (4), Len (5), Noel (6), McLemore (7), Burke (9), Carter-Williams (11)
5) Bennett (1)

2014
1) Embiid (3), Randle (7)
2) -
3) Wiggins (1), Gordon (4), Smart (6), Saric (12)
4) Exum (5), Stauskas (8), Vonleh (9), Payton (10), McDermott (11)
5) Parker (2)

2015
1) Towns (1), Porzingis (4). (*Being very generous to Porzingis here, as more probably he should be in category 2, or even in 3, i.e. the same as Lauri.)
2) -
3) Russell (2), Turner (11)
4) Hezonja (5), Cauley-Stein (6), Mudiay (7), S. Johnson (8), Kaminsky (9), Winslow (10), Lyles (12)
5) Okafor (3)

2016
1) Simmons (1), Ingram (2), Brown (3), Sabonis (11)
2) Murray (7)
3) Hield (6), Prince (12)
4) Dunn (5), Chriss (8), Pöltl (9)
5) Bender (4), Maker (10)

2017
1) Tatum (3)
2) Fox (5)
3) Fultz (1), Ball (2), Isaac (6), Monk (11), Kennard (12)
4) Ntilikina (8), Smith Jr (9), Collins (10)
5) Josh Jackson (4)

2018
1) Doncic (3), Young (5)
2) Ayton (1), Sexton (8), Gilgeous-Alexander (11)
3) Bagley (2), Jaren Jackson (4), Carter Jr (7)* (*Being a generous to WCJ here).
4) Bamba (6), Knox (9), Mikal Bridges (10), Miles Bridges (12)
5) Too early to tell.

2019
1) Williamson (1)
2) Morant (2), Barrett (3)
3) Hunger (4), Garland (5), White (7), Hachimura (9), Washington (12) (*Being a generous to Coby here).
4) Culver (6), Hayes (8), Reddish (10), Johnson (11).
5) Too early to tell.

So on average, there are a few stals/all stars per draft (from picks 1-12) and one or a few busts. There are much more players who are worse than Markkanen than there are better ones. The better ones are usually picked higher than #7. That is, with #7 pick the probability to get a better player than Markkanen is not very high. Even when counting all the 1-12 picks, the probability to get a better player is not very high.

So based on this sample, it is clear that Markkanen is not a bust.

Moreover, it seems that he has exceeded the expectations for a 7th pick so far. If he develops further, which is possible, as he is still relatively young, he can of course reach the 'higher status' in this classification too.

Of course these classifications are based on my evaluation (checking some minutes, lenght of the career, key stats and the roles in the teams).



Exceeded expectations? What a **** joke. I guarantee he has not exceeded the Bulls management and coaching expectations. Sure as Hell hasn’t come close to meeting mine either.
He absolutely exceeded the expectations that were placed on him at the time he was drafted. However, the expectations were raised after his first two years and so far he has failed to meet those expectations.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 22,299
And1: 11,937
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1603 » by WindyCityBorn » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:02 pm

Louri wrote:
WindyCityBorn wrote:
Louri wrote:I would like to know why Lauri is super aggressive only at 1st q. It's been biggest mystery to me. It must be 'cause he gas out quickly.

Can he figure a way out of it? I don't know.


No. Being aggressive isn’t enough. His skill level is still low.


If you say so, it’s fact then.


His play speaks for itself. Very little skill outside of inconsistent shooting,
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 22,299
And1: 11,937
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1604 » by WindyCityBorn » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:09 pm

GoBlue72391 wrote:
WindyCityBorn wrote:
Robin Jones wrote:
Exactly this!

If people expected Lauri to become an all star and are disappointed that he has not (yet?) been one, or has not been as consistent as hoped, this does not mean that he is a bust. He is still much closer to become an all-star than a bust when all is said and done.

However, most lottery picks are neither. The expectation is to get a star caliber player with picks 1-3, perhaps 1-4, and a starter level player or so with picks 5-12. Only a few players from each draft become all stars or busts. If someone wishes to label 80% of the lottery picks as busts, that's fine, but I do not feel that many share the same view'.

For some reason people are always very fond of first round picks, even the non-lottery ones. However, even with lottery picks (or even the early lottery picks) it is more probable to get a worse rather than a better player than Lauri is.

The negativity of one of the 'bust' comments earlier in this thread disturbed me so much (cannot understand why people are so negative - I understand that some get emotional supporting their teams, but still), that I did some research, i.e. went through the picks 1-12 from all drafts 2010-2019.

I them classified the players as:
1) Steal in the draft and/or an all-star.

2) Better than Lauri. These players are stars in their teams, and clear #1 or #2 options for most of their careers.

3) About the same as Lauri. These players are starters or sixth men most of their careers.

4) Worse than Lauri. These are good NBA rotation players, i.e. no busts, but no starter level players either

5) Busts. The criteria for picks 1-4 is higher than for picks 5-12 to be classified as a bust. If picked 5-12 and the career lasts just a few years or the player does not play regularly 20+ minutes etc., he is a bust.

Here the list. The number after the name is the draft pick #.

2010
1) Wall (1), Cousins (5) and George (10)
2) Hayward* (9) (*I was generous to Hayward here, as it could be argued also that he is not a better player than Lauri is.)
3) Turner (2), Favors (3), Monroe (7)
4) W. Johnson (4), Aminu (8)
5) Udoh (6), Aldrich (11), Henry (12)

2011
1) Irving (1), Walker (8), K. Thompson (10)
2) -
3) Kanter (3), T.Thompson (4), Valanciunias (5), Knight (7), Markieff Morris (12)
4) Biyombo (6), Burks (11)
5) Williams (2), Fredette (9).

2012
1) Davis (1), Beal (3), Lillard (6), Drummond (9)
2) -
3) Waiters (4), Barnes (7), Ross (8)
4) Kidd-Gilchrist (2), Rivers (10), M. Leonard (11), Lamb (12)
5) T. Robinson (5)

2013
1) Oladipo (2), McCollum (10)
2) -
3) Porter Jr (3), Caldwell-Pope (8), Adams (12)
4) Zeller (4), Len (5), Noel (6), McLemore (7), Burke (9), Carter-Williams (11)
5) Bennett (1)

2014
1) Embiid (3), Randle (7)
2) -
3) Wiggins (1), Gordon (4), Smart (6), Saric (12)
4) Exum (5), Stauskas (8), Vonleh (9), Payton (10), McDermott (11)
5) Parker (2)

2015
1) Towns (1), Porzingis (4). (*Being very generous to Porzingis here, as more probably he should be in category 2, or even in 3, i.e. the same as Lauri.)
2) -
3) Russell (2), Turner (11)
4) Hezonja (5), Cauley-Stein (6), Mudiay (7), S. Johnson (8), Kaminsky (9), Winslow (10), Lyles (12)
5) Okafor (3)

2016
1) Simmons (1), Ingram (2), Brown (3), Sabonis (11)
2) Murray (7)
3) Hield (6), Prince (12)
4) Dunn (5), Chriss (8), Pöltl (9)
5) Bender (4), Maker (10)

2017
1) Tatum (3)
2) Fox (5)
3) Fultz (1), Ball (2), Isaac (6), Monk (11), Kennard (12)
4) Ntilikina (8), Smith Jr (9), Collins (10)
5) Josh Jackson (4)

2018
1) Doncic (3), Young (5)
2) Ayton (1), Sexton (8), Gilgeous-Alexander (11)
3) Bagley (2), Jaren Jackson (4), Carter Jr (7)* (*Being a generous to WCJ here).
4) Bamba (6), Knox (9), Mikal Bridges (10), Miles Bridges (12)
5) Too early to tell.

2019
1) Williamson (1)
2) Morant (2), Barrett (3)
3) Hunger (4), Garland (5), White (7), Hachimura (9), Washington (12) (*Being a generous to Coby here).
4) Culver (6), Hayes (8), Reddish (10), Johnson (11).
5) Too early to tell.

So on average, there are a few stals/all stars per draft (from picks 1-12) and one or a few busts. There are much more players who are worse than Markkanen than there are better ones. The better ones are usually picked higher than #7. That is, with #7 pick the probability to get a better player than Markkanen is not very high. Even when counting all the 1-12 picks, the probability to get a better player is not very high.

So based on this sample, it is clear that Markkanen is not a bust.

Moreover, it seems that he has exceeded the expectations for a 7th pick so far. If he develops further, which is possible, as he is still relatively young, he can of course reach the 'higher status' in this classification too.

Of course these classifications are based on my evaluation (checking some minutes, lenght of the career, key stats and the roles in the teams).



Exceeded expectations? What a **** joke. I guarantee he has not exceeded the Bulls management and coaching expectations. Sure as Hell hasn’t come close to meeting mine either.
He absolutely exceeded the expectations that were placed on him at the time he was drafted. However, the expectations were raised after his first two years and so far he has failed to meet those expectations.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app


I can agree with this. If you told me this would be Lauri 3 years later after his rookie season I would have never believed it. I’m just disappointed. We really needed both Zach and Lauri to pan out and become all-stars.
Pentele
Sophomore
Posts: 217
And1: 176
Joined: Jan 04, 2021
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1605 » by Pentele » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:10 pm

GoBlue72391 wrote:
WindyCityBorn wrote:
Robin Jones wrote:
Exactly this!

If people expected Lauri to become an all star and are disappointed that he has not (yet?) been one, or has not been as consistent as hoped, this does not mean that he is a bust. He is still much closer to become an all-star than a bust when all is said and done.

However, most lottery picks are neither. The expectation is to get a star caliber player with picks 1-3, perhaps 1-4, and a starter level player or so with picks 5-12. Only a few players from each draft become all stars or busts. If someone wishes to label 80% of the lottery picks as busts, that's fine, but I do not feel that many share the same view'.

For some reason people are always very fond of first round picks, even the non-lottery ones. However, even with lottery picks (or even the early lottery picks) it is more probable to get a worse rather than a better player than Lauri is.

The negativity of one of the 'bust' comments earlier in this thread disturbed me so much (cannot understand why people are so negative - I understand that some get emotional supporting their teams, but still), that I did some research, i.e. went through the picks 1-12 from all drafts 2010-2019.

I them classified the players as:
1) Steal in the draft and/or an all-star.

2) Better than Lauri. These players are stars in their teams, and clear #1 or #2 options for most of their careers.

3) About the same as Lauri. These players are starters or sixth men most of their careers.

4) Worse than Lauri. These are good NBA rotation players, i.e. no busts, but no starter level players either

5) Busts. The criteria for picks 1-4 is higher than for picks 5-12 to be classified as a bust. If picked 5-12 and the career lasts just a few years or the player does not play regularly 20+ minutes etc., he is a bust.

Here the list. The number after the name is the draft pick #.

2010
1) Wall (1), Cousins (5) and George (10)
2) Hayward* (9) (*I was generous to Hayward here, as it could be argued also that he is not a better player than Lauri is.)
3) Turner (2), Favors (3), Monroe (7)
4) W. Johnson (4), Aminu (8)
5) Udoh (6), Aldrich (11), Henry (12)

2011
1) Irving (1), Walker (8), K. Thompson (10)
2) -
3) Kanter (3), T.Thompson (4), Valanciunias (5), Knight (7), Markieff Morris (12)
4) Biyombo (6), Burks (11)
5) Williams (2), Fredette (9).

2012
1) Davis (1), Beal (3), Lillard (6), Drummond (9)
2) -
3) Waiters (4), Barnes (7), Ross (8)
4) Kidd-Gilchrist (2), Rivers (10), M. Leonard (11), Lamb (12)
5) T. Robinson (5)

2013
1) Oladipo (2), McCollum (10)
2) -
3) Porter Jr (3), Caldwell-Pope (8), Adams (12)
4) Zeller (4), Len (5), Noel (6), McLemore (7), Burke (9), Carter-Williams (11)
5) Bennett (1)

2014
1) Embiid (3), Randle (7)
2) -
3) Wiggins (1), Gordon (4), Smart (6), Saric (12)
4) Exum (5), Stauskas (8), Vonleh (9), Payton (10), McDermott (11)
5) Parker (2)

2015
1) Towns (1), Porzingis (4). (*Being very generous to Porzingis here, as more probably he should be in category 2, or even in 3, i.e. the same as Lauri.)
2) -
3) Russell (2), Turner (11)
4) Hezonja (5), Cauley-Stein (6), Mudiay (7), S. Johnson (8), Kaminsky (9), Winslow (10), Lyles (12)
5) Okafor (3)

2016
1) Simmons (1), Ingram (2), Brown (3), Sabonis (11)
2) Murray (7)
3) Hield (6), Prince (12)
4) Dunn (5), Chriss (8), Pöltl (9)
5) Bender (4), Maker (10)

2017
1) Tatum (3)
2) Fox (5)
3) Fultz (1), Ball (2), Isaac (6), Monk (11), Kennard (12)
4) Ntilikina (8), Smith Jr (9), Collins (10)
5) Josh Jackson (4)

2018
1) Doncic (3), Young (5)
2) Ayton (1), Sexton (8), Gilgeous-Alexander (11)
3) Bagley (2), Jaren Jackson (4), Carter Jr (7)* (*Being a generous to WCJ here).
4) Bamba (6), Knox (9), Mikal Bridges (10), Miles Bridges (12)
5) Too early to tell.

2019
1) Williamson (1)
2) Morant (2), Barrett (3)
3) Hunger (4), Garland (5), White (7), Hachimura (9), Washington (12) (*Being a generous to Coby here).
4) Culver (6), Hayes (8), Reddish (10), Johnson (11).
5) Too early to tell.

So on average, there are a few stals/all stars per draft (from picks 1-12) and one or a few busts. There are much more players who are worse than Markkanen than there are better ones. The better ones are usually picked higher than #7. That is, with #7 pick the probability to get a better player than Markkanen is not very high. Even when counting all the 1-12 picks, the probability to get a better player is not very high.

So based on this sample, it is clear that Markkanen is not a bust.

Moreover, it seems that he has exceeded the expectations for a 7th pick so far. If he develops further, which is possible, as he is still relatively young, he can of course reach the 'higher status' in this classification too.

Of course these classifications are based on my evaluation (checking some minutes, lenght of the career, key stats and the roles in the teams).



Exceeded expectations? What a **** joke. I guarantee he has not exceeded the Bulls management and coaching expectations. Sure as Hell hasn’t come close to meeting mine either.
He absolutely exceeded the expectations that were placed on him at the time he was drafted. However, the expectations were raised after his first two years and so far he has failed to meet those expectations.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app


I think that is fair to say. I still remember how much people on this forum criticized drafting Lauri at the time. When the season started, it of course did not take long to practically everyone to change their tune (and rightly so given how Lauri played as a rookie). That is probably why almost everyone now seem to think that Lauri has steadily failed all expectations. The truth is he managed to surpass them by a wide margin right from the start which set the bar for present temper tantrums. Lauri was pretty much the only bright spot on the Bulls on that first season of his, and on that background it is not a surprise that people are characterizing him somehow as a bust even if he is merely a seventh pick.
Louri
Senior
Posts: 631
And1: 351
Joined: Jun 28, 2017

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1606 » by Louri » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:10 pm

WindyCityBorn wrote:
Louri wrote:
WindyCityBorn wrote:
No. Being aggressive isn’t enough. His skill level is still low.


If you say so, it’s fact then.


His play speaks for itself. Very little skill outside of inconsistent shooting,


Your comment to my question/concern did speak enough. Didn't expect more tho. So let's call all that you say fact now.
"Larry Nance Jr is better than Lauri Markkanen" -RealGM 2021
Bandit King
Analyst
Posts: 3,498
And1: 1,178
Joined: Oct 14, 2012
       

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1607 » by Bandit King » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:28 pm

How many 7th picks in the first round end up being superstars in the NBA? Most of them average or busts!
Chicago Bulls Basketball - The Continuity
Robin Jones
Freshman
Posts: 97
And1: 101
Joined: Feb 26, 2018
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1608 » by Robin Jones » Thu Apr 1, 2021 10:44 pm

Bandit King wrote:How many 7th picks in the first round end up being superstars in the NBA? Most of them average or busts!


Very few of them. Exactly my point above.

Stephen Curry (2009) is one of the exceptions here, of course.

But for each 'Curry' there are many Mudiays, Biyombos, Brewers, Foyes, Mihms, etc.

You can actually find all of them listed here:

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-7/

Funny thing is that the Bulls seem to be fond of 7th picks: White (2019), WCJ (2018), Lauri (2017), Deng (2004), Hinrich (2003), Thomas (1997), Longley (1991). There may be more, but these I noticed right away. (Sure, not all of them drafted by the Bulls.)
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,501
And1: 11,276
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1609 » by MrSparkle » Fri Apr 2, 2021 12:25 am

Draft picks are basically boom or bust. If you don't show enough in your first 3-4 years, then you're shown the door. A mystery box like Lauri often falls to the questionable re-sign with future trade in mind, which is hit & miss (Niko for Asik/Hutch). But you can do that with any FA (D'Lo who led to Wiggins & their pick).

The whole purpose of the draft is to get a special talent and have their RFA/max rights, so you can lock in talent for atleast 8 years and not lose them to the open market. If they're on par or worse than your run-of-the-mill veteran UFA, and doesn't have athleticism or unique skills that make them unattainable at a fair trade price, then there's little point in resigning the player, unless he brilliantly addresses your team's needs (definitely not shooters who are defensive liabilities).
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,673
And1: 1,618
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1610 » by the ultimates » Fri Apr 2, 2021 12:43 am

Lauri isn't a bust but nobody has expected him to be a superstar for a long time if at all. What I would like from a lottery pick who has started the vast majority of his career is to not be a non-descript starter. With the number of games he's missed this year how many times did you say we miss Lauri? How many times did you say we can't replace what he does?
Losing to get high draft picks and hoping they turn into franchise players is not some next level, genius move. That's what teams want to happen in any rebuild/tank or whatever you want to market it as.
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 29,830
And1: 9,279
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1611 » by Chi town » Fri Apr 2, 2021 1:18 am

Lauri is gone. Doesn’t fit at all next to Vuc.

We need defense and passing. Lauri can’t do either.
Wingy
RealGM
Posts: 16,160
And1: 7,122
Joined: Feb 15, 2007

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1612 » by Wingy » Fri Apr 2, 2021 4:10 am

Lauri doesn’t deserve the venomous bashing, nor does he deserve the weird extreme adoration. Regardless, this kinda cracked me up given the divisive debate here.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/262113/Kevin-Durant-Closing-In-On-Return-From-Hamstring-Injury

This poster PartPsychic wrote the following when pointing out the challenges of the achilles are no joke, and claiming Durant’s strong start was NBD. How? They used a certain Bull to make their case:

Ehh. Lots of guys looked “amaze ball” to open the season this year. Lauri freaking Markkanen looked good out the gate this year lol. Many teams had their collective feet off the gas & were focused primarily on healing up


Now I’ve never seen PartPsychic here....so is this the burner account for one of you big Lauri haters? :lol:
User avatar
FranchisePlayer
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,763
And1: 598
Joined: Oct 25, 2019
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1613 » by FranchisePlayer » Fri Apr 2, 2021 6:29 am

Bandit King wrote:How many 7th picks in the first round end up being superstars in the NBA? Most of them average or busts!


How many 13th picks in the first round end up being superstars in the NBA? Most of them average or busts!
MrSparkle wrote:I don't see a scenario here or there where Lauri becomes the "7-pick we thought he could be." If you remove his 3P ability, he's worse than Felicio by a mile.

12/2/2022
I like the quote- it makes me chuckle. And it was/is pretty much true.
ZOMG
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,434
And1: 3,269
Joined: Dec 31, 2013

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1614 » by ZOMG » Fri Apr 2, 2021 10:28 am

Wingy wrote:Lauri doesn’t deserve the venomous bashing, nor does he deserve the weird extreme adoration.


Let's not start this "there's bad people on both sides" thing. There's like ONE poster on this forum who can see no wrong with anything Markkanen does, and I think even he's trolling 50% of the time.

The rest of us only have an issue with unintelligent bashing and hating.

"He's unplayable"
"Without the jump shot, he'd be worse than Felicio"
"He's one of the worst defenders in the NBA"
"He's dead weight"

There's something seriously wrong with this organization. We consistently fail to develop our young players. If they're promising, we give them a very narrow role and lots of playing time... and then pretend to be surprised when they haven't improved as basketball players.

Every exit interview with a young player should have a list of things the team expects him to improve in the offseason - and the team should also offer help and coaching in this process. That's just managing your investments.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,604
And1: 9,284
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1615 » by sco » Fri Apr 2, 2021 1:01 pm

ZOMG wrote:
Wingy wrote:Lauri doesn’t deserve the venomous bashing, nor does he deserve the weird extreme adoration.


Let's not start this "there's bad people on both sides" thing. There's like ONE poster on this forum who can see no wrong with anything Markkanen does, and I think even he's trolling 50% of the time.

The rest of us only have an issue with unintelligent bashing and hating.

"He's unplayable"
"Without the jump shot, he'd be worse than Felicio"
"He's one of the worst defenders in the NBA"
"He's dead weight"

There's something seriously wrong with this organization. We consistently fail to develop our young players. If they're promising, we give them a very narrow role and lots of playing time... and then pretend to be surprised when they haven't improved as basketball players.

Every exit interview with a young player should have a list of things the team expects him to improve in the offseason - and the team should also offer help and coaching in this process. That's just managing your investments.

To be fair, I think the new org did what you suggest. IIRC, Lauri came into the season focused on consistency (meaning consistent Februluari). I didn't care if he wasn't the best defender or passer, but if he isn't an elite 3pt shooter (consistently), his game sorta falls into mediocrity because the Bulls need his spacing and scoring. The rebounding, defense and passing are all nice to have, but aren't and won't be his strengths ever.
:clap:
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,673
And1: 1,618
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1616 » by the ultimates » Fri Apr 2, 2021 1:56 pm

See this is why you can't have an honest conversation about Lauri. Everything he doesn't do well in his fourth year or basically his entire career is somehow somebody else's fault. It's the coaching, it's the scheme, he needs a different role, he needs better teammates. So he needs everything catered to him and the perfect situation just to get better? So now the next excuse for Lauri is the Bulls didn't develop him or give him goals to get better. Let's say that's true couldn't Lauri have worked on his handles, defense, post-game or whatever it may be. There was nothing that Lauri wanted to add to his game or improve whether the Bulls told him to or not?
Losing to get high draft picks and hoping they turn into franchise players is not some next level, genius move. That's what teams want to happen in any rebuild/tank or whatever you want to market it as.
khufure
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,939
And1: 1,464
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Location: California
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1617 » by khufure » Fri Apr 2, 2021 3:00 pm

He's shown in games that he can be dominant. In 2018-2019 a bunch of 30+ points, 10+ rebound games:
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/chicago-bulls/players/lauri-markkanen/bestworst/19/4/80


Similar thing with season opener in 2019-2020. That's why people are excited. But simple equation here guys. Do you pay the guy that shows zero improvement in the rookie contract, is made of glass, and that is a net negative due to poor individual & help defense? The answer is no, and easily so.
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 17,415
And1: 11,414
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1618 » by TheSuzerain » Fri Apr 2, 2021 3:31 pm

He should be dealt for any value we can get in a S+T. Should have been dealt at the deadline frankly.

He's not even close to a fit next to Lavine/Vuc.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,604
And1: 9,284
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1619 » by sco » Fri Apr 2, 2021 4:12 pm

TheSuzerain wrote:He should be dealt for any value we can get in a S+T. Should have been dealt at the deadline frankly.

He's not even close to a fit next to Lavine/Vuc.

I think folks need to just give up on even S&T. Maybe we get a 2nd rounder, if lucky, but let's just hope the FO let's him walk, even for nothing.

It's not Lauri's fault. He's an elite player who didn't get the appropriate opportunities and support from the Bulls.





Oh yeah...I meant to type above yesterday - belated April fools!
:clap:
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,948
And1: 37,385
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#1620 » by DuckIII » Fri Apr 2, 2021 4:20 pm

Pentele wrote:I still remember how much people on this forum criticized drafting Lauri at the time. When the season started, it of course did not take long to practically everyone to change their tune (and rightly so given how Lauri played as a rookie). That is probably why almost everyone now seem to think that Lauri has steadily failed all expectations. The truth is he managed to surpass them by a wide margin right from the start which set the bar for present temper tantrums.


This discussion is pointless. Expectations change based on changing evidence. The original expectation, built on a foundation of practically nothing at all, becomes irrelevant once real information develops.

Based on what Lauri showed early in his career and periodically since, he’s a disappointment. Now, that doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. And maybe he’s even a reasonable return for your standard 7th pick. In fact he probably is just fine as “draft value” goes.

But we’ve seen what he’s capable of, and he’s not getting it done. More significantly, he has (at best) plateaued to the point the safer bet is to assume this is who he is. So you take that, and then decide what to do with him and at what cost.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.

Return to Chicago Bulls