The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
First off, ChatGPT confirmed that Lauri IS tradeable and has been since just after the trade deadline. He wasn't tradeable for 6 months post signing. He signed in August but that ended in Feb.
Will Lauri be traded on or before draft day?
- Thread starter KqWIN
- Start date
The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
Most years in the history of following this team, if the Jazz were trading for a player of Lauri's caliber we would all be ecstatic.
To suggest he had no value or negative value in a season where we were clearly trying to tank is like devaluing Bill Gates fortune because he spent $6 billion one year trying to completely eradicate Polio. Yeah, fortune dropped, but it is still Bill Gates.
To suggest he had no value or negative value in a season where we were clearly trying to tank is like devaluing Bill Gates fortune because he spent $6 billion one year trying to completely eradicate Polio. Yeah, fortune dropped, but it is still Bill Gates.
The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
If we were to consider trading Lauri, I would think there are plenty of teams interested. Houston makes sense as a trade partner for a lot of reasons.
Reed Shephard isn't getting off the bench. Sengun isnt necessarily built for winning in the playoffs.
Why not Sengun and Shephard for Lauri? I think that fits everyones time lines better. Maybe you could talk them in to a pick swap... say #21 for #10?
Reed Shephard isn't getting off the bench. Sengun isnt necessarily built for winning in the playoffs.
Why not Sengun and Shephard for Lauri? I think that fits everyones time lines better. Maybe you could talk them in to a pick swap... say #21 for #10?
Sengun is more valuable than Lauri.
I would like to trade with HOU, but I don’t think Lauri is a great fit there. They need a better on ball creator which Lauri is not. Could argue that Sengun+Lauri is a good combo….I think they have their sights set higher than that.
I would like to trade with HOU, but I don’t think Lauri is a great fit there. They need a better on ball creator which Lauri is not. Could argue that Sengun+Lauri is a good combo….I think they have their sights set higher than that.
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
You trade a player AND his contract.
And Lauri's contract is horrendous. He has no market.
It's tough to pin Lauri's value right now. Feels like there are two camps on the extreme ends of 1) his value hasn't changed, NBA teams know the situation and 2) of course his value has changed, he's being paid more and he was not good last season. Like most things it's probably somewhere in the middle.
There have been a few borderline all star type players that have moved recently, but each one seems like it's own situation and I that's kind of how you have to approach it. I think the most comparable would be Siakam. Now I'm probably going to get people from both sides telling me he either has way more or way less value than Siakam when he was traded, but I see it as the fairest middle ground given the other trade situations. Siakam fetched three firsts which seems about right. He was expiring (which provides leverage to the trading team), but likely agreed to the max deal he got beforehand. The Nets got five firsts for Bridges, whose value I think was most similar to Lauri's this summer. The Kings basically got two, but Fox kind of forced his way to SAS.
Going from about 5ish picks to 3ish picks (or losing 40% value) kinda seems right to me. It was a big hit, but his value is not all gone. The large contract makes the # of buyers much more limited though.
There have been a few borderline all star type players that have moved recently, but each one seems like it's own situation and I that's kind of how you have to approach it. I think the most comparable would be Siakam. Now I'm probably going to get people from both sides telling me he either has way more or way less value than Siakam when he was traded, but I see it as the fairest middle ground given the other trade situations. Siakam fetched three firsts which seems about right. He was expiring (which provides leverage to the trading team), but likely agreed to the max deal he got beforehand. The Nets got five firsts for Bridges, whose value I think was most similar to Lauri's this summer. The Kings basically got two, but Fox kind of forced his way to SAS.
Going from about 5ish picks to 3ish picks (or losing 40% value) kinda seems right to me. It was a big hit, but his value is not all gone. The large contract makes the # of buyers much more limited though.
gomretat
Well-Known Member
Lauri has plenty of value. GM's are not misled by the Jazz doing everything they could to be crappy. If Danny has any inkling of still doing "big game" hunting you have to hold on to Lauri. It is also why you dont tie your hands with a trade for Dame. If we trade Lauri it is an open admission that our big game tactics have no chance.
Losing Interest
New Member
IMO, teams know why this past year was down for Lauri. I think it is most likely because the Jazz tanked and he didn't have any quality players around him. There will teams interested and making offers. I think the status of Giannis moving and maybe one or two other players that will be on the market will need to be resolved before Lauri gets moved. I remember reading a thread from a Boston fan when Danny first took over in Utah. They said Danny was frustrating as a GM because he was always in rumors but he tried to squeeze too much out of other teams when working trades. That comment from a Celtic fan has stuck with me.
I believe the window on "big game hunting" closed somewhere over this past season. All of our future draft picks have depreciated enough in value that any "big game hunting" nets a team a tier below the team we blew up to get all those house chips.
We can still use the chips at the bar, though, and for tipping the waitress while we're losing our hand.
Continuing to tank is really the best path forward from here. It's not because that's necessarily the best path. It's because of our choices that now it's the only path.
I don't know if that means selling off Lauri because that seems like another $1 bill for 15 nickels proposition, but it's also hard to envision holding on to a great guy in his prime when our team, under a very "speedy" upswing given our current cards, has us maybe being relevant in 5+ years (optimistically).