Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[dougthonus]

Aren't we projected to have 25 mill of cap space with no Lauri? Why would you need to waive both. If anything just Sato.

Playing with it, you could generate the 13M caproom you need if you waive/stretch Aminu, renounce Lauri, and don't pick up the option on Arci. That'd probably be the most efficient way to do it in terms of keeping talent.

Of course you'd give up on getting a trade exception for Lauri and the ability to use the MLE to improve the team.

[dougthonus]

It makes zero sense for LaVine to look to extend this offseason.

Zach LaVine might be the most sought after FA in the league in 2 years if you let him get there. Makes plenty of sense to lock him up early from a risk perspective.

I get what you mean in terms of locking up Zach uses resources that could be spent improving the team, but if you look around and say, I would make a very small improvement with those resources and I could remove the biggest risk to my franchise, you'd definitely consider removing that risk first.

[DorO]

Again as I think money is not an issue for Lauri - in the unreal context that is the money in NBA, if he makes 12 or 16 a year - I don't think it matters that much. What I do think matter is that NBA is where the best basketball is played. I am completely sure that if he has a chance to play in the NBA that's where he will be. Sign and trade is what I think Bulls should do if there is a market for Lauri. Which seems to be the case as surprising as it might be.

Of course money is an issue, money is everything and that’s why Lauri did not sign a contract in the first place. But maybe S&T is the most obvious solution and at least I’ve had enough him in Bulls.

[suursahuri]

Again as I think money is not an issue for Lauri - in the unreal context that is the money in NBA, if he makes 12 or 16 a year - I don't think it matters that much. What I do think matter is that NBA is where the best basketball is played. I am completely sure that if he has a chance to play in the NBA that's where he will be. Sign and trade is what I think Bulls should do if there is a market for Lauri. Which seems to be the case as surprising as it might be.

Of course money is an issue, money is everything and that’s why Lauri did not sign a contract in the first place. But maybe S&T is the most obvious solution and at least I’ve had enough him in Bulls.

I think Lauri has said before (way before he didn't sign the extension) that the exact figure doesn't matter for him in the sense that he's already set for life financially. It matters only because that's how players are valued, so the contract represent your status in the league. Overall he didn't seem very comfortable talking about the issue at all.

[DuckIII]

Again as I think money is not an issue for Lauri - in the unreal context that is the money in NBA, if he makes 12 or 16 a year - I don't think it matters that much. What I do think matter is that NBA is where the best basketball is played. I am completely sure that if he has a chance to play in the NBA that's where he will be. Sign and trade is what I think Bulls should do if there is a market for Lauri. Which seems to be the case as surprising as it might be.

Of course money is an issue, money is everything and that’s why Lauri did not sign a contract in the first place. But maybe S&T is the most obvious solution and at least I’ve had enough him in Bulls.

I think Lauri has said before (way before he didn't sign the extension) that the exact figure doesn't matter for him in the sense that he's already set for life financially. It matters only because that's how players are valued, so the contract represent your status in the league. Overall he didn't seem very comfortable talking about the issue at all.

Whether the money represents wealth or represents respect, it doesn’t make a difference. Both mean the money matters.

[dougthonus]

Whether the money represents wealth or represents respect, it doesn’t make a difference. Both mean the money matters.

I agree it doesn't matter why money matters, but it does matter. I also agree that it isn't really about the money but about respect/fairness. If the money was 10x as much in the league, guys would want 10x as much, because they want to be valued fairly relative to each other.

Same would be true of any of us at our jobs for the most part. Anyone finds out someone at their work makes more than them and is a worse employee (pretty common actually) and people are incredibly pissed.

[wickywack]

It makes zero sense for LaVine to look to extend this offseason.

Zach LaVine might be the most sought after FA in the league in 2 years if you let him get there. Makes plenty of sense to lock him up early from a risk perspective.

I get what you mean in terms of locking up Zach uses resources that could be spent improving the team, but if you look around and say, I would make a very small improvement with those resources and I could remove the biggest risk to my franchise, you'd definitely consider removing that risk first.

It makes sense for the Bulls to try to extend Zach. The question is whether Zach will go along. It sounds like not:

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/04/16/report-zach-lavine-expected-to-forgo-bulls-contract-extension-become-unrestricted-free-agent-in-2022/

If Zach doesn't go for the extension, do the Bulls stand pat in the hopes he'll stay anyway in '22? That's quite a risk.

[dougthonus]

It makes zero sense for LaVine to look to extend this offseason.

Zach LaVine might be the most sought after FA in the league in 2 years if you let him get there. Makes plenty of sense to lock him up early from a risk perspective.

I get what you mean in terms of locking up Zach uses resources that could be spent improving the team, but if you look around and say, I would make a very small improvement with those resources and I could remove the biggest risk to my franchise, you'd definitely consider removing that risk first.

It makes sense for the Bulls to try to extend Zach. The question is whether Zach will go along. It sounds like not:

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/04/16/report-zach-lavine-expected-to-forgo-bulls-contract-extension-become-unrestricted-free-agent-in-2022/

If Zach doesn't go for the extension, do the Bulls stand pat in the hopes he'll stay anyway in '22? That's quite a risk.

This article is saying he will decline it based on the Bulls not being able to pay him his higher max. We are discussing the idea of the Bulls using cap room to get him up to that higher max early. He'd make more total money because it would increase his salary this year as well.

He still may not do it of course, but it's a different discussion than what is in the article, which says Zach won't lave like 50M on the table to sign an early deal.

[MGB8]

It makes zero sense for LaVine to look to extend this offseason.

Zach LaVine might be the most sought after FA in the league in 2 years if you let him get there. Makes plenty of sense to lock him up early from a risk perspective.

I get what you mean in terms of locking up Zach uses resources that could be spent improving the team, but if you look around and say, I would make a very small improvement with those resources and I could remove the biggest risk to my franchise, you'd definitely consider removing that risk first.

One thing I think is worth pointing out in these conversations is the Bulls don't actually have money for big FA moves.

Once AK traded for Vuc and Aminu, the cap space from Otto Porter disappeared. The Bulls are at 99M in salaries for next season. However, that over-estimates the cap room available, because Theis' roster hold is 9.5M, while Lauri's is 16.8M. I'm assuming everyone else would likely be renounced except *maybe* Javone Green, who has a cheap 1.9M hold. So they are effectively over the cap.

They do have the ability to free up (including roster spot holds for the empty spot) 2.1 M by releasing Arch, and if waived and stretched, 11.1M by releasing Thad Young and 7.4M by releasing Sato...

Sure, if the Bulls renounce Theis and Lauri (and Green).... they could open up more or less one MAX cap spot. But for who? I mean, Kawhi isn't coming, and the aging Conley and CP3 are the only guys out there even arguably worth that kind of money (on short term rentals)... and you'd have to backfill critical depth pieces with exceptions and minimum deals (although that might be doable).

[MGB8]

Anyway, I'm hoping that Lauri finishes the year strong, if only to engender enough interest where it seems like the Bulls would match a big offer and thus engender the possibility of a reasonable sign and trade - getting something back for the Bulls in return beyond a trade exception (e.g., a Lauri for Derozan swap).

[TheStig]

Aren't we projected to have 25 mill of cap space with no Lauri? Why would you need to waive both. If anything just Sato.

Playing with it, you could generate the 13M caproom you need if you waive/stretch Aminu, renounce Lauri, and don't pick up the option on Arci. That'd probably be the most efficient way to do it in terms of keeping talent.

Of course you'd give up on getting a trade exception for Lauri and the ability to use the MLE to improve the team.

I agree the TE is valuable but if you're not adding a big piece, you better lock up Lavine. If you don't do so well next year, it'll be a really bad situation and I think you'll lose a lot of respect and leverage.

[dougthonus]

I agree the TE is valuable but if you're not adding a big piece, you better lock up Lavine. If you don't do so well next year, it'll be a really bad situation and I think you'll lose a lot of respect and leverage.

Not sure if you are saying that if we don't use cap room to lock up LaVine that LaVine and the league will take it badly? I doubt that. This would be exceptionally rare to do.

Or if you mean that if we don't do this that LaVine will just walk at the end of the season, and we'll then be a laughing stock. My guess is if we like him we offer the 5th year max/supermax whatever to keep him, but who knows if that will move LaVine much one way or the other, he could still walk.

The interesting thing about the NBA is the money has become so big that I think we will start (and already have seen it to an extent) guys look at situation over pure max money. I mean you're at a point where are star player can pretty easily earn over 500M in their career, and one that plays until their upper 30s might project to earn something closer to a billion.

Great for the players obviously, but now I'm not sure it is a huge problem to give up 20-30M in your career if you are happier with your situation, and especially when the extra money you are giving up is the 5th year option that you have a great chance to make up later anyway.

[TheStig]

I agree the TE is valuable but if you're not adding a big piece, you better lock up Lavine. If you don't do so well next year, it'll be a really bad situation and I think you'll lose a lot of respect and leverage.

Not sure if you are saying that if we don't use cap room to lock up LaVine that LaVine and the league will take it badly? I doubt that. This would be exceptionally rare to do.

Or if you mean that if we don't do this that LaVine will just walk at the end of the season, and we'll then be a laughing stock. My guess is if we like him we offer the 5th year max/supermax whatever to keep him, but who knows if that will move LaVine much one way or the other, he could still walk.

The interesting thing about the NBA is the money has become so big that I think we will start (and already have seen it to an extent) guys look at situation over pure max money. I mean you're at a point where are star player can pretty easily earn over 500M in their career, and one that plays until their upper 30s might project to earn something closer to a billion.

Great for the players obviously, but now I'm not sure it is a huge problem to give up 20-30M in your career if you are happier with your situation, and especially when the extra money you are giving up is the 5th year option that you have a great chance to make up later anyway.

I meant that if we don't add a really good piece and don't offer Lavine the extra money, that he could walk as a UFA.

He's also not going to be eligible for the supermax. So we can offer the 5th year but he could also go to a non tax state and/or contender and max the same if not more money after tax.

So if you're not going to improve the team significantly with the cap space, you better give him the extra 10 mill next year and lock him up. He's never won. He could walk to a team that he thinks he can make a contender.

[dougthonus]

I meant that if we don't add a really good piece and don't offer Lavine the extra money, that he could walk as a UFA.

He's also not going to be eligible for the supermax. So we can offer the 5th year but he could also go to a non tax state and/or contender and max the same if not more money after tax.

So if you're not going to improve the team significantly with the cap space, you better give him the extra 10 mill next year and lock him up. He's never won. He could walk to a team that he thinks he can make a contender.

He might be eligible if he makes an all-NBA team this year or next year, but yeah, it is probably less likely rather than more. I thought two all-star appearances could get him in, but I was wrong on that.

I agree that Zach is definitely a threat to leave if the Bulls don't improve.

[TheStig]

I meant that if we don't add a really good piece and don't offer Lavine the extra money, that he could walk as a UFA.

He's also not going to be eligible for the supermax. So we can offer the 5th year but he could also go to a non tax state and/or contender and max the same if not more money after tax.

So if you're not going to improve the team significantly with the cap space, you better give him the extra 10 mill next year and lock him up. He's never won. He could walk to a team that he thinks he can make a contender.

He might be eligible if he makes an all-NBA team this year or next year, but yeah, it is probably less likely rather than more. I thought two all-star appearances could get him in, but I was wrong on that.

I agree that Zach is definitely a threat to leave if the Bulls don't improve.

I don't think it's likely either.

That's why I think if we can't make a big upgrade, you have to shift your focus to keeping him. Giving him that extra 10 mill next year goes along way to securing him for a few more years. That was my point.

[dougthonus]

I don't think it's likely either.

That's why I think if we can't make a big upgrade, you have to shift your focus to keeping him. Giving him that extra 10 mill next year goes along way to securing him for a few more years. That was my point.

I agree and have been pounding that drum all year. I'd probably negotiate with Zach and if he's willing to take the max extension, I'd forgo the MLE and Lauri potential S&T and waive aminu with stretch to open up the room.

[TheStig]

I don't think it's likely either.

That's why I think if we can't make a big upgrade, you have to shift your focus to keeping him. Giving him that extra 10 mill next year goes along way to securing him for a few more years. That was my point.

I agree and have been pounding that drum all year. I'd probably negotiate with Zach and if he's willing to take the max extension, I'd forgo the MLE and Lauri potential S&T and waive aminu with stretch to open up the room.

I think Zach is the type of guy who wants to stick around and have his own team. So if you could bring in a guy like Ball to improve a position of need and help him, I think he understands. But if you're talking about Lauri or a piece that doesn't really move the needle, I think Zach becomes a plan B. If you bring back Lauri and the team still stinks and/or middling at best and the money is not that different, I think there is a good chance you lose him.

Plan A- Get a high level starter or better with the cap space.
Plan B- Resign Zach on a big deal.

[FranchisePlayer]

Watch on YouTube

[sco]

Watch on YouTube

Sounds like a win-win-win. I don't really even care about the S&T...we'd need to actually find a good guy/team to use it with, which is anything but a sure thing.

[kingkirk]

If we let Lauri walk. Our cap space is going to lock up Lavine. AK is going to have a real uphill battle if he can't land a real long term piece or lock up Lavine this summer.

Doubt you waive Sato and Thad just to lock up LaVine.

Aren't we projected to have 25 mill of cap space with no Lauri? Why would you need to waive both. If anything just Sato.

We can barely get there only after saying bye to Lauri.

If you keep his cap hold around, the bulls won’t have cap space.