The Lauri Thread

[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.