Cleveland signs Lauri in sign and trade with Bulls per Woj

[footey]

Lauri will fit very well in Cleveland next to Jarrett Allen. I expect Kevin Love will get moved soon.

What about 3rd pick Mobley?  Guess he comes off the bench. They won't be playing him at the 3.

[Who]

Also for being such a "shooter" his 3 point numbers his first 4 seasons in league have not been that much better than  what Nance has been doing the last 3 seasons (LM 36% for career, LN 35% last 3 seasons).

I don't think you judge Markkanen as a shooter just by his percentages. When you watch him you can see he has some special qualities that separate him from other big man shooters.

Namely his ability to get his shot off quickly, off of movement, without much space and with extra distance.

So I am talking here about pick and pop big man action. Some bigs can only shoot long shots when their feet are set. Other bigs can shoot off of movement. These bigs are more of a threat on PnP actions because they can create a higher number of scoring opportunities for themselves than bigs who struggle with their feet. This increases volume in terms of how many 3s Markkanen can create for himself.

You also see Markkanen with his speed, agility and ability to catch and shoot off of movement in situations where there is movement leading to cuts / darting out to the three point line (like guards do) rather than a strictly stand still shooter (like Brook Lopez). Again, this creates volume. More volume for Markkanen vs stand still shooters like Brook Lopez or Myles Turner. It also creates more off-ball movement in your offense making your whole team offense more dynamic & more difficult to defend.

The amount of space a shooter needs to get off a shot is an important quality that again leads to higher volume. Think of Al Horford who needs a lot of time and space before he is willing to shoot a 3. This makes him a reluctant shooter who shoots only low volume of 3s even when he is shooting well.

And then the range, Markkanen cannot not just shoot 3s but he can step a few feet back from the three point line and still be a threat to score. This stretches the defense further improving spacing for his teammates. Forcing opponents to defend him tighter and further from the rim. Gravity.

All in all ...

This makes Markkanen one of if not the most special 3 point shooting big man in the league today. It is the variety of shooting opportunities he is able to create for himself which leads to much higher volume than most 3 point shooting bigs can manage.

So say he is shooting 36% on 8 threes a game vs another big who is shooting 36% but on only 3 threes a game (Jokic's volume). Who is more of a threat? Who is the defense more scared of shooting the ball?

Markkanen has not gone up to 8 threes a game yet but he can if his team actually makes him integral to their offense instead of using him off the ball in the corner like the Bulls often did (which is why he is around 6 threes per game today).

--------------------

Going back to my initial point about judging shooters solely by percentages. I think we need to couple percentages with volume somehow to come up with a better number for evaluating shooters. Volume is under-valued in terms of three point shooters.

There is a lot in volume that explains a shooter's value that is not fully explained by percentages. Same with volume not fully explaining value without percentages (Antoine Walker). We need to couple them together somehow.

[colincb]

Offense, defense, and overall RAPTOR scores. RAPTOR combines adjusted +/- with positional factors.
Big advantage here for Nance's defense.

LM       O       D          Total 2018    0.1      (0.2)   (0.1) 2019    1.0      (0.    0.2 2020   (1.0)   (2.1)   (3.1) 2021   (0.5)   (0.9)   (1.4)                     LN          O      D         Total 2018    (0.2)      2.8       2.5 2019      -          2.2       2.2 2020     0.1     1.1       1.2 2021   (2.4)       2.9       0.5

[Moranis]

Markkanen is better than Nance, by a pretty good margin.  He is younger and a better fit with Allen.  Easy trade for Cleveland to make.

Care to elaborate on why he is better by a wide margin? He doesn't have a clear NBA position, possibly unplayable in a playoff series because of his defense. Has had a lot of durability issues (his three full seasons not counting covid shortened season are 68, 50, 51). He is at best an average rebounder and not a particularly good passer. Also for being such a "shooter" his 3 point numbers his first 4 seasons in league have not been that much better than  what Nance has been doing the last 3 seasons (LM 36% for career, LN 35% last 3 seasons). When you say by a pretty wide margin would be interested in some stats cause that is certainly not the consensus around the NBA (and you yourself have admitted Nance was a pretty hot commodity at times. A report at the deadline, don't know if true, indicated the Cavs received multiple first round pick in an offer for him and declined. This seems like a much worse return.

I'd much rather have Markkanen then a couple of late 1st's or Nance.  Markkanen is a significantly better all around shooter than Nance.  His TS% last year was an excellent 61.9%.  He can hit from basically anywhere on the floor at a high level (except long 2's, he isn't good at those).  Nance is a better rebounder, but not significantly.  Markkanen doesn't turn the ball over either.  Nance is a hustle role player type guy, he is very good in that role, but he doesn't have top level starter type talent.  Markkanen has that.  Markkanen also has been healthier the last couple of seasons and is a lot younger.

[jambr380]

I don't see Markkanen as a good get for Cleveland. They have Jarrett Allen and Mobley. 3 centers. None of whom work well with the other. Like their backcourt of Garland, Sexton and Rubio. All in each other's way.

Dumb team building all round.

It's funny. Jarrett Allen is their least talented center but he is their best center right now. In the present moment, right here right now. Mobley has the highest upside as a two way threat. Markkanen the most offensive talent and second highest upside. And Jarrett Allen's $100million deal is going to clog up the machine and hurt their development. Waste of money. Waste of a lotto pick on Mobley. Waste of a pick, good role player (Nance) and money on Markkanen.

Way to go Cleveland. Classic Cavs team building.

I agree. Love the longterm upside of a Mobley and Markkanen pairing. I actually think those two can play together really well, but there's a $100m man in the way. If they were trying to win, I could see the point in having Allen and bringing Mobley along slowly, but that's not the case.

On another note - if Love gets bought out, should we show interest?

That team is all guards and bigs. They need Okoro to break out in a big way. Too bad they couldn't have given that Allen money to a guy like Fournier (which is still too much, but at least he fills more of a need).

Deal seems pretty boring all around, but I can see why all teams went for it.

[hpantazo]

I don't see Markkanen as a good get for Cleveland. They have Jarrett Allen and Mobley. 3 centers. None of whom work well with the other. Like their backcourt of Garland, Sexton and Rubio. All in each other's way.

Dumb team building all round.

It's funny. Jarrett Allen is their least talented center but he is their best center right now. In the present moment, right here right now. Mobley has the highest upside as a two way threat. Markkanen the most offensive talent and second highest upside. And Jarrett Allen's $100million deal is going to clog up the machine and hurt their development. Waste of money. Waste of a lotto pick on Mobley. Waste of a pick, good role player (Nance) and money on Markkanen.

Way to go Cleveland. Classic Cavs team building.

I agree. Love the longterm upside of a Mobley and Markkanen pairing. I actually think those two can play together really well, but there's a $100m man in the way. If they were trying to win, I could see the point in having Allen and bringing Mobley along slowly, but that's not the case.

On another note - if Love gets bought out, should we show interest?

Sure, but does it matter if we show interest? He's going to LA no matter what if he gets bought out. In the highly unlikely scenario that he does not go to LA, we're still not in the top 5 of places he might choose, despite how badly we need a decent power forward upgrade over Grant Williams and Jabari Parker.

[liam]

Lauri will fit very well in Cleveland next to Jarrett Allen. I expect Kevin Love will get moved soon.

If by moved you mean “bought out”, then sure.  But no one’s trading for Love.

I could see John Wall for Love deal...

I couldn’t.  Salaries don’t match well and it would be hard for Cleveland to make a deal and not wind up a tax team, not to mention Wall’s owed $47 million next year compared to Love’s $29 million.

A Wall for Love and Garland works.

Salarywise, but not in any semblance of common sense.

But it's Cleveland>

[Who]

Honest question: Is Markkanen a PF or a Center? I mean, he ain't long/strong enough to protect the rim. He ain't mobile enough to defend the perimeter either. Don't think he has a position on defense. He can defend nobody. I guess I'd use him at Center alongside a defensive-minded swing who can play bigger than his actual height (let's say Draymond Green). Good luck trying to find that type of player.

Don't get me wring, Markkanen is a legit NBA player. 7-footers who can stretch the floor don't exactly grow on trees. My point is, it's difficult to build a functional team with him. Don't see the appeal in pairing Markkanen with Jarrett Allen. Opposing teams will be constantly attacking Markkanen on the perimeter.

No, I believe you sacrifice the defense. You choose offense over defense.

I do not like pairing Markkanen with someone like Draymond because the opposing team can hide their slow footed big man on Draymond and have their quick footed forward (PF) defend Markkanen at the three point line.

So I believe in order to maximize Markkanen you have to pair him next to a PF who is smaller quicker and an offensive threat who is dangerous enough to force your opponent to keep its slow footed center on Markkanen.

I do believe Markkanen is a center but he is an offensive orientated center. He is not well rounded enough to give you a strong anchor in terms of defense & rebounding. You hope he can become adequate enough to get by in these areas rather than ever excel in them.

You choose Markkanen and prioritize offense over defense in large part because the rest of your team lacks offensive firepower. If your team has good offensive firepower, Markkanen will struggle to justify himself as a center. Most of those teams will be better of trading him for talent elsewhere on the team and replacing him with a low skilled defensive rim runner.

----------------------

For example, on seven seconds or less D'Antoni Phoenix Suns. You can pair Amare with Marion or Kurt Thomas.

If you choose Kurt Thomas who is a low level offensive threat, the opponent can choose their favoured defensive matchups. So they can hide their slow footed defensive center on Kurt Thomas who Thomas struggles to exploit.

If you choose Marion, D'Antoni forces the matchups he wants. He forces the defense to defend Amare with a slow plodding center who Amare can exploit ... or Marion completely exploits that plodding center

Thing is, that's not a functional team anymore. Markkanen is a skilled big man, but he ain't a floor raiser. Why sacrifice your defense for him? I mean, what's the point in having a hopeless defensive team just for the ''privilege'' of playing Lauri Makkanen? It ain't worth it.

Out of curiosity, who would be your ideal fit at Center next to Drayond? Feel free to pick any player throughout the NBA history. Not just current players.

When Draymond was shooting well a few years ago, he could play with anybody.

Historically, you tend to pair mobile PFs with power Cs and power PFs with finesse Cs. Draymond is unusual in that he has both mobility and power along with high level defensive talent which allows him to play alongside both power or finesse.

With Markkanen, he has an extreme skill-set that makes him limited in who he can combine well with.

With Draymond, it is the opposite. Yes he has an extreme skill-set but it is a skill-set that allows him to combine with players of many different types.

I thought Draymond played great next to Bogut a few years ago. Bogut more of a plodder. A vocal defensive anchor. A high post passer but low scoring threat. I could also see Draymond playing great next to someone like Vucevic (or Towns) who is a 20-10 inside-outside big man. I could see Draymond playing great with a spot up shooter like Brook Lopez. Or a quicker defensive center like Clint Capela. He can play with fast centers or slow centers. Shooters or non-shooters. Scorers or non-scorers.

The center I might worry the most about is Jokic and Draymond together. I worry is there too much playmaking? Will the team have enough finishers around them? Will there be diminished returns to Jokic's playmaking because Draymond is a bad finisher and will Draymond have diminished offensive value because the ball will run through Jokic the playmaker instead of Draymond the playmaker. Is there room for both playmakers? That is an extreme example though because no center is a high volume playmaker to the extent Jokic is. Plus, they are both so smart they might find a way to make it work regardless.

I think about Embiid in today's league but with Draymond's ball-handling and passing on Embiid's quickouts from double teams, it is workable. The offensive fit ain't great but the defensive boost is enough to justify it. So I'd have some hesitant on high volume interior scoring centers but I wouldn't be worried enough to completely avoid it. Just from Embiid's perspective, I'd prefer a shooter.

So what is remarkable with Draymond is the variety of centers of all different types that he is able to combine well with.

So who is ideal out of all of that? Hmm ... in old basketball, I'd say Wilt Chamberlain. In today's game? Maybe Towns.

---------

It is interesting. The combos are more about Draymond being able to enhance the center than the center enhancing Draymond.

Best center I saw enhance Draymond was Bogut because of his defensive communication. Draymond himself speaks highly about Bogut bringing this to the table - how much Bogut helped Draymond. PFs often respect Cs who help them on D and on the boards more than anyone else. And vice versa for Cs respecting PFs who help them with the dirty work inside.

[Celtics2021]

Lauri will fit very well in Cleveland next to Jarrett Allen. I expect Kevin Love will get moved soon.

If by moved you mean “bought out”, then sure.  But no one’s trading for Love.

I could see John Wall for Love deal...

I couldn’t.  Salaries don’t match well and it would be hard for Cleveland to make a deal and not wind up a tax team, not to mention Wall’s owed $47 million next year compared to Love’s $29 million.

A Wall for Love and Garland works.

Salarywise, but not in any semblance of common sense.

But it's Cleveland>

Yeah, but as I said, they'd wind up in the luxury tax, and Dan Gilbert isn't paying that.

[celticsclay]

Markkanen is better than Nance, by a pretty good margin.  He is younger and a better fit with Allen.  Easy trade for Cleveland to make.

Care to elaborate on why he is better by a wide margin? He doesn't have a clear NBA position, possibly unplayable in a playoff series because of his defense. Has had a lot of durability issues (his three full seasons not counting covid shortened season are 68, 50, 51). He is at best an average rebounder and not a particularly good passer. Also for being such a "shooter" his 3 point numbers his first 4 seasons in league have not been that much better than  what Nance has been doing the last 3 seasons (LM 36% for career, LN 35% last 3 seasons). When you say by a pretty wide margin would be interested in some stats cause that is certainly not the consensus around the NBA (and you yourself have admitted Nance was a pretty hot commodity at times. A report at the deadline, don't know if true, indicated the Cavs received multiple first round pick in an offer for him and declined. This seems like a much worse return.

I'd much rather have Markkanen then a couple of late 1st's or Nance.  Markkanen is a significantly better all around shooter than Nance.  His TS% last year was an excellent 61.9%.  He can hit from basically anywhere on the floor at a high level (except long 2's, he isn't good at those).  Nance is a better rebounder, but not significantly.  Markkanen doesn't turn the ball over either.  Nance is a hustle role player type guy, he is very good in that role, but he doesn't have top level starter type talent.  Markkanen has that.  Markkanen also has been healthier the last couple of seasons and is a lot younger.

Are you intentionally just leaving out the entire defensive side of the game? This is why nance had interest from contenders and playoff teams while markkanen was one of last players on market. He is terrible on defense, perhaps unplayable. (And like I said doesn’t really have a position).

[celticsclay]

I don't see Markkanen as a good get for Cleveland. They have Jarrett Allen and Mobley. 3 centers. None of whom work well with the other. Like their backcourt of Garland, Sexton and Rubio. All in each other's way.

Dumb team building all round.

It's funny. Jarrett Allen is their least talented center but he is their best center right now. In the present moment, right here right now. Mobley has the highest upside as a two way threat. Markkanen the most offensive talent and second highest upside. And Jarrett Allen's $100million deal is going to clog up the machine and hurt their development. Waste of money. Waste of a lotto pick on Mobley. Waste of a pick, good role player (Nance) and money on Markkanen.

Way to go Cleveland. Classic Cavs team building.

I agree. Love the longterm upside of a Mobley and Markkanen pairing. I actually think those two can play together really well, but there's a $100m man in the way. If they were trying to win, I could see the point in having Allen and bringing Mobley along slowly, but that's not the case.

On another note - if Love gets bought out, should we show interest?

Sure, but does it matter if we show interest? He's going to LA no matter what if he gets bought out. In the highly unlikely scenario that he does not go to LA, we're still not in the top 5 of places he might choose, despite how badly we need a decent power forward upgrade over Grant Williams and Jabari Parker.

Are we sure that love actually likes Lebron after all the passive aggressive stuff? Or are you referencing clippers?

[Moranis]

Markkanen is better than Nance, by a pretty good margin.  He is younger and a better fit with Allen.  Easy trade for Cleveland to make.

Care to elaborate on why he is better by a wide margin? He doesn't have a clear NBA position, possibly unplayable in a playoff series because of his defense. Has had a lot of durability issues (his three full seasons not counting covid shortened season are 68, 50, 51). He is at best an average rebounder and not a particularly good passer. Also for being such a "shooter" his 3 point numbers his first 4 seasons in league have not been that much better than  what Nance has been doing the last 3 seasons (LM 36% for career, LN 35% last 3 seasons). When you say by a pretty wide margin would be interested in some stats cause that is certainly not the consensus around the NBA (and you yourself have admitted Nance was a pretty hot commodity at times. A report at the deadline, don't know if true, indicated the Cavs received multiple first round pick in an offer for him and declined. This seems like a much worse return.

I'd much rather have Markkanen then a couple of late 1st's or Nance.  Markkanen is a significantly better all around shooter than Nance.  His TS% last year was an excellent 61.9%.  He can hit from basically anywhere on the floor at a high level (except long 2's, he isn't good at those).  Nance is a better rebounder, but not significantly.  Markkanen doesn't turn the ball over either.  Nance is a hustle role player type guy, he is very good in that role, but he doesn't have top level starter type talent.  Markkanen has that.  Markkanen also has been healthier the last couple of seasons and is a lot younger.

Are you intentionally just leaving out the entire defensive side of the game? This is why nance had interest from contenders and playoff teams while markkanen was one of last players on market. He is terrible on defense, perhaps unplayable. (And like I said doesn’t really have a position).

No.  Nance is a better defender, but he isn't some world beater.  I just think what Lauri provides offensively far exceeds the boost Nance gets defensively.

[Jvalin]

Honest question: Is Markkanen a PF or a Center? I mean, he ain't long/strong enough to protect the rim. He ain't mobile enough to defend the perimeter either. Don't think he has a position on defense. He can defend nobody. I guess I'd use him at Center alongside a defensive-minded swing who can play bigger than his actual height (let's say Draymond Green). Good luck trying to find that type of player.

Don't get me wring, Markkanen is a legit NBA player. 7-footers who can stretch the floor don't exactly grow on trees. My point is, it's difficult to build a functional team with him. Don't see the appeal in pairing Markkanen with Jarrett Allen. Opposing teams will be constantly attacking Markkanen on the perimeter.

No, I believe you sacrifice the defense. You choose offense over defense.

I do not like pairing Markkanen with someone like Draymond because the opposing team can hide their slow footed big man on Draymond and have their quick footed forward (PF) defend Markkanen at the three point line.

So I believe in order to maximize Markkanen you have to pair him next to a PF who is smaller quicker and an offensive threat who is dangerous enough to force your opponent to keep its slow footed center on Markkanen.

I do believe Markkanen is a center but he is an offensive orientated center. He is not well rounded enough to give you a strong anchor in terms of defense & rebounding. You hope he can become adequate enough to get by in these areas rather than ever excel in them.

You choose Markkanen and prioritize offense over defense in large part because the rest of your team lacks offensive firepower. If your team has good offensive firepower, Markkanen will struggle to justify himself as a center. Most of those teams will be better of trading him for talent elsewhere on the team and replacing him with a low skilled defensive rim runner.

----------------------

For example, on seven seconds or less D'Antoni Phoenix Suns. You can pair Amare with Marion or Kurt Thomas.

If you choose Kurt Thomas who is a low level offensive threat, the opponent can choose their favoured defensive matchups. So they can hide their slow footed defensive center on Kurt Thomas who Thomas struggles to exploit.

If you choose Marion, D'Antoni forces the matchups he wants. He forces the defense to defend Amare with a slow plodding center who Amare can exploit ... or Marion completely exploits that plodding center

Thing is, that's not a functional team anymore. Markkanen is a skilled big man, but he ain't a floor raiser. Why sacrifice your defense for him? I mean, what's the point in having a hopeless defensive team just for the ''privilege'' of playing Lauri Makkanen? It ain't worth it.

Out of curiosity, who would be your ideal fit at Center next to Drayond? Feel free to pick any player throughout the NBA history. Not just current players.

When Draymond was shooting well a few years ago, he could play with anybody.

Historically, you tend to pair mobile PFs with power Cs and power PFs with finesse Cs. Draymond is unusual in that he has both mobility and power along with high level defensive talent which allows him to play alongside both power or finesse.

With Markkanen, he has an extreme skill-set that makes him limited in who he can combine well with.

With Draymond, it is the opposite. Yes he has an extreme skill-set but it is a skill-set that allows him to combine with players of many different types.

I thought Draymond played great next to Bogut a few years ago. Bogut more of a plodder. A vocal defensive anchor. A high post passer but low scoring threat. I could also see Draymond playing great next to someone like Vucevic (or Towns) who is a 20-10 inside-outside big man. I could see Draymond playing great with a spot up shooter like Brook Lopez. Or a quicker defensive center like Clint Capela. He can play with fast centers or slow centers. Shooters or non-shooters. Scorers or non-scorers.

The center I might worry the most about is Jokic and Draymond together. I worry is there too much playmaking? Will the team have enough finishers around them? Will there be diminished returns to Jokic's playmaking because Draymond is a bad finisher and will Draymond have diminished offensive value because the ball will run through Jokic the playmaker instead of Draymond the playmaker. Is there room for both playmakers? That is an extreme example though because no center is a high volume playmaker to the extent Jokic is. Plus, they are both so smart they might find a way to make it work regardless.

I think about Embiid in today's league but with Draymond's ball-handling and passing on Embiid's quickouts from double teams, it is workable. The offensive fit ain't great but the defensive boost is enough to justify it. So I'd have some hesitant on high volume interior scoring centers but I wouldn't be worried enough to completely avoid it. Just from Embiid's perspective, I'd prefer a shooter.

So what is remarkable with Draymond is the variety of centers of all different types that he is able to combine well with.

So who is ideal out of all of that? Hmm ... in old basketball, I'd say Wilt Chamberlain. In today's game? Maybe Towns.

---------

It is interesting. The combos are more about Draymond being able to enhance the center than the center enhancing Draymond.

Best center I saw enhance Draymond was Bogut because of his defensive communication. Draymond himself speaks highly about Bogut bringing this to the table - how much Bogut helped Draymond. PFs often respect Cs who help them on D and on the boards more than anyone else. And vice versa for Cs respecting PFs who help them with the dirty work inside.

If you ask me, I don't rate Draymond as a shooter. I view his 2015/16 season when he shot 38.8% from 3 as a statistical anomaly. Not to mention, he was getting tons of open looks cause he was playing alongside arguably the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history. Plenty of his 3s were probably wide open.

I like the KAT, Vuc and BroLo examples. One might argue that Markkanen is a (very) poor man's version of these guys. Not exactly the same players, but still close enough. They are all stretch bigs who are limited defenders. Unlike Markkanen, BroLo and Vuc are decent options in a drop scheme on defense. KAT is a better rim protector than Markkanen as well. All four of them are terrible perimeter defenders.

Very interesting thought process regarding Jokic+Draymond in the same team.  I was about to say that my ideal fit would be Jokic or Arvydas Sabonis. I guess you are right though. ''Is there too much playmaking?'' Haven't thought of that tbh. TP!

[tonydelk]

4 years, $67 million.

That's more then I'd thought he'd get.  Wow.

[gouki88]

What on earth are the Cavs doing!? They now have $167 million tied up in Markannen and Allen, and they drafted Mobley. All three of these guys are best suited to playing the 5