Lauri Markkanen Thread: PG. 13 - KC: Bulls Extend QO to Lauri

[League Circles]

Well we really can't trade Lauri or Theis for all practical purposes, and Thad is older than Vuc, shorter deal so probably would return a lot less in trade even if he were as good as Vuc, and presumably we tried and failed to trade him before the deadline. So we don't have many options. Free agency options suck and trade options are very, very limited. Trading Vuc is counterintuitive but should br looked at due to circumstances.

Can't trade Temple, and he's older than Lavine so probably wouldn't return much. Sato is on the final year of his deal wouldn't get much for him. Only logical conclusion is to trade Zach.

You don't trade an all-star because of the existence of role players. Especially since two of those guys play very well with him (Theis / Thad) and two of them are FA (Theis / Lauri) and none of them are likely to be long term fits for the team.

You won't get as much for Vuc now as you gave up to get him because you were the high bidder last year and he now has less time on his deal and is older so is worth less.

There might be some cases where you trade Vuc, if you like your future more after a trade, but the potential presence of two FAs and one year presence of a third that are all far worse options would be a completely irrational reason to do so.

Well I haven't suggested trading Vuc, but our options are far too poor to justify not even looking into it IMO. I wouldn't trade Vuc just to trade him, but it's possible that by attaching something to him we could get a better player at the 1 or 3 positions that would better utilize Thad, Theis and Lauri. None of whom I consider role players FWIW.

[dougthonus]

Well I haven't suggested trading Vuc, but our options are far too poor to justify not even looking into it IMO. I wouldn't trade Vuc just to trade him, but it's possible that by attaching something to him we could get a better player at the 1 or 3 positions that would better utilize Thad, Theis and Lauri. None of whom I consider role players FWIW.

I don't mind looking at Vuc (or Zach for that matter) as possible trade pieces. I just don't view the other options on the roster as particularly relevant to that decision. Lauri/Theis may not be here even if we want them here so shouldn't be weighed too heavily in the calculate.

I'm not sure what you consider Thad, Theis, or Lauri if it isn't role players? You think those are star players? I'd say they're fringe starter / good bench option guys which is more or less what I would term a role player.

[GoBlue72391]

Not sure if you're just joking, but who are the Bulls that left to become all-stars?

i was maybe exaggerating, but if his profile takes the same jump as that of cam payne and bobby portis, it'll mean that he's likely getting all-star consideration

Payne was here for a hot second and also had other stops, including China, before he got his crap together and landed in Phoenix and started playing better. That seems like someone that just needed a good knock in the face that his NBA life was ending to get his crap together. He suited up a total of 67 games for Chicago.

Bobby Portis's per minute / total stats and much of his advanced stats are nearly identical now to his final year in Chicago. He doesn't seem like a markedly better player, just a guy that made small incremental improvements that would be expected of a guy to make between the ages of 22 and 25.

I definitely don't think there is any trend at all of Bulls players leaving and then going on some totally unexpected career path.

I do think there is merit to the claim that players get better after leaving the Bulls. Maybe not to the extent that a lot of people claim and it's debatable if it actually had something to do with the Bulls or if it was just happenstance.

Until recently, the Bulls notoriously undervalued player development and player relationships. We had incompetent coaching, a toxic front office, and a grossly understaffed and subpar player development staff. Our player development staff literally consisted of one guy: Shawn Respert, and it's questionable if he was even competent in that role.

Cam Payne, Tony Snell, Timothe Luwawa-Cabarrot, JaKarr Sampson, etc. all went from non-NBA caliber players on the Bulls to filling roles on good teams.

Bobby Portis went from an expendable afterthought to playing a major role on a contending team as an uber efficient stretch big. Doug McDermott went from just a guy to a quality role player. Justin Holiday went from a tank commander scrub to a decent 3 and D guy. WCJ and Gafford appear to be on a similar path, though it's too early to say for sure. Kornet went from unplayable to actually filling the role he was expected to on the Celtics. Spencer Dinwiddie apparently wasn't even good enough to beat out Jerian Grant, yet he became a 20 PPG on the Nets.

So I definitely think it's a reasonable claim to make. As for how it compares to other NBA teams I have no idea, but I'd bet it's above average. As for Lauri, none of those other guys had his talent/potential. He's already a proven starter, so if he leaves and does get better, all-star isn't an unreasonable leap to make.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app

[GoBlue72391]

If we go the 2022 cap space plan, and Lauri has no real suitors, I'd be willing to pay him something like a 1 yr large money deal to improve the team next year to attract FAs.

1+1 with a second year team option would be interesting.

Any of this discussion assumes that he has virtually no suitors. I have no idea how this is going to pan out but there are 8 teams that can offer him a contract the Bulls would not match. Knicks, Spurs, Thunder, Mavs, Raptors, Grizz, Heat and Hornets. Grizz, Knicks and Raptors have a guy at that spot. When you read around, I'm not really sure how much interest there is going to be for Lauri at a big cap figure.

In the end, in my world, I would probably not match any contract because I'd be all about keeping my 2022 cap room open. That said, if we end up saying screw it to that with other moves and also remain over the cap then matching Lauri at a reasonable deal is an automatic. You're going to be replacing him with a vet min player if you don't match him, so might as well keep him if the deal isn't nuts.

That said, what's a fair deal for him? I'm actually thinking something around 10M per year is probably it. He looks like a backup caliber specialist rotation player. Even our offer of 12M per season last year feels kind of high for him.

I know some people still view him as having star potential, but that's a pipe dream to me. After four years, it's hard to argue he's any better than Portis, who received effectively a 1 year 15M per year deal (had a TO that was unexercised). He then signed for 2/6M this season but has vastly outplayed it.

I think people are really over exagerrating just how bad Lauri was this season. He had a career year in basically every category except rebounding. He even made some improvements to his defense and post game.

He averaged 17 and 6 as a starter on 48/38/83 splits in 30 MPG. He averaged 19 and 7 per 36 on 48/40/83 splits. Of course his overall raw numbers and counting stats went down when his role and minutes decreased, but it's hard to argue with his efficiency and production per 36 and as a starter.

Had we not traded for Vuch and he remained a starter he would have likely finished the season averaging 17-19 PPG and 6-8 RPG on very good efficiency on 30 MPG. In that scenario I think most of us would be pretty content with Lauri and would definitely want to bring him back in the hope that he can build upon that.

He had the best year of his career, yet many people are acting like he had an absolute failure of a season. I don't get it. Yes he was benched, but again, his production and efficiency speak for itself. You could argue 2018-19 was better when he averaged 21 and 10 per 36, but RoLo was a big reason for the rebounding and he only scored 2 more PPG per 36 despite having wayyy more touches and his efficiency was much worse that season than this season.

What exactly would he had to do satisfy people? Prior to the season if you had told me Lauri would average 19 and 7 per 36 on very good efficiency I would have been thrilled.

So to say he's only worth as much as someone like Sato is pretty off base imo, and I say that as someone who thinks Lauri's days as a Bull are all but over.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app

[kodo]

Vuc wouldn't bring back much IMO because the vast majority of teams don't builds teams the way AK did in Denver or Chicago, with an inverted offense where the C is initiating the offense. Guys like Vuc & Thad (and Jokic in Denver) are valuable in this kind of system but the other 28 teams want their centers to be Gobert or Clint Capela or Ayton. Daniel Gafford looking much better was the most unsurprising result of that trade for me. There was no way he was ever going to be a mini-Jokic. Ditto Wendell.

The rise of Denver was a perfect storm of a GM who wanted to build a certain way and a generational C talent in Jokic in the 2nd round. I don't know if AK will be able to catch lightning in that bottle a 2nd time.

But in any case, I think Vuc is here for the long haul because AK values him and most of the NBA doesn't. So the disparity in perceived value won't cause a lot of competitive offers for Chicago for Vuc.

[MGB8]

With the Bulls losing their draft pick and likely not having salary flexibility, I don't think that they can - as a matter of asset maintenance - afford to lose Lauri for nothing. This is premised on the fact that I don't think that the Bulls are really in a position to be FA "players" for someone who would be a better fit than Lauri (plus all the other players who would have to be lost).

That means that they either need to match any non-ridiculous deal or get a meaningful sign and trade. For me, a meaningful sign and trade would be mid-first round pick or, alternatively, comparable value player - maybe a bit older, but still similar in overall value.

There's a chance that some team throws ridiculous money at Lauri, and at that point it becomes a much harder question. But right now anything starting at 20M/year to me is an easy call to match. Starting at 21-25M per year is a much tougher decision. Over that... that's when I probably start thinking "no."

Ideally, I'd try to sign Lauri for a shorter term but high money deal so that, even if his play doesn't really improve, he's not crippling.

The other option IMO would be to sign and trade for DeMar DeRozan. Even though he's turning 32 before the season begins, I think he's become undervalued - in part because of the Spurs imbalanced roster. He actually defends better against "3s" than "4s" - probably because he's 6'6 220 and so gives up a bit in the size department. However, Pop mostly had him at the 4 because that roster is guard heavy and lacks any talent at the 4. Seriously, they have old-many Rudy Gay, who Pop preferred to keep as the bench leader, then Lyles (who stinks) and potentially passable over time but too green Bates-Diop.

Anyway, per 82games, at least, DeRozan a passable defender at the 3. His offensive production is also best at the 3.

So if you swapped Lauri for DeRozan, Pat would slide over to the 4 (hopefully with Theis back to act as a reserve). Of course, the issue at PG (particularly with Coby hurt) would still exist. Another potential dual S&T option would be Lauri for Devonte Graham....

[sco]

With the Bulls losing their draft pick and likely not having salary flexibility, I don't think that they can - as a matter of asset maintenance - afford to lose Lauri for nothing. This is premised on the fact that I don't think that the Bulls are really in a position to be FA "players" for someone who would be a better fit than Lauri (plus all the other players who would have to be lost).

That means that they either need to match any non-ridiculous deal or get a meaningful sign and trade. For me, a meaningful sign and trade would be mid-first round pick or, alternatively, comparable value player - maybe a bit older, but still similar in overall value.

There's a chance that some team throws ridiculous money at Lauri, and at that point it becomes a much harder question. But right now anything starting at 20M/year to me is an easy call to match. Starting at 21-25M per year is a much tougher decision. Over that... that's when I probably start thinking "no."

Ideally, I'd try to sign Lauri for a shorter term but high money deal so that, even if his play doesn't really improve, he's not crippling.

The other option IMO would be to sign and trade for DeMar DeRozan. Even though he's turning 32 before the season begins, I think he's become undervalued - in part because of the Spurs imbalanced roster. He actually defends better against "3s" than "4s" - probably because he's 6'6 220 and so gives up a bit in the size department. However, Pop mostly had him at the 4 because that roster is guard heavy and lacks any talent at the 4. Seriously, they have old-many Rudy Gay, who Pop preferred to keep as the bench leader, then Lyles (who stinks) and potentially passable over time but too green Bates-Diop.

Anyway, per 82games, at least, DeRozan a passable defender at the 3. His offensive production is also best at the 3.

So if you swapped Lauri for DeRozan, Pat would slide over to the 4 (hopefully with Theis back to act as a reserve). Of course, the issue at PG (particularly with Coby hurt) would still exist. Another potential dual S&T option would be Lauri for Devonte Graham....

I agree that getting an asset for Lauri would have been nice, but the chances of a S&T ever working out, much less getting an asset with more value than a second rounder back are slim to none. As Doug mentioned, signing Lauri to a big overpay on a 1 year or a 1+1 (team option) deal would be the smartest way to extract some residual value for Lauri. SA has the cap space to just sign Lauri outright, so our leverage to get them to do anything is very limited.

DeRozan is a good player, but I think he'll focus on ring chasing for less $, and his window as a starting talent is probably 2 years, max. Also, I think our best chance to keep Theis is to give him the starting PF role (at least to start the season), that's our hook - although we can offer him a 1yr overpay situation if we are operating over the cap.

[chefo]

I agree with the above musings--the Bulls don't have the talent or future assets to be losing good players for nothing.

Lauri may not be great, but for the first time in his career, he managed to get himself to be a big plus on O and passable to decent on D. Letting that walk for a doughnut would be... well, suboptimal.

So long as Lauri is not a long-term liability, you've got to bring him back in some variety before you let him walk. Question is, why would Lauri want to come back after last year's bridge-burning exercise?

You promise him his starting job back and throw some large ST $ at him, with a team option for next year and tell him to go earn it. If the Bulls offer anything less than that, I'm telling AK I'm walking and asking him not to match, if I'm Lauri. Which would then lead to drama and more hurt feelings if they tell him they will, IMO, and Lauri may end up taking the QO and blasting the whole org on his way out next year.

[FranchisePlayer]

I agree with the above musings--the Bulls don't have the talent or future assets to be losing good players for nothing.

In relation to this, I feel quite a few posters have lost themselves in the mixture of Lavine having a spectacular season offensively and the Bulls making a big splash with Vucevic. As in, now you can build around those two All-Stars, even with role players, and you're on to something.

The reality couldn't be further from this.

[sco]

I agree with the above musings--the Bulls don't have the talent or future assets to be losing good players for nothing.

Lauri may not be great, but for the first time in his career, he managed to get himself to be a big plus on O and passable to decent on D. Letting that walk for a doughnut would be... well, suboptimal.

So long as Lauri is not a long-term liability, you've got to bring him back in some variety before you let him walk. Question is, why would Lauri want to come back after last year's bridge-burning exercise?

You promise him his starting job back and throw some large ST $ at him, with a team option for next year and tell him to go earn it. If the Bulls offer anything less than that, I'm telling AK I'm walking and asking him not to match, if I'm Lauri. Which would then lead to drama and more hurt feelings if they tell him they will, IMO, and Lauri may end up taking the QO and blasting the whole org on his way out next year.

I'll disagree, in part, with the notion that the Bulls can't lose good players for nothing. I feel like AK tried to get something for Lauri at the deadline, but there were no takers. Now this is nit picking words, but in general, GM's need to avoid paying "good players" to free up cap space for "great players", and we need 1 more great player. Anyone wanting to pay Lauri $15M+ are paying for us upside, due to age, and I feel like that's a bad bet after watching him. I think he's a good player, right now top 16-24 starting PF, with potential to get to maybe 10-15th best. I think similar quality can be had for the MLE, just in an older player without the "upside". If we match a $15M+ deal, I think it may well very hard to trade it. If he takes the QO, I'd be thrilled.

[gobullschi]

Someone suggested a potential 1 + 1 deal and that makes a lot of sense. Bulls get one more year to see if he turns the corner.

IMO that’s the only route that makes sense if Markkanen is going to stay on the Bulls.

[Leslie Forman]

I think he's a good player, right now top 16-24 starting PF

But…he literally doesn't even start for this team. And it's not like he's got LeBron or Giannis blocking him.

[sco]

I think he's a good player, right now top 16-24 starting PF

But…he literally doesn't even start for this team. And it's not like he's got LeBron or Giannis blocking him.

Semantics, somewhat...you can take "starting" out of my statement. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that he was a better PF than Theis - especially offensively. I think the NBA "values" offensive over defense. Theis, IMO, is a better fit with Vuc (especially as a rim protector), and going forward, is probably cheaper than Lauri - thus allowing us to deploy $ to other holes (ie PG).

[Neonblazer]

Lauri may end up taking the QO and blasting the whole org on his way out next year.

Except Lauri is not just the guy who does that. I'm telling you, AK can do the worst executive **** anyone can think of and he will get away with it. Because Lauri isn't the kind of guy who is going to blast other people.

[LateNight]

I think he's a good player, right now top 16-24 starting PF

But…he literally doesn't even start for this team. And it's not like he's got LeBron or Giannis blocking him.

Semantics, somewhat...you can take "starting" out of my statement. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that he was a better PF than Theis - especially offensively. I think the NBA "values" offensive over defense. Theis, IMO, is a better fit with Vuc (especially as a rim protector), and going forward, is probably cheaper than Lauri - thus allowing us to deploy $ to other holes (ie PG).

I think what Theis brings to the position may be more important when you have Vuc and Zach on the court at the same time.


[Note: Honestly, I missed the italicized part when I first responded - so, basically, I agree with you.]

[Andi Obst]

Someone suggested a potential 1 + 1 deal and that makes a lot of sense. Bulls get one more year to see if he turns the corner.

IMO that’s the only route that makes sense if Markkanen is going to stay on the Bulls.

IIRC, the new contract has to be for at least 2 fully guaranteed years (unless he just signs the QO). So 2+1 is possible, 1+1 is not.

[chefo]

But…he literally doesn't even start for this team. And it's not like he's got LeBron or Giannis blocking him.

Semantics, somewhat...you can take "starting" out of my statement. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that he was a better PF than Theis - especially offensively. I think the NBA "values" offensive over defense. Theis, IMO, is a better fit with Vuc (especially as a rim protector), and going forward, is probably cheaper than Lauri - thus allowing us to deploy $ to other holes (ie PG).

I think what Theis brings to the position may be more important when you have Vuc and Zach on the court at the same time.

I actually think that argument is a myth that's passed as self-evident, despite little evidence for its accuracy.

I don't think Theis is a better fit with Vuc (and Zach) because he's marginally better at rim protection compared to Lauri. Theis is a mediocre undersized rim-runner who shot a blistering quarter from deep for the Bulls... and that was, despite the fact that there was nobody in the same zip code when he got the ball on the perimeter most games. Theis is a good defender, but he's nowhere near good enough to compensate for his deficiencies on O. It's not like the Bulls played Isaac at PF... then, you can maybe live with him being disregarded on O because he's such a wrecking ball on D.

I think you win by overwhelming the opposition in SOME fashion. Since rules make it more difficult to do so with D, you need to be able to wreck teams on O, most nights. You can probably get away with one stiff like Capela or Gobert who can't do anything but dunk, provided that they're elite at something else--i.e. boarding or help D. But, you can't have a DTheis out there for 30 min / game and expect to go anywhere, because that means everybody else on the court has to cover for his lack of O and he's not, by himself, good enough to cover their screw-ups on D.

Lauri's value to most teams would be that with 30 min/game and 40 touches (which are half of Vuc's), he'll probably launch 7-8 3s, make 3 of them, while having a guy glued to his jersey for most of the night. And, while doing that, he'll also get you 3-4 layups and dunks and a couple of FTs. Having a guy like that on O makes Vuc and Zach's life VASTLY easier, all things held equal.

Having Theis out there is what I consider a half-a$$ solution, because of the lack of better defensive talent on the roster. It doesn't move the needle--it doesn't mean Theis is bad player, far from it--and I like the guy-- it simply means that he should be the backup small-ball C when Vuc sits for 15 minutes / game and a couple of extra min sprinkled in.

I'd rather choose a clear path--what identity do you want the Bulls to have?

If you choose to go D first--it will be tough because Vuc is slow footed and Zach spaces out often on the weak-side. If you go that direction, it means everybody else on the floor with them need to be 3&D specialists, and I mean everybody. No Sato, no Thad, no Pat. There aren't enough touches and shots to go around when Zach and Vuc eat up 150 a game. If they are not threats to bomb from 3 at a high volume, you'll actually make Zach and Vuc's lives unnecessarily difficult, especially if you allow a front-court player (the one guarding Theis) to roam for 30 minutes a game. Even in that case, Lauri's probably a better fit than Theis, because we saw Lauri make pretty big strides on D last year, while Daniel was bricking almost every shot outside the paint.

Or you can choose to outshoot people and hope the guys are not hopeless on D. In that scenario, Lauri's like your perfect 3rd banana because he can get you 16-20 points on any given night, super efficiently, so long as you leave him on the court for 30+ minutes.

By playing Theis 25+ minutes, or 30+ minutes when Lauri's gone, you're almost locking yourself in trying to out-D teams, and I think we just don't have the personnel to pull that off more than every other game.

In summary, as much as I like Theis' energizer bunny routine, dude is a small C that can neither guard the really big dudes that well nor be a big enough threat to justify being out there for long stretches. It's not the Bulls who decide who'll drop and who'll help--that's done by the opposing G and coach. Having Theis out there helps little if they keep screening with Vuc's guy that forces him to drop every possession. Theis becomes borderline useless as a factor in that scheme on D.

Anyhow, that's what happens when a team doesn't have elite two-way talent. You've got to choose more O or more D, and I think the Bulls made a big mistake last year, going for the D, especially when Zach went down and we struggled. The reason why Lauri's probably going to get a nice offer sheet is because he was a 18ppg scorer on 62% TS before he got benched for a defensive specialist that barely moved the needle. That has value in this league--more so than Theis, who's in essence a worse N Noel.

[sco]

Semantics, somewhat...you can take "starting" out of my statement. I think it is a reasonable argument to say that he was a better PF than Theis - especially offensively. I think the NBA "values" offensive over defense. Theis, IMO, is a better fit with Vuc (especially as a rim protector), and going forward, is probably cheaper than Lauri - thus allowing us to deploy $ to other holes (ie PG).

I think what Theis brings to the position may be more important when you have Vuc and Zach on the court at the same time.

I actually think that argument is a myth that's passed as self-evident, despite little evidence for its accuracy.

I don't think Theis is a better fit with Vuc (and Zach) because he's marginally better at rim protection compared to Lauri. Theis is a mediocre undersized rim-runner who shot a blistering quarter from deep for the Bulls... and that was, despite the fact that there was nobody in the same zip code when he got the ball on the perimeter most games. Theis is a good defender, but he's nowhere near good enough to compensate for his deficiencies on O. It's not like the Bulls played Isaac at PF... then, you can maybe live with him being disregarded on O because he's such a wrecking ball on D.

I think you win by overwhelming the opposition in SOME fashion. Since rules make it more difficult to do so with D, you need to be able to wreck teams on O, most nights. You can probably get away with one stiff like Capela or Gobert who can't do anything but dunk, provided that they're elite at something else--i.e. boarding or help D. But, you can't have a DTheis out there for 30 min / game and expect to go anywhere, because that means everybody else on the court has to cover for his lack of O and he's not, by himself, good enough to cover their screw-ups on D.

Lauri's value to most teams would be that with 30 min/game and 40 touches (which are half of Vuc's), he'll probably launch 7-8 3s, make 3 of them, while having a guy glued to his jersey for most of the night. And, while doing that, he'll also get you 3-4 layups and dunks and a couple of FTs. Having a guy like that on O makes Vuc and Zach's life VASTLY easier, all things held equal.

Having Theis out there is what I consider a half-a$$ solution, because of the lack of better defensive talent on the roster. It doesn't move the needle--it doesn't mean Theis is bad player, far from it--and I like the guy-- it simply means that he should be the backup small-ball C when Vuc sits for 15 minutes / game and a couple of extra min sprinkled in.

I'd rather choose a clear path--what identity do you want the Bulls to have?

If you choose to go D first--it will be tough because Vuc is slow footed and Zach spaces out often on the weak-side. If you go that direction, it means everybody else on the floor with them need to be 3&D specialists, and I mean everybody. No Sato, no Thad, no Pat. There aren't enough touches and shots to go around when Zach and Vuc eat up 150 a game. If they are not threats to bomb from 3 at a high volume, you'll actually make Zach and Vuc's lives unnecessarily difficult, especially if you allow a front-court player (the one guarding Theis) to roam for 30 minutes a game. Even in that case, Lauri's probably a better fit than Theis, because we saw Lauri make pretty big strides on D last year, while Daniel was bricking almost every shot outside the paint.

Or you can choose to outshoot people and hope the guys are not hopeless on D. In that scenario, Lauri's like your perfect 3rd banana because he can get you 16-20 points on any given night, super efficiently, so long as you leave him on the court for 30+ minutes.

By playing Theis 25+ minutes, or 30+ minutes when Lauri's gone, you're almost locking yourself in trying to out-D teams, and I think we just don't have the personnel to pull that off more than every other game.

In summary, as much as I like Theis' energizer bunny routine, dude is a small C that can neither guard the really big dudes that well nor be a big enough threat to justify being out there for long stretches. It's not the Bulls who decide who'll drop and who'll help--that's done by the opposing G and coach. Having Theis out there helps little if they keep screening with Vuc's guy that forces him to drop every possession. Theis becomes borderline useless as a factor in that scheme on D.

Anyhow, that's what happens when a team doesn't have elite two-way talent. You've got to choose more O or more D, and I think the Bulls made a big mistake last year, going for the D, especially when Zach went down and we struggled. The reason why Lauri's probably going to get a nice offer sheet is because he was a 18ppg scorer on 62% TS before he got benched for a defensive specialist that barely moved the needle. That has value in this league--more so than Theis, who's in essence a worse N Noel.

I get the sense you would find different nits to pick with anyone starting ahead of "King Lauri the Great".

I agree that there just aren't a ton of shots left in the offensive after Zach and Vuc. So we are talking about 3rd, 4th and 5th option guys. IMO, the real decision is do we want to keep Lauri as our 3rd option or groom Pat to be that guy next season. Lauri just doesn't do enough other than taking shots to provide value as a starter going forward (and is taking shots away from Pat, assuming we want to go that direction), and I would argue the same for White. Theis is a very good 5th option guy because he does things other guys don't.

[chefo]

I think what Theis brings to the position may be more important when you have Vuc and Zach on the court at the same time.

I actually think that argument is a myth that's passed as self-evident, despite little evidence for its accuracy.

I don't think Theis is a better fit with Vuc (and Zach) because he's marginally better at rim protection compared to Lauri. Theis is a mediocre undersized rim-runner who shot a blistering quarter from deep for the Bulls... and that was, despite the fact that there was nobody in the same zip code when he got the ball on the perimeter most games. Theis is a good defender, but he's nowhere near good enough to compensate for his deficiencies on O. It's not like the Bulls played Isaac at PF... then, you can maybe live with him being disregarded on O because he's such a wrecking ball on D.

I think you win by overwhelming the opposition in SOME fashion. Since rules make it more difficult to do so with D, you need to be able to wreck teams on O, most nights. You can probably get away with one stiff like Capela or Gobert who can't do anything but dunk, provided that they're elite at something else--i.e. boarding or help D. But, you can't have a DTheis out there for 30 min / game and expect to go anywhere, because that means everybody else on the court has to cover for his lack of O and he's not, by himself, good enough to cover their screw-ups on D.

Lauri's value to most teams would be that with 30 min/game and 40 touches (which are half of Vuc's), he'll probably launch 7-8 3s, make 3 of them, while having a guy glued to his jersey for most of the night. And, while doing that, he'll also get you 3-4 layups and dunks and a couple of FTs. Having a guy like that on O makes Vuc and Zach's life VASTLY easier, all things held equal.

Having Theis out there is what I consider a half-a$$ solution, because of the lack of better defensive talent on the roster. It doesn't move the needle--it doesn't mean Theis is bad player, far from it--and I like the guy-- it simply means that he should be the backup small-ball C when Vuc sits for 15 minutes / game and a couple of extra min sprinkled in.

I'd rather choose a clear path--what identity do you want the Bulls to have?

If you choose to go D first--it will be tough because Vuc is slow footed and Zach spaces out often on the weak-side. If you go that direction, it means everybody else on the floor with them need to be 3&D specialists, and I mean everybody. No Sato, no Thad, no Pat. There aren't enough touches and shots to go around when Zach and Vuc eat up 150 a game. If they are not threats to bomb from 3 at a high volume, you'll actually make Zach and Vuc's lives unnecessarily difficult, especially if you allow a front-court player (the one guarding Theis) to roam for 30 minutes a game. Even in that case, Lauri's probably a better fit than Theis, because we saw Lauri make pretty big strides on D last year, while Daniel was bricking almost every shot outside the paint.

Or you can choose to outshoot people and hope the guys are not hopeless on D. In that scenario, Lauri's like your perfect 3rd banana because he can get you 16-20 points on any given night, super efficiently, so long as you leave him on the court for 30+ minutes.

By playing Theis 25+ minutes, or 30+ minutes when Lauri's gone, you're almost locking yourself in trying to out-D teams, and I think we just don't have the personnel to pull that off more than every other game.

In summary, as much as I like Theis' energizer bunny routine, dude is a small C that can neither guard the really big dudes that well nor be a big enough threat to justify being out there for long stretches. It's not the Bulls who decide who'll drop and who'll help--that's done by the opposing G and coach. Having Theis out there helps little if they keep screening with Vuc's guy that forces him to drop every possession. Theis becomes borderline useless as a factor in that scheme on D.

Anyhow, that's what happens when a team doesn't have elite two-way talent. You've got to choose more O or more D, and I think the Bulls made a big mistake last year, going for the D, especially when Zach went down and we struggled. The reason why Lauri's probably going to get a nice offer sheet is because he was a 18ppg scorer on 62% TS before he got benched for a defensive specialist that barely moved the needle. That has value in this league--more so than Theis, who's in essence a worse N Noel.

I get the sense you would find different nits to pick with anyone starting ahead of "King Lauri the Great".

I agree that there just aren't a ton of shots left in the offensive after Zach and Vuc. So we are talking about 3rd, 4th and 5th option guys. IMO, the real decision is do we want to keep Lauri as our 3rd option or groom Pat to be that guy next season. Lauri just doesn't do enough other than taking shots to provide value as a starter going forward (and is taking shots away from Pat, assuming we want to go that direction), and I would argue the same for White. Theis is a very good 5th option guy because he does things other guys don't.

I've criticized Lauri plenty... for things that are within his control and he deserved to be criticized for. For example, his timid, passive mindset; his Ivan Drago, hoopless off-seasons spent pumping iron; his absent-minded lazy D (previous years) and overall lack of knowledge on HOW to play smart ball.

I've given him quite a few breaks for things out of his control--being asked to stand in the corner like a scarecrow by Jimbo the Great; being criticized that he doesn't handle the ball like a 6'7 wing (that ain't ever happening no matter how much he works at it).

The thing which made me pissed off as a Bulls fan is that I see that dude can be special. I've played against guys almost that big--it's exceedingly rare to find players at legit 7 feet, even in the NBA, that are as coordinated, agile and have great hand-eye coordination (shooting) as Lauri. In other words, he has all the natural tools to be an absolute beast and a nightmare to guard, and worst of all, we've all seen glimpses of him being such a player. Better than Vuc at his peak.

All I thought was needed was for the Bulls to take his development seriously and ditto for Lauri himself. So, 4 years in, and dude is likely gone for either nothing, or for scraps. Just a waste of space without a single winning season. And, I would be doubly pissed if somebody else actually develops Lauri into the player he could be. Maybe he flames out, who the hell knows, but there's plenty of blame to go around as to why such a promising young player fizzled out 3 years in.

[sco]

I actually think that argument is a myth that's passed as self-evident, despite little evidence for its accuracy.

I don't think Theis is a better fit with Vuc (and Zach) because he's marginally better at rim protection compared to Lauri. Theis is a mediocre undersized rim-runner who shot a blistering quarter from deep for the Bulls... and that was, despite the fact that there was nobody in the same zip code when he got the ball on the perimeter most games. Theis is a good defender, but he's nowhere near good enough to compensate for his deficiencies on O. It's not like the Bulls played Isaac at PF... then, you can maybe live with him being disregarded on O because he's such a wrecking ball on D.

I think you win by overwhelming the opposition in SOME fashion. Since rules make it more difficult to do so with D, you need to be able to wreck teams on O, most nights. You can probably get away with one stiff like Capela or Gobert who can't do anything but dunk, provided that they're elite at something else--i.e. boarding or help D. But, you can't have a DTheis out there for 30 min / game and expect to go anywhere, because that means everybody else on the court has to cover for his lack of O and he's not, by himself, good enough to cover their screw-ups on D.

Lauri's value to most teams would be that with 30 min/game and 40 touches (which are half of Vuc's), he'll probably launch 7-8 3s, make 3 of them, while having a guy glued to his jersey for most of the night. And, while doing that, he'll also get you 3-4 layups and dunks and a couple of FTs. Having a guy like that on O makes Vuc and Zach's life VASTLY easier, all things held equal.

Having Theis out there is what I consider a half-a$$ solution, because of the lack of better defensive talent on the roster. It doesn't move the needle--it doesn't mean Theis is bad player, far from it--and I like the guy-- it simply means that he should be the backup small-ball C when Vuc sits for 15 minutes / game and a couple of extra min sprinkled in.

I'd rather choose a clear path--what identity do you want the Bulls to have?

If you choose to go D first--it will be tough because Vuc is slow footed and Zach spaces out often on the weak-side. If you go that direction, it means everybody else on the floor with them need to be 3&D specialists, and I mean everybody. No Sato, no Thad, no Pat. There aren't enough touches and shots to go around when Zach and Vuc eat up 150 a game. If they are not threats to bomb from 3 at a high volume, you'll actually make Zach and Vuc's lives unnecessarily difficult, especially if you allow a front-court player (the one guarding Theis) to roam for 30 minutes a game. Even in that case, Lauri's probably a better fit than Theis, because we saw Lauri make pretty big strides on D last year, while Daniel was bricking almost every shot outside the paint.

Or you can choose to outshoot people and hope the guys are not hopeless on D. In that scenario, Lauri's like your perfect 3rd banana because he can get you 16-20 points on any given night, super efficiently, so long as you leave him on the court for 30+ minutes.

By playing Theis 25+ minutes, or 30+ minutes when Lauri's gone, you're almost locking yourself in trying to out-D teams, and I think we just don't have the personnel to pull that off more than every other game.

In summary, as much as I like Theis' energizer bunny routine, dude is a small C that can neither guard the really big dudes that well nor be a big enough threat to justify being out there for long stretches. It's not the Bulls who decide who'll drop and who'll help--that's done by the opposing G and coach. Having Theis out there helps little if they keep screening with Vuc's guy that forces him to drop every possession. Theis becomes borderline useless as a factor in that scheme on D.

Anyhow, that's what happens when a team doesn't have elite two-way talent. You've got to choose more O or more D, and I think the Bulls made a big mistake last year, going for the D, especially when Zach went down and we struggled. The reason why Lauri's probably going to get a nice offer sheet is because he was a 18ppg scorer on 62% TS before he got benched for a defensive specialist that barely moved the needle. That has value in this league--more so than Theis, who's in essence a worse N Noel.

I get the sense you would find different nits to pick with anyone starting ahead of "King Lauri the Great".

I agree that there just aren't a ton of shots left in the offensive after Zach and Vuc. So we are talking about 3rd, 4th and 5th option guys. IMO, the real decision is do we want to keep Lauri as our 3rd option or groom Pat to be that guy next season. Lauri just doesn't do enough other than taking shots to provide value as a starter going forward (and is taking shots away from Pat, assuming we want to go that direction), and I would argue the same for White. Theis is a very good 5th option guy because he does things other guys don't.

I've criticized Lauri plenty... for things that are within his control and he deserved to be criticized for. For example, his timid, passive mindset; his Ivan Drago, hoopless off-seasons spent pumping iron; his absent-minded lazy D (previous years) and overall lack of knowledge on HOW to play smart ball.

I've given him quite a few breaks for things out of his control--being asked to stand in the corner like a scarecrow by Jimbo the Great; being criticized that he doesn't handle the ball like a 6'7 wing (that ain't ever happening no matter how much he works at it).

The thing which made me pissed off as a Bulls fan is that I see that dude can be special. I've played against guys almost that big--it's exceedingly rare to find players at legit 7 feet, even in the NBA, that are as coordinated, agile and have great hand-eye coordination (shooting) as Lauri. In other words, he has all the natural tools to be an absolute beast and a nightmare to guard, and worst of all, we've all seen glimpses of him being such a player. Better than Vuc at his peak.

All I thought was needed was for the Bulls to take his development seriously and ditto for Lauri himself. So, 4 years in, and dude is likely gone for either nothing, or for scraps. Just a waste of space without a single winning season. And, I would be doubly pissed if somebody else actually develops Lauri into the player he could be. Maybe he flames out, who the hell knows, but there's plenty of blame to go around as to why such a promising young player fizzled out 3 years in.

OK, I'll recant my Lauri stan comment.

I think the trap with Lauri is/was the 7 foot label. Being 7 feet only matters if"

1) You can use your height to shoot over smaller defenders without them bothering your shot - he's known this since his rookie year and never improved it.

2) You are able to use your height for alley-oops and finish over opposing bigs. Isn't his game.

3) You are able to use your length as a shot blocker. Isn't his game.

Given that these aren't elements of his game, as such, his height grants him no NBA advantage, and caps his upside.