What's new
By:

Training Camp 2025

SoberasHotRod said:
I wonder if there was ever a real package from SAS. I'm still not sad about missing out on anything that was reported from GSW.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. One of the challenges with trading for Lauri is that many teams seem to be angling for Giannis. HOU and SAS, for example, have seemed like decent Lauri destinations. While I'd say they are both good fits for him, I don't think either team wants to give up their Giannis dream quite yet.

I'm pretty sad about missing out on the reported package from GSW....and since there's been some debate on what that actually is, I'm going by what Shams said which is "all the picks, but no Podz".
 
KqWIN said:
I doubt it. One of the challenges with trading for Lauri is that many teams seem to be angling for Giannis. HOU and SAS, for example, have seemed like decent Lauri destinations. While I'd say they are both good fits for him, I don't think either team wants to give up their Giannis dream quite yet.

I'm pretty sad about missing out on the reported package from GSW....and since there's been some debate on what that actually is, I'm going by what Shams said which is "all the picks, but no Podz".
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm not sad about not having Kuminga and late firsts when we already have too many young players to develop.

I like watching Lauri play basketball, I think he helps our young guys (no need to hash this argument out again, I know where you stand), and there is still a chance he can help us win games when we want to win.

I also don't really think there is much opportunity cost we are giving up by having his contract on our books right now.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Eh, I'm not sad about not having Kuminga and late firsts when we already have too many young players to develop.

I like watching Lauri play basketball, I think he helps our young guys (no need to hash this argument out again, I know where you stand), and there is still a chance he can help us win games when we want to win.

I also don't really think there is much opportunity cost we are giving up by having his contract on our books right now.
Click to expand...

I’d consider the Warriors picks post Curry premium and those are the assets I’m sad about missing out on.

I don’t think having Lauri vs another prospect affects development for other prospects, and while we don’t have much of an opportunity cost for keeping him we’re really not getting any value from having him. I enjoy watching Lauri play, but I find it more brutal to watch him in an environment where he is set up to fail and wasting his prime years.
 
I also don't think that Lauri is a negative contract (at least not yet). In that clip from Lowe he says that there are a lot of teams that want him.

He obviously needs to have a better year than last year, but I think that's very likely.
 
I don't think Lauri has negative value, but he probably has 1/4 or 1/2 of the value he had at this time last year depending on how you rated him there. If he has a so-so season, he will be negative. He needs to perform at least at the level of his second season w/Utah. But even then, I'm not sure that level of performance as an instant max for all teams. I would agree that Lauri is a great fit along stars, but there is a difficulty fitting in that size of salary next to multiple star sized salaries. DET and POR make a lot of sense to me because they don't have too many massive, long term salary. TOR could also work because you'd be exchanging big salary.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't think Lauri has negative value, but he probably has 1/4 or 1/2 of the value he had at this time last year depending on how you rated him there. If he has a so-so season, he will be negative. He needs to perform at least at the level of his second season w/Utah. But even then, I'm not sure that level of performance as an instant max for all teams. I would agree that Lauri is a great fit along stars, but there is a difficulty fitting in that size of salary next to multiple star sized salaries. DET and POR make a lot of sense to me because they don't have too many massive, long term salary. TOR could also work because you'd be exchanging big salary.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.
 
KqWIN said:
Yeah there's no doubt that we mismanaged the Lauri situation. The half tank years were bad, but we still had an out by trading him before last season. We could have still gotten great value for him even if it wasn't the delusional value some around here thought we deserved. If Lauri has a so-so season, he's going to viewed as one of the worst contracts in the league. I actually think he needs a great season just to maintain his value at all. Teams aren't handing out max contracts like candy anymore.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It's easy to look back in hindsight and see where the peak value was but it's more difficult in the moment. Then again, that's why the front office gets paid the big bucks. They are supposed to be able to figure out the right moves at the right time. Austin Ainge is more willing to take less than peak value for trades as long as it serves the long term direction of the Jazz. We all love Lauri but it just makes sense to trade him if we can get any sort of good package out of it and AA is more willing to pull the trigger. The contract is a bit of a hinderance, but Lauri is worth it when he is playing at his best.
 
Obviously Lauri needs to have good health (and he might already have some issues), but it’s just a tough situation for him to perform in. I’d probably pair him a Collier together as much as possible. I’m still not sure Collier is an NBA caliber player, but he is the type of player that should be able to help Lauri. I think we have decent shooting/spacing, so maybe it’s not too bad on offense.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I mean, one post-Steph pick has an uncommonly likely chance to be a premium asset. But
Click to expand...
I have it in my head that the only firsts they could have traded was 25 and 27 or 26 and 28. I think maybe they could have traded more if they removed protections, but it was never clear what they were actually offering.

If an unprotected post Steph pick was really on the table then yeah, we probably should have done it. It's just hard for me to be too sad when it was never clear what we turned down and I like Lauri.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I have it in my head that the only firsts they could have traded was 25 and 27 or 26 and 28. I think maybe they could have traded more if they removed protections, but it was never clear what they were actually offering.

If an unprotected post Steph pick was really on the table then yeah, we probably should have done it. It's just hard for me to be too sad when it was never clear what we turned down and I like Lauri.
Click to expand...

26/28/30 could have been unprotected except for 30. If their 30 pick landed between 21-30 it goes to Wizards, otherwise it would (in this scenario) go to the Jazz. Curry would be 39 so he may not be retired, but would likely be retired for 30 and they also could swap every other year through 31. IMO, control of the Warriors draft for Curry ages 39-42 is super valuable. You also could have potentially bought that portion of the 30 pick from the Warriors and opened up other possibilities, but I can't remember if that was best or not.

It is true that we will never know what was actually offered. Shams said what he said but that's not 100% reliable. Whatever the truth is, I find it hard to believe that we're in a stronger position because we kept Lauri. I think we made a big mistake, but going forward it's probably best to keep him because I can't imagine there are good offers on the table. There might not be any offers of any value until he plays well again.

FYI: This is what I'm referencing from Shams:


View: https://x.com/SiriusXMNBA/status/1813038343518912918
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top