Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[chefo]

I think the bottom line of where people fall on Lauri is dependent on a couple of major assumptions:

Who is 'baseline' Lauri? Is it late rookie and soph Lauri at 21/10 per 36, or 3rd year Lauri at 18/7.5. I think a lot of people who do not like Lauri view the latter as Lauri's ceiling. I think a lot of Lauri fans see the former as his floor.

I fall in the fan camp, it's no secret. I've probably written a couple of novels worth over the last 2 years as to why. If Lauri can be a 22/8 per 36, shooting 7s a game at 37%, with an overall 58%TS and decent man-to-man defense--that's a player that's worth hiding on team D somehow.

I don't think of Lauri as a big--I view him as a tall scorer, and that was my main beef with how he was used last year. You don't need somebody of Lauri's talent to do what he was asked to do his 3rd year. Jae Crowder could have done 95% of what Lauri did last year. The thing is Jae Crowder cannot do 95% of what Lauri can do if featured. Just to be clear, IMO guys who do not dominate the ball but can give you 20+ per game don't grow on trees. For those of you who think he has no value, league GMs don't have amnesia--Lauri was a 19/9 player in only 30 min/game just the year before. To add to that, Lauri is a passable defender on the perimeter, which is also exceedingly rare for a player that tall.

If you think last year's Lauri is his true ceiling, then he's not worth neither the money he's likely to get on the open market ($20M+), nor the time commitment to feature him. That's not a player that's worth the trouble of hiding on D, or a player that's anything better than a 4th option on a decent team. I think a lot of people fall in this camp.

The reason why I'm on the fan bandwagon is because we know what Lauri can be, because we actually have a body of work of him being that. We're not projecting a rook who's never played before in the NBA. We're not projecting a 15 min bench player for double the playing time against starters. We know what he can be, and that's without adding a single tool to his arsenal.

I'll also add that in three years he has obviously been taught absolutely nothing--I have not see him re-post, or seal off, or any of a number of small techniques that every player 30 years ago knew how to do. He's about the same player as when he came in, with the difference in results mainly being a function of how much he's featured on O.

Anyhow, if coach D can coach him up, rather than sit him in a weakside corner, there will be a lot of crow-eating on this board. If he can't, same thing, but for the people holding my point of view.

[cjbulls]

The whole point of offense is to generate efficient scoring, so it’s weird to say scoring isn’t valuable unless....

If a guy can generate 20 points efficiently, who cares if he makes the other guys better. That isn’t his role. Just like you don’t say a rebounder isn’t valuable unless he can shoot 3s (or insert other random trait). I could see why you’d like to have it, but it’s unfair to attach that requirement, unless you want him to be a “star”.

Well this gets into the nuance of how efficiently does he score and how much he gives up on the other end, but yeah, I agree, if you aren't looking for Lauri to be a star, the bar is much lower. However, when I brought up Harrell as a guy who scores more efficiently and in higher volume, people got all kinds of upset about how he's a glorified garbage man, so it does make a bit of difference how much gravity you create, how much of that scoring is repeatable and requires the defense to adjust, etc... That said, if you want to sell me on the idea that Lauri can be a starting caliber player, you won't find much of an argument. I agree.

Is he a guy I want to pay 20M per year? No, he's not, at least not right now. Not unless he shows me a whole lot more than he showed this year. Of course, maybe he signs for 12M a year next year, and then I'm really happy to keep him. A lot of the consternation here for me is the upcoming FA period and lack of certainty on cost and my guesses as to what future cost will look like.

He's not a good enough player to keep no matter what. He's a guy you keep situationally based on his cost, and I expect his cost will prove higher than I value him, but I don't know for sure that will be true, it is a huge unknown.

I am largely in agreement with you there. Lauri happens to be good at the 3 most obvious things you would look for: scoring, rebounding and 3s. He is basically below average at everything else, most of which goes unaccounted for in the stats.

But your salary projections are too low. Not sure if it’s because you’re viewing them in the context of this Bulls team, rather than the league as a whole, or applying some other function to the salary cap generally.

A player you call a “starter” is worth more than 12 million on any team. With a salary cap of 115 for next year, that’s just about 10% of the cap (significantly less when you factor in the fact it’s a soft cap). Starters go for far more than that.

[dougthonus]

I am largely in agreement with you there. Lauri happens to be good at the 3 most obvious things you would look for: scoring, rebounding and 3s. He is basically below average at everything else, most of which goes unaccounted for in the stats.

Well so far, he's about league average on 3s and league average in efficiency, and I believe advanced stats showed he was a pretty pedestrian rebounder for a big man. His big rebounding days were next to Robin Lopez boxing everyone out and Lauri grabbing uncontested boards. I wouldn't say he's deficient there, but I don't really feel like he's a rebounding beast or anything.

Granted, I think we expect him to be able to deliver above average efficiency offensively and expect him to be able to be an above average three point shooter. Those are improvements I think are reasonable and well within his grasp.

But your salary projections are too low. Not sure if it’s because you’re viewing them in the context of this Bulls team, rather than the league as a whole, or applying some other function to the salary cap generally.

A player you call a “starter” is worth more than 12 million on any team. With a salary cap of 115 for next year, that’s just about 10% of the cap (significantly less when you factor in the fact it’s a soft cap). Starters go for far more than that.

If you assume a good team is working with 140M in total in this instance (above the cap), and 110M of that goes to starters, then you probably have 75M going to your top two players and 35M left for the other 3. There are all kinds of different ways to slice that up, but if you aren't one of the stars, then ~20M would be a huge amount of cash for the 3rd best starter. That said, it is about the impact, if your 3rd starter were actually a star (Miami Heat / GSW model vs Lakers / older Lakers model) that isn't true.

[Louri]

I'll also add that in three years he has obviously been taught absolutely nothing--I have not see him re-post, or seal off, or any of a number of small techniques that every player 30 years ago knew how to do. He's about the same player as when he came in, with the difference in results mainly being a function of how much he's featured on O.

Anyhow, if coach D can coach him up, rather than sit him in a weakside corner, there will be a lot of crow-eating on this board. If he can't, same thing, but for the people holding my point of view.

I think it will all come down to this. He said in Finnish interview today that he has worked most his D and rebounds. Also Shooting and finishing closer to basket. He has trained mostly alone. Just one 2 week camp where they played 5vs5. I also remember he said at summer that he didn't touch ball in like 3 months at the beginning of Covid-9. So he lost lot's of time from off season to improve.

No word about creating his own shot, taking advantage of smaller players, working on post (high and low) etc. To be honest Lauri has never wanted to analyze and talk about those things. He just always say he has to get better. I just hope he has coaches who help him with right things and not just ones that say shoot more and you get better.

Lauri also noted that team has lot's of weapons and firepower in offense. He said that there will be nights where he won't be in big role in O when other people play well and make shots. Sounds like excuse already.

[sco]

I think the bottom line of where people fall on Lauri is dependent on a couple of major assumptions:

Who is 'baseline' Lauri? Is it late rookie and soph Lauri at 21/10 per 36, or 3rd year Lauri at 18/7.5. I think a lot of people who do not like Lauri view the latter as Lauri's ceiling. I think a lot of Lauri fans see the former as his floor.

I fall in the fan camp, it's no secret. I've probably written a couple of novels worth over the last 2 years as to why. If Lauri can be a 22/8 per 36, shooting 7s a game at 37%, with an overall 58%TS and decent man-to-man defense--that's a player that's worth hiding on team D somehow.

I don't think of Lauri as a big--I view him as a tall scorer, and that was my main beef with how he was used last year. You don't need somebody of Lauri's talent to do what he was asked to do his 3rd year. Jae Crowder could have done 95% of what Lauri did last year. The thing is Jae Crowder cannot do 95% of what Lauri can do if featured. Just to be clear, IMO guys who do not dominate the ball but can give you 20+ per game don't grow on trees. For those of you who think he has no value, league GMs don't have amnesia--Lauri was a 19/9 player in only 30 min/game just the year before. To add to that, Lauri is a passable defender on the perimeter, which is also exceedingly rare for a player that tall.

If you think last year's Lauri is his true ceiling, then he's not worth neither the money he's likely to get on the open market ($20M+), nor the time commitment to feature him. That's not a player that's worth the trouble of hiding on D, or a player that's anything better than a 4th option on a decent team. I think a lot of people fall in this camp.

The reason why I'm on the fan bandwagon is because we know what Lauri can be, because we actually have a body of work of him being that. We're not projecting a rook who's never played before in the NBA. We're not projecting a 15 min bench player for double the playing time against starters. We know what he can be, and that's without adding a single tool to his arsenal.

I'll also add that in three years he has obviously been taught absolutely nothing--I have not see him re-post, or seal off, or any of a number of small techniques that every player 30 years ago knew how to do. He's about the same player as when he came in, with the difference in results mainly being a function of how much he's featured on O.

Anyhow, if coach D can coach him up, rather than sit him in a weakside corner, there will be a lot of crow-eating on this board. If he can't, same thing, but for the people holding my point of view.

I agree that Lauri SHOULD have been developed as a scorer vs. a post player. I have said from the start that he needed to model his game and body after Durant, not AD. His decision to bulk up, IMO, to become a traditional big took away both quickness and touch. Lauri's ceiling has been materially lowered by him playing any back-to-the-basket game...he lacks both the body-type and ball handling to do that. If somehow he regained the quick feet and springiness that he had as a rookie, I'd feel better about him going forward, but I've seen only a few guys effectively "de-bulk" in any meaningful way.

The part of the Lauri equation that you don't really get into is the opportunity cost of keeping him. IMO, it comes down to whether it's worth keeping Lauri if we could otherwise use sign/trade for a second max guy next offseason and replace Lauri with a MLE guy.

[Grodoboldo]

The reason I'm optimistic is because coach D is one of the most practically minded coaches, who teaches well, going back to his Gator days.

He understands that the best opportunity is a function of what your players are good at, which is 180 of the Bulls offensive philosophy from last year, which put them in 3 distinct groups--ball handler & initiator of the set, pick-setter and 3 spacers, two on the weak side and one on the strong. Lauri got dumped in the third category all year, as the Bulls used exclusively their C on the floor as the pick setter.

That's about the dumbest thing you can do because you take away both the pick and roll option away from him (where he can use his athleticism), and the pick and pop (where he can use his shooting) and where he KNOWS he'll get the ball in a good spot, if the ball handler gets doubled.

We must have been one of the few teams where we did not make the other team choose which one of our two best weapons they have to guard and which one they had to leave open. To have a quick firing 7 footer and not pop with him all the freakin' time is just idiotic. If nothing else, if would have made Zach's job that much easier when he wouldn't have to get doubled on every play in the 4th. I don't think people fully appreciate just how awfully simplistic and underthought our philosophy on O was.

Anyhow, coach D says he likes to exploit mismatches--and here's the thing--Lauri is a walking mismatch. He has a quick and very high release to where very few guys can get to him, if he gets even any daylight. Hoiberg stole some of the sets the Knicks used to run for Porzingis (which were Reggie Miller sets), and Lauri effin' thrived in them. Let him handle the ball in the P&R, like he did his first two years. Let him come of off-ball screens, like his two years. His second year the Raps sent Ibaka to chase him 30 feet away from the hoop whenever he went. If the opposing team KNOWS you're trying to run sets for him, they will overload the D trying to stop it. That will give Zach that much more breathing room because he can usually get by his man effortlessly, and if the weakside D is worried about a Lauri off-ball screen, there'll be nobody waiting for Zach in the paint.

To me, Lauri is a walking mismatch every time he crosses half-court. Doesn't matter who guards him--use him as the pick setter, with Zach handling. Make the D have to choose between one of the two, as opposed to having WCJ's man cheat all the time. Run him off ball, which are SG sets. He can do it, he has done it before, it ain't rocket science. But a good coach (even a bad one like Hoiberg) would recognize that by the very fact that they're running these sets, they amplify Lauri's gravity and make life easier on everybody else.

Coach D should tell Lauri and the team, the following:
*Set1: Set the screen--if the lane is clear, roll; if it's packed, pop
*Set2: Run off an elbow screen--if the help shows, cut hard and you get a dunk. If they don't, you have an open 3
*Set3: Here's the ball at the elbow--if you're guarded by a big, head fake and drive on that possession; if by a small, give him a half turn and shoot a short jumper; he can't stop you; if they can't stop you, we'll keep on doing it until they adjust and put a bigger guy on you. If they do, immediately go back to Set2. Bigger guys don't usually know how to defend if they're the ones getting screened; expect an open 3 on the next couple of possessions
*If they adjust and guard you with a basketball midget who can chase you around screens, time for Set4--one of our small guards will screen for you on the baseline--if your defender gets stuck, you have an open 10ft jumper to make; if he doesn't, he's already a step behind. If they don't double you immediately, just bully your way to a layup. If you get doubled, our guard will swing it to the opposite wing, and another swing pass later and the guard who set the screen for you has an open 3 in the weakside corner, which is a great outcome of a possession.
Set5:.. you get the idea.

I mean come on, that's like Basketball for Dummies 101.

On D, I think Lauri would make an abysmal C. He's not long, nor wide, nor has any instincts to defend like a big. Have him guard one of the other team's wings. I noticed that he gets up quickly to contest and he's a really tall dude, so from the eye test people really struggled shooting on top of him. I have not really seen anybody abuse him because he seems to be a very decent on-ball defender and moves his feet well. That would imply that you need a 3 like our new rook who can play big on D next to him. But make him roam--the closer you put him to being the first and designated helper, the more the D will look like Swiss cheese. Not much point in doing that.

Dude, every time I read one of your long posts I think the same thing: you should post more often!

[dougthonus]

I think the bottom line of where people fall on Lauri is dependent on a couple of major assumptions:

Who is 'baseline' Lauri? Is it late rookie and soph Lauri at 21/10 per 36, or 3rd year Lauri at 18/7.5. I think a lot of people who do not like Lauri view the latter as Lauri's ceiling. I think a lot of Lauri fans see the former as his floor.

I don't think points/rebounds per 36 are really that important, but I think watching Lauri that he isn't an excellent rebounder, he's fine for his position, but his early year stats were due to Robin Lopez boxing everyone out and getting a lot of uncontested boards. I don't think its really a knock on him though, I don't think anyone would go, wow with Lauri in there we have a huge problem on the glass or anything.

Points wise its really about efficiency and what he creates. So far he's been about league average efficiency and good volume, that's pretty useful, but he doesn't create that much space for others. His shooting simply isn't that deadly (league average percentage wise on almost exclusively assisted catch and shoot attempts, which is the most basic attempt).

I fall in the fan camp, it's no secret. I've probably written a couple of novels worth over the last 2 years as to why. If Lauri can be a 22/8 per 36, shooting 7s a game at 37%, with an overall 58%TS and decent man-to-man defense--that's a player that's worth hiding on team D somehow.

Maybe true. I think you put a lot into the points though. If you had two other guys that combined for 22 points shooting 7 attempts from 3 a game at 37%, then you wouldn't think much of it. It's not the raw numbers, its whether opponents fear him, game plan for him, and change their defensive scheme around to stop him. If he's only shooting catch and shoot shots, and isn't creating a lot on his own or isn't taking over games, then the answers to those questions will be no, and he simply won't be all that valuable despite hitting a lot of high numbers.

In the end, ignoring numbers, Lauri needs to become a guy the defense worries about. A guy that draws people whenever he moves and moves frequently. A guy who can impact the offense due to the fear of letting him shoot or fear of what he can do on a switch or fear of what he can do in isolation. Doesn't need to be all three, but has to be something. A guy who scores a tick above league average when getting wide open catch and shoot attempts really isn't going to be worth much. If Lauri can show enough versatility to make people worried about him and then free up the true role player guys to have more open looks, then we're talking.

[Kukoc-Lauri]

Fair deal, for both sides, if you count age, expirence, potential celling, floor, skills, value in open market. 4 years, 4 year - player option, 4 years - 68 milions, 17 milions per year. For comparison 32 yo T.Young was payed 14 mil last year for 10 ppg.

[Dieselbound&Down]

Remember when we used to get those random fluff pieces about guys like Tyson Chandler putting up 1,000 shots/day or talking about all the offseason work they put in. 2 minutes watching them to start the year and you knew it was either BS or it didn't make any difference.

The first couple weeks of this season are going to be a little wild to watch a young team. So many months off, so little practical news since chances to scrimmage or be in public have been so limited. Part of me hope Lauri, or really any one of the young guys, comes out of the woodwork looking like a lion, with swagger and a vastly improved game.

My money would not be on Lauri to be that guy for the Bulls. Hope he proves me wrong.

[chefo]

I think the bottom line of where people fall on Lauri is dependent on a couple of major assumptions:

Who is 'baseline' Lauri? Is it late rookie and soph Lauri at 21/10 per 36, or 3rd year Lauri at 18/7.5. I think a lot of people who do not like Lauri view the latter as Lauri's ceiling. I think a lot of Lauri fans see the former as his floor.

I don't think points/rebounds per 36 are really that important, but I think watching Lauri that he isn't an excellent rebounder, he's fine for his position, but his early year stats were due to Robin Lopez boxing everyone out and getting a lot of uncontested boards. I don't think its really a knock on him though, I don't think anyone would go, wow with Lauri in there we have a huge problem on the glass or anything.

Points wise its really about efficiency and what he creates. So far he's been about league average efficiency and good volume, that's pretty useful, but he doesn't create that much space for others. His shooting simply isn't that deadly (league average percentage wise on almost exclusively assisted catch and shoot attempts, which is the most basic attempt).

I fall in the fan camp, it's no secret. I've probably written a couple of novels worth over the last 2 years as to why. If Lauri can be a 22/8 per 36, shooting 7s a game at 37%, with an overall 58%TS and decent man-to-man defense--that's a player that's worth hiding on team D somehow.

Maybe true. I think you put a lot into the points though. If you had two other guys that combined for 22 points shooting 7 attempts from 3 a game at 37%, then you wouldn't think much of it. It's not the raw numbers, its whether opponents fear him, game plan for him, and change their defensive scheme around to stop him. If he's only shooting catch and shoot shots, and isn't creating a lot on his own or isn't taking over games, then the answers to those questions will be no, and he simply won't be all that valuable despite hitting a lot of high numbers.

In the end, ignoring numbers, Lauri needs to become a guy the defense worries about. A guy that draws people whenever he moves and moves frequently. A guy who can impact the offense due to the fear of letting him shoot or fear of what he can do on a switch or fear of what he can do in isolation. Doesn't need to be all three, but has to be something. A guy who scores a tick above league average when getting wide open catch and shoot attempts really isn't going to be worth much. If Lauri can show enough versatility to make people worried about him and then free up the true role player guys to have more open looks, then we're talking.

Doug, I don't disagree with you on the importance of being good enough to game plan for. Lauri was game-planned for starting his rookie year. He and Zach were the only Bulls that were game-planned for his sophomore year. Even Rolo, who was doing great the 2nd half, was left to do as he pleased.

Lauri was mostly not game-planned for last year... because there was nothing to game plan for. You knew exactly where he'd get the ball (at the elbow 3), and you had a pretty good idea what he'll try to do with it (let fly a semi-contested 3 most of the time or try to awkwardly back down from there, which would never work).

Defending him wasn't that different than defending anybody on the 'spacer' brigade. You tell the defense to soft/hard close (depending on which shooter) and stay disciplined inside the paint and live with the consequences. That's how most smart teams played us after the Raps exposed our O for the underthought disaster that it was... in one of the first games of the year.

A Lauri that will likely shoot >20 times and can drop 25-30 on any given night if you don't body him up, including 4-5 3s, is somebody you've got to account for. A Lauri that can score 10 in the first quarter, then sit for 20 min of real time, and only touch the ball 4 times in the second half is every bit as inconsequential as a random journeyman role-playing specialist. So, back to my point. The one I described first is what Lauri's fans on here believe he can be. A 21/8 borderline all-star that is at these stats despite being game-planned for, high volume shooter who plays 33 min/game. The second is a role-playing guy at 15/6 guy who plays 29. These are not the same animal.

The point I was trying to make with Jae Crowder in my previous post is that not everybody can scale up their usage without hurting the team. Hell, even Zach hasn't been able to. Lauri has shown that he can.

Whether it's cultural or not, somebody needs to drill it into his head that he is a top 2 athletic talent on that team, with the potential to be the best of the bunch. The effin' alpha. None of that share the ball with everybody crap they had going on where Coby, Denzel and Thad get to shoot more than him per minute played. Zach I understand. The rest is poor leadership and poor coaching. If he doesn't speak up and demand the ball, nobody's going to give it to him. These guys are teammates, but points and assists earn you the big bucks in this league and if a guy isn't willing to go and get it, nobody's going to feel sorry for him, especially his teammates.

[ZOMG]

In the end, ignoring numbers, Lauri needs to become a guy the defense worries about. A guy that draws people whenever he moves and moves frequently. A guy who can impact the offense due to the fear of letting him shoot or fear of what he can do on a switch or fear of what he can do in isolation. Doesn't need to be all three, but has to be something. A guy who scores a tick above league average when getting wide open catch and shoot attempts really isn't going to be worth much. If Lauri can show enough versatility to make people worried about him and then free up the true role player guys to have more open looks, then we're talking.

Huh?

Besides Zach, Markkanen has literally been the only other guy on the Bulls who teams HAVE game planned against.

(EDIT: chefo already said it I see)

[dougthonus]

Huh?

Besides Zach, Markkanen has literally been the only other guy on the Bulls who teams HAVE game planned against.

(EDIT: chefo already said it I see)

I don't see teams rushing to double Lauri if he gets the ball or chasing him like crazy if he moves or putting undue attention to him if he doesn't have the ball. I'm sure they are aware of him, but no one is scared of him.

[PaKii94]

I think the bottom line of where people fall on Lauri is dependent on a couple of major assumptions:

Who is 'baseline' Lauri? Is it late rookie and soph Lauri at 21/10 per 36, or 3rd year Lauri at 18/7.5. I think a lot of people who do not like Lauri view the latter as Lauri's ceiling. I think a lot of Lauri fans see the former as his floor.

I don't think points/rebounds per 36 are really that important, but I think watching Lauri that he isn't an excellent rebounder, he's fine for his position, but his early year stats were due to Robin Lopez boxing everyone out and getting a lot of uncontested boards. I don't think its really a knock on him though, I don't think anyone would go, wow with Lauri in there we have a huge problem on the glass or anything.

Points wise its really about efficiency and what he creates. So far he's been about league average efficiency and good volume, that's pretty useful, but he doesn't create that much space for others. His shooting simply isn't that deadly (league average percentage wise on almost exclusively assisted catch and shoot attempts, which is the most basic attempt).

I fall in the fan camp, it's no secret. I've probably written a couple of novels worth over the last 2 years as to why. If Lauri can be a 22/8 per 36, shooting 7s a game at 37%, with an overall 58%TS and decent man-to-man defense--that's a player that's worth hiding on team D somehow.

Maybe true. I think you put a lot into the points though. If you had two other guys that combined for 22 points shooting 7 attempts from 3 a game at 37%, then you wouldn't think much of it. It's not the raw numbers, its whether opponents fear him, game plan for him, and change their defensive scheme around to stop him. If he's only shooting catch and shoot shots, and isn't creating a lot on his own or isn't taking over games, then the answers to those questions will be no, and he simply won't be all that valuable despite hitting a lot of high numbers.

In the end, ignoring numbers, Lauri needs to become a guy the defense worries about. A guy that draws people whenever he moves and moves frequently. A guy who can impact the offense due to the fear of letting him shoot or fear of what he can do on a switch or fear of what he can do in isolation. Doesn't need to be all three, but has to be something. A guy who scores a tick above league average when getting wide open catch and shoot attempts really isn't going to be worth much. If Lauri can show enough versatility to make people worried about him and then free up the true role player guys to have more open looks, then we're talking.

Doug, I don't disagree with you on the importance of being good enough to game plan for. Lauri was game-planned for starting his rookie year. He and Zach were the only Bulls that were game-planned for his sophomore year. Even Rolo, who was doing great the 2nd half, was left to do as he pleased.

Lauri was mostly not game-planned for last year... because there was nothing to game plan for. You knew exactly where he'd get the ball (at the elbow 3), and you had a pretty good idea what he'll try to do with it (let fly a semi-contested 3 most of the time or try to awkwardly back down from there, which would never work).

Defending him wasn't that different than defending anybody on the 'spacer' brigade. You tell the defense to soft close and stay disciplined inside the paint and live with the consequences. That's how most smart teams played us after the Raps exposed our O for the underthought disaster that it was... in one of the first games of the year.

A Lauri that will likely shoot >20 times and can drop 25-30 on any given night if you don't body him up, including 4-5 3s, is somebody you've got to account for. A Lauri that can score 10 in the first quarter, then sit for 20 min of real time, and only touch the ball 4 times in the second half is every bit as inconsequential as a random journeyman role-playing specialist. So, back to my point. The one I described first is what Lauri's fans on here believe he can be. A 21/8 borderline all-star that is at these stats despite being game-planned for, high volume shooter who plays 33 min/game. The second is a role-playing guy at 15/6 guy who plays 29. These are not the same animal.

The point I was trying to make with Jae Crowder in my previous post is that not everybody can scale up their usage without hurting the team. Hell, even Zach hasn't been able to. Lauri has shown that he can.

Whether it's cultural or not, somebody needs to drill it into his head that he is a top 2 athletic talent on that team, with the potential to be the best of the bunch. The effin' alpha. None of that share the ball with everybody crap they had going on where Coby, Denzel and Thad get to shoot more than him per minute played. Zach I understand. The rest is poor leadership and poor coaching. If he doesn't speak up and demand the ball, nobody's going to give it to him. These guys are teammates, but points and assists earn you the big bucks in this league and if a guy isn't willing to go and get it, nobody's going to feel sorry for him, especially his teammates.

Chefo I appreciate and applaud your posts also! You put my ramblings into a much more coherent and eloquent wording.

Doug- what chefo said. Again a lambo being used for groceries doesn't lower it's performance potential. Noone is gameplanning for someone who is not being utilized.

[ZOMG]

Whether it's cultural or not, somebody needs to drill it into his head that he is a top 2 athletic talent on that team, with the potential to be the best of the bunch. The effin' alpha. None of that share the ball with everybody crap they had going on where Coby, Denzel and Thad get to shoot more than him per minute played. Zach I understand. The rest is poor leadership and poor coaching. If he doesn't speak up and demand the ball, nobody's going to give it to him. These guys are teammates, but points and assists earn you the big bucks in this league and if a guy isn't willing to go and get it, nobody's going to feel sorry for him, especially his teammates.

I mostly agree with you. However, I don't think the "just demand the ball" approach will work with Lauri. That sounds like a recipe for predictable basketball, with one guy trying to score and the others watching. We've already tried that with Zach (and, to a much smaller extent, Lauri). It has to stop. Doesn't work.

The Bulls need to run an offense where the ball finds Lauri and the other scorers organically in their spots. It's quite doable. I know because I've seen it: during the FebruLauri phase. That is literally the exact offense we should start this season with. The coaches are responsible for designing the principles and the players are responsible for putting them in practice. If our "playmakers" can't or won't do that, we need different playmakers. Simple as that.

Markkanen is a rhythm player. Not everyone is. Some people are able to bend a game to their will. Lauri can't do that, he looks absolutely horrible when trying to force things. But IMO he has a great talent for recognizing how the game is flowing and turning that into opportunities and opportunities into baskets.

But the game HAS to flow. It has to have movement.

[dougthonus]

Chefo I appreciate and applaud your posts also! You put my ramblings into a much more coherent and eloquent wording.

Doug- what chefo said. Again a lambo being used for groceries doesn't lower it's performance potential. Noone is gameplanning for someone who is not being utilized.

If Lauri proves he's a Lambo and not a 2018 Camry LE then I'm fully with you.

There's nothing about him athletically that makes me think he is a star. There's nothing about his skill package that makes me think he's a star. There is nothing about his performance in three years that makes me think he's a star. A Camry is a good car. A Lambo is a supercar. Lauri is a good player, not a superstar.

If you don't think that's the case and also don't think he's a star, might want to stop referring to him as a Lambo.

[chefo]

Lauri is more of an S-class AMG that got up-armored for no good reason, and driven by a couple of 70-yeAr old retirees on the back streets of their gated community

[PaKii94]

Chefo I appreciate and applaud your posts also! You put my ramblings into a much more coherent and eloquent wording.

Doug- what chefo said. Again a lambo being used for groceries doesn't lower it's performance potential. Noone is gameplanning for someone who is not being utilized.

If Lauri proves he's a Lambo and not a 2018 Camry LE then I'm fully with you.

There's nothing about him athletically that makes me think he is a star. There's nothing about his skill package that makes me think he's a star. There is nothing about his performance in three years that makes me think he's a star. A Camry is a good car. A Lambo is a supercar. Lauri is a good player, not a superstar.

If you don't think that's the case and also don't think he's a star, might want to stop referring to him as a Lambo.

I think it depends on your definition of a star. Would you consider Kevin Love a star? LMA? Chris Bosh? I think Lauri does have the potential to be an upper echelon player in those player molds. I don't think he can be a top tier star because like you said he does lack elite shot creation ability BUT I do think he can be an offensive engine that a team can be built around. He can be the focal point of a movement offense that flows. Then we have the spark plug in Lavine/Coby to create when the offense sputters.

I keep coming back to it and I know you disregard FebruLauri as a hot streak but I will say it again, his overall percentages weren't hot numbers. It wasn't him hitting shots he normally doesn't hit. It was him getting touches & volume above what we saw last year. He actually put out better and a longer "hot streak" by the shooting numbers last year but he didn't have the volume to go with it. Last year imo is Lauri's minimum baseline. If you don't utilize him at all outside of stand outside and space, that's the minimum he gives you and to me that's encouraging because he already is putting up a floor of 19ppg p36.

[TheSuzerain]

Lauri and Lavine are obvious sell-high candidates.

We should basically use our games up to the trade deadline to juice their scoring stats. Then you trade them.

[ZOMG]

Chefo I appreciate and applaud your posts also! You put my ramblings into a much more coherent and eloquent wording.

Doug- what chefo said. Again a lambo being used for groceries doesn't lower it's performance potential. Noone is gameplanning for someone who is not being utilized.

If Lauri proves he's a Lambo and not a 2018 Camry LE then I'm fully with you.

There's nothing about him athletically that makes me think he is a star. There's nothing about his skill package that makes me think he's a star. There is nothing about his performance in three years that makes me think he's a star. A Camry is a good car. A Lambo is a supercar. Lauri is a good player, not a superstar.

If you don't think that's the case and also don't think he's a star, might want to stop referring to him as a Lambo.

I don't think he has superstar potential. I never did. (Has anyone ever called him a potential superstar??)

He does have star potential, though.

Reggie Miller was never a superstar. He had way too many holes in his game for that and wasn't a great athlete. But he was still a legitimate star in the NBA for a long time. His team recognized his strengths and weaknesses and put him in position to succeed every night.

For last season's Bulls, Reggie Miller would have sat in the corner.

[dougthonus]

I think it depends on your definition of a star. Would you consider Kevin Love a star? LMA? Chris Bosh? I think Lauri does have the potential to be an upper echelon player in those player molds.

Would be very surprised if he is ever as good a player as either guy.

I don't think he can be a top tier star because like you said he does lack elite shot creation ability BUT I do think he can be an offensive engine that a team can be built around.

Name a good team that built their offense around a player without elite creation ability (for himself or other), heck ignore the words like "elite" or "great", he's not even at "very good" in this area. I just can't think of a single example of a team that focused their offense on a guy that couldn't create for himself or others or dominate matchups.

I keep coming back to it and I know you disregard FebruLauri as a hot streak but I will say it again, his overall percentages weren't hot numbers. It wasn't him hitting shots he normally doesn't hit. It was him getting touches & volume above what we saw last year. He actually put out better and a longer "hot streak" by the shooting numbers last year but he didn't have the volume to go with it.

You say that, but then you quote how much more efficient he is in these certain stretches. When your efficiency goes way up, but only for a short period of time that you cannot sustain, that's what a hot streak is. Also, the Bulls were a lousy team at this point and he did that, if memory serves his hot stretch was generally against lousy teams and ultimately didn't lead to any team success.