Bulls Free Agency - Merged

[JimmyJammer]

Traditional centers are dying breeds in the NBA. Brook Lopez, Greg Monroe are still out there, but no one really cares. Cousins signed for only 5 millions. Roy Hibbert retired from the NBA while he was only 29 years old.

[GimmeDat]

Traditional centers are dying breeds in the NBA. Brook Lopez, Greg Monroe are still out there, but no one really cares. Cousins signed for only 5 millions. Roy Hibbert retired from the NBA while he was only 29 years old.

No doubt he would've been offered more elsewhere. He shoots 3's, he handles, he passes, Cousins fits the modern NBA just fine. Fine enough that the Warriors of all teams see the value of bringing him in.

[bad knees]

Can someone please sell me on the idea that a 1+1 is a good idea? I just dont see it...

Im assuming that a 1+1 is a player option, right? At best the player stays, plays well, and wants more money when contract is up.

If I am the Houston Rockets and I wanna take a chance or two on the final piece to win the championship, then yea, a 1+1 makes sense...you're in the winning window.

if I am the Chicago bulls, I wanna lock talent up at good rates, or at least for a lengthy period of time...because you know this core will need at least 1 bigger F.A signing, and you're hoping your young pieces will pan out that you'll want to pay when that day comes.

So please, someone explain to me how a 1+1 is better option for a LaVine vs a fair 4 year deal?

The 1+1 option that we have been discussing includes an unguaranteed contract for the second year, not a player option. It allows the Bulls to see one more year of Zach without committing to him long term in what would be an unjustified gamble in the eyes of most people on the board.

If he sucks, or if two max FAs decide they want to come, we cut him loose after one year. If he’s good and there is no better use of our cap space, we get one more year at a reasonable rate

For Zach, he gets a good salary for one year, maybe two, and becomes an UFA in any event before the age of 26. We would have his Bird rights if we kept him for both years.

It’s called managing your risk and keeping your options open when the odds are high that Zach is not going to suddenly learn how to be an effective and winning player in the NBA.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[TheSuzerain]

Can someone please sell me on the idea that a 1+1 is a good idea? I just dont see it...

Im assuming that a 1+1 is a player option, right? At best the player stays, plays well, and wants more money when contract is up.

If I am the Houston Rockets and I wanna take a chance or two on the final piece to win the championship, then yea, a 1+1 makes sense...you're in the winning window.

if I am the Chicago bulls, I wanna lock talent up at good rates, or at least for a lengthy period of time...because you know this core will need at least 1 bigger F.A signing, and you're hoping your young pieces will pan out that you'll want to pay when that day comes.

So please, someone explain to me how a 1+1 is better option for a LaVine vs a fair 4 year deal?

The 1+1 option that we have been discussing includes a team option for the second year, not a player option. It allows the Bulls to see one more year of Zach without committing to him long term in what would be an unjustified gamble in the eyes of most people on the board.

If he sucks, or if two max FAs decide they want to come, we cut him loose after one year. If he’s good and there is no better use of our cap space, we get one more year at a reasonable rate

For Zach, he gets a good salary for one year, maybe two, and becomes an UFA in any event before the age of 26. We would have his Bird rights if we kept him for both years.

It’s called managing your risk and keeping your options open when the odds are high that Zach is not going to suddenly learn how to be an effective and winning player in the NBA.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's called kicking the can.

[TheSuzerain]

Traditional centers are dying breeds in the NBA. Brook Lopez, Greg Monroe are still out there, but no one really cares. Cousins signed for only 5 millions. Roy Hibbert retired from the NBA while he was only 29 years old.

No doubt he would've been offered more elsewhere. He shoots 3's, he handles, he passes, Cousins fits the modern NBA just fine. Fine enough that the Warriors of all teams see the value of bringing him in.

I have no doubt he could have been offered the non-taxpayers MLE elsewhere.

But there are just not any suitors for Cousins with significant cap space.

[HomoSapien]

So is there any news about what we're doing, or are we on complete shutdown until LaVine is sorted out?

[bad knees]

Can someone please sell me on the idea that a 1+1 is a good idea? I just dont see it...

Im assuming that a 1+1 is a player option, right? At best the player stays, plays well, and wants more money when contract is up.

If I am the Houston Rockets and I wanna take a chance or two on the final piece to win the championship, then yea, a 1+1 makes sense...you're in the winning window.

if I am the Chicago bulls, I wanna lock talent up at good rates, or at least for a lengthy period of time...because you know this core will need at least 1 bigger F.A signing, and you're hoping your young pieces will pan out that you'll want to pay when that day comes.

So please, someone explain to me how a 1+1 is better option for a LaVine vs a fair 4 year deal?

The 1+1 option that we have been discussing includes a team option for the second year, not a player option. It allows the Bulls to see one more year of Zach without committing to him long term in what would be an unjustified gamble in the eyes of most people on the board.

If he sucks, or if two max FAs decide they want to come, we cut him loose after one year. If he’s good and there is no better use of our cap space, we get one more year at a reasonable rate

For Zach, he gets a good salary for one year, maybe two, and becomes an UFA in any event before the age of 26. We would have his Bird rights if we kept him for both years.

It’s called managing your risk and keeping your options open when the odds are high that Zach is not going to suddenly learn how to be an effective and winning player in the NBA.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's called kicking the can.

Well, sometimes kicking the can is the best strategy, especially when the player in question is such a gamble, and when a side benefit is keeping open the possibility of the 2019 double max FA plan.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[TheSuzerain]

The 1+1 option that we have been discussing includes a team option for the second year, not a player option. It allows the Bulls to see one more year of Zach without committing to him long term in what would be an unjustified gamble in the eyes of most people on the board.

If he sucks, or if two max FAs decide they want to come, we cut him loose after one year. If he’s good and there is no better use of our cap space, we get one more year at a reasonable rate

For Zach, he gets a good salary for one year, maybe two, and becomes an UFA in any event before the age of 26. We would have his Bird rights if we kept him for both years.

It’s called managing your risk and keeping your options open when the odds are high that Zach is not going to suddenly learn how to be an effective and winning player in the NBA.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's called kicking the can.

Well, sometimes kicking the can is the best strategy, especially when the player in question is such a gamble, and when a side benefit is keeping open the possibility of the 2019 double max FA plan.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It’s risk avoidance at a time we should be seeking out risk.

It’s a move to raise the team’s basement. No thanks.

[Alcatraz17]

The 1+1 option that we have been discussing includes a team option for the second year, not a player option. It allows the Bulls to see one more year of Zach without committing to him long term in what would be an unjustified gamble in the eyes of most people on the board.

If he sucks, or if two max FAs decide they want to come, we cut him loose after one year. If he’s good and there is no better use of our cap space, we get one more year at a reasonable rate

For Zach, he gets a good salary for one year, maybe two, and becomes an UFA in any event before the age of 26. We would have his Bird rights if we kept him for both years.

It’s called managing your risk and keeping your options open when the odds are high that Zach is not going to suddenly learn how to be an effective and winning player in the NBA.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's called kicking the can.

Well, sometimes kicking the can is the best strategy, especially when the player in question is such a gamble, and when a side benefit is keeping open the possibility of the 2019 double max FA plan.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Thanks for taking the time to write your explanation.

I still dont see it being a good idea for the Bulls in this situation. If lets say the bulls give Zach a 1+1 for 19 ans 19....and both seasons he plays just good enough to call 19/a year reasonable....then what? in 20-21 he is going to want a long term, bigger deal...right in the window of extending other contracts....

And if he doesn't live up to the first years pay....hes gone and took development time or a roster spot from a potential better value find.

I can see in some situations, like Boogie Cousins getting a 1+1 deal from a team like the warriors...not this though

[Alcatraz17]

Can someone please sell me on the idea that a 1+1 is a good idea? I just dont see it...

Im assuming that a 1+1 is a player option, right? At best the player stays, plays well, and wants more money when contract is up.

If I am the Houston Rockets and I wanna take a chance or two on the final piece to win the championship, then yea, a 1+1 makes sense...you're in the winning window.

if I am the Chicago bulls, I wanna lock talent up at good rates, or at least for a lengthy period of time...because you know this core will need at least 1 bigger F.A signing, and you're hoping your young pieces will pan out that you'll want to pay when that day comes.

So please, someone explain to me how a 1+1 is better option for a LaVine vs a fair 4 year deal?

Agreed. 1+1 sucks.

Sign+Trade him. Let him walk. Or commit long term. Those are the 3 doors.

You and I don't agree much, so this is cool.

[bad knees]

It's called kicking the can.

Well, sometimes kicking the can is the best strategy, especially when the player in question is such a gamble, and when a side benefit is keeping open the possibility of the 2019 double max FA plan.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It’s risk avoidance at a time we should be seeking out risk.

It’s a move to raise the team’s basement. No thanks.

Wrong. The Bulls really lose very little. If LaVine somehow undergoes a brain transplant this summer and becomes a max player, then the Bulls will have the best chance of resigning him after the two years because they will have his Bird rights. All they will have lost is a bit of cap space in years 3 and 4.

And this approach allows you keep open the ultimate jackpot, which is the double max FA 2019 plan.

Plus, you know, for all the reasons that have been discussed, LaVine to date has never been a good player in the league. Signing him at all is based on the hope that he can defy the odds and become great even though he has sucked for the first four years of his career. Managing that risk a little is nothing more than good judgment.

[samwana]

With Avery Bradley becoming 25m for 2 years it seems the market for LaVine is drying up even quicker and Seth Curry becoming 5.6m for 2 years..

I'd rather have Seth over LaVine..

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

[GimmeDat]

Lavine has no market. The question is, how low can you go before he says no and takes the QO or a 1+1 instead. I'm not sure you can go too low, because he'll otherwise be a UFA next year and there'll be a lot more suitors next year.

Ditto Parker. I don't think we have much competition in bidding for him, but you still need to give them an offer their happy with or they won't go for it. Just look at how many players signed 1 year deals this off-season.

[PrimzyBulls81]

With the way the market is going, Lavine cant be happy.. Bradley, Evans, Burton setting the merit for him as well.
MAX 14M per year should be signed

[samwana]

With the way the market is going, Lavine cant be happy.. Bradley, Evans, Burton setting the merit for him as well.
MAX 14M per year should be signed

Right now I think 10m might be more than enough

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

[Axolotl]

So far the Bulls have been great in the FA-market...

[Ralphb07]

So is there any news about what we're doing, or are we on complete shutdown until LaVine is sorted out?

Alex Kennedy reported the other day our interest in Jabari Parker. He’s a RFA so that may take a while before Parker is off the board. Zach doesn’t hold them back from doing anything. The Bulls have said from day one that they would only sign guys that fit their timeline and that’s exactly what they are doing. So I’m nit expecting to hear anything but Zach and Nwaba. I personally heard they liked Kyle Anderson and he’s a RFA too.

[League Circles]

So is there any news about what we're doing, or are we on complete shutdown until LaVine is sorted out?

Alex Kennedy reported the other day our interest in Jabari Parker. He’s a RFA so that may take a while before Parker is off the board. Zach doesn’t hold them back from doing anything. The Bulls have said from day one that they would only sign guys that fit their timeline and that’s exactly what they are doing. So I’m nit expecting to hear anything but Zach and Nwaba. I personally heard they liked Kyle Anderson and he’s a RFA too.

I called that we'd be pursuing Parker once our otherwise insanely early attempt to extend Portis became public (they have the same agent).

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world depending on price, but IMO LaVine should be renounced if we sign Jabari. Or at least one of them play 6th man.

[Mbrahv0528]

So far the Bulls have been great in the FA-market...

We aren't trying to win right now so who the **** cares?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Ralphb07]

With the way the market is going, Lavine cant be happy.. Bradley, Evans, Burton setting the merit for him as well.
MAX 14M per year should be signed

Right now I think 10m might be more than enough

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

10 mil lmao that’s funny. A couple of things to remember. Zach is a RFA and the reasons teams yet have offered him anything is because they know they’d have to overpay to sign him. The Kings know at 17 mil the Bulls will match so they’d have to overpay to like 20-21 to get him. So the Bulls can’t be dicks and have to be fair because if they extremely low ball him he’s signs his QO or a 1 + 1 and enters FA unrestricted next year which the Bulls should not want. 14-17 mil for him is fair and is something though he may feel he deserves more that number is enough to sign the long term deal