What does a Lauri to Detroit trade look like?

[cgf]

Lauri on paper is a perfect fit in Detroit. On paper I’d love to have him and think he could unlock another level on this team with spacing and he was a decent defender under Bickerstaff when he played in Cleveland but his injury history is something I don’t see enough people mentioning and to me at least in practicality, it’s a no go at the asking price. He’s missed many games throughout his career but even in the last 3 seasons he’s only played 68% of his games, that’s not something to be glossed over and poor management to just assume that’s going to change. Played games matter, and the Jazz tanking isn’t an excuse either. I’d rather use assets to trade for Trey Murphy as opposed to Lauri every day of the week

How many of those games was he “injured” for?

Funnily enough Lauri has also missed 68% of the games throughout his career. I don’t care if he hasn’t had a major injury, but history shows he can’t get through a full season without some injury and that needs to be taken into account. People call out Ingram for injuries and he misses the same amount of games as Lauri…..

Your statement infers he was held out for tanking reasons but that’s a farce to imply that’s all it was

I didn't imply that's all it was, that's just you reading into my question, which was genuine: how many of those games did he miss because management told him he was injured? If he was healthy enough to play in 80% of games but the FO held him out of those extra 12%, then that impacts how many games we should expect him to miss for you.

[cgf]

Lauri on paper is a perfect fit in Detroit. On paper I’d love to have him and think he could unlock another level on this team with spacing and he was a decent defender under Bickerstaff when he played in Cleveland but his injury history is something I don’t see enough people mentioning and to me at least in practicality, it’s a no go at the asking price. He’s missed many games throughout his career but even in the last 3 seasons he’s only played 68% of his games, that’s not something to be glossed over and poor management to just assume that’s going to change. Played games matter, and the Jazz tanking isn’t an excuse either. I’d rather use assets to trade for Trey Murphy as opposed to Lauri every day of the week

How many of those games was he “injured” for?

I am not that concerned about Lauri and injuries (he seems pretty typical to me)

For me, I agree about the theoretical fit, but it's about the price, both in trade and in salary.
Would I rather have
A) Lauri at 4/$196 ==> roughly 27% of the cap over the next 4 years
or
B) Holland at 3/$29M ==> roughly 6% of the cap, plus contract control for another 5 years

Close call, but I'd have to go with A.

I'd also have Harris as a neutral expiring, and the FRP is positive, so I'm out from a trade value perspective

But the biggest issue is the impact on the cap sheet. Lauri is now paid where it becomes difficult to fit him onto our cap sheet as soon as next year, and certainly by 2027-2028. I see Lauri as a very useful player, and possibly a good/great 3rd/4th starter. But under the new CBA, you just can't go paying your 3rd/4th guy 27% of the cap and still build a reasonably complete team.

I do get that, but you aren't paying your kids yet, and the cap is skyrocketing. So given the fit, I think it would be worth the gamble as long as you kept one of your two-way wings and paid off your pick debt next spring. Especially with Indiana & Boston taking a step back this season, I think you could be our biggest threat with Markannen instead of Harris.

[Billl]

How many of those games was he “injured” for?

I am not that concerned about Lauri and injuries (he seems pretty typical to me)

For me, I agree about the theoretical fit, but it's about the price, both in trade and in salary.
Would I rather have
A) Lauri at 4/$196 ==> roughly 27% of the cap over the next 4 years
or
B) Holland at 3/$29M ==> roughly 6% of the cap, plus contract control for another 5 years

Close call, but I'd have to go with A.

I'd also have Harris as a neutral expiring, and the FRP is positive, so I'm out from a trade value perspective

But the biggest issue is the impact on the cap sheet. Lauri is now paid where it becomes difficult to fit him onto our cap sheet as soon as next year, and certainly by 2027-2028. I see Lauri as a very useful player, and possibly a good/great 3rd/4th starter. But under the new CBA, you just can't go paying your 3rd/4th guy 27% of the cap and still build a reasonably complete team.

I do get that, but you aren't paying your kids yet, and the cap is skyrocketing. So given the fit, I think it would be worth the gamble as long as you kept one of your two-way wings and paid off your pick debt next spring. Especially with Indiana & Boston taking a step back this season, I think you could be our biggest threat with Markannen instead of Harris.

The problem is that Utah is higher on Markannen than the league and I think Detroit is higher on Holland than the league (or at least realgm), so they almost certainly aren't going to see eye to eye on valuation.

Also, teams just don't trade young, high end 2-way wing prospects right now. That archetype is basically the cheat code in the modern NBA. You can argue whether holland is that, but after showing off a nice looking 3 point jump shot in summer league, I think the pistons are inclined to wait and see. Having guys like that around when Cade hits his prime is more important to the franchise than fighting for a top 4 conference seed when he's 23.

[A_dub06]

How many of those games was he “injured” for?

Funnily enough Lauri has also missed 68% of the games throughout his career. I don’t care if he hasn’t had a major injury, but history shows he can’t get through a full season without some injury and that needs to be taken into account. People call out Ingram for injuries and he misses the same amount of games as Lauri…..

Your statement infers he was held out for tanking reasons but that’s a farce to imply that’s all it was

I didn't imply that's all it was, that's just you reading into my question, which was genuine: how many of those games did he miss because management told him he was injured? If he was healthy enough to play in 80% of games but the FO held him out of those extra 12%, then that impacts how many games we should expect him to miss for you.

Whether it was or wasn’t is kind've irrelevant because my point stands, look at his time before Utah and he has missed multiple games throughout his career showing that his durability is questionable at best. If he had missed only 8-10 games most seasons and then sat out during his time at Utah once they started thanking that’s fair game but that’s objectively incorrect and he’s missed multiple games through his entire career. Unless said player is a top 10 player you don’t trade multiple unprotected 1sts and young players for an already superstar level paid player.

I think it’s quite clear that Utah should’ve traded Lauri prior to signing him as now they NEED to prove he can play the way he did a couple seasons ago and actually stay healthy. If he can’t do that Utah will need to heavily reduce the asking price to pretty much matching salary, a protected 1st and one ok young player.

[oldncreaky]

I am not that concerned about Lauri and injuries (he seems pretty typical to me)

For me, I agree about the theoretical fit, but it's about the price, both in trade and in salary.
Would I rather have
A) Lauri at 4/$196 ==> roughly 27% of the cap over the next 4 years
or
B) Holland at 3/$29M ==> roughly 6% of the cap, plus contract control for another 5 years

Close call, but I'd have to go with A.

I'd also have Harris as a neutral expiring, and the FRP is positive, so I'm out from a trade value perspective

But the biggest issue is the impact on the cap sheet. Lauri is now paid where it becomes difficult to fit him onto our cap sheet as soon as next year, and certainly by 2027-2028. I see Lauri as a very useful player, and possibly a good/great 3rd/4th starter. But under the new CBA, you just can't go paying your 3rd/4th guy 27% of the cap and still build a reasonably complete team.

I do get that, but you aren't paying your kids yet, and the cap is skyrocketing. So given the fit, I think it would be worth the gamble as long as you kept one of your two-way wings and paid off your pick debt next spring. Especially with Indiana & Boston taking a step back this season, I think you could be our biggest threat with Markannen instead of Harris.

The problem is that Utah is higher on Markannen than the league and I think Detroit is higher on Holland than the league (or at least realgm), so they almost certainly aren't going to see eye to eye on valuation.

Also, teams just don't trade young, high end 2-way wing prospects right now. That archetype is basically the cheat code in the modern NBA. You can argue whether holland is that, but after showing off a nice looking 3 point jump shot in summer league, I think the pistons are inclined to wait and see. Having guys like that around when Cade hits his prime is more important to the franchise than fighting for a top 4 conference seed when he's 23.

100% this

I see absolutely no reason for Detroit to trade its recent high picks. While the CBA means that we can't keep them all if they all blossom into stars, we don't know which young players will be the best value/fit to keep. I just can't see a business case for rushing these decisions unless it is signing a younger player to a sub-max extension before they take a leap, and neither Ivey or Duren is a good candidate for that.

For Holland in particular, we've got at least 2 more seasons to evaluate

The Pistons also have more than one roster hole, and a bunch of other question marks. Yes, PF is an issue long-term, but Harris is a pretty reasonable stopgap, and bigger questions include:
How will the youngsters progress, especially with bigger roles?
Have we lost too much shooting?
Who is our backup PG, and how do we survive when Cade sits?
So, about that C position . . . are we really set?

With all that in the air, the last thing I want to do is go big on Lauri

[cgf]

Funnily enough Lauri has also missed 68% of the games throughout his career. I don’t care if he hasn’t had a major injury, but history shows he can’t get through a full season without some injury and that needs to be taken into account. People call out Ingram for injuries and he misses the same amount of games as Lauri…..

Your statement infers he was held out for tanking reasons but that’s a farce to imply that’s all it was

I didn't imply that's all it was, that's just you reading into my question, which was genuine: how many of those games did he miss because management told him he was injured? If he was healthy enough to play in 80% of games but the FO held him out of those extra 12%, then that impacts how many games we should expect him to miss for you.

Whether it was or wasn’t is kind've irrelevant because my point stands, look at his time before Utah and he has missed multiple games throughout his career showing that his durability is questionable at best. If he had missed only 8-10 games most seasons and then sat out during his time at Utah once they started thanking that’s fair game but that’s objectively incorrect and he’s missed multiple games through his entire career. Unless said player is a top 10 player you don’t trade multiple unprotected 1sts and young players for an already superstar level paid player.

I think it’s quite clear that Utah should’ve traded Lauri prior to signing him as now they NEED to prove he can play the way he did a couple seasons ago and actually stay healthy. If he can’t do that Utah will need to heavily reduce the asking price to pretty much matching salary, a protected 1st and one ok young player.

It’s relevant IMO because I think without the tank we’d have seen him in the 65ish games played range that a lot of stars are in.


I don’t think he’s worth multiple firsts & a juicy prospect. I’ve said repeatedly in this thread that I only think it makes sense for you if the price is a juicy prospect + 1 unprotected FRP so that you’d be free next summer to offer Ivey or Lauri + 4 FRPs if the right all-in move became available.


Ainge has probably misplayed it, but I’m not really thinking about it from that perspective. I’m just thinking as a rival (Knicks) fan, what move would make me most worried about you guys?

And barring the obvious superstar for pennies trades, it would be an intermediate gamble like Holland + 26 FRP + Harris for Lauri. Because that trade should make you significantly more dangerous this season while setting you up to make that final blockbuster, if you need it.

There is injury risk and we’ve never seen post breakout Lauri on a good team…but without those risks he’d be worth a lot more in trade and block you from that future blockbuster.

[cgf]

I do get that, but you aren't paying your kids yet, and the cap is skyrocketing. So given the fit, I think it would be worth the gamble as long as you kept one of your two-way wings and paid off your pick debt next spring. Especially with Indiana & Boston taking a step back this season, I think you could be our biggest threat with Markannen instead of Harris.

The problem is that Utah is higher on Markannen than the league and I think Detroit is higher on Holland than the league (or at least realgm), so they almost certainly aren't going to see eye to eye on valuation.

Also, teams just don't trade young, high end 2-way wing prospects right now. That archetype is basically the cheat code in the modern NBA. You can argue whether holland is that, but after showing off a nice looking 3 point jump shot in summer league, I think the pistons are inclined to wait and see. Having guys like that around when Cade hits his prime is more important to the franchise than fighting for a top 4 conference seed when he's 23.

100% this

I see absolutely no reason for Detroit to trade its recent high picks. While the CBA means that we can't keep them all if they all blossom into stars, we don't know which young players will be the best value/fit to keep. I just can't see a business case for rushing these decisions unless it is signing a younger player to a sub-max extension before they take a leap, and neither Ivey or Duren is a good candidate for that.

For Holland in particular, we've got at least 2 more seasons to evaluate

The Pistons also have more than one roster hole, and a bunch of other question marks. Yes, PF is an issue long-term, but Harris is a pretty reasonable stopgap, and bigger questions include:
How will the youngsters progress, especially with bigger roles?
Have we lost too much shooting?
Who is our backup PG, and how do we survive when Cade sits?
So, about that C position . . . are we really set?

With all that in the air, the last thing I want to do is go big on Lauri

All very fair, but there’s a balance to this. Wait too long to make sure you’re keeping the best prospect & maximizing their development, and you risk devaluing the prospect you end up cashing in on; whether by exposing their shortcomings, limiting their development, or just the loss of rookie scale years. Which is why you have to take calculated risks if you can’t get away with tanking as brazenly as OKC did.

And some of those questions aren’t set in stone…I.e. turning Harris into Lauri would backfill a good bit of the shooting you lost, having that better finisher / spacer at the 4 could help Ivey’s development as a creator by giving him more room to operate and a strong bailout guy to build his confidence and let him succeed while learning to lead those Cade-free minutes.

That’s why I agree about going all in on Lauri being a mistake. But if you can keep Cade, Ivey, Ausar or Holland, Duren, Stewart, and all of your picks after 2026 so you still had the ammo for a blockbuster next summer…that’s the kind of move that would make me very nervous and start to view you as our biggest threat through the rest of the Brunson-window.

I don’t think it would be a disaster if you stayed put, but I would be less scared of you and I think you’d be more likely to see some regression. Which is why I think it’s the right time for a shrewd & aggressive move, as long as you maintain your flexibility for future offseasons.

[cgf]

I am not that concerned about Lauri and injuries (he seems pretty typical to me)

For me, I agree about the theoretical fit, but it's about the price, both in trade and in salary.
Would I rather have
A) Lauri at 4/$196 ==> roughly 27% of the cap over the next 4 years
or
B) Holland at 3/$29M ==> roughly 6% of the cap, plus contract control for another 5 years

Close call, but I'd have to go with A.

I'd also have Harris as a neutral expiring, and the FRP is positive, so I'm out from a trade value perspective

But the biggest issue is the impact on the cap sheet. Lauri is now paid where it becomes difficult to fit him onto our cap sheet as soon as next year, and certainly by 2027-2028. I see Lauri as a very useful player, and possibly a good/great 3rd/4th starter. But under the new CBA, you just can't go paying your 3rd/4th guy 27% of the cap and still build a reasonably complete team.

I do get that, but you aren't paying your kids yet, and the cap is skyrocketing. So given the fit, I think it would be worth the gamble as long as you kept one of your two-way wings and paid off your pick debt next spring. Especially with Indiana & Boston taking a step back this season, I think you could be our biggest threat with Markannen instead of Harris.

The problem is that Utah is higher on Markannen than the league and I think Detroit is higher on Holland than the league (or at least realgm), so they almost certainly aren't going to see eye to eye on valuation.

Also, teams just don't trade young, high end 2-way wing prospects right now. That archetype is basically the cheat code in the modern NBA. You can argue whether holland is that, but after showing off a nice looking 3 point jump shot in summer league, I think the pistons are inclined to wait and see. Having guys like that around when Cade hits his prime is more important to the franchise than fighting for a top 4 conference seed when he's 23.

I agree with most of this, but I think you’re oversimplifying with the two way wings bit. Trust me, I know how much they help, but a lot of different archetypes are cheat codes in the modern NBA. You need multiple creators, and quality rim protection, and to be able to rebound, and proper spacing, and the depth too withstand the overly long regular season, etc.

But I also think a Harris / Lauri swap would make a bigger difference than you seem to. I think it would cement you in the top 4 with us, Cleveland, and Orlando…and I’d be more worried about you in a playoff series than the Cavs or Magic. So it could very much mean a finals appearance for Cade at 23…which, given how weak the west is outside of OKC, could easily mean a ring…all while still leaving you in position to make a further big move with all of your picks past 2026.

[Daddy 801]

Funnily enough Lauri has also missed 68% of the games throughout his career. I don’t care if he hasn’t had a major injury, but history shows he can’t get through a full season without some injury and that needs to be taken into account. People call out Ingram for injuries and he misses the same amount of games as Lauri…..

Your statement infers he was held out for tanking reasons but that’s a farce to imply that’s all it was

I didn't imply that's all it was, that's just you reading into my question, which was genuine: how many of those games did he miss because management told him he was injured? If he was healthy enough to play in 80% of games but the FO held him out of those extra 12%, then that impacts how many games we should expect him to miss for you.

Whether it was or wasn’t is kind've irrelevant because my point stands, look at his time before Utah and he has missed multiple games throughout his career showing that his durability is questionable at best. If he had missed only 8-10 games most seasons and then sat out during his time at Utah once they started thanking that’s fair game but that’s objectively incorrect and he’s missed multiple games through his entire career. Unless said player is a top 10 player you don’t trade multiple unprotected 1sts and young players for an already superstar level paid player.

I think it’s quite clear that Utah should’ve traded Lauri prior to signing him as now they NEED to prove he can play the way he did a couple seasons ago and actually stay healthy. If he can’t do that Utah will need to heavily reduce the asking price to pretty much matching salary, a protected 1st and one ok young player.

And Utah would rather keep Lauri than take that as an offer. Protected firsts are at best a 50% shot at a rotation player, the matching salary is going to be bad salary, and the one young ok player is a dime a dozen in the league. Nothing about that offer is worth trading for.

Trading for Lauri (or any borderline good starting player in the NBA) is worth more than that offer. Especially if bad salary is coming back. You can argue Lauri missed games and isn’t worth what he is paid for. But Utah is unlikely to ever get a player as good as he is with that type of offer. And moving guys in today’s NBA is hard. Teams on the cusp of being great have to give up unprotected picks to get good players. Just look at what Bane went for. The only other route Detroit has is internal development because free agency is basically dead. So for any team to take the next step it’s going to require mortgaging their future by sending picks. In 3-4 years when Utah is hopefully good we will see them in the same spot. They should have a good core abut they will need to trade for a quality player to complete the roster and it’s going to take unprotected picks to get a player. Unless the CBA is drastically changed soon that’s the landscape of the NBA for the foreseeable future.

[A_dub06]

I didn't imply that's all it was, that's just you reading into my question, which was genuine: how many of those games did he miss because management told him he was injured? If he was healthy enough to play in 80% of games but the FO held him out of those extra 12%, then that impacts how many games we should expect him to miss for you.

Whether it was or wasn’t is kind've irrelevant because my point stands, look at his time before Utah and he has missed multiple games throughout his career showing that his durability is questionable at best. If he had missed only 8-10 games most seasons and then sat out during his time at Utah once they started thanking that’s fair game but that’s objectively incorrect and he’s missed multiple games through his entire career. Unless said player is a top 10 player you don’t trade multiple unprotected 1sts and young players for an already superstar level paid player.

I think it’s quite clear that Utah should’ve traded Lauri prior to signing him as now they NEED to prove he can play the way he did a couple seasons ago and actually stay healthy. If he can’t do that Utah will need to heavily reduce the asking price to pretty much matching salary, a protected 1st and one ok young player.

And Utah would rather keep Lauri than take that as an offer. Protected firsts are at best a 50% shot at a rotation player, the matching salary is going to be bad salary, and the one young ok player is a dime a dozen in the league. Nothing about that offer is worth trading for.

Trading for Lauri (or any borderline good starting player in the NBA) is worth more than that offer. Especially if bad salary is coming back. You can argue Lauri missed games and isn’t worth what he is paid for. But Utah is unlikely to ever get a player as good as he is with that type of offer. And moving guys in today’s NBA is hard. Teams on the cusp of being great have to give up unprotected picks to get good players. Just look at what Bane went for. The only other route Detroit has is internal development because free agency is basically dead. So for any team to take the next step it’s going to require mortgaging their future by sending picks. In 3-4 years when Utah is hopefully good we will see them in the same spot. They should have a good core abut they will need to trade for a quality player to complete the roster and it’s going to take unprotected picks to get a player. Unless the CBA is drastically changed soon that’s the landscape of the NBA for the foreseeable future.

I think you are missing the point I have been making. Lauri’s injury history had not been factored into the demands Utah have for any deal, nor the fact he is now signed to that large contract. Being on a large contract isn’t an issue if the player is a superstar, but Lauri is being paid almost $50m per year when he hasn’t proven he can stay healthy or he is the player he showed during that season in Utah. His contract is risky both from a health and also stats perspective, $50m isn’t just chump change. He is being paid as if he IS a superstar and that’s an issue

[Laimbeer]

As the resident Piston pessimist I'd like to see if we're really on a big ascent or if we're the Kings/Hawks of recent seasons. One more year to prove that plus see how the recent high picks develop.

As for Lauri, he declined last season (don't know how much is health related) and seems to get a pass on the "empty calories" label we attach to a lot of one way players. I'm not as high on him as some.

[cgf]

As the resident Piston pessimist I'd like to see if we're really on a big ascent or if we're the Kings/Hawks of recent seasons. One more year to prove that plus see how the recent high picks develop.

As for Lauri, he declined last season (don't know how much is health related) and seems to get a pass on the "empty calories" label we attach to a lot of one way players. I'm not as high on him as some.

You guys have a defense to fallback on. You’re Orlando or Houston, not Atlanta or Sacramento. And Orlando did regress in year two before making the kind of move everyone was calling for.

I’m not that high on Lauri, but he does seem like a great fit if the price is just one of your young wings and your pick next spring.

[tmorgan]

Don’t listen to this sorcerer (cgf), Trajan! Don’t trade Ron!

(just messing around)

[DetroitDon15]

If the Pistons add Lauri now, he and Cade would take up 90 mill of cap space. Lauri isn’t an all star level player. The Pistons would be back to the Blake year(s) with any addition of Lauri. Fringe playin playoff contender.

[cgf]

If the Pistons add Lauri now, he and Cade would take up 90 mill of cap space. Lauri isn’t an all star level player. The Pistons would be back to the Blake year(s) with any addition of Lauri. Fringe playin playoff contender.

There would be nothing fringe about your playoff hopes, you’re more than that already.

[Daddy 801]

Whether it was or wasn’t is kind've irrelevant because my point stands, look at his time before Utah and he has missed multiple games throughout his career showing that his durability is questionable at best. If he had missed only 8-10 games most seasons and then sat out during his time at Utah once they started thanking that’s fair game but that’s objectively incorrect and he’s missed multiple games through his entire career. Unless said player is a top 10 player you don’t trade multiple unprotected 1sts and young players for an already superstar level paid player.

I think it’s quite clear that Utah should’ve traded Lauri prior to signing him as now they NEED to prove he can play the way he did a couple seasons ago and actually stay healthy. If he can’t do that Utah will need to heavily reduce the asking price to pretty much matching salary, a protected 1st and one ok young player.

And Utah would rather keep Lauri than take that as an offer. Protected firsts are at best a 50% shot at a rotation player, the matching salary is going to be bad salary, and the one young ok player is a dime a dozen in the league. Nothing about that offer is worth trading for.

Trading for Lauri (or any borderline good starting player in the NBA) is worth more than that offer. Especially if bad salary is coming back. You can argue Lauri missed games and isn’t worth what he is paid for. But Utah is unlikely to ever get a player as good as he is with that type of offer. And moving guys in today’s NBA is hard. Teams on the cusp of being great have to give up unprotected picks to get good players. Just look at what Bane went for. The only other route Detroit has is internal development because free agency is basically dead. So for any team to take the next step it’s going to require mortgaging their future by sending picks. In 3-4 years when Utah is hopefully good we will see them in the same spot. They should have a good core abut they will need to trade for a quality player to complete the roster and it’s going to take unprotected picks to get a player. Unless the CBA is drastically changed soon that’s the landscape of the NBA for the foreseeable future.

I think you are missing the point I have been making. Lauri’s injury history had not been factored into the demands Utah have for any deal, nor the fact he is now signed to that large contract. Being on a large contract isn’t an issue if the player is a superstar, but Lauri is being paid almost $50m per year when he hasn’t proven he can stay healthy or he is the player he showed during that season in Utah. His contract is risky both from a health and also stats perspective, $50m isn’t just chump change. He is being paid as if he IS a superstar and that’s an issue

I 100% see your point of view. Utah just happens to be in a spot where they can wait. They don’t have to rush moving Lauri (or any player). If a team on the cusp of taking the next leap wants to get a borderline allstar lever player they have to send the necessary assets. Utah doesn’t have to take a bad offer because they are tanking. And an offer for Lauri looks more like a Bane type of offer instead of the offer suggested before. If it’s not worth taking your team over the next hump for X reason don’t do it.

It’s not a big deal if a team doesn’t want Lauri. But if a team does it’s going to cost assets. And a protected first, bad salary, and a young player who is a dime a dozen isn’t going to cut it.

[Hugi Mancura]

And Utah would rather keep Lauri than take that as an offer. Protected firsts are at best a 50% shot at a rotation player, the matching salary is going to be bad salary, and the one young ok player is a dime a dozen in the league. Nothing about that offer is worth trading for.

Trading for Lauri (or any borderline good starting player in the NBA) is worth more than that offer. Especially if bad salary is coming back. You can argue Lauri missed games and isn’t worth what he is paid for. But Utah is unlikely to ever get a player as good as he is with that type of offer. And moving guys in today’s NBA is hard. Teams on the cusp of being great have to give up unprotected picks to get good players. Just look at what Bane went for. The only other route Detroit has is internal development because free agency is basically dead. So for any team to take the next step it’s going to require mortgaging their future by sending picks. In 3-4 years when Utah is hopefully good we will see them in the same spot. They should have a good core abut they will need to trade for a quality player to complete the roster and it’s going to take unprotected picks to get a player. Unless the CBA is drastically changed soon that’s the landscape of the NBA for the foreseeable future.

I think you are missing the point I have been making. Lauri’s injury history had not been factored into the demands Utah have for any deal, nor the fact he is now signed to that large contract. Being on a large contract isn’t an issue if the player is a superstar, but Lauri is being paid almost $50m per year when he hasn’t proven he can stay healthy or he is the player he showed during that season in Utah. His contract is risky both from a health and also stats perspective, $50m isn’t just chump change. He is being paid as if he IS a superstar and that’s an issue

I 100% see your point of view. Utah just happens to be in a spot where they can wait. They don’t have to rush moving Lauri (or any player). If a team on the cusp of taking the next leap wants to get a borderline allstar lever player they have to send the necessary assets. Utah doesn’t have to take a bad offer because they are tanking. And an offer for Lauri looks more like a Bane type of offer instead of the offer suggested before. If it’s not worth taking your team over the next hump for X reason don’t do it.

It’s not a big deal if a team doesn’t want Lauri. But if a team does it’s going to cost assets. And a protected first, bad salary, and a young player who is a dime a dozen isn’t going to cut it.

New CBA changes things. Sure Markkanen is borderline allstar (or was 23-24), but he did have a bad year. Now he is talked among the worst contracts in NBA. If you expect him to reach 22-23 level of production it is a risk worth taking. But if you open your eyes and check the players in Utah roster and what Utah tries to do next year (developing young ones) it is not hard to say Markkanen's numbers will go down even from his down year 24-25. And after two down seasons Markkanen's contract is no better than Beal's was.

How many first round picks would you be willing to give for Beal and his 50M$ contract. None, so getting even one first round pick for Markkanen is a win, because that first round pick might be able to help Utah when it matters most, meaning playoff time. I rather have a chance to get a playoff performer even if that is borderline starter than lock on player who won't play a single playoff game in organization.

[Daddy 801]

I think you are missing the point I have been making. Lauri’s injury history had not been factored into the demands Utah have for any deal, nor the fact he is now signed to that large contract. Being on a large contract isn’t an issue if the player is a superstar, but Lauri is being paid almost $50m per year when he hasn’t proven he can stay healthy or he is the player he showed during that season in Utah. His contract is risky both from a health and also stats perspective, $50m isn’t just chump change. He is being paid as if he IS a superstar and that’s an issue

I 100% see your point of view. Utah just happens to be in a spot where they can wait. They don’t have to rush moving Lauri (or any player). If a team on the cusp of taking the next leap wants to get a borderline allstar lever player they have to send the necessary assets. Utah doesn’t have to take a bad offer because they are tanking. And an offer for Lauri looks more like a Bane type of offer instead of the offer suggested before. If it’s not worth taking your team over the next hump for X reason don’t do it.

It’s not a big deal if a team doesn’t want Lauri. But if a team does it’s going to cost assets. And a protected first, bad salary, and a young player who is a dime a dozen isn’t going to cut it.

New CBA changes things. Sure Markkanen is borderline allstar (or was 23-24), but he did have a bad year. Now he is talked among the worst contracts in NBA. If you expect him to reach 22-23 level of production it is a risk worth taking. But if you open your eyes and check the players in Utah roster and what Utah tries to do next year (developing young ones) it is not hard to say Markkanen's numbers will go down even from his down year 24-25. And after two down seasons Markkanen's contract is no better than Beal's was.

How many first round picks would you be willing to give for Beal and his 50M$ contract. None, so getting even one first round pick for Markkanen is a win, because that first round pick might be able to help Utah when it matters most, meaning playoff time. I rather have a chance to get a playoff performer even if that is borderline starter than lock on player who won't play a single playoff game in organization.

Yeah, we’re just way off on calling you think Beals value was/is similar to Lauri. Utah is happy just to keep Lauri.

[A_dub06]

And Utah would rather keep Lauri than take that as an offer. Protected firsts are at best a 50% shot at a rotation player, the matching salary is going to be bad salary, and the one young ok player is a dime a dozen in the league. Nothing about that offer is worth trading for.

Trading for Lauri (or any borderline good starting player in the NBA) is worth more than that offer. Especially if bad salary is coming back. You can argue Lauri missed games and isn’t worth what he is paid for. But Utah is unlikely to ever get a player as good as he is with that type of offer. And moving guys in today’s NBA is hard. Teams on the cusp of being great have to give up unprotected picks to get good players. Just look at what Bane went for. The only other route Detroit has is internal development because free agency is basically dead. So for any team to take the next step it’s going to require mortgaging their future by sending picks. In 3-4 years when Utah is hopefully good we will see them in the same spot. They should have a good core abut they will need to trade for a quality player to complete the roster and it’s going to take unprotected picks to get a player. Unless the CBA is drastically changed soon that’s the landscape of the NBA for the foreseeable future.

I think you are missing the point I have been making. Lauri’s injury history had not been factored into the demands Utah have for any deal, nor the fact he is now signed to that large contract. Being on a large contract isn’t an issue if the player is a superstar, but Lauri is being paid almost $50m per year when he hasn’t proven he can stay healthy or he is the player he showed during that season in Utah. His contract is risky both from a health and also stats perspective, $50m isn’t just chump change. He is being paid as if he IS a superstar and that’s an issue

I 100% see your point of view. Utah just happens to be in a spot where they can wait. They don’t have to rush moving Lauri (or any player). If a team on the cusp of taking the next leap wants to get a borderline allstar lever player they have to send the necessary assets. Utah doesn’t have to take a bad offer because they are tanking. And an offer for Lauri looks more like a Bane type of offer instead of the offer suggested before. If it’s not worth taking your team over the next hump for X reason don’t do it.

It’s not a big deal if a team doesn’t want Lauri. But if a team does it’s going to cost assets. And a protected first, bad salary, and a young player who is a dime a dozen isn’t going to cut it.

Yeah and I agree with your post. It’s better for Utah to wait and see if Lauri can get back into form so they can receive a much greater offer than what they currently can get. Can’t be annoyed at a GM for not lowering their price, it’s up to other teams to decide if they are willing to pay it. I just don’t think it would be wise for Detroit to push their chips in for Lauri at the asking price.

[Hugi Mancura]

New CBA changes things. Sure Markkanen is borderline allstar (or was 23-24), but he did have a bad year. Now he is talked among the worst contracts in NBA. If you expect him to reach 22-23 level of production it is a risk worth taking. But if you open your eyes and check the players in Utah roster and what Utah tries to do next year (developing young ones) it is not hard to say Markkanen's numbers will go down even from his down year 24-25. And after two down seasons Markkanen's contract is no better than Beal's was.

How many first round picks would you be willing to give for Beal and his 50M$ contract. None, so getting even one first round pick for Markkanen is a win, because that first round pick might be able to help Utah when it matters most, meaning playoff time. I rather have a chance to get a playoff performer even if that is borderline starter than lock on player who won't play a single playoff game in organization.

Yeah, we’re just way off on calling you think Beals value was/is similar to Lauri. Utah is happy just to keep Lauri.

I am saying if Lauri has similar season than he did last year then in next summer we are talking about the worst contract in NBA and Beal had the worst contract in beginning of this season.

Why Lauri would have worst contract? Well, why did Lauri's numbers drop so much between 23-24 and 24-25? Utah started tanking and developing young players. Developing players usually in NBA means motion offense which mean no pre-defined plays. Lauri is bad motion player. He shines when teams play pre-defined plays. Everyone who watched his game last year knows it. It is not a secret. So if Lauri stays he's effectiveness will be as bad it was last year.

Also his amount of shots will drop. Because Utah's goal is to develop young players it would mean Bailey will take most shots next year. And because Keyonte is what he is he will probably take second most, so amount of shot to Lauri will drop. Utah's last year playing style killed Lauri's value and I don't understand why would second similar season refresh it? Utah's playing style killed Lauri's value previous season and playing style won't be changing, so why people think his value would somehow skyrocket?

Now we have unefficient 17 point scorer who earns annually 50M$, who would in their mind want that? You need to give first round pick to get rid of it, so I rather get a first round pick than give one away. Sure Utah can keep Lauri's contract until it ends, so they don't need to give that first round pick and he probably is good enough to keep on playing in Utah, so from Utah point of view they just lose the picks they would have gotten this year.

I understand the idea of keeping Lauri and hoping his value would increase, but that ain't happening unless Utah as a team put effort on it and because they concern is to build winning team for next decade Lauri's trading value is not their primary concern. So each incoming year Utah keep killing Lauri's value and I personally believe first round pick is more valuable for Utah than nothing.