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

[DanTown8587]

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.

Reading and following arguments can be hard but it shouldn’t be. He said “in his last year...” and in his last year it was 30 games where he shot well and then 15 when he didn’t and then the ACL. The argument isn’t he didn’t play well in the 30 games but that his entire season (which was still only half a year) wasn’t some he played better. he played well for 30 games, not an entire third year. And the end of his third year was his worse play. His third year, like last year, is a mixed bag and not some resounding success his overall numbers would suggest.

[League Circles]

Is LaVine more like Ron Mercer or Eddie Robinson as we recreate the past?

[MGB8]

Is LaVine more like Ron Mercer or Eddie Robinson as we recreate the past?

Jamal Crawford.

And I was a big JC fan, but in the end, he didn't develop as a PG, and was best as a scorer off the bench. Only when he accepted that - that he was an NBA "star" but not a "superstar" - did he actually maximize his abilities in the NBA.

I don't think that LaVine, mentally, is there yet.

[League Circles]

Is LaVine more like Ron Mercer or Eddie Robinson as we recreate the past?

Jamal Crawford.

And I was a big JC fan.

Great, that means we'll be letting him go!

[chrispatrick]

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.

Are you suggesting we pay more than the market warrants to appeal to future free agents? I think the actual $20M we’d save on market value would woo free agents more than the goodwill we’d build spending on LaVine.

Further, I don’t think guys like Irving/Butler (using hypothetical example) will care what we paid LaVine

[chrispatrick]

Is LaVine more like Ron Mercer or Eddie Robinson as we recreate the past?

Jamal Crawford.

And I was a big JC fan.

Great, that means we'll be letting him go!

A poor mans JC though. Crawford wasn’t killing his teams at this stage of his career.

I’m not sure what makes the current version of LaVine more useful than Aaron brooks, other than that perceived potential

[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.

Are you suggesting we pay more than the market warrants to appeal to future free agents? I think the actual $20M we’d save on market value would woo free agents more than the goodwill we’d build spending on LaVine.

I think that we should pay him as close to fair value as possible and not necessarily use the lack of money in the market as a means to outright lowball him. I feel like that'd be a bad look for us.

I would assume that your argument would be that he shouldn't be making much more than the vet minimum because he is a fringe NBA talent that should be glad just to be putting on a jersey. Therefore, any contract that he gets from us should be considered as "fair". And that where I differ from you and many others on the board.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Jamal Crawford.

And I was a big JC fan.

Great, that means we'll be letting him go!

A poor mans JC though. Crawford wasn’t killing his teams at this stage of his career.

I’m not sure what makes the current version of LaVine more useful than Aaron brooks, other than that perceived potential

Again, with the deep end rhetoric. Beautiful.

[nomorezorro]

where is the "$1, bob" option in the poll

[chrispatrick]

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.

Are you suggesting we pay more than the market warrants to appeal to future free agents? I think the actual $20M we’d save on market value would woo free agents more than the goodwill we’d build spending on LaVine.

I think that we should pay him as close to fair value as possible and not necessarily use the lack of money in the market as a means to outright lowball him. I feel like that'd be a bad look for us.

I would assume that your argument would be that he shouldn't be making much more than the vet minimum because he is a fringe NBA talent that should be glad just to be putting on a jersey. Therefore, any contract that he gets from us should be considered as "fair". And that where I differ from you and many others on the board.

My argument is that the current version of LaVine has negative value and it’s easier to win without him. I still think he would get 8-10M per year based on perceived upside, though I disagree with that.

The market determines what’s fair, and if anything the fact that the NBA is an inefficient market due to max contracts should be pumping up his contract and not deflating it (since he can get paid money that should be going to guys who would receive larger contracts if there was no max).

I don’t get the sense that there are teams who are dying to pay LaVine more but just don’t have the cap space.

[chrispatrick]

Great, that means we'll be letting him go!

A poor mans JC though. Crawford wasn’t killing his teams at this stage of his career.

I’m not sure what makes the current version of LaVine more useful than Aaron brooks, other than that perceived potential

Again, with the deep end rhetoric. Beautiful.

Yet things like “Seth Curry is a better player” can be verified by most objective statistics. The comparison to Brooks isn’t crazy, both are completely one dimensional players, who aren’t super efficient at their one dimension. Both liabilities on defense. Both can theoretically create

[dice]

Are you suggesting we pay more than the market warrants to appeal to future free agents? I think the actual $20M we’d save on market value would woo free agents more than the goodwill we’d build spending on LaVine.

I think that we should pay him as close to fair value as possible and not necessarily use the lack of money in the market as a means to outright lowball him. I feel like that'd be a bad look for us.

I would assume that your argument would be that he shouldn't be making much more than the vet minimum because he is a fringe NBA talent that should be glad just to be putting on a jersey. Therefore, any contract that he gets from us should be considered as "fair". And that where I differ from you and many others on the board.

My argument is that the current version of LaVine has negative value and it’s easier to win without him. I still think he would get 8-10M per year based on perceived upside, though I disagree with that.

The market determines what’s fair, and if anything the fact that the NBA is an inefficient market due to max contracts should be pumping up his contract and not deflating it (since he can get paid money that should be going to guys who would receive larger contracts if there was no max).

I don’t get the sense that there are teams who are dying to pay LaVine more but just don’t have the cap space.

every team in the league just lowballed cousins. are future free agents going to be hesitant to play in the nba?

"hmmm...well, the bulls are offering me the best deal, but they lowballed lavine by paying market value when nobody else wanted him...i think i'm going to have to pass and take less money elsewhere"...i'm pretty confident that that line of thought will apply to exactly zero future free agents

[madvillian]

His market value seems to be "not much" based on what similar players are getting this offseason.

[Betta Bulleavit]

A poor mans JC though. Crawford wasn’t killing his teams at this stage of his career.

I’m not sure what makes the current version of LaVine more useful than Aaron brooks, other than that perceived potential

Again, with the deep end rhetoric. Beautiful.

Yet things like “Seth Curry is a better player” can be verified by most objective statistics. The comparison to Brooks isn’t crazy, both are completely one dimensional players, who aren’t super efficient at their one dimension. Both liabilities on defense. Both can theoretically create

Listen. Not to get all lecture(y), but I do teach. Business in fact. And one of the things that I always explain to my students is that psychology plays a huge role in businesses and how they are run. The real value of assets versus perceived value. The usage of data and all that good stuff. The role that psychology plays in business plays itself out most often in people's overutilization or overreliance on numbers and statistical data. As prominent as statistics are in business, it is a well known fact that stats can be manipulated in what seems like a million ways.

While statistics in conjunction with one another can help explain why certain events occurred, they become less useful as it pertains to what future outcomes will be. Using stats as a means to HELP project future outcomes is perfectly fine. But when used as an end all be all without the usage of other (less quantifiable) elements, stats tend to create a ton of missed opportunities as well. And that is what drives my position behind whether or not we should resign Lavine for the right amount. The stats are what they are and I've never once refuted them. The only thing that I have ever said is that there are circumstances attached to those stats that go beyond Just Lavine himself. Heck, obviously everything can't be THAT great out in Minny. There is a reason why Butler isn't committing.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Blakeney can chuck away at a fraction of the cost if that’s what we want.

[Betta Bulleavit]

I think that we should pay him as close to fair value as possible and not necessarily use the lack of money in the market as a means to outright lowball him. I feel like that'd be a bad look for us.

I would assume that your argument would be that he shouldn't be making much more than the vet minimum because he is a fringe NBA talent that should be glad just to be putting on a jersey. Therefore, any contract that he gets from us should be considered as "fair". And that where I differ from you and many others on the board.

My argument is that the current version of LaVine has negative value and it’s easier to win without him. I still think he would get 8-10M per year based on perceived upside, though I disagree with that.

The market determines what’s fair, and if anything the fact that the NBA is an inefficient market due to max contracts should be pumping up his contract and not deflating it (since he can get paid money that should be going to guys who would receive larger contracts if there was no max).

I don’t get the sense that there are teams who are dying to pay LaVine more but just don’t have the cap space.

every team in the league just lowballed cousins. are future free agents going to be hesitant to play in the nba?

"hmmm...well, the bulls are offering me the best deal, but they lowballed lavine by paying market value when nobody else wanted him...i think i'm going to have to pass and take less money elsewhere"...i'm pretty confident that that line of thought will apply to exactly zero future free agents

Cousins is an unrestricted FA. Lavine is restricted. Two processes that are fundamentally different. Zach isn't getting offers at the moment because (1) it makes no sense to make an offer to a restricted FA whose clock doesn't start until 7/6. (2) very few teams have cap room to tie up into waiting on a decision from the Bulls. (3) They know that even if they cleared enough space to sign him to an offer sheet, the Bulls are going to match it unless they offer way over market value.

So in this instance, you could argue that his market value is whatever the Bulls decide to pay him given the lack of offers out there. But there is also an argument to be made for the fact that the reason that he doesn't have offers at the moment are due to the constraints of the market itself and not necessarily the player's fair value. Are the Bulls well within their rights to use that against him. Sure. Does that make it the best thing to do? Not necessarily.

[TheJordanRule]

Are the Bulls well within their rights to use that against him. Sure. Does that make it the best thing to do? Not necessarily.

What’s the nightmare risk in playing hardball with Zach and how likely is it to materialize? Is the nightmare risk that Zach in one season goes from his typically bad play (a career high of 14.6 PER) up to star status (21-23 PER like Jimmy) or superstar status (25+ PER like KAT)? And then he turns around and goes, “You guys wouldn’t even pony up the 18 million I was clearly entitled to, so I’m gonna leave even though you guys can pay me the most money out of all the teams, muhahaha!!!” I think the FO should take the chance that’s not gonna happen.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Are the Bulls well within their rights to use that against him. Sure. Does that make it the best thing to do? Not necessarily.

What’s the nightmare risk in playing hardball with Zach? That Zach goes from

I don't see anything wrong with playing hardball to get things down into the range that they feel comfortable with. But the word is already out with regards to what they think his value is (14-16M). So to use the current circumstances to beat him down to a 4/40M dollar deal feels a bit opportunistic. Some people might not care. But it could very well matter to certain people...agents most notably.

EDIT: And remember....LOTS of teams are going to have cap space next year. Not just us. So if we are going to land somebody, chances are, it's going to be about more than just money.

[TheJordanRule]

Are the Bulls well within their rights to use that against him. Sure. Does that make it the best thing to do? Not necessarily.

What’s the nightmare risk in playing hardball with Zach? That Zach goes from

I don't see anything wrong with playing hardball to get things down into the range that they feel comfortable with. But the word is already out with regards to what they think his value is (14-16M). So to use the current circumstances to beat him down to a 4/40M dollar deal feels a bit opportunistic. Some people might not care. But it could very well matter to certain people...agents most notably.

EDIT: And remember....LOTS of teams are going to have cap space next year. Not just us. So if we are going to land somebody, chances are, it's going to be about more than just money.

Word is NOT out about what the FO thinks Lavine is worth. There were allegations that could have easily been flushed down the pipe by Zach’s agents. And just because NBA front offices blew stacks of money on FAs last time there were so many available does not mean they will come in with the same mentality again next year. People do learn and adapt from past mistakes from time to time.

[Betta Bulleavit]

What’s the nightmare risk in playing hardball with Zach? That Zach goes from

I don't see anything wrong with playing hardball to get things down into the range that they feel comfortable with. But the word is already out with regards to what they think his value is (14-16M). So to use the current circumstances to beat him down to a 4/40M dollar deal feels a bit opportunistic. Some people might not care. But it could very well matter to certain people...agents most notably.

EDIT: And remember....LOTS of teams are going to have cap space next year. Not just us. So if we are going to land somebody, chances are, it's going to be about more than just money.

Word is NOT out about what the FO thinks Lavine is worth. There were allegations that could have easily been flushed down the pipe by Zach’s agents. And just because NBA front offices blew stacks of money on FAs last time there were so many available does not mean they will come in with the same mentality again next year. People do learn and adapt from past mistakes from time to time.

So you believe that the article that this thread's title is based on was put out by Lavine's camp?