My post will very much be TLDR
LarsV8 wrote:babyjax13 wrote:
Green and Lauri having similar impact at age 22 is not really relevant. Some players develop really well afterward (Lauri had a very sudden and large increase in his production and impact upon coming to Utah, it was not linear at all) and some don't...in fact, most don't develop to the degree that Lauri did.
But it is in fact relevant....players generally have a very clear career development arc, shaped like a bell curve, when it comes to their impact over time, which also generally corelates to their salaries. Players are cheaper earlier in their career and getting better. In the back half of careers, players are getting way more expensive and worse. That 100% affects value and predicts future impact.
For whatever reason, the hot new trend in basketball discussion is too completely write off young players who don't instantly pop, and basically give them no leeway to develop into good players. Folks don't scout these guys, they don't look at gradual improvements, or evaluate their role. They base their evaluations on stats pages, and maybe a game here or there.
A few things:
1. Green isn't cheap. Cheaper than Lauri? Yes. Worse? Yes. Could he eventually be better? Also yes, which is why I'd be willing to take the gamble despite how much he is paid relative to his production.
2. Nowhere did I "write him off", I'm just pointing out that Lauri had atypically steep development. Hopefully Green has that too, but whether they were similar at 22 doesn't matter that much because we can't simply project the exact same career trajectory for Green. Put in terms of your metaphor, the slope of Lauri's curve increased drastically in a way that no one expected (I thought Lauri kind of sucked until ... he became a totally different player seemingly overnight).
Lauri was pretty mid on teams trying to be good, he was basically given away to a tanking team, and dramatically bumped up his usage. He then had a really nice 100 games, got a big contract, and went right back to who he was for the first five years of his career.
Did he actually develop?, or did teams just not try very hard defensively against a tanking Utah team because it was a layup line on offense? We have seen the same things happen with Mikal Bridges and Cam Johnson. The Knicks got completely torched buying into the Bridges bad team, good numbers hype and drastically overpaid. The Nets are trying the same thing with CJ.
For those two seasons Utah was in the hunt for the playoffs until the all-star break when we made major trades and, in the case of 23-24, shut people (including Lauri) down at the end of the season. Lauri could have played more games, but the organization didn't want him to because they wanted to lose games. So no, I don't think it was teams discounting the Jazz at all, nor do I think it is fair to say he was mid on good teams. He was excellent on a team that was in the playoff hunt for the majority of the season.
On January 23rd, 2023, Utah was the 5th best team in the West at 24-24 (the West was really tight, a few days later they were the 10th seed at 26-26). On March 4th they were 10th at 31-33, and on March 20th they were 10th at 35-37.
On January 20th, 2024, Utah was 9th at 22-22, and on February 10th they were 10th at 26-27 (on the 8th we traded our starting small forward, our 8th man and first big off the bench, and another key bench player in Simone Fontecchio, Kelly Olynyk, and Ochai Agbaji). Of the remaining 29 games we played him in 12, and our local writers said he could have played but he had nagging injuries and since we weren't shooting for the playoffs, we were resting him.
So, IMO, he contributed to winning in a pretty clear way those two years, it was not a "layup line" because we were 'penciled in as a free win' ... and ... he was pretty awesome in those years. I've seen bad players get big numbers - I watched Al Jefferson on my team for several years. Lauri isn't that, and wasn't that by impact metrics. Lavine has had one season of the caliber that Lauri had in those two years by metrics like BPM, etc. The rest are much worse than those two seasons (granted, so are the rest of Lauri's seasons, but I tend to think that we see one year 'flashes in the pan' but much less so multi-year stretches of atypically amazing play). e.g., you compare him to Bridges, but Bridges had a 27 game stretch where he was amazing, but otherwise has been the same player.
I frankly just don't find the seasons Lauri had all that amazing. He gives me Lavine vibes. Teams get better when they leave, and the teams they go too get worse. Guy has been in the league 8 years, and never been to the playoffs. (Lavine 10 years, 4 playoff games)
Utah is much better when Lauri plays. In 2022-23 we were 37-45, but 32-34 when Lauri played. In 2023-24 we were 31-51, but 22-33 when he played. Notably, though, we were 26-26 before we traded 3 rotation players for none, but we went 1-13 in games Lauri played after the trade deadline because we went from good to absolutely dreadful (and we weren't just resting Lauri, so even when he played after the deadline, it was never with a full team). That means in games Lauri played before the trade deadline we were 22-20.
I also think it is reductive to just say "teams got better when he left therefor he is bad and does not contribute to winning." Looking within the case of the Jazz, when he has had a reasonable roster (not even a good one) i.e., before the trade deadline of 23-24, we were a cumulative 54-54 with Lauri. That's with Sexton as his second option, and very old Mike Conley + John Collins as the other 'reasonable' starters on the team. This year we haven't even had that. All the veterans were constantly cycled in and out of the lineup. Usage of the young players was purposefully really, really high, we have good point guard, we have no players (other than Collier) who create for others ...
Lauri is low usage for his volume, an excellent shooter, and his impact in 22-23 and 23-24 was really good. I think there are contextual reasons that didn't happen this year and that anyone who watched this travesty of a team would pick up on those rather easily. But I understand skepticism given that he had an objectively bad season in 24-25.
Much like Lavine, I don't think I would take him for free (especially on that contract).
If you think this year is indicative of who Lauri is as a player & moving forward, no, you wouldn't want to trade for him.
But hey, if you like those types of guys, more power to you.
We fundamentally disagree on what kind of player Lauri is. He's not LaVine, LaVine isn't someone I would want on my team at max money (or even at like...35 million).
I am a big fan of aligning timelines,
I am too, that's why I want to trade him.
and I would be jumping at the bit if I were Utah to try to and nab a 21 year old with Jabari's attributes, to align with being good 4-5 years from now.
I like Jabari. But he is supposed to be a knockdown shooter from three and he's below average by percentage. He doesn't self-create at all. But it is a valuable archetype to have a big who can stretch the court, rebound, and play decent defense. But no, I don't think that guy is more valuable on the open market than an all-star caliber player who IS an excellent shooter.
Now, I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Jabari, too. He is young, he is figuring things out, I doubt he ever shoots sub 36% from three again in his career ... but I'm not selling short on Lauri just because I like Jabari's archetype. That would be stupid.
If you think a 33 year old Lauri is better for that, then that is simply a preference thing. I would imagine your opinion will be drastically different if we revisit this conversation in 5 years.
No, I really don't think my opinion will change re: Lauri vs. Jabari. You are saying you prefer Jabari to Lauri, I don't agree with that at all because we can get more assets, and likely more valuable assets than Jabari.
Even assuming if Houston was interested they said #9 or Jabari, I'd pretty easily take the 9th pick because it is a good chance at a high-upside player. It might not end up as good as Jabari, but at least we had the chance at a lottery pick. Would Jabari be really nice as part of a package for Lauri? Yes. But for me this is not Jabari vs. Lauri, it is Jabari vs. reasonable hypothetical returns for Lauri (several of which I've posted in recent weeks and have been well-received on the forum) all of which I would prefer to a trade that is Jabari and filler for Lauri by a substantial margin. Or, for that matter, Jabari and Green - with the caveat that I can see people thinking Jabari = 9 and I'm pretty open to Green + 9 + marginal value for Lauri.