Wiretap: Bulls Hope To Re-Sign Zach LaVine At $14M-$16M

[Flopper]

He did lost bit of athleticism if we are going talk about it. He isnt anymore elite athlete. Now he is good athlete.

"Good athlete" is underselling a bit, but definitely not the same level he was pre-ACL from what I saw last year. Some of that could've been from fatigue (he seemed to lose some bounce as the season wore on) and added weight from strength training though. On a side note - I never understood why some guys coming off ACL injuries pack on muscle (like DRose, Rondo) rather than focusing on functional strength and a leaner build.

[ZOMG]

He did lost bit of athleticism if we are going talk about it. He isnt anymore elite athlete. Now he is good athlete.

In what way? He still jumps and runs just as he did prior. If Zach lost any athleticism it was slight which means nothing since he was already a freak. Dude works like hell on his body he’s definitely more towards elite athletically.

It doesn't matter anyway. Even after a (possible) slight drop, Zach has more than enough athleticism to be a difference maker in the NBA. Problem is, athletic ability is not enough. You need a lot of other things as well, and unfortunately they're in short supply with him.

[Lauri_Legend]

Interesting how people are dissecting his game apart from a season where he was returning from an ACL injury. No, I don't think he's worth $20M/yr, but I'd also cut him a break. He missed a full calendar year of basketball and had to prove himself in 24 games. Seems a bit unfair to dissect this particular season only.

[SensiBull]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

[Peelboy]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

In his last year in MN, his offensive efficiency had improved to where he was barely negative due to the D. To me, that suggests that continued improvement on O (likely given age and trajectory) combined with even marginal improvement on D is likely and makes him a valuable player.

Now that's projecting, which is the case with most if not all 22-23year olds. But if he was already doing that stuff we'd be talking contracts in the $20+range (Aaron Gordon). Instead we're talking in the teens because of the increased risk associated with development and injury.

But some of the comments (he's worth nothing, I wouldn't pay more than $10M, etc) are waaaaay overboard IMO.

[Proven_Winner]

He did lost bit of athleticism if we are going talk about it. He isnt anymore elite athlete. Now he is good athlete.

In what way? He still jumps and runs just as he did prior. If Zach lost any athleticism it was slight which means nothing since he was already a freak. Dude works like hell on his body he’s definitely more towards elite athletically.

It doesn't matter anyway. Even after a (possible) slight drop, Zach has more than enough athleticism to be a difference maker in the NBA. Problem is, athletic ability is not enough. You need a lot of other things as well, and unfortunately they're in short supply with him.

He’s 23 it’s not like he can’t grow. He can shoot and handle and works his ass off. Ignoring what either of us think he will/can become its far from over with his development.

[DanTown8587]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

In his last year in MN, his offensive efficiency had improved to where he was barely negative due to the D. To me, that suggests that continued improvement on O (likely given age and trajectory) combined with even marginal improvement on D is likely and makes him a valuable player.

Now that's projecting, which is the case with most if not all 22-23year olds. But if he was already doing that stuff we'd be talking contracts in the $20+range (Aaron Gordon). Instead we're talking in the teens because of the increased risk associated with development and injury.

But some of the comments (he's worth nothing, I wouldn't pay more than $10M, etc) are waaaaay overboard IMO.

I really wish people saw what he did in Minnesota and not just look at box numbers. He started well, had a great first 30 or so games then was fighting through either injury or whathave you in January and then had an awful 15 games and tore the ACL. And that good play was mostly making a ton more threes than say he started to defend or get to the line a ton.

If you’re signing Zach, the argument is based on his play last year progressing to the mean and that the underlying numbers are worth it. At no point in Minnesota was he ever playing at a level of a future core player on a good team.

[TheJordanRule]

I think people are going to be highly upset when Zach is signed because what fans think is fair and what NBA guys think once again are too different things. The Bulls value Zach at the reported 14-16 mil. Do you all think the Bulls won't match 17-18 mil? I hope we all know if a team offered that we will match. So if we as fans know that, do you all think Gm's know that? That is why Zach nor any other RFA has gotten a offer outside of their current teams. Gordon is the only one who took the teams offer.

Zach probably signs for anywhere from 15-17.5 mil and I think fans are going to be mad, but remember next year being UFA and teams having more money that it could be a lot more.

You claim other teams estimate the value of Zach— who is a raw world class athlete draft pick type player who has shown some flashes on offense as a scorer along with a ton of weaknesses— at 15 to 18 million per year. The only reason they haven’t given Zach these pie in the sky offers, you suggest, is from fear of what we might do in response. So let’s explore that option. Super athletes with good handles, who hog the ball, can dunk in traffic, have no court vision, are shot happy and play no defense are available in every draft. Why pay Zach 15-18 when we can just trade him for for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander / Josh Jackson / Mikhal Bridges etc plus receive additional assets in exchange? We gotta bring the sign and trade into play if things are exactly how you describe them to be.

Handing Zach that kind of money sets a bad precedent for the future. Kris is better than Zach. Bobby is better than Zach. Lauri is better than Zach. What are those guys going to get? How are we going to afford to keep them all? Yuck. We could price our team into mediocrity for the next decade.

Zach at that price simply doesn’t even make sense based on the deals other players signed this off season. Favors is a plus on both sides of the court and Favors is at 18 million per year. What on earth has convinced GarPax that Zach is basically on Favors’ level? Aaron Gordon, whose contract is often so casually compared to Zach, is younger than Zach and better on both ends of the floor as well. There is no comparison. Zach is a net negative on both ends. Hezonja, on the other hand, is a comparable prospect in terms of age, flaws and overall potential and Hezonja signed for 6.5 million this year.

At the bare minimum, I want to be able to flip the contract or get out of it if Zach returns to the low level he was at last season. And I want a contract that I can respect if Zach’s improvement is only marginal because, for a lot of these super athletes, even when the improvement happens it only goes so far. In fact, we had a couple of young super athletes for which that was true— Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, and Tyrus Thomas. The best comparison out of that crop for Zach, of course, is Eddy Curry. And that’s not a good thing.

[TheSuzerain]

Read on Twitter

Kings seem unlikely to offer Zach. Would not surprise me if Atlanta is completely uninterested as they already have Trae/Huerter.

76ers are actually not the worst fit, but they are almost certainly targeting bigger fish, this year or next.

[chrispatrick]

He did lost bit of athleticism if we are going talk about it. He isnt anymore elite athlete. Now he is good athlete.

"Good athlete" is underselling a bit, but definitely not the same level he was pre-ACL from what I saw last year. Some of that could've been from fatigue (he seemed to lose some bounce as the season wore on) and added weight from strength training though. On a side note - I never understood why some guys coming off ACL injuries pack on muscle (like DRose, Rondo) rather than focusing on functional strength and a leaner build.

Agreed. Pretty much any time a guy puts on muscle (unless he was out of shape to begin with) it's a bad thing as it ends up costing more in the way of quickness/speed/leaping ability than it helps with strength. I think this is true regardless of injury.

You hear of people bulking up in the NFL a lot and it almost always makes people worse. Once quick running backs like Ray Rice/Felix Jones put on muscle and looked like they were running in mud the next year, LeVeon Bell took the opposite approach, got leaner, and became a star.

Not as big of a deal for people who don't rely on quickness, but I think the same thing applies to perimeter players in the NBA or any position where your job is essentially to get around another person.

[chrispatrick]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

In his last year in MN, his offensive efficiency had improved to where he was barely negative due to the D. To me, that suggests that continued improvement on O (likely given age and trajectory) combined with even marginal improvement on D is likely and makes him a valuable player.

Now that's projecting, which is the case with most if not all 22-23year olds. But if he was already doing that stuff we'd be talking contracts in the $20+range (Aaron Gordon). Instead we're talking in the teens because of the increased risk associated with development and injury.

But some of the comments (he's worth nothing, I wouldn't pay more than $10M, etc) are waaaaay overboard IMO.

I really wish people saw what he did in Minnesota and not just look at box numbers. He started well, had a great first 30 or so games then was fighting through either injury or whathave you in January and then had an awful 15 games and tore the ACL. And that good play was mostly making a ton more threes than say he started to defend or get to the line a ton.

If you’re signing Zach, the argument is based on his play last year progressing to the mean and that the underlying numbers are worth it. At no point in Minnesota was he ever playing at a level of a future core player on a good team.

Agree 100%. He first has to get back to pre-injury form and he was a bad to below-average overall player pre-injury. So there's essentially a canyon in-between Zach LaVine and a good NBA player.

[bad knees]

Read on Twitter

Kings seem unlikely to offer Zach. Would not surprise me if Atlanta is completely uninterested as they already have Trae/Huerter.

76ers are actually not the worst fit, but they are almost certainly targeting bigger fish, this year or next.

Also, remember that any team making an offer to Zach has to include at least two years guaranteed. That pretty much eliminates PHI I would think.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[chrispatrick]

He did lost bit of athleticism if we are going talk about it. He isnt anymore elite athlete. Now he is good athlete.

In what way? He still jumps and runs just as he did prior. If Zach lost any athleticism it was slight which means nothing since he was already a freak. Dude works like hell on his body he’s definitely more towards elite athletically.

It doesn't matter anyway. Even after a (possible) slight drop, Zach has more than enough athleticism to be a difference maker in the NBA. Problem is, athletic ability is not enough. You need a lot of other things as well, and unfortunately they're in short supply with him.

I'd add that Derrick Rose today still looks more athletic than most point guards on the floor. But there's a difference between having good/really good athleticism than having next level athleticism that other guys can't keep up with. To your point, LaVine had that elite type of athleticism with Minny and he was still a bad player.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Read on Twitter

Kings seem unlikely to offer Zach. Would not surprise me if Atlanta is completely uninterested as they already have Trae/Huerter.

76ers are actually not the worst fit, but they are almost certainly targeting bigger fish, this year or next.

This almost certainly seems to be unfolding as the Bulls having more leverage than Lavine. Much in the same way that they did last year with Mirotic. Having said that, I do think that from the standpoint of optics, they do have some motivation to get a longer term deal done and will make him a fair offer to try and make that happen.

I think what's "fair" is where the disconnect is with us as fans. I myself think that a fair offer would be 4/60. 4/40 would be lowballing the guy just because you can, which might actually win the FO some fanfare. But it's NOT going to look good to prospective free agents. These guys and their agents have VERY long memories.

[musiqsoulchild]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

I didnt read all 70 pages....but I highly doubt that there are several "passionate advocates" for Zach.

Take me for example....I am so meh on signing him. But, I want to sign him if the price is right.

Infact, the most passionate advocates are for NOT signing Zach.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Dissecting his game AFTER, but not limited to, a season coming off an ACL. The criticism I'm reading doesn't seem to me to be saying that he didn't do his trick well enough, as you portray it to be saying.

The criticism seems. to be that it's his only, one trick, and in 70 pages of. commentary, I haven't heard even his most passionate advocates attempt even ADDRESS, much less refute or debunk that belief.


They just accuse Bulls fans of being unjustly unimpressed with that same, one trick, and quite rightly, the list of things he has shown the ability to do, over 4 years, not just 24 post -ACL games, doesn't expand, no matter how long we talk.

In his last year in MN, his offensive efficiency had improved to where he was barely negative due to the D. To me, that suggests that continued improvement on O (likely given age and trajectory) combined with even marginal improvement on D is likely and makes him a valuable player.

Now that's projecting, which is the case with most if not all 22-23year olds. But if he was already doing that stuff we'd be talking contracts in the $20+range (Aaron Gordon). Instead we're talking in the teens because of the increased risk associated with development and injury.

But some of the comments (he's worth nothing, I wouldn't pay more than $10M, etc) are waaaaay overboard IMO.

I really wish people saw what he did in Minnesota and not just look at box numbers. He started well, had a great first 30 or so games then was fighting through either injury or whathave you in January and then had an awful 15 games and tore the ACL. And that good play was mostly making a ton more threes than say he started to defend or get to the line a ton.

If you’re signing Zach, the argument is based on his play last year progressing to the mean and that the underlying numbers are worth it. At no point in Minnesota was he ever playing at a level of a future core player on a good team.

So now it's no longer enough for him to be playing well. Now we have to rationalize, dissect, and then discredit WHY he was playing well. That's a proof positive that even if he demonstrated massive improvement, those that are against him will figure out a way to beat him down regardless. 30 games of "great" still beats 15 games of bad no matter how you chop it.

[BullsFTW]

I just hope it gets done right away. I'm still a believer in LaVine.

[Betta Bulleavit]

I just hope it gets done right away. I'm still a believer in LaVine.

So am I. And being that doesn't make us unaware of the risks involved. It's simply the recognition that there are going to be risks either way.

[PrimzyBulls81]

14M per, 1+1 ,second year team option -- take it or leave it Zach

[ZOMG]

In his last year in MN, his offensive efficiency had improved to where he was barely negative due to the D. To me, that suggests that continued improvement on O (likely given age and trajectory) combined with even marginal improvement on D is likely and makes him a valuable player.

Remember, though, that in Minny his situation was a lot different. He wasn't at the top of the pecking order - if anything, despite his dunk contest wins he was seen as something of an afterthought combined to Wiggins & co. He was playing within a system and not getting a whole lot of freedom.

Now, Zach himself probably didn't like it, but I'm pretty certain that not being Top Dog was actually good for his game. It kept his worst instincts in check and forced him to try to be efficient with the ball (not that he succeeded that well).

Give him big money and the "keys to the car" next season, though, and he wouldn't be that player. I'd say he'd be much closer to what he was last season - a chucker who thinks he's entitled to a fixed number of shots, as well as a "leader" in his own mind.

IMO LaVine is much closer to an ideal 6th man than the 1st option on any team. Many posters have said this before and I tend to agree.