Who would you rather keep, Lauri Markkanen or John Collins? (Please read scenario)

[HeatCheck]

Depends on the return tbh. Obviously Lauri is better in a vacuum but if they can land a premium FRP + prospect they could consider dealing him I would assume. Locke certainly seems to believe they will be "tanking" again next season so it doesn't really make sense to worry too much about roster construction at this point unless it seriously impacts available minutes for their draft pick.

 

[jazznik]

Another thing to consider is that Collins as a player has very few weak areas. He can score inside, he can shoot from the outside, he is OK on defense, can do some passing and dribbling, can play physically. John also has playoff experience, very coachable and sticks well to his role. John is easily pluggable in all kind of schemes and lineups, while not having any obvious flaws that can be exploited in the playoffs.

Lauri has an undeniably higher ceiling and more position-flexible but there are more questions about him. Can he play physically in playoffs, how well can he coexist with, say, younger stars who would try to take away his leadership role on the team, will he return to his All Star form, will he get tired of the extended tank? Also, Markkanen will turn 28 in a month - I would be way more comfortable in keeping him marinating on the max if he were 25.

 

[fishonjazz]

I cant decide. I think Lauri is the better player but his contract tho.
I guess I would probably say trade Lauri and keep collins if he is going to get something in the 20-25 million per year on his next deal.

 

[jazznik]

Like, realistically, what is the timeline with Lauri? We will most likely tank next year. Will we make the playoffs the year after that? The West is tough and the Jazz can easily fall short even with good young players. (see the Spurs with Wemby). If we make the payoffs for the first time in the 27/28 season then Lauri will be getting his first playoff learning experience at the age of 31, while spending all of his career on the bad teams. How long would it take for him to take his lumps and become a productive star player on a contender then? By the time he is 33 or 34? I think there is quite a bit of risk in it.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I have real concerns with Lauri and his contract. Then there’s the tanking piece that @KqWIN mentioned wherein if Lauri’s good, it’s bad for that, and if Lauri’s bad (again, frankly) then we quickly have one of the absolute worst contracts in the NBA hanging around our necks.

I’ll take either an expiring Collins or a renegotiate and extended Collins on a value deal (bearing in mind we have to hit a salary floor and need good salary ballast for future trades) by a comfortable margin.

I’d probably prefer to have neither if they can be successfully liquidated for respectable value.

 

[KqWIN]

Obviously Lauri being a great player is a reason to keep him, but I do think there has to be a plan going forward if you keeping. If the plan is to try to move forward and compete for playoffs, that’s a hell no for me. Are we going to sit and do nothing? Also a hell no for me. I don’t think of tanking as the golden goose, but I don’t see other paths as viable. I actually see them as pretty awful ways to build given our position, so tanking is the way. Great players don’t mix with tanking.

It obviously worked out this season, but there was a lot of "good" fortune we had that produced this result. Lauri not being a great player was part of that and if we want it to succeed that would also be a part of that. On a personal note, I also hate the good fortune we produced on our own by purposely throwing games. It's embarrassing and even if it hurts us I hope the league finds a way to prevent it in the future. If you look back, I was more optimistic about the Lauri+tank option than anyone. This time, I am much less optimistic. Our young players are improving and turning into real players. With reasonable improvement, we'd actually have a deep roster....the exact type of roster that produces wins in the regular season. With some organic growth and less artificial losses, I think we're headed for the Blazers zone and for that it likely means we lose our pick next year.

So if you're selling me on keeping Lauri, I think that requires trading both Sexton and Collins. That is non-negotiable and I don't care if we take the L on a trade and give them away for nothing. I think we also consider trading one of our younger players who are ready to contribute, someone like Keyonte. Sounds crazy to trade a young player while tanking, but there's a cost to trying to tank with Lauri. I understand the hesitation to trade Lauri when his value is low. But if you're not willing to take the L on his trade, you have to take the L elsewhere.

I think it should also be noted that if you're planning on keeping Lauri now, you're probably in it for the long haul with him unless you try to push forward. You're setting him up for personal failure, and if he has another bad year we are looking at one of the worst deals in the league. We won't be trading Lauri unless he lives up to his contract which is tough to do in a tanking situation.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Somewhat related, but could someone put together our options for a potential John Collins extension this summer? I don't think I'm necessarily interested in extending Collins, but am just curious what we could offer him.

If they cut KJ Martin and find another ~$15 million in cuts and/or by returning less salary in another trade (the Jazz are gonna have to ink some substantial deals for their draft picks), they could give Collins a ~$10 million raise this season, then drop 40% for the remainder of the at-least 4-year contract (which includes the last year of the old deal that will receive a raise).

I think it would look something like this:
25-26: $35.5 million
26-27: $21.3 million
27-28: $21.3 million
28-29: $21.3 million

Bear in mind that the cap almost always goes up, so those later seasons get cheaper and cheaper relative to the cap. I chose these numbers based on how much Collins would make if he were to simply make the same amount of the last year of his current contract over three additional years, but front-loading next season.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

If they cut KJ Martin and find another ~$15 million in cuts and/or by returning less salary in another trade (the Jazz are gonna have to ink some substantial deals for their draft picks), they could give Collins a ~$10 million raise this season, then drop 40% for the remainder of the at-least 4-year contract (which includes the last year of the old deal that will receive a raise).

I think it would look something like this:
25-26: $35.5 million
26-27: $21.3 million
27-28: $21.3 million
28-29: $21.3 million

Bear in mind that the cap almost always goes up, so those later seasons get cheaper and cheaper relative to the cap. I chose these numbers based on how much Collins would make if he were to simply make the same amount of the last year of his current contract over three additional years, but front-loading next season.

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

Just going to put this here. The jazz maybe have the greatest two year draft stretch in nba history getting Stockton and Malone in back to back years. And that led to two finals runs and before I get flack for how long it took, I blame that on Miller no willing or able to spend the money to build the team.

God willing we can get picks one or two this year and replicate it next year with a top 3 pick. We should trade Lauri, not because he sucks or even that he will get us prime picks, but because we need to spend money to fill out the team and get one more elite talent. Lauri for his size and shooting is a great not elite star type talent.

 

[NUMBERICA]

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

This was actually less-rosy than I had initially been computing because I hadn’t considered the cap impacts of a high draft pick. But, IIRC, Svi ($3.3 million), Juzang ($2.8 million), and Springer ($2.6 million) can be cut and their cap numbers are removed from the books. That alone might get them close enough to a number to make it happen ($33, $20, $20, $20). Also, it would be easy to return less money in a Lauri trade.

 

[GunterD]

I dunno its like, in a strategy card game, you want to set up your deck to give yourself multiple ways to win. My optimimum is to get this combination of cards, and if I do I will win. But if I don't get that combination of cards, I want a backup plan involving a different combination of cards. And probably a backup to that. So you maximize your chances of winning by maximizing the chance that you'll get at least one of those killer combos.

Jazz have a lot of cards in the deck right now. Own draft picks. Other teams picks. Young Players. Good Players. Tradable contracts.

One of the winning conditions is you acquire 3 fantastic young players that can become the core of a contender team in several years when they hit their primes.
One of the winning conditions in you acquire 3 established all stars from other teams and win now.
One of the winning conditions from this is you acquire two all star players alongside Lauri.
You may be able to make an argument that you can win by acquiring 2 young future all star players and play them alongside Lauri. If the window on that one is open, its closing pretty fast though.

The "Draft for Success" strategy is maybe the one we think has the best chance of working. But with all the tradeable assets we have, I think you want to keep the "Trade to Success" strategy on the table. And that condition is easier to fulfill if you have Lauri on the team. So, as long as you can keep that going without compromising the drafting strategy (which, gross as it was, recent evidence would say we can probably do for at least one more year) you keep him.

 

[infection]

I blame that on Miller no willing or able to spend the money to build the team.

Of all the mistruths in Jazz history, this one is, to me, the most oft-repeated but blatantly false. If I’m ever on a @Handlogten's Heros @Elizah Huge podcast, it’s to dispel this ridiculous truism that’s been baked so thoroughly into Jazz culture history.

 

[gomretat]

We should definitely trade Lauri to be consistent with who we are. Over the last 3 years we do all we can to get rid of our best players because getting draft picks and drafting rookies with unknown potential is much more fun than winning games. How cool is it that Jazz fans get more excited for the draft lottery than they do for the playoffs! I hope we never change. Trade both of them. They are both too good to be Jazzmen.

 

[gomretat]

Of all the mistruths in Jazz history, this one is, to me, the most oft-repeated but blatantly false. If I’m ever on a @Handlogten's Heros @Elizah Huge podcast, it’s to dispel this ridiculous truism that’s been baked so thoroughly into Jazz culture history.

The Millers were not smart. They just did all they could to keep the Jazz in Utah and build a winning team. We now have enlightened owners and an enlightened FO.

 

[David Hume]

The Millers were not smart. They just did all they could to keep the Jazz in Utah and build a winning team. We now have enlightened owners and an enlightened FO.

Did somebody say "Enlightenment"?