The Lauri Thread

[Douchebag K]

Ya but I wouldn't want to.
If we are tanking next year then please trade Lauri.

I'm on the record for hoping we don't tank again next year though.

I really miss cheering for wins and caring.

yep not sure i can watch another year of deliberately not trying to win. I don't mind if we have all young inexperienced players who aren't good at winning yet and it just ends up we suck. But deliberately all out tanking trying to lose ... yeah that's not something that's of any interest to watch. I hope we get Flagg and then start trying to play properly, if it means we still aren't much good but they're actually playing and trying to win that's fine.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I was one of the few people who thought the Jazz would actually be bad this year, and I got a lot of flak for it. But even I think the current approach is playing with fire. It depends on a lot of things going wrong just for it to work. The young guys would have to underperform again, and Lauri would have to either regress or not play at an All-Star level. That’s a dangerous gamble, especially with Lauri. We're consistently putting him in a bad situation where it's hard for him to look good, but at the same time, we need him to play like a star to justify his contract. It's a setup where things can go sideways easily. There are real nightmare scenarios where we don’t land an elite prospect, we don’t get great value for Lauri, and we don’t have our own pick next draft. That’s the worst-case outcome.

In my opinion, continuing to build through the draft is clearly the best plan. And it’s not because I think tanking is amazing...I’ve said multiple times that tanking is overrated, and I still believe that. But the alternative, trying to build forward from where we are now, is just worse. I’d rather cut our losses and focus on building a team the right way. Let’s face it...it doesn’t make sense to keep Lauri on a team that’s trying to lose on purpose. I don’t think we’ll trade him, because that would mean Ainge letting go of his ego, but if it were up to me, I would. Keeping Lauri only makes sense to me if we somehow land Cooper Flagg. And even then, I’d still consider trading him and building slower, rather than trying to bridge two timelines.

And I get it, it would suck to trade Lauri for what feels like pennies. All summer, fans were waving around the "we don’t have to trade Lauri" argument like a greatsword and saying we deserved 1.5 to 2 times a godfather offer. We’re fans, we’re going to be homers, but let’s not rewrite history. We were out here saying there was no Warriors package good enough unless it included Podz.At some point, we have to let go of this obsession with "winning the trade." We also need to be more realistic about what fair value actually looks like. Sometimes it feels like people are trying to speak these ideal trade returns into existence, but it doesn’t work that way.

I feel like if we offloaded Collins and Sexton we could still tank with Lauri playing well. Just can’t replace those vets with other vets. Even if some young guys improved. I believe in Cody’s tank commander abilities. If we got cooper I’d change this stance. I think the other rookies, Taylor, Cody, Key will still provide plenty of average to poor play.

Best case scenario is they find something for Lauri that is palatable and we avoid this dance.

 

[Step-Back Lauri]

Why do you think Lauri is not OK with the continuation of the tank? His past history gives any indication that being on the winning team is a low priority to him. He never asked to be traded when he was on bad teams. Lauri signed his first extension with the god-awful Cavs in 2021 who had no one at the time. He inked his second extension with the terrible Jazz team last summer. He never voiced any discontent over being constantly kept out of the games this season.

What exactly in Lauri's career indicates to you that he cares about winning?
(Aside from his play for the national team.)

Excuse me what? On the bolded one (bolding by me)
That Cavs team was as high as 3rd or 4th in the east before injuries ruined the late season, when Lauri was there.
Calling Sexton, Garland, Mobley, Allen "no one" is both untrue and unfair.

 

[HermanG]

IDK what to believe. He looked stiff at times. His shot selection was rough too... but I chalk that up to the tank. Wasn't like we were trying to maximize him.

I'm not sure what happens with him this offseason but I would guess his trade value has taken a significant hit. If there are no plans to move him then no big deal. Depending on where we land in the draft and what smoke there is about tanking next year I'm not sure subjecting Lauri and his trade value to another year of this is wise. 2.5 years of a 10-15 year career spent in the tank is really rough when you figure that's like half or a third of most guy"s "prime". I could see Lauri see the ping pong balls go wrong and telling the FO he's ready for a change (or it could be the other way around).

Really would be too bad because I like the guy and he seems to really love it here.

Iso-Lauri was a monster created for tanking / development purposes. Its not like they were watching him do that in TC thinking "yeah, this will boost up his trade value".

Zanik started talking about how long it takes to build a perennial contender last spring, and that was before they extended him.

I dont see why you would first plan for a long tank, second sign a guy to max, third make him do funky things and try to minimize his impact to winning... with the idea that you are gonna trade him afterwards.

 

[KqWIN]

I feel like if we offloaded Collins and Sexton we could still tank with Lauri playing well. Just can’t replace those vets with other vets. Even if some young guys improved. I believe in Cody’s tank commander abilities. If we got cooper I’d change this stance. I think the other rookies, Taylor, Cody, Key will still provide plenty of average to poor play.

Best case scenario is they find something for Lauri that is palatable and we avoid this dance.

Meh….you’re cutting it really close and the protections are lower. You don’t need average play you need poor play everywhere. The Jazz have a lot of young players and that’s why we’re able to tank so well, but a lot of them will naturally level up into role players. Guys like Key, Flip, Collier, and Brice don’t need too much to become real rotation players.

Like I said earlier, you kinda need bad things to happen for it to work. Our young players have to have really bad development and/or Lauri will have to have another bad season. Lauri doesn’t just need a good season to retain value, he needs to play like an all star. There is no non all star level player that would get paid like he is. If Lauri has a bad year, we’re talking about him being one of the worst contracts in the league and how could we be surprised when we set him up for failure.

The alternative would be just trading Lauri and letting go of ego. Chances of Lauri regaining that value are slim, and if he does it means your tank got F’d up. Realistically, Lauri falls somewhere and the middle and he regains some value but not all of it. Would it be worth the downside risk? Hell no for me.

Tank w/Lauri would have been a viable option if some of the young guys were really ahead, but they aren’t. Like if Cody was the player they thought he was or Key was actually Lisan Al Ghaib we’d be onto something but it didn’t happen. It was the wrong move to keep Lauri, but in hindsight it’s somewhat understandable. We just need to give up on that plan or we could be in for the nightmare scenario. The current situation with the young guys where it looks like we might just have a bunch of role players is not bad but also doesn’t set up a tank+Lauri very well.

I think avoiding nightmare scenarios where we lose our pick + don’t have an actual young star or Lauri becoming mega-negative value is worth quite a bit. The risk is so high and the likelihood of succeeding with another Lauri+tank is so small.

Also, if Ainge tries to go for another quick turnaround just fire him immediately. Seriously, that ain’t gonna work.

 

[Tanktastic]

- Zach had more concerns than Lauri imo. He has had multiple knee issues and Lauri had at least driven winning on a team prior to having the plug pulled. Its just a more unique skillset. Zach is also a couple years older and not 7 feet tall. Also had some attitude issues/clashes with coaches.

LaVine had played 42/47 of the Bulls games this season before the trade. LaVine has played more games than Lauri every single season from 2018 on, apart from last season.

For someone looking in from the outside Markkanen has a chronic back injury and a very rich history of all types on injuries and never being able to play a full season. And now the team, incredibly stupidly, announced to the whole world that Lauri has no cartilage left in his knee. Which they were forced somewhat to do, because they went about their tanking in such a "F U Adam Silver" way. Ainge this season is like the executive version of Ja's gun gestures.

I don't think there's another team that would characterize Markkanen as "having driven winning" in Utah.

I'd be targeting a couple firsts (real, good, but maybe not primo) and neutral returning salary. Zach got kinda a real first... it was one they could control if they wanted, and bad but not trash salary.

Tha't exactly the scenario I described. Ainge sticking to his guns and demanding something no-one is willing to pay. Then things souring and the Jazz being forced to sell him for something even less than the LaVine deal.

I don't think the Bulls main motivation early this season was to increase LaVine's trade value, but he was scoring 24ppg with 51/45 %.

What are the chances you think of Markkanen playing next season, or any other with the Jaz, at his All Star level or better?

I don't think we got offers at like 4 firsts last year. It was likely 2 pick, 2 swaps and a prospect. I think 25-50% is fair assessment on his decline in trade value. If its lower than that then I promise there won't be a deal anyway.

Let's see. But the "then we just won't trade him" might not be a viable route in any way. Let's say that Ainge clearly dangles him and obviously that's all over the media, decides not to sell, the Jazz are tanking again and Markkanen is in the same situation. What odds do you give to things going just fine vs. forced to trade Markkanen in a firesale?

Why do you think Lauri is not OK with the continuation of the tank? His past history gives any indication that being on the winning team is a low priority to him. He never asked to be traded when he was on bad teams. Lauri signed his first extension with the god-awful Cavs in 2021 who had no one at the time. He inked his second extension with the terrible Jazz team last summer. He never voiced any discontent over being constantly kept out of the games this season.

Have you followed Markkanen's career previously? Like, at all?

He was on his rookie contract with the Bulls. The only realistic chance to demand for a trade was his 4th year when he was benched, but at that point his value would've been minimal. And trade demands from rotation players on rookie deals in the NBA aren't a thing, really.

Markkanen did not sign an extension with the Cavs. He was a free agent after the Bulls didn't extend his rookie contract. His agent (who has like two clients and is a complete unknown) overplayed his hand and Markkanen was stuck with the Cavs offer. Not to say there was massive league wide interest in him after dropping to the bench with the Bulls.

And this season Markkanen has stated (to Andy Larsen for example) how much he thinks tanking sucks. Going any further than that, and Silver is doling out fines and Markkanen gets a black mark next to him from other GMs.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

LaVine had played 42/47 of the Bulls games this season before the trade. LaVine has played more games than Lauri every single season from 2018 on, apart from last season.

For someone looking in from the outside Markkanen has a chronic back injury and a very rich history of all types on injuries and never being able to play a full season. And now the team, incredibly stupidly, announced to the whole world that Lauri has no cartilage left in his knee. Which they were forced somewhat to do, because they went about their tanking in such a "F U Adam Silver" way. Ainge this season is like the executive version of Ja's gun gestures.

The vast majority of the games missed for Lauri have been post AS break the last 3 years.

22-23 - Missed 6 in the first 60 games... 10 in the last 22
23-24 - Missed 10 in the first 56... 17 in the last 26
24-25 - Missed 13 int he first 54 (we also load managed him pre AS)... 22 in the last 28 assuming he doesn't come back.

Unless he needs knee surgery or back surgery I doubt NBA teams will view him as more of an injury risk than Zach who played 23 games the previous year and has had multiple knee surgeries and is a couple years older. Zach was a clearly negative contract last offseason. He got back to neutral value with some strong play.

I don't think there's another team that would characterize Markkanen as "having driven winning" in Utah.


Tha't exactly the scenario I described. Ainge sticking to his guns and demanding something no-one is willing to pay. Then things souring and the Jazz being forced to sell him for something even less than the LaVine deal.

I don't think the Bulls main motivation early this season was to increase LaVine's trade value, but he was scoring 24ppg with 51/45 %.

What are the chances you think of Markkanen playing next season, or any other with the Jaz, at his All Star level or better?


Let's see. But the "then we just won't trade him" might not be a viable route in any way. Let's say that Ainge clearly dangles him and obviously that's all over the media, decides not to sell, the Jazz are tanking again and Markkanen is in the same situation. What odds do you give to things going just fine vs. forced to trade Markkanen in a firesale?


Have you followed Markkanen's career previously? Like, at all?

He was on his rookie contract with the Bulls. The only realistic chance to demand for a trade was his 4th year when he was benched, but at that point his value would've been minimal. And trade demands from rotation players on rookie deals in the NBA aren't a thing, really.

Markkanen did not sign an extension with the Cavs. He was a free agent after the Bulls didn't extend his rookie contract. His agent (who has like two clients and is a complete unknown) overplayed his hand and Markkanen was stuck with the Cavs offer. Not to say there was massive league wide interest in him after dropping to the bench with the Bulls.

And this season Markkanen has stated (to Andy Larsen for example) how much he thinks tanking sucks. Going any further than that, and Silver is doling out fines and Markkanen gets a black mark next to him from other GMs.

The rest is fine. If you think his value is that low... fine. We only find out if he's actually moved. If he is this bad and injury prone and his trade value is this low then there is no problem with the tank and our cap space situation is totally able to handle keeping him if he has to stick around. We have infinity picks right now so if we missed out on getting a few more it sucks but oh well. We won't be forced to sell him in that situation. The only situation we may be coerced into selling is if he's playing so well that he's wrecking the tank. In that case he should have lots of value.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Meh….you’re cutting it really close and the protections are lower. You don’t need average play you need poor play everywhere. The Jazz have a lot of young players and that’s why we’re able to tank so well, but a lot of them will naturally level up into role players. Guys like Key, Flip, Collier, and Brice don’t need too much to become real rotation players.

Like I said earlier, you kinda need bad things to happen for it to work. Our young players have to have really bad development and/or Lauri will have to have another bad season. Lauri doesn’t just need a good season to retain value, he needs to play like an all star. There is no non all star level player that would get paid like he is. If Lauri has a bad year, we’re talking about him being one of the worst contracts in the league and how could we be surprised when we set him up for failure.

The alternative would be just trading Lauri and letting go of ego. Chances of Lauri regaining that value are slim, and if he does it means your tank got F’d up. Realistically, Lauri falls somewhere and the middle and he regains some value but not all of it. Would it be worth the downside risk? Hell no for me.

Tank w/Lauri would have been a viable option if some of the young guys were really ahead, but they aren’t. Like if Cody was the player they thought he was or Key was actually Lisan Al Ghaib we’d be onto something but it didn’t happen. It was the wrong move to keep Lauri, but in hindsight it’s somewhat understandable. We just need to give up on that plan or we could be in for the nightmare scenario. The current situation with the young guys where it looks like we might just have a bunch of role players is not bad but also doesn’t set up a tank+Lauri very well.

I think avoiding nightmare scenarios where we lose our pick + don’t have an actual young star or Lauri becoming mega-negative value is worth quite a bit. The risk is so high and the likelihood of succeeding with another Lauri+tank is so small.

Also, if Ainge tries to go for another quick turnaround just fire him immediately. Seriously, that ain’t gonna work.

Not gonna argue the rest of it but if you peel off Collins (who was playing like a borderline AS) and Sexton who has been pretty awesome... I think that counteracts the bump you might get with Lauri being an AS or just much better version of himself. I think a few guys will jump in effectiveness but a few will be average to bad. Combine that with a non-Cooper rookie who will likely help you lose, Taylor... who may need some time to shake the rust and find his legs and Cody... who could take several leaps, a few jumps, and a skip or three... and still be not good.

I think its better to sell Lauri if there is a palatable offer. Maybe even a lowball type offer. I wouldn't firesale him though.

If we get Cooper and feel the need to tank I think the win math changes a lot. You are also "on the clock" when you get they guy so I would lean more to ethical tanking (which is really not a thing but you get the idea) than the shenanigans we ran this year. So you need to make some real cuts and be pretty aggressive if that is the goal. BUT I can almost guarantee you that Ainge will absolutely try to have his cake and eat it too in that scenario. If you have Cooper/Lauri/Kessler and end up sending the 10th pick to OKC cuz you messed up the tank math again... its not like the end of the world because you have Cooper/Lauri/Kessler.

We just need May 12th to come so we can narrow down some of these hypothetical conversations. I agree with your overall point tho... why have Lauri if you are continuing to tank? Once we "failed" the renovation (PG/Bridges acquisitions) we probably should have just taken the best offer for Lauri... at very least maybe dig in a bit on the extension to make it more team friendly. I think Ainge still has designs of the quick turn but maybe not.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I do find this topic very interesting from just an intellectual standpoint. There are lot of things to consider.

It is kind of funny when some posters think Lauri is too good to keep and will ruin next year's tank. Other's think he is so bad that he has lost all value. And some posters who simultaneous argue that he is both too good to tank and so bad he can't be moved.

 

[Tanktastic]

The rest is fine. If you think his value is that low... fine. We only find out if he's actually moved. If he is this bad and injury prone and his trade value is this low then there is no problem with the tank and our cap space situation is totally able to handle keeping him if he has to stick around.

Just to clarify: I don't think Markkanen is injury prone, I still trust that he can re-gain what he had in his AS season etc.

But everyone on this forum is looking at things through Mountain Purple tinted glasses.

Other teams' GMs might be discouraged from even thinking about trading for Markkanen either by his injury history, his play or his perceived lack of "winning" / passion or whatever. If someone wants to see a red flag, there sure are plenty available. And if someone is willing to look past those and has belief in Markkanen, on price they will certainly argue about all of that and base their seemingly too low offer on that.

The Jazz, Markkanen's agent, whomever can and probably will argue that his back was just fine this season (as it was) and the MRI report, well, that's everybody in the NBA, right? For a GM forking out 1st rd picks those are big risks.

Things are as they seem, not as they are.

 

[jazznik]

Excuse me what? On the bolded one (bolding by me)
That Cavs team was as high as 3rd or 4th in the east before injuries ruined the late season, when Lauri was there.
Calling Sexton, Garland, Mobley, Allen "no one" is both untrue and unfair.

I wasn't talking about the season "when Lauri was there". I was talking about the team that Lauri was traded to in the summer of 2021. He signed an extension as part of the sign-and-trade to Cavs, going to the 22-60 team. Lauri was OK going to a bad team, deep in the rebuild and certainly removed several years from being any good. He was Ok with that so long as he got the bag. He did the same with the Jazz last year.
If he has any burning desire to play for a contender - or simply to be in the playoffs - he never showed any signs of it.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I wasn't talking about the season "when Lauri was there". I was talking about the team that Lauri was traded to in the summer of 2021. He signed an extension as part of the sign-and-trade to Cavs, going to the 22-60 team. Lauri was OK going to a bad team, deep in the rebuild and certainly removed several years from being any good. He was Ok with that so long as he got the bag. He did the same with the Jazz last year.
If he has any burning desire to play for a contender - or simply to be in the playoffs - he never showed any signs of it.

I’m fine if they keep Lauri - even if the plan is to tank one more season. But they absolutely have to trade Sexton, Collins and Clarkson this offseason. Jazz need to still be in asset accumulation mode right now.

 

[homeytennis]

I’m fine if they keep Lauri - even if the plan is to tank one more season. But they absolutely have to trade Sexton, Collins and Clarkson this offseason. Jazz need to still be in asset accumulation mode right now.

Maybe their value increases because they are on expiring contracts but usually other GMs say "Great we'll give you our crappy players also on expiring contracts." Maybe Ainge can work some magic here.

 

[Tanktastic]

I was talking about the team that Lauri was traded to in the summer of 2021. He signed an extension as part of the sign-and-trade to Cavs, going to the 22-60 team.

I think you need to study a little bit what a sign-and-trade is, how they work and what they mean, what an extension is etc.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I wasn't talking about the season "when Lauri was there". I was talking about the team that Lauri was traded to in the summer of 2021. He signed an extension as part of the sign-and-trade to Cavs, going to the 22-60 team. Lauri was OK going to a bad team, deep in the rebuild and certainly removed several years from being any good. He was Ok with that so long as he got the bag. He did the same with the Jazz last year.
If he has any burning desire to play for a contender - or simply to be in the playoffs - he never showed any signs of it.

He got frozen in restricted free agency and did what any player would do on their first non-rookie scale contract would do: find money. Cleveland was the only team that wanted to do what it took to get him and pay him (though I was pretty obnoxious that we needed to grab him as he was flapping in the wind for weeks into free agency). He didn’t sign an extension.

 

[KqWIN]

I do find this topic very interesting from just an intellectual standpoint. There are lot of things to consider.

It is kind of funny when some posters think Lauri is too good to keep and will ruin next year's tank. Other's think he is so bad that he has lost all value. And some posters who simultaneous argue that he is both too good to tank and so bad he can't be moved.

I don't think these are contradicting ideas. The component you're missing is that Lauri is on a massive contract. In order for him to retain his trade value on that contract, he has to play at an all star level. If he plays at an all star level, the tank will suffer but his trade value will increase. If the tank succeed's again with Lauri, it almost certainly means that Lauri does not turn in an all star season and after two bad seasons it would be hard to view him as having positive trade value at his salary.

 

[KqWIN]

Not gonna argue the rest of it but if you peel off Collins (who was playing like a borderline AS) and Sexton who has been pretty awesome... I think that counteracts the bump you might get with Lauri being an AS or just much better version of himself. I think a few guys will jump in effectiveness but a few will be average to bad. Combine that with a non-Cooper rookie who will likely help you lose, Taylor... who may need some time to shake the rust and find his legs and Cody... who could take several leaps, a few jumps, and a skip or three... and still be not good.

I think its better to sell Lauri if there is a palatable offer. Maybe even a lowball type offer. I wouldn't firesale him though.

If we get Cooper and feel the need to tank I think the win math changes a lot. You are also "on the clock" when you get they guy so I would lean more to ethical tanking (which is really not a thing but you get the idea) than the shenanigans we ran this year. So you need to make some real cuts and be pretty aggressive if that is the goal. BUT I can almost guarantee you that Ainge will absolutely try to have his cake and eat it too in that scenario. If you have Cooper/Lauri/Kessler and end up sending the 10th pick to OKC cuz you messed up the tank math again... its not like the end of the world because you have Cooper/Lauri/Kessler.

We just need May 12th to come so we can narrow down some of these hypothetical conversations. I agree with your overall point tho... why have Lauri if you are continuing to tank? Once we "failed" the renovation (PG/Bridges acquisitions) we probably should have just taken the best offer for Lauri... at very least maybe dig in a bit on the extension to make it more team friendly. I think Ainge still has designs of the quick turn but maybe not.

Getting rid of Collins and Sexton will help, but just like Lauri I doubt that will actually happen. It's one of those things were I would 100% do it if it were my choice, but I'm extremely skeptical it will actually happen. We're going to get marginal improvements from all over the roster because the rest of the roster is young players who you would hope actually improve. Like I said, a successful tank next with Lauri year pretty much requires something to go bad. Either Lauri stinks it up and/or the young players don't improve. The wrong combination of those things could happen where we lose on all fronts. We were extremely fortunate this year with tanking....I wouldn't count on us being able to do the same thing.

I say Ainge should let go of his ego and we take the L. I don't want to carry the risk of losing our pick or Lauri completely bombing our trade value. If we want to tank, I do not think it makes sense to keep this Lauri thing going.

Generally, I'd agree that Lauri will almost certainly be here if we get Flagg and I'd go further to say he won't get traded under any lotto scenario because Ainge is too stubborn.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I don't think these are contradicting ideas. The component you're missing is that Lauri is on a massive contract. In order for him to retain his trade value on that contract, he has to play at an all star level. If he plays at an all star level, the tank will suffer but his trade value will increase. If the tank succeed's again with Lauri, it almost certainly means that Lauri does not turn in an all star season and after two bad seasons it would be hard to view him as having positive trade value at his salary.

There are dozens of possibilities and gray area here. For example Lauri could play sub all star level, but a team could still decide that he is the missing piece and we trade him for a bag at the deadline and proceed to get a good pick. Or, he could play bad, but someone else on the team levels up and leads us to more wins than we want. It just feels overly pessimistic to dwell on every worst case scenario. It's all part of the risk calculation that has to be part of the off season decisions.

 

[KqWIN]

There are dozens of possibilities and gray area here. For example Lauri could play sub all star level, but a team could still decide that he is the missing piece and we trade him for a bag at the deadline and proceed to get a good pick. Or, he could play bad, but someone else on the team levels up and leads us to more wins than we want. It just feels overly pessimistic to dwell on every worst case scenario. It's all part of the risk calculation that has to be part of the off season decisions.

We can have the 14th best odds and still win the lotto, but I don’t think it really serves a purpose to think with that logic. It’s worth a conversation to think about the extent to which these things matter, but directionally I think it makes sense that if Lauri plays well it will be good for his trade value but also bad for the tank. The opposite is true if he plays poorly. When you don’t mention Lauri’s contract, it does feel like it’s a contradiction to say he’s too good to tank but also not good enough to trade. But his contract is definitely a real factor at play here and is directly related to his trade value.

I also don’t think it’s dwelling to point out that having a good player and tanking are at odds. Good players don’t really have a purpose on a team that’s trying to lose. So whole it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to get rid of every good player, it is a logical step.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

We can have the 14th best odds and still win the lotto, but I don’t think it really serves a purpose to think with that logic. It’s worth a conversation to think about the extent to which these things matter, but directionally I think it makes sense that if Lauri plays well it will be good for his trade value but also bad for the tank. The opposite is true if he plays poorly. When you don’t mention Lauri’s contract, it does feel like it’s a contradiction to say he’s too good to tank but also not good enough to trade. But his contract is definitely a real factor at play here and is directly related to his trade value.

I also don’t think it’s dwelling to point out that having a good player and tanking are at odds. Good players don’t really have a purpose on a team that’s trying to lose. So whole it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to get rid of every good player, it is a logical step.

I honestly don't know what you are arguing about? The post you originally responded to was about people who say he will both play well enough to prevent us from getting a pick AND play bad enough to tank his trade value. I do know what his contract is, and I do know that scenario is possible, I just think of all the scenarios to focus on that is the most miserable.

I can see the logic in trading Lauri, I'm definitely not 100% against it. Honestly my opinion is continuing to evolve.