The Zach Lavine Problem

[molepharmer]

Has the Bulls forum really gotten to the point of having a problem about whether to pay their 23yr old 20ppg SG ~$20mil per year ? That's an issue now? Really? Bulls should be so lucky.

Rudy Gay scores 20 points per game. A lot of guys score 20 who aren't worth locking into contracts. Hell, we just jettisoned a 24-point scorer who also defends, rebounds, passes, and doesn't foul.

Zach has a high ceiling, but as with any player, he could remain at the current level, and that guy ain't worth $20 million per year.

I never said he was worth $20 mil. The point is that it seems some on this board hate the f.o. so much that they'll almost go out of their way to suggest the trade was terrible. Lavine hasn't put on a Bulls uniform yet. He hasn't played one game yet. I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil. Apparently not.

[Ice Man]

I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil.

I for one would love for Zach to be worth $20 million. But I know how that goes, if he gets to be that good then in 3 years this board will be clamoring to trade him while he still has some value, before the supermax kicks in.

[Rerisen]

Bulls have to be careful not to get impressed with inflated numbers this year from Lavine. I'd be looking more at the impact stats.

Harrison Barnes raised his PER by 4 points after signing with Dallas, but it was entirely from shooting a lot more, and actually his rebounds and assists went down. Did he really get better or help his team more, I don't think so.

I have no doubt if healthy, Zach's numbers will go up, at least scoring. But what we need is a new leader for our young club, someone you can build offense around that helps the entire team.

[R3AL1TY]

I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil.

I for one would love for Zach to be worth $20 million. But I know how that goes, if he gets to be that good then in 3 years this board will be clamoring to trade him while he still has some value, before the supermax kicks in.

yep...i can see that happening again if Lauri turns out to be good, and the Bulls get a player like Porter Jr that turns out to be star but the team is still a low seed.

[molepharmer]

I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil.

I for one would love for Zach to be worth $20 million. But I know how that goes, if he gets to be that good then in 3 years this board will be clamoring to trade him while he still has some value, before the supermax kicks in.

With any luck Dunn will be crap and Markannen will be a bust. Then the Bulls can start a proper rebuild.

[tiffac]

I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil.

I for one would love for Zach to be worth $20 million. But I know how that goes, if he gets to be that good then in 3 years this board will be clamoring to trade him while he still has some value, before the supermax kicks in.

I don't think Zach can get a supermax with us because we didn't draft him. Unless I'm mistaken.

[MrSparkle]

In this world of advanced stats and two-way player analytics, it's obvious that the Bulls have made every single decision with zero regard for the mathematical impact that players have.

Otherwise they wouldn't have signed Rondo and Wade. I thought these were clever stop-gaps with FA recruitment in mind, but I guess they didn't have the fore-sight to see that it wasn't gonna net them a championship, but rather a "pie-in-the-sky" hope.

Traded 2 higher-ceiling picks for Doug. Yeah, the analytics sure went in Doug's favor. A fantastic type of athlete you'd draft in the modern fast-paced NBA, to defend multiple positions and cause headaches for defenses (oh wait, you can just place your weakest defender on him 1-on-1 and watch him struggle).

Sorry for being pessimistic about a player who's on/off numbers and PER reflected more poorly than his PPG production. Don't get me wrong, I was asking for Zach to be drafted in 2014 and would've been thrilled to draft him as our 6th man, but we got him in exchange for a top-15 player in his prime on a bargain salary, after he tore his ACL to add insult.

Don't get me wrong, I'll root for the guy but the math don't lie. His win-share numbers pale to Jimmy's at the same point in their careers. The only advantage Zach has is he entered the league much younger, but to me the ACL tear levels that playing field.

A recurring criticism I hear about GarPax is they make "safe" moves, but to me they just make delusional/stupid moves. They think that acquiring Adrian Griffin and waiving JR Smith is a net-better basketball move because he doesn't fit their idea of a good soldier. Except JR Smith has way more career wins than any Pax-era career Bull. They moved Jimmy half-way in his contract, the best player (as far as PER and efficiency go) since Michael Jordan. But Deng, Noah, Taj, Kirk -- they sat through the entire duration (or most) of their contracts, throughout their mediocrity as offensive players.

I know nobody wants to admit it, but if Jimmy was a white guy with a crew cut and no-lip, but 100% exactly the same player, he would've been a career Bull. Cause they'd be able to continually market him as a hard-working Chicago lunch-pail player, regardless whether we were 41-41 or 20-62. Pax has mental issues -- that's my outside-looking-in Dr. Phil take.

The Bulls like guys who make the organization look good. All it takes is a .500 record to make the 1st round, and they make a killing in playoff revenue. And they don't like to look bad, and that's exactly what Jimmy and Wade did -- made them look like chumps when they brought the A-list game.

[chrispatrick]

Has the Bulls forum really gotten to the point of having a problem about whether to pay their 23yr old 20ppg SG ~$20mil per year ? That's an issue now? Really? Bulls should be so lucky.

Rudy Gay scores 20 points per game. A lot of guys score 20 who aren't worth locking into contracts. Hell, we just jettisoned a 24-point scorer who also defends, rebounds, passes, and doesn't foul.

Zach has a high ceiling, but as with any player, he could remain at the current level, and that guy ain't worth $20 million per year.

I never said he was worth $20 mil. The point is that it seems some on this board hate the f.o. so much that they'll almost go out of their way to suggest the trade was terrible. Lavine hasn't put on a Bulls uniform yet. He hasn't played one game yet. I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil. Apparently not.

The reason I'm not thrilled is the chances of him being "worth" $20 mil are close to almost nothing. That's what he'll get paid, not what he'll be worth.

Current NBA economics have rookies and stars (like LeBron/Durant/heck, even Butler if you want to move a tier down) ridiculously underpaid relative to their true worth, which leaves the rest of the money that should be going to guys on their 2nd/3rd contracts who aren't stars. You win with stars/rookies on cheap deals. You lose paying guys like LaVine $20+m before ever proving they can help a team.

[WindyCityBorn]

I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil.

I for one would love for Zach to be worth $20 million. But I know how that goes, if he gets to be that good then in 3 years this board will be clamoring to trade him while he still has some value, before the supermax kicks in.

By the time Lavine would be eligible for the super max the Bulls should have stacked roster. I would have no problem with Butler getting the super if the Bulls were serious title contenders or if he was 26 instead of 30....

I find very weird that we have a 21 year old SG with elite offensive skills and some people are worried about paying him and in the same breath thesee same people are saying we didn't get enough for Butler. Lavine could seriously explode in Chicago. Harden didnt show his full potential until got he from under Durant and Westbrook.

[WindyCityBorn]

Rudy Gay scores 20 points per game. A lot of guys score 20 who aren't worth locking into contracts. Hell, we just jettisoned a 24-point scorer who also defends, rebounds, passes, and doesn't foul.

Zach has a high ceiling, but as with any player, he could remain at the current level, and that guy ain't worth $20 million per year.

I never said he was worth $20 mil. The point is that it seems some on this board hate the f.o. so much that they'll almost go out of their way to suggest the trade was terrible. Lavine hasn't put on a Bulls uniform yet. He hasn't played one game yet. I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil. Apparently not.

The reason I'm not thrilled is the chances of him being "worth" $20 mil are close to almost nothing. That's what he'll get paid, not what he'll be worth.

Current NBA economics have rookies and stars (like LeBron/Durant/heck, even Butler if you want to move a tier down) ridiculously underpaid relative to their true worth, which leaves the rest of the money that should be going to guys on their 2nd/3rd contracts who aren't stars. You win with stars/rookies on cheap deals. You lose paying guys like LaVine $20+m before ever proving they can help a team.

Well the Bulls are going to suck next season no matter how Lavine plays when gets back on the court so it going to be tough evaluate him under thst scenario. I'd rather keep a young all-star caliber talent. Bulls won't be winning anything and won't have to pay any of the draft prospects big money for another 4 years or so.

Paying literally has no effect on our rebuild from a financial standpoint. We have to pay someone so it may as well be a guy that is young to part of the core we are trying build. Again we are going to lose big regardless.

This is a made up problem.

[tedwilliams1999]

I agree with the above posts - does it really matter if LaVine is worth a max contract or not? Ideally signing him to a value contract would be fantastic, but who cares if he gets a 3 or 4 year deal for 80 million? We're not going to be competitive during that time period either way, and we don't really have any other younger players to pay max salary to. If it ever comes to the point where we're sweating over paying our 3rd best player 20 million a year, then that's a beautiful problem to have. It'll mean we have two guys on the roster better than Zach.

[chrispatrick]

I never said he was worth $20 mil. The point is that it seems some on this board hate the f.o. so much that they'll almost go out of their way to suggest the trade was terrible. Lavine hasn't put on a Bulls uniform yet. He hasn't played one game yet. I would think Bulls' fans would be thrilled with the possibility to have a 23 yr old SG who might be worth $20 mil. Apparently not.

The reason I'm not thrilled is the chances of him being "worth" $20 mil are close to almost nothing. That's what he'll get paid, not what he'll be worth.

Current NBA economics have rookies and stars (like LeBron/Durant/heck, even Butler if you want to move a tier down) ridiculously underpaid relative to their true worth, which leaves the rest of the money that should be going to guys on their 2nd/3rd contracts who aren't stars. You win with stars/rookies on cheap deals. You lose paying guys like LaVine $20+m before ever proving they can help a team.

Well the Bulls are going to suck next season no matter how Lavine plays when gets back on the court so it going to be tough evaluate him under thst scenario. I'd rather keep a young all-star caliber talent. Bulls won't be winning anything and won't have to pay any of the draft prospects big money for another 4 years or so.

Paying literally has no effect on our rebuild from a financial standpoint. We have to pay someone so it may as well be a guy that is young to part of the core we are trying build. Again we are going to lose big regardless.

This is a made up problem.

LaVine's teammates sucking next season shouldn't prevent us from finding out whether the sucky team plays better with or without him.

And under the logic you stated that the money we spend the next 4 years doesn't matter, then we should be exclusively using our cap space for team to bury bad contracts at the cost of a draft pick. There is an opportunity cost to paying LaVine a mega contract more than he is worth.

I'd appreciate the vision if they planned to turn that cap space into draft picks (or valued a first round pick more than LaVine).

[chrispatrick]

I agree with the above posts - does it really matter if LaVine is worth a max contract or not? Ideally signing him to a value contract would be fantastic, but who cares if he gets a 3 or 4 year deal for 80 million? We're not going to be competitive during that time period either way, and we don't really have any other younger players to pay max salary to. If it ever comes to the point where we're sweating over paying our 3rd best player 20 million a year, then that's a beautiful problem to have. It'll mean we have two guys on the roster better than Zach.

Yes, you can do better things with cap space than waste it. Hey Lakers, want to get rid of Deng for a future first? Hey Wizards, sick of Mahinmi?

[MrSparkle]

AFAIC, if Zach comes in looking like a 20 ppg scorer sometime between Jan. and Feb. 15th, then it's a much better idea to deal him to a lotto team for their 1st as opposed to committing $100m to him as an RFA.

[tedwilliams1999]

I agree with the above posts - does it really matter if LaVine is worth a max contract or not? Ideally signing him to a value contract would be fantastic, but who cares if he gets a 3 or 4 year deal for 80 million? We're not going to be competitive during that time period either way, and we don't really have any other younger players to pay max salary to. If it ever comes to the point where we're sweating over paying our 3rd best player 20 million a year, then that's a beautiful problem to have. It'll mean we have two guys on the roster better than Zach.

Yes, you can do better things with cap space than waste it. Hey Lakers, want to get rid of Deng for a future first? Hey Wizards, sick of Mahinmi?

These things aren't mutually exclusive. We have 3 more cost controlled years of Dunn and Valentine, and neither of them are max players. We have 4 years till we have to pay Lauri big money. Wade and Rondo are off the books by next year at the latest. We have 5 years till we have to pay our 2018 draft pick, and 6 more years till we have to pay our 2019 guy. On top of all that, We most likely aren't signing any max free agents. There's absolutely nothing wrong with just paying LaVine, because we still won't be near the salary floor next season with him. His max level contract would also run out before our next window of players is up for extensions. The only negative I see to paying Zach is that he won't be as valuable as a trade asset. He does nothing to affect our ability to take on bad contracts in the future.

[WindyCityBorn]

The reason I'm not thrilled is the chances of him being "worth" $20 mil are close to almost nothing. That's what he'll get paid, not what he'll be worth.

Current NBA economics have rookies and stars (like LeBron/Durant/heck, even Butler if you want to move a tier down) ridiculously underpaid relative to their true worth, which leaves the rest of the money that should be going to guys on their 2nd/3rd contracts who aren't stars. You win with stars/rookies on cheap deals. You lose paying guys like LaVine $20+m before ever proving they can help a team.

Well the Bulls are going to suck next season no matter how Lavine plays when gets back on the court so it going to be tough evaluate him under thst scenario. I'd rather keep a young all-star caliber talent. Bulls won't be winning anything and won't have to pay any of the draft prospects big money for another 4 years or so.

Paying literally has no effect on our rebuild from a financial standpoint. We have to pay someone so it may as well be a guy that is young to part of the core we are trying build. Again we are going to lose big regardless.

This is a made up problem.

LaVine's teammates sucking next season shouldn't prevent us from finding out whether the sucky team plays better with or without him.

And under the logic you stated that the money we spend the next 4 years doesn't matter, then we should be exclusively using our cap space for team to bury bad contracts at the cost of a draft pick. There is an opportunity cost to paying LaVine a mega contract more than he is worth.

I'd appreciate the vision if they planned to turn that cap space into draft picks (or valued a first round pick more than LaVine).

Not sure why you are in such a rush to get rid of a 21 year old SG with great offensive skills. He is young enough to fit in with the rebuild. Trying to flip him for a draft pick makes no sense a this point. Seems like you are trying to apply the same logic to Lavine as what used with Butler. If Butler was 21 he would still be here.

The Zach Levine made up problem.

[DroseReturnChi]

Well the Bulls are going to suck next season no matter how Lavine plays when gets back on the court so it going to be tough evaluate him under thst scenario. I'd rather keep a young all-star caliber talent. Bulls won't be winning anything and won't have to pay any of the draft prospects big money for another 4 years or so.

Paying literally has no effect on our rebuild from a financial standpoint. We have to pay someone so it may as well be a guy that is young to part of the core we are trying build. Again we are going to lose big regardless.

This is a made up problem.

LaVine's teammates sucking next season shouldn't prevent us from finding out whether the sucky team plays better with or without him.

And under the logic you stated that the money we spend the next 4 years doesn't matter, then we should be exclusively using our cap space for team to bury bad contracts at the cost of a draft pick. There is an opportunity cost to paying LaVine a mega contract more than he is worth.

I'd appreciate the vision if they planned to turn that cap space into draft picks (or valued a first round pick more than LaVine).

Not sure why you are in such a rush to get rid of a 21 year old SG with great offensive skills. He is young enough to fit in with the rebuild. Trying to flip him for a draft pick makes no sense a this point. Seems like you are trying to apply the same logic to Lavine as what used with Butler. If Butler was 21 he would still be here.

The Zach Levine made up problem.

He's just butthurt the team lost Butler.
It would be incredibly stupid to let go of Lavine who has already better offensive skills than Butler. 10x Way more stupid than giving up the 16th pick and the 38th pick or the 2nd round pick for Payne.
Every team needs to spend at least 90% of the entire cap space and would be penalized if they didnt. Even if Lavine doesnt pan out which I highly doubt, we can always trade him for a 1st round pick. 20 mil for a number 2 option is incredibly cheap for future seasons compared to Butler's 50 million and I doubt Butler is 2x better than Lavine.

[Adenusi]

Zach LaVine will most definitely be a problem... for opposing teams. As someone who's watched him grow over the years I can guarantee you won't find a Bull who will outwork this kid. He's working hard to get back from this injury and I have faith that whatever the Bulls pay him that he will live up to that and more. You got a great player.

[Jcool0]

AFAIC, if Zach comes in looking like a 20 ppg scorer sometime between Jan. and Feb. 15th, then it's a much better idea to deal him to a lotto team for their 1st as opposed to committing $100m to him as an RFA.

Boston wouldn't give up the #3 pick for Butler. So i highly doubt LaVine will get a high 1st.

[tedwilliams1999]

Read on Twitter

He can do that, AND shoot a higher percentage from three point land than Kevin Durant? Sign me up for that max contract.