Current offer on the table for Lauri

[jg77]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

[EvanZ]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

Don’t forget DDV! It’s funny because my comp for Podz when I saw him at Santa Clara the first time was a combo of Ty Jerome and DDV.

[CDM_Stats]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

Mannion? The guy who played 360 minutes, most of which were garbage time, and was parked behind Brad Wanamaker? Are you sure you dont mean Bazemore or Poole or Melton? I'm just trying to work out exactly what youre saying here

[jg77]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

Mannion? The guy who played 360 minutes, most of which were garbage time, and was parked behind Brad Wanamaker? Are you sure you dont mean Bazemore or Poole or Melton? I'm just trying to work out exactly what youre saying here

If you read my post then you'll see what I said. If you disagree then cool.

[jg77]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

Don’t forget DDV! It’s funny because my comp for Podz when I saw him at Santa Clara the first time was a combo of Ty Jerome and DDV.

I wish we still had DDV. Dude was ballin this past season

[CDM_Stats]

I don't think Kerr wants to give up Podz smh. He gets attached to this archetype...Nico Mannion, Ty Jerome and now Podz. Lauri fits such a need for us and it's going to be a bummer if we don't get him and especially if it's over a player like Podz.

Mannion? The guy who played 360 minutes, most of which were garbage time, and was parked behind Brad Wanamaker? Are you sure you dont mean Bazemore or Poole or Melton? I'm just trying to work out exactly what youre saying here

If you read my post then you'll see what I said. If you disagree then cool.

Yeah, surprisingly enough, I did read the post. Is the archetype white guys, or what players actually bring to the table? Because including Mannion with the others makes zero sense otherwise

[KevinMcreynolds]

DDV is a good player so I'm not sure why he's being used as a negative and the other two aren't even in the same ballpark as Podz. It's lazy white on white analysis. Hurr durrr my Ricky Pearsall comp is Jordy Nelson!

[Onus]

I think we probably add podz to this deal and it gets done. I'm just wondering if we expand it to also get Kessler.

[jg77]

I think we probably add podz to this deal and it gets done. I'm just wondering if we expand it to also get Kessler.

That would be ideal and fills two needs.

[DonaldSanders]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

They have until Aug 6th. It’s on ainge to feel the pressure. Ainge is going to take less. It just depends on how much less.

Yep, we're in a scenario where it makes no sense to rush a deal.

If Ainge truly doesn't want to move Lauri, then waiting doesn't make sense because he is just trying to squeeze us. But, if he does actually want to take for Flagg, you could get some kind of concession at the deadline. I doubt anything happens though, Ainge just wants an arm and a leg.

[GQ Hot Dog]

Why hasn't this deal already been completed? Are you telling me seriously that Lacob is unwilling to give up Podz in the deal? Obviously, Warriors aren't serious about this at all. They want to get an all-star and give up nothing. So typical and why they can never make trades.

Curry's last few years? Nothing but a sentimental journey down memory lane as they're a noncontender, looking on the outside of anything meaningful at all.

Disgraceful.

They have until Aug 6th. It’s on ainge to feel the pressure. Ainge is going to take less. It just depends on how much less.

Yep, we're in a scenario where it makes no sense to rush a deal.

If Ainge truly doesn't want to move Lauri, then waiting doesn't make sense because he is just trying to squeeze us. But, if he does actually want to take for Flagg, you could get some kind of concession at the deadline. I doubt anything happens though, Ainge just wants an arm and a leg.

Lottery odds flattening changed everything. What Ainge is weighing is whether trading Lauri, a star level player that wants to remain in Utah(it makes sense with Lauri being Finnish), is worth tanking for Flagg when the best it can get you is a 14% chance at getting the first pick. If a team is going to convince him to make that trade, they better offer a lot because tanking for Flagg has a very low chance of working. There is also a very good chance that the team might still be bad enough, even with Lauri, to be one of the four worst teams. That's another reason why the offers have to be big.

[DonaldSanders]

Lottery odds flattening changed everything. What Ainge is weighing is whether trading Lauri, a star level player that wants to remain in Utah(it makes sense with Lauri being Finnish), is worth tanking for Flagg when the best it can get you is a 14% chance at getting the first pick. If a team is going to convince him to make that trade, they better offer a lot because tanking for Flagg has a very low chance of working. There is also a very good chance that the team might still be bad enough, even with Lauri, to be one of the four worst teams. That's another reason why the offers have to be big.

Yeah there's a lot of reason for Ainge to just continue waiting for a better deal. Let's say they soft tank the 1st half of the year dealing away some vets before the season, then they can still deal Lauri on Feb 6th to a desperate contender, and Lauri will be on a much longer deal. I just doubt anything happens now.

[GQ Hot Dog]

Lottery odds flattening changed everything. What Ainge is weighing is whether trading Lauri, a star level player that wants to remain in Utah(it makes sense with Lauri being Finnish), is worth tanking for Flagg when the best it can get you is a 14% chance at getting the first pick. If a team is going to convince him to make that trade, they better offer a lot because tanking for Flagg has a very low chance of working. There is also a very good chance that the team might still be bad enough, even with Lauri, to be one of the four worst teams. That's another reason why the offers have to be big.

Yeah there's a lot of reason for Ainge to just continue waiting for a better deal. Let's say they soft tank the 1st half of the year dealing away some vets before the season, then they can still deal Lauri on Feb 6th to a desperate contender, and Lauri will be on a much longer deal. I just doubt anything happens now.

You nailed it.

[PurpleGreenGold]

It doesn't matter what Ainge wants, it only matters what he will take.

The bigger issue Ainge will face is that it's becoming harder to trade big salaried players, so giving Lauri an extension does carry some risk in this 2nd apron era. No one wants to trade for Lavine. No one wants to trade for Ingram. If he gives Lauri an extension, he may have to keep Lauri for a year and it'll become even harder to trade him next year. Is Ainge really going to throw away 2 really good chances at good prospects in year 25 and 26, if he can't trade Lauri? He's been trying to trade Lauri for 2 years at an 18M contract. It's going to be even harder for him to trade Lauri at a 50M contract and he's not going to get what he wants at that contract. Making it even harder for him to tank.

Ainge is going to take less to move off of Lauri or he's going to pay someone to take Sexton, Clarkson, Collins off of him.

MDJ just needs to stay strong. If someone outbids him fine. But Ainge wants to trade Lauri, which is why he's leaking deals and he's praying someone comes in to beat our offer. Our current offer isn't all that great unless the Jazz get really lucky in the draft.

We probably keep our 25 pick swap, we'll probably keep our 27 pick swap. Our 26 pick should still be relatively high. The only pick of substance would be 28 and if we're offering 30 (1-20) and maybe 29 pick swap if that's on the table. So we're only really trading 2 unknown picks, if 30 is even on the table and that's 5 years out.

I'm a Jazz fan who's been lurking on this page reading other perspectives about a potential Lauri trade. Respectfully, I come in peace.

I disagree with your premise. I've seen you say that Ainge has been wanting to trade Lauri for 2 years now. That's just not true. In fact, even now, the Jazz really don't want to trade Lauri, and will be happy to resign him. But he has to listen to offers though, right? A GM would be negligent not to at least hear out another team if they are offering you the world. Since he's not really on the market, it falls on the team wanting Lauri to meet the Jazz' price. If not, that's fine no deal and we keep him.

Lauri at $50 million is not the same as Lavine or Ingram at $50 million. They are not comparable players or in comparable situations. Lauri is a player who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. Every team could use a guy like that as their 2nd or 3rd best player. In fact, if the Jazz look to trade Lauri after he gets an extension, he's probably even more enticing to more teams because he's then not a 1 year flight risk. Trades are not that hard to do when you can combine a couple of $15 million dollar players with some other filler.

Lauri likes it in Utah. From what I understand he doesn't love the idea of tanking, but is willing to do what the Jazz need him to do next year so they can optimize their chances for a high draft pick (we already have 3 1sts in the 2025 draft). He just doesn't want to be in a situation of them tanking year after year.

you forgot to mention a little small detail: the guy doesn't play even near 70 games per season. so, in this regard, he is on the same level of lavine and ingram.
and this has to be taken into consideration when trading for a player that doesn't look like an iron man so to speak.
at the end of the day, the best ability is availability. and for a guy who in 7 years averaged 57-58 games per season, the price the jazz are asking is way too steep. it is a risk to trade for him, regardless of his current contract situation.

While I can appreciate that Lauri, prior to the Jazz, had a history of nagging injuries keeping him from playing, the majority of games missed in the past two seasons were purely to help the Jazz with tanking. I'm confident other teams know this as well.

-In the 22-23 season, Lauri played in 66 games, and mysteriously missed most of the last two months (11 games) of the season after the Jazz traded most of their vets and turned to tanking. He most certainly was not injured.
-In the 23-24 season, Lauri played in 55 games, but after the trade deadline where the Jazz again traded some vets and tried to tank EVEN harder than the year before, he missed most of the final two months of the season (17 games). Again, he was not injured.

If the Jazz were in a playoff hunt in either year, he most assuredly would have played in those games. Again, if a trade doesn't end up happening, I think the Jazz are completely fine with keeping him and signing him to a long term extension. They are not under any pressure.

[Onus]

Lottery odds flattening changed everything. What Ainge is weighing is whether trading Lauri, a star level player that wants to remain in Utah(it makes sense with Lauri being Finnish), is worth tanking for Flagg when the best it can get you is a 14% chance at getting the first pick. If a team is going to convince him to make that trade, they better offer a lot because tanking for Flagg has a very low chance of working. There is also a very good chance that the team might still be bad enough, even with Lauri, to be one of the four worst teams. That's another reason why the offers have to be big.

Flatten odds make it so being the worst isn't the best but next year's draft is shaping up as a 5 man draft as of now. You want to get into that tier. Being the worst team guarantees you a top 5 pick. So a lot of good incentive to really tank next year.

Yeah there's a lot of reason for Ainge to just continue waiting for a better deal. Let's say they soft tank the 1st half of the year dealing away some vets before the season, then they can still deal Lauri on Feb 6th to a desperate contender, and Lauri will be on a much longer deal. I just doubt anything happens now.

It'll be even harder to trade Lauri in 1 day on a 40M contract. His value will not be going up at the trade deadline. Maybe next offseason, but it's unlikely his value is going to be higher after they hold him out down the stretch of games for a 3rd consecutive year. He's just not worth what Ainge is asking for. He's been on the market for 2 years at 18M/yr, his value isn't going to increase when his contract jumps up to 40-50M a year.

[Onus]

I'm a Jazz fan who's been lurking on this page reading other perspectives about a potential Lauri trade. Respectfully, I come in peace.

I disagree with your premise. I've seen you say that Ainge has been wanting to trade Lauri for 2 years now. That's just not true. In fact, even now, the Jazz really don't want to trade Lauri, and will be happy to resign him. But he has to listen to offers though, right? A GM would be negligent not to at least hear out another team if they are offering you the world. Since he's not really on the market, it falls on the team wanting Lauri to meet the Jazz' price. If not, that's fine no deal and we keep him.

Lauri at $50 million is not the same as Lavine or Ingram at $50 million. They are not comparable players or in comparable situations. Lauri is a player who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. Every team could use a guy like that as their 2nd or 3rd best player. In fact, if the Jazz look to trade Lauri after he gets an extension, he's probably even more enticing to more teams because he's then not a 1 year flight risk. Trades are not that hard to do when you can combine a couple of $15 million dollar players with some other filler.

Lauri likes it in Utah. From what I understand he doesn't love the idea of tanking, but is willing to do what the Jazz need him to do next year so they can optimize their chances for a high draft pick (we already have 3 1sts in the 2025 draft). He just doesn't want to be in a situation of them tanking year after year.

you forgot to mention a little small detail: the guy doesn't play even near 70 games per season. so, in this regard, he is on the same level of lavine and ingram.
and this has to be taken into consideration when trading for a player that doesn't look like an iron man so to speak.
at the end of the day, the best ability is availability. and for a guy who in 7 years averaged 57-58 games per season, the price the jazz are asking is way too steep. it is a risk to trade for him, regardless of his current contract situation.

While I can appreciate that Lauri, prior to the Jazz, had a history of nagging injuries keeping him from playing, the majority of games missed in the past two seasons were purely to help the Jazz with tanking. I'm confident other teams know this as well.

-In the 22-23 season, Lauri played in 66 games, and mysteriously missed most of the last two months (11 games) of the season after the Jazz traded most of their vets and turned to tanking. He most certainly was not injured.
-In the 23-24 season, Lauri played in 55 games, but after the trade deadline where the Jazz again traded some vets and tried to tank EVEN harder than the year before, he missed most of the final two months of the season (17 games). Again, he was not injured.

If the Jazz were in a playoff hunt in either year, he most assuredly would have played in those games. Again, if a trade doesn't end up happening, I think the Jazz are completely fine with keeping him and signing him to a long term extension. They are not under any pressure.

It's funny that Jazz fans continue to think the Jazz are under no pressure to trade Lauri, when it's the Jazz themselves applying pressure to get a deal.

[DonaldSanders]

It's funny that Jazz fans continue to think the Jazz are under no pressure to trade Lauri, when it's the Jazz themselves applying pressure to get a deal.

I think you are overestimating pressure on the Jazz. I also don't think Lauri on a longer deal is a negative... it's a positive. Right now you get a 1 year deal with no guarantees and there is a huge asking price. Even if you do the deal for the 1 year version of Lauri, the assumption is you are locking him up to a big deal in the offseason.

The Jazz can just wait for desperate teams Feb 6th.

[PurpleGreenGold]

I'm a Jazz fan who's been lurking on this page reading other perspectives about a potential Lauri trade. Respectfully, I come in peace.

I disagree with your premise. I've seen you say that Ainge has been wanting to trade Lauri for 2 years now. That's just not true. In fact, even now, the Jazz really don't want to trade Lauri, and will be happy to resign him. But he has to listen to offers though, right? A GM would be negligent not to at least hear out another team if they are offering you the world. Since he's not really on the market, it falls on the team wanting Lauri to meet the Jazz' price. If not, that's fine no deal and we keep him.

Lauri at $50 million is not the same as Lavine or Ingram at $50 million. They are not comparable players or in comparable situations. Lauri is a player who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. Every team could use a guy like that as their 2nd or 3rd best player. In fact, if the Jazz look to trade Lauri after he gets an extension, he's probably even more enticing to more teams because he's then not a 1 year flight risk. Trades are not that hard to do when you can combine a couple of $15 million dollar players with some other filler.

Lauri likes it in Utah. From what I understand he doesn't love the idea of tanking, but is willing to do what the Jazz need him to do next year so they can optimize their chances for a high draft pick (we already have 3 1sts in the 2025 draft). He just doesn't want to be in a situation of them tanking year after year.

I mean when the reports about Lauri are always, "Lauri's not on the market, but if you offered a god father offer you could get him". How is that not being put on the market? If he wasn't on the trade block there wouldn't even be a mention of Lauri. No one is saying hey you could get Cade Cunningham for a god father offer, or about Franz, Scottie Barnes, PG or KAT. Like that doesn't come out if you're not on the trade market. It's like a literal do not forget you could get Lauri for a very high price every other month. I'm sorry but that's being on the trade block. Ainge doesn't "want to trade him", but he's available and he's said that for 2 years.

Lauri is better than Lavine and Ingram. But 50M is still a lot of $. Getting 50M of contracts that a team would be willing to trade is just a lot harder to do and you'd have to be positive that he's the missing piece because you're basically gutting a big part of your team to get him. Like for us if Lauri is 50M we'd have to trade one of Wiggins and Dray at which point it doesn't even make sense for us to trade for Lauri anymore. Teams are basically operating under a hard cap and one of the richest owners Balmer would rather let PG walk for nothing than stay in the 2nd apron. It's really limiting and it's not going to be easy to do. Let's put it this way, if you were a team would you have rather traded for Lauri last summer when he had 2 years left with 18M /yr on his contract or next year when he has 4yr 200M left. Which contract do you think is easier to trade and which one gets more value?

Lauri likes Utah agreed. How long do you think your rebuild is going to take? You're going into year 3 with no one to build around. You're obviously not building around Lauri. You're obviously going to try to tank this year with or without Lauri. You think you guys will be trying for the playoffs next year? 26 is a great draft year, which probably means you'll probably tank that year as well. Lauri will be 29, I think he would have 2 years left on his contract then with a bunch of young guys, whom might not even be a top 5 draft pick because Lauri was too good to tank. I do think Lauri wants to get his money this year so he does want to renegotiate and extend, but how long is he going to want to tank at the end of the season to only get the 10th pick for a 3rd season in a row?

The Jazz are at a crossroads with many options in front of them. They don't have to pick a direction as of yet. Every player but like the top 5-6 players in the league are always on the trade market. I definitely heard murmurs of Cade being on the market, KAT on the market, even PG on the market last year for the right price. Again, you would be **** in your job if you didn't listen to every offer. If someone offered a kings ransom (like almost KD level of return) for Scottie Barnes, Masai would make that deal in a heartbeat, even though he's "not on the trade market".

I'll acknowledge that if the Jazz have wanted to trade Lauri, they should have done it two seasons ago. Ainge is known to be pretty ruthless about jettisoning players on his team, so that should tell you that trading him is most definitely not been a priority. I don't think Lauri will be around for the long term tank, but like I mentioned before, with a long term contract, he's going to be a lot easier to trade when they resign him. I disagree with you that $50 million contracts for players like him are difficult to move. You mention PG, but he's like 35 years old...I wouldn't have paid him a max either. The Clippers should have traded him last season when teams were sniffing around so they didn't get nothing, but whatever. Lauri is just beginning his prime years, so the situations are apples to oranges.

[Crazy-Canuck]

It's funny that Jazz fans continue to think the Jazz are under no pressure to trade Lauri, when it's the Jazz themselves applying pressure to get a deal.

I think you are overestimating pressure on the Jazz. I also don't think Lauri on a longer deal is a negative... it's a positive. Right now you get a 1 year deal with no guarantees and there is a huge asking price. Even if you do the deal for the 1 year version of Lauri, the assumption is you are locking him up to a big deal in the offseason.

The Jazz can just wait for desperate teams Feb 6th.

It will depend on that Lauri extension. A full max Lauri would give me pause, just like the jk extension is giving other teams pause (if rumors are true).

For guys like kd, a longer deal is a plus. I don't think that applies to guys like Ingram and Lauri.

[Onus]

It's funny that Jazz fans continue to think the Jazz are under no pressure to trade Lauri, when it's the Jazz themselves applying pressure to get a deal.

I think you are overestimating pressure on the Jazz. I also don't think Lauri on a longer deal is a negative... it's a positive. Right now you get a 1 year deal with no guarantees and there is a huge asking price. Even if you do the deal for the 1 year version of Lauri, the assumption is you are locking him up to a big deal in the offseason.

The Jazz can just wait for desperate teams Feb 6th.

it's the jazz leaking deal information because they want someone to come in and beat our offer. They want a better deal. That's the pressure the jazz are putting on themselves.

I didn't say a longer deal is a negative. I said it would be harder to trade for. Lauri's peak value was last year, it's not going to get better on a bigger contract even if it's longer.