RealGM

Let's say that Lauri and Mitchell have identical contracts.

Who would you think would have higher value?

I'm going to sa y Lauri. I think the reason that Mitchell extended in Cleveland is probably that there wasn't much of a market for him. He might be a better player then Lauri but I'm starting to think that because Lauri fits more easily on more teams that his value would be higher.

what do you think?

mitchell because he can be a 1st option and has history of playoff success

Mitchell, he's a proven #1 option on good PO team, and can fit as #2 next to any wing, big or PG.
Markannen hasn't shown that, as a 2nd option (Cavs season) he was pretty average...

Mitchell, not close.

I'm a fan of both, but Mitchell has a higher ceiling.

So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

Texas Chuck wrote:So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

Texas Chuck wrote:So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

(Grandpa voice) back in my day you could get two Donovan Mitchells and a Lauri for a nickel

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

Most valuable commodity is a playoff tested first option. Sure some teams already have that guy and might choose a different player for fit, but generally the first option guy is going to bring the biggest return because if you don't have that, you have a real low ceiling.

And value is determined by that highest bidder, not the best team looking for fit. For instance my little Mavs would probably prefer Markannen over Mitchell because they have two star guards already. But they aren't going to be the high bidder for either so their preference is irrelevant to the value debate.

Texas Chuck wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

Most valuable commodity is a playoff tested first option. Sure some teams already have that guy and might choose a different player for fit, but generally the first option guy is going to bring the biggest return because if you don't have that, you have a real low ceiling.

And value is determined by that highest bidder, not the best team looking for fit. For instance my little Mavs would probably prefer Markannen over Mitchell because they have two star guards already. But they aren't going to be the high bidder for either so their preference is irrelevant to the value debate.

Lively + 2 1sts for Markkanen would be a strong offer

How about we suggest Tikal bridges gets more. Than Trae?

Or bridges.vs Mitchell. I believe NY could have had either and choose Bridges.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:
Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

Most valuable commodity is a playoff tested first option. Sure some teams already have that guy and might choose a different player for fit, but generally the first option guy is going to bring the biggest return because if you don't have that, you have a real low ceiling.

And value is determined by that highest bidder, not the best team looking for fit. For instance my little Mavs would probably prefer Markannen over Mitchell because they have two star guards already. But they aren't going to be the high bidder for either so their preference is irrelevant to the value debate.

Lively + 2 1sts for Markkanen would be a strong offer

Not here. Here I think a lot of Jazz fans still think Kessler is more valuable so Lively will get discounted despite just how great he was in the playoffs. Then its a Dallas pick next year which will get labeled 25+ and another one they have to wait 7 years on.

Now Dallas might be smart to do that(if Utah would accept which they wouldn't) and then turn around and trade Kyrie and hope Lauri could be a contending level 2nd option. Would potentially elongate their window and you just accept Gafford and whatever center you could piece together would be enough.

And what's really hard to think about is if you remember the summer he signed with Cleveland, he really wanted to sign with Dallas. And they had cap space(or could have, they may have operated over the cap that specific year) to sign him. Give the Bulls a first like Cleveland did and they could have added him for cheap then.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:
Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

Most valuable commodity is a playoff tested first option. Sure some teams already have that guy and might choose a different player for fit, but generally the first option guy is going to bring the biggest return because if you don't have that, you have a real low ceiling.

And value is determined by that highest bidder, not the best team looking for fit. For instance my little Mavs would probably prefer Markannen over Mitchell because they have two star guards already. But they aren't going to be the high bidder for either so their preference is irrelevant to the value debate.

Lively + 2 1sts for Markkanen would be a strong offer

I don’t think Dallas should have much interest in completely locking themselves out of the ability to improve themselves for the next 7 years.

This would leave Dallas with:
2025: 2nd Round Pick
2026: 1st that can only be traded on draft night
2027: No Picks
2028: OKC has swap rights, 1 crappy 2nd
2029: No Picks
2030: San Antonio has swap rights
2031: No picks

Love Lauri. But Dallas shouldn’t trade one of the most promising young players in the league and their ability to improve for him.

Mitchell is an all NBA caliber guy, Lauri an Allstar caliber guy. Mitchell has a much higher effect on winning.
If they have the same contract…then the better player has higher trade value.

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:So by proxy Jaden McDaniels is worth like 2 Donovan Mitchell's then?

Something like that. I understand the conventional wisdom here. A primary scoring option is worth more than a secondary scorer.

What I'm wondering is if that wisdom is starting to be challenged by teams. With teams beginning to value fit.over scoring acumen.

I think the question that teams are beginning to ask is whether stacking multiple fist options is worth the opportunity cost in terms in team building. The answer with two is probably IMO. The answer with three is far less clear.

Donovan Mitchell and it's not even remotely close.

Mitchell and its not even close. And Mitchell could have gotten the max contract from any team in the league. I know all you major market fans thinks every player wants to play in LA , NY, or Boston, but they don't. Mitchell wants to win, and he has confidence in Cavs team and front office. Whether you do or not, really doesn't matter to him.

Mavrelous wrote:Mitchell, he's a proven #1 option on good PO team, and can fit as #2 next to any wing, big or PG.
Markannen hasn't shown that, as a 2nd option (Cavs season) he was pretty average...

Agreed that Spida is more valuable as proven #1 guy for a good team, even if he likely can't be that for a contender, and Lauri as #1 guy has a ceiling at 40ish wins (less in the current West). But Lauri has never been #2 option in a good team; Cavs were a play-in team, and more importantly he was used just as a spacer standing in the corner. He was 5th on the team in FGA at 11.5, or less than his first three years in Chicago.

The reason for his high trade value is that many teams believe he would be very effective as a #2 or #3 option offering great spacing and extra gravity with his off-ball movement, which allows him to not only fit with, but actually help ball-dominant superstars. Lauri today is also a better defender than his early reputation, being fairly switchable 2 - 5 (not good against any type, but just about decent against all) and highly coachable (effort and discipline within a scheme, low fouling). He also gives you a rare combo of high-volume 3pt shooting, rebounding and big man transition speed. I would just love to see him in a 5-out, ball-moving, fast paced team.

In the real world and outside the hypothetical the other reason is this season's bargain contract, which makes him easy to fit into a trade without giving many current players away. If he gets onto a winner that is willing to pay the future cost of winning, I don't see him walking away. He doesn't care about being "the man", and any of that hero itch he can scratch next summer with Finland in the Euros tournament played at home.

BigJimFinn wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:Mitchell, he's a proven #1 option on good PO team, and can fit as #2 next to any wing, big or PG.
Markannen hasn't shown that, as a 2nd option (Cavs season) he was pretty average...

Agreed that Spida is more valuable as proven #1 guy for a good team, even if he likely can't be that for a contender, and Lauri as #1 guy has a ceiling at 40ish wins (less in the current West). But Lauri has never been #2 option in a good team; Cavs were a play-in team, and more importantly he was used just as a spacer standing in the corner. He was 5th on the team in FGA at 11.5, or less than his first three years in Chicago.

The reason for his high trade value is that many teams believe he would be very effective as a #2 or #3 option offering great spacing and extra gravity with his off-ball movement, which allows him to not only fit with, but actually help ball-dominant superstars. Lauri today is also a better defender than his early reputation, being fairly switchable 2 - 5 (not good against any type, but just about decent against all) and highly coachable (effort and discipline within a scheme, low fouling). He also gives you a rare combo of high-volume 3pt shooting, rebounding and big man transition speed. I would just love to see him in a 5-out, ball-moving, fast paced team.

In the real world and outside the hypothetical the other reason is this season's bargain contract, which makes him easy to fit into a trade without giving many current players away. If he gets onto a winner that is willing to pay the future cost of winning, I don't see him walking away. He doesn't care about being "the man", and any of that hero itch he can scratch next summer with Finland in the Euros tournament played at home.

I like Lauri a lot, and I, like you, believe he will be much better than he was in CLE and CHI, but in valuation vs a proven 1st option, it's what have you done, not what you can be if you are used correctly, especially for 27 y/o player.
You really can't put Markannen is same tier with someone like Mitchell, there is a possibility that Lauri is traded, and we find out Markannen is an amazing 2nd option that can elevate a team into contender, but until this happens, it's not enough to tip the scale.