Image ImageImage Image

Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do?

Moderators: HomoSapien, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat

User avatar
RedBulls23
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 38,275
And1: 21,232
Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Location: Waiting in Grant Park
       

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#161 » by RedBulls23 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:32 pm

Klomp wrote:
RedBulls23 wrote:
Klomp wrote:There were never attitude questions in Minnesota, and he's always been a gym rat. Flip Saunders saw that when he drafted LaVine, even if others didn't.

Talking about before the draft. I remember reading about people questioning him there.

This was Flip Saunders right after drafting him:

But ultimately when he came in here, what impressed me was his size. He’s 6-5 1/2, possibly 6-6 and can grow because he’s so young. That’s really going to help him. He’s really got ball skills. He’s not just a guy that can run and jump and can only dribble the ball one dribble, two dribbles. He can handle the ball, he can shoot, and more than anything else he’s a gym rat. He loves to get into the gym. If you can take a guy that has some athleticism and has some skills and is willing to put the time in to develop those skills even more, you really have something special.

http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/2014/06/26/post-nba-draft-transcript-from-zach-lavine-minnesota-coach-flip-saunders/

Again I'm not talking about what Minny thought of him. I remember reading possible attitude issues before/during the combines and draft evaluations. Obviously those were wrong, and he proved it by being a hard worker.
My Tweets:@Salim_BGhoops
rowseyna
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 864
Joined: Jan 10, 2017
   

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#162 » by rowseyna » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:42 pm

dice wrote:
rowseyna wrote:
dice wrote:dennis schroeder is nowhere near starting material in the national basketball association. he's no better than MCW, who we just took out with the trash and who signed a 2.7 mil deal for the coming season

that schroeder/lavine backcourt would get carved up like thanksgiving turkey


Bro, you're certifiably insane. Schroder is 24 and just one year ago earned a four-year, $70M contract. LOL!

which was a mistake

not a good shooter, turns the ball over like it's going out of style, doesn't defend. how much more bad do you want in a point guard?

roflcopter
He averaged 18 and 6 last year as a 23-year-old and made Jeff Teague expendable in ATL

and how did that work out for the hawks?

6 assists for a point guard is not good. citing points w/o percentages is a half-baked argument. and believe it or not, 23 year olds w/ 4 years experience don't tend to have much upside left

Comparing him to MCW is patently ridiculous and honestly doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

you really don't give a rat's ass about defense, do you? that little team you put together is a derrick favors injury away from being perhaps the worst defensive team in the history of the league


He shot 45.1% FG, 34% 3P, 49.3% eFG, 85.5% FT, and 53.3% TS last year. He is a good shooter. And plenty of guys who handle the ball as much as Schroder does turn the ball over.

Schroder averaged 3.3 TOVPG last year and averages 2.3 TOVPG for his career. That comes out to 3.7 TOVP36. His TOV% last year was 16.3% (17.2% for his career).

James Harden averaged 5.7 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.7 P36 last year and 3.6 P36 for his career. TOV% was 19.5% last year (15.5% for his career).

Russell Westbrook averaged 5.4 TOVPG last year and averages 3.9 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.6 P36 last year and 4.1 P36 for his career. TOV% was 15.9% last year (15.6% for his career).

John Wall averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.8 TOVPG for his career. That was 4.1 P36 last year and 3.8 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.2% last year (17.4% for his career).

LeBron James averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 3.9 P36 last year and 3.2 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.1% last year (12.8% for his career).

Schroder's TOVs aren't a major issue.

And trying to blame the Hawks' overall struggles last year on Schroder is absurd. 16.1 PER, 53.3% TS, 3.7 WS, .071 WS/48, .8 VORP.

And 6.3 AST in 31.5 MIN is good. He was 16th in the entire NBA in APG! He was 13th in AST%! Do you even look this stuff up before writing it? I cited his points and now in this comment I've cited his percentages. Both are very good. And yeah, I think he has a lot of upside left. Most all NBA players improve after age 23...
rowseyna
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 864
Joined: Jan 10, 2017
   

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#163 » by rowseyna » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:57 pm

dice wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
dice wrote::noway:

gary harris is MUCH better than lavine. and he still didn't get close to the max


No he isn't. Harris has become a solid player, but he's severely overrated here largely because of the disappointment of the McDermott trade. He has similar numbers as LaVine across the board and both have been zeroes defensively. The difference is, LaVine clearly has better tools that translate into higher upside.

LaVine averaged 18.9 ppg with a 57.6 TS% last season on a higher usage % (21.7) than any month of Harris' season. LaVine has actually showed that he can put up big numbers as a focal point of an offense and now his role is only going to grow here.

I'm not saying that LaVine is a max player. I'm saying that eventually Chicago is going to have to pony up significant money for a young player based on his upside. This team can't use the mentality that they won't unless it's a true young star.

this is pretty much completely false

1) lavine was not the focal point of anything. he was a DISTANT 3rd in usage
2) harris is better than lavine both scoring and defending
3) you cited lavine's nice partial season scoring numbers without putting up harris's better FULL season numbers. while completely ignoring the horrible reason WHY lavine's number's were only for a partial season
4) none of this has anything to do with doug mcdermott. if anything, we're overrating zach lavine in the wake of the failed mcdermott experiment more than we're overrating gary harris. we now have not only passing on lavine in favor of mcdermott as a reason to overrate lavine, but now we're desperate to justify the jimmy butler trade and have some semblance of hope for the future!

does lavine have a bit more remaining upside? yeah, probably. but just a bit. this idea that lavine somehow has huge upside is basically completely made up by youtube watchers. he's the same athlete that he was when he came out of college. if he had huge upside he would have been drafted MUCH higher. he doesn't and he wasn't. GMs love to gamble on upside in the draft and they didn't with lavine. one after another passed on him. he was considered to have similar upside to elfrid payton, who could start a brick-laying business on the side. everyone knew that payton was a great athlete who would never be a great pro. same as lavine. and now we have 3 years of EVIDENCE that lavine will never be a great player. it took huge improvement after a god-awful rookie season to get him back to that PRE-DRAFT opinion of what he can be as a pro. PLUS we now have more evidence that he is a huge injury risk. so NOW he suddenly has big upside? what on earth could bring you to that conclusion? it's beyond any rational line of thinking

i'd say lavine fulfilling his remaining upside would put him at the level of, oh...let's say gary harris

paying lavine big bucks without a highly unlikely big improvement this season is basically saying "we really don't want to stink for long, so we're content to ASPIRE to 'pretty good' for the forseeable future." which is exactly the line of thinking that bulls management has been criticized for endlessly for years. no, we didn't have to give ben gordon a big contract. and no, we wouldn't have to give zach lavine a big contract


Or... he might have a ton of remaining upside. You have no idea. But considering his age/youth, extreme athleticism, and excellent shooting ability, he probably has quite a bit more upside. Citing where he was drafted is idiotic and has no relevance at this point. Seriously, quickest way to lose an argument is bringing up a guy during his draft... four years ago. And you can't have evidence for something that will or won't happen in the future... You should sit a few plays out.
rowseyna
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 864
Joined: Jan 10, 2017
   

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#164 » by rowseyna » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:16 pm

dice wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
dice wrote:this is pretty much completely false

1) lavine was not the focal point of anything. he was a DISTANT 3rd in usage
2) harris is better than lavine both scoring and defending
3) you cited lavine's nice partial season scoring numbers without putting up harris's better FULL season numbers. while completely ignoring the horrible reason WHY lavine's number's were only for a partial season
4) none of this has anything to do with doug mcdermott. if anything, we're overrating zach lavine in the wake of the failed mcdermott experiment more than we're overrating gary harris. we now have not only passing on lavine in favor of mcdermott as a reason to overrate lavine, but now we're desperate to justify the jimmy butler trade and have some semblance of hope for the future!


Harris has never operated with a Usage Rate above 20%. He's a solid complimentary player

lavine will never be better than that

LaVine has definitely showed more in terms of producing as a focal point and creating offense

having the ball in your hands more does not necessarily make you a better player

Harris merely has a higher floor, because he's not recovering from an ACL injury and scores more efficiently on lower volume. I don't care who's better at defending. Both of their teams have been better defensively with them off the floor for the past three seasons.

well that's just irrational. if you were a coach would you say to a player "don't bother improving your defense because you'll never be a good defender"? you would not be employed for long

and by the way, the greatest unfulfilled potential of either of the two players is gary harris on the defensive end. so not only is harris currently better, but he has the greater potential for improvement by becoming a better defender

does lavine have a bit more remaining upside? yeah, probably. but just a bit. this idea that lavine somehow has huge upside is basically completely made up by youtube watchers. he's the same athlete that he was when he came out of college. if he had huge upside he would have been drafted MUCH higher.


This is like saying "If Jimmy Butler really had all-star upside, he would have been drafted much higher." Things change in the NBA and GM's get stuff wrong all the time. LaVine's upside isn't bogus. He's 6'5, an elite athlete, with handles and above-average shooting ability. If he puts it all together, it's not hard to see him becoming an all-star level player.

except that NOTHING has changed with lavine except the injury risk. same perceived upside he's always had. which is not a huge amount. same height, same handles, same above-average shooting ability that he had coming out of college


You can't say whether LaVine will ever be better than a complimentary player or not. Just saying he'll never be that isn't an argument. It's just an opinion with no backing.

And he never said anything about not trying to improve defense. It's just that both guys are poor defenders and there's no way of saying one will improve and one won't. You talk about Harris' unfulfilled defensive potential, but with no basis. It's a poor, not convincing argument with no backing.

And to say nothing has changed with LaVine is wrong and short-sighted. Just because something hasn't changed doesn't mean it won't. But to say nothing has changed with Zach since being drafted is flat-out wrong and we can't even discuss or argue it because once again you have no backing for your statement in the first place.
rowseyna
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 864
Joined: Jan 10, 2017
   

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#165 » by rowseyna » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:23 pm

dice wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
dice wrote:lavine will never be better than that


I'm not trying to convince you what LaVine will or won't be. I didn't believe Tyrus Thomas would be a great player, but it wasn't debateable that he had that type of upside.

yes, tyrus had big upside. according to all professional scouts. lavine reasonably does not. according to all professional scouts

having the ball in your hands more does not necessarily make you a better player


It doesn't. But, he has better numbers with the ball in his hands and still scores at exceptional efficiency

he has better numbers with the ball in his hands? what does that mean? players do not put up numbers WITHOUT the ball in their hands, do they?

and lavine's efficiency is hardly exceptional. it's above average. HARRIS's is exceptional [going by last season for both players]

well that's just irrational. if you were a coach would you say to a player "don't bother improving your defense because you'll never be a good defender"? you would not be employed for long


That's not what my point was at all. My point was that up to this point, neither have been pluses on defense, so a comparison between the two largely boils down to offense, which LaVine is better at

harris has been better both on offense and defense

and by the way, the greatest unfulfilled potential of either of the two players is gary harris on the defensive end. so not only is harris currently better, but he has the greater potential for improvement by becoming a better defender


Harris' defensive potential is not any higher than LaVine's. Both have been zeroes on defense through 3 seasons.

harris's defense has been better than lavine's. please don't make me say it for a fourth time

except that NOTHING has changed with lavine except the injury risk. same perceived upside he's always had. which is not a huge amount. same height, same handles, same above-average shooting ability that he had coming out of college


LaVine's scoring efficiency has increased each season while maintaining a usage rate above 21%. That's significant.

that doesn't contradict what i said. his efficiency was horrendous as a rookie and now he's back up to the modest upside potential that scouts thought he had to begin with. the scouts have been proven correct thus far on zach lavine


Just STOP! You're presenting like the worst arguments ever on this site. Everyone thinks (and has throught since before the draft) that LaVine has/had tremendous upside. Where the hell are you seeing "all of these professional scouts" who don't think that?

For starters, LaVine is a year younger than Harris. So keep that in mind. Compare both of them at the same age (their age-21 seasons):

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Gary+Harris&player_id1_select=Gary+Harris&y1=2016&player_id1=harriga01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Zach+LaVine&player_id2_select=Zach+LaVine&y2=2017&player_id2=lavinza01&idx=players

LaVine was more efficient at the same age.

You say Harris is better on both ends. Again, with no backing. Your arguments essentially amount to "nuh-uh" and "yes-huh". Back up what you're saying. If Harris' defense is so much better, prove it. You just keep repeating it like a parrot.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,495
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#166 » by dice » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:45 pm

GimmeDat wrote:
dice wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:

yes, he's highly athletic. and all draftees have significant potential to continue to improove. obviously

His elite level, explosive athletic ability makes him an eye-opening player, and his jump shot and upside add more fuel to the fire

again, it's not disputable that he's highly athletic. nor that he has shooting ability. nor that he has "upside" (which all draftees do)

He will require patience, but few in this draft have as much long term potential ... Look for him to be a certain 1st round pick , with a chance to jump up into the lottery ...

"chance to jump into the lottery" does not indicate much confidence in a particularly high upside

the team drafting him...putting him in position to reach his lofty potential a few years from now.

this is the one reference to how high his potential could be. 'lofty.' oversell? if the opinions of nba front offices are any indication, probably so. unfortunately, we are now "a few years from now" and there is as of yet no indication that he's headed anywhere lofty. particularly after the ACL thing

to reiterate, certainly he could continue to improve offensively. he could even start playing respectable defense. then again, he might never again be as good as he was last season. and the latter scenario might be more likely than the former

an extension for zach lavine is far from an exciting proposition for me. if the reports is true that the FO is already intent on getting that done, god help us. yeah, let's give garpax a few more years of rope to see if that gamble pays off

Image

the zach plan!


You're clearly being disingenuous by this point dice, I'm questioning why I engaged with you in the first place.

Whether we should extend him or not is a fine debate to have, but to suggest LaVine was not flagged as having high upside, as an example, is just silly. Just because he wasn't a top pick doesn't mean he doesn't have high potential - potential is not the end all be all for teams selecting. Every year boom/bust picks fall in the draft. As I've already pointed out, he went where he did because he barely produced in college.

you gave me one reference to high upside: 'lofty'. that's it. I acknowledged it. so don't accuse me of being disingenuous. because I have no reason to be

again, players with genuinely high upside don't just sneak into the lotto. and plenty of players who don't produce in college still go very high. including some who barely play at all. the reasonable ceiling for Zach lavine has always been good scorer/decent playmaker. which he showed flashes of this past season. and the general reaction when we got acquired him along with a better pick in this past year's draft for a guy who has actually ACHIEVED high upside: "what the **** is this ****?!" and now after the resignation has set in and we try to forget about what we gave up, it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,376
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#167 » by DuckIII » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:03 pm

dice wrote:again, players with genuinely high upside don't just sneak into the lotto.


That's definitely an overstatement. High upside players do sneak into the lotto and indeed are drafted outside of the lottery at times. Its happened all throughout NBA history. I don't mean that its the norm. Obviously the players with the highest projected upsides typically go higher in the lottery. But its not terribly uncommon for a player acknowledged as having boom or bust potential to go outside of the lottery or fall into the late lottery.

And though I'm not going to scour the internet for confirmation, since I really don't care enough to do it because Lavine will be whatever he is and what he was projected to be is irrelevant, Lavine was one of those players. He's they guy I wanted in that draft, and I remember the reports and the perception that he was a vastly talented player, but there were concerns as to whether or not he'd ever be able to polish that potential into high end production.

it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


The thing you are ignoring is that if Lavine returns healthy, continues to show improvement, and is signed to an extension, those things in no way prohibit the Bulls from acquiring other "real players."

Extending Lavine is as close to a non-issue as you can get, given the circumstances of the team. We aren't looking at a Derrick Rose situation where an extension gone wrong can quite literally ruin the organization for 5-10 years. A Lavine extension failing to work out would constitute a minor annoyance.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,495
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#168 » by dice » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:04 pm

rowseyna wrote:
dice wrote:
rowseyna wrote:
Bro, you're certifiably insane. Schroder is 24 and just one year ago earned a four-year, $70M contract. LOL!

which was a mistake

not a good shooter, turns the ball over like it's going out of style, doesn't defend. how much more bad do you want in a point guard?

roflcopter
He averaged 18 and 6 last year as a 23-year-old and made Jeff Teague expendable in ATL

and how did that work out for the hawks?

6 assists for a point guard is not good. citing points w/o percentages is a half-baked argument. and believe it or not, 23 year olds w/ 4 years experience don't tend to have much upside left

Comparing him to MCW is patently ridiculous and honestly doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

you really don't give a rat's ass about defense, do you? that little team you put together is a derrick favors injury away from being perhaps the worst defensive team in the history of the league


He shot 45.1% FG, 34% 3P, 49.3% eFG, 85.5% FT, and 53.3% TS last year. He is a good shooter. And plenty of guys who handle the ball as much as Schroder does turn the ball over.

he is a good FREE THROW shooter. all those other %s are very mediocre. and his assist to turnover ratio is pathetic

Schroder averaged 3.3 TOVPG last year and averages 2.3 TOVPG for his career. That comes out to 3.7 TOVP36. His TOV% last year was 16.3% (17.2% for his career).

James Harden averaged 5.7 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.7 P36 last year and 3.6 P36 for his career. TOV% was 19.5% last year (15.5% for his career)

Russell Westbrook averaged 5.4 TOVPG last year and averages 3.9 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.6 P36 last year and 4.1 P36 for his career. TOV% was 15.9% last year (15.6% for his career).

you realize that you just compared Schroeder's turnovers to 2 guys who shattered league records for turnovers last season, right? in an effort to show that he really doesn't turn the ball over much? seriously?

and both of those guys are elite score-first combo guards, which is hardly the dennis schroeder prototype

LeBron James averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 3.9 P36 last year and 3.2 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.1% last year (12.8% for his career).

another guy who carries an offense...and even further from schroederesque

John Wall averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.8 TOVPG for his career. That was 4.1 P36 last year and 3.8 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.2% last year (17.4% for his career).

the most reasonable comparison of the bunch

And trying to blame the Hawks' overall struggles last year on Schroder is absurd.

I did no such thing. you're inventing things in your mind now

And 6.3 AST in 31.5 MIN is good. He was 16th in the entire NBA in APG! He was 13th in AST%! Do you even look this stuff up before writing it?

I said it wasn't very good. do you consider 6 assists per game to be very good? it's ok, but it's not something you cite to support an argument that a guy's a really good player. particularly not when he turns the ball over a lot

show me where he ranks in assist to turnover ratio, which is the gold standard of statistics for point guards

And yeah, I think he has a lot of upside left. Most all NBA players improve after age 23...

not much. not much at all
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,495
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#169 » by dice » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:07 pm

DuckIII wrote:
it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


The thing you are ignoring is that if Lavine returns healthy, continue to show improvement, and is signed to an extension, those things in now way inhibit the Bulls from acquiring other "real players."

that's obviously false. it would cost us a potentially excellent player in free agency

A Lavine extension failing to work out would constitute a minor annoyance.

which I've acknowledged, assuming the team will continue to stink for the next 5 seasons. hell, give portis $15 mil a year too
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
MalagaBulls
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,664
And1: 1,896
Joined: Dec 15, 2013
Location: Malaga, Spain (Where the Sun shines 300 days a year))
         

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#170 » by MalagaBulls » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:15 pm

So, barring a last minute miracle for LaVine, it does indeed look like the FO will wait until next off season to work on an extension. Makes sense that they do go this route.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,376
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#171 » by DuckIII » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:19 pm

dice wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


The thing you are ignoring is that if Lavine returns healthy, continue to show improvement, and is signed to an extension, those things in now way inhibit the Bulls from acquiring other "real players."

that's obviously false. it would cost us a potentially excellent player in free agency


You mean if we had three young all-stars all duking it out for our free agency dollars? :lol:

The cap is very, very high. Lavine's contract, almost without any regard to what it is, isn't going to meaningfully inhibit free agency for a rebuilding team.

A Lavine extension failing to work out would constitute a minor annoyance.

which I've acknowledged, assuming the team will continue to stink for the next 5 seasons. hell, give portis $15 mil a year too


Pretty big difference between Portis and Lavine, for a wide variety of reasons. So, nah, I don't think that would be a very good idea.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
Chicagoat
Pro Prospect
Posts: 966
And1: 979
Joined: Jan 12, 2017
 

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#172 » by Chicagoat » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:20 pm

MalagaBulls wrote:So, barring a last minute miracle for LaVine, it does indeed look like the FO will wait until next off season to work on an extension. Makes sense that they do go this route.

Yeah pretty much. We can't afford another Rose situation. But LaVine situation does seem different so hopefully he can remain healthy and we can sign him to a friendly deal next off season barring any insane offers from other teams.

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app
AKME? More like MEAK with how they're afraid to make a move to push us in one direction.

Continuity :banghead: :banghead:
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,376
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#173 » by DuckIII » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:21 pm

MalagaBulls wrote:So, barring a last minute miracle for LaVine, it does indeed look like the FO will wait until next off season to work on an extension. Makes sense that they do go this route.


I don't know how you can sign a player to an extension while he's out with an ACL injury. I don't know if the CBA prohibits extensions during the season, but if he comes back healthy, looks good, and would take a discount in exchange for security, I'd extend him mid season without blinking.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,745
And1: 33,376
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#174 » by DuckIII » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:22 pm

Chicagoat wrote:
MalagaBulls wrote:So, barring a last minute miracle for LaVine, it does indeed look like the FO will wait until next off season to work on an extension. Makes sense that they do go this route.

Yeah pretty much. We can't afford another Rose situation.


There is absolutely no way extending Lavine would create the kind of devastation caused by Rose's injury/extension. Its just not possible.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
gardenofsound
Starter
Posts: 2,471
And1: 1,764
Joined: Aug 25, 2010
 

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#175 » by gardenofsound » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:22 pm

dice wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


The thing you are ignoring is that if Lavine returns healthy, continue to show improvement, and is signed to an extension, those things in now way inhibit the Bulls from acquiring other "real players."

that's obviously false. it would cost us a potentially excellent player in free agency

A Lavine extension failing to work out would constitute a minor annoyance.

which I've acknowledged, assuming the team will continue to stink for the next 5 seasons. hell, give portis $15 mil a year too


The Bulls are still going to need to hit the salary floor. It's still going to be a couple of seasons before they're major players in free agency.
realEAST
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,775
And1: 1,311
Joined: Mar 25, 2016
   

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#176 » by realEAST » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:24 pm

dice wrote:
GimmeDat wrote:
dice wrote:yes, he's highly athletic. and all draftees have significant potential to continue to improove. obviously


again, it's not disputable that he's highly athletic. nor that he has shooting ability. nor that he has "upside" (which all draftees do)


"chance to jump into the lottery" does not indicate much confidence in a particularly high upside


this is the one reference to how high his potential could be. 'lofty.' oversell? if the opinions of nba front offices are any indication, probably so. unfortunately, we are now "a few years from now" and there is as of yet no indication that he's headed anywhere lofty. particularly after the ACL thing

to reiterate, certainly he could continue to improve offensively. he could even start playing respectable defense. then again, he might never again be as good as he was last season. and the latter scenario might be more likely than the former

an extension for zach lavine is far from an exciting proposition for me. if the reports is true that the FO is already intent on getting that done, god help us. yeah, let's give garpax a few more years of rope to see if that gamble pays off

Image

the zach plan!


You're clearly being disingenuous by this point dice, I'm questioning why I engaged with you in the first place.

Whether we should extend him or not is a fine debate to have, but to suggest LaVine was not flagged as having high upside, as an example, is just silly. Just because he wasn't a top pick doesn't mean he doesn't have high potential - potential is not the end all be all for teams selecting. Every year boom/bust picks fall in the draft. As I've already pointed out, he went where he did because he barely produced in college.

you gave me one reference to high upside: 'lofty'. that's it. I acknowledged it. so don't accuse me of being disingenuous. because I have no reason to be

again, players with genuinely high upside don't just sneak into the lotto. and plenty of players who don't produce in college still go very high. including some who barely play at all. the reasonable ceiling for Zach lavine has always been good scorer/decent playmaker. which he showed flashes of this past season. and the general reaction when we got acquired him along with a better pick in this past year's draft for a guy who has actually ACHIEVED high upside: "what the **** is this ****?!" and now after the resignation has set in and we try to forget about what we gave up, it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


just my two cents here: dice, I think you are unintentionally making a "mistake" when saying that LaVine had underwhelming rookie season after being touted as high ceiling project, and that expectations of his potential fell after that, yet he resurrected them with improvement in 2nd and 3rd season (preACL).

In fact, his first season was never considered major disappointment (maybe for those who expected he is going to be better playmaker at 19 years old than Rubio), it only showed he is hardly going to be a full time PG. Nobody realistically expected much from him and he delivered where it was expected. That is definition of high upside guy - one who doesn't necessarily burst onto the scene, but has longer development path, while making big strides season to season. So yes, people had reason to get excited when he was scoring with higher efficiency than Wiggins last two seasons.

As for the Draft being telling, and high upside guys not sneaking into lotto just two distinct and recent examples: 1: Giannis, Leonard - MVP candidates now, exceptional physical specimens who were selected late lottery or even out mostly due to their physical profile and high upside potential, and realized it. With Giannis especially it was public discussion with lot of people probably switching to crow meat for years to come.
Giannis, 1st season: 25min, 7p, 4r, 2a. Leonard: 24min, 8p, 5r, 1a, 1s.
(now, not saying LaVine ever gets to their level, but these are MVP candidates we are talking about)

The other one would be Hamidou Diallo this year, crazy athlete, who didn't get picked only on his physical profile so he switched to 2018. Despite his upside, there were just too much questions around his skill level.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,214
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#177 » by League Circles » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:28 pm

Worth noting that Lavine's essential max is 25% of the cap. There is no chance to get a great player for 25% of the max, as the only guys who, if they are great, are limited to 25%, are RFAs that will be matched. So the opportunity cost is really a little older player (7-9 year vet) who is about 85% of max (a guy eligible for 30% of cap max), or an older yet (10+ year) guy who is about 70% of max (eligible for 35% of cap max). Guys getting 70-85% of max are often average to slightly above average starters. Which is kinda what Lavine seems like. Difference being, a guy his age is more likely to actually be worth the deal over the course of it, whereas a 7+ year vet probably isn't due to age.

I just don't see the downside in offering him a one year max extension witha team option for year 2. Maybe that contract isn't allowed by the CBA. But long term, I'd give him only 15 per year now. If he plays better than i expect, next summer I'd potentially go much higher. Maybe even "max" (which is really only about 70% of real max).
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
rowseyna
Veteran
Posts: 2,654
And1: 864
Joined: Jan 10, 2017
   

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#178 » by rowseyna » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:29 pm

dice wrote:
rowseyna wrote:
dice wrote:which was a mistake

not a good shooter, turns the ball over like it's going out of style, doesn't defend. how much more bad do you want in a point guard?

roflcopter

and how did that work out for the hawks?

6 assists for a point guard is not good. citing points w/o percentages is a half-baked argument. and believe it or not, 23 year olds w/ 4 years experience don't tend to have much upside left


you really don't give a rat's ass about defense, do you? that little team you put together is a derrick favors injury away from being perhaps the worst defensive team in the history of the league


He shot 45.1% FG, 34% 3P, 49.3% eFG, 85.5% FT, and 53.3% TS last year. He is a good shooter. And plenty of guys who handle the ball as much as Schroder does turn the ball over.

he is a good FREE THROW shooter. all those other %s are very mediocre. and his assist to turnover ratio is pathetic

Schroder averaged 3.3 TOVPG last year and averages 2.3 TOVPG for his career. That comes out to 3.7 TOVP36. His TOV% last year was 16.3% (17.2% for his career).

James Harden averaged 5.7 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.7 P36 last year and 3.6 P36 for his career. TOV% was 19.5% last year (15.5% for his career)

Russell Westbrook averaged 5.4 TOVPG last year and averages 3.9 TOVPG for his career. That was 5.6 P36 last year and 4.1 P36 for his career. TOV% was 15.9% last year (15.6% for his career).

you realize that you just compared Schroeder's turnovers to 2 guys who shattered league records for turnovers last season, right? in an effort to show that he really doesn't turn the ball over much? seriously?

and both of those guys are elite score-first combo guards, which is hardly the dennis schroeder prototype

LeBron James averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.4 TOVPG for his career. That was 3.9 P36 last year and 3.2 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.1% last year (12.8% for his career).

another guy who carries an offense...and even further from schroederesque

John Wall averaged 4.1 TOVPG last year and averages 3.8 TOVPG for his career. That was 4.1 P36 last year and 3.8 P36 for his career. TOV% was 16.2% last year (17.4% for his career).

the most reasonable comparison of the bunch

And trying to blame the Hawks' overall struggles last year on Schroder is absurd.

I did no such thing. you're inventing things in your mind now

And 6.3 AST in 31.5 MIN is good. He was 16th in the entire NBA in APG! He was 13th in AST%! Do you even look this stuff up before writing it?

I said it wasn't very good. do you consider 6 assists per game to be very good? it's ok, but it's not something you cite to support an argument that a guy's a really good player. particularly not when he turns the ball over a lot

show me where he ranks in assist to turnover ratio, which is the gold standard of statistics for point guards

And yeah, I think he has a lot of upside left. Most all NBA players improve after age 23...

not much. not much at all


Holy **** I can't believe I'm continuing this because I have no doubt you're about 12 years old based on the fact that you're so frequently just flat-out wrong on obvious stuff that can easily be looked up and the other fact that you just repeat yourself ad nauseum with no backing, at all.

Yes, he is a good FT-shooter. That's important and valuable. With regards to the other percentages I listed, you're simply wrong. Like, for real, look **** up before you type. That 45.1% FG was tied with John Wall for 14th in the entire NBA amongst all PGs. It's a very good number. Even the mediocre 34% on threes was 30th amongst all PGs... meaning starting quality... and better than other good players like Bledsoe, Clarkson, Wall, Mudiay, Rubio, Smart... Sorry man, Schroder is a good shooter. It's not arguable and no matter how many times you just reply with "nuh-uh," you'll still be wrong. His A:TO ratio is nearly 2:1. It's quite good. Like, are you just completely making stuff up?

I didn't compare his turnovers to those other guys to say he doesn't turn the ball over much. I did it to show that it doesn't make him some bad player. There are plenty of guys who turn it over as much or more and they're still great players.

And I know that you said 6.3 APG isn't good. It is. It's inarguable. It's 16th in the league. THAT'S GOOD. What aren't you getting? 13th in AST% IS GOOD! Like, how can I explain this so you can understand? His assist numbers are very good and absolutely a strength and valuable skill that he brings.

He averages 1.93 assists for every turnover. That was better than Russell Westbrook and just barely worse than Lillard (2.23), Curry (2.2), and Thomas (2.13) last year.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,214
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: RE: Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#179 » by League Circles » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:36 pm

dice wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
it's "well, if he stays healthy I guess we've gotta pay the kid big bucks. can't wait around for a real player" BS


The thing you are ignoring is that if Lavine returns healthy, continue to show improvement, and is signed to an extension, those things in now way inhibit the Bulls from acquiring other "real players."

that's obviously false. it would cost us a potentially excellent player in free agency

A Lavine extension failing to work out would constitute a minor annoyance.

which I've acknowledged, assuming the team will continue to stink for the next 5 seasons. hell, give portis $15 mil a year too

The bolded has two angles to it.

On one hand, the pure cap space that Lavine may take himself almost certainly could not be filled by an "excellent" player. Because excellent players are generally only available in FA as UFAs who are eligible for 30 or 35% of the cap. Lavine will be 25% max.

That said, we simply don't know how salaries will add up on this team, and there may be a summer, whether it be 2018, 2019, 2020, etc, where we want to, and are able to add more than one bigger FAs. In that event, ANY salary can be the breaking point between getting the guy and not getting him. Due to these unknowns, I want to maximize cap space until further notice.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,214
And1: 9,131
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do? 

Post#180 » by League Circles » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:42 pm

rowseyna wrote:Holy **** I can't believe I'm continuing this because I have no doubt you're about 12 years old based on the fact that you're so frequently just flat-out wrong on obvious stuff that can easily be looked up and the other fact that you just repeat yourself ad nauseum with no backing, at all.

Yes, he is a good FT-shooter. That's important and valuable. With regards to the other percentages I listed, you're simply wrong. Like, for real, look **** up before you type. That 45.1% FG was tied with John Wall for 14th in the entire NBA amongst all PGs. It's a very good number. Even the mediocre 34% on threes was 30th amongst all PGs... meaning starting quality... and better than other good players like Bledsoe, Clarkson, Wall, Mudiay, Rubio, Smart... Sorry man, Schroder is a good shooter. It's not arguable and no matter how many times you just reply with "nuh-uh," you'll still be wrong. His A:TO ratio is nearly 2:1. It's quite good. Like, are you just completely making stuff up?

I didn't compare his turnovers to those other guys to say he doesn't turn the ball over much. I did it to show that it doesn't make him some bad player. There are plenty of guys who turn it over as much or more and they're still great players.

And I know that you said 6.3 APG isn't good. It is. It's inarguable. It's 16th in the league. THAT'S GOOD. What aren't you getting? 13th in AST% IS GOOD! Like, how can I explain this so you can understand? His assist numbers are very good and absolutely a strength and valuable skill that he brings.

He averages 1.93 assists for every turnover. That was better than Russell Westbrook and just barely worse than Lillard (2.23), Curry (2.2), and Thomas (2.13) last year.


FWIW, though I agree with many things you've written here and in other threads, sometimes terms like simply "good" can be obscured in semantics. Like, to me, there are roughly 60 players at each position in the NBA that matter. 2 per team. Beyond that, and you're looking at 3rd string players who mostly barely get any time to evaluate them in.

So looking at a group of 60 players, I would never say that the 30th ranking in any particular metric is good. Rather, average. "Good" I would call top 20 or so. But many people mean "good for a starter", which cuts everything roughly in half. So to be a "good" starter at something, you really have to be like top 10 at worst.

Just thought that disconnect may be worth noting.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear

Return to Chicago Bulls