Houston - Utah

[Godaddycurse]

Houston trade: Green, Smith, 9th pick, future 1st(?)
Utah trade: Markkanen

Why for Houston: Consolidate for an upgrade on offense. Think Lauri would play really well off Sengun
Why for Utah: embrace the youth movement

Does Houston owe another 1st? wasnt sure how much jabari is worth these days.

[ReggiesKnicks]

This is a really good haul for Markkanen.

I'd personally refrain from trading Jabari for Lauri but I understand if Utah requires it.

[HornetJail]

I don't see any way Ainge makes this offer

[LarsV8]

This is a non starter for me.

Green and LM are pretty close in stats / impact at age 22. Green is going to only going to get better, and LM likely going to get worse, while on an albatross deal, and also missing 20-30 games a year. Even if you are completely out on Green's upside, that Lauri deal is just toxic.

Jabari is just flat out more valuable than Markkanen.

And then Houston is adding 2 additional picks? One we know is top 10.....

Fairly easy no.

[babyjax13]

This is a non starter for me.

Green and LM are pretty close in stats / impact at age 22. Green is going to only going to get better, and LM likely going to get worse, while on an albatross deal, and also missing 20-30 games a year. Even if you are completely out on Green's upside, that Lauri deal is just toxic.

Jabari is just flat out more valuable than Markkanen.

And then Houston is adding 2 additional picks? One we know is top 10.....

Fairly easy no.

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.

However, do I agree that this might be a bit too rich after the season Lauri had? Not really, tbh. But I would understand why Houston would prefer to keep Smith and add some lesser asset, and, that might be the best offer we get (and I'd take it).

Is Smith worth more than Lauri? I think that's only a reasonable assessment if you think after two amazing seasons Lauri just had a reversion to the "mean" rather than one where his production was reduced by a combination of injuries, circumstances, and shameless tanking. I really think it is not a reversion to the mean. If it was only one season that he was good, sure, I could see that argument... but it was not just one year. I don't think Smith is more valuable in a vacuum or to us. That doesn't mean Houston would be willing to include him, especially since if they want Lauri, they certainly have the assets for a good offer while keeping their preferred pieces.

I don't remember what we had originally discussed, but I think it was something like 9 + Green + something else (Whitmore? a future, non-premium first?). I'm fine with that. I'm willing to treat Green like a second draft player and see if he can be something. If he can't? Not a big deal. If he can, you get a lottery pick and a younger player out of the deal and those things are valuable in a rebuild.

[WinterSoldier]

This is a non starter for me.

Green and LM are pretty close in stats / impact at age 22. Green is going to only going to get better, and LM likely going to get worse, while on an albatross deal, and also missing 20-30 games a year. Even if you are completely out on Green's upside, that Lauri deal is just toxic.

Jabari is just flat out more valuable than Markkanen.

And then Houston is adding 2 additional picks? One we know is top 10.....

Fairly easy no.

I know you've bonded with the core whatever name you call the young Rockets, but Jabari just isn't the level that you rate him at. This is the kind of deal the actual NBA front offices will make. If you can get a Giannis deal then great. It will be more expensive and you'll likely have to add Sengun or Eason to that deal.

[LarsV8]

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.

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.

Is Smith worth more than Lauri? I think that's only a reasonable assessment if you think after two amazing seasons Lauri just had a reversion to the "mean" rather than one where his production was reduced by a combination of injuries, circumstances, and shameless tanking. I really think it is not a reversion to the mean. If it was only one season that he was good, sure, I could see that argument... but it was not just one year. I don't think Smith is more valuable in a vacuum or to us. That doesn't mean Houston would be willing to include him, especially since if they want Lauri, they certainly have the assets for a good offer while keeping their preferred pieces.

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)

Much like Lavine, I don't think I would take him for free (especially on that contract).

But hey, if you like those types of guys, more power to you. I am a big fan of aligning timelines, 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. 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.

[babyjax13]

My post will very much be TLDR

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.

[Kiss of Death]

I doubt the Rockets have any interest in LM with that contract.
Giving up assets for him is ridiculous.
Utah should have traded him when his value was higher.
They killed his trade value by giving him that contract that he will probably never live up to.

[LarsV8]

My post will very much be TLDR

Well I think it just comes down to perspective.

You have found the positives in Lauri that makes you think he a positive piece going forward, and he may very well be.

I see the red flags and am not comfortable with the risks going forward, especially at a premium price.

That makes the trade proposal untenable.

[bkohler]

proposal untenable.

I’ve noticed you saying similar things about KD and Booker. I’m not debating the way you feel, you 100% have the right to feel that way, just wondering if there’s a player you’d actually see the Rockets paying for or is breaking up the youth movement a nonstarter for you? I can completely understand that point of view if so, I’m just curious.

[Kiss of Death]

There are NBA players that the Rockets would break up their young core for.

Players like Durant, Booker and Markkanen are not those players.

Taking on huge contracts also hinders the Rockets future ability to re-sign players like Amen, Jabari, Eason and Sheppard.

A player making $40-50 M a year better be worth it for the Rockets to make major changes to the current course.

[Godymas]

Overpay from Houston for a guy that has never had to play a minute of meaningful basketball on a winning team and who heavily underperformed his contract extension.

[LarsV8]

I’ve noticed you saying similar things about KD and Booker. I’m not debating the way you feel, you 100% have the right to feel that way, just wondering if there’s a player you’d actually see the Rockets paying for or is breaking up the youth movement a nonstarter for you? I can completely understand that point of view if so, I’m just curious.

It's not the players, it's the deals. People seem to think that because we have a ton of assets, we are willing to just piss them all away. The take away here is that I put tremendous internal value on most of our guys. Below is my mindset when it comes to potential trade targets and what I am offering.

General Primer:

Amen is not going anywhere, under any circumstances. Unless you are moving Wemby, Houston isn't interested.

Reed and Cam are available, but are not throw ins. I like Reed alot, he has tremendous upside. One of the Hou media guys told us in a private setting that the team views Reed with the highest potential upside on the team. Cam has his warts, but the talent is undeniable. I am not opposed to taking a step back next year, and just letting these guys get into the rotation, if no good trades are available.

In almost any scenario I am walking into it, thinking there is no way I am moving Tari or Jabari. Defensive oriented complementary pieces are critical to making the team a competitive for a long period of time. These are Jrue Holiday, the Kristap Porzingases, the Alex Carusos, IE the guys that do the dirty work to compliment your engines, and makes it all work. We have too many great picks for those guys to be on the table, and they are insisted upon, then you can expect the draft picks to come out, so they can be used to replace those guys.

My targets (and mindset):

A.) sure fire guys that instantly make you a contender (Jokic / Giannis). Right now, I think we are in the drivers seat when it comes to combination of Market size, ready to win, and asset base to be the front runner, if any of those guys happen to become available. These are only guys I am putting Sengun on the table for. Sengun as a centerpiece and the four high upside picks we hold from other teams should be the foundation of an incredible offer that preserves an already great rotation. Again, doing my best to keep Tari, Jabari, and even Brooks out of this deal. I want those players supporting the trade target on the court, not going out in trade.

I am extremely against anything that moves us out of the frontrunner position. This Lauri deal for example, I feel, damages that position, for little upside, and considerable risk.

B.) Obvious upgrades in guys that are not particularly old and have decent impact (Booker/Trae). I am interested in these players, provided their contracts don't change. Again, we have an existing rotation player in Green/FVV which can serve as the the salary equivalent, and draft picks that can immediately make the team much better, without much risk. BUT, I am still offering pick based packages and NOT the guys that do the dirty work. I am also not overpaying. My offer for Booker would be Jalen + 3 Phx picks. For Trae, it is tricky, as I go back and forth on him. Maybe something like FVV, and two non premium picks. A Trae scenario is where I might put Reed on the table, because he would then have less value internally. I am not throwing a crazy deal at these players. Maybe something for AD, if he comes available, and the obvious core piece in that deal would be Jabari.

C.) I still think we need a traditional defensive oriented big that is a vertical threat, but its more of a nice to have rather than a must have. Turner is alway interesting due to his valuable skill mix. Kessler is always talked about, Lively or Gafford get talked about. Perhaps we could just draft Khaman Maluach. Its interesting, but definitely not a priority. Adams is awesome right now, but I don't know if he sticks around, or how much longer he can play. Would not move core players in this deal, likely a pick.

D.) The aging stars...Lillard, Harden, Durant,....I mean they are all interesting, and I am sure it would be cool to have them for a short term run, but my offers are small. FVV or Jalen, #9, and maybe Whitmore. Not putting any of our premiere assets on the table for these guys. Too expensive, too old, etc. I would just not be willing to offer much. No chance my core guys being moved here.

E.) Other role players I like but are only nice to haves - more hustle guys like Tari, Brooks, and Jabari. All the ones mentioned above, Herb Jones, Divencizo, maybe Mikal etc. Would consider deals for these guys, but would be for non premiere firsts.

F.) Other guys whose names are thrown around
Gobert, Sabonis, JCollins, Zion - I like as players, but are unlikely due to various reasons.
Randle, Brown, Markenan, Poetl, RJB, Claxton, CamJ, Ball, Poole, Irving, Simons, Derozan - No interest in any of these guys.

[bkohler]

The take away here is that I put tremendous internal value on most of our guys.

Thank you for your comprehensive write-up! Definitely helps me understand your position better. Where we disagree is probably around the relative value of most of your internal guys. To me I think you've got one clear untouchable (Amen), some fundamental building blocks (Sengun, Tari), a player in Jabari who I think is good and has potential to be unlocked but is also up for a contract extension and that always influences the value (we're playing that same game with Kessler right now as Jazz fans. He's super valuable right now, with an extension... maybe not so much, hence the thought of moving him now). I view Cam and Reed as positive value players whose value is diminished by the day as they sit on the bench, and more of their cheap years are eaten up. I view Green as a neutral value contract, I don't think you'd get much in the way of positive value for him besides maybe a late first or some 2nds.

So the Jabari, Green, #9 offer to me feels close to fair personally because I have Lauri as worth 2-3 FRP, #9 is probably worth 2 FRP, Jabari is worth a FRP pick, and then neutral value for Green. I could see the argument that the Jazz might need to kick in more if you want to argue Jabari is worth two picks, but I think part of that is what he's willing to sign his extension for. (say #17 from Min).

For what it's worth, I have KD/Lauri/JJJ/Sabonis all about the same valuation right now. I think Booker would get 4-6 FRPs in value, Giannis in the 6-8 range.