Lavine is....

[wonderboy2]

I think Lavine is heading to the Nets soon. KD just said that he feels Lavine can be a superstar in a podcast he just did. That would be nasty Irving, Lavine, Durant on the perimeter. Nobody in the east would be able stop them. They have Jarret Allen for defense and rebounding.

[Southpaw]

I think Lavine is heading to the Nets soon. KD just said that he feels Lavine can be a superstar in a podcast he just did. That would be nasty Irving, Lavine, Durant on the perimeter. Nobody in the east would be able stop them. They have Jarret Allen for defense and rebounding.

If the Nets get LaVine, I hope we can get Allen out of it lol.

[wonderboy2]

I think Lavine is heading to the Nets soon. KD just said that he feels Lavine can be a superstar in a podcast he just did. That would be nasty Irving, Lavine, Durant on the perimeter. Nobody in the east would be able stop them. They have Jarret Allen for defense and rebounding.

If the Nets get LaVine, I hope we can get Allen out of it lol.

Heard the Nets aren’t giving up Allen in any trade. Allen is a young upcoming big Like Wendell. They are real high on Allen.

[drosereturn]

I think Lavine is heading to the Nets soon. KD just said that he feels Lavine can be a superstar in a podcast he just did. That would be nasty Irving, Lavine, Durant on the perimeter. Nobody in the east would be able stop them. They have Jarret Allen for defense and rebounding.

If the Nets get LaVine, I hope we can get Allen out of it lol.

nah allen is meh although I want him.
Like nets are literally only teams thats really high on Lainve with Durant losing all the leverage AK should explore trades and make aggressive offers esp including Din, Levert. They have all star ceiling but the nets stars think they are trash. What an opportunity.
Lavine Carter for those 3 would be even better since Carter gets paid more and injury prone.

Din and Levert has so much offensive talent and playmaking ability they can avg 50 pts per game as one two punch for the next decade. With Lauri as the 3rd option 20pt guy, the Bulls could afford to only acquire defensive players like Okongwu, Vassell and become a top 10 offense, defense team. Keep Kris Bum, Mokoka all defensive players to be role players.

[wonderboy2]

I think Lavine is heading to the Nets soon. KD just said that he feels Lavine can be a superstar in a podcast he just did. That would be nasty Irving, Lavine, Durant on the perimeter. Nobody in the east would be able stop them. They have Jarret Allen for defense and rebounding.

If the Nets get LaVine, I hope we can get Allen out of it lol.

nah allen is meh although I want him.
Like nets are literally only teams thats really high on Lainve with Durant losing all the leverage AK should explore trades and make aggressive offers esp including Din, Levert. They have all star ceiling but the nets stars think they are trash. What an opportunity.
Lavine Carter for those 3 would be even better since Carter gets paid more and injury prone.

Din and Levert has so much offensive talent and playmaking ability they can avg 50 pts per game as one two punch for the next decade. With Lauri as the 3rd option 20pt guy, the Bulls could afford to only acquire defensive players like Okongwu, Vassell and become a top 10 offense, defense team. Keep Kris Bum, Mokoka all defensive players to be role players.

Literally everything you said had no factual basis. There are reports of multiple teams wanting Lavine, and Carter. Nets stars don’t think Dinwiddie and Levert are trash. Luari has had all the opportunity in the world and regressed last season. It would be foolish to believe he will average 20 points a game next season. Nets aren’t trading Allen, Diwiddie, Lavert together unless they get a hell of a deal. If Lavine is so trash in your opinion why would the Nets do that deal? They are very high on their players from reports.

[Ugly Duckling]

My prediction is he's going to make another significant jump this yr. He's been going hard already in term of training and hasn't reached his prime. His combination of excellent shooting and elite athleticism is very rare. Name some players like that. I can't think of any right now. Usually elite athletics cap off at above average shooting at best and excellent shooters aren't elite athletes. That's an incredibly useful combo to have in a player. He needs someone to handle the rock and cover up his defensive lapses so he can focus on putting the ball in the hole

i've noted before that there are a lot of dunk contest champions who combined excellent shooting and elite athleticism. only vince carter was a star, and some didn't last long in the league

hell, there are such players scattered at YMCAs across the nation

Who though? I can't think of any elite athletes who are excellent shooters

[johnnyvann840]

Trade him now. Bulls will never be a winning team as long as he is one of our primary ball handlers. He is of the mindset that this is his team. He wants the ball and he wants to be the leader. He needs to go to a team like the Nets with Kyrie and KD... or the Lakers with Lebron and AD.. somewhere that already has an established #1 (and #2). On a team like that he has to fall into place as a 6th man or 3rd option on offense. Those teams already have primary ball handlers and #1's, so Lavine will have no choice other than take the role he is given. Here with the Bulls, he wants to run the show and unless the Bulls sign a max player like KD or Lebron (not happening), Zach is never going to hand the reins over to another player and you just are not winning anything with him running the show. We need intelligent, high IQ guards.

[transplant]

Lavine is a perfect #1 option on a bad/mediocre team.

I don't see him as being a good #2 because he would have to have other ways of contributing and he doesn't. I suppose he could be great as a 6th man who gives you instant offense, but I doubt he could accept that role.

[dice]

Lavine is a perfect #1 option on a bad/mediocre team.

I don't see him as being a good #2 because he would have to have other ways of contributing and he doesn't. I suppose he could be great as a 6th man who gives you instant offense, but I doubt he could accept that role.

which is why the nets would be bat**** crazy to deal multiple contributors for lavine only to make him a 3rd option offensively. KD and kyrie need quality role players around them. that's not zach lavine

[The Box Office]

We traded away a much younger Jimmy Butler. We should have no problem trading a lesser player in LaVine. His value is not high. It's just Bulls' homerism overvaluing him.

I appreciate Kevin Durant and Dwyane Wade pumping up his value in the papers though. Please keep that up. I gotta see how Giannis and Embiid's situation play out.

[JordansBulls]

Trade Lavine for Westbrook.

[TeamMan]

I am noticing a trend. Our board gets sick of the flaws of our own players because we see them up close and often. This is the reason why so many people supported the idea of trading Jimmy for three high potential talents. One reason for trading Jimmy that a lot of people brought up was because he was a "decent second banana", but he wasn't one of the elite franchise players. And, while that appeared to be true at the time, I don't believe it's a particularly brilliant strategy to jettison flawed players unless you're getting better production back. This franchise has been plagued by the mentality of letting assets go for next to nothing (Niko, arguably Jimmy) or literally nothing in the case of Kyle Korver and Rose. By that logic, anyone who is not a franchise player can just be moved from the roster in the hopes of pipedreams that a good team magically comes together on its own in the face of grass is greener trades or outright roster dumps. I don't believe in justifying this defeatist mentality. I hope you don't either. To me, it's unconscionable that there are two times now that we let our best sixth man (at worst) just walk off the roster without getting anything out of it. Asset collection matters. It's hard to make consolidation trades if you don't have anything to consolidate.

I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to trading Lavine-- our best offensive player who also happens to still be pretty young at a time when the league is experiencing a dearth of good shooting guards-- my best guess is that we're better off keeping him. Even championship rosters do not require a team full of perfect players and we are far from a championship roster. Our goals should be more immediate. We need to focus on creating a team that can get into the playoffs first. I can see Lavine being a key contributor to a playoff-level roster team.

The Bulls are a team with a long history of bailing early on players because we don't want to pay them.

IMO it's the main reason that Gar/Pax failed for so long but still were supported by ownership. And actually, Butler was the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

Now, our new FO is supposed to bring a more skilled approach to the situation that means not only looking at the short term reaction that will that will keep the team out of the Lux Tax, but also considering the long term that will keep the team in the playoffs.

So, also IMO, you keep your best offensive player, and work to build chemistry by adding a combination of role players that will synch with him to produce a winning result.

And actually we may already have two key components with White and Gafford. And hopefully the draft will provide another key component, and there could be one or more trades involved in the process, but not for LaVine.

If the Bulls were to trade him it should be for a top tier All Star player like Anthony Davis or Giannis if a player of that quality becomes available.

Sadly, that is what happened (in reverse) when they traded Butler.

[dice]

I am noticing a trend. Our board gets sick of the flaws of our own players because we see them up close and often. This is the reason why so many people supported the idea of trading Jimmy for three high potential talents. One reason for trading Jimmy that a lot of people brought up was because he was a "decent second banana", but he wasn't one of the elite franchise players. And, while that appeared to be true at the time, I don't believe it's a particularly brilliant strategy to jettison flawed players unless you're getting better production back. This franchise has been plagued by the mentality of letting assets go for next to nothing (Niko, arguably Jimmy) or literally nothing in the case of Kyle Korver and Rose. By that logic, anyone who is not a franchise player can just be moved from the roster in the hopes of pipedreams that a good team magically comes together on its own in the face of grass is greener trades or outright roster dumps. I don't believe in justifying this defeatist mentality. I hope you don't either. To me, it's unconscionable that there are two times now that we let our best sixth man (at worst) just walk off the roster without getting anything out of it. Asset collection matters. It's hard to make consolidation trades if you don't have anything to consolidate.

I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to trading Lavine-- our best offensive player who also happens to still be pretty young at a time when the league is experiencing a dearth of good shooting guards-- my best guess is that we're better off keeping him. Even championship rosters do not require a team full of perfect players and we are far from a championship roster. Our goals should be more immediate. We need to focus on creating a team that can get into the playoffs first. I can see Lavine being a key contributor to a playoff-level roster team.

The Bulls are a team with a long history of bailing early on players because we don't want to pay them.

IMO it's the main reason that Gar/Pax failed for so long but still were supported by ownership. And actually, Butler was the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

this is the first year of what would have been a 5 year max deal that we paid jimmy. the evidence is not close to in on whether, in retrospect, it was a bad idea not to pay him

and this "long history of bailing on players"? pax was right EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. didn't want to pay BG? well done. didn't want to pay deng (again). another smart move. tyrus? snell? dougie? portis? all got nice 2nd contracts that garpax didn't want to pay. and for damn good reason

[GrowingHorns]

Trade Lavine for Westbrook.

This joke was so bad it got me chuckling. Thanks, I needed some laugh.

On the question this thread is about, I think he isn't anywhere near of being 1st option. His best role right now would be as highly effective 6th man in a very good team. If he improves his defense his value goes up a lot. His offensive IQ though worries me a bit and if we see no improvements on it with better coaching staff, trade him away with a good value after he's stacking up great ppg stats again on the coming season.

[The Box Office]

I am noticing a trend. Our board gets sick of the flaws of our own players because we see them up close and often. This is the reason why so many people supported the idea of trading Jimmy for three high potential talents. One reason for trading Jimmy that a lot of people brought up was because he was a "decent second banana", but he wasn't one of the elite franchise players. And, while that appeared to be true at the time, I don't believe it's a particularly brilliant strategy to jettison flawed players unless you're getting better production back. This franchise has been plagued by the mentality of letting assets go for next to nothing (Niko, arguably Jimmy) or literally nothing in the case of Kyle Korver and Rose. By that logic, anyone who is not a franchise player can just be moved from the roster in the hopes of pipedreams that a good team magically comes together on its own in the face of grass is greener trades or outright roster dumps. I don't believe in justifying this defeatist mentality. I hope you don't either. To me, it's unconscionable that there are two times now that we let our best sixth man (at worst) just walk off the roster without getting anything out of it. Asset collection matters. It's hard to make consolidation trades if you don't have anything to consolidate.

I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to trading Lavine-- our best offensive player who also happens to still be pretty young at a time when the league is experiencing a dearth of good shooting guards-- my best guess is that we're better off keeping him. Even championship rosters do not require a team full of perfect players and we are far from a championship roster. Our goals should be more immediate. We need to focus on creating a team that can get into the playoffs first. I can see Lavine being a key contributor to a playoff-level roster team.

The Bulls are a team with a long history of bailing early on players because we don't want to pay them.

IMO it's the main reason that Gar/Pax failed for so long but still were supported by ownership. And actually, Butler was the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

this is the first year of what would have been a 5 year max deal that we paid jimmy. the evidence is not close to in on whether, in retrospect, it was a bad idea not to pay him

and this "long history of bailing on players"? pax was right EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. didn't want to pay BG? well done. didn't want to pay deng (again). another smart move. tyrus? snell? dougie? portis? all got nice 2nd contracts that garpax didn't want to pay. and for damn good reason

Agreed with Dice.

I disagree on a lot of GarPax's decisions, but "bailing on players" is not one of them. If anything, Pax fell in love with his players. Pax actually held on to players for too long. The majority of Bulls' RealGM is guilty of this.

- He should have traded away Deng after Deng's 3rd year.
- He traded Jimmy Butler away at the right time.
- He should have traded away Ben Gordon as much as I love Ben Gordon's microwave hot scoring streaks and clutch abilities. I understand keeping Gordon until the very end because we might have had a championship contending team with an emerging Derrick Rose. The Ben Gordon messy contract stand off took a long time to sort out.
- Dumping McDermott and Nikola Mirotic were correct. They were not supposed to be drafted here in the first place. I didn't want either of those guys here.
- For the record, I didn't want Laurie Markkanen here. I didn't heavily scout the 2017 prospects, but I knew I didn't want Laurie. I wasn't even looking at the kid at the time. The majority of the posters here wanted HARRY GILES; a kid with a torn ACL. I remember that. How embarrassing.

If I was the GM, I'm not offering a $30+ million to LaVine. Hell no. His game is not worth it. That's Franchise Superstar money. He's not even an All Star. He doesn't have any Playoff experience. He doesn't play defense. He has tunnel vision.

I'd trade LaVine.

[TeamMan]

The Bulls are a team with a long history of bailing early on players because we don't want to pay them.

IMO it's the main reason that Gar/Pax failed for so long but still were supported by ownership. And actually, Butler was the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

this is the first year of what would have been a 5 year max deal that we paid jimmy. the evidence is not close to in on whether, in retrospect, it was a bad idea not to pay him

and this "long history of bailing on players"? pax was right EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. didn't want to pay BG? well done. didn't want to pay deng (again). another smart move. tyrus? snell? dougie? portis? all got nice 2nd contracts that garpax didn't want to pay. and for damn good reason

Agreed with Dice.

I disagree on a lot of GarPax's decisions, but "bailing on players" is not one of them. If anything, Pax fell in love with his players. Pax actually held on to players for too long. The majority of Bulls' RealGM is guilty of this.

- He should have traded away Deng after Deng's 3rd year.
- He traded Jimmy Butler away at the right time.
- He should have traded away Ben Gordon as much as I love Ben Gordon's microwave hot scoring streaks and clutch abilities. I understand keeping Gordon until the very end because we might have had a championship contending team with an emerging Derrick Rose. The Ben Gordon messy contract stand off took a long time to sort out.
- Dumping McDermott and Nikola Mirotic were correct. They were not supposed to be drafted here in the first place. I didn't want either of those guys here.
- For the record, I didn't want Laurie Markkanen here. I didn't heavily scout the 2017 prospects, but I knew I didn't want Laurie. I wasn't even looking at the kid at the time. The majority of the posters here wanted HARRY GILES; a kid with a torn ACL. I remember that. How embarrassing.

If I was the GM, I'm not offering a $30+ million to LaVine. Hell no. His game is not worth it. That's Franchise Superstar money. He's not even an All Star. He doesn't have any Playoff experience. He doesn't play defense. He has tunnel vision.

I'd trade LaVine.

When you speak of "not bailing" my impression is that you are thinking mainly about trades. But there were other players that were simply allowed to walk, or traded away for basically nothing, both with the goal of staying out of the Lux Tax.

For every name that you mention I can mention another name that was clearly a mistake not to pay.

As far as RealGM is concerned, I'm always mystified about how many people only discuss the Lux Tax to defend ownership, who are the source of the problem.

As far as GarPax's decisions that you disagree with, their main job was to make decisions about the players (who to draft, who to trade, who to pay and who to not pay). IMO these decisions cannot be separated because they are all intertwined.

So, for every player that you think that they kept too long, I can name one that they let walk, (and again) traded for basically nothing, or held onto mainly because they wanted to let their contract expire to recover the cap space (not because of their effect on winning).

But, getting back to LaVine, IMO their plan was to do the same thing that they did with Butler before Zach became a UFA.

[ZOMG]

A huge problem with Zach is that he's not a ballhandler. Instead, he's a guy who likes to dribble and is pretty good at it. There's a BIG difference.

For a ballhandler, dribbling is just a tool. A way to dictate the tempo of the game, adjust the balance of the offense, get the ball from A to B when every passing lane is being overplayed. A ballhandler is immediately ready to give up the rock when it makes sense to do so. He's skilled wih the ball but doesn't hog it. He understands the crucial role of ball movement in modern basketball.

Steph Curry is a ballhandler. So is Ryan Arcidiacono. It's not about being a scoring superstar or a 9th man. It's about seeing the game in a certain way.

LaVine is not a ballhandler. To him, the ball is just an extension of himself: where he goes, the ball follows.

When five guys play smart team basketball, the ball tends to do smart things. It's almost like magic. Not every action needs to be choreographed, because everyone is in service of getting the ball into the basket and there's a logic of its own. With Zach, it's the other way around. He keeps the ball so he doesn't have to move off-ball or wait for a pass when he thinks he's ready for a scoring attempt.

Giving up the ball is not natural for him. It's a concession. Something that creates a debt. He did this thing, so what are you gonna do for him in turn? Hey, no hurry. He'll be right there, standing, watching and waiting. For the ball to come back to him.

If I ran a team, LaVine would rarely handle the ball. A play where he gets a pass to the weak side and immediately attacks the scrambling defense? Fine. Limit him to situations where he doesn't have to make decisions while pounding the rock 30ft from the basket. He should be used like a late-career Ray Allen.

Would you want a late-career Ray Allen to run your team and dominate the ball? Thought not.

(That's insulting to Allen, though. His BBIQ was always on another level compared to Zach.)

[Charlesareed]

He’s a ball hog chucker

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Trade Lavine for Westbrook.

Where's the green font?

[wonderboy2]

It’s hilarious that people say tat Lavine is a sixth man due to his defense. But most people on here view Sato as a starter and his defense is worse than Lavines. Only side is that Lavine averages 25 points per game on good efficiency and Sato averages 9 points per game on bad efficiency from 3. And Sato only averaged 1 more assist per game than Lavine last year.