NBA Trade Thread #2

[dougthonus]

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

[wonderboy2]

I would take Lauri at 10-15 million over Satos 10 million any day.

[FriedRise]

Should we go after CP3? Yes he's old and costs 40M+ per year, but his presence on this team will elevate Coby's and Wendell's game (they both played for his AAU). Judging from their comments about how their bond is bigger than basketball, you know they'll go the extra mile to play for him. That by itself can be worth the price tag. It's also been a while since we had a respected veteran PG who knows how to run a team, and who knows what kind of marked improvements we'll get from Zach and Lauri with a real playmaker. OKC wasn't gonna be a 50-win team if it weren't for Paul, which is the highest win % they've had since KD left town. We really need our young guys to develop before offering them any sort of huge long-term $$$.

The downside is it'll take us out of 2021 FA since Paul's contract goes another year, but were we really expecting to sign a player deserving the max with our cap space?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

What would a turn around year look like?

If he does your turnaround what are you willing to pay him?

If he could put up his 18-19 numbers for a whole year with relative health, and just play more consistently, that would be enough of an improvement.

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

Again, if he can put up his 18-19 numbers consistently and have a good 3P%, I think that would be worth the 10-20M. And if he doesn't produce at that level, we can simply let him walk.

I would rather watch another lackluster season and then let him go for nothing than trade him now and risk watching him blow up somewhere else. Unless the return being offered is just too good to pass up, and so far I haven't seen any offer like that.

[sco]

What would a turn around year look like?

If he does your turnaround what are you willing to pay him?

If he could put up his 18-19 numbers for a whole year with relative health, and just play more consistently, that would be enough of an improvement.

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

Again, if he can put up his 18-19 numbers consistently and have a good 3P%, I think that would be worth the 10-20M. And if he doesn't produce at that level, we can simply let him walk.

I would rather watch another lackluster season and then let him go for nothing than trade him now and risk watching him blow up somewhere else. Unless the return being offered is just too good to pass up, and so far I haven't seen any offer like that.

There is "option value" left on Lauri this season. I get your point.

Here's my counter point to consider. I see 2 guys in Saric and Giles, with similar upside - IMO, available as FA's this offseason, and possibly gettable for less than $10/yr. The question I ask myself is whether I'd prefer to land one of those guys PLUS take what we could get for Lauri?

[dougthonus]

Again, if he can put up his 18-19 numbers consistently and have a good 3P%, I think that would be worth the 10-20M. And if he doesn't produce at that level, we can simply let him walk.

I would rather watch another lackluster season and then let him go for nothing than trade him now and risk watching him blow up somewhere else. Unless the return being offered is just too good to pass up, and so far I haven't seen any offer like that.

Let's say he puts up 18-19 numbers and now wants a deal for 4/85. Then does it really matter if he stays? What is the value, while in a rebuild, of paying a #3 or #4 caliber starter market value? It's a neutral move that just limits your flexibility. If you weren't in a deep rebuild then I might feel differently.

Granted, some people may feel we aren't in a deep rebuild and that our current talent can get us to 40+ wins this year coming up. I'm not buying it though.

[gobullschi]

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

Is it better to trade him now or at the trade deadline?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

There is "option value" left on Lauri this season. I get your point.

Here's my counter point to consider. I see 2 guys in Saric and Giles, with similar upside - IMO, available as FA's this offseason, and possibly gettable for less than $10/yr. The question I ask myself is whether I'd prefer to land one of those guys PLUS take what we could get for Lauri?

I think Lauri has the potential to be considerably better than those guys.

Again, if he can put up his 18-19 numbers consistently and have a good 3P%, I think that would be worth the 10-20M. And if he doesn't produce at that level, we can simply let him walk.

I would rather watch another lackluster season and then let him go for nothing than trade him now and risk watching him blow up somewhere else. Unless the return being offered is just too good to pass up, and so far I haven't seen any offer like that.

Let's say he puts up 18-19 numbers and now wants a deal for 4/85. Then does it really matter if he stays? What is the value, while in a rebuild, of paying a #3 or #4 caliber starter market value? It's a neutral move that just limits your flexibility. If you weren't in a deep rebuild then I might feel differently.

Granted, some people may feel we aren't in a deep rebuild and that our current talent can get us to 40+ wins this year coming up. I'm not buying it though.

Like I said, I would move him if the return was worth taking the risk of him blowing up elsewhere. But this hypothetical Phoenix deal that started this convo isn't enough. It's #10 and PHO's 2021 pick, which could easily be #10 again. We could easily end up using those two #10 picks on players that aren't close to as good as Lauri's been at his best. For me, two late lotto picks is not enough.

Show me a better offer and I might change my mind. Another hypothetical someone else made up elsewhere was Lauri and Zach to Minnesota for #1, Culver, and James Jones. The idea of completely resetting our rebuild with, say, Anthony Edwards, Culver, Coby, our own #4 pick, and Carter is intriguing enough that I might consider that, even though it's a steep price with Zach going out too and Culver a bit of a question mark.

[dougthonus]

Is it better to trade him now or at the trade deadline?

Player value is a combination of:
- On court value
- Contract value / length

A guy like Felicio has his contract value go up as time goes on because his contract is a negative piece of his value (maybe some team would pay him the minimum, but not 8m, and definitely not 8m for 3 years like 2 years ago, but 8m for 1 year is a lot less of an albatross and lots of teams would take him as filler now).

A guy like White whom has 3 cheap years of control has a lot of increased value due to those 3 cheap years left.

Looking at Lauri, he's got 1 cheap year left, this already limits his value greatly. That will be 1/2 to 1/3rd of a year left at the deadline depending when it is which will be less value.

With any player, you can make guesses as to whether their on court value will go up or down, but those would just be guesses. You know almost for certain which way the contract value will go, so in Lauri's case, the time value of a half year probably isn't THAT much in depreciation, so if you think he will definitely be better at the deadline (coach/health) then maybe you wait. If you think it can go either way at equal odds, then you trade now.

The time value probably makes it slightly more likely to sell now being better if you believe (as I do) that improvement is probably a 50/50.

[drosereturn]

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

Is it better to trade him now or at the trade deadline?

That really depends on who the Bulls get this draft and acquire.
If they can get someone like Hali, CP3, then he might have a career yr but I dont see him improving with White and Lavine as playmakers.

[TheSuzerain]

What would a turn around year look like?

If he does your turnaround what are you willing to pay him?

If he could put up his 18-19 numbers for a whole year with relative health, and just play more consistently, that would be enough of an improvement.

I don't think I'm ready to give up on Lauri yet. I want to see if he can turn it around under the new coach - whoever it is.

If he wasn't a FA at the end of the season then I would be in this boat too, but I'm just not excited about his upside being anything special, and once he's on a market value contract at 10-20M then what is he doing for me even if he improves?

Again, if he can put up his 18-19 numbers consistently and have a good 3P%, I think that would be worth the 10-20M. And if he doesn't produce at that level, we can simply let him walk.

I would rather watch another lackluster season and then let him go for nothing than trade him now and risk watching him blow up somewhere else. Unless the return being offered is just too good to pass up, and so far I haven't seen any offer like that.

You're describing 2 **** outcomes:

1. We let Lauri walk for nothing. Obviously this would suck
2. We re-sign Lauri for a market value deal that is below the max. This also sucks. Deals like this are poison and only work if you're just paying to keep the supporting cast around a superstar. That's not us.

Trade Lauri

[Chicagoat]

I like Lauri but I understand the reason to trade him for a late lottery pick in this years draft and POTENTIALLY a future lottery protected pick(If we're lucky) would be good value for him.

You can't really have a big like Lauri in today's NBA unless that player is uber talented and even then he would be targeted all day on switches in the playoffs when the game slows down. You don't see a stretch 4 that can't defend guards starting on any of the current playoff teams.

[MrSparkle]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Lauri is worth any long-term contract, and it's basically a scenario where he is playing like the opening Hornets game every night. Like, a consistent 30-pt threat any night. You know he's not gonna win DPOY like Giannis, yet Giannis did it while also averaging 30 ppg. And then you consider that Hornets rookie PJ Washington (who is 6'7 btw) scored 27 on Lauri, and the Bulls also lost (to what was a lotto team).

And then you consider that Lauri demonstrated a very low floor on bad nights (like, 1 rebound and 3 point games). And really, he never had a game remotely as good as that opener.

In other words, I don't think Lauri is even in a conversation for a long-term extension. Honestly, I think he's a 6th man who'll have his up and down seasons. So yeah, I'd trade him for a FPR/#10 if there's a potential core-piece.

I don't think he's a bad player. He'll be good and productive somewhere else, like Doug in Indiana and Niko in Barcelona. Just not as a #1 option, which GarPax thought he'd be. In short glimpses his rookie season, we thought we might have a Porzingis/Dirk-lite with a star ceiling, but as he shifted into a starting role, it became apparent that he can't protect the rim, defend 1 position (let alone many), and really is an unreliable 3P shooter. Kind of unbelievable but I consider him the 3rd "same" strike in a row (Doug, Niko, Lauri). "Good" shooters who aren't "lights out" catch-and-shoot 3P snipers, with major defensive flaws.

[TheSuzerain]

The Power Forward essentially no longer existing as a position has really hurt Lauri.

Turns out stretch 4's were a transitional step. He'd be good at that! But that doesn't do us much good in 2020.

[Chi town]

The Power Forward essentially no longer existing as a position has really hurt Lauri.

Turns out stretch 4's were a transitional step. He'd be good at that! But that doesn't do us much good in 2020.

What many of us have been saying for months. PF is dead. 3s are now 4s. Post game is dead.

Only way Lauri is worth it is if he becomes a Korver 3pt specialist as a 7 footer or he learns how to use his dribble to get around guys, get his own shot, and shoot over the smaller 4s.

[sco]

The Power Forward essentially no longer existing as a position has really hurt Lauri.

Turns out stretch 4's were a transitional step. He'd be good at that! But that doesn't do us much good in 2020.

What many of us have been saying for months. PF is dead. 3s are now 4s. Post game is dead.

Only way Lauri is worth it is if he becomes a Korver 3pt specialist as a 7 footer or he learns how to use his dribble to get around guys, get his own shot, and shoot over the smaller 4s.

Such good points! The thing I see is ironic is that Lauri came into the league with a SF game. He had a great outside game and footspeed. He was given bad Finnish or Bull training advice to bulk up and and the usual things that come with bulking up (injuries, loss of shooting touch and loss of footspeed) happened. I have my doubts that those problems can come undone.

[rtblues]

My problem with trading Lauri now is they'd be "selling low", yet it's a conundrum since waiting for him to get better is also a risk, and if he does, then he'll want to get paid. Important decision going forward. Only thing I'll say about him in this current situation, it would be very interesting to see what Markkanen could do, with a true distributor on the team, an actual PG, and secondly how a new coach will impact his play. Which is why I'm very much okay with drafting/trading for a PG with the traditional passing skills of a PG.

They can put any player at the 1 and call him a PG, but the reality always comes through. This much seems fair to say, Zach ain't a PG, and neither is Coby White. Sato? He's had enough of an opportunity to show us that he's not really a true PG , or one that makes the others around him better.

Regarding the coaching change, should it result in Lauri having a resurgence, that would sort of seem to validate the "Boylen messed him up" narrative, although there can never be any concrete correlation to absolutely prove it. Unless, of course, Lauri were to improve and when asked about it, come out and say that "it's been the coaching change". Yeah, how cool would that be?

[sco]

My problem with trading Lauri now is they'd be "selling low", yet it's a conundrum since waiting for him to get better is also a risk, and if he does, then he'll want to get paid. Important decision going forward. Only thing I'll say about him in this current situation, it would be very interesting to see what Markkanen could do, with a true distributor on the team, an actual PG, and secondly how a new coach will impact his play. Which is why I'm very much okay with drafting/trading for a PG with the traditional passing skills of a PG.

They can put any player at the 1 and call him a PG, but the reality always comes through. This much seems fair to say, Zach ain't a PG, and neither is Coby White. Sato? He's had enough of an opportunity to show us that he's not really a true PG , or one that makes the others around him better.

Regarding the coaching change, should it result in Lauri having a resurgence, that would sort of seem to validate the "Boylen messed him up" narrative, although there can never be any concrete correlation to absolutely prove it. Unless, of course, Lauri were to improve and when asked about it, come out and say that "it's been the coaching change". Yeah, how cool would that be?

I think the only room for raising his value would be to dump him at the deadline, which I'm ok with. With the changes in the NBA team design, the only way I'd want to keep him would be for him to have radically changed his body to be much quicker and to have massively improved his ball handling...not impossible, but highly unlikely given that both have gotten worse since he got into the league.

At this point, I'm thinking that we'd be better off keeping Otto and playing him at PF and drafting guys like Deni or Vassell and signing Giles or Saric for biennial exemption.

[Ccwatercraft]

I would take Lauri at 10-15 million over Satos 10 million any day.

Did Sato do something bad to your family?

Sorry its so tiresome, time for me to use the ignore button.

[ChettheJet]

The story popped up that the Bucks were interested in adding Chris Paul, keeping Giannis and Middleton while OKC retools rather than rebuilds.

So the question is there a way the Bulls jump in as the third wheel, maybe get Bledsoe, maybe DiVincenzo, a FRP MIL has #24 and adding another huge contract don't need the guaranteed FRP, as MIL sheds payroll. The Bulls get their own retool underway helping those two teams move Paul's big contract? Young, Porter, Satroansky, even Felicio, and smaller contracts like Valentine, Dunn.