Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[samwana]

Can the thread title be modified please?

I would let AK decide on Lauri, his second real test. Lauri probably doesn't want to stay if Boylen is still around though so in fact you need to decide on one of them. Boylen is the first domino to fall from here. If we know what happens to him the next step will be a lot more easy.

Our parts don't fit together. We now have a FO at least that fits together (I hope) so next is to get the coaching staff fixed and than there is our roster that needs an overhaul. (This corona thing is really getting annoying yuck)

Basically we wait.

[ATRAIN53]

I can’t believe that people still think Lauri is some kind of special player that you build around. At best, he’s the next Keith Van Horn, which is the fourth or fifth option on a contender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

holy cow, SPOT on comparison with Keith Van Horne

Bravo

[sco]

I can’t believe that people still think Lauri is some kind of special player that you build around. At best, he’s the next Keith Van Horn, which is the fourth or fifth option on a contender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

holy cow, SPOT on comparison with Keith Van Horne

Bravo

I looked to find some stats that showed that Keith at his peak was a darn good player, and he did have a couple good, but not stellar, years but notably he also had only 2 years that he played 75 games or more during his 10+ year career.

[Tetlak]

Too bad.

He's stuck here unless we decide otherwise.

He's not worth investing in, but I'm glad we have one more season to see if he can finally be an impact player. if he plays at his current level again, he can take 10 mil per season or hit the road.

[Jeffster81]

I can’t believe that people still think Lauri is some kind of special player that you build around. At best, he’s the next Keith Van Horn, which is the fourth or fifth option on a contender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

holy cow, SPOT on comparison with Keith Van Horne

Bravo

How is comparing Lauri to a former Chicago Bears OL a "spot on" comparison?

[coldfish]

I can’t believe that people still think Lauri is some kind of special player that you build around. At best, he’s the next Keith Van Horn, which is the fourth or fifth option on a contender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem a lot of people have is realizing that even the worst players in the NBA are really good at basketball. During a hot streak or when everything is going right for them, they are going to look good. Virtually every player in the NBA is going to put up numbers if the whole team is catered around their strengths and weaknesses.

The general issue is that there are only a handful of players that you can WIN with night in and night out by building around them. IMO, Lauri is not one of those players. He either has to be part of a team as a role player or he has no value.

[MrFortune3]

I can’t believe that people still think Lauri is some kind of special player that you build around. At best, he’s the next Keith Van Horn, which is the fourth or fifth option on a contender.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem a lot of people have is realizing that even the worst players in the NBA are really good at basketball. During a hot streak or when everything is going right for them, they are going to look good. Virtually every player in the NBA is going to put up numbers if the whole team is catered around their strengths and weaknesses.

The general issue is that there are only a handful of players that you can WIN with night in and night out by building around them. IMO, Lauri is not one of those players. He either has to be part of a team as a role player or he has no value.

It's because the terms Superstar and Franchise Player are thrown around too often.
People see a high draft pick and equate a certain projected status with it. Lauri looked solid as a rookie and then fell off a cliff this year.

To consistently compete for and win championships in the NBA, your entire team has to be built out to win with quality players. You need a guy at the top to be the linchpin for sure, but when you have 1 great player and you fail to build the roster out around them, you usually end up with disappointing results.

[sco]

Back on topic a little - saw this today

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/bulls-mailbag-which-free-agents-fit-lauri-markkanen-extension-talks

Do you think Lauri Markkanen gets an extension this offseason? I think it’s a good move for the Bulls because his value is likely at an all-time low. — @thegeorgeyou, via Twitter

Well, we found Karnisovas’ burner account.

This is a tough one to predict. I wouldn’t say Markkanen’s value is at an all-time low because he’s still valued around the league, albeit with reservations. But, yes, coming off a season where his production dropped, his injury history continued and his usage mystified, this will be a tough negotiation.

If you’re the Bulls, you obviously try to negotiate from a hard-line stance to keep the books as clean as possible without alienating his camp. Luckily, Karnisovas and Markkanen’s agent have a strong relationship, but that doesn’t guarantee anything except cordiality during negotiations. And Markkanen remains under the Bulls’ rights as a restricted free agent in 2021 if no extension is reached, albeit one with roughly a $20 million cap hold.

I think given that the new regime likely is viewing 2020-21 as a see-what-we’ve-got season, it’s more likely than not that no extension is reached. Then, you negotiate again in 2021 depending on how Markkanen fared.

This strategy cost the Bulls a lot of money in the Jimmy Butler scenario. But it’s a good problem to have if a player with current question marks blossoms into a star — like Butler did and like Karnisovas hopes Markkanen can.

[MrFortune3]

I wouldn't worry about an extension for Lauri at this juncture. The only way he'd boost his value enough to make the potential extension costly is for him to have a all star or better season.

[dougthonus]

I wouldn't worry about an extension for Lauri at this juncture. The only way he'd boost his value enough to make the potential extension costly is for him to have a all star or better season.

I agree, it'd be nuts to give Lauri an extension unless it was at a pretty low rate, like 10-12M per year or so.

[waffle]

but Lauri was so darn good for a bit there. I mean really freakin' good.

I may hold onto that for far too long, so might the bulls.

[MrFortune3]

I wouldn't worry about an extension for Lauri at this juncture. The only way he'd boost his value enough to make the potential extension costly is for him to have a all star or better season.

I agree, it'd be nuts to give Lauri an extension unless it was at a pretty low rate, like 10-12M per year or so.

Having seen the sheer regression of Lauri this past season, no way in hell do you give him an extension unless like you said, it's cheap as hell.
It's like he was so impressed with his play from his rookie year that he felt he could coast this year and use the injury as an excuse.

[MrFortune3]

but Lauri was so darn good for a bit there. I mean really freakin' good.

I may hold onto that for far too long, so might the bulls.

He's got to bounce back and put in the work next year. Boylen is a crappy coach but Lauri's drop off wasn't only due to Boylen.

[dougthonus]

It's like he was so impressed with his play from his rookie year that he felt he could coast this year and use the injury as an excuse.

I wouldn't attribute malice or laziness to his play per se. I think he's just lacking the athletic tools to be great at is position and hasn't developed any skills that are high enough level to overcome that.

[MrFortune3]

It's like he was so impressed with his play from his rookie year that he felt he could coast this year and use the injury as an excuse.

I wouldn't attribute malice or laziness to his play per se. I think he's just lacking the athletic tools to be great at is position and hasn't developed any skills that are high enough level to overcome that.

It's more than just a lack of athletic tools. You're talking about a 7" tall, skilled big who at worst should be putting up 16-8 a game.
Rebounds, scoring, PER, all went to **** this season in a year he should have broken out and blossomed.
I'm not saying he should be this franchise player but something other than injury made Lauri fall off and it wasn't just coaching.

[kodo]

I'd imagine neither side wants an extension at this point.
Lauri's camp won't want to sign any lowball offer given how badly last season would affect his new contract.
Bull's won't want to commit to Lauri without knowing that last season was a fluke and not a permanent regression.

I think the most interesting part of the answer is actually confirming that AK's plan is to use next season as a "see-what-we-got" season. A lot of people won't be happy with this, as I get the feeling a lot of people are expecting big improvements w/ this new FO next season.

[samwana]

Interesting though, because it could be the cap goes way down. It's going to be a gamble for both sides. Maybe you think you get a real bargain at 10-12m a year and it becomes an albatross contract because of changes in the cap and Lauri not developing.
I don't think there are much early extensions signed because who knows what's going to happen.

Sent from my POT-LX1 using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

It's more than just a lack of athletic tools. You're talking about a 7" tall, skilled big who at worst should be putting up 16-8 a game.
Rebounds, scoring, PER, all went to **** this season in a year he should have broken out and blossomed.
I'm not saying he should be this franchise player but something other than injury made Lauri fall off and it wasn't just coaching.

His scoring was down because he took less shots. His efficiency was slightly higher than his first two years. The amount of shots he takes is likely due significantly to coaching and how he was used in the offense. We have seen reports where he complained about how he was used only as a spot up guy in the offense and didn't care for it, so it seems at least some of this was against his will.

His rebounding did drop considerably, I think this was largely due to the absence of Robin Lopez. Lopez didn't rebound much, but he boxed out incredibly well to let others get the rebound. This is backed up by Robin never having great rebounding numbers but the team always having great numbers while he was on the floor. Lauri never was big at fighting hard for rebounds. So this number has declined, but I'm not sure how much this has to do with Lauri. I have never thought Lauri was a good rebounder myself, and thought his numbers were always inflated prior to this year.

Why would you assert that coaching and injury cannot make up the complete reason for someone to have a significantly changed season? These seem like totally reasonable things to say impacted him. We know his role in the offense changed factually due to the coaching staff from both watching and reports. We know he was dealing with various injuries (which may continue to plague him throughout his career, so I'm not dismissing this to say he'll be better). What evidence is there that his personality changed and he just doesn't care or work hard? That's a really strange assumption to make about someone, especially with two known factual reasons that explain the same thing.

Why do you think Lauri should have blossomed? He doesn't have a good athletic package, he won't be a plus athlete against almost anyone he is playing. To blossom he would need to improve his skill level considerably above where it was. Maybe he is just capped skillwise and isn't going to get any better. To be great, he would need to be immensely, elitely skilled due to that lack of athletic package, and that probably isn't a reasonable expectation to have for anyone, and I have seen no evidence that is true of him.

I don't say any of this to defend Lauri per se or to convince you he will be better next year or in the future. I don't think he really will get better. I just don't think it's fair to look at every player that didn't meet the expectations you had for them and think they don't care or aren't trying.

[jc23]

but Lauri was so darn good for a bit there. I mean really freakin' good.

I may hold onto that for far too long, so might the bulls.

Hopefully he is not the next Jeff Green.

[MrFortune3]

It's more than just a lack of athletic tools. You're talking about a 7" tall, skilled big who at worst should be putting up 16-8 a game.
Rebounds, scoring, PER, all went to **** this season in a year he should have broken out and blossomed.
I'm not saying he should be this franchise player but something other than injury made Lauri fall off and it wasn't just coaching.

His scoring was down because he took less shots. His efficiency was slightly higher than his first two years. The amount of shots he takes is likely due significantly to coaching and how he was used in the offense. We have seen reports where he complained about how he was used only as a spot up guy in the offense and didn't care for it, so it seems at least some of this was against his will.

His rebounding did drop considerably, I think this was largely due to the absence of Robin Lopez. Lopez didn't rebound much, but he boxed out incredibly well to let others get the rebound. This is backed up by Robin never having great rebounding numbers but the team always having great numbers while he was on the floor. Lauri never was big at fighting hard for rebounds. So this number has declined, but I'm not sure how much this has to do with Lauri. I have never thought Lauri was a good rebounder myself, and thought his numbers were always inflated prior to this year.

Why would you assert that coaching and injury cannot make up the complete reason for someone to have a significantly changed season? These seem like totally reasonable things to say impacted him. We know his role in the offense changed factually due to the coaching staff from both watching and reports. We know he was dealing with various injuries (which may continue to plague him throughout his career, so I'm not dismissing this to say he'll be better). What evidence is there that his personality changed and he just doesn't care or work hard? That's a really strange assumption to make about someone, especially with two known factual reasons that explain the same thing.

Why do you think Lauri should have blossomed? He doesn't have a good athletic package, he won't be a plus athlete against almost anyone he is playing. To blossom he would need to improve his skill level considerably above where it was. Maybe he is just capped skillwise and isn't going to get any better. To be great, he would need to be immensely, elitely skilled due to that lack of athletic package, and that probably isn't a reasonable expectation to have for anyone, and I have seen no evidence that is true of him.

I don't say any of this to defend Lauri per se or to convince you he will be better next year or in the future. I don't think he really will get better. I just don't think it's fair to look at every player that didn't meet the expectations you had for them and think they don't care or aren't trying.

I had this long thoughtful and eloquent response. Then realgm signed me out after I hit submit and erased it all

The gist of it was that I believe there were greater factors in his level of play than simply coaching and injury alone. Not trying to say he's lazy, just that it appears that he lacked the motivation necessary to continue his improvement.