Image ImageImage Image

Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, Michael Jackson, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10

CobyWhite0
Rookie
Posts: 1,236
And1: 819
Joined: Dec 28, 2020
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#901 » by CobyWhite0 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:29 am

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:
ZOMG wrote:If the Bulls were aiming to trade Lauri, they'd be doing all they can do get him on the court and playing in the most favorable lineups possible. Instead, they've basically been doing the opposite.

Hell, the team might just shut him down for the season. Not saying it will really come to that, but right now they're making a tweaked shoulder sound like this huge thing. He's been out for three weeks and still can't do "anything" on the court? Come on now. Something stinks here.

Considering the team has played well without him lately, being out for the rest of the season (or most of it) would put Lauri in a bad position. Sure he might still get a big offer sheet, but it would turn his 14 games of improvement into a very small sample and some teams might actually start to hesitate.

The Bulls would love that development, of course. It would really improve their chances of signing Lauri to a team-friendly (read: lowball) deal after all. I remain convinced they haven't wanted to trade him at any point.

That's why I believe this conspiracy theory might actually have some legs. I won't be shocked if Lauri starts showing his frustration with the team (between the lines, or course) over the coming 1-2 weeks.


I don’t see how the team could slow Lauri’s return to the court without his cooperation.

That would involve the FO convincing the training staff and doctors to risk their careers by giving him intentionally bad advice just to cool his free agency market.

When does that ever happen and why would Lauri tolerate it for a second?


In the last day or two I posted a link to BD talking about how it's not up to the Dr's or the team at this point, it's all a matter of when Lauri's pain level is down to a point where he can handle it. The shoulder is certainly not a good place to have an injury when you're a shooter.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#902 » by sco » Sun Feb 28, 2021 2:57 pm

ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.
:clap:
User avatar
DroseReturnChi
RealGM
Posts: 10,087
And1: 3,144
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
   

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#903 » by DroseReturnChi » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:31 pm

coldfish wrote:
The Bulls did not have an incentive to give Lauri a big contract this past offseason. The only reason they should is if they got a value contract. Whatever they offered him doesn't mean they think that is what his fair market value was.

They might like him or they might not. I have no idea. I just don't think that you can use what they offered him as a basis for figuring that out.

I was the one who brought up the 25m. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea but the free agent class this offseason is pretty bad and lots of teams have capspace. Someone is going to make an offer big enough that they think Chicago will not match it. When faced with losing Lauri for nothing, I would not be surprised if the team panics and gives it to him.


Except they had every incentive to give Lauri a big contract to avoid getting paid 25+ rookie max territory. Its called hedging in financial terms for those who dont understand the concept of giving him 20mil per yr.
AK basically gambled Lauri is going to be trash like last season given the 2 scoring guards will take away his shots coupled with injury prone. And what a genius to predict a 1month injury he might wish it was 2month so he can further lowball to 15 per yr.

But what he didnt realize was Lauri has no sign of slowing down when healthy. He might be the best stretch 5 in planet earth and those type guys get paid a lot it only takes 1 team like the Kings to offer a 4/100 sheet. Not signing him was clearly the worst choice bc now your in danger of losing him for nothing when he could be a major trade piece. I am just shocked AK resorts to cheap tactics what garpax used for the last decade. Praying someone to regress/get injured is really unthinkable/unprofessional AK needs to apologize to Bulls fans in a 1hr televised press. This has really nothing to do with even being a fan of Lauri or not.
Doncic will be goat. Lauri will be his sidekick.
User avatar
DroseReturnChi
RealGM
Posts: 10,087
And1: 3,144
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
   

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#904 » by DroseReturnChi » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:47 pm

ZOMG wrote:If the Bulls were aiming to trade Lauri, they'd be doing all they can do get him on the court and playing in the most favorable lineups possible. Instead, they've basically been doing the opposite.

Hell, the team might just shut him down for the season. Not saying it will really come to that, but right now they're making a tweaked shoulder sound like this huge thing. He's been out for three weeks and still can't do "anything" on the court? Come on now. Something stinks here.

Considering the team has played well without him lately, being out for the rest of the season (or most of it) would put Lauri in a bad position. Sure he might still get a big offer sheet, but it would turn his 14 games of improvement into a very small sample and some teams might actually start to hesitate.

The Bulls would love that development, of course. It would really improve their chances of signing Lauri to a team-friendly (read: lowball) deal after all. I remain convinced they haven't wanted to trade him at any point.

That's why I believe this conspiracy theory might actually have some legs. I won't be shocked if Lauri starts showing his frustration with the team (between the lines, or course) over the coming 1-2 weeks.


Its not even a conspiracy. I have watched Lauri closely since his rookie and can tell the current regime is no different from garpax/boylen in terms of treating him as a spot up shooter and intentionally lowering minutes while relegated to as the 5th option from the very start. This is a guy Lakers/Dallas would use him as the number 2 option getting close to 20 shots a game.

Its almost like they want him to fail and give injury scare to 29 teams they cant bid like the ACL lavine case. Theres absolutely 0 excuse for failing to resign Lauri. If AK didnt believe in Lauri, he should have just traded him before the injury but instead they never entertained trade offers except for Lavine. Whats the reason of keeping a FA and not trade for Kuz/THT if they really believed stretch 5s suck and let Kuz chuck from the bench?
Theres a reason why Pelicans are aggressively trading Lonzo ball and why Lakers resigned Kuzma for 3/40 despite being bad.
Doncic will be goat. Lauri will be his sidekick.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,926
And1: 37,364
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#905 » by DuckIII » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:56 pm

ZOMG wrote:If the Bulls were aiming to trade Lauri, they'd be doing all they can do get him on the court and playing in the most favorable lineups possible. Instead, they've basically been doing the opposite.

Hell, the team might just shut him down for the season. Not saying it will really come to that, but right now they're making a tweaked shoulder sound like this huge thing. He's been out for three weeks and still can't do "anything" on the court? Come on now. Something stinks here.

Considering the team has played well without him lately, being out for the rest of the season (or most of it) would put Lauri in a bad position. Sure he might still get a big offer sheet, but it would turn his 14 games of improvement into a very small sample and some teams might actually start to hesitate.

The Bulls would love that development, of course. It would really improve their chances of signing Lauri to a team-friendly (read: lowball) deal after all. I remain convinced they haven't wanted to trade him at any point.

That's why I believe this conspiracy theory might actually have some legs. I won't be shocked if Lauri starts showing his frustration with the team (between the lines, or course) over the coming 1-2 weeks.


This conspiracy theory hits all the talking points: (a) Lauri is not actually injury prone, the team is just making it look that way; (b) the Bulls highly value Lauri and don’t want to trade him; (c) the Bulls made a mistake lowballing him and his market value will be high; (d) except that it won’t be because the Bulls went Machiavellian on his ass and made him a healthy scratch to ruin his market value.

Unfortunately this conspiracy falls apart because a team can’t force a healthy player to sit, can be heavily penalized by the NBA for doing so, and the NBAPA would intercede on behalf of any player being victimized by something like this.

Occam’s Razor: He’s missing more time than expected, like he has in the past, because he continues to be injury prone and is still hurt.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
FreePaulZipser
Freshman
Posts: 52
And1: 16
Joined: Apr 09, 2018
         

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#906 » by FreePaulZipser » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:04 pm

sco wrote:ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.


That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#907 » by sco » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:16 pm

FreePaulZipser wrote:
sco wrote:ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.


That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.

Sorry, I meant "trade him for anything of real value", I thought that was obvious. But it could be a very late 1st.
:clap:
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,926
And1: 37,364
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#908 » by DuckIII » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:16 pm

FreePaulZipser wrote:
sco wrote:ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.


That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.


I assume sco is assuming at least some decent value, like a late first or a protected future first. I’d take that.

Also, it depends on the FO’s goals. For example, if they know they have no intention of resigning him (a pretty big assumption), AND they really don’t want to make the playoffs and prefer a lottery pick, then why keep him and have him Killdraftpick us?

That said, I doubt the FO has decided they don’t want Lauri no matter what at any cost. That would be too definitive.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#909 » by sco » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:21 pm

DuckIII wrote:
FreePaulZipser wrote:
sco wrote:ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.


That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.


I assume sco is assuming at least some decent value, like a late first or a protected future first. I’d take that.

Also, it depends on the FO’s goals. For example, if they know they have no intention of resigning him (a pretty big assumption), AND they really don’t want to make the playoffs and prefer a lottery pick, then why keep him and have him Killdraftpick us?

That said, I doubt the FO has decided they don’t want Lauri no matter what at any cost. That would be too definitive.

I agree. I'm assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but some combo of Lauri and filler, should be enough to bring us back a decent player in trade that could help this season...especially if we take a bad contract back too for Otto.
:clap:
User avatar
Fastbrk4brkfast
General Manager
Posts: 7,937
And1: 2,742
Joined: Oct 16, 2010
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#910 » by Fastbrk4brkfast » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:31 pm

Lauri's not part of the "young core" but the Bulls should resign him anyway. Trading him now when he's at a low value point amd still on a cheap contract doesn't make sense. You resign him and wait for the best move since you want long term assets back anyway. Plus the Bulls actually need Lauri (or his immediate replacement). They can beat bad teams without him but they need his production against the league's best.
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 22,259
And1: 11,919
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#911 » by WindyCityBorn » Mon Mar 1, 2021 7:49 am

Fastbrk4brkfast wrote:Lauri's not part of the "young core" but the Bulls should resign him anyway. Trading him now when he's at a low value point amd still on a cheap contract doesn't make sense. You resign him and wait for the best move since you want long term assets back anyway. Plus the Bulls actually need Lauri (or his immediate replacement). They can beat bad teams without him but they need his production against the league's best.


I’m back on board with resigning Markkanen too. If we are being honest he is easily our best offensive piece after Zach and he is only 24 years old . Pat has the potential, but it’s just hope of what he can become. Lauri is an efficient 20 ppg scorer right now and can still improve. We need good players now. Right now we need a starting PG and big improvement in frontcourt depth even with Lauri. Lose Lauri for little or nothing and we have too many major holes to be fill and not much available talent to fill them. Unless he is traded(which seems unlikely) I think we work something out and he stays a Bull.
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 22,259
And1: 11,919
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#912 » by WindyCityBorn » Mon Mar 1, 2021 7:55 am

DuckIII wrote:
FreePaulZipser wrote:
sco wrote:ZOMG's conspiracy theories aside, I'm still of the mind that we should trade him for whatever we can get at the deadline.

I was looking at summer FA's, and they aren't a list of superstars (old guys and meh players)...as such Lauri's RFA value may have value to somebody.

The lack of FA's could lead the FO to need to match an inflated number or (more likely) lose him for nothing. I'm not saying Lauri is bad, but when I look at his upside vs. his durability, I feel like any deal we strike will likely end with Otto Porter-like feelings of deja vu.


That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.


I assume sco is assuming at least some decent value, like a late first or a protected future first. I’d take that.

Also, it depends on the FO’s goals. For example, if they know they have no intention of resigning him (a pretty big assumption), AND they really don’t want to make the playoffs and prefer a lottery pick, then why keep him and have him Killdraftpick us?

That said, I doubt the FO has decided they don’t want Lauri no matter what at any cost. That would be too definitive.


I think we should try to keep him. Roll the dice and hope doesn’t get an outrageous offer. If he gets something like Zach did at 4 years/$80 million you match it quickly. It’s worth the risk IMO. I think we are too low on talent to just let him walk. We would have overpay some outside guy to try fill void anyway. Seeing how little consistent scoring talent(basically Zach and Lauri) we have on this team had made me do an about face.
TeamMan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,596
And1: 555
Joined: Dec 11, 2002

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#913 » by TeamMan » Mon Mar 1, 2021 10:44 am

WindyCityBorn wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
FreePaulZipser wrote:
That makes zero sense then. If you trade him for anything, then why not just let him walk at seasons end? If you arent getting anything of real value just keep him.


I assume sco is assuming at least some decent value, like a late first or a protected future first. I’d take that.

Also, it depends on the FO’s goals. For example, if they know they have no intention of resigning him (a pretty big assumption), AND they really don’t want to make the playoffs and prefer a lottery pick, then why keep him and have him Killdraftpick us?

That said, I doubt the FO has decided they don’t want Lauri no matter what at any cost. That would be too definitive.


I think we should try to keep him. Roll the dice and hope doesn’t get an outrageous offer. If he gets something like Zach did at 4 years/$80 million you match it quickly. It’s worth the risk IMO. I think we are too low on talent to just let him walk. We would have overpay some outside guy to try fill void anyway. Seeing how little consistent scoring talent(basically Zach and Lauri) we have on this team had made me do an about face.

Haven't gone back and looked through all of the most recent posts, but IMO the Bulls are basically in the same situation as when Zach's contract went into RFA.

If they don't make a trade before the deadline, then they have to sign Lauri to whatever offer sheet he gets.

There is always the possibility that they could work a sign-and-trade but I'd say that it's unlikely unless Lauri has told the FO that he doesn't want to play for the Bulls.

However, I'd say that it's hasn't happened because his agent would tell him that it'll drive his market value down. As long as his official position is that he wants to stay with the team, then any potential bidders will offer a higher price with the ultimate goal being to price the Bulls out of the market because of Lux Tax fear.

My impression though is that the new FO has been given more freedom to work with the Lux Tax than Gar/Pax had.

So, we'll just have to wait and see.
gobullschi
Veteran
Posts: 2,905
And1: 899
Joined: May 23, 2006

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#914 » by gobullschi » Mon Mar 1, 2021 1:35 pm

Can Lauri have little trade value AND still have teams willing to pay him 20+M annually?
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#915 » by sco » Mon Mar 1, 2021 1:46 pm

gobullschi wrote:Can Lauri have little trade value AND still have teams willing to pay him 20+M annually?

No...against Finnish law. Must not trade Lauri AND must pay him a lot!
:clap:
Pentele
Sophomore
Posts: 217
And1: 176
Joined: Jan 04, 2021
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#916 » by Pentele » Mon Mar 1, 2021 2:30 pm

sco wrote:
gobullschi wrote:Can Lauri have little trade value AND still have teams willing to pay him 20+M annually?

No...against Finnish law. Must not trade Lauri AND must pay him a lot!


Oh, that was unfortunate. Should I start speaking about the disgraceful state of the US education system as a reason for some beliefs around here? Is that kind of group or identity centered discourse really productive? You tell me.

If anything, there are people who are saying that Lauri has practically no place in NBA as the kind of player that he is but he would still cost a ton of money for the Bulls to keep. That does not sound reasonable. But perhaps they are Finnish? The Finnish people are notoriously unreasonable, am I right, am I right? Some other who advocate trading/letting go Lauri have also noted that Lauri's value at the trade deadline is diminished because he is going to be RFA soon anyway. That could be considered a reason enough to cause discrepancy between valuations now and at summer but I guess they must be wrong too. What an utter joke.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#917 » by sco » Mon Mar 1, 2021 2:39 pm

Pentele wrote:
sco wrote:
gobullschi wrote:Can Lauri have little trade value AND still have teams willing to pay him 20+M annually?

No...against Finnish law. Must not trade Lauri AND must pay him a lot!


Oh, that was unfortunate. Should I start speaking about the disgraceful state of the US education system as a reason for some beliefs around here? Is that kind of group or identity centered discourse really productive? You tell me.

If anything, there are people who are saying that Lauri has practically no place in NBA as the kind of player that he is but he would still cost a ton of money for the Bulls to keep. That does not sound reasonable. But perhaps they are Finnish? The Finnish people are notoriously unreasonable, am I right, am I right? Some other who advocate trading/letting go Lauri have also noted that Lauri's value at the trade deadline is diminished because he is going to be RFA soon anyway. That could be considered a reason enough to cause discrepancy between valuations now and at summer but I guess they must be wrong too. What an utter joke.

I apologize. My joke was in bad taste. I'd be a big Lauri fan if I was from Finland.
:clap:
Pentele
Sophomore
Posts: 217
And1: 176
Joined: Jan 04, 2021
 

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#918 » by Pentele » Mon Mar 1, 2021 2:46 pm

sco wrote:
Pentele wrote:
sco wrote:No...against Finnish law. Must not trade Lauri AND must pay him a lot!


Oh, that was unfortunate. Should I start speaking about the disgraceful state of the US education system as a reason for some beliefs around here? Is that kind of group or identity centered discourse really productive? You tell me.

If anything, there are people who are saying that Lauri has practically no place in NBA as the kind of player that he is but he would still cost a ton of money for the Bulls to keep. That does not sound reasonable. But perhaps they are Finnish? The Finnish people are notoriously unreasonable, am I right, am I right? Some other who advocate trading/letting go Lauri have also noted that Lauri's value at the trade deadline is diminished because he is going to be RFA soon anyway. That could be considered a reason enough to cause discrepancy between valuations now and at summer but I guess they must be wrong too. What an utter joke.

I apologize. My joke was in bad taste. I'd be a big Lauri fan if I was from Finland.


Apology accepted. Joking is all fine and dandy but I urge everyone to not go down the road of insinuation and innuendo in the name of humor. There is enough of that already.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,559
And1: 9,271
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#919 » by sco » Mon Mar 1, 2021 2:48 pm

Pentele wrote:
sco wrote:
Pentele wrote:
Oh, that was unfortunate. Should I start speaking about the disgraceful state of the US education system as a reason for some beliefs around here? Is that kind of group or identity centered discourse really productive? You tell me.

If anything, there are people who are saying that Lauri has practically no place in NBA as the kind of player that he is but he would still cost a ton of money for the Bulls to keep. That does not sound reasonable. But perhaps they are Finnish? The Finnish people are notoriously unreasonable, am I right, am I right? Some other who advocate trading/letting go Lauri have also noted that Lauri's value at the trade deadline is diminished because he is going to be RFA soon anyway. That could be considered a reason enough to cause discrepancy between valuations now and at summer but I guess they must be wrong too. What an utter joke.

I apologize. My joke was in bad taste. I'd be a big Lauri fan if I was from Finland.


Apology accepted. Joking is all fine and dandy but I urge everyone to not go down the road of insinuation and innuendo in the name of humor. There is enough of that already.

Agree.
:clap:
chefo
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,285
And1: 2,427
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread 

Post#920 » by chefo » Mon Mar 1, 2021 4:34 pm

I still can't wrap my head around how inept the previous regime was in every aspect of developing our main talents:

* Zach has made more strides away from stupid ball under Donovan in 3 months than under Fred and Jimbo combined in 3 years. That has launched him into well-deserved stardom.

* Lauri is victim number 2. One quarter into his rookie year, they should have gone balls in to develop him and figure out what they have on their hands... instead, the second half of his rookie year, they benched big-man mentor Rolo and gave Lauri only 20 min game... because these two were playing so well that they were hurting the tank. When Lauri started scoring 20/game in 20 minutes in his last stretch as a rookie, and he made it look easy, is when I personally thought they have a potential superstar on their hands. They should have gone balls to the wall in terms of Lauri usage to end the year, to truly see if they found a diamond in the rough, or it was just a lucky stretch. Put four guys from the Y around him, if you wanted to lose that bad, but give the kid 35 minutes and every opportunity to grow. Nope. 10 min in the 1st, 10 in the 3rd, and sit his posterior down for the rest of the game. They Bogans-ed him, despite him just wrecking it when he was on the court. This was the last we saw of Lauri as an occasional ball-handler in the P&R, BTW.

* WCJ--Then, with the sheer brilliance of people still stuck fighting the last LeBron war, they asked Lauri and WCJ to bulk up by 15-20 pounds. Yep, I know I've been like a dog with a bone on that one, but WTF? Big guys, the rule of thumb has gone for 50 years of ball, need to be the absolute lightest they can be in a way that doesn't affect their ability to play their roles. Big guys have notoriously bad feet, knees, and backs, since the beginning of effin' time, and that's why guys like Kareem stayed as lean as possible their entire careers. As soon as Dream, Admiral, and even Shaq started putting on real weight, that signaled the end of their primes. If Dream and Admiral could play at 235-240, there's no reason for WCJ to be 270 or Lauri 245-250, because you're just putting more stress on their feet and joints. Make them have abs of steel--guns like that of Ivan Drago look great on film but don't help much in basketball. Not everybody can be LeBron and pack on weight without it affecting their functional athleticism. Both Lauri and WCJ have looked more sluggish than their rookie years.

Instead of telling them to pump iron, hire them effin' yoga instructors to keep them stretched and healthy. I remember both DWade and LeBron spoke about how much yoga helped them stay healthy in Miami (and that special performance "juice", I guess). Anyhow.

* Coby--super long leash and huge usage as a rookie, where the first 50 games were an unmitigated disaster. They tried using a rook in Zach's P&R role, but within the overall team limitations (layups and threes only) and Coby was putrid bad at it. In pre-season, his two redeeming qualities were that he could get good separation on his jumper, and he had a twerky-jerky hesitation dribble that could get him past most guys. Schematically, he was asked to do none of that--instead, he was asked to drive off P&Rs into help, which given that he's the least vertical guy on the team ended up with him being swatted away like a fly for 2/3s of his rookie season. Only when Boylen started unshackling the team a bit late in the year, did Coby and Thad actually look like they belonged in the NBA.

The overarching issue is that because Lauri is injured, we don't know how much better he could have gotten over this year. Zach did not start the year well, but halfway through, he's a legit superstar-like player in terms of his impact scoring efficiently.

Lauri, after 3 wasted years of development, was finally making strides in the places where I wanted him to make strides--his help D, and moving better off-ball. I think the old-man game, if it ever comes, will not come until much later in his career. But I wanted to see him not be a headless chicken on help D, and for the first time in his entire career, this year he started challenging shots going vertical, not just trying to block them. As coldfish has noted, he's gone to a 3 or 4 out 10 on help D... but from a starting point of 0, that's huge progress. He went from Bulls Bobby Portis bad to "I don't want to scratch my eyes out any longer watching the Bulls PF play D". What if he manages to get to a 6 (where WCJ is currently)? If he's as good as WCJ at playing help D, then why play WCJ at all, except as a backup? Lauri's a better man defender as-is, plays better D on the perimeter as-is (low bar to jump over), is much taller and a vastly superior offensive player. If he ever gets to a 6 or 7 playing help D, you've got your C of the future right there. You'll just to have to double Embiid, sorry, but you can't guard him with WCJ anyhow, so what?

Maybe Lauri never goes anywhere from here--but it utterly sucks that he has virtually played out his rookie contract under bozos who botched so badly the development of ALL of our young talent.

Return to Chicago Bulls