What's new

Does Lauri Get Traded?

Does Lauri Get Dealt Before The Season Starts?


  • Total voters
    134
  • Poll closed .
If the FO does not believe in Kessler....I think he should be traded, I don't think his value is all that diminished. Also, while he's not the greatest player in the world he could have an outsized impact on winning because our defense is so bad and he can the raise the floor quite a bit on that end. I guess similar things can be said for Sexton.....I just think with the way he started last season the way we sandbagged him you're going to eat value no matter what. It's difficult that we spent two years kind of hovering and we feel so iffy about our own guys.

The JC's are a little different because I don't think Clarkson helps you win much (though it's hard to be as bad as rookies)....but the real downside there is the PT resources he takes up. Collins can/will help the Jazz win, but will need some to time to continue to rehab his value + find a taker if there ever is one.
I think if you replace Clarkson's minutes with say Collier... that you will realize some "gains" on multiple fronts. I think Lauri/Kessler/Sexton is just a much better trio than the other tanking teams have so you need A LOT of rookie minutes to lose enough. All the bad teams have a lot of young players... well most do... so gotta out do them on development minutes.
 
Bull crap. Nobody was thinking when the Jazz had the best record in the Regular Season, "This is boring, I can't wait until the draft starts." I have definitely felt that way the last two years though. Things didn't turn out, bit it was hella fun right up until that point.
I was furious they were winning. But you’re right, I wasn’t “bored”. I had a tantrum and quit watching/following.
 
I think the only bad result for next season is getting wins off the backs of vets who are not in the longterm plans.

Dump Clarkson and Collins and I really don't think there is a bad outcome possible.
This

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Yep, agreed. Lauri has value of his own that we no longer have once we trade him(for less presumably). So I guess the exact question is which one should we go for:

- Lauri+8th
- Lauri+3d - what it takes to get from 8 to 3
- 3d pick + whatever we diminished value we get for Lauri

This assumes you even get a willing trade partner at 3, in a lot of cases in those types of drafts teams are not willing to move off of a premier talent.


Yeah, I was just trying to simplify things.

Each situation is its own thing, but when I think about how we’ve waited to trade all of our vets mid season….I don’t think it’s ever been worth it even if you think we extracted extra value.

You could argue that Lauri tank gains are worth more than the Lakers pick entirely. Trading up from a 3-4 lotto spot from 7-9 is at least worth one good first.
 
Of course it's true. Essentially, you are confirming that having a top-5 pick is by far the most certain way to drafting "a number 1 on a championship team". Because if the team decides to acquire such a player via free agency, trade, or drafting in the 6-30 range, the chances are going to be way, way lower than 12%.

In the last 15 years there were only 5 players "who have shown this type of talent" drafted in the rest of the first round (Curry, Leonard, Giannis, Jokic, SGA), 5/(25X15)=about 1% chance per pick. And only one, Jokic, was drafted in the second round - 0.2% chance. On average, you will have to draft for a century in the 6-30 range (1 pick per draft) to draft a championship player, and for 500 years - by using only a single second-round pick per year.

Most of these players remained with their own teams, with only SGA, Leonard, and Davis changing teams via trades. I will be generous and add to this the Paul-to-Clippers trade, which happened within the same timeframe. So, there were 4 chances to obtain that caliber of players in 15 years. Almost all of the teams would be ready to trade for such a player every year, so we will conservatively estimate the trade chances as 4/(25X15)=1%. Finally, here are the chances for a free agent signing ( LeBron in 2010, 2014 and 2018, Durant in 2016 and 2019, Kawhi in 2019) - 6 cases. Almost every team would gladly create space for such signing, so the conservative chances are 6/(25X15)=1.5%. And these are extremely generous estimates, assuming that a small-market team like the Jazz and the Lakers have the same chances of getting LeBron or Durant via trade or free agency.

So, trying to obtain "such a player" by securing a top 5 pick has the 12 times higher probability of success than through picking 6-30, 60 times higher chances than drafting in the second round, 12 times higher chances than getting him in a trade, and 9 times higher than signing him as a free agent.

In short, no other strategy comes even close to simply getting the top 5 pick.
Well, in your post you ignore the fact that “tanking” doesn’t always give you a top-5 pick, which is guaranteed only for the worst team in the standings. You need to take into account the lottery odds and also the probability of getting to the very bottom part of the standings before making your conclusions. Also, you should look at a longer time period. Your claim that tanking (securing a top-5 pick) is 12 times better strategy than not tanking doesn’t hold water. Also, we're talking about small %s here.
 
Good post.

No doubt the odds are much better with a top-5 pick. I have two responses. One might change the math a bit, though not the overall conclusion. The other is more philosophical.

First, I think you were being rather more stringent with your list than I was with mine. If I followed my original way of thinking, I might add players like Butler, Booker, Mitchell, Brunson, maybe even Haliburton and others to your list (players that haven't achieved the pinnacle, but appear to be the key pieces on contenders or near contenders if they can get the right teammates around them). Another reason I think you may have been a bit more picky with your list is that my list of top-5 players drafted in the past 15 years is accountable for one actual championship where the named player was clearly the team's best player over the course of the season. Your list of non top-five choices accounts for 8 championships (actually 4 if we exclude Curry who was drafted more than 15 years ago).

But, in any event, my larger point is more about the futility of relying on any single strategy, and maybe even questioning whether "strategy" is the right word to describe what's going on. The point is that luck is a much bigger factor than strategy in any of this. You might have a strategy of trying to maximize the odds that you'll be lucky, but the odds are going to be quite low in whatever direction you take. I'm more responding to the sentiment that the path to success is necessarily through a "real tank". Yeah, you might get lucky in that type of tank by getting a true champion-level #1, but odds are pretty heavy that you won't in any sort of reasonable timeline.

I'm not a dogmatic anti-tanker, but I think I'm wise enough to acknowledge that any success from tanking requires not only (maybe not even) "going all in" and making wise choices, but also a whole lot of luck that is beyond any one team's control. Tearing it down to the studs and trying to build back up could lead to years at the bottom, to growing back to a mediocre team, to getting a good but not great team, or (only least likely I think) to true championship contention.

If the odds of even going full-Hinkie are not really on your side, I'm not going to lose any sleep over keeping Laurie this year.
Yeah, the bottom line is that the odds of drafting a top 5 player are extremely low, so low that in practice, it really is all down to luck and nothing else. Even with a hard tank that results the worst record, it’s pretty hopeless with the current lottery system. Between 1989-2020 five of the 32 No. 1 draft picks (15.6%) have won an MVP. But if we take into account the current lottery odds of getting a No. 1 pick, the probability of snatching a future MVP is only 2% (0.14x0.156) even for a team with the worst record (the best tank).
 
Last edited:
Hendricks at 3 and Lauri at 4? Is this a projection of development or a positionless lineup based on height alone? As in right now Lauri is much better playing like a wing than Hendricks.

I mean if I project anyone of this current team to 3 over Lauri it would have to be Cody.
I think they are interchangeable. Defensively I would expect Hendricks to guard more 3's and offensively I expect him to mostly float around the perimeter and cut to the basket. I'm not expecting him to work much in the post.
 
Read the thread again. I did not mention those guys, I actually pointed out that most of those guys have done nothing in the league thus far. It was @idiot who listed those players.

And yes, I'd be unhappy if the Jazz had a top 5 pick and got KAT, Beal or Young. Not one of those players is clearly better than Lauri and two are not better at all.
Now I know you are trolling for sure. Good to know.
 
I think the only bad result for next season is getting wins off the backs of vets who are not in the longterm plans.

Dump Clarkson and Collins and I really don't think there is a bad outcome possible.
Yep. You can't really be disappointed if it's in the young guys leading the way.
 
Trade as many vets as possible (Sexton, Clarkson, Collins), extend Lauri and have him "injured" a good amount of the next season or two (e.g. Shai), and give the keys to all the young guys (Key, Taylor, Brice, Kessler, Cody, Collier, Filipowski). Like what was said just before me if this group of guys can galvanize a decent amount of wins on their own so be it. That'd mean our young guys are heading in the right direction. Might not get a top 3 pick of our own, but we'd know our young guys are the future. Or we have an absolutely awful year and hopefully get a top pick for 2025. Then build back up from there.
 
Tell Kessler to pretend to be dirk on offense and have him guard Kyrie on the perimeter on defense. Let him expand his game lol.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
On a more serious note, I'd make sure Kessler was seeing a lot of reps in the short roll. We'll lose plenty, but he needs this element in his game if he's going to be a winner.
 
Yeah, the bottom line is that the odds of drafting a top 5 player are extremely low, so low that in practice, it really is all down to luck and nothing else. Even with a hard tank that results the worst record, it’s pretty hopeless with the current lottery system. Between 1989-2020 five of the 32 No. 1 draft picks (15.6%) have won an MVP. But if we take into account the current lottery odds of getting a No. 1 pick, the probability of snatching a future MVP is only 2% (0.14x0.156) even for a team with the worst record (the best tank).
You talk as if getting the top 5 picks and drafting a franchise cornerstone(s) with them is such a random, lottery-based luck. But well-run franchises do it all the time. Just recently San Antonio, Houston, OKC and Philadelphia successfully tanked and drafted their cornerstone, while. Boston did the same by acquiring the top-5 picks via trade. Even Minnesota tanked long enough to finally build their contender around KAT and Ant.

Of course, there are teams that keep tanking and getting nothing but these are usually badly run teams like the Hornets, Wizards or Detroit. Remember, all other alternatives (trades, free agents, drafting with lower picks) are statistically much, much worse for everyone not named the Lakers or the Heat, or not having an insanely rich and generous owner like Ballmer.

I mean, you can always use the alternative strategies and fairly quickly build a first-round exit team, as the Jazz did with the Mitchell-Gobert core. If that's your goal then it's fine: no need for these useless, unreliable top 5 picks.
 
Just for the illustrative purposes: this year's Finals featured two teams vying for the championship: one led by 3rd and 1st picks and another led by two 3rd picks, with another two 3rd picks being important contributors.
 
Just a thought exercise, would having no Keegan Murray versus no Keegan Murray be worth it in terms of taking a worse deal now vs later to tank early? Same question for Podz, Moody, Kuminga, Vassell, or any other players/picks that has been mentioned from teams that were rumored.

How valuable is it to tank now?
 
Just for the illustrative purposes: this year's Finals featured two teams vying for the championship: one led by 3rd and 1st picks and another led by two 3rd picks, with another two 3rd picks being important contributors.
With the most important 3rd picks being homegrown and not acquired later.
 
Just a thought exercise, would having no Keegan Murray versus no Keegan Murray be worth it in terms of taking a worse deal now vs later to tank early? Same question for Podz, Moody, Kuminga, Vassell, or any other players/picks that has been mentioned from teams that were rumored.

How valuable is it to tank now?
First 50 games will be key. Down the stretch we can get ugly but so will everyone else. Keep Lauri. Trade others. Tank this ****. I know I know... what if the young guys carry us... legit if Key, Taylor, Brice, Williams, Collier, Flip, Lofton with Lauri end up winning too many games then fine. Its that we are hanging on to Sexton, Kessler, JCx2 and one or two of the kids may be good enough to push you out of the desired range. Trade at least two from that group.
 
Back
Top