Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do?

[JimmyJammer]

Interesting article from Cowley on the looming staredown:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/with-the-season-over-expect-the-bulls-and-zach-lavine-to-start-the-stare-down/

One dicey topic remains: the pending contract negotiations with soon-to-be restricted free agent Zach LaVine.

And Paxson wasn’t in a position to clear things up.

“Well, the market dictates a lot and how things go,’’ Paxson said. “I think the market has tightened up a little bit the last couple of years since the spike. We obviously value Zach a lot, and we think he’s a part of our future, but he has the opportunity to explore things.

“Gar will get with his agent at the appropriate time and begin discussions about that, and it will play out the way it will play out. But we think he fits the direction we’re going, and we have great faith in his ability that he’ll have a great summer in terms of his work and his improvement as a player, and we’ll see. It’s up in the air and not defined yet, but we’ll do it the way we feel is right, and we’ll have good communication with Zach and his agent.’’

Paxson’s right about the situation not being “defined’’ publicly.

Privately, things haven’t gotten contentious, but both sides have their feet firmly planted.

According to a source close to the situation, LaVine and his camp believe that if he isn’t a max player, he’s certainly close to it. The thinking is that he was the centerpiece of the Jimmy Butler trade with the Timberwolves and was a star attraction before his injury.

The feeling from the Bulls is that LaVine brings an athleticism they’ve missed for several years, but he needs serious work on his defense and still has to show consistency in his offensive game after tearing his anterior cruciate ligament.

Hence the expected stalemate.

None of that talk means much. I expect LaVine to sign a contract in the range of guys like Harris and Hardaway, with potential to be more based on incentives. We can incentivize his contract based on number of games played, making the all-star team, all-nba teams, playoffs appearance, etc. We can also sign him to a very short-term contract which will give an opportunity to him to establish his real value. Either of these options, I will be fine with.

I notice that there are some fans out here who are boldly advocating that we sign him to a cheap contract or none. It's not how it works and it's not how you build relationships with players and agents around the league. Since fair market value is going to be hard to establish, after having been injured, the best and fair strategy is to offer him a contract full of incentives that that can balloon up to his true value. This way, everyone ends up being happy.

[MalagaBulls]

Interesting article from Cowley on the looming staredown:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/with-the-season-over-expect-the-bulls-and-zach-lavine-to-start-the-stare-down/

One dicey topic remains: the pending contract negotiations with soon-to-be restricted free agent Zach LaVine.

And Paxson wasn’t in a position to clear things up.

“Well, the market dictates a lot and how things go,’’ Paxson said. “I think the market has tightened up a little bit the last couple of years since the spike. We obviously value Zach a lot, and we think he’s a part of our future, but he has the opportunity to explore things.

“Gar will get with his agent at the appropriate time and begin discussions about that, and it will play out the way it will play out. But we think he fits the direction we’re going, and we have great faith in his ability that he’ll have a great summer in terms of his work and his improvement as a player, and we’ll see. It’s up in the air and not defined yet, but we’ll do it the way we feel is right, and we’ll have good communication with Zach and his agent.’’

Paxson’s right about the situation not being “defined’’ publicly.

Privately, things haven’t gotten contentious, but both sides have their feet firmly planted.

According to a source close to the situation, LaVine and his camp believe that if he isn’t a max player, he’s certainly close to it. The thinking is that he was the centerpiece of the Jimmy Butler trade with the Timberwolves and was a star attraction before his injury.

The feeling from the Bulls is that LaVine brings an athleticism they’ve missed for several years, but he needs serious work on his defense and still has to show consistency in his offensive game after tearing his anterior cruciate ligament.

Hence the expected stalemate.

None of that talk means much. I expect LaVine to sign a contract in the range of guys like Harris and Hardaway, with potential to be more based on incentives. We can incentivize his contract based on number of games played, making the all-star team, all-nba teams, playoffs appearance, etc. We can also sign him to a very short-term contract which will give an opportunity to him to establish his real value. Either of these options, I will be fine with.

I notice that there are some fans out here who are boldly advocating that we sign him to a cheap contract or none. It's not how it works and it's not how you build relationships with players and agents around the league. Since fair market value is going to be hard to establish, after having been injured, the best and fair strategy is to offer him a contract full of incentives that that can balloon up to his true value. This way, everyone ends up being happy.

I understand your point but the article seems pretty clear that Pax will now let him go find out what his market value really is.

Enviado desde mi SM-A520F mediante Tapatalk

[sco]

Interesting article from Cowley on the looming staredown:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/with-the-season-over-expect-the-bulls-and-zach-lavine-to-start-the-stare-down/

One dicey topic remains: the pending contract negotiations with soon-to-be restricted free agent Zach LaVine.

And Paxson wasn’t in a position to clear things up.

“Well, the market dictates a lot and how things go,’’ Paxson said. “I think the market has tightened up a little bit the last couple of years since the spike. We obviously value Zach a lot, and we think he’s a part of our future, but he has the opportunity to explore things.

“Gar will get with his agent at the appropriate time and begin discussions about that, and it will play out the way it will play out. But we think he fits the direction we’re going, and we have great faith in his ability that he’ll have a great summer in terms of his work and his improvement as a player, and we’ll see. It’s up in the air and not defined yet, but we’ll do it the way we feel is right, and we’ll have good communication with Zach and his agent.’’

Paxson’s right about the situation not being “defined’’ publicly.

Privately, things haven’t gotten contentious, but both sides have their feet firmly planted.

According to a source close to the situation, LaVine and his camp believe that if he isn’t a max player, he’s certainly close to it. The thinking is that he was the centerpiece of the Jimmy Butler trade with the Timberwolves and was a star attraction before his injury.

The feeling from the Bulls is that LaVine brings an athleticism they’ve missed for several years, but he needs serious work on his defense and still has to show consistency in his offensive game after tearing his anterior cruciate ligament.

Hence the expected stalemate.

None of that talk means much. I expect LaVine to sign a contract in the range of guys like Harris and Hardaway, with potential to be more based on incentives. We can incentivize his contract based on number of games played, making the all-star team, all-nba teams, playoffs appearance, etc. We can also sign him to a very short-term contract which will give an opportunity to him to establish his real value. Either of these options, I will be fine with.

I notice that there are some fans out here who are boldly advocating that we sign him to a cheap contract or none. It's not how it works and it's not how you build relationships with players and agents around the league. Since fair market value is going to be hard to establish, after having been injured, the best and fair strategy is to offer him a contract full of incentives that that can balloon up to his true value. This way, everyone ends up being happy.

I understand your point but the article seems pretty clear that Pax will now let him go find out what his market value really is.

Enviado desde mi SM-A520F mediante Tapatalk

I am super excited by this. One of 4 things will happen:

1) Some team offers him $20M+ per year and we don't match. Fine. Save the dry powder for a FA.
2) Nobody offers him an attractive deal and he signs a prove it deal.
3) Nobody offers him an attractive deal and he signs a fair deal.
4) This is the problem one, but if someone offers him a $20M/year deal and we match, but I have faith that the FO won't let that happen.

2) is my preference, then 3) then 1 then 4), and I think that is also the order of likelihood.

[johnnyvann840]

I predict GarPax is going to ink LaVine to contract of $20+ million per year. Not even a question in my mind. I'm wondering if it will be $25+ million.

I sure hope you're wrong, because he's not even worth $2.5 million/yr. In fact, a player like he is at this point has negative value. You shouldn't want them on your team if they played for free. If the Bulls pay him anything near that they are idiots and deserve to lose for the next decade. A player that utterly stupid on the floor with such high usage, that plays no defense, is a death blow to any team and at that price it's organizational suicide. There is a reason he has been making his team worse when he's on the floor for 4 years now. Bulls need to be looking for high IQ, two way players and Lavine is the polar opposite of that.

Ok, you went a little bit overboard with him not worth even 2.5M per year.. he is worth around 8-10M per I think..and
im not his fan... on other things you wrote I agree ,90%.. YES,BULLS need high IQ BB players and team players!

He's not worth that as a player at this point unless you are trying to lose and improve your draft pick. He might be, as a "bet". Speculating that he figures things out by the time the team is ready to win. That doesn't happen that often because you can't fix stupid. And he is a low IQ, selfish player who has a four year record of being a net negative with just about every group of players you put him out there with. That is hard to do.

Look, I know a lot of people like to poo poo RPM, RAPM. and on/off numbers.I even agree on a game by game basis, but over long term with a huge sample size it has great meaning. Here's the thing, Zach is a negative impact player when he's out there. He might win you a few games here and there when he gets hot and his selfish play doesn't hurt his team. However, when you look at FOUR SEASONS worth of those numbers with so many variations of lineups and he still looks really really bad there, he is worth NOTHING, or has negative value.

So, I stand by my statement, because Zach the player that we have seen for the last four seasons is not worth a damn thing unless you are trying to be a .300 ish team that is tanking. In fact, he does have negative value and you shouldn't want a player like this on the floor.

[League Circles]

Jeff Van Gundy was on Waddle and Silvy yesterday and they pressed him for how much zach was worth. Silvy was asking if we should match a max offer (SMH). Eventually JVG said 11, 12, 13 million a year or so, which is less than half of the max. For a 5 year deal I'm starting at like 10 per year. For a 1+1 deal he can have what he wants.

Whatever he is paid, whether it's 26 million per year or 4 million, it's more likely to be am overpay than a good value IMO, but there is some huge upside I'd take a swing at at a deal starting at just above the MLE which is where I get the 10 mil figure from. I don't think he'll sign long term for under 16 per year minimum though, maybe more. People are dumb after all.

[chrispatrick]

I sure hope you're wrong, because he's not even worth $2.5 million/yr. In fact, a player like he is at this point has negative value. You shouldn't want them on your team if they played for free. If the Bulls pay him anything near that they are idiots and deserve to lose for the next decade. A player that utterly stupid on the floor with such high usage, that plays no defense, is a death blow to any team and at that price it's organizational suicide. There is a reason he has been making his team worse when he's on the floor for 4 years now. Bulls need to be looking for high IQ, two way players and Lavine is the polar opposite of that.

Ok, you went a little bit overboard with him not worth even 2.5M per year.. he is worth around 8-10M per I think..and
im not his fan... on other things you wrote I agree ,90%.. YES,BULLS need high IQ BB players and team players!

He's not worth that as a player at this point unless you are trying to lose and improve your draft pick. He might be, as a "bet". Speculating that he figures things out by the time the team is ready to win. That doesn't happen that often because you can't fix stupid. And he is a low IQ, selfish player who has a four year record of being a net negative with just about every group of players you put him out there with. That is hard to do.

Look, I know a lot of people like to poo poo RPM, RAPM. and on/off numbers.I even agree on a game by game basis, but over long term with a huge sample size it has great meaning. Here's the thing, Zach is a negative impact player when he's out there. He might win you a few games here and there when he gets hot and his selfish play doesn't hurt his team. However, when you look at FOUR SEASONS worth of those numbers with so many variations of lineups and he still looks really really bad there, he is worth NOTHING, or has negative value.

So, I stand by my statement, because Zach the player that we have seen for the last four seasons is not worth a damn thing unless you are trying to be a .300 ish team that is tanking. In fact, he does have negative value and you shouldn't want a player like this on the floor.

Very well put. Any money you are giving Zach is purely speculative for the reasons you mentioned.

If a player actively makes your team worse (and I can't fathom how it would be possible for LaVine to have put together stats over 4 years that could more clearly and very obviously state that he does, unless you're looking for him to start shooting in the opposing team's' hoop), what would make that player worth more than $2.5M?

I understand that he'll get more because of his shooting and physical tools, but the player he is currently is worthless as I can pick up a Nwaba type off the street who is just as good or better.

Instead of comparing LaVine to guys like Hardaway and Harris, we need to find other actively negative and terrible players to compare LaVine's worth to. Problem is it's difficult to find a player who has had a similarly terrible team impact.

[johnnyvann840]

Ok, you went a little bit overboard with him not worth even 2.5M per year.. he is worth around 8-10M per I think..and
im not his fan... on other things you wrote I agree ,90%.. YES,BULLS need high IQ BB players and team players!

He's not worth that as a player at this point unless you are trying to lose and improve your draft pick. He might be, as a "bet". Speculating that he figures things out by the time the team is ready to win. That doesn't happen that often because you can't fix stupid. And he is a low IQ, selfish player who has a four year record of being a net negative with just about every group of players you put him out there with. That is hard to do.

Look, I know a lot of people like to poo poo RPM, RAPM. and on/off numbers.I even agree on a game by game basis, but over long term with a huge sample size it has great meaning. Here's the thing, Zach is a negative impact player when he's out there. He might win you a few games here and there when he gets hot and his selfish play doesn't hurt his team. However, when you look at FOUR SEASONS worth of those numbers with so many variations of lineups and he still looks really really bad there, he is worth NOTHING, or has negative value.

So, I stand by my statement, because Zach the player that we have seen for the last four seasons is not worth a damn thing unless you are trying to be a .300 ish team that is tanking. In fact, he does have negative value and you shouldn't want a player like this on the floor.

Very well put. Any money you are giving Zach is purely speculative for the reasons you mentioned.

If a player actively makes your team worse (and I can't fathom how it would be possible for LaVine to have put together stats over 4 years that could more clearly and very obviously state that he does, unless you're looking for him to start shooting in the opposing team's' hoop), what would make that player worth more than $2.5M?

I understand that he'll get more because of his shooting and physical tools, but the player he is currently is worthless as I can pick up a Nwaba type off the street who is just as good or better.

Instead of comparing LaVine to guys like Hardaway and Harris, we need to find other actively negative and terrible players to compare LaVine's worth to. Problem is it's difficult to find a player who has had a similarly terrible team impact.

It's hard to be an efficient scorer, good 3 pt shooter, and still be a negative. It either means you are such a detriment to what your team is doing on D, and/or you are so selfish and low IQ, at the same time, that you kill any semblance of team play. Problem with Zach is that when he is on the floor his usage is alarming and when your scoreboard correlated stat line is that bad, it's really hard to overcome. You can't.

Zach has only really been efficient for one short stretch of his career though, it was in Minnesota, and didn't last long (47 game sample). Other than that, he is a fairly low efficient scorer, overall and one of the worst defenders in the league at his position. He has had four season and has not reached a PER over 15.

[DanTown8587]

He's not worth that as a player at this point unless you are trying to lose and improve your draft pick. He might be, as a "bet". Speculating that he figures things out by the time the team is ready to win. That doesn't happen that often because you can't fix stupid. And he is a low IQ, selfish player who has a four year record of being a net negative with just about every group of players you put him out there with. That is hard to do.

Look, I know a lot of people like to poo poo RPM, RAPM. and on/off numbers.I even agree on a game by game basis, but over long term with a huge sample size it has great meaning. Here's the thing, Zach is a negative impact player when he's out there. He might win you a few games here and there when he gets hot and his selfish play doesn't hurt his team. However, when you look at FOUR SEASONS worth of those numbers with so many variations of lineups and he still looks really really bad there, he is worth NOTHING, or has negative value.

So, I stand by my statement, because Zach the player that we have seen for the last four seasons is not worth a damn thing unless you are trying to be a .300 ish team that is tanking. In fact, he does have negative value and you shouldn't want a player like this on the floor.

Very well put. Any money you are giving Zach is purely speculative for the reasons you mentioned.

If a player actively makes your team worse (and I can't fathom how it would be possible for LaVine to have put together stats over 4 years that could more clearly and very obviously state that he does, unless you're looking for him to start shooting in the opposing team's' hoop), what would make that player worth more than $2.5M?

I understand that he'll get more because of his shooting and physical tools, but the player he is currently is worthless as I can pick up a Nwaba type off the street who is just as good or better.

Instead of comparing LaVine to guys like Hardaway and Harris, we need to find other actively negative and terrible players to compare LaVine's worth to. Problem is it's difficult to find a player who has had a similarly terrible team impact.

It's hard to be an efficient scorer, good 3 pt shooter, and still be a negative. It either means you are such a detriment to what your team is doing on D, and/or you are so selfish and low IQ, at the same time, that you kill any semblance of team play. Problem with Zach is that when he is on the floor his usage is alarming and when your scoreboard correlated stat line is that bad, it's really hard to overcome. You can't.

Zach has only really been efficient for one short stretch of his career though, it was in Minnesota, and didn't last long (47 game sample). Other than that, he is a fairly low efficient scorer, overall and one of the worst defenders in the league at his position. He has had four season and has not reached a PER over 15.

Zach scoring average / TS% by month last year in Minny

October (2 games) - 20.0 / .626
November (15) - 19.7 / .574
December (15) - 19.7 / .625
January - (15) - 14.2 / .521
February (2) - 14.0 / .433

The argument this guy should get a large deal is due to a 30 game stretch before he tore his ACL. Literally at no other point in his career has he ever done anything close to that level of volume + efficiency and the best part is that his team wasn't even playing that well DURING THE STRETCH HE DID. This team just watched Niko play a crazy 25 game stretch and every fan would likely say "well this him playing really well" but now with Zach it's like "well he had those good 30 games and still looks athletic after the injury so let's gamble everything on him".

[League Circles]

I can only hope that the Bulls realize he's a detriment at any real money and are posturing to either get a long term super cheap deal like 10 mil per or preferably sign and trade him.

[nomorezorro]

i doubt the bulls would hold out for that. i'd be surprised if they blinked at anything above 4/80, if he could bring back a contract at that level.

i think we have to bank on the market being really cool on him if we want to sign him to a reasonable deal. i think the likely best case scenario from a team flexibility perspective would be getting him on a 3 year, 45 million contract - something that locks him in if he breaks out but isn't too long or burdensome to move if he's just a scorer.

(well, the best case scenario might be not resigning him. but i don't think that's likely, and not necessarily prudent — the bulls are financially situated to swing and miss on lavine as long as we don't give him too much for too many years)

[Chi town]

So let’s say Zach walks... we don’t match.

Do we sign Buddy’s Hield? Dante Exum?

Who is the replacement? Val doesn’t count.

[GimmeDat]

Our initial thoughts when he came back was he physically looked great, but imo he looked distinctly less speedy and laboured a ton more on his dunks. Maybe it's because he added some mass, more likely it was ACL-related imo. His shooting was down across the board but the biggest difference was in his finishing at the rim - I'll have to go and look for more specific stats, but in terms of 2pt%, the previous 2 seasons ~50% from 2PT FG's, this year 40%.

He's 22, recently came off major injury. I was disappointed with his play like everyone else. But we're talking about his upside like it's this mythical ceiling that he's never demonstrated, when really, the majority of improvements that would bring him up to 'value' with a 13-15m contract is simply returning to the form that he had previously at age 20/21. Anything on top of that is gravy.

When a scorer isn't hitting shots efficiently, he feels like a straight up liability, and he was this season. But a 20+ scorer on above average efficiency is another story.

It's all a risk, but it's clearly one the Bulls are committed to, and it does have its upside imo.

[Leslie Forman]

He's 22, recently came off major injury. I was disappointed with his play like everyone else. But we're talking about his upside like it's this mythical ceiling that he's never demonstrated, when really, the majority of improvements that would bring him up to 'value' with a 13-15m contract is simply returning to the form that he had previously at age 20/21. Anything on top of that is gravy.

He was really not a $15million guy even when he was shooting well. His game was closer to a Nick Young than a Klay Thompson.

He could have become a Klay Thompson if he kept progressing but the ACL screwed that up. Watching him play it looks like he just doesn't really have the mindset for that either.

I can see why Thibs hesitated to give him up two years ago, but was plenty willing to give him up last year. It was the right call.

[pipfan]

He is a name player, which counts. He helps the image of the team

Also, he seems like he is connected with other players around the league, which could help in FA

[Onibuh]

I'd match any offer tbh. I don't see a 20+ Million contract.
It'll come down to 70 Million for 4 yrs or something that neighborhood.

[dice]

He is a name player, which counts. He helps the image of the team

Also, he seems like he is connected with other players around the league, which could help in FA

you just described a poor man's dwyane wade

[sco]

I'd match any offer tbh. I don't see a 20+ Million contract.
It'll come down to 70 Million for 4 yrs or something that neighborhood.

You know the funny thing. I have a hard time deciding if I'd prefer the Bulls pay him $70m for 3, 4 or 5 years. 3 years is a ton of money, but if he sucks or gets injured, we're out sooner.

[chrispatrick]

So let’s say Zach walks... we don’t match.

Do we sign Buddy’s Hield? Dante Exum?

Who is the replacement? Val doesn’t count.

I'm not sure why we should care who the replacement is. Our goal right now is to build assets, not a complete basketball team and unless you feel Hield or Exum is a potential key piece to our future (I don't), then whoever fills LaVine's spot is irrelevant for now.

The best we can probably do is instead of signing a bad player to a bad contract in LaVine, we'd be better off using that space to take back someone else's bad contract/bad player along with a draft pick for our troubles. Why sign your own crappy contracts when you can get rewarded for taking someone else's?

[xpmar9x]

So let’s say Zach walks... we don’t match.

Do we sign Buddy’s Hield? Dante Exum?

Who is the replacement? Val doesn’t count.

RJ Barrett.

[sco]

So let’s say Zach walks... we don’t match.

Do we sign Buddy’s Hield? Dante Exum?

Who is the replacement? Val doesn’t count.

RJ Barrett.

I would sign Nwaba and let him start. It would allow us to go with an offense-oriented SF like Porter.