Bulls Free Agency - Merged

[Jvaughn]

4/75 would be solid for both sides imo

I'm fine with it. It's not absurd and we could do worse for that amount.

[MrFortune3]

Not sure but we could see so sething somilar to Niko contract or a 4yr 75m type of deal. Still in negotiations but he's returning that's all I have heard. He's focus on being a Bull for the future.

Wait, so you mean the guy that was the centerpiece of the Butler trade is not leaving? The team might actually sign him for near max and the opinion on him hasn't changed due to the SSS?
It's almost like people with actual brains saw this coming...

Forget the small sample size nonsense, when was Lavine ever good? Has he had one good season?

Outside of last season in the return from his injury, he has statistically improved every year of his career. 18+ ppg as a 22 year old is nothing to sniff at.

[bad knees]

Holv03, what would you expect the terms of the deal to be as of this morning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not sure but we could see so sething somilar to Niko contract or a 4yr 75m type of deal. Still in negotiations but he's returning that's all I have heard. He's focus on being a Bull for the future.

Just under $19mm a year for Lavine, if he gets that all I can say is WOW. What a ridiculous contract.

On the other hand, “something similar to Niko contract” would be something that I think even the board members most skeptical of LaVine would welcome.

Let’s face it. There’s still a lot of negotiation to be done. And one of the likely steps, after they reach an initial impasse, is going to be the Bulls telling Zach to go find a contract. That’s going to take weeks, likely more than a month for Zach to realize that he has drastically overestimated his value. Anyone who thinks this is happening in the next few days is setting themselves up for a lot of frustration.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[TheFinishSniper]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

[MrFortune3]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[MisterRoy]

Too many folks overreacting. Let's wait til we hear what the contract is and see how he plays the upcoming season. I think it wise to see how he plays after having an off season with his team and a real training camp before drawing any conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Axolotl]

A little shy of 19mil per seems like overpaying him on a projection. Not much room to overplay his contract.

I did some calculations. If my math is correct, that's roughly $36 every minute for four years, or $48 every waking minute

[TheFinishSniper]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

You sign and trade him for cheap rookie deal and take expiring deal to match salary if you need to. Specially if there is dumb GM in league who think he is worth that. Because to me he is not worth and never will be worth that money. You dont let assets walk but you also wont be stupid and shakle yourself.

[Bulls_Fan]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Wasting your cap space on average to below average players (which Pax is doing) will tie our hands for future summers.

[MrFortune3]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

You sign and trade him for cheap rookie deal and take expiring deal to match salary if you need to. Specially if there is dumb GM in league who think he is worth that. Because to me he is not worth and never will be worth that money. You dont let assets walk but you also wont be stupid and shakle yourself.

You are going to have to spend the money. Either you spend 19 mil on Zach and gamble on him being a 20+ scorer or you see the team give out a cluster of contracts that equate to around that figure and you wait until 2019, then you wait until 2020, then you wait until 2021 and by then Dunn, Lauri, Carter and etc others will need extensions.

The best way is to build your team, develop the players and develop a culture of winning and then strike on a opportunity if it arises.
The Miami Heatles was a 1 time deal, not gonna be repeated again any time soon. Players are not flocking to Chicago without talent already in place, they are not going to sign here if all they ever see is the team shipping out players as they get expensive(hell, that was one of the major critiques Wade had for not signing here years ago).

[TheFinishSniper]

Nobody is flocking to Chicago to play with 19M Lavine and 8M Felicio. And call it for culture of winning. Those are net negative players by all advanced stats who contribute anything other than winning.

I dont get how this are considered good ideas.

[MrFortune3]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Wasting your cap space on average to below average players (which Pax is doing) will tie our hands for future summers.

Again I will point this out. If you don't spend it on Zach then where are you spending it? Kawhi's not coming here. LeBron isn't. Durant isn't.
Are you going to wait on AD and hope his dream is to play for the Bulls? What if Boston trades for him before he hits FA and he re-ups with them?
Then what? Ya'll keep talking about preserving cap space and not bogging the payroll down but all the reasons why are "what if".

[TheSuzerain]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Good chance that Lavine would not be an asset if he costs $19 million per year. In the same way that Felicio was an asset for $1 million/year but became a liability when that became $8 million/year.

[MrFortune3]

Nobody is flocking to Chicago to play with 19M Lavine and 8M Felicio. And call it for culture of winning. Those are negative players by all advanced stats who contribute anything other than winning.

I dont get how this are considered good ideas.

You haven't seen a fully healthy LaVine with a healthy and experience Lauri and the Bulls with a full desire to win.
You have no idea what players might want to team up with LaVine if he plays extremely well.

If the Bulls don't develop talent, no FA is going to come anyway. What about that is hard to understand as a good idea?

[RastaBull]

Does the VanVleet deal (9 mil per year) give any indication of Portis' value/contract?

VanVleet was a young bench player at end of contract, made a big name for himself this year as a sixth-man. Only 20 mpg last year but def increased big time as season went on. Toronto got a pretty great deal for a guy they expect to only get better.

I think on one hand, Portis' stats have proven more across a season than VanVleet (last year, Portis took a mighty jump statistically in his Per36 and PER). But I do think VanVleet will be a bigger impact across his deal.

Seeing this and other contracts, makes me think we could get a 3/32 with Portis .. or 4/45. I'd be very happy with that (think we should really focus on getting it just under 12 mil/per at least)

[MrFortune3]

If Lavine gets 19 per year I am out. There is no point watching this team grow. We are literally two years in row handling bad contracts. Basically putting shakles on our hands and legs

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Good chance that Lavine would not be an asset if he costs $19 million per year. In the same way that Felicio was an asset for $1 million/year but became a liability when that became $8 million/year.

Given his athletic ability and scoring potential, there is just as much if not a greater chance he becomes an underpaid asset at 19 mil.
LaVine has gotten better as a scorer each season of his career until coming back from the ACL tear last season. He's 23 years old...

[TheSuzerain]

Nobody is flocking to Chicago to play with 19M Lavine and 8M Felicio. And call it for culture of winning. Those are negative players by all advanced stats who contribute anything other than winning.

I dont get how this are considered good ideas.

You haven't seen a fully healthy LaVine with a healthy and experience Lauri and the Bulls with a full desire to win.
You have no idea what players might want to team up with LaVine if he plays extremely well.

If the Bulls don't develop talent, no FA is going to come anyway. What about that is hard to understand as a good idea?

Lavine has a **** load of NBA minutes. He's not some mystery.

He's a talented gunner whose ideal scenario looks a lot like what Eric Gordon gets to do in Houston.

[TheSuzerain]

So let me understand this. Your stance is that rather than retaining an asset we acquired, we should simply allow said asset to walk away due to the perceived cost?
Now, let me ask you this...where is that 19 mil going in your mind then? As you can see, just having cap room does not mean anything in the NBA.

So you essentially want to deal away or discard any asset that you deem unworthy of such a pay day and then have no actual plan to acquire more assets or improved ones?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Good chance that Lavine would not be an asset if he costs $19 million per year. In the same way that Felicio was an asset for $1 million/year but became a liability when that became $8 million/year.

Given his athletic ability and scoring potential, there is just as much if not a greater chance he becomes an underpaid asset at 19 mil.
LaVine has gotten better as a scorer each season of his career until coming back from the ACL tear last season. He's 23 years old...

No there isn't. The best players of Lavine's ilk (Lou Williams, Eric Gordon) make significantly less than $19 million.

He'd need to be touched by a ball of light like John Travolta in Phenomenon to live up to $19 million per year.

[Red Larrivee]

At this point, my preferred options with LaVine are a 1+1 deal or the QO. If we go $18M, I hope it's only under a 1/1 deal. $14M annually over four years wouldn't be awful under a long-term commitment. Chicago's sell should be on getting LaVine more money now while letting him bet against himself for another offseason with more suitors.

[ChiTownNation]

Looks at this list here. There are a ton of players on here making more than 18 million that I'd take Lavine over. That's why I think that's a decent deal since we have to use the cap space anyway. He has an upside that could earn him a max contract if he reaches his ceiling, so you can't let those guys just leave the team when they are this young.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html