Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[DASMACKDOWN]

I just think we need to find that sweet spot for his value. The NBA is just really weird on how much players get across the league. You maybe one of those fans that think contract is an overpay. But you just have to get used to it.

I have to ask though, if Lauri did a switcharoo of year 2 and 3, would he be worth 20 mil. Id say yes.

The biggest issue right now is people cant get past the stench of year 3. But how is it really different if he ended year 2 on a contract year? This happens all the time in sports.

Its the GMs job to have foresight and gamble on if a player can live up to contract or actually exceed it. Remember AK is the same guy that gave Gary Harris 21 mil a year but he has regressed since signing that contract.Bulls got lucky with Zach as he is far exceeding his contract.

So really we are asking the question, which player is Lauri? Year 2 or Year 3. If its year 2, its clearly 20+ mil. If its year 3, then its a bench guy role of max 13 mil like Thad.

The only thing I am afraid of is if Lauri is year 2 Lauri and he has a great contract year, then he automatically is a max contract in the open market. While it would be great for us that he turned into a great player but its also a missed opportunity to save money.

This actually will be a tricky risk.

[Indomitable]

I am super pleased where AK came in with the extension offer. It speaks volumes of how he sees Lauri and extensions. AK is a smart dude - probably has someone scouring the board here for our perspective . Pretending I know what AK is thinking, I see:

1) Lauri, last season (and so far in preseason) is playing like a bottom 10 starting PF (i.e. inconsistent 3pt shot, below average defender). $11M/year says that.

2) It's way too early to say PWill is a legit starting F talent, but to the optimistic eye, he looks like he could be.

3) If Lauri becomes consistently good this season, there will be a chance to keep him at fair market value. Based on what happened to many other FA PF's in recent years from the Bulls like Portis and Niko, their market value was lower than they thought.

I was somewhat worried that AK would be an idiot when it comes to money. I take the $11m thing with a grain of salt but the fact that AK didn't just bend over and give Lauri a blank check is encouraging.

Why? They gave value contracts in Denver.

[coldfish]

I am super pleased where AK came in with the extension offer. It speaks volumes of how he sees Lauri and extensions. AK is a smart dude - probably has someone scouring the board here for our perspective . Pretending I know what AK is thinking, I see:

1) Lauri, last season (and so far in preseason) is playing like a bottom 10 starting PF (i.e. inconsistent 3pt shot, below average defender). $11M/year says that.

2) It's way too early to say PWill is a legit starting F talent, but to the optimistic eye, he looks like he could be.

3) If Lauri becomes consistently good this season, there will be a chance to keep him at fair market value. Based on what happened to many other FA PF's in recent years from the Bulls like Portis and Niko, their market value was lower than they thought.

I was somewhat worried that AK would be an idiot when it comes to money. I take the $11m thing with a grain of salt but the fact that AK didn't just bend over and give Lauri a blank check is encouraging.

Why? They gave value contracts in Denver.

He wasn't in charge so I wasn't sure if he was on board with that kind of thing. Let's be honest, a lot of AK is still an unknown and a lot of our discussion is really just educated guessing about what kind of GM he will be.

[Indomitable]

I was somewhat worried that AK would be an idiot when it comes to money. I take the $11m thing with a grain of salt but the fact that AK didn't just bend over and give Lauri a blank check is encouraging.

Why? They gave value contracts in Denver.

He wasn't in charge so I wasn't sure if he was on board with that kind of thing. Let's be honest, a lot of AK is still an unknown and a lot of our discussion is really just educated guessing about what kind of GM he will be.

He study under Morrey and worked in Denver. I believe he is not emotionally invested in anyone not named Pat here.

[chefo]

Yeah, $11M is kinda' insulting, but that's how you open negotiations.

I think fans here have unrealistic view of $ in the NBA. If Lauri progresses as a defender under BD this year, like he has shown signs that he can, and is at 20/8+ on offense with decent percentages, you're not getting him for 20M. You're probably looking at 25-27M to start--as Fish says, somebody will probably roll the dice on current Lauri that has been a poor show on D and inconsistent on O.

A Lauri that PROVES that he can be a plus defender and score well, is probably a guy that some team will be ready to throw near a rookie max at. It's a question if that'll be good value, but as I've said before, 7 footers who are as athletic as Lauri and can pop 8 3s a game don't grow on trees.

If I can get him for 15 and I'm the Bulls I take that all day, every day. I don't see why Lauri would though. Unless he suffers a career-ending injury this season, even last year's Lauri probably gets 13-15M.

[sco]

I am happy to be proven wrong, but can I ask folks where they see Lauri ranked in terms of PF's in the NBA right now (not based on future improvement, but the guy right now):

Top 8
9-15
16-23
24-30

[cjbulls]

This is where I am with it as well. I see very little upside to overpaying him now on the hopes that he will take some huge jump that we've expected since his rookie year. And if he does, then great. It will be better for the overall team success. Put the pressure on him to pull a Jimmy.

As someone mentioned strawmen... all this talk about the Bulls not "overpaying" Lauri is hilarious. Overpaying? 22 million per would be an overpay. 15-16 mil is far from that. That's his market value, easily.

I have no doubt Markkanen doesn't expect to get 20 million, but he also isn't gonna sign lowball offers like 11 mil.

I've said from the start he should take 15-16 million without a second thought. But if the Bulls refuse to give him that, they're stupid. That's a value deal.

$15-16 mil would still be a slight overpay to me. As it's already been brought up, there are MLE and below targets that give you the same production as him. I don't see what the rush is to pay him. He's not a top tier starter. Probably bottom third. Why should we invest a ton of money into someone who canon the hope that he'll finally figured it out?

Make him play for the contract and prove that he can be prodcutive. Otherwise, we're going to be immediately looking to shed that contract. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd say the odds are against him having a huge year. My guess is that he plays exactly the same, and you don't lose out on anything by waiting. If some team like the Knicks wants to still make him some huge offer, thank them for it.

I have seen a few people make this statement, but who are the MLE comps for Lauri? I don’t think it can be pure numbers based since Lauri outperforms MLE players stats-wise.

You may be able to make an impact case, but that’s hard to measure plus those same MLE guys often take less money to play for a contender.

The MLEs this year were

Harrell
Tristan T
Derrick Jones Jr
Ibaka
Crowder
Favors

Last year
Al-Farouk Aminu
George Hill
Tyus Jones

[dougthonus]

I have to ask though, if Lauri did a switcharoo of year 2 and 3, would he be worth 20 mil. Id say yes.

The biggest issue right now is people cant get past the stench of year 3. But how is it really different if he ended year 2 on a contract year? This happens all the time in sports.

Most recent data is always most valuable though. Yeah, if his contract was up a year earlier, you'd have given him a better deal, and then you might massively regret that deal today. His value can go up and down this year, just like last year, last year it went down, so you don't pretend it didn't go down.

Look at Kyle Kuzma and ask the same question, did the Lakers pay him on what he did two years ago?

Its the GMs job to have foresight and gamble on if a player can live up to contract or actually exceed it. Remember AK is the same guy that gave Gary Harris 21 mil a year but he has regressed since signing that contract.Bulls got lucky with Zach as he is far exceeding his contract.

So really we are asking the question, which player is Lauri? Year 2 or Year 3. If its year 2, its clearly 20+ mil. If its year 3, then its a bench guy role of max 13 mil like Thad.

The only thing I am afraid of is if Lauri is year 2 Lauri and he has a great contract year, then he automatically is a max contract in the open market. While it would be great for us that he turned into a great player but its also a missed opportunity to save money.

This actually will be a tricky risk.

I won't miss year 2 Lauri all that much either. Year 2 Lauri still doesn't create a lot of offense, help other people, do much in isolation, defend anyone, etc... If it costs you a max deal for year 2 Lauri, then you're better off letting someone else give it to him IMO. Year 2 Lauri didn't generate a whole bunch of wins for Chicago.

[XxMisterFreakXx]

If Lauri is smart he doesn't take what the bulls give him why there will be money to be spent next year and some dumb team will give him like 16-20 million a year just for potential alone at that price no he hasn't shown a single reason why he deserves that contract if he wants to take a team friendly deal ok fine but he isn't worth 16 -20 million a year.

In my opinion he isn't anything worth resigning bad defense, streaky and inconsistent shooting, and doesn't do anything aside from shooting ya he has that occasional drive or dunk but its nothing special.

[Stratmaster]

The issue here is that we are discussing how much the Bulls should pay Lauri when the real question is should the Bulls pay him anything at all.

The first question that needs to be answered is should they bring him back at all? I need to see him play the first 25 games this season to answer that question.

If he is no better than the average play of his first 3 years, why re-sign him? He is already feeling the entitlement of being a starter despite ever having to earn it. Is he going to accept a bench role on the same team he started on for 4 years?

If he isn't the Bulls PF for the future they need to move him if they can, but certainly shouldn't resign him unless it is bench player pay.

Again, I supported the draft pick and hope he balls out. But extending him for anything other than a value contract you know you can trade (11 mil) makes no sense.



Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[ChettheJet]

Right now I wouldn't sign him, it's not that he hasn't shown the ability but to commit big money to him not being sure that he can show up consistently is too big of a gamble. If the stays and performs all year you make him an offer on the high side. Maybe he's mad and says no, so be it.

What Lauri and his agent need to see is first Williams looking pretty good long term, Porter could play the 4 and they still have Young, and even Kornet for minutes. Then several other teams have PFs that might be expendable and they'd rather trade them than pay to have too many around on long contracts. Mostly I'm thinking Collins and Hunter in ATL now playing with several FAs.

As the season gets started all it takes is one injury to a PF and some team could come calling about Lauri as a stop gap for this year and the Bulls could add a player and a pick.

[ZOMG]

I have to ask though, if Lauri did a switcharoo of year 2 and 3, would he be worth 20 mil. Id say yes.

The biggest issue right now is people cant get past the stench of year 3. But how is it really different if he ended year 2 on a contract year? This happens all the time in sports.

Most recent data is always most valuable though. Yeah, if his contract was up a year earlier, you'd have given him a better deal, and then you might massively regret that deal today. His value can go up and down this year, just like last year, last year it went down, so you don't pretend it didn't go down.

Look at Kyle Kuzma and ask the same question, did the Lakers pay him on what he did two years ago?

Its the GMs job to have foresight and gamble on if a player can live up to contract or actually exceed it. Remember AK is the same guy that gave Gary Harris 21 mil a year but he has regressed since signing that contract.Bulls got lucky with Zach as he is far exceeding his contract.

So really we are asking the question, which player is Lauri? Year 2 or Year 3. If its year 2, its clearly 20+ mil. If its year 3, then its a bench guy role of max 13 mil like Thad.

The only thing I am afraid of is if Lauri is year 2 Lauri and he has a great contract year, then he automatically is a max contract in the open market. While it would be great for us that he turned into a great player but its also a missed opportunity to save money.

This actually will be a tricky risk.

I won't miss year 2 Lauri all that much either. Year 2 Lauri still doesn't create a lot of offense, help other people, do much in isolation, defend anyone, etc... If it costs you a max deal for year 2 Lauri, then you're better off letting someone else give it to him IMO. Year 2 Lauri didn't generate a whole bunch of wins for Chicago.

Hey, as I've always said, Lauri has quite a few flaws. So do a lot of NBA players making big money. *shrug*

But throwing around outrageous things like "he doesn't defend anyone" is just counter-productive to your case. It's one of these takes even 95% of his haters can immediately recognize as being untrue.

He has the same kinds of team defense lapses as almost every player on this team... and he can't protect the rim. Other than that, I guarantee Donovan doesn't have an issue with anything he does on that side of the ball. He's a 7 footer who can stay in front of a wide variety of guys. The ONLY big on this team who can do that.

[Red8911]

I am super pleased where AK came in with the extension offer. It speaks volumes of how he sees Lauri and extensions. AK is a smart dude - probably has someone scouring the board here for our perspective . Pretending I know what AK is thinking, I see:

1) Lauri, last season (and so far in preseason) is playing like a bottom 10 starting PF (i.e. inconsistent 3pt shot, below average defender). $11M/year says that.

2) It's way too early to say PWill is a legit starting F talent, but to the optimistic eye, he looks like he could be.

3) If Lauri becomes consistently good this season, there will be a chance to keep him at fair market value. Based on what happened to many other FA PF's in recent years from the Bulls like Portis and Niko, their market value was lower than they thought.

I was somewhat worried that AK would be an idiot when it comes to money. I take the $11m thing with a grain of salt but the fact that AK didn't just bend over and give Lauri a blank check is encouraging.

Why? They gave value contracts in Denver.

Why does everyone keep comparing AKs former Denver job to the bulls? AK wasn’t in charge of making decisions in Denver, he was the assistant. He left in order to get a higher position. This is the first time in his life where he is a president of an NBA team. So comparing those two makes absolutely no sense. Also Denver and Chicago are totally different jobs and markets.

[cjbulls]

I am happy to be proven wrong, but can I ask folks where they see Lauri ranked in terms of PF's in the NBA right now (not based on future improvement, but the guy right now):

Top 8
9-15
16-23
24-30

I just tried to do this analysis and there are a few flaws that make it too difficult.

1. It’s hard to say who even is a PF anymore. Celtics list Tatum as theirs. Mavs list Porzingis as theirs. I don’t think either is a PF.

2. It’s hard to evaluate who is better when age and contracts are so important. Is Lauri better than Kevin Love or Blake Griffin? The answer is no in a current setting, but probably yes if all 3 were free agents tomorrow (eh, the Blake part is interesting)

3. You can’t say the 8th best PF is equal to the 8th best SG and so on. It’s more like tiers and worth within that position. The only somewhat safe thing to say is that he should be paid less than the 7th best PF but more than the 9th best (if he was 8, but like I said it was too weird to try and figure everything out based on the above)

[dougthonus]

He has the same kinds of team defense lapses as almost every player on this team... and he can't protect the rim. Other than that, I guarantee Donovan doesn't have an issue with anything he does on that side of the ball. He's a 7 footer who can stay in front of a wide variety of guys. The ONLY big on this team who can do that.

Let me rephrase, he isn't a versatile defender, he can only play one position, PF, and he gets killed by quick guys (which is common in today's NBA) and can't switch on to 3s or 5s without getting killed. His help defense is poor as is his defensive awareness. He's a minus defender by any metric (man defense, help defense, or versatility).

Yeah, he's not the worst defender in the league or anything, but he's hurting you there not helping you, and you could probably slot in Gafford, Carter, Williams, Hutchison, or Porter into his role in the defense at any point and improve it. Not that those guys are necessarily 1:1 replacements for all his skills (even on defense) but they all bring at least some real strength relative to Lauri whom doesn't really bring anything on that end.

[cjbulls]

The issue here is that we are discussing how much the Bulls should pay Lauri when the real question is should the Bulls pay him anything at all.

The first question that needs to be answered is should they bring him back at all? I need to see him play the first 25 games this season to answer that question.

If he is no better than the average play of his first 3 years, why re-sign him? He is already feeling the entitlement of being a starter despite ever having to earn it. Is he going to accept a bench role on the same team he started on for 4 years?

If he isn't the Bulls PF for the future they need to move him if they can, but certainly shouldn't resign him unless it is bench player pay.

Again, I supported the draft pick and hope he balls out. But extending him for anything other than a value contract you know you can trade (11 mil) makes no sense.



Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

The obvious answer to this is yes. He has shown more than enough to be a valuable nba player. The only question is whether that value will worth 9-25M.

There is no advantage to let assets walk away for nothing (as opposed to walking away because they would be overpaid)

[Chi town]

This seems like an easy win situation...

- Lauri shows he has improved and can stay healthy and you resign him. Probably 20-23M per

- Lauri shows he is what he is and you trade him at the deadline for a pick

- Lauri gets hurt misses time and you just choose not to resign him and let him walk

I think Lauri will play well and AK will trade him at the deadline in a stealth tank move.

[ZOMG]

He has the same kinds of team defense lapses as almost every player on this team... and he can't protect the rim. Other than that, I guarantee Donovan doesn't have an issue with anything he does on that side of the ball. He's a 7 footer who can stay in front of a wide variety of guys. The ONLY big on this team who can do that.

Let me rephrase, he isn't a versatile defender, he can only play one position, PF

Not true at all. No, I wouldn't play him full time at the 5 without a true defensive big on the floor with him, but he can definitely be an asset there on occasion. We have no other rotation bigs who can actually hit a three point shot. We need that from the center position pretty often. That's why Wendell is playing himself out of the league slowly but surely.

and he gets killed by quick guys (which is common in today's NBA) and can't switch on to 3s or 5s without getting killed.

Totally untrue. Lauri is by far the most switchable of all our bigs. He's more switchable than Otto in his current form as well.

There's fewer and fewer centers in the league who only bang under the basket. The floor spacer type 7 footers Lauri can guard. Switching onto 3's is routine for him.

[Indomitable]

I was somewhat worried that AK would be an idiot when it comes to money. I take the $11m thing with a grain of salt but the fact that AK didn't just bend over and give Lauri a blank check is encouraging.

Why? They gave value contracts in Denver.

Why does everyone keep comparing AKs former Denver job to the bulls? AK wasn’t in charge of making decisions in Denver, he was the assistant. He left in order to get a higher position. This is the first time in his life where he is a president of an NBA team. So comparing those two makes absolutely no sense. Also Denver and Chicago are totally different jobs and markets.

It common sense. You do what you observe. It does not mean he cannot make different decisions. But people have a habit of doing what they were taught. Most decision-making processes are nothing but an act of your life experiences. Especially early on.

That is why people are taking where he came from into account. It does not mean he will not do his own thing, but people have a habit of using what they learned.

[DroseReturnChi]

He has the same kinds of team defense lapses as almost every player on this team... and he can't protect the rim. Other than that, I guarantee Donovan doesn't have an issue with anything he does on that side of the ball. He's a 7 footer who can stay in front of a wide variety of guys. The ONLY big on this team who can do that.

Let me rephrase, he isn't a versatile defender, he can only play one position, PF, and he gets killed by quick guys (which is common in today's NBA) and can't switch on to 3s or 5s without getting killed. His help defense is poor as is his defensive awareness. He's a minus defender by any metric (man defense, help defense, or versatility).

Yeah, he's not the worst defender in the league or anything, but he's hurting you there not helping you, and you could probably slot in Gafford, Carter, Williams, Hutchison, or Porter into his role in the defense at any point and improve it. Not that those guys are necessarily 1:1 replacements for all his skills (even on defense) but they all bring at least some real strength relative to Lauri whom doesn't really bring anything on that end.

Gafford, Carter, Hutch, and even Porter are trash offensively they are a liability on offense. Cannot believe you mentioned them as alternatives when theres no solution if Lauri leaves. If your letting Lauri walk, you better tank properly for a top 5 pick for Suggs.