Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[coldfish]

So what do you guys think that Lauri's next season's salary or cap hit will look like? How much would another team have to offer where Bulls wouldn't match the offer?

If you look, there are a lot of teams with massive capspace. OTOH, the free agent class is terrible. I would be surprised if someone didn't offer $20m or more per year and I doubt the Bulls match that.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2021/
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/free-agents/

[sco]

So what do you guys think that Lauri's next season's salary or cap hit will look like? How much would another team have to offer where Bulls wouldn't match the offer?

If you look, there are a lot of teams with massive capspace. OTOH, the free agent class is terrible. I would be surprised if someone didn't offer $20m or more per year and I doubt the Bulls match that.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2021/
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/free-agents/

That said, there aren't a lot of teams who would really benefit from him with capspace...I think the only team that folks thought was an obvious candidate was SA.

[MikeDC]

The concept of a well-designed team is a misnomer, IMO. It means having 2 superstars and getting lucky with picks to have good players on rookie deals.

I strongly disagree with this. You're just re-defining "design" to mean "having talent". Which is another way of saying "design and fit don't matter at all". Again, just taking a simplistic mindset. Both are important, and they can't easily be addressed sequentially.

That is, you guys are saying, "talent is paramount. Get talent and worry about fit later. To the extent it matters at all, you can always make things fit around talent".

You guys are simply wrong about this. It's really hard to "get talent" but it's also really hard to optimize it. For all the same reasons as getting talent is hard. You can't just easily trade or sign players to the exact role you need.

This should be obvious from watching the Bulls. They very rarely consider how many compromises they have to make in fitting their "talent" together, and it continually bites them in the ass. Examples:

* Fitting together Pau Gasol, Joakim Noah, and Taj Gibson.
* Fast forward to today and they're trying to fit together Vooch, Theis, Thad, and Lauri, all of whom are in large part substitutes rather than complementary talents.

Like, forget all the finer points of having guys with complementary skills and abilities for a minute and just think of basic position. Forget about Lauri for a minute. Adding Vooch, at a fundamental level, made Thad less valuable.

The sensible thing would have been to trade away Thad to bring back an equivalent player at a complementary position. But no, that was "too hard" or "the timing wasn't right" or the exact player they wanted wasn't available or whatever.Give all the excuses you want to give, but they just underscore my point that design matters and it's actually not so easy to fit together ancillary pieces.

Because it's hard, you have to be working in parallel. You have to simultaneously be adding talent and optimizing fit. Otherwise you're screwed because you're at best taking two steps forward and one step back.

[the ultimates]

If Lauri gets better it's not because of the system it's because his individual skills got better. That would give whomever his coach or teammates more varied ways to utilize him. Again he's a high-volume three-point shooter who can't create that look for himself. When your offensive games relies heavily on that one type of shot for you to consistently score you're at the whim of the defense and your teammates.

Let's talk about his teammates. Even with White for much of the year being inconsistent to bad they still average more assists per game than Dallas who feature one of the best passers in the league and the Spurs https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/traditional/?sort=AST&dir=-1. Now aren't the Spurs a team that knows how to utilize players and put them in a system? They rank 21st in offensive rating https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2021.html.

The Bulls assist percentage is the third highest in the league. About 5% better than the Spurs and 8% better than Dallas. If Lauri finds consistently other ways to score he'll get used more, better, and differently offensively where ever he ends up. If not then he is what he is, a one-dimensional three-point shooter. Offenses aren't gearing their system around those players.

[sco]

The concept of a well-designed team is a misnomer, IMO. It means having 2 superstars and getting lucky with picks to have good players on rookie deals.

I strongly disagree with this. You're just re-defining "design" to mean "having talent". Which is another way of saying "design and fit don't matter at all". Again, just taking a simplistic mindset. Both are important, and they can't easily be addressed sequentially.

That is, you guys are saying, "talent is paramount. Get talent and worry about fit later. To the extent it matters at all, you can always make things fit around talent".

You guys are simply wrong about this. It's really hard to "get talent" but it's also really hard to optimize it. For all the same reasons as getting talent is hard. You can't just easily trade or sign players to the exact role you need.

This should be obvious from watching the Bulls. They very rarely consider how many compromises they have to make in fitting their "talent" together, and it continually bites them in the ass. Examples:

* Fitting together Pau Gasol, Joakim Noah, and Taj Gibson.
* Fast forward to today and they're trying to fit together Vooch, Theis, Thad, and Lauri, all of whom are in large part substitutes rather than complementary talents.

Like, forget all the finer points of having guys with complementary skills and abilities for a minute and just think of basic position. Forget about Lauri for a minute. Adding Vooch, at a fundamental level, made Thad less valuable.

The sensible thing would have been to trade away Thad to bring back an equivalent player at a complementary position. But no, that was "too hard" or "the timing wasn't right" or the exact player they wanted wasn't available or whatever.Give all the excuses you want to give, but they just underscore my point that design matters and it's actually not so easy to fit together ancillary pieces.

Because it's hard, you have to be working in parallel. You have to simultaneously be adding talent and optimizing fit. Otherwise you're screwed because you're at best taking two steps forward and one step back.

I agree that there are semantics here.

I also agree that we have too many PF's...seemingly Theis is the only good fit with Vuc, although I think Theis also fits with the other two guys. I think we shoulda traded Lauri at the deadline for a PG, but he seemingly had very little trade value. Lauri has been a goner since he turned down AK's offer (probably before that given the size of the offer). I don't think Thad had much trade value either, but he is a good player who I think has value both on, and in the case of this roster, off the court..

I think AK has played his roster moves pretty well. I really love the Vuc/Theis/Brown pickups in terms of complementary players who fit well with Zach and Williams. Our problem since the deadline has been minimal practice time, Zach's COVID and Brown's ankle injury. We were and are still missing a starting PG. White isn't a core piece of the roster anymore, but may develop into a decent back-up SG.

[ZOMG]

The concept of a well-designed team is a misnomer, IMO. It means having 2 superstars and getting lucky with picks to have good players on rookie deals.

I strongly disagree with this. You're just re-defining "design" to mean "having talent". Which is another way of saying "design and fit don't matter at all". Again, just taking a simplistic mindset. Both are important, and they can't easily be addressed sequentially.

That is, you guys are saying, "talent is paramount. Get talent and worry about fit later. To the extent it matters at all, you can always make things fit around talent".

You guys are simply wrong about this. It's really hard to "get talent" but it's also really hard to optimize it. For all the same reasons as getting talent is hard. You can't just easily trade or sign players to the exact role you need.

This should be obvious from watching the Bulls. They very rarely consider how many compromises they have to make in fitting their "talent" together, and it continually bites them in the ass. Examples:

* Fitting together Pau Gasol, Joakim Noah, and Taj Gibson.
* Fast forward to today and they're trying to fit together Vooch, Theis, Thad, and Lauri, all of whom are in large part substitutes rather than complementary talents.

Like, forget all the finer points of having guys with complementary skills and abilities for a minute and just think of basic position. Forget about Lauri for a minute. Adding Vooch, at a fundamental level, made Thad less valuable.

The sensible thing would have been to trade away Thad to bring back an equivalent player at a complementary position. But no, that was "too hard" or "the timing wasn't right" or the exact player they wanted wasn't available or whatever.Give all the excuses you want to give, but they just underscore my point that design matters and it's actually not so easy to fit together ancillary pieces.

Because it's hard, you have to be working in parallel. You have to simultaneously be adding talent and optimizing fit. Otherwise you're screwed because you're at best taking two steps forward and one step back.

I agree that there are semantics here.

I also agree that we have too many PF's...seemingly Theis is the only good fit with Vuc, although I think Theis also fits with the other two guys. I think we shoulda traded Lauri at the deadline for a PG, but he seemingly had very little trade value. Lauri has been a goner since he turned down AK's offer (probably before that given the size of the offer). I don't think Thad had much trade value either, but he is a good player who I think has value both on, and in the case of this roster, off the court..

I think AK has played his roster moves pretty well. I really love the Vuc/Theis/Brown pickups in terms of complementary players who fit well with Zach and Williams. Our problem since the deadline has been minimal practice time, Zach's COVID and Brown's ankle injury. We were and are still missing a starting PG. White isn't a core piece of the roster anymore, but may develop into a decent back-up SG.

We all know Lauri's game has warts, but this new fabricated narrative where he's almost kind of a bust in the NBA is just ridiculous beyond belief.

This is a #7 pick who came into the League at 19 and immediately proceeded to give the Bulls YEARS of steady 16/7 production in 30 mpg. With all kinds of mayhem and chaos going on around him.

Some other team would have considered that a success story, but the Chicago Bulls have been f*cked up for a long time now and normal rules don't apply here.

Lauri is 23. He's a LOT younger than all of the rotation players not named PWill or Coby. People tend to forget it.

[sco]

I strongly disagree with this. You're just re-defining "design" to mean "having talent". Which is another way of saying "design and fit don't matter at all". Again, just taking a simplistic mindset. Both are important, and they can't easily be addressed sequentially.

That is, you guys are saying, "talent is paramount. Get talent and worry about fit later. To the extent it matters at all, you can always make things fit around talent".

You guys are simply wrong about this. It's really hard to "get talent" but it's also really hard to optimize it. For all the same reasons as getting talent is hard. You can't just easily trade or sign players to the exact role you need.

This should be obvious from watching the Bulls. They very rarely consider how many compromises they have to make in fitting their "talent" together, and it continually bites them in the ass. Examples:

* Fitting together Pau Gasol, Joakim Noah, and Taj Gibson.
* Fast forward to today and they're trying to fit together Vooch, Theis, Thad, and Lauri, all of whom are in large part substitutes rather than complementary talents.

Like, forget all the finer points of having guys with complementary skills and abilities for a minute and just think of basic position. Forget about Lauri for a minute. Adding Vooch, at a fundamental level, made Thad less valuable.

The sensible thing would have been to trade away Thad to bring back an equivalent player at a complementary position. But no, that was "too hard" or "the timing wasn't right" or the exact player they wanted wasn't available or whatever.Give all the excuses you want to give, but they just underscore my point that design matters and it's actually not so easy to fit together ancillary pieces.

Because it's hard, you have to be working in parallel. You have to simultaneously be adding talent and optimizing fit. Otherwise you're screwed because you're at best taking two steps forward and one step back.

I agree that there are semantics here.

I also agree that we have too many PF's...seemingly Theis is the only good fit with Vuc, although I think Theis also fits with the other two guys. I think we shoulda traded Lauri at the deadline for a PG, but he seemingly had very little trade value. Lauri has been a goner since he turned down AK's offer (probably before that given the size of the offer). I don't think Thad had much trade value either, but he is a good player who I think has value both on, and in the case of this roster, off the court..

I think AK has played his roster moves pretty well. I really love the Vuc/Theis/Brown pickups in terms of complementary players who fit well with Zach and Williams. Our problem since the deadline has been minimal practice time, Zach's COVID and Brown's ankle injury. We were and are still missing a starting PG. White isn't a core piece of the roster anymore, but may develop into a decent back-up SG.

We all know Lauri's game has warts, but this new fabricated narrative where he's almost kind of a bust in the NBA is just ridiculous beyond belief.

This is a #7 pick who came into the League at 19 and immediately proceeded to give the Bulls YEARS of steady 16/7 production in 30 mpg. With all kinds of mayhem and chaos going on around him.

Some other team would have considered that a success story, but the Chicago Bulls have been f*cked up for a long time now and normal rules don't apply here.

I didn't say he was a bust, I just said he was a goner. He's an average starting PF, who the FO didn't want to pay like a great PF. It would have been good if we got something of value for him, but nobody wanted to rent him and have his rights for a 1st round pick.

[kodo]

Much the same way Washington fans are absolutely loving Daniel Gafford and think they got a steal, Markkanen will look a lot better on a team with any PGs at all. I count zero point guards on any passing ability on this team. Sato is the best passer, and setting the bar very low. There's a reason all our assists go through Thad & Vuc.

I mean look at Bobby Portis. He shot 30%-37% from 3 in Chicago.
In Washington he shot 40%.
And he's shooting 47% in Milwaukee.

Part of what's holding Lauri back is probably Chicago itself. He certainly wouldn't be the first Bull to contribute to a winning team after Chicago. Everyone agreed Cam Payne wasn't an NBA player here. He's now in the 8 man rotation for the 2nd WC seed.

[Tetlak]

I have been pleasantly surprised at how Lauri is able to successfully post up mismatches this season. He always had opportunities to do so, but never was able to score very well until now, out of the blue.

[dougthonus]

Part of what's holding Lauri back is probably Chicago itself. He certainly wouldn't be the first Bull to contribute to a winning team after Chicago. Everyone agreed Cam Payne wasn't an NBA player here. He's now in the 8 man rotation for the 2nd WC seed.

I don't think Chicago has any greater share of guys leaving and going on to great things than the next team. Cam Payne bounced around in several places before finding himself a home, and I doubt that was Chicago specific. Young players get better as they age. Lauri SHOULD be better wherever he goes next, because he should be better at 26 than at 23.

If he is not just incrementally better but takes his game to a whole new level we can start arguing if it was Chicago or not. Tyson Chandler is the one guy I can think of that I think was specifically ruined here and needed somewhere else to go to rebuild his career.

[coldfish]

Much the same way Washington fans are absolutely loving Daniel Gafford and think they got a steal, Markkanen will look a lot better on a team with any PGs at all. I count zero point guards on any passing ability on this team. Sato is the best passer, and setting the bar very low. There's a reason all our assists go through Thad & Vuc.

I mean look at Bobby Portis. He shot 30%-37% from 3 in Chicago.
In Washington he shot 40%.
And he's shooting 47% in Milwaukee.

Part of what's holding Lauri back is probably Chicago itself. He certainly wouldn't be the first Bull to contribute to a winning team after Chicago. Everyone agreed Cam Payne wasn't an NBA player here. He's now in the 8 man rotation for the 2nd WC seed.

As someone posted above, Chicago is 5th in the NBA in assists per game. The Bulls have a motion offense and the ball moves. Its part of the reason why the turnover rate is so high. The Mavericks, who a lot of people think would be great for Lauri, have one of the lowest assist rates because so much of the clock is spent with 4 guys watching Luka.

The Bulls have been pretty terrible at developing players since Thibs left though. That was high up on AK's list when he was hired but I can't say that anyone other than Zach showed improvement this year.

[dougthonus]

The Bulls have been pretty terrible at developing players since Thibs left though. That was high up on AK's list when he was hired but I can't say that anyone other than Zach showed improvement this year.

In all fairness to AK/Donovan, this is the worst year in the history of the NBA to try and develop people. You have the fewest practices, shortest camp, shortest preseason, wonkiest safety protocols providing less continuity, weird rules about players even spending time together.

I'm usually of the opinion that the situations for player development generally don't differ so radically that a team that is great at it vs a team that is bad at it get really different results. Or in other words, I think most development is on the player and how hard they work. They all have plenty of time, availability of expert trainers, superb facilities, etc... The gaps between "great" and "awful" here are probably not even 10% as big as the gap between a player with great internal drive and one with horrible internal drive when looking at outcomes.

Though I also think player development also gets confused a bit with playing guys to their strengths. A well fitting roster will have guys playing "better", but when they leave that great fitting situation, they aren't actually better or have more skills. They are just played to their strengths. When I think of player development, I mean players actually improving their skill level not just being put into better situations. Washington isn't developing Gafford better than us, but his fit on their roster is a lot better than his fit here. If he came back here, he would look the same as he did prior to leaving.

[sco]

Much the same way Washington fans are absolutely loving Daniel Gafford and think they got a steal, Markkanen will look a lot better on a team with any PGs at all. I count zero point guards on any passing ability on this team. Sato is the best passer, and setting the bar very low. There's a reason all our assists go through Thad & Vuc.

I mean look at Bobby Portis. He shot 30%-37% from 3 in Chicago.
In Washington he shot 40%.
And he's shooting 47% in Milwaukee.

Part of what's holding Lauri back is probably Chicago itself. He certainly wouldn't be the first Bull to contribute to a winning team after Chicago. Everyone agreed Cam Payne wasn't an NBA player here. He's now in the 8 man rotation for the 2nd WC seed.

As someone posted above, Chicago is 5th in the NBA in assists per game. The Bulls have a motion offense and the ball moves. Its part of the reason why the turnover rate is so high. The Mavericks, who a lot of people think would be great for Lauri, have one of the lowest assist rates because so much of the clock is spent with 4 guys watching Luka.

The Bulls have been pretty terrible at developing players since Thibs left though. That was high up on AK's list when he was hired but I can't say that anyone other than Zach showed improvement this year.

I like that point. I feel like BD is preaching this unselfish approach, and while it does generate better shots, I wonder what happens if you adjust the higher % associated with good shots by the higher TO's, which have an even more negative impact than missed shots.

To be fair to Lauri, Bobby has a more defined role (just shoot the rock when you get it). Lauri, I think, is asked to think if he has the best shot or someone else does, which IMO, hurts his %'s. Also, I don't think opponents scheme to stop Portis.

[thedarkstark]

So what do you guys think that Lauri's next season's salary or cap hit will look like? How much would another team have to offer where Bulls wouldn't match the offer?

I think he gets around a 3 year, $15+ mill/year and there's zero chance the Bulls match.

[WindyCityBorn]

Much the same way Washington fans are absolutely loving Daniel Gafford and think they got a steal, Markkanen will look a lot better on a team with any PGs at all. I count zero point guards on any passing ability on this team. Sato is the best passer, and setting the bar very low. There's a reason all our assists go through Thad & Vuc.

I mean look at Bobby Portis. He shot 30%-37% from 3 in Chicago.
In Washington he shot 40%.
And he's shooting 47% in Milwaukee.

Part of what's holding Lauri back is probably Chicago itself. He certainly wouldn't be the first Bull to contribute to a winning team after Chicago. Everyone agreed Cam Payne wasn't an NBA player here. He's now in the 8 man rotation for the 2nd WC seed.

None of those guys make $20 million and probably never will.

[bearadonisdna]

lauri had his jay cutler moments.
if he cares about the game, i would think he can be an offensive option that almost rivaled zach.
If the passion issues werent an issue, billzo couid be dead wrong about not starting him.

[WindyCityBorn]

lauri had his jay cutler moments.
if he cares about the game, i would think he can be an offensive option that almost rivaled zach.
If the passion issues werent an issue, billzo couid be dead wrong about not starting him.

He has almost no ability to create his own offense. Vuc basically has the skill set we we were hoping Lauri would develop. Which is probably why they traded for him and gave up on Lauri. Would have been better for us if Lauri had actually developed since he is 7 years younger, but he didn’t and don’t think we will anywhere else either. If he finds himself on team with an elite passer that can get 4 or 5 layups a game he might do better but it will because that player made him better. He doesn’t have the drive to be great and don’t believe he puts in work in the off-season either. He has the exact same skill set he came into the league with. He has gotten better at taking advantage of mismatches in the paint this season, but that is about it in 4 years.

[FanInTheAttic]

The Bulls have been pretty terrible at developing players since Thibs left though. That was high up on AK's list when he was hired but I can't say that anyone other than Zach showed improvement this year.

In all fairness to AK/Donovan, this is the worst year in the history of the NBA to try and develop people. You have the fewest practices, shortest camp, shortest preseason, wonkiest safety protocols providing less continuity, weird rules about players even spending time together.

I'm usually of the opinion that the situations for player development generally don't differ so radically that a team that is great at it vs a team that is bad at it get really different results. Or in other words, I think most development is on the player and how hard they work. They all have plenty of time, availability of expert trainers, superb facilities, etc... The gaps between "great" and "awful" here are probably not even 10% as big as the gap between a player with great internal drive and one with horrible internal drive when looking at outcomes.

Though I also think player development also gets confused a bit with playing guys to their strengths. A well fitting roster will have guys playing "better", but when they leave that great fitting situation, they aren't actually better or have more skills. They are just played to their strengths. When I think of player development, I mean players actually improving their skill level not just being put into better situations. Washington isn't developing Gafford better than us, but his fit on their roster is a lot better than his fit here. If he came back here, he would look the same as he did prior to leaving.

I really disagree that a team can't have much effect in player development, at least when talking about rookies and players on their first contract. Team determines which skills a player must work on and what aspects of his play needs development, based on his role and player position in in the team. Do you really think a rookie player could just decide the role and the way he will play in the team and develop his skills accordingly? Playing or not plying guys to their strengths is part of player development. And if a player is not putting in the work there is a lot the team can do. Make the player work harder by creating an environment that supports player development, and that is not just about facilities or trainers. I think it is in the players and teams interest to get best results with developing players, and it is probably not very common to have a NBA player without internal drive. But the team can make wrong decisions and have staff that doesn't know how to work with certain players, the player can only work as hard as he can according to the teams plans. Of course most players will never become stars in this league, no matter how hard they work or how they are developed, and the team effect in player development is limited, but to say it can't have much effect is not right IMO.

[dougthonus]

I really disagree that a team can't have much effect in player development, at least when talking about rookies and players on their first contract. Team determines which skills a player must work on and what aspects of his play needs development, based on his role and player position in in the team. Do you really think a rookie player could just decide the role and the way he will play in the team and develop his skills accordingly? Playing or not plying guys to their strengths is part of player development. And if a player is not putting in the work there is a lot the team can do. Make the player work harder by creating an environment that supports player development, and that is not just about facilities or trainers. I think it is in the players and teams interest to get best results with developing players, and it is probably not very common to have a NBA player without internal drive. But the team can make wrong decisions and have staff that doesn't know how to work with certain players, the player can only work as hard as he can according to the teams plans. Of course most players will never become stars in this league, no matter how hard they work or how they are developed, and the team effect in player development is limited, but to say it can't have much effect is not right IMO.

As I said, the individual player's work ethic is the majority of it. The difference between Eddy Curry and Jimmy Butler on how bad they want it has a much bigger impact than anything the team does.

For the most part, I don't think a team looks at Doncic and says, we're going to turn you into a post up center. While occasionally there are guys whom might be limited in their role, literally every front office wants every player to learn to shoot and play defense. If you are great at those two things, then you're already a great player in the league, and they're probably the two skills most likely to be developed from a skill standpoint.

Ball handling / court vision are a hell of a lot harder to learn at an elite NBA level than shooting / defense, and so maybe there are a few guys who would go on to be much better shot creators if developed that way, if they can't first learn to be good shooters / defenders, I think it's probably reasonably unlikely, and every FO is going to hope every player develops those two skills.

I do see what you're saying about role being important, I think it is a bit less important given the above, but I agree they are comingled and not fully separable though.

[Neonblazer]

Lets not forget that Boylen wanted Lauri to be stretch 5. Bulking up and rebounding. That was the peak player development the Bulls ever had on Lauri.