Poll: value these stars rumored to be available (Garland, Ingram, Markkanen)

[JayTWill]

I don't think anyone is mistaking him for a first option, so I don't think so.

I understand that but lets just say the Jazz had made the playoffs this year and they put some smaller wing defender like Herb Jones on him and for whatever reason Lauri was struggling to get separation and good looks off-ball. Lets say his shooting numbers were down 10 points across the board and when he was asked to create for himself he struggled while playing below average defense.

All it takes is one bad series from Lauri to change the perception of him completely despite what he accomplished in the regular season. Someone like KAT has been one the best offensive bigs in the league year after year but his value always seems to take a hit for lack of postseason success even after reaching the WCF this year. It is a bit of an unfair advantage for Lauri to not have to perform under the same scrutiny in a more difficult environment.

No one is assuming he would work as a first option but he hasn't even had to prove he can be a second option on a contender like others have had to.

See, I don't think it really would because he has never been regarded in the same way that ... KAT was. The thought was that KAT could be an elite first option and he can't be, but he is a good second option. Lauri having a bad playoff series because teams were able to gameplan specifically for him really wouldn't affect his value, IMO, because no one is expecting him to average 30/10 in a playoff series - granted he may be able to do that, but it would probably be a result of playing off someone he fit with perfectly (e.g., could you imagine him in Dallas?).

But people are even beginning to question if KAT can be a #2 on a true contender. I don't know if you assume that Lauri can but he hasn't even had to try it yet. I'm not saying that Lauri can or can't but in the playoffs he would be forced to play to his weaknesses more often and i'm not sure what the results would be.

As a Knicks fan i knew Randle had certain weaknesses in his game no matter what option he was and they have been exposed and highlighted in the playoffs for all to see in ways that weren't in the regular season which affected his perceived value. I also know Brunson struggles with length at times and the Knicks have been very fortunate the only length he has encountered in the postseason were a 35 year old Batum and an inconsistent Kelly Oubre.

I feel like as a Jazz fan you know there is a certain player or player type or style of defense that gives Lauri trouble. You know there are certain weaknesses in his game on both ends of the court that would be there no matter if he is the first or second option. I'm just curious what would happen to his value when those weaknesses are highlighted again and again and again as they are for other players in the playoffs.

For example Jalen Brown's value took a hit a few years back when it was exposed for all to see how weak his left hand was. No one cared what option he was. People were just going to force him left.

[babyjax13]

I understand that but lets just say the Jazz had made the playoffs this year and they put some smaller wing defender like Herb Jones on him and for whatever reason Lauri was struggling to get separation and good looks off-ball. Lets say his shooting numbers were down 10 points across the board and when he was asked to create for himself he struggled while playing below average defense.

All it takes is one bad series from Lauri to change the perception of him completely despite what he accomplished in the regular season. Someone like KAT has been one the best offensive bigs in the league year after year but his value always seems to take a hit for lack of postseason success even after reaching the WCF this year. It is a bit of an unfair advantage for Lauri to not have to perform under the same scrutiny in a more difficult environment.

No one is assuming he would work as a first option but he hasn't even had to prove he can be a second option on a contender like others have had to.

See, I don't think it really would because he has never been regarded in the same way that ... KAT was. The thought was that KAT could be an elite first option and he can't be, but he is a good second option. Lauri having a bad playoff series because teams were able to gameplan specifically for him really wouldn't affect his value, IMO, because no one is expecting him to average 30/10 in a playoff series - granted he may be able to do that, but it would probably be a result of playing off someone he fit with perfectly (e.g., could you imagine him in Dallas?).

But people are even beginning to question if KAT can be a #2 on a true contender. I don't know if you assume that Lauri can but he hasn't even had to try it yet. I'm not saying that Lauri can or can't but in the playoffs he would be forced to play to his weaknesses more often and i'm not sure what the results would be.

As a Knicks fan i knew Randle had certain weaknesses in his game no matter what option he was and they have been exposed and highlighted in the playoffs for all to see in ways that weren't in the regular season which affected his perceived value. I also know Brunson struggles with length at times and the Knicks have been very fortunate the only length he has encountered in the postseason were a 35 year old Batum and an inconsistent Kelly Oubre.

I feel like as a Jazz fan you know there is a certain player or player type or style of defense that gives Lauri trouble. You know there are certain weaknesses in his game on both ends of the court that would be there no matter if he is the first or second option. I'm just curious what would happen to his value when those weaknesses are highlighted again and again and again as they are for other players in the playoffs.

For example Jalen Brown's value took a hit a few years back when it was exposed for all to see how weak his left hand was. No one cared what option he was. People were just going to force him left.

Honestly, I have not seen a particular kind of player give Lauri trouble on defense. He had an efficiency hit when Conley left, but figured it out. He's just a very versatile player and super convincing as a high efficiency 24ppg guy who isn't ball dominant. If he has a weakness it is that you can't say "okay, go pretend to be Durant for the next 6 minutes." He's better than Hayward ever was for us, and when I watched him I can't help but think how amazing he would have been next to Mitchell and Gobert as our second option on offense. Teams that try to put smaller defenders on him to disrupt him putting the ball on the court just have him shoot over them or absolutely annihilate small guys in the paint, teams that put big guys on him just have him pick them apart. You have to have a guy who is tall, physical, and mobile to hope to match up.

I see where you are coming from and don't think the point is wrong to be made (e.g., see Mikal Bridges who had a similar small sample to Lauri last year and could not sustain it this season like Lauri has), I just don't really buy it in Lauri's case because I think he's really damn good.

I've had two moments as a Jazz fan where I've watched a guy in his first 20 games with the team and thought "oh wait, holy **** he is going to be a star, right?" One was Mitchell, the other is Lauri. Deron of course is in the running for our best player since Stockton and Malone with Gobert, but those are the two guys who just immediately pass the eye test. I'm also not sure there is a player who has had a harder job as the first option on a team during the regular season, which gives me more confidence in Lauri as a second option on a playoff team.

[Knickfan1982]

As bad as the Knicks have been over the last 25 years I think they are relegated to a basketball flyover state.

"Basketball flyover state" is not a thing no matter how much you try to make it one. Secondly, outside of the shortened Covid season the Knicks never been ranked less than 10th in average attendance since 2001 and have been 5th or better multiple times.

[hugepatsfan]

I think Garland is a great talent but only maximized as the primary offensive initiator. You lose some of his upside if you pair him with another guy who’s the primary scorer/ball handler. And problem is, Garland is not good enough to be the primary ball handler on a team with real title hopes so you’re always going to have diminishing returns on him in that regard. And then there are inherent size related issues on defense.

Ingram, has that same offensive conundrum where he needs the ball to be his best but isn’t good enough for that role. Defensive limitations too, though he’s taller so you can work around.

I have Garland over Ingram because the contract.

I have Lauri ahead of both because his game is so easily assimilated alongside other star talents that all of them need to play behind in the pecking order to win at a high level. That outweighs the contract risk, though that will of course vary in team by team situations.

[PELICANSFAN]

I have Garland > Ingram > Lauri

Garland is on a good contract while the other two will be free agents nezt season. Lauri will want a max (and will likely get it) and its difficult to see a contender with him as a max player.

While its pretty easy to to envision a role for a 20-8 good shooting, passing point gaurd on a championship team.

Ingram, is in the middle. I have no idea what his contract expectations will be…

Based on talent, I would have Lauri #1 as he is not only good, but would fit more teams IMO, Ingram is second. A long wing who can handle and create as well as play decent defense is more valuable than a smallish guard. Not sure Garland's contract is that much of a positive as it is still over $40 million a year.

[mcfly1204]

I think Garland is a great talent but only maximized as the primary offensive initiator. You lose some of his upside if you pair him with another guy who’s the primary scorer/ball handler. And problem is, Garland is not good enough to be the primary ball handler on a team with real title hopes so you’re always going to have diminishing returns on him in that regard. And then there are inherent size related issues on defense.

Ingram, has that same offensive conundrum where he needs the ball to be his best but isn’t good enough for that role. Defensive limitations too, though he’s taller so you can work around.

I have Garland over Ingram because the contract.

I have Lauri ahead of both because his game is so easily assimilated alongside other star talents that all of them need to play behind in the pecking order to win at a high level. That outweighs the contract risk, though that will of course vary in team by team situations.

On the Garland front, it's interesting that he had arguably his best season playing next to Mitchell in 2022-23.

[tidho]

As bad as the Knicks have been over the last 25 years I think they are relegated to a basketball flyover state.

"Basketball flyover state" is not a thing no matter how much you try to make it one. Secondly, outside of the shortened Covid season the Knicks never been ranked less than 10th in average attendance since 2001 and have been 5th or better multiple times.

given their population advantage is that really a flex? not trying to bury them or anything, if they keep the team together a healthy NYK probably wins the East next year.

as for the OP, have to assume that Ingram and Lauri extend consistent with their on court value. If so my order is Lauri, Garland, Ingram. 

[Knickfan1982]

As bad as the Knicks have been over the last 25 years I think they are relegated to a basketball flyover state.

"Basketball flyover state" is not a thing no matter how much you try to make it one. Secondly, outside of the shortened Covid season the Knicks never been ranked less than 10th in average attendance since 2001 and have been 5th or better multiple times.

given their population advantage is that really a flex? not trying to bury them or anything, if they keep the team together a healthy NYK probably wins the East next year.

Its a flex in response to that guy's claim of it NYC being a basketball flyover state. It was a silly statement because such a thing doesn't exist.

Salt Lake City's metropolitian area has a little over 1.2 million people. The Bronx alone has a population almost that high. There is a lot more pressure in playing in a market as large as NYC than there is playing in a comparatively tiny town like Salt Lake City.

[DowJones]

"Basketball flyover state" is not a thing no matter how much you try to make it one. Secondly, outside of the shortened Covid season the Knicks never been ranked less than 10th in average attendance since 2001 and have been 5th or better multiple times.

given their population advantage is that really a flex? not trying to bury them or anything, if they keep the team together a healthy NYK probably wins the East next year.

Its a flex in response to that guy's claim of it NYC being a basketball flyover state. It was a silly statement because such a thing doesn't exist.

Salt Lake City's metropolitian area has a little over 1.2 million people. The Bronx alone has a population almost that high. There is a lot more pressure in playing in a market as large as NYC than there is playing in a comparatively tiny town like Salt Lake City.

Pressure comes from playing in big games, not by how many people live in the city you play in.

[DowJones]

I think Garland is a great talent but only maximized as the primary offensive initiator. You lose some of his upside if you pair him with another guy who’s the primary scorer/ball handler. And problem is, Garland is not good enough to be the primary ball handler on a team with real title hopes so you’re always going to have diminishing returns on him in that regard. And then there are inherent size related issues on defense.

Ingram, has that same offensive conundrum where he needs the ball to be his best but isn’t good enough for that role. Defensive limitations too, though he’s taller so you can work around.

I have Garland over Ingram because the contract.

I have Lauri ahead of both because his game is so easily assimilated alongside other star talents that all of them need to play behind in the pecking order to win at a high level. That outweighs the contract risk, though that will of course vary in team by team situations.

Garland averaged 22ppg and 8apg on shooting splits of 46/41/84 in his first season with Mitchell. I have been as hard as anyone on Garland for what he did last year, but he was pretty good with Mitchell the year before.

[penbeast0]

Dang, do none of these players ever play 70 games in a season? The only one of the 3 ever to hit that mark was rookie Ingram . . . in 2017. Maybe it's an old person thing but damn I miss the old style types that played through pain consistently. It seems everyone needs to be load managed and takes off for every ding nowadays. I am sure it's an exaggerated hot take, but it seems everyone wants to be Kawhi Leonard instead of wanting to be John Stockton.

[Knickfan1982]

given their population advantage is that really a flex? not trying to bury them or anything, if they keep the team together a healthy NYK probably wins the East next year.

Its a flex in response to that guy's claim of it NYC being a basketball flyover state. It was a silly statement because such a thing doesn't exist.

Salt Lake City's metropolitian area has a little over 1.2 million people. The Bronx alone has a population almost that high. There is a lot more pressure in playing in a market as large as NYC than there is playing in a comparatively tiny town like Salt Lake City.

Pressure comes from playing in big games, not by how many people live in the city you play in.

So playing in a minor league playoff game in Duluth, Minnesota is a lot of pressure but playing in front of 50k screaming fans in Yankee stadium isn't if its not a playoff game?

Big games amp up pressure. Sure. But bigger markets, bigger venues amplify that pressure by orders of magnitude.

[Catchall]

I think it's Lauri > Ingram = Garland. Neither Ingram nor Garland had great seasons last year. Lauri has a lot of positional value as well as playing at a high level.

[PurpleGreenGold]

Dang, do none of these players ever play 70 games in a season? The only one of the 3 ever to hit that mark was rookie Ingram . . . in 2017. Maybe it's an old person thing but damn I miss the old style types that played through pain consistently. It seems everyone needs to be load managed and takes off for every ding nowadays. I am sure it's an exaggerated hot take, but it seems everyone wants to be Kawhi Leonard instead of wanting to be John Stockton.

I'm quite confident that for the last two years as the Jazz were trying to tank that Lauri not only had some phantom illnesses, but any legit issues were given WIDE leeway. So something that would have kept him out 2 games meant that the Jazz kept him out 7-10 games.