Wolveswin wrote:BigJimFinn wrote:Wolveswin wrote:Jazz instead of trading Markkanen as distressed asset for weak return (picks), swap him for another distressed asset.
Markkanen for Zion.
Let both have fresh starts. Ainge can gamble that Zion upside can be achieved netting him even more value than Markkanen. Pelicans can get a player more ready to contribute to a team on the hook for success in 25/26 (vs on a tanking team).
OK, have to do an intervention when comments get this wild.
Lauri is not a "distressed asset" while in Utah. He went from having a great value contract to being clearly overpaid, but there is a simple reason why Jazz overpaid him: they fit perfectly together right now. Lauri loves SLC and SLC loves him. He really values the quality of life and having a stable situation after being moved twice in short order.
Lauri is a clean living family man with Nordic looks, outdoorsy hobbies, a high school sweetheart wife and three kids (youngest was born during last season, which is why he made sure to block a midseason trade). Any wonder he fits as the face of the franchise in UTAH, where the Jazz needed someone the fans can take selfies with while the tanking team on the floor looks awful. He will not play enough games, or well enough (last season he was literally set up to fail) to hurt their lottery seeding. Ainge has no reason to trade him for any package he could realistically get. Even a Top 40 type of guy who is really happy to stay in Utah instead of yearning for beaches and booty calls is a rare find for the Jazz.
Zion is ... someone completely different, diametrically opposite you could say. Having a ready-made personal sponsorship deal would be the only argument for him fitting in Utah.
NOW, as a basketball sicko it is easy for me to say that Lauri should prioritize winning and Ainge should have traded him at peak value 2 years ago.
I would give a kidney to see Lauri playing proper basketball with Nuggets or Spurs or Pacers, but I am also an adult with enough common sense and understanding of business realities to see why things have gone this way.
You explain distressed to a T for Lauri. You are trying to argue that the kind of distressed makes Zion distressed and Lauri not. Wrong.
My neighbor and I have exact same house. Mine needs a new roof and his needs flooring throughout. Both are distressed assets. Value is lower than peak. Great for Lauri his value is distressed for reasons not the same disgusting reasons as Zion - but both distressed none the less
OK, I get your point that his TRADE ASSET VALUE is distressed by being clearly overpaid for what he could provide any other team. No argument against that. My argument is that for now, Utah has no need or reason to trade him, no matter how much I would wish they did. He provides most value for them specifically and despite the too high salary, there is no real opportunity cost on a tanking team where the second highest salary is Kyle Anderson at $9M and everybody else is on rookie contracts. There was a huge opportunity cost for not trading him earlier, but that is sunk now.
To me, distressed asset implies buy-low potential for something that can regain value if the distressing factors are fixed. That can apply to Zion, who has All-NBA talent and would offer great value if he was healthy, fit and focused, and some team could still fool themselves into believing they can fix that. I absolutely don't believe a tanking team in Utah is where Zion would suddenly discover his inner model professional.
Lauri never had the potential to be a true franchise player and #1 option worth a 30% max contract, and after 8 years there is no fixing his limitations. He is elite off-ball scorer and spacer with mediocre D and no playmaking, worth a #3 contract and would fit easily to any good team at $25M. Unfortunately the key factor distressing his value, being overpaid for the next 4 years, cannot be fixed, so the leaky roof analogy does not work. I don't see how the proposed Zion-Lauri trade could help either team, and that's why I argued against it.