Yeah, the dream would be if we traded Lauri to the Warriors, they start off poorly, Draymond punches someone into another 10 game suspension, Steph tears his ACL, and Lauri is like "Nahhh, I'm going to team up with Vic, peace out"
Does Lauri Get Traded?
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
SoberasHotRod
Well-Known Member
Currently it seems like Lauri is motivated by stability and it seems like he is enjoying the smaller market family friendly environment. I could see him going somewhere in free agency where he gets those things. The money is going to be there regardless.
I think he just wants the raise this year and the security.
karl malone
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a plan to me. Be opportunistic in accumulating picks, talent, & flippable assets while still retaining long-term salary cap flexibility. It only appears non-committal because of the strong starts (a testament to our coaching staff & roster talent at the time) followed by the trade deadline sell-offs, which was always the plan. Allow players to build/restore value & turn them into long-term assets. Lauri is no different. They may have considered pivoting due to his breakout but clearly did not find an acceptable path to do so.
Plus, this is Ainge we're talking about. He's here to cap off his legacy by leaving a storied but championship-less franchise with a potential dynasty. If these next two draft classes had lined up with when he took over, I have no doubt that we would have fully tanked right out of the gate. Instead, Ainge bought time. Preserving (some) patience from the fan base for when we truly tank, as well as the reputation of a consistently competitive franchise, all while allowing for more time to accumulate talent/assets & build/restore trade value. Also, timing it perfectly to allow for our current talent to incur the struggles that come with development, simultaneously putting us in position to acquire that missing superstar.
I can see why it may appear that there is no plan but do you really think one of the greatest gms of all time is out here just winging it? Or that an NBA owner would even allow that? Maybe for Ainge but I doubt it. And when Lauri was acquired, do you think they viewed him as a long-term piece? Or do you think they viewed him as an undervalued asset? And even if they did eventually begin looking at him as a potential long-term piece (relative to our core/future assets - clearly he can be a long-term building block in the right situation), why not dispell the rumors & say we're not trading him?
Imo it's because plan A is to trade him for a haul. As it has been all along. And even if it wasn't, it seems pretty clear that it is now. Plan B might be to keep him long-term, but right now Ainge is just maintaining leverage by keeping the appearance of not wanting to trade Lauri. As any good negotiator would.
HermanG
Well-Known Member
This about future of Lauri and his family as much as anything. Its a questionmark hanging over the fact where he lives and grows his kids at which could change in an instant.
You really think that uncertainty dragging has no affect on him and the only variables are our price and their price?
SoberasHotRod
Well-Known Member
I think that's motivation number one.
If the reports are true that he would delay signing an extension so that he can't get traded mid-season, then stability seems to be motivation number two, with winning/playoffs being somewhere behind that. I guess we don't know if he prefers big city/big market or small city/small market, but I tend to believe he would prefer a smaller city/market.
karl malone
Well-Known Member
Then why allow these rumors to persist? Why not say we're not trading him? Because imo plan A is to see if someone will meet their demands. Why else risk upsetting him if he's part of plan A? Doesn't mean they're not good with Plan B, which probably is to tank with Lauri. But I think these rumors show that plan A is to trade him if we receive an acceptable offer.
Last edited:
Because maybe someone will offer you something you didn't think would be offered. He shouldn't be upset. He's an adult who is about to get paid
karl malone
Well-Known Member
Doesn't that mean that plan A is to see if they can trade him for a haul tho? I agree he shouldn't be upset. It's business.
And the Warriors won't accept the first scenario. It has also been reported that they said no to that. This is my point. If Podz is in the deal and the Warriors agree to it, it means other stuff will be taken out and the Jazz will say no. If Podz is in the deal and the Jazz agree to it, it means it's everything is included in addition to Podz and the Warriors won't say yes.
Like I said to HH, this hard stance of "we want everything" doesn't exactly conflict with what I'm saying. If you're saying there is no deal without Podz, you are proving my point.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Not trading Lauri now, or in the very near future, is going to set this franchise on the path to perpetual mediocrity for the next decade.
I'm a baseball fan and enjoy understanding the GM side of major league baseball. In MLB, most franchises know who they are. The Yankees and the Rays are run very differently. We are not the Yankees. We are not signing Juan Soto. We're not the Dodgers, and we're not signing Ohtani. Ainge suggesting that we're going "Big Game Hunting" is ridiculous. It's a small miracle that Lauri has made the jump he has since coming to Utah. Unless one of these recent picks in the last two years turns out to be Donovan Mitchell, I don't see how we keep Lauri. He does not fit any reasonable timeline for us to be a contender.
Like the Rays or other small market baseball teams, our only focus right now should be drafting and developing young talent. There may be a time to strike in free agency or trading for quality players in the future, but that time isn't now.
I'm a baseball fan and enjoy understanding the GM side of major league baseball. In MLB, most franchises know who they are. The Yankees and the Rays are run very differently. We are not the Yankees. We are not signing Juan Soto. We're not the Dodgers, and we're not signing Ohtani. Ainge suggesting that we're going "Big Game Hunting" is ridiculous. It's a small miracle that Lauri has made the jump he has since coming to Utah. Unless one of these recent picks in the last two years turns out to be Donovan Mitchell, I don't see how we keep Lauri. He does not fit any reasonable timeline for us to be a contender.
Like the Rays or other small market baseball teams, our only focus right now should be drafting and developing young talent. There may be a time to strike in free agency or trading for quality players in the future, but that time isn't now.
I think you are being dense and a bit silly if you think these things are that binary
HermanG
Well-Known Member
He isnt "winging it". He has meticulously traded away mid-tier vets for assets and the team has gotten younger at every turn.
But it wasnt because he planned things to go this way. Im pretty sure plan A has been "big game hunting" but they just havent been able to land "that guy". That is because the closest thing to #1 option who has been openly traded is Dame who was just too damn old to go after at our stage of the build. KD was traded but that was done behind the curtains.
So he isnt winging it, but he also isnt following a script. He is tending to the garddn but keeping lots open so he can later decide what to plant in them.
If I'm happy at my job but I'm willing to listen if somebody offers me a massive raise to leave, that doesn't mean my Plan A is to see if I can get a massive raise to leave.
karl malone
Well-Known Member
Very possible. Not trying to be tho. Just trying to say that trading Lauri for a haul vs tanking with Lauri are two separate routes & that I believe the FO prefers the route of trading him for a haul. I don't think they would risk upsetting Lauri if he was part of plan A just to see if they get lucky & receive a huge offer. At least not as publicly as they've done. I could be wrong tho. Not trying to argue. Just how I see it
FIFY.
Not exactly true. Only by staying in Utah does he get a >$20 million raise on his current salary and a max extension inked before the upcoming season.
In a scenario where he has a bad/injured year that could jeopardize his future earnings, the R&E could be securing (ball park) $100 million that he MIGHT not otherwise.
Meanwhile, Warriors are like “we don’t need 10+ wins, we have Curry and a bunch of dudes. Let’s go win a championship!”
HermanG
Well-Known Member
As a Warriors fan, would you want Dunleavy to pay what DA is trying to squeeze out of him?
As a Jazz fan I hope they do, but wont fault them if they dont.