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

[BearsBulls78]

The Bulls should not sign LaVine for more than 2 years and that second should be a team option. LaVine was never worth 17m even when the trade happened. He could’ve become worth that if he showed more than he did in his time.

Two year deal is solid. Gives him the chance to get himself a bigger deal, saves the Bulls if what he showed as “the man” is what he is. And he shouldn’t be the man at this point because this should be Lauris team.

And yes, if you think he’s worth 15 then don’t spend more. Pax has made a career about overspending for guys like Kirk, Ben, Luol, etc and it limits other moves. So don’t do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Betta Bulleavit]

I think the point that a few of us are making is that 17 Million a year is not that big of a gamble. In fact, its probably a great deal with little downside.

Zach's most recent action in the NBA is at a level of vet minimum. If he plays this coming year like he did last year, then that would be a 16 million dollar overpay.

I don't know how you could have just gone through the Derrick Rose era and come away thinking "of course he'll recover to be much better than he was pre-ACL" when there are very few guards that ever meet their previous best after an ACL injury, yet that seems to be the prevailing thought with those that want to bring LaVine back on a long term deal.

He tore his ACL, an injury that destroys many careers, particularly those of guards who rely on athleticism.
He has been absolutely putrid as a basketball player in the limited time since returning from said injury.
He missed the tail end of the season with compensatory injuries (possibly fake to tank though).
He will be at heightened risk for more injuries going forward.

Yet, let's treat his value as if he will significantly eclipse the small sample size in his career of 47 games where he almost reached the PER of the league average.

You lay out a good argument and it would be rather disingenuous to not acknowledge your primary points. What I will say though is that for all the flack that Zach is getting for his PLAY during his games last year, he looked very good physically.

[nomorezorro]

i think it's severely misguided to call booker's stats hollow. if anything, he was asked to do more offensively than is ideal for him at this point in his career, and yet he did it pretty darn effectively.

the reason booker is worth $17 million / year more than lavine is not because he is that much better than him presently, but because he has demonstrated he is much more likely to become an elite offensive player going forward than lavine is. (and probably not quite the defensive liability, although booker has a whole bunch of work to do in that area as well.)

[DASMACKDOWN]

People on the board are saying things like

Zach has never done X
Zach wasnt all that great at X
Zach isnt worth X amount

Which is what we also said of Jimmy.

Im not even implying that Zach is about to explode like Jimmy. I am just implying that people could be wrong about it and Zach could end up costing us twice as much. Thats the con of playing hardball.

Since we dont know yet the exact amount in question, I stand by the waiting game.

The longer no one offers Zach a contract, the more likely we can get our friendly contract - ie Niko last year.

[musiqsoulchild]

I think the point that a few of us are making is that 17 Million a year is not that big of a gamble. In fact, its probably a great deal with little downside.

Zach's most recent action in the NBA is at a level of vet minimum. If he plays this coming year like he did last year, then that would be a 16 million dollar overpay.

I don't know how you could have just gone through the Derrick Rose era and come away thinking "of course he'll recover to be much better than he was pre-ACL" when there are very few guards that ever meet their previous best after an ACL injury, yet that seems to be the prevailing thought with those that want to bring LaVine back on a long term deal.

He tore his ACL, an injury that destroys many careers, particularly those of guards who rely on athleticism.
He has been absolutely putrid as a basketball player in the limited time since returning from said injury.
He missed the tail end of the season with compensatory injuries (possibly fake to tank though).
He will be at heightened risk for more injuries going forward.

Yet, let's treat his value as if he will significantly eclipse the small sample size in his career of 47 games where he almost reached the PER of the league average.

Derrick Rose and Zach are not comparables.

Derrick was the offense. Zach and his points are a by-product of the offense.

Secondly, Zach's scoring is predicated on shooting and making 3's. Almost 50% of his points scored come from 3 pointers and free throws. That hasnt changed much pre-ACL and post-ACL.

[Red Larrivee]

i think it's severely misguided to call booker's stats hollow. if anything, he was asked to do more offensively than is ideal for him at this point in his career, and yet he did it pretty darn effectively.

the reason booker is worth $17 million / year more than lavine is not because he is that much better than him presently, but because he has demonstrated he is much more likely to become an elite offensive player going forward than lavine is. (and probably not quite the defensive liability, although booker has a whole bunch of work to do in that area as well.)

How is it that much different than LaVine in his 3rd year:

.576 TS%, .459/.387/.836 shooting line before tearing his ACL.

If you give that LaVine a ton of shots on a trash team, he's putting up Booker's numbers. To me, $17M more implies that Booker possesses some skill or talent level that LaVine is incapable of reaching. There's nothing to suggest that's the case right now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[nomorezorro]

Im not even implying that Zach is about to explode like Jimmy. I am just implying that people could be wrong about it and Zach could end up costing us twice as much. Thats the con of playing hardball.

i do think the conversation about lavine has definitely skewed way too far toward the negative — he's a flawed player, not a hopeless one. but i think most of the people advocating for hardball are comfortable with the prospect of zach getting a bigger deal if he we sign him short-term and he breaks out.

better to pay fair value for a good player than well above fair value for a bad one, the thinking goes

[Kurt Heimlich]

i think it's severely misguided to call booker's stats hollow. if anything, he was asked to do more offensively than is ideal for him at this point in his career, and yet he did it pretty darn effectively.

the reason booker is worth $17 million / year more than lavine is not because he is that much better than him presently, but because he has demonstrated he is much more likely to become an elite offensive player going forward than lavine is. (and probably not quite the defensive liability, although booker has a whole bunch of work to do in that area as well.)

I don't think many are arguing that Booker isn't worth significantly more than LaVine. It's just that using Booker's mega deal as a benchmark is a silly thing to do. Because Booker, even while worth significantly more than LaVine for reasons rehashed over and over again in his thread (superior raw offensive production, age, health), looks like he's overpaid at 150M+. And that's because his impact metrics are not max contract, 30% of the cap good (see: win shares and plus/minus specifically defensively). And any slight regression in his play will put him in Andrew Wiggins territory.

[TheSuzerain]

i think it's severely misguided to call booker's stats hollow. if anything, he was asked to do more offensively than is ideal for him at this point in his career, and yet he did it pretty darn effectively.

the reason booker is worth $17 million / year more than lavine is not because he is that much better than him presently, but because he has demonstrated he is much more likely to become an elite offensive player going forward than lavine is. (and probably not quite the defensive liability, although booker has a whole bunch of work to do in that area as well.)

How is it that much different than LaVine in his 3rd year:

.576 TS%, .459/.387/.836 shooting line before tearing his ACL.

If you give that LaVine a ton of shots on a trash team, he's putting up Booker's numbers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No he’s not.

Booker is clearly superior to Lavine. He’s far more proven when it comes to creating offense for himself as well as being both a playmaking and scoring threat.

Booker may still be overpaid, but he’s plainly in a tier above Lavine.

[dougthonus]

You lay out a good argument and it would be rather disingenuous to not acknowledge your primary points. What I will say though is that for all the flack that Zach is getting for his PLAY during his games last year, he looked very good physically.

I sort of agree, the primary problem may simply be that once he tried to act like a #1 player that he was no where near good enough to do so, and that he's really more of a 3rd option. It also could be rust. It also could be that he is missing something in smaller ways that is harder to see.

It's tough to say what the exact thing is with him.

I have no qualms with the Bulls matching a 17m deal if LaVine is offered one. I have no problem thinking he _might_ end up being worth it. My problem is when people make definitive statements ignoring LaVine's floor. His floor is basically "non rotation player" right now.

It wouldn't surprise me too much if LaVine was worth of a max in a year, it wouldn't surprise me too much if he's never a valuable player again either.

[nomorezorro]

How is it that much different than LaVine in his 3rd year:

.576 TS%, .459/.387/.836 shooting line before tearing his ACL.

If you give that LaVine a ton of shots on a trash team, he's putting up Booker's numbers. To me, $17M more implies that Booker possesses some skill or talent level that LaVine is incapable of reaching. There's nothing to suggest that's the case right now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

lavine's third year was a half-season as the third option on his team. if you give him a ton of shots and make him the focal point of the offense, it's likely he struggles to score as effectively. it also exposes how far away he is from becoming an effective lead guard in a good offense, given how much he focuses on scoring rather than making the best decision for the team

which is basically what happened last season. not to judge him too harshly for a post-injury season, but still.

[Red Larrivee]

i think it's severely misguided to call booker's stats hollow. if anything, he was asked to do more offensively than is ideal for him at this point in his career, and yet he did it pretty darn effectively.

the reason booker is worth $17 million / year more than lavine is not because he is that much better than him presently, but because he has demonstrated he is much more likely to become an elite offensive player going forward than lavine is. (and probably not quite the defensive liability, although booker has a whole bunch of work to do in that area as well.)

How is it that much different than LaVine in his 3rd year:

.576 TS%, .459/.387/.836 shooting line before tearing his ACL.

If you give that LaVine a ton of shots on a trash team, he's putting up Booker's numbers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No he’s not.

Booker is clearly superior to Lavine. He’s far more proven when it comes to creating offense for himself as well as being both a playmaking and scoring threat.

Booker may still be overpaid, but he’s plainly in a tier above Lavine.

I said Booker is better, but he's not $17M per year better. That is a significant amount of cash that indicates a player having an unquestionable amount of superior skill or talent. If LaVine is a C player, Booker is a C+.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[dougthonus]

Derrick Rose and Zach are not comparables.

Go find a list of comparable guys that have torn ACLs then. Tell me about all these athletic guards that tore their ACL and went on to improve upon their pre ACL performance significantly.

Derrick was the offense. Zach and his points are a by-product of the offense.

Sadly, when Zach played last year, he also was trying to be the offense, something I hope he changes.

[Ice Man]

\Which is what we also said of Jimmy.

To the extent that we said the same thing about Jimmy that we did about LaVine, it is because we were completely, utterly wrong. Jimmy Butler was a positive NBA player from Day 1 in the league and Zach has always been a negative NBA player.

Jimmy was in the mold of Brown & Tatum, only not as offensively advanced at the same age. LaVine is in the mold of Tim Hardaway Jr. That is the comparison that I would make.

[Red Larrivee]

How is it that much different than LaVine in his 3rd year:

.576 TS%, .459/.387/.836 shooting line before tearing his ACL.

If you give that LaVine a ton of shots on a trash team, he's putting up Booker's numbers. To me, $17M more implies that Booker possesses some skill or talent level that LaVine is incapable of reaching. There's nothing to suggest that's the case right now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

lavine's third year was a half-season as the third option on his team. if you give him a ton of shots and make him the focal point of the offense, it's likely he struggles to score as effectively. it also exposes how far away he is from becoming an effective lead guard in a good offense, given how much he focuses on scoring rather than making the best decision for the team

which is basically what happened last season. not to judge him too harshly for a post-injury season, but still.

This is literally the same thing Booker does though. They're both high usage guards, who aren't naturally great playmakers for others. Of course LaVine's efficiency was down in a year where he trained to recover from an injury. And to his own fault, he tried to overcompensate for the minutes limit by taking a ton of shots.

Either way, neither player has good decision making relative to their usage.

Per 36:

LaVine: 4.0 assists to 2.4 turnovers, 29.5 usage
Booker: 4.9 assists to 3.7 turnovers, 31.7 usage

The perception is crazy, because they are damn near twins.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[dougthonus]

This is literally the same thing Booker does though. They're both high usage guards, who aren't naturally great playmakers for others. Of course LaVine's efficiency was down in a year where he trained to recover from an injury. And to his own fault, he tried to overcompensate for the minutes limit by taking a ton of shots.

Either way, neither player has good decision making relative to their usage.

Per 36:

LaVine: 4.0 assists to 2.4 turnovers, 29.5 usage
Booker: 4.9 assists to 3.7 turnovers, 31.7 usage

The perception is crazy, because they are damn near twins.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You're comparing Zach's year with the Bulls with these stats in a conversation about Zach's better numbers in his 3rd season with the Wolves.

LaVine: 2.9 assists, 1.7 turnovers, 21.7 usage in that season.

If you compare LaVine's 4th year, then you have to take into account his sub 50% TS% which would be the primary gap.

[chrispatrick]

People on the board are saying things like

Zach has never done X
Zach wasnt all that great at X
Zach isnt worth X amount

Which is what we also said of Jimmy.

Im not even implying that Zach is about to explode like Jimmy. I am just implying that people could be wrong about it and Zach could end up costing us twice as much. Thats the con of playing hardball.

Since we dont know yet the exact amount in question, I stand by the waiting game.

The longer no one offers Zach a contract, the more likely we can get our friendly contract - ie Niko last year.

I know you're only mentioning Butler in the context of a potential negative outcome and not making direct comparisons, but their early careers are complete opposite, with Butler a guy who the team was statistically constantly playing better with while LaVine has been the inverse. In other words, all of the reasons that you would have argued that Butler should have been paid are the exact reasons that LaVine shouldn't be.

Another reason Butler was different is that Butler excelled defensively and hadn't tried to do much offensively. Taking a lead offensive role wasn't something that Butler had tried and failed at, it was more just a role he had never explored at the time and turned out to be good at. This is in stark contrast to LaVine who has been flat-out bad defensively, without excuse. Offensively, you can argue that LaVine hasn't ever tried to play within the team and that he could be an effective offensive weapon if his shot selection improved. I don't see why I should expect this to happen in Year 5 given the lack of improvement in that aspect in years 1-4.

Also, Butler's ascension was such as anomaly. I often see comparisons of late first rounders to Butler as if what Butler did is reasonable to expect from someone like a Hutchison. Butler's continued improvement throughout his career was very, very rare and is something we should all hope it would happen with future prospects but never should expect it to be the likely scenario. LaVine hasn't had the same upward arrow early in his career as his weaknesses in Year 1 are the same weaknesses he had in Year 4.

[Red Larrivee]

This is literally the same thing Booker does though. They're both high usage guards, who aren't naturally great playmakers for others. Of course LaVine's efficiency was down in a year where he trained to recover from an injury. And to his own fault, he tried to overcompensate for the minutes limit by taking a ton of shots.

Either way, neither player has good decision making relative to their usage.

Per 36:

LaVine: 4.0 assists to 2.4 turnovers, 29.5 usage
Booker: 4.9 assists to 3.7 turnovers, 31.7 usage

The perception is crazy, because they are damn near twins.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You're comparing Zach's year with the Bulls with these stats in a conversation about Zach's better numbers in his 3rd season with the Wolves.

LaVine: 2.9 assists, 1.7 turnovers, 21.7 usage in that season.

If you compare LaVine's 4th year, then you have to take into account his sub 50% TS% which would be the primary gap.

I did take that into account. LaVine's shot selection sucked, but it was clear he was also chucking to make up for the minutes limit. That's not to say he doesn't have a clear issue with decision-making on offense (because he does) but it's not really a huge shock that his efficiency tanked.

Booker's production despite being healthier doesn't impress me significantly to be cool with $32M per. That makes him the 4th highest paid player at his position with zero indication that he's actually a franchise player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BearsBulls78]

You lay out a good argument and it would be rather disingenuous to not acknowledge your primary points. What I will say though is that for all the flack that Zach is getting for his PLAY during his games last year, he looked very good physically.

I sort of agree, the primary problem may simply be that once he tried to act like a #1 player that he was no where near good enough to do so, and that he's really more of a 3rd option. It also could be rust. It also could be that he is missing something in smaller ways that is harder to see.

It's tough to say what the exact thing is with him.

I have no qualms with the Bulls matching a 17m deal if LaVine is offered one. I have no problem thinking he _might_ end up being worth it. My problem is when people make definitive statements ignoring LaVine's floor. His floor is basically "non rotation player" right now.

It wouldn't surprise me too much if LaVine was worth of a max in a year, it wouldn't surprise me too much if he's never a valuable player again either.

This a million times.

Bookers numbers are with him as the focal point. LaVines best numbers are with him as the third option.

Some of it may have been rust, but his numbers went down as he tried to establish himself as the number 1 guy. Booker has done it, LaVine hasn’t.

LaVines athleticism will always have him in rosters and in rotations. But usually on teams that won’t ask him to do too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheJordanRule]

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

To answer your question, BB, Booker is NOT worth 17 million per year more than Zach. Could you answer this question in exchange, though... is Zach worth 11.5 million more per year than Mario Hezonja? And why does a player who hasn’t accomplished much of anything on either side of the floor for the first four years of his career deserve to get paid 2nd or 3rd option money?