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

[chefo]

Why would the Kings possibly want Lavine? Based on on-court production and injury history, he's probably worth mle money, if that. He'll have highlights and is by all accounts a good guy off court, and therefore marketable, so worth a lot more to a big-market team like the Bulls. A high-flyer with potential may be worth $15-17m to a franchise like the Bulls; to the Kings, he's not.

And given that they just drafted their backcourt of the future, he fits even less. Unless Vlade is using his old-school flopping arsenal in GMing, I don't see how that story makes sense. And if they want to give Lavine $80m, god bless'em and good bye.

[brucey_72]

If you can Hield you do that in about 3 seconds. I would even eat another contract for that.

[keloms]

1+1 deal 20 mill per season.

No, that'd mean his cap hold next season is $27 million if he declines it so that'd be wasting what could be valuable space until he's either renounced or resigns. At the right number, Bulls can likely sign him, have max space for 1, plus have $15-$20 million for other spots. At a $20m 1+1, it's him and 1 max or 2 maxes and he walks for nothing.

[League Circles]

1+1 deal 20 mill per season.

No, that'd means his cap hold next season is $27 million if he declines it so that'd be wasting what could be valuable space. At the right number, Bulls can likely sign him and get 2 maxes. At a $20m 1+1, it's him and 1 max or 2 maxes and he walks for nothing.

Well we've mostly all been talking about the 2nd year being a team option. And the basic idea is that he either becomes max type player and we're happy to pick up the option and keep him long term, essentially making him one of the max guys, or (more likely), we decline the option and chase 2 better guys with 2 max slots.

I don't see Lavine as ever being a good 3rd option guy. Too selfish, too poor on D. If he's gonna make it in this league, I think it'll be as a 1st or 2nd option either starting or leading a bench unit.

[keloms]

1+1 deal 20 mill per season.

No, that'd means his cap hold next season is $27 million if he declines it so that'd be wasting what could be valuable space. At the right number, Bulls can likely sign him and get 2 maxes. At a $20m 1+1, it's him and 1 max or 2 maxes and he walks for nothing.

Well we've mostly all been talking about the 2nd year being a team option. And the basic idea is that he either becomes max type player and we're happy to pick up the option and keep him long term, essentially making him one of the max guys, or (more likely), we decline the option and chase 2 better guys with 2 max slots.

I don't see Lavine as ever being a good 3rd option guy. Too selfish, too poor on D. If he's gonna make it in this league, I think it'll be as a 1st or 2nd option either starting or leading a bench unit.

It's now or never with Lavine. If he fits in the plans, they need to sign now to lock in the price as he easily gets $20-$25 million offers if he's on the market next summer. If it's a number they're not comfortable with, then just part ways instead of wasting a year as no one is trading for him mid-season.

[dougthonus]

Off the top of my head, RUssell Westbrook, Kyle Lowry, Baron Davis, and lesser players like Brandon Knight, Lou Williams, Gallinari, etc. Most of those guys returned to their former ability, and all returned in a much better way than Rose did (I speculate that in large part that's because of a combination of reinjury and mental toughness).

Russell Westbrook didn't tear an ACL. Baron Davis and Lowry tore theirs in college (add Simmons on to that list), so you don't know what they'd have become otherwise making the comparison quite a bit different. Lou Williams and Danilo Gallinari are good examples, though I'm not sure Gallinari is an athletic guard relying on his athleticism. Knight hasn't played enough to tell, but obviously hasn't shown he's recovered yet (though like LaVine may still)

Here are other guys in the past 6 years who were in their prime or younger:
ACL Tears last 5 years (though a year old, so last 6)

Derrick Rose - Career ruined
Jabari Parker - 2nd torn ACL, who knows where he goes from here (also not really a good LaVine comp)
Brandon Rush - Career ruined (though marginal player)
Rajon Rondo - Never was the same afterwards
Ricky Rubio - Who knows what he would have become, but he's a guy that fell way short of expectations, ACL may have been part of that or maybe not. Zach could easily fall into this camp too.
J.J. Hickson - Career ruined, though maybe too marginal anyway and not a guard or good comparison to LaVine
Kendell Marshall - Not much time and maybe too marginal, but was starting to make an impact and is now hanging on in the league.

There are lots of other guys who are older, who basically all had horrible outcomes, but I ignored putting them on the list, because I don't think it's fair to compare 30 year old guys. Looking at the outcomes on this list, they are definitely more negative than positive. The younger you are, the more likely you are to have a positive outcome which is in LaVine's favor.

My main point on Lavine's 24 game stint is not that you ignore it, it's that it has minimal predictive value IMO because of the combination of circumstances. So while it's accurate that he was bad, it's minimally if at all meaningful in terms of predicting what he'll look and play like this coming season and beyond.

ACL's dramatically hurt some players. LaVine has never established himself as a good player yet prior to the injury. If he becomes the same player he was in Minnesota and doesn't improve past that, then that player is not worth 17 million a year. More guys than not, fail to even live up to their previous best let alone improve upon it.

[bad knees]

1+1 deal 20 mill per season.

No, that'd means his cap hold next season is $27 million if he declines it so that'd be wasting what could be valuable space. At the right number, Bulls can likely sign him and get 2 maxes. At a $20m 1+1, it's him and 1 max or 2 maxes and he walks for nothing.

Well we've mostly all been talking about the 2nd year being a team option. And the basic idea is that he either becomes max type player and we're happy to pick up the option and keep him long term, essentially making him one of the max guys, or (more likely), we decline the option and chase 2 better guys with 2 max slots.

I don't see Lavine as ever being a good 3rd option guy. Too selfish, too poor on D. If he's gonna make it in this league, I think it'll be as a 1st or 2nd option either starting or leading a bench unit.

Well, to be precise, we would want the second year to be unguaranteed, with it becoming fully guaranteed sometime in early July 2019. We’ve been using the term “team option” for the second year, but I believe that such an option would have to be exercised by June 29, 2019. That’s too soon for the Bulls to figure out whether they will be able to implement the double max FA plan. The Bulls ideally would like to enter the free agent period with Zach’s contract unguaranteed, so they can have time to try to work something out with the available FAs. On the other hand, it would be unfair to Zach to push the guarantee date too far into July because, if the Bulls are going to waive him, he should have an opportunity to go looking for another team while there is still a lot of undedicated FA money available around the league. So maybe choose a guarantee date like July 4, 2019.

I could be wrong, but I think that’s how it would have to work, to be ideal for the Bulls. Zach would be better off it is an option. Something more to negotiate.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[keloms]

The good thing with ACL rehab is Bulls know first hand with Derrick when he 'hit the wall' in the rehab process and can compare the two to see how much is attributed to still healing vs being healed but a flawed product.

[League Circles]

No, that'd means his cap hold next season is $27 million if he declines it so that'd be wasting what could be valuable space. At the right number, Bulls can likely sign him and get 2 maxes. At a $20m 1+1, it's him and 1 max or 2 maxes and he walks for nothing.

Well we've mostly all been talking about the 2nd year being a team option. And the basic idea is that he either becomes max type player and we're happy to pick up the option and keep him long term, essentially making him one of the max guys, or (more likely), we decline the option and chase 2 better guys with 2 max slots.

I don't see Lavine as ever being a good 3rd option guy. Too selfish, too poor on D. If he's gonna make it in this league, I think it'll be as a 1st or 2nd option either starting or leading a bench unit.

It's now or never with Lavine. If he fits in the plans, they need to sign now to lock in the price as he easily gets $20-$25 million offers if he's on the market next summer. If it's a number they're not comfortable with, then just part ways instead of wasting a year as no one is trading for him mid-season.

If he plays even remotely as bad as he did last season he sure as hell won't be getting any 20+ mil offers. He'll have to play better than he ever has to get that payday IMO.

Keeping him on a 1+1 deal isn't wasting a year, it's buying insurance. And the flexibility to trade him up until the trade deadline not this season, but the following season. If he plays well we'd pick up his option and then try for a long term extension, maybe even trade him in a big trade. If he plays poorly we decline the option and clear the cap space to chase good players.

[keloms]

2/3+ of the league will have more than $20 million in cap space available. The cash will be flying again to anybody that has any type of solid production.

[blicka]

4 years 64 million or 1+1 (team option) for 35 mil. If those 2 offers aren't enough goodbye zach

I love lavines potential and work ethic but it's also a business and a smart fo isn't overpaying zach lavine

[WindyCityBorn]

What were seeing, based on the activity among the remaining unrestricted F/As, leaves the restricted bunch up a creek without a negotiating chip. Money is super tight, already have seen Julius Randle sign for 18MIL/2yrs; Boogie Cousins for 5.6Mil/1yr; and of course some teams jumping the gun and overpaying for too many years already, Doug McDermott getting 22Mil/3yrs; and the ridiculous, Lance to the Lakers, at any friggin' price!

Point is, the remaining unrestricted guys are going to find it extremely difficult to find offers. In-fact the taking on of bad contracts seems to be a more attractive option to the few remaining teams that do have any significant CAP space available.

The result is headed to where the unrestricted guys are going to be stuck on their current teams having received no offers, and without that bargaining chip of an actual offer will be left holding their dicks and their qualifying offers. Meanwhile the last remaining unrestricted players will sweat it out until August and eventually sign what will be in-effect bargain contracts for their teams, minus Capela who is going to get PAID.

Let's just say that the prognosis for Zach Lavine's future money/contract isn't in the same stratosphere as a long-term, big money deal. That's not happening. The Bulls hold all the cards and are in control. It's a "prove-it" year for Lavine and any offer has to reflect the reality of this. In-fact, from the organization's standpoint, they have to be prudent and will not just spend cash because they have it. Witness the great crap-storm of 2016 that has left teams with toxic, un-tradeable contracts that are killing their CAP and leave organizations unable to do anything other than waive or use the stretch provision on such players, both moves carry repercussions for the teams doing this.

Last thing is, I've been hearing the ridiculous argument for Lavine that goes spmething like this, "The Bulls have had a historical reputation for not being able to attract Star-F/As, so they should lock up this young potential star." Yeah, that's a pretty bad reason to hand a guy a big bag of cash. Signing a player for this reason has no basis in player evaluation or performance.

I remember the days of the great chase to sign Melo, with threads on this board going over 100 pages and continuation threads reaching over 100 pages, and on and on. Thinking about this today, the Bulls would be paying Fat-Melo $27,928,140 this season.

"Be careful of what you want, you may get it."
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

All it takes is for Sacrament to offer him and everything you said is meaningless. It's not like the Bulls don't want to pay him good money at all. Zach's just trying to get most he can as he should. Whatever happens it's just business. I want him back on the team though.

[MisterRoy]

With all this talk about overpaying and not overpaying, where is the line? How much money vs performance constitutes overpaying and when is that determined? Can it even be determined before the contract is over?

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WindyCityBorn]

With all this talk about overpaying and not overpaying, where is the line? How much money vs performance constitutes overpaying and when is that determined? Can it even be determined before the contract is over?

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No one seems to be able to articulate that. It's all feelings.

[Truebiscuit]

With all this talk about overpaying and not overpaying, where is the line? How much money vs performance constitutes overpaying and when is that determined? Can it even be determined before the contract is over?

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No one seems to be able to articulate that. It's all feelings.

Nailed it. This is why I've stayed out of this thread... no matter what Zach signs for with us (assuming he stays here) it's not going to impact our ability to throw money at top-tier free agents moving forward. The rest is just fluff and over-zealous evaluations of a dude coming off a torn ACL that played in only 24 games for us last season. I'm willing to bet the vast majority watched very little -- if any -- of LaVine in Minnesota or UCLA. They're just box score/stat line scouting and attempting to provide analysis based on the numbers they see.

Someone earlier cited his vertical leap and chided that LaVine never had a 10 rebound game. I mean, really?

[Kurt Heimlich]

1+1 team option is obviously the best deal at this point from an upside standpoint. Qualifying offer would be stupid for zach but not the worst option for the bulls.

We just have to wait and see if the Kings go full KANGZ and give zach a YOLO offer.

[pipfan]

I love the 2/$40 1+1 team option idea. He gets a chance to showcase himself and we get an insurance year if he blows up. Option would have to be in July-not sure how that works

[BullsFTW]

I just hope things get done as soon as possible. I still have hopes for LaVine that he can be a star player. Talent is there, but off course decision making and defense has to improve. I think his potential is a DeRozan type of player, which is actually pretty good. He's only 23 and will only get better. I want to see him play a full season with the Bulls.

I think we still have room for two max contracts if we sign LaVine, as long as we move players around to make space.

[JimmyJammer]

A question I would like to ask Bulls fans is this. If you had a chance to sign another wing player with injury history like Jabari Parker or LaVine, who would you sign? Why? Me, personally, I prefer Jabari Parker. He is a more efficient player with a higher basketball IQ and he just turned 23.

[TheGOATRises007]

With all this talk about overpaying and not overpaying, where is the line? How much money vs performance constitutes overpaying and when is that determined? Can it even be determined before the contract is over?

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No one seems to be able to articulate that. It's all feelings.

Nailed it. This is why I've stayed out of this thread... no matter what Zach signs for with us (assuming he stays here) it's not going to impact our ability to throw money at top-tier free agents moving forward. The rest is just fluff and over-zealous evaluations of a dude coming off a torn ACL that played in only 24 games for us last season. I'm willing to bet the vast majority watched very little -- if any -- of LaVine in Minnesota or UCLA. They're just box score/stat line scouting and attempting to provide analysis based on the numbers they see.

Someone earlier cited his vertical leap and chided that LaVine never had a 10 rebound game. I mean, really?

It maybe doesn't impact your ability to throw money, but it'll impact your ability to win games if you brought in marquee free agents.