What's new

Does Lauri Get Traded?

Does Lauri Get Dealt Before The Season Starts?


  • Total voters
    134
  • Poll closed .
I mean just looking at our summer league performance, I'm pretty confident that we will be in the Flagg sweepstakes by the end of the season even if we keep Lauri. That summer league roster plus JC, Lauri and Sexton is not gonna get us over 30 wins in a NBA season.
 
I mean just looking at our summer league performance, I'm pretty confident that we will be in the Flagg sweepstakes by the end of the season even if we keep Lauri. That summer league roster plus JC, Lauri and Sexton is not gonna get us over 30 wins in a NBA season.
All depends on how the team is coach/managed from a minutes perspective.

You can probably create a solid 8 man rotation if Clarkson has a bounce back year and Collins builds on his 2nd half of the season last year.

I would assume the Jazz will trade Sexton to someone once the Lauri stuff is settled either by trade or the R&E
 
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.
No, but I would want to know if they’re even serious about contending or just riding out Curry’s golden years.
 
If its podz and picks... they should pay that. Lauri is basically perfect for them. Outside of like Giannis/KD I think he is the one guy they could get that turns them into a legit contender if things break right for them.
Solves their big depth/lack of shooting from their bigs by being 7 foot Klay Thompson. They could run the same actions and the gravity it would create away from the paint could be devastating alongside the best shooter in history.
 
I mean just looking at our summer league performance, I'm pretty confident that we will be in the Flagg sweepstakes by the end of the season even if we keep Lauri. That summer league roster plus JC, Lauri and Sexton is not gonna get us over 30 wins in a NBA season.

The biggest problem will be serious minutes of inexperienced guards and lack of glue players like Simone and KO were. But... Hardy has proved to be a very competent coach, so unless anyone goes out, he just might decide the not-so-ready rookies ain't getting heavy minutes. It's also fairly possible one of them will be earlier than expected to be impactful on the floor. Theres few of them in every draft class

West is stacked, east nit so much, but Jazz is also a really strong home team, so with the current roster build, bottoming in the worst five teams in league won't be a gimme, not at all

That's why my knock-off tone'o'meter shows 27,5% for Lauri getting traded.
 
Solves their big depth/lack of shooting from their bigs by being 7 foot Klay Thompson. They could run the same actions and the gravity it would create away from the paint could be devastating alongside the best shooter in history.
And they'd still have some upside with Kuminga. They'd need Dray and Wiggins to lock in and they would be on to something I think. Hield, Melton, Andersen isn't a bad bench group.

I just think we will view Lauri as an AS with a 5/240M contract and another team views him as an AS with a 1 year deal that you can hopefully extend. The offers I hear on podcasts and twitter just aren't enough (not that those are the end all be all). If Podz has a Walker Kessler second year stagnation they will wish they had "sold high".
 
Keyonte George
VJ Edgecombe
Cody Williams
Lauri Markkanen
Somebody

...should be enough to put the Jazz on an upward trajectory in a couple years. Obviously, it would be great to get one of Flagg, Dybantsa, Boozer, etc., but no matter what the Jazz do the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
Hendricks died?
 
Well... we kinda know now that behind the scenes Donny had told them he didn't want to be here. Lauri is very much the opposite... and I believe it at least until he signs his contract.
I believe they preferred trading Mitchell vs building around him, regardless of his preference. Similar to how I believe they prefer to trade Lauri vs building around him, regardless of his preference. Maybe not tho. Maybe they had no choice but to trade Mitchell. But it certainly seems like they have a choice when it comes to trading Lauri vs retaining him & I believe the allowed continuance of these trade rumors shows which they prefer.
 
Last edited:
I believe they preferred trading Mitchell vs building around him, regardless of his preference. Similar to how I believe they prefer to trade Lauri vs building around him, regardless of his preference. Maybe not tho. Maybe they had no choice but to trade Mitchell. But it certainly seems like they have a choice when it comes to trading Lauri vs retaining him & I believe the allowed continuance of these trade rumors shows which they prefer.

Jazz were rebooting and heading into a rebuild cycle. The process wouldn't have made Mitchell happy, and Mitchell's contract situation didn't give the Jazz enough runway to rebuild. To do a proper build requires core players on long-term deals.
 
We need to make a Krispy Kreme light for this thread that goes red when there's actually new news. I just read through 15 of the most recent pages of round about economics on Podz

I've been there. I think we should have a thread for just the twitter or other links to legit rumor reporting and another thread for discussion about those rumors.
 
Jazz were rebooting and heading into a rebuild cycle. The process wouldn't have made Mitchell happy, and Mitchell's contract situation didn't give the Jazz enough runway to rebuild. To do a proper build requires core players on long-term deals.
I agree. They aren't completely comparable situations & rebuilding around Lauri is clearly an option when it really wasn't with Mitchell. But even if it had been, do you think they would have preferred that vs flipping him for assets?

I don't. It wouldn't have made sense. We didn't have the roster or assets to put a championship caliber supporting team around him at the time. And that's if you even considered him to be a guy that can lead a team to a title as it's #1. I doubt that we did. And I doubt we do when it comes to Lauri. So we still need that missing star.

Logically, philosophically, etc, looking at the roster, what makes more sense?

Retaining a 27 year old 2nd star on a max contract, hoping we are bad enough to obtain a top 5 pick, hoping that pick not only develops into a superstar but does so before your 2nd star begins to decline/lose value, hoping enough of your young talent develops quick enough, etc

Or

Trading that 27 year old near peak value ( if possible with contract situation), likely ensuring that we are bad enough to obtain a top 5 pick, giving more time for that pick as well as our other young talent to develop, while also adding to our collection of future assets (as well as greatly increasing our odds of not conveying the pick owed to OKC)

I know which one would be plan A for me.

Right now we have two conflicting sets of players on our roster. Lauri & Sexton vs our young talent/future assets. Walker is somewhere in the middle.

Logically, it makes sense to pick one. And judging by the trade rumors & our current roster construction, it seems pretty clear which they prefer.
 
Last edited:
I've been there. I think we should have a thread for just the twitter or other links to legit rumor reporting and another thread for discussion about those rumors.
Real news update- we have 93% of the leverage currently and tone watch is hanging steady at 10.5%.
 
I agree. They aren't completely comparable situations & rebuilding around Lauri is clearly an option when it really wasn't with Mitchell. But even if it had been, do you think they would have preferred that vs flipping him for assets?

I don't. It wouldn't have made sense. We didn't have the roster or assets to put a championship caliber supporting team around him at the time. And that's if you even considered him to be a guy that can lead a team to a title as it's #1. I doubt that we did. And I doubt we do when it comes to Lauri. So we still need that missing star.

Logically, philosophically, etc, looking at the roster, what makes more sense?

Retaining a 27 year old 2nd star on a max contract, hoping we are bad enough to obtain a top 5 pick, hoping that pick not only develops into a superstar but does so before your 2nd star begins to decline/lose value, hoping enough of your young talent develops quick enough, etc

Or

Trading that 27 year old near peak value ( if possible with contract situation), likely ensuring that we are bad enough to obtain a top 5 pick, giving more time for that pick as well as our other young talent to develop, while also adding to our collection of future assets

I know which one would be plan A for me.

Right now we have two conflicting sets of players on our roster. Lauri & Sexton vs our young talent/future assets. Walker is somewhere in the middle.

Logically, it makes sense to pick one. And judging by the trade rumors & our current roster construction, it seems pretty clear which they prefer.
Good post.
I still think plan A for the jazz is to keep Lauri. Right or wrong (you make a lot of sense that plan A should be to trade him)


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
A sports writer for one of the leading finnish tabloids (Iltalehti) wrote a blog today pleading Lauri to "be selfish for once ask for a trade".

Don't think it'll have any effect but just FYI as it sort of represents what finnish media and basketball influencers are pushing for.

Also, remember not to shoot the messenger.
 
A sports writer for one of the leading finnish tabloids (Iltalehti) wrote a blog today pleading Lauri to "be selfish for once ask for a trade".

Don't think it'll have any effect but just FYI as it sort of represents what finnish media and basketball influencers are pushing for.

Also, remember not to shoot the messenger.
Be selfish and deny himself at least $24 million?
 
Back
Top