Assists per game were 20% lower back in 2011 but FGA were also 10% so part of it is increased pace. Biggest difference is in 3PA which were almost 50% lower (18.0 then vs 35.1). And that is Lauris biggest strength.The example with Dirk is a good one! I think that 15-30 years ago playmaking was thought as almost exclusively coming from guards who were setting up bigs for their attack. And I also think that this has changed by now. Now almost every team has a playmaking big who can penetrate, collapse the defense and then kick out to an open teammate. Giannis, Embiid, LeBron, Sabonis, Jokic...even Randle!
And yes, you can try to compensate for lacking it by having the playmaking to come from somewhere else but this requires more money spent/more draft luck and still does not fully compensate for your star not being able to playmake. If Lauri was a good playmaker or at least a defensive force we could reasonably hope that all that we need is one more star. Instead, we will have to go the way of the Timberwolves who have a similar situation with KAT: they had to still find a defensive and a passing All-Star to become competitive.
If the Jazz commit max money to Lauri they simply would be buying a one-dimensional star. It is a bit of a repeat of commiting the max money to another one-dimensional star, Gobert. It looks good and necessary at the time but really restricts your options down the road and puts a hard ceiling on how good your team could be. Again, remember the Mitchell-Gobert Jazz?
So even if his passing is short of ideal, it is rather silly to argue that difference is big enough to mean he doesnt fit a modern championship core as a 7 foot sharpshooter with 50/40/90 splits and near league leading PPP efficiency and low turnover rate (while playing with subpar supporting cast).
He isnt a #1, but is fine as your 2nd best player.