Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[TSS]

I know it is not the way professional sports works, but as a player, why not make yourself a long term valuable asset as opposed to potentially yet another Otto Porter contract. It is not like you would not be set for life at something like 13 mil a year for 4 years. If you like the city coaching staff and team, Bulls is not a bad place to be unless they need to overpay younger folks coming off of rookie deals.

I live in Finland and definitely root for Lauri, but I'd very like him make an affordable deal with Bulls and put them in a good place for coming years. You also get the city behind you and lessen the pressure on yourself. Obviously, it is agents conducting the talks and this will never happen.

[DroseReturnChi]

Read on Twitter

I’d split the difference.

This is just start of negotiation. All AK has to do is offer the middle ground which is 15/yr. No need to lowball when next yr everyone will have cash and throw near max money at Lauri. Worst case is you lost #7 pick for nothing.

[ZOMG]

Good old Bulls. Offering Lauri a few million more than Felicio.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Lauri's market price is obviously at least 15 mil per, 11 is an insulting lowball.

[PrimzyBulls81]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

[ZOMG]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

[PrimzyBulls81]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

He was clearly no. 1 scoring option going forward, athletic as hell, high ceiling, still has good defensive potential, hard working attitude..

[ZOMG]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

He was clearly no. 1 scoring option going forward, athletic as hell, high ceiling, still has good defensive potential, hard working attitude..

That's hindsight talking. At the time he was returning from an ACL and had played like crap to finish the season.

[Dez]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

He had skills worth investing in, like his scoring ability, elite athleticism and his ability to shoot plus an excellent work ethic.

Much more than what Lauri has shown.

[Robin Jones]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

He had skills worth investing in, like his scoring ability, elite athleticism and his ability to shoot plus an excellent work ethic.

Much more than what Lauri has shown.

Well....

Comparison of the scoring ability of Zach (at 22 years old) when the contract was signed and Lauri (at 22 years old, after his 3 NBA seasons). These comparisons include their NBA career (Zach's first 4 seasons, Lauri's first 3 seasons):
eFG% Zach .501, Lauri .513
PTS Zach 14.0, Lauri 16.1

Other significant stats:
Rebounds Zach 3.0, Lauri 7.6
Assists Zach 3.2, Lauri 1.3
Turnovers Zach 2.1, Lauri 1.5

Athlethic ability yes, but Lauri has height/lenght advance.

Both have excellent work ethic.

I wouldn't say that Zach had shown much more then than what Lauri has shown now. They have been about equal in how they have flashed some potential, but still a lot to prove at that point.

Zach has been very good last season and this preseason, but he is now older than Lauri, nearing his prime, so we should not compare Zach today to Lauri today, but Zach 2-3 years ago to Lauri now.

[Dez]

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

He had skills worth investing in, like his scoring ability, elite athleticism and his ability to shoot plus an excellent work ethic.

Much more than what Lauri has shown.

Well....

Comparison of the scoring ability of Zach (at 22 years old) when the contract was signed and Lauri (at 22 years old, after his 3 NBA seasons). These comparisons include their NBA career (Zach's first 4 seasons, Lauri's first 3 seasons):
eFG% Zach .501, Lauri .513
PTS Zach 14.0, Lauri 16.1

Other significant stats:
Rebounds Zach 3.0, Lauri 7.6
Assists Zach 3.2, Lauri 1.3
Turnovers Zach 2.1, Lauri 1.5

Athlethic ability yes, but Lauri has height/lenght advance.

Both have excellent work ethic.

I wouldn't say that Zach had shown much more then than what Lauri has shown now. They have been about equal in how they have flashed some potential, but still a lot to prove at that point.

Zach has been very good last season and this preseason, but he is now older than Lauri, nearing his prime, so we should not compare Zach today to Lauri today, but Zach 2-3 years ago to Lauri now.

Notice I said skills.

Zach after 3 seasons (age 19, 20, 21) had shot the 3 ball at 34.1%, 38.9% and 38.7%
Lauri after 3 seasons (age 20, 21, 22) has shot the 3 ball at 36.2%, 36.1% and 34.4%

Lauri's height and length are useless since he can't use them to his advantage at all, he doesn't shoot over smaller defenders and he can't post up anyone.

LaVine's athleticism is off the charts even with an ACL.

I would also question Lauri's work ethic given he has not added to his game nor improved it during his career thus far, so it's either he's lazy or simply there's no improvement in him.

Also I don't know why you're quoting rebounding and assist numbers? Comparing a guards rebounding numbers to a big and a bigs assist numbers to a guard makes no sense.

There's also the point that LaVine had shown improvement in every season, it was less ridiculous to give LaVine 20M then it is to give Lauri 20M now.

3 point shooting
Elite athleticism
Great work ethic

Those are three qualities that teams will throw money at and LaVine possessed all of them, Lauri does not possess reliable 3 point shooting nor great athleticism.

[coldfish]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

IIRC the Bulls either offered him far less than that or nothing at all the previous year. He went into restricted free agency and Sacramento offered him that much and Chicago matched.

If that's how you want this to go, that's fine.

[Swuul]

I mean I'd do 20 bucks, 20 million? God no.

Did Lauri piss in your morning frosties? Your hate speech is starting to get old, just up in the same league with the dude who hated Sato with a passion (thank Lord that dude isn't around anymore spreading his bile in all threads). I for one would be happy if you could tone down the level of poop going through your keyboard.

[Robin Jones]

He had skills worth investing in, like his scoring ability, elite athleticism and his ability to shoot plus an excellent work ethic.

Much more than what Lauri has shown.

Well....

Comparison of the scoring ability of Zach (at 22 years old) when the contract was signed and Lauri (at 22 years old, after his 3 NBA seasons). These comparisons include their NBA career (Zach's first 4 seasons, Lauri's first 3 seasons):
eFG% Zach .501, Lauri .513
PTS Zach 14.0, Lauri 16.1

Other significant stats:
Rebounds Zach 3.0, Lauri 7.6
Assists Zach 3.2, Lauri 1.3
Turnovers Zach 2.1, Lauri 1.5

Athlethic ability yes, but Lauri has height/lenght advance.

Both have excellent work ethic.

I wouldn't say that Zach had shown much more then than what Lauri has shown now. They have been about equal in how they have flashed some potential, but still a lot to prove at that point.

Zach has been very good last season and this preseason, but he is now older than Lauri, nearing his prime, so we should not compare Zach today to Lauri today, but Zach 2-3 years ago to Lauri now.

Notice I said skills.

Zach after 3 seasons (age 19, 20, 21) had shot the 3 ball at 34.1%, 38.9% and 38.7%
Lauri after 3 seasons (age 20, 21, 22) has shot the 3 ball at 36.2%, 36.1% and 34.4%

Lauri's height and length are useless since he can't use them to his advantage at all, he doesn't shoot over smaller defenders and he can't post up anyone.

LaVine's athleticism is off the charts even with an ACL.

I would also question Lauri's work ethic given he has not added to his game nor improved it during his career thus far, so it's either he's lazy or simply there's no improvement in him.

Also I don't know why you're quoting rebounding and assist numbers? Comparing a guards rebounding numbers to a big and a bigs assist numbers to a guard makes no sense.

There's also the point that LaVine had shown improvement in every season, it was less ridiculous to give LaVine 20M then it is to give Lauri 20M now.

3 point shooting
Elite athleticism
Great work ethic

Those are three qualities that teams will throw money at and LaVine possessed all of them, Lauri does not possess reliable 3 point shooting nor great athleticism.

It is cherry picking to leave out Zach's year 4 from your comparison (it was included in mine), as Zach's 20M/year contract was signed after that season, and he was 22 years, as was Lauri after last season. In year 4 Zach shoot threes at 0.341, i.e. worst than Lauri last year. Both had some injuries, so Zach's year 4 and Lauri's 3 are comparable in that sense as well.

Lauri's lenght IS relevant, as it helps him shoot threes over people, as well as Zach's athletism helps him.

I included rebounding and assist stats, as when signing a contract these are also contributing to a player's total value. Lauri is better rebounder, Zach passer, so no difference here.

Why Lauri's poor last season would be due to questionable work ethic, not on injuries, but Zach's bad year 4 due to injuries, not because of questionable work ethic?

I agree that last season and this preseason Zach has been good and value for the money for Chicago, but when the contract was signed, most people felt that Chicago overpaid. Excactly the situation in which Lauri is now. If Chicago would offer something around 17-18 M per year, I think Lauri would accept it. Perhaps this would receive some criticism here in the fan forum at the moment, but within two years most would argue that this was a bargain deal for the Bulls.

[Robin Jones]

Kuzma contract is the limit for Lauri, 13-14M per year.. Thats it, take it or leave it! Unless there will be sign&trade for bigger amount..
Even if they agree on middle there at 15M thats ok.. But on other hand, holy crap a lot for someone who hasnt proved nothing yet.

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

IIRC the Bulls either offered him far less than that or nothing at all the previous year. He went into restricted free agency and Sacramento offered him that much and Chicago matched.

If that's how you want this to go, that's fine.

Good point and a reminder to this discussion, which at least I had forgotten.

On the other hand, this exactly demonstrates why Chicago would be wise to offer now 17-18 M deal before Lauri going to market as a restricted and the price would go up.

[coldfish]

What had LaVine "proved" when he got 20 million?

IIRC the Bulls either offered him far less than that or nothing at all the previous year. He went into restricted free agency and Sacramento offered him that much and Chicago matched.

If that's how you want this to go, that's fine.

Good point and a reminder to this discussion, which at least I had forgotten.

On the other hand, this exactly demonstrates why Chicago would be wise to offer now 17-18 M deal before Lauri going to market as a restricted and the price would go up.

There are obviously going to be two minds on this. Some team is going to offer Lauri big money next offseason. I think everyone would agree on that unless he totally falls on his face.

The question is, at what point would people rather just not have him on the team than pay him the amount. The Bulls don't play with unlimited funds. At $20m, Lauri would be hard to trade. You would definitely be cutting into what the team can do on other fronts.

For me, $15m would be my upper limit and I wouldn't be happy about that. I think Lauri's production can be replaced with the MLE in most seasons. At $15m, you are spending money expecting some development.

I would offer him the most the team can stomach and if he turns it down, look to trade him for whatever you can get under the expectation he was going to leave anyway in the offseason.

[coldfish]

Lauri's per 36 this preseason
16.6p 1.7a 8.8r 38%fg

Lauri's career per 36
19.0p 1.6a 8.9r 43%fg

Lauri is who he is. The problem is that within those averages, he is very inconsistent. When you discount all of his missed shots, he has never missed one.

[Dez]

I mean I'd do 20 bucks, 20 million? God no.

Did Lauri piss in your morning frosties? Your hate speech is starting to get old, just up in the same league with the dude who hated Sato with a passion (thank Lord that dude isn't around anymore spreading his bile in all threads). I for one would be happy if you could tone down the level of poop going through your keyboard.

Oh please, stop being sensitive.

Pointing out a players flaws isn't hate, it's being realistic.

Don't like reading the truth about Lauri? Use the ignore feature.

Well....

Comparison of the scoring ability of Zach (at 22 years old) when the contract was signed and Lauri (at 22 years old, after his 3 NBA seasons). These comparisons include their NBA career (Zach's first 4 seasons, Lauri's first 3 seasons):
eFG% Zach .501, Lauri .513
PTS Zach 14.0, Lauri 16.1

Other significant stats:
Rebounds Zach 3.0, Lauri 7.6
Assists Zach 3.2, Lauri 1.3
Turnovers Zach 2.1, Lauri 1.5

Athlethic ability yes, but Lauri has height/lenght advance.

Both have excellent work ethic.

I wouldn't say that Zach had shown much more then than what Lauri has shown now. They have been about equal in how they have flashed some potential, but still a lot to prove at that point.

Zach has been very good last season and this preseason, but he is now older than Lauri, nearing his prime, so we should not compare Zach today to Lauri today, but Zach 2-3 years ago to Lauri now.

Notice I said skills.

Zach after 3 seasons (age 19, 20, 21) had shot the 3 ball at 34.1%, 38.9% and 38.7%
Lauri after 3 seasons (age 20, 21, 22) has shot the 3 ball at 36.2%, 36.1% and 34.4%

Lauri's height and length are useless since he can't use them to his advantage at all, he doesn't shoot over smaller defenders and he can't post up anyone.

LaVine's athleticism is off the charts even with an ACL.

I would also question Lauri's work ethic given he has not added to his game nor improved it during his career thus far, so it's either he's lazy or simply there's no improvement in him.

Also I don't know why you're quoting rebounding and assist numbers? Comparing a guards rebounding numbers to a big and a bigs assist numbers to a guard makes no sense.

There's also the point that LaVine had shown improvement in every season, it was less ridiculous to give LaVine 20M then it is to give Lauri 20M now.

3 point shooting
Elite athleticism
Great work ethic

Those are three qualities that teams will throw money at and LaVine possessed all of them, Lauri does not possess reliable 3 point shooting nor great athleticism.

It is cherry picking to leave out Zach's year 4 from your comparison (it was included in mine), as Zach's 20M/year contract was signed after that season, and he was 22 years, as was Lauri after last season. In year 4 Zach shoot threes at 0.341, i.e. worst than Lauri last year. Both had some injuries, so Zach's year 4 and Lauri's 3 are comparable in that sense as well.

Lauri's lenght IS relevant, as it helps him shoot threes over people, as well as Zach's athletism helps him.

I included rebounding and assist stats, as when signing a contract these are also contributing to a player's total value. Lauri is better rebounder, Zach passer, so no difference here.

Why Lauri's poor last season would be due to questionable work ethic, not on injuries, but Zach's bad year 4 due to injuries, not because of questionable work ethic?

I agree that last season and this preseason Zach has been good and value for the money for Chicago, but when the contract was signed, most people felt that Chicago overpaid. Excactly the situation in which Lauri is now. If Chicago would offer something around 17-18 M per year, I think Lauri would accept it. Perhaps this would receive some criticism here in the fan forum at the moment, but within two years most would argue that this was a bargain deal for the Bulls.

Using both players first 3 years is not cherry picking at all, it's fair and balanced.

You do realise that LaVine was returning from an ACL tear in his 4th year right?

Lauri doesn't use his length or height to shoot over people, that's one of the main criticisms of him.

Again the rebounding and assist numbers don't mean anything given you're trying to compare 2 different positions.

Offering 17 million for a guy that hasn't improved his game in 3 years and doesn't have an elite skill is insane.

[Jvaughn]

Well....

Comparison of the scoring ability of Zach (at 22 years old) when the contract was signed and Lauri (at 22 years old, after his 3 NBA seasons). These comparisons include their NBA career (Zach's first 4 seasons, Lauri's first 3 seasons):
eFG% Zach .501, Lauri .513
PTS Zach 14.0, Lauri 16.1

Other significant stats:
Rebounds Zach 3.0, Lauri 7.6
Assists Zach 3.2, Lauri 1.3
Turnovers Zach 2.1, Lauri 1.5

Athlethic ability yes, but Lauri has height/lenght advance.

Both have excellent work ethic.

I wouldn't say that Zach had shown much more then than what Lauri has shown now. They have been about equal in how they have flashed some potential, but still a lot to prove at that point.

Zach has been very good last season and this preseason, but he is now older than Lauri, nearing his prime, so we should not compare Zach today to Lauri today, but Zach 2-3 years ago to Lauri now.

Notice I said skills.

Zach after 3 seasons (age 19, 20, 21) had shot the 3 ball at 34.1%, 38.9% and 38.7%
Lauri after 3 seasons (age 20, 21, 22) has shot the 3 ball at 36.2%, 36.1% and 34.4%

Lauri's height and length are useless since he can't use them to his advantage at all, he doesn't shoot over smaller defenders and he can't post up anyone.

LaVine's athleticism is off the charts even with an ACL.

I would also question Lauri's work ethic given he has not added to his game nor improved it during his career thus far, so it's either he's lazy or simply there's no improvement in him.

Also I don't know why you're quoting rebounding and assist numbers? Comparing a guards rebounding numbers to a big and a bigs assist numbers to a guard makes no sense.

There's also the point that LaVine had shown improvement in every season, it was less ridiculous to give LaVine 20M then it is to give Lauri 20M now.

3 point shooting
Elite athleticism
Great work ethic

Those are three qualities that teams will throw money at and LaVine possessed all of them, Lauri does not possess reliable 3 point shooting nor great athleticism.

Lauri's lenght IS relevant, as it helps him shoot threes over people, as well as Zach's athletism helps him.

If Laurie's length is helping him, and he's shoot, and he's still barely a league average 3pt shooter, that's not very promising. For someone who is a supposed shooting specialist, he's not that good at it.

Lauri's size in general isn't relevant. He's 7 feet and can't take advantage of any mismatches. As was mentioned already, he can literally be defended by anyone, because he's not able to impose his will down low or shoot over smaller defenders. Zach actually uses his athleticism as a large part of his game, which is why it is relevant. The situations aren't the same.

Why Lauri's poor last season would be due to questionable work ethic, not on injuries, but Zach's bad year 4 due to injuries, not because of questionable work ethic?

I'm not saying Lauri's poor play is due to his work ethic, but for someone that's a hard worker, you usually expect to see some improvements in their game. I honestly don't recall him bringing anything new to the table since his rookie year outside of that drag step. It's possible, he's just working on the wrong things in the off-season.

I agree that last season and this preseason Zach has been good and value for the money for Chicago, but when the contract was signed, most people felt that Chicago overpaid. Excactly the situation in which Lauri is now. If Chicago would offer something around 17-18 M per year, I think Lauri would accept it. Perhaps this would receive some criticism here in the fan forum at the moment, but within two years most would argue that this was a bargain deal for the Bulls.

I think most were pretty split on Zach's deal. Some didn't want him resigned at all, and then you had a good amount of people that predicted if he stayed healthy and could build off of the year he got injured, that it would be a bargain deal. Now that's possible, that could happen with Lauri as well, but I'm not optimistic. Zach has gradually improved every year he's been in the league, while Lauri has stayed stagnant and in a some cases declined every year.

Now the only situation I'd be comfortable with is like coldfish mentioned, letting him play this year off and earn a contract through RFA. One of three things will have happened. If he pulls a Jimmy and outplays expectations and ends up costing a lot more, I'd be okay with that, because you would assume that would also lead to some team success, and our young core would be even more promising to FA next year. If he gets worse, and some team throws a lot of money at him, you thank them and move on. If he stays the same, and that crowded FA market doesn't get him the offers he's expected, you can come back to the table and work out a mutually beneficial deal. Worst thing that could happen is we end up paying him Ryan Anderson money and then watch him become a drain on our books.

[Ctownbulls]

Cut bait.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[rygar]

Development is not always linear. Lauri had a bad year and he knows it, and believes that he can make the comeback. I will give him a chance to prove himself right. He has shown potential to be very good and is still young, so we'll see. You can't say much based on 4 games of preseason, too small of a sample size.