Another Ringer article on Lavine

[Hangtime84]

Surely Zach could become such a thing, unlike (say) Cameron Payne. I mean, Zach is 21 years old, very athletic, and already a very good scorer. He is not without attributes. The question is whether that is anything close to a likely possibility. That is where the disagreement occurs.

I just don't see how people project 19 and 25 year old basketball basketball players as finished products. It's like Kyle Lowry, Billups, Harden, aren't players who improved each year and became stars.

People think in order be good they have generational talent. Which isn't reality.

[DanTown8587]

Jamal Crawford for much of his career was the fourth or fifth best player on his team.
JR Smith is the 4th option/5th starter on the Cavs.
What role or place on the Heat does Dion Waiters fall in to?

This isn't a slight on Lavine to say that's his role, plenty of high quality players have played in that role. But to sit here and say "let's build around Zach Lavine" is highly questionable because of what his next contract likely will give him. Tong Po was right when it's a Fournier situation: you pay him a contract that he can get on the open market and then you're almost ticketed to being not good enough to successfully fall to the bottom of the draft but you're not talented enough to even really sniff the playoffs unless you acquire 2 or 3 players better than Lavine.

Put another way: it's really **** hard to build teams around guys who are basically me first scoring guards who don't defend or set up other teammates in the offense regardless of how talented they are.

The third option on a championship contender could be a lot of players.

Championship teams don't rely (i.e third option) on guards who just dominate the ball and score for themselves and that's all they do. Third options have to be able to play both with their lead options and score for themselves. They have to do more than just score because of how many minutes they play. I've yet to see anything that says Lavine is ready to play that role on an offense or on a contending team.

I don't think LaVine would be an anomaly if he took on that role one day. That player doesn't necessarily need to be an all-star. I disagree that if Chicago pays LaVine, then it decreases the chances that they're one of the worst teams in the league. Chicago is going to be hot garbage for the forseeable future unless somebody on this team suddenly becomes an impact superstar. There have been worse teams with players better than LaVine that did nothing.

The conversation about Lavine isn't his role on this team but his role on the next iteration of the Bulls. If the desire is to be more motion and more ball movement than that's not really Zach's game. He also is due a contract next summer that I don't see why the Bulls should be giving out if some team wants to sign him.

[Stratmaster]

He was on a team with two players better than he was, and that team was terrible. He then tore his ACL.

I don't think "certainly good enough" to <insert anything meaningful here> applies to Lavine. There is reason to be hopeful he will recovery from his ACL and continue to develop into a good player, but it is quite possible (and in my opinion the most likely scenario) that Lavine will not even be a "3rd best player" on a championship team caliber guy. Which means he's really utterly forgettable.

Jimmy Butler could now be in a position of having 2 players better than him on a team that is still pretty weak. Does that make him utterly forgettable?

On what planet is Andrew Wiggins better than Jimmy Butler? By what possible metric(s) could that even be close to true?

And how bad are the Wolves? Minnesota has a Vegas win total of 45.5 for O/U (higher than the Bulls were a year ago in a much tougher conference).

I never said, on any planet, Wiggins last season was better than Butler last season. It's a new season. New teammates. Jimmy a year older, Wiggins a year more seasoned; and the key words were "could be". I can tell you the Vegas odds for MVP have Jimmy and Wiggins about the same IIRC...about 25th or 26th on the list.

Everyone said the Bulls sucked last season. I'm not sure how having a couple more wins makes the Wolves great. again, the key words were "still pretty weak". I didn't say bad.

[Stratmaster]

Jimmy Butler could now be in a position of having 2 players better than him on a team that is still pretty weak. Does that make him utterly forgettable?

On what planet is Andrew Wiggins better than Jimmy Butler? By what possible metric(s) could that even be close to true?

And how bad are the Wolves? Minnesota has a Vegas win total of 45.5 for O/U (higher than the Bulls were a year ago in a much tougher conference).

You'd have to be insane or ignoring literally every statistic measure of a player's value that exists to think that Wiggins was better than Butler. Wiggins is barely better than 2017 Derrick Rose, if at all.

Where did I say Wiggins was better than Butler last season? Geesh. See my response above.

[Stratmaster]

Jimmy Butler could now be in a position of having 2 players better than him on a team that is still pretty weak. Does that make him utterly forgettable?

I think there is only 1 player potentially better on the Wolves than Butler, and if the Wolves suck this year, then yeah, it probably means Butler isn't as good as his numbers (barring injuries and other oddball situations of course).

Please do not lose the context. I was responding t this comment you made:

"He was on a team with two players better than he was, and that team was terrible. He then tore his ACL.

I don't think "certainly good enough" to <insert anything meaningful here> applies to Lavine. There is reason to be hopeful he will recovery from his ACL and continue to develop into a good player, but it is quite possible (and in my opinion the most likely scenario) that Lavine will not even be a "3rd best player" on a championship team caliber guy. Which means he's really utterly forgettable."

It is possible Wiggins could produce very close to Butler level this coming season. Certainly not a given. But if Lavine is "totally forgettable" because his ceiling is the 3rd best player on a championship team (and that is giving you that assumption, which I would debate), then that same line of reasoning should apply to all players, right? So even if Jimmy is 2nd best on a 1st round playoff team, what would that make him?

This was not meant to be a dis on jimmy Butler, but an attempt to communicate that IMHO the bar you have set for Lavine is unreasonable.

[Stratmaster]

If he is 'only' a #3 man on a Championship level team, that's not exactly chump change. Only reason to really get rid of a guy like that is if he's holding you back from getting a bonafide #1 or #2.

GSW - Curry/Durant....Green/Thompson
Clev - LBJ...Love/Irving
SAS - Duncan/Parker/Leonard

lol he's no where close to those guys. Anyone who thinks he can actually become a #3 man on a title contender is an idiot.

Wow. This idiot thinks anyone who doesn't think Lavine could possibly be the number 3 on a championship team is an idiot. Let's go have a beer and we can both get lost on the way.

[Stratmaster]

When you have a player like Zach Lavine, his best value to you as a team is not as a main player because you will never win anything or even contend if Zach Lavine is one of your better players. Lavine is a decent on the ball offensive player, which is an important skill to have somewhere on the roster. But if that player is going to be the guy who gets the lion-share of touches and production, that means that your team by very definition of the role Lavine has does not have enough offensive diversity to be a well run team because if you did have better offensive talent than Lavine wouldn't be the third best player on it.

Obviously, that's not really Zach Lavine's fault - he's a good but flawed player that if you ask to do too much because other guys can't shouldn't be blamed for the other players lack of ability.

Lavine's best value to a team is as a JR Smith/Jamal Crawford type scorer who is either a fifth starter or a sixth man who can come in and keep an offense alive for a few possessions while that team gets their main star(s) rest. The problem the Bulls face is that Lavine can't fit in to that role here, he almost HAS to be "the guy" and in that role, the team and he will struggle. Secondly, he's about to get a contract offer that can make him go from value to not valuable as soon as he gets a contract offer. Unless you're a top flight superstar who is worthy of a max deal, your value to the team and the organization is directly related to the contract you sign. Hell, people here felt uneasy about giving Jimmy Butler, a vastly more superior player than Lavine by any reasonable person, a max deal. So until Lavine signs that next deal, I won't speak to what his future value is. But at the type of role I laid out, I'd be hard pressed to give him more than 12-14 AAV.

If LaVine is merely your 6th best player, then I'm assuming you have the Monstars at 1-5.

Jamal Crawford for much of his career was the fourth or fifth best player on his team.
JR Smith is the 4th option/5th starter on the Cavs.
What role or place on the Heat does Dion Waiters fall in to?

This isn't a slight on Lavine to say that's his role, plenty of high quality players have played in that role. But to sit here and say "let's build around Zach Lavine" is highly questionable because of what his next contract likely will give him. Tong Po was right when it's a Fournier situation: you pay him a contract that he can get on the open market and then you're almost ticketed to being not good enough to successfully fall to the bottom of the draft but you're not talented enough to even really sniff the playoffs unless you acquire 2 or 3 players better than Lavine.

Put another way: it's really **** hard to build teams around guys who are basically me first scoring guards who don't defend or set up other teammates in the offense regardless of how talented they are.

Who said the Bulls should build around Lavine as their centerpiece?

[sco]

I think the whole 3rd best player concept is hard to work with. I know that there are super teams in the NBA, and there have been instances where the 3rd best player on a Championship team is a great player, but most have been sub-allstar talents or specialists (ie defenders or 3pt specialists) - not, IMO, relevant to Lavine.

If Lavine shows that he can be an allstar with stellar play (likely after the ASB), great! If not, I hope his salary demands are in line.

[TheSuzerain]

Dude isn't going to be all-star level. And his salary demands will be exorbitant.

[BR0D1E86]

On what planet is Andrew Wiggins better than Jimmy Butler? By what possible metric(s) could that even be close to true?

And how bad are the Wolves? Minnesota has a Vegas win total of 45.5 for O/U (higher than the Bulls were a year ago in a much tougher conference).

You'd have to be insane or ignoring literally every statistic measure of a player's value that exists to think that Wiggins was better than Butler. Wiggins is barely better than 2017 Derrick Rose, if at all.

Where did I say Wiggins was better than Butler last season? Geesh. See my response above.

I read it. He can't be in that position because Wiggins is not now, and shows absolutely zero signs of improvement on the path to being, better than Butler. He needs to gun for better than Rudy Gay first.

[Stratmaster]

You'd have to be insane or ignoring literally every statistic measure of a player's value that exists to think that Wiggins was better than Butler. Wiggins is barely better than 2017 Derrick Rose, if at all.

Where did I say Wiggins was better than Butler last season? Geesh. See my response above.

I read it. He can't be in that position because Wiggins is not now, and shows absolutely zero signs of improvement on the path to being, better than Butler. He needs to gun for better than Rudy Gay first.

Early MVP odds, as of 4 days ago, have Wiggins and Butler both at 75/1, tied with Melo for the 24th-26th spots:

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2017/08/2017_nba_mvp_odds_russell_westbrook_kevin_durant_t.html

So someone other than me obviously thinks that Wiggins may be just as valuable as Butler this season.

As I have said, Butler is overrated by us Bulls fans, and you are underrating Wiggins. All of which is understandable...we are Bulls fans.

[Hangtime84]

Dude isn't going to be all-star level. And his salary demands will be exorbitant.

because you said it it must be true?

[Red Larrivee]

Championship teams don't rely (i.e third option) on guards who just dominate the ball and score for themselves and that's all they do. Third options have to be able to play both with their lead options and score for themselves. They have to do more than just score because of how many minutes they play. I've yet to see anything that says Lavine is ready to play that role on an offense or on a contending team.

I don't think there's any set model for what a third best player on a contender is. Some teams win without a clear cut third option. Who was the 3rd best player when the Heat won in 2006? The corpse of Jason Williams? Who was the 3rd option on the Mavericks in 2011? A past prime Jason Kidd? What matters the most is who your two best players are. If you replaced Klay Thompson with Zach LaVine, are you not picking the Warriors to repeat next season?

The conversation about Lavine isn't his role on this team but his role on the next iteration of the Bulls. If the desire is to be more motion and more ball movement than that's not really Zach's game. He also is due a contract next summer that I don't see why the Bulls should be giving out if some team wants to sign him.

This is where we return to the idea that the Bulls are a freshly dumped jigsaw puzzle. We have no idea what the next really good version of the Bulls will look like. Once we do, a discussion about the type of offense and who fits will become more meaningful. But right now, what is there? I don't think LaVine is a bad fit on a team that moves the ball. LaVine is a good off-ball player.

Retaining LaVine simply comes down to not losing a 22-year-old SG with uber athleticism, efficient scoring and shooting ability. When you're rebuilding, why flush that away?

[NZB2323]

How many players were good defensive players at 21? When Jimmy Butler was 21 he was still in college and everyone on this board laughed at Scottie Pippen when he said Butler had all-star potential. When Isiah Thompson was 21 he was still in college and was the last pick in the draft. When Draymond Green was 21 he was in college and was picked late.When Klay Thompson was 21 he had a PER of 14.9. When Zach Lavine was 21 he had a PER of 14.6.

I don't know how good Lavine will be, or how well he'll recover from the ACL surgery, but he was super athletic, could shoot the three and everything that I've read about him says he's a hard worker. I don't know what else you could ask from the kid, and I think it's silly to make statements like, "he'll never be a all-star! He'll never be the 3rd best player on a championships team!"

[TheSuzerain]

Championship teams don't rely (i.e third option) on guards who just dominate the ball and score for themselves and that's all they do. Third options have to be able to play both with their lead options and score for themselves. They have to do more than just score because of how many minutes they play. I've yet to see anything that says Lavine is ready to play that role on an offense or on a contending team.

I don't think there's any set model for what a third best player on a contender is. Some teams win without a clear cut third option. Who was the 3rd best player when the Heat won in 2006? The corpse of Jason Williams? Who was the 3rd option on the Mavericks in 2011? A past prime Jason Kidd? What matters the most is who your two best players are. If you replaced Klay Thompson with Zach LaVine, are you not picking the Warriors to repeat next season?

The conversation about Lavine isn't his role on this team but his role on the next iteration of the Bulls. If the desire is to be more motion and more ball movement than that's not really Zach's game. He also is due a contract next summer that I don't see why the Bulls should be giving out if some team wants to sign him.

This is where we return to the idea that the Bulls are a freshly dumped jigsaw puzzle. We have no idea what the next really good version of the Bulls will look like. Once we do, a discussion about the type of offense and who fits will become more meaningful. But right now, what is there? I don't think LaVine is a bad fit on a team that moves the ball. LaVine is a good off-ball player.

Retaining LaVine simply comes down to not losing a 22-year-old SG with uber athleticism, efficient scoring and shooting ability. When you're rebuilding, why flush that away?

Because his salary demands likely will exceed his actual value.

The correct question is why did we trade for him in the first place?

[Red Larrivee]

How many players were good defensive players at 21? When Jimmy Butler was 21 he was still in college and everyone on this board laughed at Scottie Pippen when he said Butler had all-star potential. When Isiah Thompson was 21 he was still in college and was the last pick in the draft. When Draymond Green was 21 he was in college and was picked late.When Klay Thompson was 21 he had a PER of 14.9. When Zach Lavine was 21 he had a PER of 14.6.

I don't know how good Lavine will be, or how well he'll recover from the ACL surgery, but he was super athletic, could shoot the three and everything that I've read about him says he's a hard worker. I don't know what else you could ask from the kid, and I think it's silly to make statements like, "he'll never be a all-star! He'll never be the 3rd best player on a championships team!"

And the icing on the cake is that...we're rebuilding. What do the Bulls lose by re-signing him and letting him develop? Isn't that what people wanted out of this whole thing?

Why would we better off losing him for nothing next summer after he signs an offer sheet with another team? Our lottery chances don't decrease, but our chances of having more good players do.

[Red Larrivee]

Because his salary demands likely will exceed his actual value.

The correct question is why did we trade for him in the first place?

LaVine is no different from any young, productive player who hits free agency; they all get paid on upside. If LaVine meets his upside, his value maintains.

Chicago traded for LaVine because he was the best high upside, young asset they could get in a deal. Per reports, no other team offered a better player.

[Stratmaster]

Championship teams don't rely (i.e third option) on guards who just dominate the ball and score for themselves and that's all they do. Third options have to be able to play both with their lead options and score for themselves. They have to do more than just score because of how many minutes they play. I've yet to see anything that says Lavine is ready to play that role on an offense or on a contending team.

I don't think there's any set model for what a third best player on a contender is. Some teams win without a clear cut third option. Who was the 3rd best player when the Heat won in 2006? The corpse of Jason Williams? Who was the 3rd option on the Mavericks in 2011? A past prime Jason Kidd? What matters the most is who your two best players are. If you replaced Klay Thompson with Zach LaVine, are you not picking the Warriors to repeat next season?

The conversation about Lavine isn't his role on this team but his role on the next iteration of the Bulls. If the desire is to be more motion and more ball movement than that's not really Zach's game. He also is due a contract next summer that I don't see why the Bulls should be giving out if some team wants to sign him.

This is where we return to the idea that the Bulls are a freshly dumped jigsaw puzzle. We have no idea what the next really good version of the Bulls will look like. Once we do, a discussion about the type of offense and who fits will become more meaningful. But right now, what is there? I don't think LaVine is a bad fit on a team that moves the ball. LaVine is a good off-ball player.

Retaining LaVine simply comes down to not losing a 22-year-old SG with uber athleticism, efficient scoring and shooting ability. When you're rebuilding, why flush that away?

Lavine also is great in transition; something I am hoping to see a whole lot of in the future.

[DanTown8587]

Championship teams don't rely (i.e third option) on guards who just dominate the ball and score for themselves and that's all they do. Third options have to be able to play both with their lead options and score for themselves. They have to do more than just score because of how many minutes they play. I've yet to see anything that says Lavine is ready to play that role on an offense or on a contending team.

I don't think there's any set model for what a third best player on a contender is. Some teams win without a clear cut third option. Who was the 3rd best player when the Heat won in 2006? The corpse of Jason Williams? Who was the 3rd option on the Mavericks in 2011? A past prime Jason Kidd? What matters the most is who your two best players are. If you replaced Klay Thompson with Zach LaVine, are you not picking the Warriors to repeat next season?

In a forgotten era of basketball where superstars didn't team up and join each other in FA, sure you could have seen that type of role for Lavine if the Bulls get two HOF producing either at the prime of their career or close to it. In an era where top end talent congregates together, no chance in hell does Lavine play that role on a team right now contending for a title.

The conversation about Lavine isn't his role on this team but his role on the next iteration of the Bulls. If the desire is to be more motion and more ball movement than that's not really Zach's game. He also is due a contract next summer that I don't see why the Bulls should be giving out if some team wants to sign him.

This is where we return to the idea that the Bulls are a freshly dumped jigsaw puzzle. We have no idea what the next really good version of the Bulls will look like. Once we do, a discussion about the type of offense and who fits will become more meaningful. But right now, what is there? I don't think LaVine is a bad fit on a team that moves the ball. LaVine is a good off-ball player.

Retaining LaVine simply comes down to not losing a 22-year-old SG with uber athleticism, efficient scoring and shooting ability. When you're rebuilding, why flush that away?[/quote]

He's singularly talented, not "makes others" talented. I think Lavine is super talented but tell how he's any different than JR Smith or Jamal Crawford were at the same age? And again, tell me what role those guys play/played on their teams that were contending for a title? Tell me what team had a score first/bad defense/combo guard as their third option and won a title? All these "who were the third options on well built teams" obscure the fact that those teams RELIED on a "greater than their sums" part of team building. The 2011 Mavericks or the 2014 Spurs would not have been made better replacing their two guards/third options with Zach Lavine.

[DanTown8587]

How many players were good defensive players at 21? When Jimmy Butler was 21 he was still in college and everyone on this board laughed at Scottie Pippen when he said Butler had all-star potential. When Isiah Thompson was 21 he was still in college and was the last pick in the draft. When Draymond Green was 21 he was in college and was picked late.When Klay Thompson was 21 he had a PER of 14.9. When Zach Lavine was 21 he had a PER of 14.6.

I don't know how good Lavine will be, or how well he'll recover from the ACL surgery, but he was super athletic, could shoot the three and everything that I've read about him says he's a hard worker. I don't know what else you could ask from the kid, and I think it's silly to make statements like, "he'll never be a all-star! He'll never be the 3rd best player on a championships team!"

Players three years in to the league do not all of the sudden become good defenders after three years of showing poor defense, regardless of age. Why was he not an elite defender last year under Thibs? What was he waiting for before the knee injury? Was he waiting for good coaching because Thibs was his coach. Was he waiting to play starter minutes because last year he did that?

Defense isn't offense where you all of the sudden, after years in the league, "add to your game" about your defense. Defense isn't a skill that is learned; it's simply how you always played the game. Those guys you listed weren't in the NBA but I bet at age 21, no matter where they played, they were great defenders.

This crap is so tired: Zach Lavine is a "breakout star" to some on this board simply because he's a Bull in the same vein that some thought Cameron Payne or others are just guys who need opportunity. Lavine isn't Payne because Lavine can actually play NBA basketball at a reasonable level but why does it have to be "I think Lavine has a huge leap in his game"? Why does every young and/or athletic player have to be on some ascension to another level? Why can't Lavine just be what Lavine is: a talented and athletic sixth man/combo guard scorer who on bad teams gets more numbers but on better ones will play less and shoot less?