Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[reamily]

Surely lakers can use another floor spacer with ad,he isnt just a mirotic type floor spacer he can initiate offense at higher percentage that will put a lot of work with the jokics goberts, kp's. But not as a need compare to a legit athletic footer..and a third star( maybe if we consider lauri as potential one) in that order..

[DroseReturnChi]

But in seriousness, even with Lauri's flaws, the skillset he provides is very valuable in today's NBA. Being able to get points efficiently within the flow of the game is a valuable trait to have.

3s/ shots at the rim/ FTs are considered the most valuable plays analytically. Lauri's game is 90% that.

There are only 18 players in the league with his scoring output and his 3point shooting rate.

https://go.nba.com/idkw

It doesnt matter if he is the best stretch 4 in the league which is worth somewhere between 20 and the max. This team roster composition is literally the worst for Lauri bust White is higher in the pecking order. Attempts more shots yet Lauri is scoring 19 points compared to his putrid 15 points which is a joke. In what world does a coach order a guy shooting 15% TS worse to take more shots?

Coupled with rich man version in Lavine who is a volume scorer and doesnt play defense, theres no room for Lauri to play. Either one of those 3 has to go, preferably 2.

[DroseReturnChi]

Surely lakers can use another floor spacer with ad,he isnt just a mirotic type floor spacer he can initiate offense at higher percentage that will put a lot of work with the jokics goberts, kp's. But not as a need compare to a legit athletic footer..and a third star( maybe if we consider lauri as potential one) in that order..

I just wish Lakers had some minor additional assets. THT, 2 frps would have been great but guess I have to settle for washed up Kuz who still thinks he is the next big shot. I would do this trade bc oh man Lauri would win multiple rings and get a statue.

[sco]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/bulls-lauri-markkanen-eyes-quick-202617146.html

[reamily]

Surely lakers can use another floor spacer with ad,he isnt just a mirotic type floor spacer he can initiate offense at higher percentage that will put a lot of work with the jokics goberts, kp's. But not as a need compare to a legit athletic footer..and a third star( maybe if we consider lauri as potential one) in that order..

I just wish Lakers had some minor additional assets. THT, 2 frps would have been great but guess I have to settle for washed up Kuz who still thinks he is the next big shot. I would do this trade bc oh man Lauri would win multiple rings and get a statue.

Kuz(hehe) is the centerpiece of that lauri trade and frps not tht..

[sco]

Surely lakers can use another floor spacer with ad,he isnt just a mirotic type floor spacer he can initiate offense at higher percentage that will put a lot of work with the jokics goberts, kp's. But not as a need compare to a legit athletic footer..and a third star( maybe if we consider lauri as potential one) in that order..

I just wish Lakers had some minor additional assets. THT, 2 frps would have been great but guess I have to settle for washed up Kuz who still thinks he is the next big shot. I would do this trade bc oh man Lauri would win multiple rings and get a statue.

Kuz(hehe) is the centerpiece of that lauri trade and frps not tht..

I'd hate Kuz, but he's better than the 2nd round pick, I expect we'll see elsewhere. I am totally on board BTW with poison pill offer for THT this offseason.

[Indomitable]

Surely lakers can use another floor spacer with ad,he isnt just a mirotic type floor spacer he can initiate offense at higher percentage that will put a lot of work with the jokics goberts, kp's. But not as a need compare to a legit athlete
ic footer..and a third star( maybe if we consider lauri as potential one) in that order..

The Lakers have no desire for Lauri.

[chefo]

What's the rush to trade Lauri? I still don't get it.

In the NBA, you win by overwhelming talent more so than anything else. Lauri is the second most talented guy on the (quasi-playoff) team, trending in the right direction this year, a positive player for the first time in his career, and scores with absolutely elite efficiency. And, he's just a tad younger than Zach so the timeline fits as well.

Everybody can miss a 2-3 weeks in the NBA. ShYte happens.

Stack talent, don't ship it out for utter excrement assets like mid first round picks or somebody's trash. Lauri at 18-20 is a steal, IMO, even if he only plays 65-70 games / year, if he can keep up his current level of play. Hell, he'll probably get a bit more if he comes back and balls just as well as before he got injured.

Doing trades for the sake of doing something is how you end up being the Thomas Knicks.

To paraphrase the current POTUS: Come on, man!

[Pentele]

What's the rush to trade Lauri? I still don't get it.

In the NBA, you win by overwhelming talent more so than anything else. Lauri is the second most talented guy on the (quasi-playoff) team, trending in the right direction this year, a positive player for the first time in his career, and scores with absolutely elite efficiency. And, he's just a tad younger than Zach so the timeline fits as well.

Everybody can miss a 2-3 weeks in the NBA. ShYte happens.

Stack talent, don't ship it out for utter excrement assets like mid first round picks or somebody's trash. Lauri at 18-20 is a steal, IMO, even if he only plays 65-70 games / year, if he can keep up his current level of play. Hell, he'll probably get a bit more if he comes back and balls just as well as before he got injured.

Doing trades for the sake of doing something is how you end up being the Thomas Knicks.

To paraphrase the current POTUS: Come on, man!

I do not get it either. I think it might have something to do with human psychology. As in "I am SO over that guy!" Even if the original feeling of frustration etc. is somewhat justified, people tend to go very quickly to the extreme due to posters reinforcing each others' views. Some call it a narrative, but it is called conclave thinking. Lauri is by no means the only instance, Zach was getting similar treatment some time ago,and there are others as well. There appears to be an unconscious competition going on regarding who is the most over a particular player Or maybe people seek to to impress others by their decisiveness. Those who want to fare well in that competition are usually willing to let a player go for peanuts. I have a feeling AK is not one of them.

[sco]

What's the rush to trade Lauri? I still don't get it.

In the NBA, you win by overwhelming talent more so than anything else. Lauri is the second most talented guy on the (quasi-playoff) team, trending in the right direction this year, a positive player for the first time in his career, and scores with absolutely elite efficiency. And, he's just a tad younger than Zach so the timeline fits as well.

Everybody can miss a 2-3 weeks in the NBA. ShYte happens.

Stack talent, don't ship it out for utter excrement assets like mid first round picks or somebody's trash. Lauri at 18-20 is a steal, IMO, even if he only plays 65-70 games / year, if he can keep up his current level of play. Hell, he'll probably get a bit more if he comes back and balls just as well as before he got injured.

Doing trades for the sake of doing something is how you end up being the Thomas Knicks.

To paraphrase the current POTUS: Come on, man!

I do not get it either. I think it might have something to do with human psychology. As in "I am SO over that guy!" Even if the original feeling of frustration etc. is somewhat justified, people tend to go very quickly to the extreme due to posters reinforcing each others' views. Some call it a narrative, but it is called conclave thinking. Lauri is by no means the only instance, Zach was getting similar treatment some time ago,and there are others as well. There appears to be an unconscious competition going on regarding who is the most over a particular player Or maybe people seek to to impress others by their decisiveness. Those who want to fare well in that competition are usually willing to let a player go for peanuts. I have a feeling AK is not one of them.

I can't speak for others, but the "rush" is driven by his impending free agency at the end of the season.

Lauri, if healthy (and that's the big issue), could get offers for $20M/year. My perspective is that signing him to a 4/$80M deal is bad for the Bulls, and will likely be a contract that he under-performs and will be hard to move going forward via trade. I just think he'll never be able to pull together 4 seasons of healthy performance at the level that he's demonstrated in the small sample size as he has this season. The other issue is that if don't sign him, we'll have around enough cap for 2 MAX salary slots, if not via FA this offseason they could be used to absorb trade salary to get 2 stars...signing Lauri eliminates one of those stars. IMO, better to get whatever we can at the deadline and move on.

[LateNight]

What's the rush to trade Lauri? I still don't get it.

Everybody can miss a 2-3 weeks in the NBA...

Stack talent, don't ship it out... Lauri at 18-20 is a steal, IMO, even if he only plays 65-70 games / year, if he can keep up his current level of play. Hell, he'll probably get a bit more if he comes back and balls just as well as before he got injured.

This has been explained a bunch of times. But the arguments for trading Lauri is simple. There are basically three reasons:

1.) Lauri playing style does not complement Zach's (Lauri lacks defense, lack of post play and his inability to create his own shot when his 3 isn't falling).

2.) It's a questionable use of cap-space to spend $20m on an inconsistent, one-way big that seems to miss 25% of each season to injury. People would prefer to spend it on someone else.

3.) If we want to build around Zach, we may need to move piece to acquire players - Lauri can be used as a trade asset to help get us other pieces who complements Zach more.

Now, I'm not saying all of that is true. It's subjective and a lot of people disagree with it (and, to your point, there does seem to be some element of the 'grass is always greener' mindset). But those are the reasons.

[Added: As noted by the user above - the rush is because of free agency and the estimate value of his contract. Most people who believe the above three things seem to agree they would keep Markkanen for $15m.]

[Pentele]

What's the rush to trade Lauri? I still don't get it.

In the NBA, you win by overwhelming talent more so than anything else. Lauri is the second most talented guy on the (quasi-playoff) team, trending in the right direction this year, a positive player for the first time in his career, and scores with absolutely elite efficiency. And, he's just a tad younger than Zach so the timeline fits as well.

Everybody can miss a 2-3 weeks in the NBA. ShYte happens.

Stack talent, don't ship it out for utter excrement assets like mid first round picks or somebody's trash. Lauri at 18-20 is a steal, IMO, even if he only plays 65-70 games / year, if he can keep up his current level of play. Hell, he'll probably get a bit more if he comes back and balls just as well as before he got injured.

Doing trades for the sake of doing something is how you end up being the Thomas Knicks.

To paraphrase the current POTUS: Come on, man!

I do not get it either. I think it might have something to do with human psychology. As in "I am SO over that guy!" Even if the original feeling of frustration etc. is somewhat justified, people tend to go very quickly to the extreme due to posters reinforcing each others' views. Some call it a narrative, but it is called conclave thinking. Lauri is by no means the only instance, Zach was getting similar treatment some time ago,and there are others as well. There appears to be an unconscious competition going on regarding who is the most over a particular player Or maybe people seek to to impress others by their decisiveness. Those who want to fare well in that competition are usually willing to let a player go for peanuts. I have a feeling AK is not one of them.

I can't speak for others, but the "rush" is driven by his impending free agency at the end of the season.

Lauri, if healthy (and that's the big issue), could get offers for $20M/year. My perspective is that signing him to a 4/$80M deal is bad for the Bulls, and will likely be a contract that he under-performs and will be hard to move going forward via trade. I just think he'll never be able to pull together 4 seasons of healthy performance at the level that he's demonstrated in the small sample size as he has this season. The other issue is that if don't sign him, we'll have around enough cap for 2 MAX salary slots, if not via FA this offseason they could be used to absorb trade salary to get 2 stars...signing Lauri eliminates one of those stars. IMO, better to get whatever we can at the deadline and move on.

Fair enough. And I do understand the FA situation. But I do not get the "get whatever we can at the deadline and move on" mentality if the "whatever" turns out to be a late first or perhaps even worse.There appears to be posters who indeed are "so over" Lauri that they would be willing to trade him for anything just to get rid of him. At some point there is more value in keeping Lauri and seeing however the chips may fall. Assets are good, but worthless assets are worthless.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Lauri returns and continues shooting with the same elite level efficiency. But not only that, he also continues improving his defense and Donovan makes an assessment that it is probably not going to be the end of it. There is suddenly value in having a chance to negotiate with Lauri as a RFA. In a dream scenario, other teams are hesitant to make big offers to Lauri because of his history - and especially because, unlike Donovan, they have had no chance to see him taking all the little steps that instill confidence. Now, I am not saying or predicting that all of that is going to happen. What I am saying is that the possibility that it or something similar enough might happen has a value, and the value could be much better than the scraps one gets at the trade deadline. I think this is perfectly reasonable way of looking at the matter. It all depends on what Lauri actually commands at the deadline.

[sco]

I do not get it either. I think it might have something to do with human psychology. As in "I am SO over that guy!" Even if the original feeling of frustration etc. is somewhat justified, people tend to go very quickly to the extreme due to posters reinforcing each others' views. Some call it a narrative, but it is called conclave thinking. Lauri is by no means the only instance, Zach was getting similar treatment some time ago,and there are others as well. There appears to be an unconscious competition going on regarding who is the most over a particular player Or maybe people seek to to impress others by their decisiveness. Those who want to fare well in that competition are usually willing to let a player go for peanuts. I have a feeling AK is not one of them.

I can't speak for others, but the "rush" is driven by his impending free agency at the end of the season.

Lauri, if healthy (and that's the big issue), could get offers for $20M/year. My perspective is that signing him to a 4/$80M deal is bad for the Bulls, and will likely be a contract that he under-performs and will be hard to move going forward via trade. I just think he'll never be able to pull together 4 seasons of healthy performance at the level that he's demonstrated in the small sample size as he has this season. The other issue is that if don't sign him, we'll have around enough cap for 2 MAX salary slots, if not via FA this offseason they could be used to absorb trade salary to get 2 stars...signing Lauri eliminates one of those stars. IMO, better to get whatever we can at the deadline and move on.

Fair enough. And I do understand the FA situation. But I do not get the "get whatever we can at the deadline and move on" mentality if the "whatever" turns out to be a late first or perhaps even worse.There appears to be posters who indeed are "so over" Lauri that they would be willing to trade him for anything just to get rid of him. At some point there is more value in keeping Lauri and seeing however the chips may fall. Assets are good, but worthless assets are worthless.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Lauri returns and continues shooting with the same elite level efficiency. But not only that, he also continues improving his defense and Donovan makes an assessment that it is probably not going to be the end of it. There is suddenly value in having a chance to negotiate with Lauri as a RFA. In a dream scenario, other teams are hesitant to make big offers to Lauri because of his history - and especially because, unlike Donovan, they have had no chance to see him taking all the little steps that instill confidence. Now, I am not saying or predicting that all of that is going to happen. What I am saying is that the possibility that it or something similar enough might happen has a value, and the value could be much better than the scraps one gets at the trade deadline. I think this is perfectly reasonable way of looking at the matter. It all depends on what Lauri actually commands at the deadline.

For the sake of fun, I think the problem with your hypothetical is that the FO needs to make the call before the deadline, and will have little additional info to base that on. I also think that even getting a "good deal" on Lauri will prove to come with many missed games over that contract, and it will still take away a MAX slot.

[Pentele]

I can't speak for others, but the "rush" is driven by his impending free agency at the end of the season.

Lauri, if healthy (and that's the big issue), could get offers for $20M/year. My perspective is that signing him to a 4/$80M deal is bad for the Bulls, and will likely be a contract that he under-performs and will be hard to move going forward via trade. I just think he'll never be able to pull together 4 seasons of healthy performance at the level that he's demonstrated in the small sample size as he has this season. The other issue is that if don't sign him, we'll have around enough cap for 2 MAX salary slots, if not via FA this offseason they could be used to absorb trade salary to get 2 stars...signing Lauri eliminates one of those stars. IMO, better to get whatever we can at the deadline and move on.

Fair enough. And I do understand the FA situation. But I do not get the "get whatever we can at the deadline and move on" mentality if the "whatever" turns out to be a late first or perhaps even worse.There appears to be posters who indeed are "so over" Lauri that they would be willing to trade him for anything just to get rid of him. At some point there is more value in keeping Lauri and seeing however the chips may fall. Assets are good, but worthless assets are worthless.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Lauri returns and continues shooting with the same elite level efficiency. But not only that, he also continues improving his defense and Donovan makes an assessment that it is probably not going to be the end of it. There is suddenly value in having a chance to negotiate with Lauri as a RFA. In a dream scenario, other teams are hesitant to make big offers to Lauri because of his history - and especially because, unlike Donovan, they have had no chance to see him taking all the little steps that instill confidence. Now, I am not saying or predicting that all of that is going to happen. What I am saying is that the possibility that it or something similar enough might happen has a value, and the value could be much better than the scraps one gets at the trade deadline. I think this is perfectly reasonable way of looking at the matter. It all depends on what Lauri actually commands at the deadline.

For the sake of fun, I think the problem with your hypothetical is that the FO needs to make the call before the deadline, and will have little additional info to base that on. I also think that even getting a "good deal" on Lauri will prove to come with many missed games over that contract, and it will still take away a MAX slot.

I completely agree. I guess the point I was trying to make was that, even without any additional information, AK might be willing to take a calculated risk that Lauri walks for nothing if the return for him at the deadline is only peanuts. Because if it pans out positively Bulls have made a value contract with Lauri. That contract is a trade asset later, even if we would not now dare to even speculate that Lauri could be the second banana if he continues developing his game. If I have understood correctly, there is no move to be made by the Bulls regarding the MAX in the upcoming FA anyway.

[ZOMG]

IMO it's clear as day that Markkanen will get several contract offers around $20 million per.

Many people thought Gordon Hayward was done. Can't stay healthy, couldn't mesh with his teammates in Boston, just a guy on a downward trajectory who's already 30. Stick a fork in him.

Then the Hornets shocked the world by giving him a humongous deal out of the blue. At that point everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY laughed at them. Desperate small market team doing desperate small market team things. But Charlotte had looked past the circumstances Hayward had found himself in and recognized a guy whose talent had never disappeared. And now he's having a career year in pretty much every category. Nobody's laughing.

Markkanen may not be Hayward, but he's a whopping SEVEN years younger than Gordon. There is literally zero chance teams around the NBA don't take a chance on someone like Lauri after seeing him play for dysfunctional teams and bad coaches for years. If he pans out, that's the kind of genius move that makes GM careers. In the same vein, if the Bulls give him up for next to nothing and the aforementioned happens, it's just one more embarrassment for this team in a long line of them. Not sure if they want to take that risk - $20 million per is simply a market price for a guy playing like Markkanen this season.

Lauri has already shown enough to make this situation a reality. IMO it doesn't matter that much what happens the rest of the way.

[Louri]

I just hope that this injury won't make him spot up shooter again. I hope Lauri will stay aggressive. My guess is tho, that rest of the season we won't see that aggressive driving Lauri again. He will try to play it safe and avoid contact even more than before.

[sco]

IMO it's clear as day that Markkanen will get several contract offers around $20 million per.

Many people thought Gordon Hayward was done. Can't stay healthy, couldn't mesh with his teammates in Boston, just a guy on a downward trajectory who's already 30. Stick a fork in him.

Then the Hornets shocked the world by giving him a humongous deal out of the blue. At that point everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY laughed at them. Desperate small market team doing desperate small market team things. But Charlotte had looked past the circumstances Hayward had found himself in and recognized a guy whose talent had never disappeared. And now he's having a career year in pretty much every category. Nobody's laughing.

Markkanen may not be Hayward, but he's a whopping SEVEN years younger than Gordon. There is literally zero chance teams around the NBA don't take a chance on someone like Lauri after seeing him play for dysfunctional teams and bad coaches for years. If he pans out, that's the kind of genius move that makes GM careers. In the same vein, if the Bulls give him up for next to nothing and the aforementioned happens, it's just one more embarrassment for this team in a long line of them. Not sure if they want to take that risk - $20 million per is simply a market price for a guy playing like Markkanen this season.

Lauri has already shown enough to make this situation a reality. IMO it doesn't matter that much what happens the rest of the way.

If true, don't you think someone would give us something decent in trade value for him to get his RFA rights?

[Hangtime84]

availability is part of getting paid, Lauri.

[Indomitable]

IMO it's clear as day that Markkanen will get several contract offers around $20 million per.

Many people thought Gordon Hayward was done. Can't stay healthy, couldn't mesh with his teammates in Boston, just a guy on a downward trajectory who's already 30. Stick a fork in him.

Then the Hornets shocked the world by giving him a humongous deal out of the blue. At that point everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY laughed at them. Desperate small market team doing desperate small market team things. But Charlotte had looked past the circumstances Hayward had found himself in and recognized a guy whose talent had never disappeared. And now he's having a career year in pretty much every category. Nobody's laughing.

Markkanen may not be Hayward, but he's a whopping SEVEN years younger than Gordon. There is literally zero chance teams around the NBA don't take a chance on someone like Lauri after seeing him play for dysfunctional teams and bad coaches for years. If he pans out, that's the kind of genius move that makes GM careers. In the same vein, if the Bulls give him up for next to nothing and the aforementioned happens, it's just one more embarrassment for this team in a long line of them. Not sure if they want to take that risk - $20 million per is simply a market price for a guy playing like Markkanen this season.

Lauri has already shown enough to make this situation a reality. IMO it doesn't matter that much what happens the rest of the way.

If true, don't you think someone would give us something decent in trade value for him to get his RFA rights?

People act like Lauri is a unique talent. He is not. He is a solid role player at best. He will get overpayed and I say let someone else do it.

Gordon was an all star and use to dual Jimmy toe to toe. He was a truly good player. His leg got destroyed and he is still better then Lauri.

Lauri is a solid shooter. That is his NBA skill. He would have been the perfect player for 2011 Bulls.

If Lauri had Toni Kukoc type of ability. I would be in his corner. Kukoc would have been a player worth watching in todays game. He could pass, shoot, and post up. People who make comparisons between the two do not remember how much better Kukoc was at all areas of the game.

[MrSparkle]

IMO it's clear as day that Markkanen will get several contract offers around $20 million per.

Many people thought Gordon Hayward was done. Can't stay healthy, couldn't mesh with his teammates in Boston, just a guy on a downward trajectory who's already 30. Stick a fork in him.

Then the Hornets shocked the world by giving him a humongous deal out of the blue. At that point everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY laughed at them. Desperate small market team doing desperate small market team things. But Charlotte had looked past the circumstances Hayward had found himself in and recognized a guy whose talent had never disappeared. And now he's having a career year in pretty much every category. Nobody's laughing.

Markkanen may not be Hayward, but he's a whopping SEVEN years younger than Gordon. There is literally zero chance teams around the NBA don't take a chance on someone like Lauri after seeing him play for dysfunctional teams and bad coaches for years. If he pans out, that's the kind of genius move that makes GM careers. In the same vein, if the Bulls give him up for next to nothing and the aforementioned happens, it's just one more embarrassment for this team in a long line of them. Not sure if they want to take that risk - $20 million per is simply a market price for a guy playing like Markkanen this season.

Lauri has already shown enough to make this situation a reality. IMO it doesn't matter that much what happens the rest of the way.

If true, don't you think someone would give us something decent in trade value for him to get his RFA rights?

People act like Lauri is a unique talent. He is not. He is a solid role player at best. He will get overpayed and I say let someone else do it.

Gordon was an all star and use to dual Jimmy toe to toe. He was a truly good player. His leg got destroyed and he is still better then Lauri.

Lauri is a solid shooter. That is his NBA skill. He would have been the perfect player for 2011 Bulls.

If Lauri had Toni Kukoc type of ability. I would be in his corner. Kukoc would have been a player worth watching in todays game. He could pass, shoot, and post up. People who make comparisons between the two do not remember how much better Kukoc was at all areas of the game.

+1 Lauri is rich man's Jud Buechler meets Bill Wennington.

IMO Lauri could be an excellent bench piece. That's about where the Toni comparison ends, although Toni was 6th man for the best team eve.r