What's new
By:

Will Lauri be traded on or before draft day?

Will Lauri be traded on or before draft day?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • No

    Votes: 43 84.3%
  • Total voters
    51
The Jazz Wonderbra said:
Most years in the history of following this team, if the Jazz were trading for a player of Lauri's caliber we would all be ecstatic.

To suggest he had no value or negative value in a season where we were clearly trying to tank is like devaluing Bill Gates fortune because he spent $6 billion one year trying to completely eradicate Polio. Yeah, fortune dropped, but it is still Bill Gates.
Click to expand...

You trade a player AND his contract.

And Lauri's contract is horrendous. He has no market.
 
It's tough to pin Lauri's value right now. Feels like there are two camps on the extreme ends of 1) his value hasn't changed, NBA teams know the situation and 2) of course his value has changed, he's being paid more and he was not good last season. Like most things it's probably somewhere in the middle.

There have been a few borderline all star type players that have moved recently, but each one seems like it's own situation and I that's kind of how you have to approach it. I think the most comparable would be Siakam. Now I'm probably going to get people from both sides telling me he either has way more or way less value than Siakam when he was traded, but I see it as the fairest middle ground given the other trade situations. Siakam fetched three firsts which seems about right. He was expiring (which provides leverage to the trading team), but likely agreed to the max deal he got beforehand. The Nets got five firsts for Bridges, whose value I think was most similar to Lauri's this summer. The Kings basically got two, but Fox kind of forced his way to SAS.

Going from about 5ish picks to 3ish picks (or losing 40% value) kinda seems right to me. It was a big hit, but his value is not all gone. The large contract makes the # of buyers much more limited though.
 
Lauri has plenty of value. GM's are not misled by the Jazz doing everything they could to be crappy. If Danny has any inkling of still doing "big game" hunting you have to hold on to Lauri. It is also why you dont tie your hands with a trade for Dame. If we trade Lauri it is an open admission that our big game tactics have no chance.
 
IMO, teams know why this past year was down for Lauri. I think it is most likely because the Jazz tanked and he didn't have any quality players around him. There will teams interested and making offers. I think the status of Giannis moving and maybe one or two other players that will be on the market will need to be resolved before Lauri gets moved. I remember reading a thread from a Boston fan when Danny first took over in Utah. They said Danny was frustrating as a GM because he was always in rumors but he tried to squeeze too much out of other teams when working trades. That comment from a Celtic fan has stuck with me.
 
gomretat said:
Lauri has plenty of value. GM's are not misled by the Jazz doing everything they could to be crappy. If Danny has any inkling of still doing "big game" hunting you have to hold on to Lauri. It is also why you dont tie your hands with a trade for Dame. If we trade Lauri it is an open admission that our big game tactics have no chance.
Click to expand...
I believe the window on "big game hunting" closed somewhere over this past season. All of our future draft picks have depreciated enough in value that any "big game hunting" nets a team a tier below the team we blew up to get all those house chips.

We can still use the chips at the bar, though, and for tipping the waitress while we're losing our hand.

Continuing to tank is really the best path forward from here. It's not because that's necessarily the best path. It's because of our choices that now it's the only path.

I don't know if that means selling off Lauri because that seems like another $1 bill for 15 nickels proposition, but it's also hard to envision holding on to a great guy in his prime when our team, under a very "speedy" upswing given our current cards, has us maybe being relevant in 5+ years (optimistically).
 
Trading Lauri considering his contract may be as easy as trading Rudy for Minny.... not much chance unless you accept a way lower return. Lauri is young he can bounce back but with his super max, i don't see much teams queuing to get him.
 
I'd do something like:

Jazz receive: Paul George, #3 pick
76ers receive: Lauri Markkanen, Jordan Clarkson, #21 pick, #43 pick

or
Jazz receive: Harrison Barnes, Keldon Johnson, #2 pick, #14 pick
Spurs receive: Lauri Markkanen, #5 pick, #21 pick
 
YoungJefe said:
I'd do something like:

Jazz receive: Paul George, #3 pick
76ers receive: Lauri Markkanen, Jordan Clarkson, #21 pick, #43 pick

or
Jazz receive: Harrison Barnes, Keldon Johnson, #2 pick, #14 pick
Spurs receive: Lauri Markkanen, #5 pick, #21 pick
Click to expand...
I would definitely do both of these trades.
I like the second one way better though cause I dont want that PG contract.
 
Roy_McAvoy said:
The problem is neither of those teams would do this trade.
Click to expand...
I could maybe see philly doing it. I think Lauri and clarkson make them better than PG does and gives them a shot at winning the east.
The PG contract is horrible. He is 35 years old right now. He makes 52 million (36 years old) next year, 54 million (37 years old), 56 million (38 years old)
Compared to Lauri: 46 million next year (28 years old), 46 million (29 years old), 50 million (30 years old), 53 million (31 years old)

Plus PG is coming off an injury. When he was healthy last year he averaged 16 ppg. Lauri in a tanking year when he was being used as poorly as possible averaged 19 ppg last year. Lauri and Clarkson are an upgrade to PG in the short term and a huge upgrade to PG in the long term.
They should be kind of desperate to trade PG imo. He is old, way overpaid (for a long time as well) and possibly washed.

The #3 pick likely wont do much for them. (decent chance the #3 pick wont do much for us either tbh)
 
infection said:
I believe the window on "big game hunting" closed somewhere over this past season. All of our future draft picks have depreciated enough in value that any "big game hunting" nets a team a tier below the team we blew up to get all those house chips.

We can still use the chips at the bar, though, and for tipping the waitress while we're losing our hand.

Continuing to tank is really the best path forward from here. It's not because that's necessarily the best path. It's because of our choices that now it's the only path.

I don't know if that means selling off Lauri because that seems like another $1 bill for 15 nickels proposition, but it's also hard to envision holding on to a great guy in his prime when our team, under a very "speedy" upswing given our current cards, has us maybe being relevant in 5+ years (optimistically).
Click to expand...
I think there is a fair amount of building pressure to still try and find big game so I agree to disagree. We are poorly positioned to do so but I doubt the hunt is over. Trading Lauri and or taking on a contract like Dame's is waving the white flag - and admitting we blew it by putzing around in limbo for several years before committing to a path.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top