Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[Hugi Mancura]

You cannot run offense through Lauri. They acquired after they decided Lauri was a disappointment and not worth keep. He is a massive upgrade and Lauri will basically want to be paid a similar salary for way less production. Vuc only makes like $44 million over the next two seasons. Bargain for him. Crippling massive overpay to give Lauri the same deal.

So Vuc passes more and takes defensive rebounds. Adding Vuc Bulls change offense from ball moving to ISO ball. That means the offense has actually worsened. Bulls were second best in defensive rebounds and now they are the first, so adding Vuc helps Bulls take 1 rebounds more in two games. Yes, that is huge help on offensive end and on rebounds.

Bulls defense is better with Lauri on the court than without him. Bulls defense is 15 points lousier with Vuc than without him. So you would rather pay 44M$ for someone who makes team much lousier than same amount for person who doesn't? Who cares about team success as long there are all star's who score 25 points in a game. I rather pay for someone who actually makes team better than someone who makes it much lousier. But I care about winning. I must be stupid. Does Lauri help team better so much he actually would deserve that 20M? No, but he deserves it more than current Vucevic.

Bulls could literally use Vuc exactly like Lauri on offense. He could easily just stand on the perimeter and shoot open threes, but thankfully he has the ability to do so much more. Markkanen is bad defender too. Being slightly less bad than Vuc doesn't make up for massive gap in offense. And wow I can't believe you actually said Vuc is overpaid and that Markkanen is worth more. That's a joke. The only thing Markkanen has on Vuc is age. He had every opportunity possible to cement himself as a franchise cornerstone this year and blew it. You think AK really wanted to give two 1st round picks for a 30 year old? Lauri and Wendel's poor performance forced his hand. Maybe Lauri will play better in a new environment like Carter. I won't be rooting against him. It just hasn't worked out.

So player who have biggest negative impact on both Bulls and Magic is not overpaid? If you would have asked question is Vuc overpaid two years ago, when he was 28 I would have said no he ain't, but as right now?

Lauri isn't just slightly better on defense, he is much better. Lauri is not great rim protector for his size, but still opponents are shooting 5% lower against him than against Vuc and it goes even worse when you move further away from basket. So there is a massive cap in defense. Only thing where Vuc is better at defense is defensive rebounds, but Bulls were second best team before adding Vuc, so defensive rebounding wasn't team's problem. I know lot of Bulls fans believe it was a problem, but if you care about success and winning, only thing that matters is how well team takes rebounds. Individual stats are meaningless. Only players who have rebounding clausal in contract and fans care about individual numbers.

On offense is little bit more complex. If Bulls want to play ISO ball from here on, then Vucevic is much better than Lauri. Lauri is not good ISO baller. But if Bulls want to play more efficient ball moving offense where Lauri is better and even if Vucevic is slightly better because of his passing ability the skill difference doesn't cover the massive cap in defense.

I do understand that people who define players worth purely on players impact on offensive end do value Vuc high. He is damn good offensive center. But personally I value both defense and offense on same level because they are as important, then I can't value NBA's worst defensive center very high and center position is most important position in defense. So his negative impact on defense over weights his positive impact on offense. This doesn't really have anything to do with Markkanen, but maybe gives you an idea why I have very low value on Vuc.

[imagge]

Laurie is going to get $18 to $22 million. All you need to do is look at Duncan Robinson and Bertans. Laurie has not played with a point guard or a coach that has catered towards his game since Fred Hogberg.

Lauri and Duncan are not comparisons they are not the same size nor play the same position, Duncan is listed as a SG. Now Bertans is a perfect comp and his current contract is looked at as a mistake. Do you think teams are going to make the same mistake twice?

[chefo]

What should give the Bulls FO just a tiny bit of pause is that (based on latest rumors & comments) teams like the Raps, Spurs, and Mavs (maybe even Thibs' Knicks?) are the ones that may throw money at Lauri, not some scrub teams like the Cavs, Pistons or Kings.

If successful playoff teams are willing to shell out some major $ for your demoted, "not going to be featured any longer" F, that's probably as good as reason as any to look into the mirror and make sure how you're handling said player makes sense. Unless they're not going to match, period, in which case, it doesn't really matter.

One thing that struck me is that, in retrospect, the FO and Donovan first Mirotic-ed and then RoLo-ed Lauri. He got minutes and touches to open the year, and played fairly well--and if you trust the rumors, the FO tried to dump him for a 1st--so they were pumping his value up so that they could trade him like Miro.

They couldn't. As soon as that was over and Vuc came over, Lauri never really got a chance, got benched, his minutes got cut by a third and his touches by more than half. Not as drastic as RoLo during that same Miro year where he simply got benched because he was killing the tank and was not in the plans for the future, but similar situations where a starter gets to ride the pine despite playing well overall.

If Lauri did not get injured, they may have been able to pull it off (even though I hate the concept of trading good players for middling to low picks in general), but now, I'd expect him to alternate between 8 and 15 point games, depending if he gets 16 or 23 min / game and if his head is in it or not, averaging somewhere in low double digits overall.

A complete waste of a year from both his and the Bulls perspective.

[imagge]

Lauri does not defend players in the post, most players he is defending are perimeter oriented players and thus will shoot a lower percentage than who Vuc is defending. Watching games it is not post defense that Vuc is struggling with, its help defense, when to help and when not to help. No one really expects Vuc to defend perimeter bound bigs that shoot 3s and face up and he is not much of a leaper but his body does take up space and eats rebounds.

The Bulls were a good at defensive rebounding team by committee (hence the reason Zach is avg 5 rebounds a game) but that limits easy transition buckets. Vuc being the rebounder he is will allow guards and even Lauri or Pwill to leak out and get easier looks, it just has not translated to hey all 5 guys don't have to go to the boards all the time. Once Lauri and Pwill actually get a feel for this, one can hit the boards and the other can leak, there are a lot of rebounds where the 3 Bulls (SF, PF and C) are fighting each other for the board.

Lauri has had a hard time staying in front of perimeter players and he provides no help defense. Now in the Cleveland game the pair were very good down the stretch defensively together, both rotated well. If the team can find a defensive rhythm with Lauri and Vuc then I believe the Bulls would be better off, blocking shots is overrated, rotating well for several passes is what the Bulls need to achieve to keep both on the floor at the same time. Can both do it?? I don't know but if they can you saw a glimpse of an unstoppable offensive set with those 2 setting picks for the guard (eventually Lavine), one dives, one pops, the three is there, the roll is there, the guard attacking is there and the post up.

[DuckIII]

What should give the Bulls FO just a tiny bit of pause is that (based on latest rumors & comments) teams like the Raps, Spurs, and Mavs (maybe even Thibs' Knicks?) are the ones that may throw money at Lauri, not some scrub teams like the Cavs, Pistons or Kings.

If successful playoff teams are willing to shell out some major $ for your demoted, "not going to be featured any longer" F, that's probably as good as reason as any to look into the mirror and make sure how you're handling said player makes sense. Unless they're not going to match, period, in which case, it doesn't really matter.

I’m firmly on board the “just match Lauri and hope for the best” bandwagon as a consequence of the trade deadline deals.

But if AK and BD spent an entire season evaluating Lauri and then only changed their mind because of the outside opinions of a few teams, that would be a terrible sign of strength of leadership.

[dougthonus]

Laurie is going to get $18 to $22 million. All you need to do is look at Duncan Robinson and Bertans. Laurie has not played with a point guard or a coach that has catered towards his game since Fred Hogberg.

Lauri and Duncan are not comparisons they are not the same size nor play the same position, Duncan is listed as a SG. Now Bertans is a perfect comp and his current contract is looked at as a mistake. Do you think teams are going to make the same mistake twice?

Yes, I think there's a good chance teams will make the same mistake twice. Lauri is more versatile than Bertans, but on the other hand, he's not as good a shooter either.

[sco]

I am quite certain Lauri will take the QO if Bulls offer that, unless there some team offering him 20+ per year. And I doubt that.

It's an interesting point. I go back and forth on that idea. Lauri might be useful, but if we are keeping Thad, I'd rather spend that $ elsewhere - i.e. try to get Ball, THT, Shroder or Fournier. We're stuck with Aminu (who is actually a serviceable backup PF), and I hope we sign Theis to start at PF (hopefully) and backup Vuc.

[chefo]

What should give the Bulls FO just a tiny bit of pause is that (based on latest rumors & comments) teams like the Raps, Spurs, and Mavs (maybe even Thibs' Knicks?) are the ones that may throw money at Lauri, not some scrub teams like the Cavs, Pistons or Kings.

If successful playoff teams are willing to shell out some major $ for your demoted, "not going to be featured any longer" F, that's probably as good as reason as any to look into the mirror and make sure how you're handling said player makes sense. Unless they're not going to match, period, in which case, it doesn't really matter.

I’m firmly on board the “just match Lauri and hope for the best” bandwagon as a consequence of the trade deadline deals.

But if AK and BD spent an entire season evaluating Lauri and then only changed their mind because of the outside opinions of a few teams, that would be a terrible sign of strength of leadership.

I wouldn't match anything, if how they're currently using Lauri is how they plan to use him in the future. He's not worth the MLE to the Bulls in his reduced role. A 20 min / game player that gets 20 touches a game is known as your 8th/9th guy, and that person is not worth $9M / per. That's a $5M role player like Temple.

I have a suspicion that other teams view Lauri potentially as a 50-touch/game, 20ppg scorer on 60%+ TS. That guy is worth 20M+. But that guy no longer exists for the Bulls, IMO, even as a possibility. If he can't crack 30 min with Zach out and can't crack 30 touches / game, he's done as a major contributing piece on this team.

Unless the FO and/or Donovan change his role over the last 20 games, it's stupidity to spend what little cap room the Bulls have on a demoted Lauri. And... on the other hand, if ZOMG is correct and they sign him for say 14M per, only to turn around and put him back in the starting lineup with 30+ minutes / game and 45+ touches, word of that is going to spread and it won't be pretty. Nobody likes being cheated off $ in this league so I'm assuming that's not the plan.

I think it was simply a case of "We got ourselves Vuc (FebruLauri), we don't need two of these on the team", because of the overlap of skills and floor real estate occupied by both. I genuinely think it's as simple as that. They just got a better version of Lauri and were happy with that.

To me, however, it is intellectually lazy to do what they did. You don't discard talent in the NBA for nothing, or you'll forever be stuck in limbo. And they did. From a team perspective, what they did makes ZERO sense to me, as I've written previously. I've seen plenty of execs making well into seven figures in other industries make dumb decisions. Being short-sighted is not something exclusive to hoop executives, especially if there is simplistic logic to justify said short-term calls and excuse their lack of foresight.

[DuckIII]

When I say “sign him and hope for the best” I primarily mean make one of those teams give some assets if they really want him. Secondarily, I mean hope that Lauri fixes the defects in his game over which he has complete control and becomes the type of player he might still have the potential to be.

What I do not want to see is the Bulls completely waste a young asset now that they have chosen to already greatly diminish that asset pool.

The alternative is they waive Sato and Thad and spend Lauri’s money on a different young player who better addresses the Bulls needs. That would be fine too.

[Pentele]

Btw, thanks for everyone who have joined the most recent iteration of "Lauri is a bit of conundrum for the Bulls, don't you think?" discussion! As the recent posts show, it is possible to discuss Markkanen's situation in the Bulls in a civil fashion without relying on "he is trash!" or "he is the second coming of Nowitzki" takes.

[TSS]

First, thanks ColdFish for explanation on contracts - I got it now.

Knowing Finnish culture and priority of things in peoples life around here, I really do not think Lauri is very much about money. That is why I brought the affordable deal question in first place. The fact whether you make 1st, 2nd or 10th player money carries much less weight in Finnish mindset. People with serious money here tend to more hide it than throw it around. What kind of role you play, how you perform and whether you win are things that get you respect.

For Lauri personally - Now that I think I have a picture of how the team will function after trades - I would hate if he remain a Bull just because he accepted an affordable deal as his fit here is completely wrong. He cannot have any sort of role next to Vuc and Lavine as there is simply not enough shots to be had and Vuc needs an elite rim protector next to him on 4 spot if Bulls ever want to win with Vuc/Lavine combo. S&T with Spurs however would be ideal but again, I'd rather see that with smaller money and give that franchise a cheap and balanced 4/5 rotation with Lauri and Poeltl.

I have nothing against Bulls but really would not like Lauri being stuck here due to the fit.

[DuckIII]

Btw, thanks for everyone who have joined the most recent iteration of "Lauri is a bit of conundrum for the Bulls, don't you think?" discussion! As the recent posts show, it is possible to discuss Markkanen's situation in the Bulls in a civil fashion without relying on "he is trash!" or "he is the second coming of Nowitzki" takes.

I’ve never understood the polarization. Lauri is a solid young NBA player with useful skills and at least the hope that he could yet realize a higher ceiling flashed much, much earlier in his career. He really should not, objectively, invite such extreme opinions on either side. He’s neither good nor bad enough for that.

I suspect instead it is the existence of some extreme opinions which spawned even more in response, both directions.

[dougthonus]

The alternative is they waive Sato and Thad and spend Lauri’s money on a different young player who better addresses the Bulls needs. That would be fine too.

Pretty hard to imagine losing Thad, Sato, and Lauri, freeing up 25M and using that to get enough talent to replace those three guys and come out ahead.

[sami71]

While TSS makes a very good and valid point about Lauri being a Finn and money, it is not all on Lauri. His agent will want him to be paid. Anyway, Finns want stature and respect. Money is nice to have but Lauri already has more than enough, from this perspective.

[ZOMG]

While TSS makes a very good and valid point about Lauri being a Finn and money, it is not all on Lauri. His agent will want him to be paid. Anyway, Finns want stature and respect. Money is nice to have but Lauri already has more than enough, from this perspective.

Yup. The way the NBA works, nobody cares if a superstar leaves some money on the table when going into, say, a ring-chasing situation. It's still more or less superstar money.

But members of the NBA middle class don't leave money on the table. That's frowned upon. Lauri might be OK with less money personally, but as sami71 said, his agent absolutely won't be.

[dougthonus]

While TSS makes a very good and valid point about Lauri being a Finn and money, it is not all on Lauri. His agent will want him to be paid. Anyway, Finns want stature and respect. Money is nice to have but Lauri already has more than enough, from this perspective.

Yup. The way the NBA works, nobody cares if a superstar leaves some money on the table when going into, say, a ring-chasing situation. It's still more or less superstar money.

But members of the NBA middle class don't leave money on the table. That's frowned upon. Lauri might be OK with less money personally, but as sami71 said, his agent absolutely won't be.

There are definitely NBA guys that take less money that are in the NBA middle class. The agent's job is to do what his client wants, and Lauri's agent will be no different. I'm sure that his agent will maximize Lauri's earnings to the best of his ability regardless, because that is his job, but if Lauri says he wants to go somewhere that only had the MLE, his agent would make it happen.

[FranchisePlayer]

There is a lot of discussion about this topic. Some comments very relevant, some missing the target.

One thing is certain. Markkanen is not the culprit for the Bulls losses since the major trades.

For sure, his overall stats, especially scoring stats, have not been great, but when analysing the plus and minus stats of all the 12 games played since the trade, the team has played much better Markkanen on the court than off it.

PLUS/MINUS OF THE CORE PLAYERS SINCE THE TRADES - 12 GAMES
(From the 28th March San Antonio game until 17th April Memphis game. Total of 9 losses and 3 wins.)

Markkanen -3
Vucevic -95
Theis -32
Young +3
Lavine -8
White -19
Williams -100
Sato -57.

Just sayin.

(And yes, I understand that +/- is just one stat, and has its flaws, but still, the sample of 12 games tells already something.)

UPDATE: Sample size of 13 games:

Markkanen +11
Vucevic -79
Theis -36
Young -3
Lavine -8
White -11
Williams -97
Sato -53

Vucevic, holy ****!

[CobyWhite0]

While TSS makes a very good and valid point about Lauri being a Finn and money, it is not all on Lauri. His agent will want him to be paid. Anyway, Finns want stature and respect. Money is nice to have but Lauri already has more than enough, from this perspective.

Yup. The way the NBA works, nobody cares if a superstar leaves some money on the table when going into, say, a ring-chasing situation. It's still more or less superstar money.

But members of the NBA middle class don't leave money on the table. That's frowned upon. Lauri might be OK with less money personally, but as sami71 said, his agent absolutely won't be.

There are definitely NBA guys that take less money that are in the NBA middle class. The agent's job is to do what his client wants, and Lauri's agent will be no different. I'm sure that his agent will maximize Lauri's earnings to the best of his ability regardless, because that is his job, but if Lauri says he wants to go somewhere that only had the MLE, his agent would make it happen.

There have also been quite a few players who have turned down more money in the NBA so they could go back to Europe and have a bigger role. I'm sure there's a $$$ amount where Lauri says "if I can't make more than x-million, I'll just go back to Europe and be a superstar for a little less money".

I don't know what that number is for Lauri, but he'll certainly get a much higher offer this summer.

[chefo]

Yup. The way the NBA works, nobody cares if a superstar leaves some money on the table when going into, say, a ring-chasing situation. It's still more or less superstar money.

But members of the NBA middle class don't leave money on the table. That's frowned upon. Lauri might be OK with less money personally, but as sami71 said, his agent absolutely won't be.

There are definitely NBA guys that take less money that are in the NBA middle class. The agent's job is to do what his client wants, and Lauri's agent will be no different. I'm sure that his agent will maximize Lauri's earnings to the best of his ability regardless, because that is his job, but if Lauri says he wants to go somewhere that only had the MLE, his agent would make it happen.

There have also been quite a few players who have turned down more money in the NBA so they could go back to Europe and have a bigger role. I'm sure there's a $$$ amount where Lauri says "if I can't make more than x-million, I'll just go back to Europe and be a superstar for a little less money".

I don't know what that number is for Lauri, but he'll certainly get a much higher offer this summer.

In Europe, stars often negotiate after-tax contracts, so for example, a $8M deal is more akin to $14M in the US... and they usually don't play more than twice / week. Furthermore, if you can live in Barcelona or Madrid, or Milan, why would you choose Salt Lake, or any of another dozen NBA cities, especially if you're European? To add to that, your family (siblings, parents, grandparents, etc.) is probably just a 2-hour flight away.

The other side of the coin is that usually, contracts are not guaranteed, and only stars like Niko make that kind of cash.

A good rotational player at a premier basketball club usually doesn't make seven figures, unlike soccer players where the money is truly insane. Basketball is usually for tall guys that can't jump. The best vertical athletes in Europe don't even play hoops. They play volleyball.

I'm actually surprised more good MLE-worth veterans are not headed over there to play for the 4-5 top-tier clubs. Outside of Moscow, all the rest of the premier clubs are in the south of Europe, so nice weather almost year-round.

[dougthonus]

In Europe, stars often negotiate after-tax contracts, so for example, a $8M deal is more akin to $14M in the US... and they usually don't play more than twice / week. Furthermore, if you can live in Barcelona or Madrid, or Milan, why would you choose Salt Lake, or any of another dozen NBA cities, especially if you're European? To add to that, your family (siblings, parents, grandparents, etc.) is probably just a 2-hour flight away.

I think this makes a lot of sense if you are European. It's like guys playing in the G-League here for less money than going to Europe so they can stay in the States. Ignoring being close to your family, there is also cultural familiarity as well.

The money probably has to come close though, and I don't think it likely will come close. Say Lauri gets 4/48M here which would be the absolute low end of what anyone predicts. There's no way he's even getting 20M guaranteed in Europe. If he gets something like 4/60 or 4/80 (both much more likely), it's not even close.

If it were me, I'd probably max the money as long as I could. I mean 150M and retiring at 35 isn't out of the question for Lauri. 35 is young enough to do anything you want and you got generational wealth to do it.

I'm actually surprised more good MLE-worth veterans are not headed over there to play for the 4-5 top-tier clubs. Outside of Moscow, all the rest of the premier clubs are in the south of Europe, so nice weather almost year-round.

Money in the NBA is just too rich now. The MLE is a 40M dollar contract. No MLE guy will get that guaranteed in Europe, plus most US players would probably prefer not to go to Europe for the same reason that a European player would choose to stay there.