Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[Almost Retired]

I wonder if Lauri has the "for show" weight lifting muscles that can't withstand the pounding of the NBA. Either that or he's just jinxed. I like the kid. But not at the kind of contract he's going to want. Which is why I'd explore a deal to Phoenix for Cameron Johnson and Etwan Moore. Lauri is an upgrade over Kaminsky as a potential starter for the Suns. He'd fit next to Ayton. He went to College in Arizona. Cam Johnson would help solidify our SF position, and Moore is probably someone we never should have traded. I'd rather get something for Lauri before he becomes a RFA. I'm not sure we'd get a high FRP from a lottery Team for Lauri. So adding two proven rotational players might be our best potential return.

[CobyWhite0]

I think you are right on--but I view it from a slightly different angle--Lauri was replaced in the lineup by a veteran guard, who also happens to be the Bulls' best man-to-man defender. Yes, the ball moves better, and there is more speed on the court. But the alternative is what if Temple replaced PaW in the lineup, not Lauri? How much of these same benefits would still hold true? The ball is moving well despite PaW, who passes about as much as Lauri. The D is better because, among other things like WCj being better, PaW now no longer has to guard opposing best scorers all-game (where he was getting cooked pretty much nightly; not a knock on him--that's a pretty rough spot to put anybody in, let alone a rook).

I think the biggest difference is having crafty vets like Temple and Sato on the floor with the kiddos, which is a fairly recent lineup change from coach D. We don't yet know how Lauri would fit in there, but he tends to play better with smarter guys around him, in principle.

What would it look like if Temple replaced PWill in the lineup instead of Lauri? It would look very ugly for Lauri

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 103.9 Off, 105.8 Def, -1.8 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 118.4 Off, 109.1 Def, +9.3 Net Rating

If we double up on the vets, replacing WCJ with Thad at C and going small... it's really bad, you might not want to look

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 111.3 Off, 126.9 Def, -15.6 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 127.2 Off, 115.7 Def, +11.4 Net Rating

Sure--now if we're gonna' talk stats: let's compare apples to apples; how did these numbers look when you exclude the last 10 games? How about to start the year? What's the sample size? I know multi-variable regressions ain't the hottest subject in school, but you need to be very careful to not confuse correlation and causation, when using stats to prove a point.

Stats have their use when you have clearly definable, single variables (say in Tennis, or maybe stretching it to baseball if it comes to sports) and large sample sets, and even then it's more often than not garbage-in, garbage-out, especially when it comes to examining results. To examine 5-man units, with each guy going through good and bad stretches on their own, who play multiple other 5-man units, each of which have their ups and downs, and who range from elite to utter trash, and then draw a conclusion about team dynamic over a 20-game sample is useless data-mining.

Stats without context and deep expertise in the subject matter are worse than useless, because they can actually lead to the wrong conclusions.

So you're going with "useless numbers due to small sample size". Fair enough.

Except, of course, if you believe in using "small sample size" stats which are a POSITIVE for Lauri - which makes you a hypocrite.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=89062479#p89062479

As I've proposed before--let's play a game:

Would you like to have a player that:
* Scores 20 per game in only 30 min
* Scores super efficiently (65% TS) on a high volume of 3s
* Finishes at an elite level at the rim (70%+)

14. Game. Sample. Size.
The absolute, complete opposite of "large sample size".

Over his career, a 184 game sample size, his numbers are much worse:
*Scores 16 per game in 30 min
*Scores on average efficiency (56% TS) on so-so 3pt shooting (36%)
*Finishes at a level at the rim (66% FG from 0-3 feet) that is much worse than Gafford (75%), and worse than WCJ (68%), Kornet (67%) and Cristiano freaking Felicio (67%)!

Feel free to reply, but I won't see it.

[chefo]

I wonder if Lauri has the "for show" weight lifting muscles that can't withstand the pounding of the NBA. Either that or he's just jinxed. I like the kid. But not at the kind of contract he's going to want. Which is why I'd explore a deal to Phoenix for Cameron Johnson and Etwan Moore. Lauri is an upgrade over Kaminsky as a potential starter for the Suns. He'd fit next to Ayton. He went to College in Arizona. Cam Johnson would help solidify our SF position, and Moore is probably someone we never should have traded. I'd rather get something for Lauri before he becomes a RFA. I'm not sure we'd get a high FRP from a lottery Team for Lauri. So adding two proven rotational players might be our best potential return.

I think a definite "Yes", when it comes to his workout regiment. He shows up to training camp looking like Ivan Drago every year. In his defense, GarPax were on record they wanted him to bulk up. I can bet you he's probably, pound-for-pound, one of the strongest guys when it comes to pumping iron on the team. But, as you pointed out, that's not functional basketball strength because you don't see him move people out of the way. He needs to work on his legs and core much more than his upper body, to go along with dancing lessons and yoga. He looks stiff(er) these days.

[Louri]

Feel free to reply, but I won't see it.

Aaand the winner is by KO, chefo!

[Pentele]

I have a suspicion that Lauri's career will be defined by his health more-so than anything else. He's still young enough, to where if he's healthy, there's enough time to beat out all the bad habits he's got in his head from never having been properly coached until he was 23, IMO.

This is what makes this whole Lauri-saga so frustrating. I too think that Lauri has not been coached properly before, and his lack of development in other areas of his game can be attributed to that to a considerable extent. One may call that an excuse, but I at least do not mean it as an excuse. In general, I am not in the habit of making excuses for millionaires So that is one reason why I still consider Lauri's stock to be relatively high, but of course I do not expect others to share that view.

At the same time it is true that Lauri's book is a book of great expectations that remain mostly unmet. But whatever the hell has happened to Lauri with the Bulls, the player that they got was a diamond in the rough. How much the Bulls or Lauri himself have squandered of that remains still to be seen to some extent. But I think it is a shame, even if not unexpected (it was well known also in Finland back then that the Bulls as an organization was a mess, unfortunately). Hopefully Lauri's good play this season is a sign of things still to come.

[chefo]

What would it look like if Temple replaced PWill in the lineup instead of Lauri? It would look very ugly for Lauri

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 103.9 Off, 105.8 Def, -1.8 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 118.4 Off, 109.1 Def, +9.3 Net Rating

If we double up on the vets, replacing WCJ with Thad at C and going small... it's really bad, you might not want to look

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 111.3 Off, 126.9 Def, -15.6 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 127.2 Off, 115.7 Def, +11.4 Net Rating

Sure--now if we're gonna' talk stats: let's compare apples to apples; how did these numbers look when you exclude the last 10 games? How about to start the year? What's the sample size? I know multi-variable regressions ain't the hottest subject in school, but you need to be very careful to not confuse correlation and causation, when using stats to prove a point.

Stats have their use when you have clearly definable, single variables (say in Tennis, or maybe stretching it to baseball if it comes to sports) and large sample sets, and even then it's more often than not garbage-in, garbage-out, especially when it comes to examining results. To examine 5-man units, with each guy going through good and bad stretches on their own, who play multiple other 5-man units, each of which have their ups and downs, and who range from elite to utter trash, and then draw a conclusion about team dynamic over a 20-game sample is useless data-mining.

Stats without context and deep expertise in the subject matter are worse than useless, because they can actually lead to the wrong conclusions.

So you're going with "useless numbers due to small sample size". Fair enough.

Except, of course, if you believe in using "small sample size" stats which are a POSITIVE for Lauri - which makes you a hypocrite.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=89062479#p89062479

As I've proposed before--let's play a game:

Would you like to have a player that:
* Scores 20 per game in only 30 min
* Scores super efficiently (65% TS) on a high volume of 3s
* Finishes at an elite level at the rim (70%+)

14. Game. Sample. Size.
The absolute, complete opposite of "large sample size".

Over his career, a 184 game sample size, his numbers are much worse:
*Scores 16 per game in 30 min
*Scores on average efficiency (56% TS) on so-so 3pt shooting (36%)
*Finishes at a level at the rim (66% FG from 0-3 feet) that is much worse than Gafford (75%), and worse than WCJ (68%), Kornet (67%) and Cristiano freaking Felicio (67%)!

Feel free to reply, but I won't see it.

Sure thing. Thanks for your permission to reply, not certain I would have done so otherwise. If you see it or not, your choice.

Before I do, however, a point--> refrain from name calling. There should be no place for that. Nobody would benefit if this forum devolves into a bunch of emos throwing insults at each other.

As to your other point--read a bit more carefully my posts. Unlike you, I don't talk in unsubstantiated absolutes. I pre-say everything by saying if Lauri can keep his level of production up. You also seem either incapable of grasping what I wrote in my previous reply to you, or if you understood it, chose to ignore it. It's not simply a case of sample size.

Anyhow, believe what you will. I will see your reply, if there is one, but in either case I have no intention of posting any further replies.

[sco]

I think we're getting back to extremes here, as you probably understand--you're not getting a hyper-efficient 20ppg scorer for $10M, even if he utterly sucks at everything else.

Your framework is a good starting point, but it needs a bit of nuance, especially in a team setting. For example, there are diminishing marginal returns as a team of having too many on-ball scorers. It's not a game of ISO and post-ups any longer. Even when it was, you rarely had more than 2 guys on any team who were good at it. Hopefully, a player can check both D boxes because otherwise you have to contort your schemes to hide him on D. As you point out, ideally a player is good at most of these things. In reality, very, very few players are.

So how does Lauri rank here?

- On ball scoring (meh)
- Off ball scoring (elite)
- Playmaking (creating for others) (puke)
- On ball defense (above-average)
- Off ball defense (poor, but at least making progress)
- Rebounding (average)

On each of these criteria, there's a wide range of outcomes, almost a slider--from abysmal to elite. If you're elite or close to it at anything in the NBA, you'll probably have a nice, long and well-paid career. Furthermore, the O criteria come as a package, IMO, where one elite skill is enough to override you being bad at the rest (say Klay, or Reggie Miller). Just because these guys can't create for others, or are not good at taking people one-on-one, doesn't mean they are not very valuable players on O.

If Lauri had to be a primary option right now, he wouldn't be able to do it... not without you having to run plays for him all night and he's not good enough to get that kind of system put in for him. However, given that the Bulls already have Zach who is in turn, elite, elite, average on O, that's not a pronounced flaw from the team's perspective.

Lauri needs to improve his help D, first and foremost, apart from staying healthy. To me that would make him a bargain at $20M, so long as he can keep it up on O.

Right now, in a season where he is having career numbers in the scoring department, he has a PER of 17.3 because he is so bad at every other phase of the game. You can definitely get 17.3PER players for $10m. Thad Young is paid only slightly more than that and he is at 19.9.

Well, that's what makes a market, whether of thought, stocks, whatever, doesn't it? If I knew he'd be healthy, I'd give him 20 and not think twice, despite his flaws. I've stated my reasons. You'd be shorting him at 20 and you have you reasons.

I have a suspicion that Lauri's career will be defined by his health more-so than anything else. He's still young enough, to where if he's healthy, there's enough time to beat out all the bad habits he's got in his head from never having been properly coached until he was 23, IMO.

If you had high confidence that he would play in less then 70% of games during his next contract would you still sign him?

[chefo]

Right now, in a season where he is having career numbers in the scoring department, he has a PER of 17.3 because he is so bad at every other phase of the game. You can definitely get 17.3PER players for $10m. Thad Young is paid only slightly more than that and he is at 19.9.

Well, that's what makes a market, whether of thought, stocks, whatever, doesn't it? If I knew he'd be healthy, I'd give him 20 and not think twice, despite his flaws. I've stated my reasons. You'd be shorting him at 20 and you have you reasons.

I have a suspicion that Lauri's career will be defined by his health more-so than anything else. He's still young enough, to where if he's healthy, there's enough time to beat out all the bad habits he's got in his head from never having been properly coached until he was 23, IMO.

If you had high confidence that he would play in less then 70% of games during his next contract would you still sign him?

When I think about it, probably not. That's what, 55 games a year? If I think he can muster 65-70 games a year, yes.

Maybe conditionally, if he became a defensive savant, to go with the good O. Then, he'd be worth the max, so if I'm paying him 30% less than that (say $20M), that is a proposition with the same expected outcome--and then you hope you get lucky in a given season, knowing full well that you'll probably have a season where you're unlucky as well.

Now that I think about it, it's also a matter of the distribution of the missed games--if he's at 55 every year... but available in full strength for the PO?

Anyways, if he's broken down as often as not, you'll eventually have an Otto on your hands and his production will plummet, so probably not.

[sco]

Well, that's what makes a market, whether of thought, stocks, whatever, doesn't it? If I knew he'd be healthy, I'd give him 20 and not think twice, despite his flaws. I've stated my reasons. You'd be shorting him at 20 and you have you reasons.

I have a suspicion that Lauri's career will be defined by his health more-so than anything else. He's still young enough, to where if he's healthy, there's enough time to beat out all the bad habits he's got in his head from never having been properly coached until he was 23, IMO.

If you had high confidence that he would play in less then 70% of games during his next contract would you still sign him?

When I think about it, probably not. That's what, 55 games a year? If I think he can muster 65-70 games a year, yes.

Maybe conditionally, if he became a defensive savant, to go with the good O. Then, he'd be worth the max, so if I'm paying him 30% less than that (say $20M), that is a proposition with the same expected outcome--and then you hope you get lucky in a given season, knowing full well that you'll probably have a season where you're unlucky as well.

Now that I think about it, it's also a matter of the distribution of the missed games--if he's at 55 every year... but available in full strength for the PO?

Anyways, if he's broken down as often as not, you'll eventually have an Otto on your hands and his production will plummet, so probably not.

I ask because there hasn't been a player in the last decade who missed 30+% of games without suffering a chronic injury who has played in more than 70% of games during his next 4 years.

[chefo]

If you had high confidence that he would play in less then 70% of games during his next contract would you still sign him?

When I think about it, probably not. That's what, 55 games a year? If I think he can muster 65-70 games a year, yes.

Maybe conditionally, if he became a defensive savant, to go with the good O. Then, he'd be worth the max, so if I'm paying him 30% less than that (say $20M), that is a proposition with the same expected outcome--and then you hope you get lucky in a given season, knowing full well that you'll probably have a season where you're unlucky as well.

Now that I think about it, it's also a matter of the distribution of the missed games--if he's at 55 every year... but available in full strength for the PO?

Anyways, if he's broken down as often as not, you'll eventually have an Otto on your hands and his production will plummet, so probably not.

I ask because there hasn't been a player in the last decade who missed 30+% of games without suffering a chronic injury who has played in more than 70% of games during his next 4 years.

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I don't...

That's why AK and team get paid the big bucks and have a ton of resources on call. I'd hope they can make a better decision than us.

My biggest problem is that if he's injured that often, you're looking at a Gallo, at best. A guy that plays very well when healthy but a player that's barely if ever available.

My biggest reason for signing him would be my belief that coach D can teach him to be a POSITIVE to GOOD player on D, as a C (help), or as a SF (man). Then, I'm rolling the dice that if I can find another quasi-star at 25per to add to him and Zach, and I get Lauri healthy and playing well, I can catch a lightning in a bottle in any given season.

If Lauri were healthy and a legitimately good on D, with his current production on O, he'd be worth 35 per. If you can get him for half-ish that, and you think you can get him to be player discussed above, you probably roll the dice on him, knowing full well it's a big risk.

P.S. Just to point out the obvious--the reason Lauri is so contentious here is because he's not a slam-dunk signing. The people that want him signed are a bit more optimistic about his ability to get better on D and stay healthier. The people that think the Bulls shouldn't usually fall in one of three camps: he can't stay healthy (absolutely reasonable, given his history), he's not worth the money he'll get (can be debated either way), and he plain sucks because... of last year. Yeah, he plain sucked last year. He's been much better this season.

At the beginning of this year, he was our best starter (not a tall bar to clear, but still) before Zach could settle down. Now, he's become a pretty decent second banana. I get the arguments against him, but I see the upside if you get lucky with his health and he does get better with another year under coach D.

[sco]

When I think about it, probably not. That's what, 55 games a year? If I think he can muster 65-70 games a year, yes.

Maybe conditionally, if he became a defensive savant, to go with the good O. Then, he'd be worth the max, so if I'm paying him 30% less than that (say $20M), that is a proposition with the same expected outcome--and then you hope you get lucky in a given season, knowing full well that you'll probably have a season where you're unlucky as well.

Now that I think about it, it's also a matter of the distribution of the missed games--if he's at 55 every year... but available in full strength for the PO?

Anyways, if he's broken down as often as not, you'll eventually have an Otto on your hands and his production will plummet, so probably not.

I ask because there hasn't been a player in the last decade who missed 30+% of games without suffering a chronic injury who has played in more than 70% of games during his next 4 years.

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I don't...

That's why AK and team get paid the big bucks and have a ton of resources on call. I'd hope they can make a better decision than us.

My biggest problem is that if he's injured that often, you're looking at a Gallo, at best. A guy that plays very well when healthy but a player that's barely if ever available.

My biggest reason for signing him would be my belief that coach D can teach him to be a POSITIVE to GOOD player on D, as a C (help), or as a SF (man). Then, I'm rolling the dice that if I can find another quasi-star at 25per to add to him and Zach, and I get Lauri healthy and playing well, I can catch a lightning in a bottle in any given season.

If Lauri were healthy and a legitimately good on D, with his current production on O, he'd be worth 35 per. If you can get him for half-ish that, and you think you can get him to be player discussed above, you probably roll the dice on him, knowing full well it's a big risk.

P.S. Just to point out the obvious--the reason Lauri is so contentious here is because he's not a slam-dunk signing. The people that want him signed are a bit more optimistic about his ability to get better on D and stay healthier. The people that think the Bulls shouldn't usually fall in one of three camps: he can't stay healthy (absolutely reasonable, given his history), he's not worth the money he'll get (can be debated either way), and he plain sucks because... of last year. Yeah, he plain sucked last year. He's been much better this season.

At the beginning of this year, he was our best starter (not a tall bar to clear, but still) before Zach could settle down. Now, he's become a pretty decent second banana. I get the arguments against him, but I see the upside if you get lucky with his health and he does get better with another year under coach D.

I get your point, but I see any deal with Lauri feeling like Otto 2.

[CaPiTanAK]

I ask because there hasn't been a player in the last decade who missed 30+% of games without suffering a chronic injury who has played in more than 70% of games during his next 4 years.

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I don't...

That's why AK and team get paid the big bucks and have a ton of resources on call. I'd hope they can make a better decision than us.

My biggest problem is that if he's injured that often, you're looking at a Gallo, at best. A guy that plays very well when healthy but a player that's barely if ever available.

My biggest reason for signing him would be my belief that coach D can teach him to be a POSITIVE to GOOD player on D, as a C (help), or as a SF (man). Then, I'm rolling the dice that if I can find another quasi-star at 25per to add to him and Zach, and I get Lauri healthy and playing well, I can catch a lightning in a bottle in any given season.

If Lauri were healthy and a legitimately good on D, with his current production on O, he'd be worth 35 per. If you can get him for half-ish that, and you think you can get him to be player discussed above, you probably roll the dice on him, knowing full well it's a big risk.

P.S. Just to point out the obvious--the reason Lauri is so contentious here is because he's not a slam-dunk signing. The people that want him signed are a bit more optimistic about his ability to get better on D and stay healthier. The people that think the Bulls shouldn't usually fall in one of three camps: he can't stay healthy (absolutely reasonable, given his history), he's not worth the money he'll get (can be debated either way), and he plain sucks because... of last year. Yeah, he plain sucked last year. He's been much better this season.

At the beginning of this year, he was our best starter (not a tall bar to clear, but still) before Zach could settle down. Now, he's become a pretty decent second banana. I get the arguments against him, but I see the upside if you get lucky with his health and he does get better with another year under coach D.

I get your point, but I see any deal with Lauri feeling like Otto 2.

Otto is being paid 26-28 mil a year.

Lauri market price right now is about 17-18 mil a year. No, I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.

My personal opinion has to do with AK evaluation, BD assessment, and our physician team recs. If they spell hope, I would resign him at market price with incentives for him to earn up to 22 mil a year based on stats, played games, and accolades earned per year.

[bad knees]

Trade Lauri at the deadline for the best wing you can get. Keep PWill at PF. Maybe PHO will take him for Cam Johnson and filler. That would be ideal. They are in win now mode and might see Lauri as a great piece at the 4 next to CP3, Booker, Mikal and Ayton.

Or maybe trade him to the Knicks for Quickley and change. They seem to be very interested in winning now. He's not such a great fit, but Thibs could be interested because he is Thibs.

[sco]

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I don't...

That's why AK and team get paid the big bucks and have a ton of resources on call. I'd hope they can make a better decision than us.

My biggest problem is that if he's injured that often, you're looking at a Gallo, at best. A guy that plays very well when healthy but a player that's barely if ever available.

My biggest reason for signing him would be my belief that coach D can teach him to be a POSITIVE to GOOD player on D, as a C (help), or as a SF (man). Then, I'm rolling the dice that if I can find another quasi-star at 25per to add to him and Zach, and I get Lauri healthy and playing well, I can catch a lightning in a bottle in any given season.

If Lauri were healthy and a legitimately good on D, with his current production on O, he'd be worth 35 per. If you can get him for half-ish that, and you think you can get him to be player discussed above, you probably roll the dice on him, knowing full well it's a big risk.

P.S. Just to point out the obvious--the reason Lauri is so contentious here is because he's not a slam-dunk signing. The people that want him signed are a bit more optimistic about his ability to get better on D and stay healthier. The people that think the Bulls shouldn't usually fall in one of three camps: he can't stay healthy (absolutely reasonable, given his history), he's not worth the money he'll get (can be debated either way), and he plain sucks because... of last year. Yeah, he plain sucked last year. He's been much better this season.

At the beginning of this year, he was our best starter (not a tall bar to clear, but still) before Zach could settle down. Now, he's become a pretty decent second banana. I get the arguments against him, but I see the upside if you get lucky with his health and he does get better with another year under coach D.

I get your point, but I see any deal with Lauri feeling like Otto 2.

Otto is being paid 26-28 mil a year.

Lauri market price right now is about 17-18 mil a year. No, I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.

My personal opinion has to do with AK evaluation, BD assessment, and our physician team recs. If they spell hope, I would resign him at market price with incentives for him to earn up to 22 mil a year based on stats, played games, and accolades earned per year.

Ok, but not a strong endorsement from someone who's nickname is Captain Tank. My point is less about $, more about not wanting another starter spot tied-up in a guy who misses big chunks of every season.

[BahamaBull]

Trade Lauri at the deadline for the best wing you can get. Keep PWill at PF. Maybe PHO will take him for Cam Johnson and filler. That would be ideal. They are in win now mode and might see Lauri as a great piece at the 4 next to CP3, Booker, Mikal and Ayton.

Or maybe trade him to the Knicks for Quickley and change. They seem to be very interested in winning now. He's not such a great fit, but Thibs could be interested because he is Thibs.

I dont think the Knicks would trade Quickley for an expiring Lauri...Why would they trade a player thats locked up for 4 years at 3M per year, playing well and is only 21 years old?? Makes no sense for the Knicks...

I think theres a chance the Suns take Lauri for Cam Johnson and Moore...I would definetly do it if Im the Bulls...Anything is better at this point than lock Lauri for a longer and expensive contract here in Chi.

[sco]

Trade Lauri at the deadline for the best wing you can get. Keep PWill at PF. Maybe PHO will take him for Cam Johnson and filler. That would be ideal. They are in win now mode and might see Lauri as a great piece at the 4 next to CP3, Booker, Mikal and Ayton.

Or maybe trade him to the Knicks for Quickley and change. They seem to be very interested in winning now. He's not such a great fit, but Thibs could be interested because he is Thibs.

I dont think the Knicks would trade Quickley for an expiring Lauri...Why would they trade a player thats locked up for 4 years at 3M per year, playing well and is only 21 years old?? Makes no sense for the Knicks...

I think theres a chance the Suns take Lauri for Cam Johnson and Moore...I would definetly do it if Im the Bulls...Anything is better at this point than lock Lauri for a longer and expensive contract here in Chi.

For sure.

[bad knees]

Trade Lauri at the deadline for the best wing you can get. Keep PWill at PF. Maybe PHO will take him for Cam Johnson and filler. That would be ideal. They are in win now mode and might see Lauri as a great piece at the 4 next to CP3, Booker, Mikal and Ayton.

Or maybe trade him to the Knicks for Quickley and change. They seem to be very interested in winning now. He's not such a great fit, but Thibs could be interested because he is Thibs.

I dont think the Knicks would trade Quickley for an expiring Lauri...Why would they trade a player thats locked up for 4 years at 3M per year, playing well and is only 21 years old?? Makes no sense for the Knicks...

I think theres a chance the Suns take Lauri for Cam Johnson and Moore...I would definetly do it if Im the Bulls...Anything is better at this point than lock Lauri for a longer and expensive contract here in Chi.

I agree that a trade for Quickley doesn't make sense. But Thibs seems to be in win-now mode. Witness the rumor that the Knicks are interested in Drummond, when they already have Robinson and Noel. Just a thought.

Johnson and Moore for Lauri would be great.

[CobyWhite0]

Lauri market price right now is about 17-18 mil a year. No, I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.

My personal opinion has to do with AK evaluation, BD assessment, and our physician team recs. If they spell hope, I would resign him at market price with incentives for him to earn up to 22 mil a year based on stats, played games, and accolades earned per year.

No, you wouldn't.

1 - Incentives can only be for up to 15%. On $18 million salary, incentives can only be $2.7 million, taking him to $20.7 million.

2 - A bonus cannot be based on the player dressing in uniform or being eligible to play for a specific number of games.

[chefo]

Trade Lauri at the deadline for the best wing you can get. Keep PWill at PF. Maybe PHO will take him for Cam Johnson and filler. That would be ideal. They are in win now mode and might see Lauri as a great piece at the 4 next to CP3, Booker, Mikal and Ayton.

Or maybe trade him to the Knicks for Quickley and change. They seem to be very interested in winning now. He's not such a great fit, but Thibs could be interested because he is Thibs.

I dont think the Knicks would trade Quickley for an expiring Lauri...Why would they trade a player thats locked up for 4 years at 3M per year, playing well and is only 21 years old?? Makes no sense for the Knicks...

I think theres a chance the Suns take Lauri for Cam Johnson and Moore...I would definetly do it if Im the Bulls...Anything is better at this point than lock Lauri for a longer and expensive contract here in Chi.

For sure.

If you're trading Lauri to Phoenix, it better be Bridges or bust. Throw a protected pick swap if you have to. I liked Cam Johnson coming out of UNC, but dude is the definition of a mid-minute role player that doesn't move the needle much. Useful guy to have around, but nothing jumps out as particularly great, and he's a year older than Lauri.

[bad knees]

I dont think the Knicks would trade Quickley for an expiring Lauri...Why would they trade a player thats locked up for 4 years at 3M per year, playing well and is only 21 years old?? Makes no sense for the Knicks...

I think theres a chance the Suns take Lauri for Cam Johnson and Moore...I would definetly do it if Im the Bulls...Anything is better at this point than lock Lauri for a longer and expensive contract here in Chi.

For sure.

If you're trading Lauri to Phoenix, it better be Bridges or bust. Throw a protected pick swap if you have to. I liked Cam Johnson coming out of UNC, but dude is the definition of a mid-minute role player that doesn't move the needle much. Useful guy to have around, but nothing jumps out as particularly great, and he's a year older than Lauri.

I mentioned Johnson because I think it is a pipe dream to get Bridges. If you can, great. But if you can't, Johnson would be a good get in return for Lauri. The Bulls still need wing players now that it appears that OPJ and Hutch are worthless.