Image ImageImage Image

Lets talk Zach Lavine

Moderators: HomoSapien, kulaz3000, fleet, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, Ice Man, Tommy Udo 6 , dougthonus, GimmeDat, DASMACKDOWN, Payt10

What to do with Zach Lavine?

Keep him, he’s part of the core.
170
66%
Trade him, Williams is the only one who Bulls should keep.
87
34%
 
Total votes: 257

cool007
RealGM
Posts: 16,039
And1: 1,832
Joined: Feb 03, 2005

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1121 » by cool007 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:45 pm

The Explorer wrote:Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.


Nick Fridell is an Idiot and I am so freaking glad that he is no longer in Chicago. He has always been negative nancy type reporter and most of the time his take never made any sense and doesn't provide good reasoning behind his opinion.

When Butler was here, we were trying to rebuild and the reason we didn't resign him is because we didn't have good young talent at the time and didn't have a great pick either - right now Lavine is still young and we do have bunch of young talent so building around him makes so much sense and since we can't get any other superstar/all-star here to sign with Bulls, we can not afford to lose a superstar in the making in Lavine.

Again, I didn't like hearing from Fridell and I am so freaking glad that he is gone. Hopefully they never bring him on any of the talk show.
kodo
RealGM
Posts: 14,464
And1: 9,245
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
Location: Wrigleyville

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1122 » by kodo » Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:05 pm

HoopsterJones wrote:Bulls will likely have to max LaVine to keep him which I’m good with. Hopefully the Bulls can earn a playoff spot this year to give them some positive momentum to build on next year.


Yeah and I think it's more than just likely.

Gordon Hayward with massive injury issues averaging 21 ppg 3 apg for Charlotte got $29M-$31M per year. A 7 year veteran max contract starts at $32M, so Hayward basically got very close to a max. And it wasn't just Charlotte, Boston also gave Hayward $32M his last year.

Kemba Walker will be getting $36M & $37M from Boston next 2 years, even with knee issues every year like clockwork. He averages 17 & 4.

If teams were willing to giving Hayward & Kemba max contracts, certainly a healthy 25 year old Lavine is going to get the real thing.

Lavine getting multiple max offers is a foregone conclusion, it's just what the Bulls want to do about it.
TBH, I think even his last year's performance would have gotten a max. You don't need to be a star or even close to a star to get $30M per year. Steven Adams averages 8 points 8 rebounds and gets $30M. Just look at our own roster...we pay Otto Porter $28M.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 17,034
And1: 6,371
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1123 » by MrSparkle » Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:11 pm

TheSuzerain wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.


How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

You clearly don't remember those 25 games if you are questioning whether Zach looked terrible or not. Hint: he looked terrible.

What is Coby's elite skill? Elite is a big word. Maybe Coby could be considered an elite shooter in the 2000s but not anymore barring some extreme improvement. The new group of 3-point specialists like Harris/Duncan Robinson have changed the definition of elite.

It's Lavine and not much else in terms of actual assets. Pat Williams is an asset but that's mostly to do with future projection rather than actual on-court goodness. The comparison to the Butler situation is more apt than I think many on this forum will admit due to the dissonance between wanting to move on from Butler and now arguing we should keep/pay Lavine.

Also I was glancing at that last Bull's roster with Butler, and the McDermott trade does not get enough hate. We traded McDermott, Taj Gibson, and the pick that would become MITCHELL ROBINSON for Cam Payne. That's shocking. McDermott would probably start for us this year.


We must have very different definitions of "terrible." I can't consider a 17 PPG guy with a 15 PER fresh off an ACL injury to be "terrible." I'm fairly reasonable - I expected a very rusty FG%, defensive rating hit, inconsistency, etc. He had plenty of 20+ pt games where he demonstrated his talent. Like I said, the win against Minnesota where he scored 35 (vs. Jimmy) is very clear in my memory.

I can't even bring myself to call Jabari Parker, 14-16 Rose or Demarcus Cousins terrible, besides for the fact that they've had so many crucial injuries that they can't handle even a minor NBA load anymore without dogging it. LaVine did not demonstrate that bad shape. IMO the first goal for a player coming off the ACL tear is to get back into game shape, shake off rust and basically injury prevention. A 2nd season-ending injury, especially right after the 1st, is NBA hell.

The OKC trade was stupid for a variety of reasons, but I'm not worried that we lost McDermott and Robinson. It was just another pointless losing trade in a series of pointless losing trades.

At the end of the day, I think there are two types of elite players who have the most importance in the game:

#1 Two-way leaders who can defend any position and create: Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Giannis, Butler, Lowry, etc.

#2 Super shooters who can score in the clutch off-the-dribble, with a hand in their face, etc.: Kyrie, Lillard, Harden, Curry, Lavine.

I think Coby can be a light-weight #2, like FVV, Jamal, etc. Hell of a lot more important than a Korver, McDermott, Redick, Lauri or Niko. Hey - maybe he ends up like Cam Payne. Certainly has had bad stretches. Personally, I doubt he ends up that way.

Big difference to me, between a guy who can shoot unassisted and a spot-up shooter. Not to mention Coby can rebound and theoretically has the size and speed to defend his position well. He's been disappointing, but I think he can improve on that end within a year or two. Not into Lowry, but into a competent defender, like Lavine.
StunnerKO
Analyst
Posts: 3,431
And1: 2,298
Joined: Sep 25, 2017

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1124 » by StunnerKO » Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:44 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=21
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 14,194
And1: 9,068
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1125 » by TheSuzerain » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:05 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

You clearly don't remember those 25 games if you are questioning whether Zach looked terrible or not. Hint: he looked terrible.

What is Coby's elite skill? Elite is a big word. Maybe Coby could be considered an elite shooter in the 2000s but not anymore barring some extreme improvement. The new group of 3-point specialists like Harris/Duncan Robinson have changed the definition of elite.

It's Lavine and not much else in terms of actual assets. Pat Williams is an asset but that's mostly to do with future projection rather than actual on-court goodness. The comparison to the Butler situation is more apt than I think many on this forum will admit due to the dissonance between wanting to move on from Butler and now arguing we should keep/pay Lavine.

Also I was glancing at that last Bull's roster with Butler, and the McDermott trade does not get enough hate. We traded McDermott, Taj Gibson, and the pick that would become MITCHELL ROBINSON for Cam Payne. That's shocking. McDermott would probably start for us this year.


We must have very different definitions of "terrible." I can't consider a 17 PPG guy with a 15 PER fresh off an ACL injury to be "terrible." I'm fairly reasonable - I expected a very rusty FG%, defensive rating hit, inconsistency, etc. He had plenty of 20+ pt games where he demonstrated his talent. Like I said, the win against Minnesota where he scored 35 (vs. Jimmy) is very clear in my memory.

I can't even bring myself to call Jabari Parker, 14-16 Rose or Demarcus Cousins terrible, besides for the fact that they've had so many crucial injuries that they can't handle even a minor NBA load anymore without dogging it. LaVine did not demonstrate that bad shape. IMO the first goal for a player coming off the ACL tear is to get back into game shape, shake off rust and basically injury prevention. A 2nd season-ending injury, especially right after the 1st, is NBA hell.

The OKC trade was stupid for a variety of reasons, but I'm not worried that we lost McDermott and Robinson. It was just another pointless losing trade in a series of pointless losing trades.

At the end of the day, I think there are two types of elite players who have the most importance in the game:

#1 Two-way leaders who can defend any position and create: Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Giannis, Butler, Lowry, etc.

#2 Super shooters who can score in the clutch off-the-dribble, with a hand in their face, etc.: Kyrie, Lillard, Harden, Curry, Lavine.

I think Coby can be a light-weight #2, like FVV, Jamal, etc. Hell of a lot more important than a Korver, McDermott, Redick, Lauri or Niko. Hey - maybe he ends up like Cam Payne. Certainly has had bad stretches. Personally, I doubt he ends up that way.

Big difference to me, between a guy who can shoot unassisted and a spot-up shooter. Not to mention Coby can rebound and theoretically has the size and speed to defend his position well. He's been disappointing, but I think he can improve on that end within a year or two. Not into Lowry, but into a competent defender, like Lavine.

Dude, Lavine shot 34 % from 3 and 40% from 2 that first season back. He was terrible. You're trying to re-write history to claim otherwise.

And I don't know how you can "not worry about losing McDermott and Robinson" and then turn around and argue that Lauri/WCJ/Coby is a set of solid young pieces. Can't have it both ways.

Korver was better than Jamal/Coby ever were or will be. Once you get into lightweight #2 category, you start encountering players who really aren't that good.
Stratmaster
RealGM
Posts: 16,079
And1: 5,912
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
       

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1126 » by Stratmaster » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:21 pm

TheSuzerain wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.


How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

You clearly don't remember those 25 games if you are questioning whether Zach looked terrible or not. Hint: he looked terrible.

What is Coby's elite skill? Elite is a big word. Maybe Coby could be considered an elite shooter in the 2000s but not anymore barring some extreme improvement. The new group of 3-point specialists like Harris/Duncan Robinson have changed the definition of elite.

It's Lavine and not much else in terms of actual assets. Pat Williams is an asset but that's mostly to do with future projection rather than actual on-court goodness. The comparison to the Butler situation is more apt than I think many on this forum will admit due to the dissonance between wanting to move on from Butler and now arguing we should keep/pay Lavine.

Also I was glancing at that last Bull's roster with Butler, and the McDermott trade does not get enough hate. We traded McDermott, Taj Gibson, and the pick that would become MITCHELL ROBINSON for Cam Payne. That's shocking. McDermott would probably start for us this year.
The team has been playing at an above .500 level since the 3rd game of the season.

If it's Zach and nothing else, then Zach should be getting MVP votes, and there is no way you trade him. That's the kind of player you build around.

If it's Zach with and because of some other talent, then the team is much closer than you think, and you don't trade him.

There is really no logical scenario to trade a guy playing at Zach's level unless the player insists on it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 14,194
And1: 9,068
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1127 » by TheSuzerain » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:41 pm

Stratmaster wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

You clearly don't remember those 25 games if you are questioning whether Zach looked terrible or not. Hint: he looked terrible.

What is Coby's elite skill? Elite is a big word. Maybe Coby could be considered an elite shooter in the 2000s but not anymore barring some extreme improvement. The new group of 3-point specialists like Harris/Duncan Robinson have changed the definition of elite.

It's Lavine and not much else in terms of actual assets. Pat Williams is an asset but that's mostly to do with future projection rather than actual on-court goodness. The comparison to the Butler situation is more apt than I think many on this forum will admit due to the dissonance between wanting to move on from Butler and now arguing we should keep/pay Lavine.

Also I was glancing at that last Bull's roster with Butler, and the McDermott trade does not get enough hate. We traded McDermott, Taj Gibson, and the pick that would become MITCHELL ROBINSON for Cam Payne. That's shocking. McDermott would probably start for us this year.
The team has been playing at an above .500 level since the 3rd game of the season.

If it's Zach and nothing else, then Zach should be getting MVP votes, and there is no way you trade him. That's the kind of player you build around.

If it's Zach with and because of some other talent, then the team is much closer than you think, and you don't trade him.

There is really no logical scenario to trade a guy playing at Zach's level unless the player insists on it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I never said it was Zach and no one else.

It's just that those other players contributing to actual wins are absolutely not the guys that get lumped in with Lavine as "core".

Thad, Sato, Otto, Temple are arguably more impactful to wins than any of the supposed non-Lavine core.

That's kind of the structural problem with this team. It's not a budding young core showing signs of excellent play. It's one all star caliber scorer plus efficient/heady vets that actually defend a little bit. Thus far, this has basically translated to .500 ball where we lose to all the playoff teams but fare decently well against the rest.
User avatar
nomorezorro
RealGM
Posts: 10,346
And1: 6,471
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Location: GARPAX FOREVER

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1128 » by nomorezorro » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:51 pm

i'm also ambivalent about the on-court value of most of the non-zach "core," but i feel even more strongly today than i did in 2017 that you can build a good team around an elite talent without a hard reset

other than zach, our most important players are arguably thad young (signed for $14.5 million / year with a trash team) and tomas satoransky (signed for $10 million / year with a trash team), with garret temple ($5m, trash team) also in the mix. i don't think this is damning of the quality of our roster — i think it's a sign that you can add positive players without making a "big splash" in free agency. the heat built a finals team around jimmy butler with a bunch of easily acquirable vets and guys they got with the 13th/14th picks in the draft. you've had guys like christian wood, jerami grant and malcolm brogdon establish themselves as key pieces after switching teams in free agency.

not being tied to lauri/wendell/coby — who have all shown enough to make the case that they're not duds, so they have some value — means we can move them for other pieces without regret if an opportunity presents itself. there's also a chance that one or two of em find a role here long-term and turn into positive contributors.

it would be nice to have gotten sure-fire studs out of our recent lotto picks, but we're super flexible, and hopefully we've got a creative front office who will go to work to maximize the potential of this team with all the options available to them
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
Pax for Prez
Starter
Posts: 2,081
And1: 218
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Location: avoiding the WIFE

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1129 » by Pax for Prez » Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:34 pm

Read on Twitter
User avatar
nomorezorro
RealGM
Posts: 10,346
And1: 6,471
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Location: GARPAX FOREVER

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1130 » by nomorezorro » Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:36 pm

hell yeah

now get to work recruiting...uh...julius randle? crap
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
mtron32
Veteran
Posts: 2,510
And1: 1,264
Joined: Nov 18, 2016
       

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1131 » by mtron32 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:36 pm

Pax for Prez wrote:
Read on Twitter

Yeah buddy, let the foul calls flow
Indomitable
RealGM
Posts: 22,762
And1: 5,120
Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Location: Yelzenbah!
     

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1132 » by Indomitable » Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:12 am

nomorezorro wrote:i'm also ambivalent about the on-court value of most of the non-zach "core," but i feel even more strongly today than i did in 2017 that you can build a good team around an elite talent without a hard reset

other than zach, our most important players are arguably thad young (signed for $14.5 million / year with a trash team) and tomas satoransky (signed for $10 million / year with a trash team), with garret temple ($5m, trash team) also in the mix. i don't think this is damning of the quality of our roster — i think it's a sign that you can add positive players without making a "big splash" in free agency. the heat built a finals team around jimmy butler with a bunch of easily acquirable vets and guys they got with the 13th/14th picks in the draft. you've had guys like christian wood, jerami grant and malcolm brogdon establish themselves as key pieces after switching teams in free agency.

not being tied to lauri/wendell/coby — who have all shown enough to make the case that they're not duds, so they have some value — means we can move them for other pieces without regret if an opportunity presents itself. there's also a chance that one or two of em find a role here long-term and turn into positive contributors.

it would be nice to have gotten sure-fire studs out of our recent lotto picks, but we're super flexible, and hopefully we've got a creative front office who will go to work to maximize the potential of this team with all the options available to them




NO ONE KNOWS THE FUTURE


People like to talk like they do but it just guessing. The most important part of a great player is his desire to succeed. The willness to grow and become better. I believe Zach has the will. Now the Bulls need to surround him with better players.

Throughout the history in the NBA. People have been mistaking.

Back in Jordans early year (85-87)people wanted trade him because it was believed impossible to build around him. A great scorer was seen as player who could not be the cog of a championship team.

I listen to these things from the Journalists

Jordan was not a winner.
Jordan was not a capable leader
We needed a pg and center.
Trade pippen because he was loser. Pippen was a choker. Pippen was soft.
Now everyone loves them all.


Zach drive, growth, and desire to succeed has erased most of my doubts. Most people are not claiming he is Jordan reborn but we recognize he keeps grinding to get better.

Every year people keep saying this is who he is. Then he gets a little better. I desire to keep him to see how it ends.

I have high respect for Beals,and Lillard because of this. I respect Curry because of this too.

Beals was a guy who they said could not create his own shot efficiently. He was seen as purely a shooter.
Lillard was a guy maxed out and would not be better then his rookie year because he went school 4 years. He had no upside.
Curry was guy whom people said could not dribble and was not a traditional pg. People questioned his handle.

2 of this guys are seen as superstars and Beals keeps growing.

These are examples of people pushing past their limits and I respect it. Of course there a question if Zach will achieve his desired role of being a franchise player.

Zach has grinded it out and become a far better player. His ACL in year 3 set him back. His first 2 years were bad and he looked like he did not deserve to be in NBA. Especially that first year. It was was a dumpster fire.

In my opinion Zach had some bad coaches. He made his greatest gains under Thibs and Billy. He was also pegged as the 3rd man on that Minnesota team.

Look at Jimmy and Khawi. Both of these guys were not pegged as top 15 players. They worked for it and were properly coach. They grew into starsl

Zach has manage to keep growing in this organization. I believe Billy is great at working with players and bringing out the best in them.

Who knows if you guys are right and we should trade. Still, Zach is making things more interesting. There are no guarantees in life but Zach does seem to have a the desire to be great. He has made more progress then I believed he was capable. Zach deserves a chance in my book. I really wish him well. He deserves an opportunity by the effort he has put forth.
:banghead:
CaPiTanAK
Sophomore
Posts: 123
And1: 57
Joined: Dec 26, 2020

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1133 » by CaPiTanAK » Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:46 am

nomorezorro wrote:i'm also ambivalent about the on-court value of most of the non-zach "core," but i feel even more strongly today than i did in 2017 that you can build a good team around an elite talent without a hard reset

other than zach, our most important players are arguably thad young (signed for $14.5 million / year with a trash team) and tomas satoransky (signed for $10 million / year with a trash team), with garret temple ($5m, trash team) also in the mix. i don't think this is damning of the quality of our roster — i think it's a sign that you can add positive players without making a "big splash" in free agency. the heat built a finals team around jimmy butler with a bunch of easily acquirable vets and guys they got with the 13th/14th picks in the draft. you've had guys like christian wood, jerami grant and malcolm brogdon establish themselves as key pieces after switching teams in free agency.

not being tied to lauri/wendell/coby — who have all shown enough to make the case that they're not duds, so they have some value — means we can move them for other pieces without regret if an opportunity presents itself. there's also a chance that one or two of em find a role here long-term and turn into positive contributors.

it would be nice to have gotten sure-fire studs out of our recent lotto picks, but we're super flexible, and hopefully we've got a creative front office who will go to work to maximize the potential of this team with all the options available to them


Zach and Pat need to be locked on an island together without any TV, cell phone, or female companion. Zach needs to know that his potential Robin is on the team right now.
Hold That
RealGM
Posts: 11,807
And1: 385
Joined: Dec 07, 2001
     

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1134 » by Hold That » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:56 am

The Box Office wrote:LaVine is looking for $30 million. He IS. I don't need a written public statement from his agent denying it.

Real life negotiations are really nasty. Bulls front office will have ALL the paperwork and data to discuss their position if they're NOT going to pay. LaVine and his agent need to have winning results to build their case that LaVine is worth the commitment. Management will discuss every single detail.

If I was LaVine, I'd be demanding $30 million as well. Because I KNOW how desperate Chicago is to secure a 26 year old averaging 29 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists. In my mind, I'm thinking, "After all I've done, Bulls don't wanna pay that? Then stop wasting my time. There are other teams offering $30 mill."

When a team pays any player $30 million per year, that's a mega huge sign that the team will build around that particular player. If I was the GM, I'm definitely NOT building around a player who has never made the playoffs and always been on losing teams. I don't care if he's 26/27.

The fact is LaVine has never been on any .500 or above team. He has to lead this team to the playoffs this year. This is his best shot and he's the healthiest he's ever been. LaVine is clicking on all cylinders. This is the best team he's ever been on. Besides, we're in the mix for playoffs right now.

WE ARE THE 8th SEED CURRENTLY as I'm typing this.

Now, if we get there, the team has to win something. Did we get there just to get swept? LOL

Hell, I'll shorten the goal posts for y'all. Win ONE Playoff game and LaVine has a good chance of getting his $30 Million per season. 2 playoff wins secures his mega big pay day. Hell, I'm not even looking for a playoff series win.

Zach LaVine has a losing track record. For years. This is a fact. No one is moving the goal posts on THAT ONE. Obviously, it takes a lot to remove the loser stench and, to me, this is what it's gonna take. I really like LaVine. I think he's a cool guy. But this is business. There have been plenty of stars traded so it's nothing new.

If you love LaVine so much then his fans should be confident that he can fulfill it this season. If I was the GM, I would be more than happy to ink him to his big time contract if he does it. Are you confident in LaVine? Are you not confident in him?

If Bulls is a lottery team again this year, why would AKME want to build around LaVine?

We'll see. We're in the mix. I really like where we are at. Huge props to LaVine. The difference in the standings is very small though. It's a grueling fight from here on.

He’s worth the 30mil considering he’s averaging 28 5 5 and is only 25. There’s tons of players making 30 per year on the DOWNSIDE of their careers. Lavine trajectory is heading up, and has been every year he’s been in the league and hasn’t even entered his prime years yet.

I’m not going to evaluate Lavine based upon his current cast. Coby white Lauri Markennen and Wendell wouldn’t surprise ANYONE if they were out the league in 5 years, Just like Niko. None of those guys have shown any consistency or even undoubtedly shown us they’d even have longevity in this league. Yet we want to evaluate how much winning Zach has done with these bums?

Is Beal worth his 30? Is Devin Booker before CP3? I guess Kyrie ain’t worth 30mil either because we already see what he can’t do unless he has another star? My question is why are you so fixated on this number as if Zach won’t have a high trade value after he signs his Max... there’s so many teams that would absorb his contract as a second or third option to create their own little super team and mortgage their future because of it. Have you not been paying attention to the league in the last 5 years? I’m not trying to come off snarky but seriously that Max contract is and will not be an issue unless Zach has career threatening injury. Zach is a skill player, he has so many tools in his bag on how he creates his shot. He more SKILLED than Derrick Rose was when it comes to shot creation in the mid range. This is not me saying he’s more talented, but as far as skills go, there’s a lot of Kobe in Zachs game. You can tell he grew up idolizing him. Hell even KG said this and Sam Mitchell his former coach. Negotiations? Pay Zach his money, what are you negotiating.
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 14,451
And1: 7,387
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1135 » by WindyCityBorn » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:10 am

Hold That wrote:
The Box Office wrote:LaVine is looking for $30 million. He IS. I don't need a written public statement from his agent denying it.

Real life negotiations are really nasty. Bulls front office will have ALL the paperwork and data to discuss their position if they're NOT going to pay. LaVine and his agent need to have winning results to build their case that LaVine is worth the commitment. Management will discuss every single detail.

If I was LaVine, I'd be demanding $30 million as well. Because I KNOW how desperate Chicago is to secure a 26 year old averaging 29 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists. In my mind, I'm thinking, "After all I've done, Bulls don't wanna pay that? Then stop wasting my time. There are other teams offering $30 mill."

When a team pays any player $30 million per year, that's a mega huge sign that the team will build around that particular player. If I was the GM, I'm definitely NOT building around a player who has never made the playoffs and always been on losing teams. I don't care if he's 26/27.

The fact is LaVine has never been on any .500 or above team. He has to lead this team to the playoffs this year. This is his best shot and he's the healthiest he's ever been. LaVine is clicking on all cylinders. This is the best team he's ever been on. Besides, we're in the mix for playoffs right now.

WE ARE THE 8th SEED CURRENTLY as I'm typing this.

Now, if we get there, the team has to win something. Did we get there just to get swept? LOL

Hell, I'll shorten the goal posts for y'all. Win ONE Playoff game and LaVine has a good chance of getting his $30 Million per season. 2 playoff wins secures his mega big pay day. Hell, I'm not even looking for a playoff series win.

Zach LaVine has a losing track record. For years. This is a fact. No one is moving the goal posts on THAT ONE. Obviously, it takes a lot to remove the loser stench and, to me, this is what it's gonna take. I really like LaVine. I think he's a cool guy. But this is business. There have been plenty of stars traded so it's nothing new.

If you love LaVine so much then his fans should be confident that he can fulfill it this season. If I was the GM, I would be more than happy to ink him to his big time contract if he does it. Are you confident in LaVine? Are you not confident in him?

If Bulls is a lottery team again this year, why would AKME want to build around LaVine?

We'll see. We're in the mix. I really like where we are at. Huge props to LaVine. The difference in the standings is very small though. It's a grueling fight from here on.

He’s worth the 30mil considering he’s averaging 28 5 5 and is only 25. There’s tons of players making 30 per year on the DOWNSIDE of their careers. Lavine trajectory is heading up, and has been every year he’s been in the league and hasn’t even entered his prime years yet.

I’m not going to evaluate Lavine based upon his current cast. Coby white Lauri Markennen and Wendell wouldn’t surprise ANYONE if they were out the league in 5 years, Just like Niko. None of those guys have shown any consistency or even undoubtedly shown us they’d even have longevity in this league. Yet we want to evaluate how much winning Zach has done with these bums?

Is Beal worth his 30? Is Devin Booker before CP3? I guess Kyrie ain’t worth 30mil either because we already see what he can’t do unless he has another star? My question is why are you so fixated on this number as if Zach won’t have a high trade value after he signs his Max... there’s so many teams that would absorb his contract as a second or third option to create their own little super team and mortgage their future because of it. Have you not been paying attention to the league in the last 5 years? I’m not trying to come off snarky but seriously that Max contract is and will not be an issue unless Zach has career threatening injury. Zach is a skill player, he has so many tools in his bag on how he creates his shot. He more SKILLED than Derrick Rose was when it comes to shot creation in the mid range. This is not me saying he’s more talented, but as far as skills go, there’s a lot of Kobe in Zachs game. You can tell he grew up idolizing him. Hell even KG said this and Sam Mitchell his former coach. Negotiations? Pay Zach his money, what are you negotiating.


Yeah Zach is easily getting $30 million if he continues to play at this level. There is nothing to negotiate. If he somehow ends up at only $30 million per that’s a huge win for the front office. I expect him to get even better.
Stratmaster
RealGM
Posts: 16,079
And1: 5,912
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
       

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1136 » by Stratmaster » Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:35 am

It's no longer Zach Lavine. It's "Mr. All-star Lavine" to us degenerates.

And some said.... oh never mind. Too happy for him to get back into that ****.

Congrats to Mr. All-star Lavine!

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
2018C3
Senior
Posts: 684
And1: 438
Joined: Jul 14, 2018
   

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1137 » by 2018C3 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:11 am

cool007 wrote:
The Explorer wrote:Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.


Nick Fridell is an Idiot and I am so freaking glad that he is no longer in Chicago. He has always been negative nancy type reporter and most of the time his take never made any sense and doesn't provide good reasoning behind his opinion.

When Butler was here, we were trying to rebuild and the reason we didn't resign him is because we didn't have good young talent at the time and didn't have a great pick either - right now Lavine is still young and we do have bunch of young talent so building around him makes so much sense and since we can't get any other superstar/all-star here to sign with Bulls, we can not afford to lose a superstar in the making in Lavine.

Again, I didn't like hearing from Fridell and I am so freaking glad that he is gone. Hopefully they never bring him on any of the talk show.



The bottom line is the Bulls should have never traded Butler, and that was a mistake from the previous leadership. Trading Butler in the past has no relevant argument on the current LaVine discussions.

AK and company was not here when Butler was traded, and they now have to move forward with the cards they were dealt.

The new organization just needs to concentrate on the current situation, and make future decisions on whats best for the team.

Picking irrelevant and non applicable details from the past, and trying to apply past mistakes to hold a new front office accountable, That is not a coherent thought process.
Indomitable
RealGM
Posts: 22,762
And1: 5,120
Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Location: Yelzenbah!
     

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1138 » by Indomitable » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:45 pm

2018C3 wrote:
cool007 wrote:
The Explorer wrote:Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.


Nick Fridell is an Idiot and I am so freaking glad that he is no longer in Chicago. He has always been negative nancy type reporter and most of the time his take never made any sense and doesn't provide good reasoning behind his opinion.

When Butler was here, we were trying to rebuild and the reason we didn't resign him is because we didn't have good young talent at the time and didn't have a great pick either - right now Lavine is still young and we do have bunch of young talent so building around him makes so much sense and since we can't get any other superstar/all-star here to sign with Bulls, we can not afford to lose a superstar in the making in Lavine.

Again, I didn't like hearing from Fridell and I am so freaking glad that he is gone. Hopefully they never bring him on any of the talk show.



The bottom line is the Bulls should have never traded Butler, and that was a mistake from the previous leadership. Trading Butler in the past has no relevant argument on the current LaVine discussions.

AK and company was not here when Butler was traded, and they now have to move forward with the cards they were dealt.

The new organization just needs to concentrate on the current situation, and make future decisions on whats best for the team.

Picking irrelevant and non applicable details from the past, and trying to apply past mistakes to hold a new front office accountable, That is not a coherent thought process.

They did Butler a favor and end their own tenure at the same time. Gar is gone and Pax is with Collins. The trade was necessary because things needed to bottom out.
:banghead:
drosestruts
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,070
And1: 1,830
Joined: Apr 05, 2012
 

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1139 » by drosestruts » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:54 pm

cool007 wrote:
The Explorer wrote:Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.


Nick Fridell is an Idiot and I am so freaking glad that he is no longer in Chicago. He has always been negative nancy type reporter and most of the time his take never made any sense and doesn't provide good reasoning behind his opinion.

When Butler was here, we were trying to rebuild and the reason we didn't resign him is because we didn't have good young talent at the time and didn't have a great pick either - right now Lavine is still young and we do have bunch of young talent so building around him makes so much sense and since we can't get any other superstar/all-star here to sign with Bulls, we can not afford to lose a superstar in the making in Lavine.

Again, I didn't like hearing from Fridell and I am so freaking glad that he is gone. Hopefully they never bring him on any of the talk show.



Disappointing to hear it was the same old Friedell on the podcast. When he'd to radio spots on ESPN 1000 I always gave him some slack cause really, how much are you supposed to say in a 30 second to minute radio hit. But it's just lazy to be like "as it stands these guys aren't contenders", imagine how terrible NBA media content would be if everyone just offered these kind of takes. There's like 3 teams that will probably win (LA, LA, and Brooklyn), if the media for every 27 other teams was just defeatist it would be so boring.

There's so much one could talk about, but most of these guys sound like they would just be in a perpetual rebuild so that they could gain high draft picks so they could what exactly? Look at the 3 teams mentioned above that are the most likely contenders for the title. None of those teams are built around players drafted by those teams.

Again, disappointing that on how podcast where you're given more time to share your ideas and thoughts that he's playing the same card. Get a new slant Nick.
User avatar
SHO'NUFF
Head Coach
Posts: 6,673
And1: 1,592
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: ★ ★ ★ ★
Contact:
 

Re: Lets talk Zach Lavine 

Post#1140 » by SHO'NUFF » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:58 pm

2018C3 wrote:
cool007 wrote:
The Explorer wrote:Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.


Nick Fridell is an Idiot and I am so freaking glad that he is no longer in Chicago. He has always been negative nancy type reporter and most of the time his take never made any sense and doesn't provide good reasoning behind his opinion.

When Butler was here, we were trying to rebuild and the reason we didn't resign him is because we didn't have good young talent at the time and didn't have a great pick either - right now Lavine is still young and we do have bunch of young talent so building around him makes so much sense and since we can't get any other superstar/all-star here to sign with Bulls, we can not afford to lose a superstar in the making in Lavine.

Again, I didn't like hearing from Fridell and I am so freaking glad that he is gone. Hopefully they never bring him on any of the talk show.



The bottom line is the Bulls should have never traded Butler, and that was a mistake from the previous leadership. Trading Butler in the past has no relevant argument on the current LaVine discussions.

AK and company was not here when Butler was traded, and they now have to move forward with the cards they were dealt.

The new organization just needs to concentrate on the current situation, and make future decisions on whats best for the team.

Picking irrelevant and non applicable details from the past, and trying to apply past mistakes to hold a new front office accountable, That is not a coherent thought process.


GarPax most definitely made the right move there. The reasoning is pretty self explanatory if you look at the overall situation.
#BullsFansLivesMatter Image

Return to Chicago Bulls