Does Lauri Get Traded?

[Hearsky]

Is that why when I look at him I only see @Hearsky 's mom's boobs?

My mom's boobs hang to her knees, my short king.

 

[fishonjazz]

Kqwin is a true innovator when it comes to arguing. As a noted contrarian, I'm impressed.

Lol

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[kcgar]

I think we're conflating two things right now. One the notion that there cannot exist a deal that is good enough without Podz. For example, Mood+JK+All the picks. If that is not enough, than sure....Podz is the only thing that can push the value further. Like I said, that's a different complication. God bless you all, and here's to a great tank with Lauri.

What I'm saying is that if it is possible to get a deal done without Podz, it will be done without him because he's more valuable to GSW than UTA. For me, there exists a deal that does not include Podz which is enough to say yes. And in that scenario, it would not make sense to further substitute out compensation to include Podz.

What is going on here? You are over-arguing something very very simple. If GS wants Lauri, then they meet the demand set by Jazz. Period. As Cy said, GS is the buyer and Jazz are the seller and the seller has ALL the leverage. I don’t think anybody can explain it any clearer.

 

[KqWIN]

What is going on here? You are over-arguing something very very simple. If GS wants Lauri, then they meet the demand set by Jazz. Period. As Cy said, GS is the buyer and Jazz are the seller and the seller has ALL the leverage. I don’t think anybody can explain it any clearer.

Yeah, you're conflating two things exactly as I said in my post. You're talking about the first thing I mentioned. Both end up in the same result, which is no trade.

 

[Mongoose]

When I sold my Harley I listed it for a price that I thought it was worth. I took good care of that bike and it was in really great shape. This guy kept calling me on it and making offers and I kept telling him that he is going to need to meet my asking price. He told me that the bank wouldn’t loan him that much money for it, so I told him to start saving his penny’s. He told me that I didn’t get to decide how much my bike was worth and I laughed in his face and sold it to someone for my asking price a week later.

 

[orange]

When I sold my Harley I listed it for a price that I thought it was worth. I took good care of that bike and it was in really great shape. This guy kept calling me on it and making offers and I kept telling him that he is going to need to meet my asking price. He told me that the bank wouldn’t loan him that much money for it, so I told him to start saving his penny’s. He told me that I didn’t get to decide how much my bike was worth and I laughed in his face and sold it to someone for my asking price a week later.

Not a very good analogy because the value of players is not clearly defined. Askin All the picks + Podziemski could be compared to asking the First guy for all his money + his wedding ring. The guy might say no but offer All his money + his stereo system + golf set which might be generally considered to have more value than the wedding ring.

(Of course the seller can always say no).

 

[TheStormofWar]

Not a very good analogy because the value of players is not clearly defined. Askin All the picks + Podziemski could be compared to asking the First guy for all his money + his wedding ring. The guy might say no but offer All his money + his stereo system + golf set which might be generally considered to have more value than the wedding ring.

(Of course the seller can always say no).

Actually it is a good one, simply because Ainge has a value for certain players. Either you meet the price or the player isn't coming over, such as we saw with Don a few years ago.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not a very good analogy because the value of players is not clearly defined. Askin All the picks + Podziemski could be compared to asking the First guy for all his money + his wedding ring. The guy might say no but offer All his money + his stereo system + golf set which might be generally considered to have more value than the wedding ring.

(Of course the seller can always say no).

But he don't give a **** about the stereo or golf set. He only wants all the money and the wedding ring.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Coach Ellis]

But he don't give a **** about the stereo or golf set. He only wants all the money and the wedding ring.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

And maybe a night with your wife. . .

 

[karl malone]

That's the thing tho....the Jazz don't want to trade Lauri and Lauri doesn't want to be traded. This is truly a "you're going to have to come up with a great offer to force our hand"...The Jazz aren't actively trying to get rid of Lauri

I agree that Lauri would prefer to stay & that it is definitely going to take an overpay for another team to acquire him but it seems pretty clear that our FO is actively looking to generate an acceptable offer for him. Otherwise why would they allow these rumors to persist, potentially upsetting the star that they're planning to build around?

I'm sure they would be comfortable with just extending & retaining Lauri for the time being if they don't receive the level of offer that they're seeking, but it seems pretty obvious imo that the FO wants to trade him for a haul. And I believe the rumor of not wanting to move him is just further posturing, similar to how it was rumored that we intended to build around Mitchell right after Gobert was traded.

Looking back, Ainge clearly had a plan all along. And trading Lauri was always part of it imo. Step 1 was to acquire draft picks, young talent (Kessler, Agbaji, THT, etc.) & flippable assets with the potential to increase in value (Lauri, Sexton, Collins, etc.). Step 2 is to cash in on those flippable assets & allow our young talent to develop, simultaneously positioning us near the top of two potentially historic draft classes.

Lauri's unexpected development may have caused the FO to genuinely consider pivoting & adding a 2nd star this off-season, although I believe those rumors to have been more posturing/raising prices for when it came time to deal him, but these persistent GSW rumors definitely seem to indicate that they are back to (or never left) wanting to trade Lauri. Just has to be at their price. I also believe GSW are being used for posturing, similar to NYK with Mitchell.

I'm sure we'd be okay with hanging onto Lauri, but plan A is clearly to trade him for a haul imo. As it always has been.

 

[HermanG]

I agree that Lauri would prefer to stay & that it is definitely going to take an overpay for another team to acquire him but it seems pretty clear that our FO is actively looking to generate an acceptable offer for him. Otherwise why would they allow these rumors to persist, potentially upsetting the star that they're planning to build around?

I'm sure they would be comfortable with just extending & retaining Lauri for the time being if they don't receive the level of offer that they're seeking, but it seems pretty obvious imo that the FO wants to trade him for a haul. And I believe the rumor of not wanting to move him is just further posturing, similar to how it was rumored that we intended to build around Mitchell right after Gobert was traded.

Looking back, Ainge clearly had a plan all along. And trading Lauri was always part of it imo. Step 1 was to acquire draft picks, young talent (Kessler, Agbaji, THT, etc.) & flippable assets with the potential to increase in value (Lauri, Sexton, Collins, etc.). Step 2 is to cash in on those flippable assets & allow our young talent to develop, simultaneously positioning us near the top of two potentially historic draft classes.

Lauri's unexpected development may have caused the FO to genuinely consider pivoting & adding a 2nd star this off-season, although I believe those rumors to have been more posturing/raising prices for when it came time to deal him, but these persistent GSW rumors definitely seem to indicate that they are back to (or never left) wanting to trade Lauri. Just has to be at their price. I also believe GSW are being used for posturing, similar to NYK with Mitchell.

I'm sure we'd be okay with hanging onto Lauri, but plan A is clearly to trade him for a haul imo. As it always has been.

Would have given you a like for the first part but you lost me at "this was Dannys plan all along" part.

He has been in read and react mode the past 2 years and still is. Hasnt done any truely committal moves either way. He is just tinkering on the fringes and taking care of the cap, while ensuring we add young talent and maintain our war chest.

 

[gomretat]

I agree that Lauri would prefer to stay & that it is definitely going to take an overpay for another team to acquire him but it seems pretty clear that our FO is actively looking to generate an acceptable offer for him. Otherwise why would they allow these rumors to persist, potentially upsetting the star that they're planning to build around?

I'm sure they would be comfortable with just extending & retaining Lauri for the time being if they don't receive the level of offer that they're seeking, but it seems pretty obvious imo that the FO wants to trade him for a haul. And I believe the rumor of not wanting to move him is just further posturing, similar to how it was rumored that we intended to build around Mitchell right after Gobert was traded.

Looking back, Ainge clearly had a plan all along. And trading Lauri was always part of it imo. Step 1 was to acquire draft picks, young talent (Kessler, Agbaji, THT, etc.) & flippable assets with the potential to increase in value (Lauri, Sexton, Collins, etc.). Step 2 is to cash in on those flippable assets & allow our young talent to develop, simultaneously positioning us near the top of two potentially historic draft classes.

Lauri's unexpected development may have caused the FO to genuinely consider pivoting & adding a 2nd star this off-season, although I believe those rumors to have been more posturing/raising prices for when it came time to deal him, but these persistent GSW rumors definitely seem to indicate that they are back to (or never left) wanting to trade Lauri. Just has to be at their price. I also believe GSW are being used for posturing, similar to NYK with Mitchell.

I'm sure we'd be okay with hanging onto Lauri, but plan A is clearly to trade him for a haul imo. As it always has been.

Ainge's "plan" is to be opportunistic. It is less of a plan than any professional team I have ever followed. It worked in Boston. I think he got incredibly lucky and I hope he gets incredibly lucky again.