RealGM

I posted this question in another thread, but wanted to know...what do you think of Lauri Markkanen going forward? Have you moved on with him as a Chicago Bull? If so, what do you think the team can get for him in a trade? Or do you think he still has a future with the team?

What do you think of his future in the NBA? My take is that he still can be a valuable player in the right situation provided he can stay healthy. He's only 24 years old and has shown some potential.

I think he's about as good as gone, but AK has reiterated numerous times how important he is to the team going forward which gives me a bit of pause. We don't really know yet if he's a straight shooter type or is just throwing out GM-speak, but we'll find out for sure in about a month or so. He supposedly really loves the city and his teammates, so it's possible but unlikely that Lauri takes the QO.

If we sign and trade him I don't expect we'd get anything exciting in return since we have very little leverage unless some team is really in love with him and the idea of us matching scares them into increasing their offer. Maybe another young player in a similar situation as himself who we could hopefully help turn around.

I definitely think he still has a bright future in this league, but given the typical Finnish personality it will have to be in the right situation for him to flourish. He's one of those guys who will strictly do what's asked and puts the team over himself. He's proven over the years that when he's given top 3 touches he produces at a high level and when he doesn't his play suffers as a result, so he would have to go to a team that would consider him one of their focal points rather than just a supporting piece.

Regardless of whether he stays or goes, I don't think he'll ever reach his potential in Chicago given the way the team is currently structured. I think the Spurs would be an ideal fit for him. He fills a need for them and if Pop can't get him to reach his potential then no one will. Dallas could also be a good fit playing next to Luka, especially if they move on from Porzingas.

It's well known that fit and circumstance can have a drastic impact on a player, and I think that's especially true for Lauri given his naturally passive, team-first nature.

Sent from my SM-S115DL using RealGM mobile app

I've absolutely moved on from Lauri....a long time ago. We've blamed his coaches, trainers, medical staff, & his teammates for his poor performance. Only thing he does well is shoot the 3 from time to time. Brings nothing else to the table.

He‘s a good player who still has the potential to be a really good player. The problem is fit - I think he requires a very specific situation to thrive.

Here’s what I wrote in the other thread:

“The problem with Markkanen is that he's currently best suited as a 3rd-4th option, but he plays PF/C. Unless they're one of the highest usage players, most teams want their bigs to rebound and play defense -- which Lauri doesn't excel at and role-players can do for less money.

So the question is, can Lauri become a 1st or 2nd option? I guess that's still up for debate, but probably won't happen with the Bulls.”

He is not a Bulls player any more in my mind. I’ve moved on and have no real cares about what he does anywhere else.

LateNight wrote:He‘s a good player who still has the potential to be a really good player. The problem is fit - I think he requires a very specific situation to thrive.

Here’s what I wrote in the other thread:

“The problem with Markkanen is that he's currently best suited as a 3rd-4th option, but he plays PF/C. Unless they're one of the highest usage players, most teams want their bigs to rebound and play defense -- which Lauri doesn't excel at and role-players can do for less money.

So the question is, can Lauri become a 1st or 2nd option? I guess that's still up for debate, but probably won't happen with the Bulls.”

I don’t think it is up for debate. 3rd option maybe if you an absolute elite playmaker like Doncic or Trae Young running your offense.

LateNight wrote:He‘s a good player who still has the potential to be a really good player. The problem is fit - I think he requires a very specific situation to thrive.

Here’s what I wrote in the other thread:

“The problem with Markkanen is that he's currently best suited as a 3rd-4th option, but he plays PF/C. Unless they're one of the highest usage players, most teams want their bigs to rebound and play defense -- which Lauri doesn't excel at and role-players can do for less money.

So the question is, can Lauri become a 1st or 2nd option? I guess that's still up for debate, but probably won't happen with the Bulls.”

I wonder about that: Could the Bulls have featured him more going forward and not traded for Vucevic? Maybe they sign a defensive C to go with him (Nerlens, Theis, etc.) and then feature him a bit more in the offense?

As it stands I don't think Markkanen fits with Vucevic and neither does Thad Young. It'll be interesting to see what AK does with the roster this offseason.

I think he's going to be a solid rotational player, either as a fill-in starter or bench player, not one of the stars of a team. He finishes at an extremely high rate both at the rim and from the 3, which is modern NBA scoring. His 62% TS isn't far from Lavine's 63%, and he's 24. He'll look much better on almost any other team, since we have the league's worst PG situation by a mile. He'll probably get stronger, better on D, and the game will slow down for him.

I think when he walks, we''ll will wish he was back on the team after 1 or 2 contracts. So in other words, he's a prototypical Chicago Bull.

The only reason he would stick around is if his market value has absolutely tanked. If so, I suspect the Bulls would match an offer and then give him another shot to earn a role.

If some team offers him anything close to $20m, he is gone. I suspect the most the Bulls could get for him would be a trade exception where they convince the signing team to do a S&T before the offer sheet is signed.

He's gone in all likelihood.

Dan Z wrote:

LateNight wrote:He‘s a good player who still has the potential to be a really good player. The problem is fit - I think he requires a very specific situation to thrive.

Here’s what I wrote in the other thread:

“The problem with Markkanen is that he's currently best suited as a 3rd-4th option, but he plays PF/C. Unless they're one of the highest usage players, most teams want their bigs to rebound and play defense -- which Lauri doesn't excel at and role-players can do for less money.

So the question is, can Lauri become a 1st or 2nd option? I guess that's still up for debate, but probably won't happen with the Bulls.”

I wonder about that: Could the Bulls have featured him more going forward and not traded for Vucevic? Maybe they sign a defensive C to go with him (Nerlens, Theis, etc.) and then feature him a bit more in the offense?

As it stands I don't think Markkanen fits with Vucevic and neither does Thad Young. It'll be interesting to see what AK does with the roster this offseason.

We could have built a team to feature Lauri - but we would’ve had to build it. For him to really succeed requires a playmaking lead guard (or other lead playmaker), and better defense at 3/5 positions. You also need another big who can rebound and play inside really well. We just don’t really have any of those pieces now - we could’ve traded for them, but then you’re banking a lot on that and if it doesn’t work, Zach probably walks.

kodo wrote:I think he's going to be a solid rotational player, either as a fill-in starter or bench player, not one of the stars of a team. He finishes at an extremely high rate both at the rim and from the 3, which is modern NBA scoring. His 62% TS isn't far from Lavine's 63%, and he's 24. He'll look much better on almost any other team, since we have the league's worst PG situation by a mile. He'll probably get stronger, better on D, and the game will slow down for him.

I think when he walks, we''ll will wish he was back on the team after 1 or 2 contracts. So in other words, he's a prototypical Chicago Bull.

That’s my feeling about Lauri as well. He might overpaid 2nd contract but he gonna be extremely valuable that 3rd

Lauri is probably gone and I have no problem with it. His best attribute is three-point shooting. You better be able to find that for less than 20 million in this three-point happy NBA. If Lauri is used differently on another team it's because his skills improved so he could be used in different ways.

I've moved on from him. If he finds success elsewhere that's great because it just wasn't happening here. He looked the part but he just never became the unicorn we thought he would become. I think he can become a solid role player somewhere but I doubt star is coming. Normally stars are seen immediately irregardless of coaching circumstances etc.

kodo wrote:I think he's going to be a solid rotational player, either as a fill-in starter or bench player, not one of the stars of a team. He finishes at an extremely high rate both at the rim and from the 3, which is modern NBA scoring. His 62% TS isn't far from Lavine's 63%, and he's 24. He'll look much better on almost any other team, since we have the league's worst PG situation by a mile. He'll probably get stronger, better on D, and the game will slow down for him.

I think when he walks, we''ll will wish he was back on the team after 1 or 2 contracts. So in other words, he's a prototypical Chicago Bull.

What Bulls have walked that we really regret? None for me. Not even Cam Payne. That was basically a fluke level turnaround.

Lauri needs a fresh start somewhere and needs to play angry for his new team.

We suck at developing players, its been proven. Our only non-lottery player selected that developed into an All-Star was Jimmy Butler. I wish Lauri nothing but the best outside of the state of Illinois.

Can somebody explain how a sign and trade could be beneficial to anyone except the Bulls? I think I'm missing why we could get anything of value for a player that we won't likely resign.

I’d rather have Bobby Portis for 1.7M.

VolumePoster wrote:Can somebody explain how a sign and trade could be beneficial to anyone except the Bulls? I think I'm missing why we could get anything of value for a player that we won't likely resign.

Because any team that doesn’t have cap space (or doesn’t want to use it on Markkanen) can trade pieces for him. Not saying it’s a great plan, but there are a couple legit scenarios where it would make sense