Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[dougthonus]

I actually think there's merit that Lopez artificially made Lauri's rebounding numbers seem better than they were by boxing out so well, but I'm not sure that I agree that Lauri's taken over that role.

Lopez absolutely did that and has for his career. If you look at advanced stats, teams he's been on typically have much better rebounding numbers when he is on the floor despite his own poor rebounding numbers. Watching the games, it is obvious why.

Lauri does not box out like Robin Lopez. I don't know how anyone watching the Bulls play would think that is true. He's a decent rebounder at PF, not good or bad IMO. His height sometimes gives him an advantage, but short arms and lack of burst sometimes work against him.

[ZOMG]

If Lauri keeps up this level of play all season long, are you willing to pay him $20M+ per season? I am, because:

1) He's back on the trajectory he was after his 2nd season and is still young enough to continue growing with the rest of the core.

2) Guys like Davis Bertans get $20M per year and Lauri is clearly a much better all around player.

3) I think he's capable of making another jump to an all-star level once we add a real playmaking PG to this team and he becomes a matchup nightmare as he eventually shifts to Center playing next to a versatile, defensive minded PF (likely PWill).

4) I have 0 faith in our ability to sign big time free agents, so if we let him walk we would likely be worse off.

5) With all the injuries WCJ has sustained I can see us moving on from him which would make it easier to absorb Lauri's contract

Lauri has played well this year and I could see him improving his defense beyond where its at. Right now, he is actually trying on that side of the court and his timing is just off. As he gets more reps I think he will get better.

A lot of guys get overpaid in the NBA. Bertans is a terrible contract. I strongly suspect that Lauri will get a big offer though.

There are two questions I think a GM should ask:
- Is a guy tradeable at that contract?
- Can you build a contender with that contract?

At his current level of play, I think that $20m per year for Lauri would get a yes on both.

I want to see more defensive improvement from Lauri before I would want him back. I also want to see him keep up his offensive production all the way through the deadline and prove that FebruLauri didn't just come early this year. If he can, I'm ok with plunking down $18-$20M/yr.

My biggest objection to keeping Lauri has been the opportunity cost of losing out a 2nd addl Max guy, that his contract would cost us, but at this level of production, I'm less bothered.

The flipside of the argument is that Thad has been just as good, and if somehow Lauri/Otto/filler can nab us a legit allstar, We still have Thad at PF and we might be able to really upgrade at PG or C, which is where we are struggling.

The stars have aligned for the old-age version of Thad this season. He can't space the floor at all but, as an undersized post player, he NEEDS space to be able to work inside (whether it's looking for cutters or scoring on his little jump hooks). Right now, neither of those things is a problem, as he doesn't need to shoot from the perimeter any more and other guys are making their outside shots, making it easier for him.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this season's triple double threat Thad is a "product of the system", but seeing him as some kind of revelation at 4/5 is defintely a mirage, especially considering his age.

[coldfish]

If Lauri keeps up this level of play all season long, are you willing to pay him $20M+ per season? I am, because:

1) He's back on the trajectory he was after his 2nd season and is still young enough to continue growing with the rest of the core.

2) Guys like Davis Bertans get $20M per year and Lauri is clearly a much better all around player.

3) I think he's capable of making another jump to an all-star level once we add a real playmaking PG to this team and he becomes a matchup nightmare as he eventually shifts to Center playing next to a versatile, defensive minded PF (likely PWill).

4) I have 0 faith in our ability to sign big time free agents, so if we let him walk we would likely be worse off.

5) With all the injuries WCJ has sustained I can see us moving on from him which would make it easier to absorb Lauri's contract

Lauri has played well this year and I could see him improving his defense beyond where its at. Right now, he is actually trying on that side of the court and his timing is just off. As he gets more reps I think he will get better.

A lot of guys get overpaid in the NBA. Bertans is a terrible contract. I strongly suspect that Lauri will get a big offer though.

There are two questions I think a GM should ask:
- Is a guy tradeable at that contract?
- Can you build a contender with that contract?

At his current level of play, I think that $20m per year for Lauri would get a yes on both.

I want to see more defensive improvement from Lauri before I would want him back. I also want to see him keep up his offensive production all the way through the deadline and prove that FebruLauri didn't just come early this year. If he can, I'm ok with plunking down $18-$20M/yr.

My biggest objection to keeping Lauri has been the opportunity cost of losing out a 2nd addl Max guy, that his contract would cost us, but at this level of production, I'm less bothered.

The flipside of the argument is that Thad has been just as good, and if somehow Lauri/Otto/filler can nab us a legit allstar, We still have Thad at PF and we might be able to really upgrade at PG or C, which is where we are struggling.

The first question was "is the guy tradeable at that contract?"

Paxson screwed up with Nocioni, Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. He gave out a fair number of bad deals and that hamstrung the team.

There is another route. If all of your contracts are tradeable, you always have capspace. Let's say that Lillard or something wants to come to Chicago and Lauri's contract is preventing that. Well, you just trade him and you have capspace. The team never functionally has to set themselves up to have capspace as long as they have enough tradeable contracts.

GarPax always went on about flexibility but they weren't that flexible in their thinking about flexibility.

Flexible.

[sco]

Lauri has played well this year and I could see him improving his defense beyond where its at. Right now, he is actually trying on that side of the court and his timing is just off. As he gets more reps I think he will get better.

A lot of guys get overpaid in the NBA. Bertans is a terrible contract. I strongly suspect that Lauri will get a big offer though.

There are two questions I think a GM should ask:
- Is a guy tradeable at that contract?
- Can you build a contender with that contract?

At his current level of play, I think that $20m per year for Lauri would get a yes on both.

I want to see more defensive improvement from Lauri before I would want him back. I also want to see him keep up his offensive production all the way through the deadline and prove that FebruLauri didn't just come early this year. If he can, I'm ok with plunking down $18-$20M/yr.

My biggest objection to keeping Lauri has been the opportunity cost of losing out a 2nd addl Max guy, that his contract would cost us, but at this level of production, I'm less bothered.

The flipside of the argument is that Thad has been just as good, and if somehow Lauri/Otto/filler can nab us a legit allstar, We still have Thad at PF and we might be able to really upgrade at PG or C, which is where we are struggling.

The first question was "is the guy tradeable at that contract?"

Paxson screwed up with Nocioni, Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. He gave out a fair number of bad deals and that hamstrung the team.

There is another route. If all of your contracts are tradeable, you always have capspace. Let's say that Lillard or something wants to come to Chicago and Lauri's contract is preventing that. Well, you just trade him and you have capspace. The team never functionally has to set themselves up to have capspace as long as they have enough tradeable contracts.

GarPax always went on about flexibility but they weren't that flexible in their thinking about flexibility.

Flexible.

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

[cjbulls]

I want to see more defensive improvement from Lauri before I would want him back. I also want to see him keep up his offensive production all the way through the deadline and prove that FebruLauri didn't just come early this year. If he can, I'm ok with plunking down $18-$20M/yr.

My biggest objection to keeping Lauri has been the opportunity cost of losing out a 2nd addl Max guy, that his contract would cost us, but at this level of production, I'm less bothered.

The flipside of the argument is that Thad has been just as good, and if somehow Lauri/Otto/filler can nab us a legit allstar, We still have Thad at PF and we might be able to really upgrade at PG or C, which is where we are struggling.

The first question was "is the guy tradeable at that contract?"

Paxson screwed up with Nocioni, Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. He gave out a fair number of bad deals and that hamstrung the team.

There is another route. If all of your contracts are tradeable, you always have capspace. Let's say that Lillard or something wants to come to Chicago and Lauri's contract is preventing that. Well, you just trade him and you have capspace. The team never functionally has to set themselves up to have capspace as long as they have enough tradeable contracts.

GarPax always went on about flexibility but they weren't that flexible in their thinking about flexibility.

Flexible.

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

[MrSparkle]

The first question was "is the guy tradeable at that contract?"

Paxson screwed up with Nocioni, Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. He gave out a fair number of bad deals and that hamstrung the team.

There is another route. If all of your contracts are tradeable, you always have capspace. Let's say that Lillard or something wants to come to Chicago and Lauri's contract is preventing that. Well, you just trade him and you have capspace. The team never functionally has to set themselves up to have capspace as long as they have enough tradeable contracts.

GarPax always went on about flexibility but they weren't that flexible in their thinking about flexibility.

Flexible.

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

Completely disagree. They drift up and down in value, but overall, you’re stuck with that player on your roster... trapped in a never-ending “Return is not worth it” and “My team’s mediocre.”

We’ve been through it with Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, Lopez, Boozer, Noah, Wallace, Chandler and a slew of other guys who were paid 50-75% the max, and really not worth the cap either at the beginning, middle or end. In the end, I can’t say I was happy with any return for any of them except that Salmons/Miller rental (for Noc and remaining Wallace-return garbage), which was good for one exciting 7-game 1st round bounce (Celtics).

Carry value for what? The guys mentioned are all 3rd options on treadmill teams.

What makes Lauri even worse is he’s been injury prone. If I’m gonna extend a non-star at a premium, I’d hope they are a 2-way glue piece at least, like Battier, Rubio, Gobert, Conley, Lowry... where you can see the team’s chemistry improve majorly when they play, even if they’re far from being a top option for a deep playoff team. Lauri is an invisible defender with a good-or-bad shooting margin.

[Chi town]

Lauri is now at 20 and 7. 51/40/84

I’d like to see him get to the line more and used a bit more as a playmaker in the high post and in PnR.

Otherwise he has improved and has shown he could help us win.

[cjbulls]

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

Completely disagree. They drift up and down in value, but overall, you’re stuck with that player on your roster... trapped in a never-ending “Return is not worth it” and “My team’s mediocre.”

We’ve been through it with Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, Lopez, Boozer, Noah, Wallace, Chandler and a slew of other guys who were paid 50-75% the max, and really not worth the cap either at the beginning, middle or end. In the end, I can’t say I was happy with any return for any of them except that Salmons/Miller rental (for Noc and remaining Wallace-return garbage), which was good for one exciting 7-game 1st round bounce (Celtics).

Carry value for what? The guys mentioned are all 3rd options on treadmill teams.

What makes Lauri even worse is he’s been injury prone. If I’m gonna extend a non-star at a premium, I’d hope they are a 2-way glue piece at least, like Battier, Rubio, Gobert, Conley, Lowry... where you can see the team’s chemistry improve majorly when they play, even if they’re far from being a top option for a deep playoff team. Lauri is an invisible defender with a good-or-bad shooting margin.

The return is not worth it/mediocre is still a chance to get out of the contract plus a pick. In other words, it doesn't hamstring you. So you sign Lauri and if he pays off (like LaVine), great. If he ends up like Myles Turner (or Rozier, or whoever), oh well, it's not like he hurts you. He eats minutes positively for his team. He's not stopping them from re-signing anyone or doing anything they want to do. They could move him for an expiring plus an asset, easily.

This is from this offseason about Aaron Gordon by Zach Lowe:

Several -- maybe as many as 10, maybe more -- called Orlando to express interest in trading for Gordon during the recent transaction period, sources said. . . But Orlando held firm, and Gordon remains."

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/30401182/nba-redeem-team-six-players-ready-bounce-back-season

Instead you just want to let the guy go for nothing and overpay some mediocre free agent.

[MrSparkle]

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

Completely disagree. They drift up and down in value, but overall, you’re stuck with that player on your roster... trapped in a never-ending “Return is not worth it” and “My team’s mediocre.”

We’ve been through it with Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, Lopez, Boozer, Noah, Wallace, Chandler and a slew of other guys who were paid 50-75% the max, and really not worth the cap either at the beginning, middle or end. In the end, I can’t say I was happy with any return for any of them except that Salmons/Miller rental (for Noc and remaining Wallace-return garbage), which was good for one exciting 7-game 1st round bounce (Celtics).

Carry value for what? The guys mentioned are all 3rd options on treadmill teams.

What makes Lauri even worse is he’s been injury prone. If I’m gonna extend a non-star at a premium, I’d hope they are a 2-way glue piece at least, like Battier, Rubio, Gobert, Conley, Lowry... where you can see the team’s chemistry improve majorly when they play, even if they’re far from being a top option for a deep playoff team. Lauri is an invisible defender with a good-or-bad shooting margin.

The return is not worth it/mediocre is still a chance to get out of the contract plus a pick. In other words, it doesn't hamstring you. So you sign Lauri and if he pays off (like LaVine), great. If he ends up like Myles Turner (or Rozier, or whoever), oh well, it's not like he isn't eating minutes positively for his team. He's not stopping them from re-signing anyone or doing anything they want to do.

This is from this offseason about Aaron Gordon by Zach Lowe:

Several -- maybe as many as 10, maybe more -- called Orlando to express interest in trading for Gordon during the recent transaction period, sources said. . . But Orlando held firm, and Gordon remains."

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/30401182/nba-redeem-team-six-players-ready-bounce-back-season

And for what? I hate Orlando’s situation, and it’s not just because of the injuries.

[cjbulls]

Completely disagree. They drift up and down in value, but overall, you’re stuck with that player on your roster... trapped in a never-ending “Return is not worth it” and “My team’s mediocre.”

We’ve been through it with Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, Lopez, Boozer, Noah, Wallace, Chandler and a slew of other guys who were paid 50-75% the max, and really not worth the cap either at the beginning, middle or end. In the end, I can’t say I was happy with any return for any of them except that Salmons/Miller rental (for Noc and remaining Wallace-return garbage), which was good for one exciting 7-game 1st round bounce (Celtics).

Carry value for what? The guys mentioned are all 3rd options on treadmill teams.

What makes Lauri even worse is he’s been injury prone. If I’m gonna extend a non-star at a premium, I’d hope they are a 2-way glue piece at least, like Battier, Rubio, Gobert, Conley, Lowry... where you can see the team’s chemistry improve majorly when they play, even if they’re far from being a top option for a deep playoff team. Lauri is an invisible defender with a good-or-bad shooting margin.

The return is not worth it/mediocre is still a chance to get out of the contract plus a pick. In other words, it doesn't hamstring you. So you sign Lauri and if he pays off (like LaVine), great. If he ends up like Myles Turner (or Rozier, or whoever), oh well, it's not like he isn't eating minutes positively for his team. He's not stopping them from re-signing anyone or doing anything they want to do.

This is from this offseason about Aaron Gordon by Zach Lowe:

Several -- maybe as many as 10, maybe more -- called Orlando to express interest in trading for Gordon during the recent transaction period, sources said. . . But Orlando held firm, and Gordon remains."

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/30401182/nba-redeem-team-six-players-ready-bounce-back-season

And for what? I hate Orlando’s situation, and it’s not just because of the injuries.

How about Indiana's? Charlotte's? Don't just pick Orlando, the rest of the team isn't Aaron Gordon's fault.

[coldfish]

The first question was "is the guy tradeable at that contract?"

Paxson screwed up with Nocioni, Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. He gave out a fair number of bad deals and that hamstrung the team.

There is another route. If all of your contracts are tradeable, you always have capspace. Let's say that Lillard or something wants to come to Chicago and Lauri's contract is preventing that. Well, you just trade him and you have capspace. The team never functionally has to set themselves up to have capspace as long as they have enough tradeable contracts.

GarPax always went on about flexibility but they weren't that flexible in their thinking about flexibility.

Flexible.

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

I obviously disagree about untradeables. Signing a bunch of players to untradeable contracts is how you get yourself into real trouble as an organization particularly with the Reinsdorf's financial limits. If you really think you are going to get stuck with Lauri at a given contract value, I think you have to trade him before you sign him to that deal.

I don't think Lauri would be an albatross contract at $20m with his current play.

[MrSparkle]

The return is not worth it/mediocre is still a chance to get out of the contract plus a pick. In other words, it doesn't hamstring you. So you sign Lauri and if he pays off (like LaVine), great. If he ends up like Myles Turner (or Rozier, or whoever), oh well, it's not like he isn't eating minutes positively for his team. He's not stopping them from re-signing anyone or doing anything they want to do.

This is from this offseason about Aaron Gordon by Zach Lowe:

Several -- maybe as many as 10, maybe more -- called Orlando to express interest in trading for Gordon during the recent transaction period, sources said. . . But Orlando held firm, and Gordon remains."

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/30401182/nba-redeem-team-six-players-ready-bounce-back-season

And for what? I hate Orlando’s situation, and it’s not just because of the injuries.

How about Indiana's? Charlotte's? Don't just pick Orlando, the rest of the team isn't Aaron Gordon's fault.

I picked ORL because I watched them in the bubble, and preferred their team with Gordon out. They played lower-usage energy wings at PF, and I liked them more.

Indiana is different. I'd say Sabonis is their "Lauri" ; Turner is their "Wendell." Both guys were/are/probably-will be (much) better, and it's possible that their extension contracts were the same or cheaper than what Lauri/Wendell demand (I mean, Sabonis took 77/4). Sabonis made ASG in year 4. Turner was invited to Team USA on his rookie deal. I'm not sure Wendell is anywhere close, even if Miles underperformed. I like tweener PFs who are well-rounded and defensive dogs; don't need them to be 3P spot-up shooters with OK drive ability on slow mismatches, and weak across-the-board intangibles.

Charlotte's an odd comparison because I don't really see any logic in what MJ's done with that roster, besides tread-milling. They were right to let Kemba go; IMO Rozier was a promising enough 60/3 gamble for a tank job, because he can do a little bit of everything and defend both guard spots. Obviously their make-or-break event is LaMelo. He needs more time to develop, but if he pans out into a superstar (kind of looking like he can), they are not going to want any future Rozier-esque salaries on their books. You look at DAL, they were in a kind of cap-hell when they added Luka. They managed to convert some mediocre contracts into a risky KP but they also had to take THJ... And they're just kind of stuck with this crappy roster of multiple bloated salaries.

ORL/Gordon is more the Lauri scenario, to me. If Lauri is up for a short-term contract with a non-guaranteed Y3, then I'm more open to 60/3 ala Rozier. But a 4-5y extension ala Gordon/Miles? No thanks. It either ends up being good value, slightly overpaid, or horrible value. I'm not seeing "great value" anywhere after $15m salary.

[FranchisePlayer]

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

IMO many teams would gladly pay $20 M / 4 years for his current performances. His future injuries are a big if in every way so I would just ignore that. It's not like he has one chronic injury like Porter.

Do you you consider him, as we speak, under or over-perform that $20M a year?

[cjbulls]

A way to answer is that guys either over or under-perform their contracts, if he over-performs, then it is tradeable, but for $20M and his history, it's more likely he underperforms.

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

I obviously disagree about untradeables. Signing a bunch of players to untradeable contracts is how you get yourself into real trouble as an organization particularly with the Reinsdorf's financial limits. If you really think you are going to get stuck with Lauri at a given contract value, I think you have to trade him before you sign him to that deal.

I don't think Lauri would be an albatross contract at $20m with his current play.

Agreed. And of course there are levels of bust where a contract becomes negative. I just think some people follow the "price is right" model where a penny over the player's actual value makes them an upside-down contract and untradeable. When in reality paying a $15M player $20M doesn't alter their trade value all that much (especially in a world where so few trades are 1-for-1). And in the case of young players, gets you in on any potential upside they will get better as they get older.

This of course, is opposed to just letting a guy walk for nothing. All you get then is more cap space which you can do what with? Overpay a FA or trade for an overpaid contract.

[cjbulls]

And for what? I hate Orlando’s situation, and it’s not just because of the injuries.

How about Indiana's? Charlotte's? Don't just pick Orlando, the rest of the team isn't Aaron Gordon's fault.

I picked ORL because I watched them in the bubble, and preferred their team with Gordon out. They played lower-usage energy wings at PF, and I like them more.

Indiana is different. I'd say Sabonis is their "Lauri" ; Turner is their "Wendell." Both guys were/are/probably-will be (much) better, and it's possible that their extension contracts were the same or cheaper than what Lauri/Wendell demand (I mean, Sabonis took 77/4). Sabonis made ASG in year 4. Turner was invited to Team USA on his rookie deal. I'm not sure Wendell is anywhere near there, even if Miles underperformed.

Charlotte's an odd comparison because I don't really see any logic in what MJ's done with that roster. They were on right to let Kemba go; I think Rozier was actually promising enough to take the 60/3 gamble, because he can do a little bit of everything and play multiple positions. Obviously they're make-or-break moment is LaMelo. He needs more time to develop, but if he pans out into a true superstar (kind of looking like he'll be a star), they are not going to want any Rozier-esque salaries on their books. You look at DAL, they were in a kind of cap-hell when they added Luka. They managed to convert some mediocre contracts into a risky KP but they also had to take THJ. And they're just kind of stuck with this crappy roster.

ORL/Gordon is more the Lauri scenario, to me.

It's not about the Lauri scenario. It's about asset management. Lauri at $20M > $20M cap space next year. And that extends in future years when you know you can always trade him for an expiring contract. Plus, if he continues playing like he is now (or getting better), he is worth $20M, arguably more.

You act as if Orlando missed out on signing AD because they held onto Aaron Gordon.

[coldfish]

It's at this point I like to remind folks there is no real underperforming possible when (a) there are no other good options for the $20M and (b) Lauri at $20M and this year's stats (or some combo of this year and two years ago) is completely tradeable, even if he never gets a lick better.

People assume there is this huge list of $20M untradeable guys but even those that do underperform carry value (Myles Turner, Aaron Gordon, Terry Rozier of recent vintage).

I don't mind if you can make a good trade for him, but don't let this asset go for nothing because you think he'll be untradeable.

I obviously disagree about untradeables. Signing a bunch of players to untradeable contracts is how you get yourself into real trouble as an organization particularly with the Reinsdorf's financial limits. If you really think you are going to get stuck with Lauri at a given contract value, I think you have to trade him before you sign him to that deal.

I don't think Lauri would be an albatross contract at $20m with his current play.

Agreed. And of course there are levels of bust where a contract becomes negative. I just think some people follow the "price is right" model where a penny over the player's actual value makes them an upside-down contract and untradeable. When in reality paying a $15M player $20M doesn't alter their trade value all that much (especially in a world where so few trades are 1-for-1). And in the case of young players, gets you in on any potential upside they will get better as they get older.

This of course, is opposed to just letting a guy walk for nothing. All you get then is more cap space which you can do what with? Overpay a FA or trade for an overpaid contract.

The fear I would have is pretty much what you are talking about. A Ben Gordon or Kyle Korver situation where you overpay several players and then are forced to let others go in order to stay under the lux tax. Also, that JR vetoes every trade because he already has too much salary (Gasol many years ago).

If a guy is movable then all these concerns go away. Its only where you are truly stuck with him that its a problem. What is that number for Lauri? $25m or more?

[MrSparkle]

How about Indiana's? Charlotte's? Don't just pick Orlando, the rest of the team isn't Aaron Gordon's fault.

I picked ORL because I watched them in the bubble, and preferred their team with Gordon out. They played lower-usage energy wings at PF, and I like them more.

Indiana is different. I'd say Sabonis is their "Lauri" ; Turner is their "Wendell." Both guys were/are/probably-will be (much) better, and it's possible that their extension contracts were the same or cheaper than what Lauri/Wendell demand (I mean, Sabonis took 77/4). Sabonis made ASG in year 4. Turner was invited to Team USA on his rookie deal. I'm not sure Wendell is anywhere near there, even if Miles underperformed.

Charlotte's an odd comparison because I don't really see any logic in what MJ's done with that roster. They were on right to let Kemba go; I think Rozier was actually promising enough to take the 60/3 gamble, because he can do a little bit of everything and play multiple positions. Obviously they're make-or-break moment is LaMelo. He needs more time to develop, but if he pans out into a true superstar (kind of looking like he'll be a star), they are not going to want any Rozier-esque salaries on their books. You look at DAL, they were in a kind of cap-hell when they added Luka. They managed to convert some mediocre contracts into a risky KP but they also had to take THJ. And they're just kind of stuck with this crappy roster.

ORL/Gordon is more the Lauri scenario, to me.

It's not about the Lauri scenario. It's about asset management. Lauri at $20M > $20M cap space next year. And that extends in future years when you know you can always trade him for an expiring contract. Plus, if he continues playing like he is now (or getting better), he is worth $20M, arguably more.

You act as if Orlando missed out on signing AD because they held onto Aaron Gordon.

Not really. I'd much rather sign multiple 1y contracts like Temple than lock up Lauri. You can also trade cap for salary, get a pick for compensation.

Minnesota has $130m guaranteed next year for a garbage dumpster fire of a team. After their top-3 draft pick (unless it goes to GSW), they're paying luxury tax. Pretty sure they'll be begging for teams to take players off their books.

Milwaukee is going over the cap and they need to resign Jrue.

I'd just keep an eye on all these teams with massive excess tied up into mediocre rotation players. Easy mid/late FRPs and 2nd rounders, and you get an expiring chip on top of it all. Or even a decent rotation vet.

[chefo]

Current Lauri that scores 20 on 13.5 shots, and shoots 60%+ on 2s and 40% on high volume of 3s will be a steal at 20 per, if he can keep it up. For real, let's play a game--name a low usage, 20 ppg scorer that has 65% TS that the Bulls can realistically get. That's a tiny set already, if I had to guess. Now, let's see how much that player makes and if anybody fitting that description intersects with the salary restriction of $20M. My guess would be: nobody.

Lauri has been playing like an ELITE second option this year on O. If he can keep it up (biggest if), that ship (Getting Lauri for 18-20 per) has probably sailed for good. Barring a career-threatening injury, people will be throwing rookie max contracts at him before 60 seconds have gone, once the FA period begins. Unless his agent is a chump, I think a lot of people on this board will be furious with how much the Bulls will have to shell out to keep him.

[MrSparkle]

Current Lauri that scores 20 on 13.5 shots, and shoots 60%+ on 2s and 40% on high volume of 3s will be a steal at 20 per, if he can keep it up. For real, let's play a game--name a low usage, 20 ppg scorer that has 65% TS that the Bulls can realistically get. That's a tiny set already, if I had to guess. Now, let's see how much that player makes and if anybody fitting that description intersects with the salary restriction of $20M. My guess would be: nobody.

Lauri has been playing like an ELITE second option this year on O. If he can keep it up (biggest if), that ship (Getting Lauri for 18-20 per) has probably sailed for good. Barring a career-threatening injury, people will be throwing rookie max contracts at him before 60 seconds have gone, once the FA period begins. Unless his agent is a chump, I think a lot of people on this board will be furious with how much the Bulls will have to shell out to keep him.

Dude. Whoever throws the max at Lauri, may they enjoy the ride. I have a feeling it's gonna be a lot like the Magic-Timberwolves sled. He has played 11 games and we struggle beating .500 teams missing key players, even when he has a great shooting night. "Elite second option" ??? I would hope an elite second option could help beat the struggling Warriors missing Draymond, or Blazers missing CJ and Nurkic.

The chicken/egg paradox happens when we start blaming Coby and Zach too much for Lauri losing games or not scoring enough. I agree that last year, he was mismanaged and the whole offensive system was brutal for everybody. But Lauri has proven regularly that he can't carry a team as a top-2 option; nothing remotely close to guys like John Collins or Christian Wood, who aren't even that great!

If you totally build a concept around him and he works on his body (gains weight and core strength to play in the paint), I can see him developing into a more worthwhile player. It's just a high-risk/treadmill-reward.

Can you really envision Lauri becoming a comparable player to Sabonis, Vuc or KAT? To compare a few offensive-minded big men.

[sco]

Again, this feels like FebruLauri euphoria again. IF he keeps up this level of productivity for the rest of the season AND stays healthy, I'm not bothered if the Bulls paid him $20M per year. IF he actually becomes a consistently "good" defender, I'd happily pay more. I would love to have another consistent scorer who doesn't hurt us defensively on the roster. That hasn't been Lauri so far in his career, so count me as skeptical, but BD has helped guys so far so I can be optimistic from that perspective.