What's new

Does Lauri Get Traded?

Does Lauri Get Dealt Before The Season Starts?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Harrison Barnes, maybe?

I’m not necessarily a big JK fan, I just want all the assets we can get to cripple them while we own their draft.
Harrison Barnes was a ballhandling wing at NC. People talked about him like he was a Kobe type.

As far as NBA role is concerned, I still don’t think the ball chops or pure shooting ability are particularly close.
 
Harrison Barnes, maybe?

I’m not necessarily a big JK fan, I just want all the assets we can get to cripple them while we own their draft.
I think its Pascal but his motor doesn't run as hot and I'm not sure he will be that level of playmaker.
 
The volatility in player value is astounding.

3 years ago Lauri was valued at a first, a second, and a guy.


And 2 years ago, Donovan was dancing on the golf course when he heard how little the Cavs had to give up

“Per Windhorst, Mitchell proceeded to excitedly run around, celebrating the news that he had not only been traded to Cleveland, but that the Cavs were able to keep Darius Garland, Jarrett Allen, Evan Mobley and Kevin Love when making the deal.”
 
The volatility in player value is astounding.

3 years ago Lauri was valued at a first, a second, and a guy.


And 2 years ago, Donovan was dancing on the golf course when he heard how little the Cavs had to give up

“Per Windhorst, Mitchell proceeded to excitedly run around, celebrating the news that he had not only been traded to Cleveland, but that the Cavs were able to keep Darius Garland, Jarrett Allen, Evan Mobley and Kevin Love when making the deal.”
I couldn’t figure out why nobody wanted Lauri three years ago. The headline that the Bulls “made out like bandits” is ASTOUNDING to me.
 
We can both agree then that JC’s value was high, just as JK’s value is high. If JK does not improve it’s also agree GSW would regret trading him. If you project JC’s development arc onto anyone the decision to trade him at 21 is always going to look better. I wouldn’t say every 21 develops like JC though.
Correct... it doesn't always workout but its an example of a situation where I'd rather sell the mystery box at a premium than pay a lot to find out.
The numbers would say he’s a good defender and I’d also agree he’s a good defender. Also, being a bad defender does not automatically make you a tweener, it just makes him a bad defender. He does not put up big BLK/STL/REB numbers. In spite of that he looks good in metrics like EPM. The numbers certainly indicate that he’s doing something on defense with that length beyond the box score, and watching him I get the same impression. The argument against him would be what?
Maybe he is good... you made it sound as if he was Jaden Mcdaniels with how switchy and great he is. He's likely good. I said he's not great. Like I wouldn't say it will be a calling card.
He has good ball handling and passing for a guy with his size+athleticism. Anyone with that combo of skill+athleticism is going to make you wonder if he can do more. What he can’t do well is spot up for 3’s, putting the ball in his hands is a natural solution to that. I don’t want to be the “just watch him play” guy, but I do think it applies with JK. Feel free to disagree, but I think it shows. You’re not going to find the proof of concept for him on a paper if he’s not given the opportunity in the first place, but his synergy numbers in both isolations and PnR ball handler are really solid.
I mean GS needed that... so why not let him cook in all that space? I don't think his bag is going to be good enough to be that guy. If he isn't and moves off ball the shooting is not great... so could be in between roles. I don't have access to synergy but looked up his isos and PnR ball handler stuff and would not describe what I saw as solid.
 
Correct... it doesn't always workout but its an example of a situation where I'd rather sell the mystery box at a premium than pay a lot to find out.

Maybe he is good... you made it sound as if he was Jaden Mcdaniels with how switchy and great he is. He's likely good. I said he's not great. Like I wouldn't say it will be a calling card.

I mean GS needed that... so why not let him cook in all that space? I don't think his bag is going to be good enough to be that guy. If he isn't and moves off ball the shooting is not great... so could be in between roles. I don't have access to synergy but looked up his isos and PnR ball handler stuff and would not describe what I saw as solid.

I never said he was Jalen good. There’s room between being one of the best in the league and being a bad defender. Guarding multiple positions is what he does on defense, it’s how he provides value. So whether you think he’s a 3 or a 4 offensively, he defends that position. Even if you think he’s crappy at defense and a 4 on offense….hes just a 4. I can’t see a tweener.

You’re asking the same question that Warriors fans are asking. It’s like saying, “why doesn’t Kerr play Moody”. Surely you can understand that there is a possible mismatch between a player’s ability and his role/responsibility. As far as the numbers go, I think we’re looking at the same ones…but I’d describe them as solid. Those numbers are funky so I don’t really want to argue with them though. For example, JK’s PnR ball handler efficiency is better than Curry. Whatever, if 70th percentile is not solid in your eyes….so be it. The real case for him doing more lies in the film. There’s a reason why we think a guy like Cody Williams could potentially play with the ball in his hands despite doing it in a low dose. If you look at the film and say, “there’s no way he can do more” I can’t change your mind.

There’s also multiple ways to improve. The whole point of a 6’8 athletic prospect is that he has the physical ability to do pretty much anything. Like if you don’t think he can play with the ball, is it impossible for him to improve his jumper and be an even more prolific off ball player? Can he not get better at defense.

There just aren’t a lot of guys his age with his physical tools, raw production, efficiency, and favorable metrics. I think you can still look at all that and not be convinced. But there is a reason for all this belief in him.
 
Lol... you want to talk weird comparisons. SGA and Hali I knew exactly what they were and would happily pay them and try to get them. Both guys had like 2-3 years left on their rookie deal. I am not saying don't get good young players. I am saying JK should not be valued like some budding star... and if he is I would recycle him. If he is valued properly in the trade then go ahead and take a flyer. If someone else wants to take that bet they can if they want to pay us.
IMG_7917.jpeg
"I knew exactly what they were"
 
View attachment 16744
"I knew exactly what they were"
Meaning Haliburton is a high level point guard and SGA is a scorer/creator. I had an argument with Dan Clayton when Hali was traded if you want to go back and check the receipts on my thoughts there lol. JK is a pile of maybe. After 3 years I am waaaaaay less certain on what he will be than Shai or Hali after 1 year and 1.5 years respectively. If you think that’s a comparison you’d like to make then go on ahead.
 
I never said he was Jalen good. There’s room between being one of the best in the league and being a bad defender. Guarding multiple positions is what he does on defense, it’s how he provides value. So whether you think he’s a 3 or a 4 offensively, he defends that position. Even if you think he’s crappy at defense and a 4 on offense….hes just a 4. I can’t see a tweener.
I know you didn’t say he was Jalen good but the description you gave was Jalen like. I don’t think he’s nearly as versatile as you described. I never said he was crappy… just not great imo. He’s more adequate but interesting than great. You’re hung up on tweener… don’t be. His motor and attention wavers. Go ahead and go into “let him cook mode” and see how much his defensive intensity slides.
You’re asking the same question that Warriors fans are asking. It’s like saying, “why doesn’t Kerr play Moody”. Surely you can understand that there is a possible mismatch between a player’s ability and his role/responsibility. As far as the numbers go, I think we’re looking at the same ones…but I’d describe them as solid. Those numbers are funky so I don’t really want to argue with them though. For example, JK’s PnR ball handler efficiency is better than Curry. Whatever, if 70th percentile is not solid in your eyes….so be it. The real case for him doing more lies in the film. There’s a reason why we think a guy like Cody Williams could potentially play with the ball in his hands despite doing it in a low dose. If you look at the film and say, “there’s no way he can do more” I can’t change your mind.

There’s also multiple ways to improve. The whole point of a 6’8 athletic prospect is that he has the physical ability to do pretty much anything. Like if you don’t think he can play with the ball, is it impossible for him to improve his jumper and be an even more prolific off ball player? Can he not get better at defense.

There just aren’t a lot of guys his age with his physical tools, raw production, efficiency, and favorable metrics. I think you can still look at all that and not be convinced. But there is a reason for all this belief in him.
He’s more theory than fact… and you may have to pay him like he’s fact. If someone wants to give me an asset I don’t have to make a critical decision on with a lot of uncertainty I would swap that out. You do you though. If you can’t see the parallels from the John Collins situation I’m not surprised… you were fooled then too.
 
I wrote about a couple potential Jordan Clarkson trade ideas. Let me know what you think and which one is your favorite. Thanks for reading!

I'll take the Cavs trade, please.
 
I know you didn’t say he was Jalen good but the description you gave was Jalen like. I don’t think he’s nearly as versatile as you described. I never said he was crappy… just not great imo. He’s more adequate but interesting than great. You’re hung up on tweener… don’t be. His motor and attention wavers. Go ahead and go into “let him cook mode” and see how much his defensive intensity slides.

He’s more theory than fact… and you may have to pay him like he’s fact. If someone wants to give me an asset I don’t have to make a critical decision on with a lot of uncertainty I would swap that out. You do you though. If you can’t see the parallels from the John Collins situation I’m not surprised… you were fooled then too.

If you choose to interpret "versatile + good" as Jaden McDaniels, I can't control that. But I will stand by that he is both versatile and good. He has a 95th percentile defensive versatility score and good metrics as mentioned before. Unless you have another argument, we can just agree to disagree because there is no counter argument to "because I said so". You think one thing, ok. I think another thing and so do the numbers. Tweener never made sense to me and I explained why.

As far as the Collins parallel, all I can say about that is that they were both good players at a young age. They are similar in the sense that they both command a lot as young players, but I'm not sure how that means they will have the same outcomes. I don't consider them to be similar players, but even if they were, I don't necessarily see that as a warning shot. There is a long list of players that got big money because they showed potential. Some of them are similar and got different results. Some of them were very different and yet they got the same results. You are holding onto this John Collins comparisons because John Collins happened to never developed. Of course that could be the case for Kuminga as it could be with any player, but he as an individual can have his own individual outcomes. If you're saying that not every player develops and that not every player who is paid on potential works, I would say "duh".

Kuminga is going to get money and he would be worth a lot in any trade package, I don't know if you've conceded that but you were certain that was not the case the last time we talked about this. When I mentioned you have a blindspot, it's because you acted like you could not fathom how someone could think he has the potential to improve and be valued. Whether he's actually worth it or not, I think it could go either way. He's not a Quickley situation where I'm 100% in or a Barrett situation where I'm 100% out. But I'm not deterred by being a tweener or the fact that John Collins happened to never develop.
 
Meaning Haliburton is a high level point guard and SGA is a scorer/creator. I had an argument with Dan Clayton when Hali was traded if you want to go back and check the receipts on my thoughts there lol. JK is a pile of maybe. After 3 years I am waaaaaay less certain on what he will be than Shai or Hali after 1 year and 1.5 years respectively. If you think that’s a comparison you’d like to make then go on ahead.

Some players can take longer. Remember JK was actually pretty raw when drafted. That’s why I think he has a big leap in his development yet to come. I am actually pretty high on him. Still only 21
 
I doubt anyone looks very good on our team next year if we trade away Lauri. I don't think that team would be capable of recouping/increasing anyone's value.
This is something most dont seem to fully appreciate. In really bad teams players on the roster bleed value. Even if they get minutes and put up nice individual stats, people will say those are empty stats.

You gotta pop off the tape to build value there and if you do you are likely gonna be a keeper anyways.

Performing bad has collateral costs.
 
If you choose to interpret "versatile + good" as Jaden McDaniels, I can't control that. But I will stand by that he is both versatile and good. He has a 95th percentile defensive versatility score and good metrics as mentioned before. Unless you have another argument, we can just agree to disagree because there is no counter argument to "because I said so". You think one thing, ok. I think another thing and so do the numbers. Tweener never made sense to me and I explained why.

As far as the Collins parallel, all I can say about that is that they were both good players at a young age. They are similar in the sense that they both command a lot as young players, but I'm not sure how that means they will have the same outcomes. I don't consider them to be similar players, but even if they were, I don't necessarily see that as a warning shot. There is a long list of players that got big money because they showed potential. Some of them are similar and got different results. Some of them were very different and yet they got the same results. You are holding onto this John Collins comparisons because John Collins happened to never developed. Of course that could be the case for Kuminga as it could be with any player, but he as an individual can have his own individual outcomes. If you're saying that not every player develops and that not every player who is paid on potential works, I would say "duh".

Kuminga is going to get money and he would be worth a lot in any trade package, I don't know if you've conceded that but you were certain that was not the case the last time we talked about this. When I mentioned you have a blindspot, it's because you acted like you could not fathom how someone could think he has the potential to improve and be valued. Whether he's actually worth it or not, I think it could go either way. He's not a Quickley situation where I'm 100% in or a Barrett situation where I'm 100% out. But I'm not deterred by being a tweener or the fact that John Collins happened to never develop.
I've hit my limit here... sorry... if yall want to believe in JK then go on ahead. If the Warriors gave us a choice of Podz+Moody with the picks or JK with the picks I know what I would choose.
 
Top