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

[chrispatrick]

]I don't know, you tell me. What is a freakishly athletic 23 year old player, who has already shown signs of being a scoring machine and has tons of upside worth in the NBA?

If by "worth" you mean "will be paid," the answer is "a lot." If you mean instead how useful are these guys, the answer is not much. Jumper/chuckers who aren't good NBA players by Year 4 rarely do much. OJ Mayo, Brandon Jennings, Rudy Gay, Jordan Crawford, etc. Well, JR Smith ended up being modestly useful, so there's that.

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth. You won't get any argument from me on that. Unless you are LBJ or Steph you are getting overpaid if you play in the NBA right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Stars get paid way less than they are worth. Average players get paid way more than they are worth. If the NBA was an efficient market without max contracts, nobody would consider this type of contract for LaVine because people would be trying to clear as much money as possible for an actual star. Your post is implying that the NBA is an efficient market.

I'm sure I'm not telling you what you don't already know, but a very high percentage of 2nd contracts in the NBA that aren't going to max players are bad deals. This is because rookies and stars are way, way, way underpaid. The "market" may say the likes of Tim Hardaway Jr. (using example of a decent player) and Luol Deng were worth $18M a year, but teams who sign guys to deals like that usually suck.

Bulls had the right approach the last time they were re-building in that they attempted to attract stars into max contract slots after already building a team of players who people would want to play with. No, it didn't work out completely (though we were good for a while), but I think that's the correct approach and ones that bad teams don't have patience for.

[Lauri_Legend]

I get Lavine isn't a great player and all, neither is Jabari (yet). I'm shocked neither player has signed a deal yet. Market is that bad. Both players imo should look to sign a 1 year deal. With so many players on the market next year, a desperate team who swings and misses on the top tier player will overcompensate for one of those two guys. Similar to how David Lee and Carlos Boozer were overpaid after teams missed out on Lebron, Wade, Bosh.

Both are coming off ACL injuries. A one-year prove it you're healthy deal can go a long way for teams next summer.

[League Circles]

I also operating entirely under 2 assumptions:

1) Zach will get a multi year offer sheet
2) Portis will be offered a contract by the Bulls

1: There's only two teams left in the NBA that can even do this, and until one of them does, it seems silly to assume this. If it happens, then you deal with the new reality at that point. I might be fine matching Zach on a 4/70 deal or something if my choice is matching or losing, but there's no reason to discuss this until it happens, because it seems more likely that it won't happen.

2: Since we are discussing what the best plan for the Bulls is, the best plan is to not make such an offer, and they aren't forced to do so. I find it exceptionally unlikely that such an offer would be accepted though, as non max guys rarely take 3rd year contract extensions.

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

If I doesn't happen, then sure wr can go the 1+1 route and QO to Portis as we clear cap space.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.

Well we're finally getting somewhere in this discussion, but well worth noting that that we control how we respond to an offer sheet for Lavine. We can just not match it, cause Lavine sucks, as you've stated yourself.

[Stratmaster]

If by "worth" you mean "will be paid," the answer is "a lot." If you mean instead how useful are these guys, the answer is not much. Jumper/chuckers who aren't good NBA players by Year 4 rarely do much. OJ Mayo, Brandon Jennings, Rudy Gay, Jordan Crawford, etc. Well, JR Smith ended up being modestly useful, so there's that.

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth. You won't get any argument from me on that. Unless you are LBJ or Steph you are getting overpaid if you play in the NBA right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Stars get paid way less than they are worth. Average players get paid way more than they are worth. If the NBA was an efficient market without max contracts, nobody would consider this type of contract for LaVine because people would be trying to clear as much money as possible for an actual star. Your post is implying that the NBA is an efficient market.

I'm sure I'm not telling you what you don't already know, but a very high percentage of 2nd contracts in the NBA that aren't going to max players are bad deals. This is because rookies and stars are way, way, way underpaid. The "market" may say the likes of Tim Hardaway Jr. (using example of a decent player) and Luol Deng were worth $18M a year, but teams who sign guys to deals like that usually suck.

Bulls had the right approach the last time they were re-building in that they attempted to attract stars into max contract slots after already building a team of players who people would want to play with. No, it didn't work out completely (though we were good for a while), but I think that's the correct approach and ones that bad teams don't have patience for.

I think we are agreeing on the state of NBA salaries other than I never implied it was efficient.

With that said, Zach Lavine is a super athletic 23 year old who is highly proficient at the most important skill in the modern NBA game; shooting 3-point shots. He will only come in under 20 million dollars because of the injury.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth. You won't get any argument from me on that. Unless you are LBJ or Steph you are getting overpaid if you play in the NBA right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Stars get paid way less than they are worth. Average players get paid way more than they are worth. If the NBA was an efficient market without max contracts, nobody would consider this type of contract for LaVine because people would be trying to clear as much money as possible for an actual star. Your post is implying that the NBA is an efficient market.

I'm sure I'm not telling you what you don't already know, but a very high percentage of 2nd contracts in the NBA that aren't going to max players are bad deals. This is because rookies and stars are way, way, way underpaid. The "market" may say the likes of Tim Hardaway Jr. (using example of a decent player) and Luol Deng were worth $18M a year, but teams who sign guys to deals like that usually suck.

Bulls had the right approach the last time they were re-building in that they attempted to attract stars into max contract slots after already building a team of players who people would want to play with. No, it didn't work out completely (though we were good for a while), but I think that's the correct approach and ones that bad teams don't have patience for.

I think we are agreeing on the state of NBA salaries other than I never implied it was efficient.

With that said, Zach Lavine is a super athletic 23 year old who is highly proficient at the most important skill in the modern NBA game; shooting 3-point shots. He will only come in under 20 million dollars because of the injury.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I should add that if the NBA was an efficient market without max contracts, there probably wouldn't be in NBA any longer; at least not as we know it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[musiqsoulchild]

1: There's only two teams left in the NBA that can even do this, and until one of them does, it seems silly to assume this. If it happens, then you deal with the new reality at that point. I might be fine matching Zach on a 4/70 deal or something if my choice is matching or losing, but there's no reason to discuss this until it happens, because it seems more likely that it won't happen.

2: Since we are discussing what the best plan for the Bulls is, the best plan is to not make such an offer, and they aren't forced to do so. I find it exceptionally unlikely that such an offer would be accepted though, as non max guys rarely take 3rd year contract extensions.

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

If I doesn't happen, then sure wr can go the 1+1 route and QO to Portis as we clear cap space.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.

Well we're finally getting somewhere in this discussion, but well worth noting that that we control how we respond to an offer sheet for Lavine. We can just not match it, cause Lavine sucks, as you've stated yourself.

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have done all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan? Does it?

[dougthonus]

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

Super unlikely they get a Portis extension done regardless of anything else.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.

Sure, but you control your plan. Your plan is the 1+1. If your plan is ruined by another team, then you react however you see fit at the time. You don't plan to do something less than ideal because another team may or may not do something. You plan to do the best thing you can.

[League Circles]

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

If I doesn't happen, then sure wr can go the 1+1 route and QO to Portis as we clear cap space.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.

Well we're finally getting somewhere in this discussion, but well worth noting that that we control how we respond to an offer sheet for Lavine. We can just not match it, cause Lavine sucks, as you've stated yourself.

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have dobe all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan?

Kc Johnson was clear in that article that it was his speculation. Even if it was information from the Bulls it could be equally likely that they're just throwing that number out to try to lure another team to give him an offer sheet for a little bit more which they can then decline.

besides there is no such thing as static worth for a player. Almost every player is worth different amounts to different teams based on their different circumstances and the skill sets and contract timelines of their other players. sure a guy like LeBron James is worth the max to every team but Zach LaVine is probably worth negative to many teams. is Devin Booker worth 158 million dollars to the Boston Celtics?

we are trying to determine what the Bulls should do not what Zach LaVine is worth in some kind of theoretical vacuum to an average generic team.

And again I am not trying to predict what the Bulls think or what they will do. I am trying to discuss what they should do. Because it is a hell of a lot more fun and interesting.

[Stratmaster]

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

If I doesn't happen, then sure wr can go the 1+1 route and QO to Portis as we clear cap space.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.

Well we're finally getting somewhere in this discussion, but well worth noting that that we control how we respond to an offer sheet for Lavine. We can just not match it, cause Lavine sucks, as you've stated yourself.

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have done all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan? Does it?

Zach's market should be right at 4x16. It would be higher if not for the injury.

As far as what he is worth, we won't know that until we see him play this season. That is the situation the Bulls are in. However. If not for that situation (the health questions) the Bulls likely wouldn't have gotten Lavine along with Dunn and #7 in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have done all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan? Does it?

Are you discussing what the Bulls should do or what they will do? Maybe the Bulls will proactively sign David Nwaba to a max contract, would that mean we should accept this as a good idea when it is clearly terrible?

We're discussing what they should do. Maybe they will sign him to a long term deal at 14 million, that wouldn't be the worst. However, I wouldn't do it.

[League Circles]

Well we're finally getting somewhere in this discussion, but well worth noting that that we control how we respond to an offer sheet for Lavine. We can just not match it, cause Lavine sucks, as you've stated yourself.

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have done all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan? Does it?

Zach's market should be right at 4x16. It would be higher if not for the injury.

As far as what he is worth, we won't know that until we see him play this season. That is the situation the Bulls are in. However. If not for that situation (the health questions) the Bulls likely wouldn't have gotten Lavine along with Dunn and #7 in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

What do you mean by his market "should be" X dollars? If you mean that that is what you think he would get if you were unrestricted right now and hadn't had the injury you are entitled to that opinion but it is highly speculative and not based on a lot. He has been a subpar player for 4 years and was outright terrible this past season.

His value "should be" the league minimum based on being as terrible as he is, bumped up to MLE at most to adjust for his past (still average at best) performance and his potential based on skill set and age.

[Truebiscuit]

Because math doesn't exist?

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

[Stratmaster]

We are finally getting to the "What is Zach worth?"

But, reports suggest the Bulls think he is worth 14-16 Million a year for 4 years ( the title of this thread). Then they already have done all cash flows / cap flow analysis to it.

Tell me how that fits in with the 2 Max FA plan? Does it?

Zach's market should be right at 4x16. It would be higher if not for the injury.

As far as what he is worth, we won't know that until we see him play this season. That is the situation the Bulls are in. However. If not for that situation (the health questions) the Bulls likely wouldn't have gotten Lavine along with Dunn and #7 in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

What do you mean by his market "should be" X dollars? If you mean that that is what you think he would get if you were unrestricted right now and hadn't had the injury you are entitled to that opinion but it is highly speculative and not based on a lot. He has been a subpar player for 4 years and was outright terrible this past season.

His value "should be" the league minimum based on being as terrible as he is, bumped up to MLE at most to adjust for his past (still average at best) performance and his potential based on skill set and age.

You think that a player with the shooting ability and athleticism of LaVine, at the age of 23, is worth the league minimum?

I know you follow the NBA more closely than that.

I thought I was pretty careful to differentiate market value from worth. Neither you nor I know what LaVine is going to be worth. The injury has kept that from being established. you don't think NBA teams will pay more than the minimum to take a shot at the upside of a guy like LaVine who has already proven he can hit threes at near 40%?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Alcatraz17]

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

The only advantage for fans who have continually make jokes about the bulls not being able to land top free agents is that those who disagree are tired of explaining the context against the giggling. Giggle away, bud.

[League Circles]

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

of course it's not simple. I never implied it was. But it's quite evident that it is more simple to sign two max players when you have two Max offers available to make without any contingencies than it is to get two max players only if multiple contingencies work out involving competing teams cooperating with us. Not to mention the assets lost from trading for players.

[Alcatraz17]

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

of course it's not simple. I never implied it was. But it's quite evident that it is more simple to sign two max players when you have two Max offers available to make without any contingencies than it is to get two max players only if multiple contingencies work out involving competing teams cooperating with us. Not to mention the assets lost from trading for players.

Exactly.

[Stratmaster]

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

The only advantage for fans who have continually make jokes about the bulls not being able to land top free agents is that those who disagree are tired of explaining the context against the giggling. Giggle away, bud.

Amen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

Zach's market should be right at 4x16. It would be higher if not for the injury.

As far as what he is worth, we won't know that until we see him play this season. That is the situation the Bulls are in. However. If not for that situation (the health questions) the Bulls likely wouldn't have gotten Lavine along with Dunn and #7 in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

What do you mean by his market "should be" X dollars? If you mean that that is what you think he would get if you were unrestricted right now and hadn't had the injury you are entitled to that opinion but it is highly speculative and not based on a lot. He has been a subpar player for 4 years and was outright terrible this past season.

His value "should be" the league minimum based on being as terrible as he is, bumped up to MLE at most to adjust for his past (still average at best) performance and his potential based on skill set and age.

You think that a player with the shooting ability and athleticism of LaVine, at the age of 23, is worth the league minimum?

I know you follow the NBA more closely than that.

I thought I was pretty careful to differentiate market value from worth. Neither you nor I know what LaVine is going to be worth. The injury has kept that from being established. you don't think NBA teams will pay more than the minimum to take a shot at the upside of a guy like LaVine who has already proven he can hit threes at near 40%?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I was making an extreme case to call into question the entire concept that a player's worth quote should be something.

many players have shot the percentage from three-point range that he has and been league minimum players. Anthony Morrow has did it for like 10-15 years.

right now the market for Lavine is restricted. Once it is unrestricted if he has another crappy year like he has had the past four years especially last year then yes I think he will be in between league minimum and mle. I do not think that he will get paid more than the mle after 5 poor years in the NBA. No matter what his 3-point shooting percentage is.

I was basically just wondering where you got the 16 million from. Why not 9? Why not 22? Why not 4?

there is not a lot of room in this league for players to be valued between the mle and the maximum. Zach may very well be one of the players that gets valued that way next year but if nothing changes and he plays terrible again nobody is going to pay him more than the mle IMO.

I mean why is somebody like Booker more relevant than somebody like Cousins in determining what zach might get under generc circumstances?

[JimmyJammer]

If the Bulls think LaVine is worth between 15-16 mil and Lavine thinks he is worth more, they can solve this issue easily by offering him an incentive based contract. The incentive will be based on how many games he plays, if he makes the all-star team, if he makes all-nba teams, all-defensive teams, how many assists he averages, playoffs appearances, weight limits, percentage of body fat during the season. They can start with 15mil base contract that go up to 21mil a season based on the incentives. If they do that, no one will feel cheated of their worthiness.

[League Circles]

If the Bulls think LaVine is worth between 15-16 mil and Lavine thinks he is worth more, they can solve this issue easily by offering him an incentive based contract. The incentive will be based on how many games he plays, if he makes the all-star team, if he makes all-nba teams, all-defensive teams, how many assists he averages, playoffs appearances, weight limits, percentage of body fat during the season. They can start with 15mil base contract that go up to 21mil a season based on the incentives. If they do that, no one will feel cheated of their worthiness.

it's actually much more complicated than that which is why you don't see these type of contract often given especially to free agents for teams operating under the salary cap. The reason is that when you have incentives the league decides on whether the incentive is likely or unlikely to be reached and adjust the salary cap hit preemptively according to their determination. And the cap hit is really all that matters not how much we actually pay him. So this is extremely unlikely to happen in my opinion.