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

[weneeda2guard]

LaVine is an athletic 23-year-old who willingly embraced being the face of the rebuild in the initial aftermath of Jimmy Butler’s trade to the Timberwolves. He’s enthusiastic about getting better, receptive to coaching and a team-first player who wants to address weaknesses in his game to win.

Another nugget from kc's article. This is why I never understood why bulls "fans" have such disdain for lavine.

and paying about 18 mill per is not a bad deal for that potential.

team construction is not about perfect scenarios, like getting anthony davis in 2020, which btw the lavine deal would not hurt, but its also about who is available for the team. do we just not retain guys until a anthony davis caliber player becomes available? what if he never becomes available, he has a supermax on the table that is a lot of money to turn down to come back to chicago simply on the back of him being a chicago kid. with no other star on the team to help lure him, lauri is a good prospect he is not a star yet. lavine balls out this season he becomes a piece you can sell to potential free agents.

i could see the point if a lavine deal killed our cap space, but it doesnt. we will still have major cap space next off season, and its also not many options available. would be nice also to have lavine on board if we so happen to strike out on all star talented free agents next off season.

[nomorezorro]

$18 million is a pill you maybe swallow if someone else matches it, or an offer on a short-term deal if he’s not willing to take a more reasonable salary over more years.

the idea that we’ve made a proactive offer of up to $18 million over multiple years - bidding against seemingly nobody - and that’s insufficient for lavine? that’s concerning, and the contract we sign him to could absolutely end up hurting our ability to sign better players in the future

[MGB8]

Kings seem to be saying that they are not bidding for LaVine.

So it will come down to whether LaVine wants to get some security and do what to him is an "undervalued" deal... or bet on himself (and his health) and play out the QO, like Noel (unsuccessfully) did.

Given his defensive deficiencies and less than stellar demonstrated BBall IQ, not to mention health risks, the most that the Bulls should reasonably offer is something in the range of 15M per year - 4/60.

The problem is that LaVine laughed at that, meaning that he over-values himself vs. the NBA market (where right now, NO ONE is offering him any money, not just the Bulls), so we're probably more in Niko territory - a 2 year undervalued deal where he improves on what he would make from the QO, but in return gives the Bulls a team option on the second year at money that he believes underpays him.

It's that, or the QO.

[madvillian]

Bulls have all the negotiating power with little interest in Lavine so far, they should beat him up in contract discussions and if he wants more than 14-15, he's got to go. I'm a fan of paying him no more than 10 AAV, but I'm a bit more bearish in my outlook than most.

I literally doesn't matter one bit what "zach wants". What matters if what he's offered. If no club offers him a deal, what's he going to do? And Chicago can't "beat him up" when there's nothing to beat up. If the choice is "out of the NBA" or "back in Chicago on a qualifying offer" then he's coming back to Chicago.

Well, he and his agent have a number in mind, I'm sure. Of course he is going to take the QO if no one offers him a contract, that's not in dispute. 'Beating him up' is a euphemism for aggressive counter-negotiation in this case, should have been more clear. I'm talking about his hypothetical future contract.

Thanks for explaining how RFA works though, that was informative.

Again I don't see how you counter-negotiate against a guy that has no offers. The Bulls hold all the cards here. At a certain point Zach either takes their offer or he doesn't. There's not much to negotiate. I guess Chicago could give some sort of "good will" offer and offer him say 5 million more over 2 years then anybody else is in the hope that he repays the favor in two years should he turn into an All-Star.

Doesn't seem smart though. Bulls are in position to play hardball and they shouldn't willingly give up that leverage.

[League Circles]

I was unaware that Lavine has apparently made a lot of money from shoe contracts. That changes things a little bit. It makes it more likely that he is going to take the qualifying offer even if it is not quite the right Financial thing to do for him just for Spite and cuz he might be turned off.

[bad knees]

I literally doesn't matter one bit what "zach wants". What matters if what he's offered. If no club offers him a deal, what's he going to do? And Chicago can't "beat him up" when there's nothing to beat up. If the choice is "out of the NBA" or "back in Chicago on a qualifying offer" then he's coming back to Chicago.

Well, he and his agent have a number in mind, I'm sure. Of course he is going to take the QO if no one offers him a contract, that's not in dispute. 'Beating him up' is a euphemism for aggressive counter-negotiation in this case, should have been more clear. I'm talking about his hypothetical future contract.

Thanks for explaining how RFA works though, that was informative.

Again I don't see how you counter-negotiate against a guy that has no offers. The Bulls hold all the cards here. At a certain point Zach either takes their offer or he doesn't. There's not much to negotiate. I guess Chicago could give some sort of "good will" offer and offer him say 5 million more over 2 years then anybody else is in the hope that he repays the favor in two years should he turn into an All-Star.

Doesn't seem smart though. Bulls are in position to play hardball and they shouldn't willingly give up that leverage.

Unfortunately, I read KC's article as saying that the Bulls are fully ready to concede that leverage based on LaVine's potential and the desire to maintain momentum of the rebuild (a/k/a not wanting to admit a mistake in having said that LaVine was the center piece of the Butler trade). I view's KC's article as an effort by the FO to prepare Bulls' fans for a 4/80 contract. I don't agree that this is the best course - I am firmly in the 1+1 camp - but in terms of predicting what is going to happen, I've seen this sort of prelude article too many times before.

[nomorezorro]

i think i might have posted this before, but lavine's unwillingness to take a contract in the $15 million range is ostensibly a bad sign about our ability to convince him to play anything other than a leading role (which is, in all likelihood, not the type of role he should be playing)

at some point, lavine is going to need to be told that he's not The Man. if he's not willing to entertain that possibility now, is he worth committing to long term?

[samwana]

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.

Again, help me understand why its not possible to have the following team structure as we enter 2019:

Kyrie ( 35 M) / Dunn ( 5.5 M) ---- ( 41.5 M)
Zach ( 17 M) / Kilpatrick ( 2M) ----( 19 M)
Jimmy ( 35 M) / Hutch ( 2.3M) ---- (37.3 M)
Lauri ( 5.3 M) / Crap ( 2 M) -------- ( 7.3 M)
Wendell ( 5.2M) / Crap ( 2M) ------ ( 7.2 M)

Thats 9 players. Add 1st round pick next season and 3 players with vet min and you are at the 13 man roster. No cap holds neeeded to be accounted for.

I am almost there. The question boils down to really one thing alone. Do you rather keep the assets needed to get rid of Felicio ( 1 FRP in 2020 + maybe Valentine)? Do you keep Portis?

Or, do you keep Zach.

I've never said or implied that such a thing was impossible. It's extremely rare for me to speak in certainties about anything in the future.

Although it's worth noting that you are something like six million dollars over the projected salary cap with that roster and you are not counting about two-and-a-half to three million dollars of cap hold for the minimum roster spots. Or for the first rounder next summer.

but the biggest thing for me probably is that I do not presume we can get rid of Felicio by offering what would project as a bad first round pick. Even with one year of Denzel Valentine attached. If you were a team in the opening days of free agency and you had a bunch of cap space would you waste it on a 3rd string caliber player in Felicio guaranteed for another 2 years just for the benefit of getting a draft pick in the 20s? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Felicio for Melo straight up, saves OKC around 50m with tax. They may be interested.

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

[Truebiscuit]

Another nugget from kc's article. This is why I never understood why bulls "fans" have such disdain for lavine.

It's cause despite the enthusiasm, he played extremely selfishly for us and just plays Dumb and poorly on the court in general over 4 years.

How many timberwolves games did you watch from 2014-2017? and he played "dumb and poorly" on the court and still led the bulls to multiple wins and damn near half his games were 20+ scoring games.

Lavine has a skill set no one else on this team has

I never once heard anyone call him a selfish player, all his teammates in Minnesota and Chicago have loved him.

I WILL say he was a bit selfish at times last season, but management TOLD him to go out and try to find his footing again and that they didn't care about his statline or wins.

And about those 24 games LaVine played. Yes, they exhibited defensive issues and some concerns over his fit with Markkanen. But they also featured 11 games of 20-plus points despite LaVine often playing on a minutes limit for a team that prioritized draft-lottery position over winning.

Paying for potential, not just production, is the cost of doing business in a rebuild.

[thewraith]

I was unaware that Lavine has apparently made a lot of money from shoe contracts. That changes things a little bit. It makes it more likely that he is going to take the qualifying offer even if it is not quite the right Financial thing to do for him just for Spite and cuz he might be turned off.

How'd he do that because this is the first I've heard of him making big money from a sneaker contract. If you don't have your own signature sneaker I doubt you're making that much sneaker money tbh. Its great compared to what most are making but compared to your peers nah.

[League Circles]

i think i might have posted this before, but lavine's unwillingness to take a contract in the $15 million range is ostensibly a bad sign about our ability to convince him to play anything other than a leading role (which is, in all likelihood, not the type of role he should be playing)

at some point, lavine is going to need to be told that he's not The Man. if he's not willing to entertain that possibility now, is he worth committing to long term?

although I am obviously not a big fan of LaVine I actually think that the most likely way for him to be successful and help an NBA team win is as a top two option. Or as a sixth man leading a bench group.

[musiqsoulchild]

I was unaware that Lavine has apparently made a lot of money from shoe contracts. That changes things a little bit. It makes it more likely that he is going to take the qualifying offer even if it is not quite the right Financial thing to do for him just for Spite and cuz he might be turned off.

How'd he do that because this is the first I've heard of him making big money from a sneaker contract. If you don't have your own signature sneaker I doubt you're making that much sneaker money tbh. Its great compared to what most are making but compared to your peers nah.

He's with Adidas. 4 year deal. I think he makes about 10 Million per year off of that. Which is not a lot....but it is for a guys who basically sat out 1.5 seasons.

He signed this in Chiacgo, I believe.

[Trm3]

I was unaware that Lavine has apparently made a lot of money from shoe contracts. That changes things a little bit. It makes it more likely that he is going to take the qualifying offer even if it is not quite the right Financial thing to do for him just for Spite and cuz he might be turned off.

How'd he do that because this is the first I've heard of him making big money from a sneaker contract. If you don't have your own signature sneaker I doubt you're making that much sneaker money tbh. Its great compared to what most are making but compared to your peers nah.

He's with Adidas. 4 year deal. I think he makes about 10 Million per year off of that. Which is not a lot....but it is for a guys who basically sat out 1.5 seasons.

He signed this in Chicago, I believe.

That he did. I remember getting an alert on it. He was sporting a lot different ones last year. He's probably got a thing with Sonic as well cause I seen him in a commercial with them as well. That could have been a one off though.

[dougthonus]

Lavine doesn't need to workout at the advocate center the bulls don't own him

Agree. LaVine can do whatever he wants.

his father paid for 10k in training equipment he's been training since april, go look at his instagram. Probably when the contract gets signed he'll workout at the advocate center/with the bulls. They already mentioned group workouts in l.a.and chicago

Ok. This doesn't tell me he is committing to working on any of his flaws or that he has made any steps towards that.

Again... judging a player in a contract year in 24 games is foolish.

His time in Chicago shows him emphasizing his flaws not fixing them. This isn't based on the results of shots going in or not in but based on the style of play he was implementing. On court behaviorally speaking, he was much better in Minnesota, but I explicitly said this may not be LaVine's fault. It may be as directed by the Bulls.

Who cares what lauri looked like with lavine? Lauri played like trash when dunn got the concussion he was garbage and shot 30% from 3's & 41% from the field he was missing wide open shots he only played better when the offense was ran through him at the end of the year. It's not all about lauri especially in a tank year , he's not larry bird he averaged 15 and 7 on a garbage team.

Ignore Lauri then, silly, since he's clearly the Bulls highest ceiling player right now. Everyone looked worse with LaVine, because LaVine's style of play was with selfish and with blinders. Lauri was just an obvious example. Dunn also looked way worse with LaVine, the team looked way worse with LaVine, the offense and defense were statistically both way worse with LaVine.

and fixing his flaws ,may require watching film and working on the mental aspect of the game. You have no idea what he's doing

Agreed. I said I have no idea what he's doing. I said from a fan perspective, there is no evidence that he is attempting to fix his flaws. Working out in the same way he always had with his dad isn't evidence that he would fix his flaws. If he hired some reknown defensive coach, then I'd say "yep, sounds like he's serious about working on defense". If there was some article about how he's doing all these court vision drills, then I might say he's working on his offensive awareness.

I don't know what he's working on, and I hope it is his flaws, but I don't know that there is any evidence of that which is what I said.

[Poohdini1]

KC insinuating Zach turned down $18 million per?

Have fun in Sac town bruh

[Dresden]

https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2018/7/6/17518718/sacramento-kings-zach-lavine-free-agency-rumors

An article from the SAC perspective on the merits of signing Lavine. Basically, they conclude that their own Buddy Heild is the better player, so why spend more money on a more oft injured player? And that Zach is not a sf, which is what SAC needs.

Although they also say that "a healthy Zach Lavine at 16 mil a year is a steal".

[musiqsoulchild]

KC insinuating Zach turned down $18 million per?

Have fun in Sac town bruh

I didnt get the feel when I read the article. I'll go read it again.

[Alcatraz17]

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.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'd rather roll the dice on someone who was the centerpiece of our Butler trade, someone that we targeted and someone that wants to be here. I'm a big believer in player development and scheme/roster continuity so if Devin freaking Booker is getting 5/$158M I'm sure we can handle something like 4/$80. We need to procure talent on this roster.

I was agreeing that its easier to sign when you have the money.

But I am with you on wanting to retain LaVine.

The people who think 15 million should be enough for Zach...no..sorry...

The people who think you retain him no matter what cost..no..sorry...

Unfortunately, the bulls need to be willing to take a gamble and be willing to offer between 17.5 and 19.5...and I am aware of the reasons for and against....but we have seen what we can do....and we know his athleticism is there...and we know his age is still young...all of the points are their to support taking a risk..

One thing that some people aren't considering is that if...and I know..if...Zach returns to just being what his level was pre-injury...that..plus improved team play and improvements from our other youngins..creates a team that appears more 'move in ready' to win. Of course, you over pay Zach...leaving only money for one slot the following season...now that one free agent needs to view themselves and be viewed as the final piece to add to Lauri LaVine Dunn etc etc.

Little factors in each direction all can influence multiple outcomes and obstacles.

I just hope the bulls can find a price with Zach that doesn't fully tie up money for 2 impactful signings...and that he plays in the ballpark of that signings (crossing fingers for 18 mil/year) for his first year of there contract.

Holiday and Lopez come off the books next year, saving 18.5 million....

The bulls aren't hunting for big signings this off- season, and next off-season with Holiday and Lopez gone, LaVine at 18.5 million doesn't move the needle. Then you add in the expected salary cap to jump 7 more million....there should be just enough two wiggle two impactful signings.

[gf2020hotmail]

KC insinuating Zach turned down $18 million per?

Have fun in Sac town bruh

I didnt get the feel when I read the article. I'll go read it again.

If the Bulls have already offered it, tough to understand why there's not a deal already. I am honestly confused by this when you see what Nick tweeted about the Bulls being down on him somewhat. But it would make sense that Zach would be laughing if he already had a better offer than that.

I really don't give a crap about him being committed to us emotionally. He is an injury risk/unproven player that escaped to the third largest market with no players to compete with for shots. Why wouldn't he be thrilled to be here?

[musiqsoulchild]

Exactly.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'd rather roll the dice on someone who was the centerpiece of our Butler trade, someone that we targeted and someone that wants to be here. I'm a big believer in player development and scheme/roster continuity so if Devin freaking Booker is getting 5/$158M I'm sure we can handle something like 4/$80. We need to procure talent on this roster.

I was agreeing that its easier to sign when you have the money.

But I am with you on wanting to retain LaVine.

The people who think 15 million should be enough for Zach...no..sorry...

The people who think you retain him no matter what cost..no..sorry...

Unfortunately, the bulls need to be willing to take a gamble and be willing to offer between 17.5 and 19.5...and I am aware of the reasons for and against....but we have seen what we can do....and we know his athleticism is there...and we know his age is still young...all of the points are their to support taking a risk..

One thing that some people aren't considering is that if...and I know..if...Zach returns to just being what his level was pre-injury...that..plus improved team play and improvements from our other youngins..creates a team that appears more 'move in ready' to win. Of course, you over pay Zach...leaving only money for one slot the following season...now that one free agent needs to view themselves and be viewed as the final piece to add to Lauri LaVine Dunn etc etc.

Little factors in each direction all can influence multiple outcomes and obstacles.

I just hope the bulls can find a price with Zach that doesn't fully tie up money for 2 impactful signings...and that he plays in the ballpark of that signings (crossing fingers for 18 mil/year) for his first year of there contract.

Holiday and Lopez come off the books next year, saving 18.5 million....

The bulls aren't hunting for big signings this off- season, and next off-season with Holiday and Lopez gone, LaVine at 18.5 million doesn't move the needle. Then you add in the expected salary cap to jump 7 more million....there should be just enough two wiggle two impactful signings.

Fully agree with you.