Zach LaVine Rookie Extension - what to do?

[TheSuzerain]

I still maintain that a short term deal does basically nothing for us.

Either commit to him for the long term, trade him, or let him walk.

Kicking the can down the road is a waste of time but would be typical of this franchise.

If you believe you know what he is or can be based on last year, your comment is spot on.

To me, I saw enough to invest in the option to see more, but not enough to want to plunk down another $15M per year for 5 years (he's not taking $10M per).

That option has a cost, and that's the ability to sign him cheaply for 5 years. I am willing to pay that cost to see if he's great, or not. Right now, I only want guys who have potential to be great...good NBA players are a dime-a-dozen.

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

[League Circles]

I still maintain that a short term deal does basically nothing for us.

Either commit to him for the long term, trade him, or let him walk.

Kicking the can down the road is a waste of time but would be typical of this franchise.

If you believe you know what he is or can be based on last year, your comment is spot on.

To me, I saw enough to invest in the option to see more, but not enough to want to plunk down another $15M per year for 5 years (he's not taking $10M per).

That option has a cost, and that's the ability to sign him cheaply for 5 years. I am willing to pay that cost to see if he's great, or not. Right now, I only want guys who have potential to be great...good NBA players are a dime-a-dozen.

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

You can't not get this. The upside and being able to keep him after signing a OnePlus One deal is that you only keep him if he's a really good or great player in which case having him on a fair deal is a good thing. End of story. really good or great players on Fair deals are always good things for franchises to have. Sure they're not as great of things to have as the same players on better than fair deals but those are unrealistic and unreasonable to expect to ever get. Why is letting the player walk preferable to keeping a guy with talent for OnePlus One where you are not paying any opportunity cost? Is it just to give more playing time to guys like Valentine or nwaba instead?

[TheSuzerain]

If you believe you know what he is or can be based on last year, your comment is spot on.

To me, I saw enough to invest in the option to see more, but not enough to want to plunk down another $15M per year for 5 years (he's not taking $10M per).

That option has a cost, and that's the ability to sign him cheaply for 5 years. I am willing to pay that cost to see if he's great, or not. Right now, I only want guys who have potential to be great...good NBA players are a dime-a-dozen.

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

You can't not get this. The upside and being able to keep him after signing a OnePlus One deal is that you only keep him if he's a really good or great player in which case having him on a fair deal is a good thing. End of story. really good or great players on Fair deals are always good things for franchises to have. Sure they're not as great of things to have as the same players on better than fair deals but those are unrealistic and unreasonable to expect to ever get. Why is letting the player walk preferable to keeping a guy with talent for OnePlus One where you are not paying any opportunity cost? Is it just to give more playing time to guys like Valentine or nwaba instead?

We are paying an opportunity cost.

He'll probably hamper the tank, and he'll eat up cap space those one/two years.

[League Circles]

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

You can't not get this. The upside and being able to keep him after signing a OnePlus One deal is that you only keep him if he's a really good or great player in which case having him on a fair deal is a good thing. End of story. really good or great players on Fair deals are always good things for franchises to have. Sure they're not as great of things to have as the same players on better than fair deals but those are unrealistic and unreasonable to expect to ever get. Why is letting the player walk preferable to keeping a guy with talent for OnePlus One where you are not paying any opportunity cost? Is it just to give more playing time to guys like Valentine or nwaba instead?

We are paying an opportunity cost.

He'll probably hamper the tank, and he'll eat up cap space those one/two years.

Ok hampering a tank is legit, though due to the new crappy lotto odds, I don't care about that at all.

Eating up cap space is not a legitimate excuse because you only make the deal with him if you don't prefer another free agent this summer in real time and then after the one season he's off the books again unless you pick up his option.

[blicka]

This forum is pretty harsh on lavine. I'll take a 23 year old gym rat who can shoot ,yea you would like to see him impact the game more positively and improve the bball iq but geez you guys make it sound like he's awful. he had several games where he was a net positive

[Ctownbulls]

This forum is pretty harsh on lavine. I'll take a 23 year old gym rat who can shoot ,yea you would like to see him impact the game more positively and improve the bball iq but geez you guys make it sound like he's awful. he had several games where he was a net positive

Why is he a gym rat? Honest question. Are you basing that on an instragram video he posted of working out?

[blicka]

This forum is pretty harsh on lavine. I'll take a 23 year old gym rat who can shoot ,yea you would like to see him impact the game more positively and improve the bball iq but geez you guys make it sound like he's awful. he had several games where he was a net positive

Why is he a gym rat? Honest question. Are you basing that on an instragram video he posted of working out?

Sam Mitchell said they had to take his key card because he was constantly going to the gym at 2-3am and they didn't want him to over exert himself. He said lavine is obsessed with playing basketball and has the strongest work ethic he's ever seen

edit here's the quote. I heard mitchell say this on nbatv last summer he said the same thing in a interview with kc johnson

Zach LaVine took a lot from his two seasons with Sam Mitchell.

A chance to start. Film sessions to improve his decision-making. Point guard minutes to improve his ballhandling.

Apparently, their relationship was of the take-take variety.

"I had to take Zach's key card away from him because he was coming back to the gym at 2, 3 a.m.," said Mitchell, a former NBA Coach of the Year and current analyst on NBA-TV, SiriusXM and TSN.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-zach-lavine-sam-mitchell-scouting-report-spt-0627-20170626-story.html

[blicka]

I also remember the warriors last loss of the 73 win season was vs minnesota at oracle. Lavine played great defense on klay thompson down the stretch last 7-8 mins or so. Klay could not get separation from lavine, all I'm saying is give lavine a chance he's embraced chicago and wants to be here. There's several timberwolves fans who wish they kept lavine over wiggins

As far as the contract obviously the team friendlier the better but realistically a tim hardaway jr type contract would be ideal. 4 years 70-75 mil would be cool with me

[khufure]

Lavine's FG % dropped from 46% to 38%. True, he came back form ACL and only had 29 games. But that's a red flag. His defense is also poop; he's a net negative on the court.

[bulliedog8]

Klay Thompson looking at a 4yr 100mil extension with the warriors. Willing to take a 50 mil pay cut.

Just based on that alone, I wouldnt offer Lavine anymore than 4/60. I know lavine personally will want as much as possible since it will be his first big contract, but he's no where near as good as klay is.

[Indomitable]

Klay Thompson looking at a 4yr 100mil extension with the warriors. Willing to take a 50 mil pay cut.

Just based on that alone, I wouldnt offer Lavine anymore than 4/60. I know lavine personally will want as much as possible since it will be his first big contract, but he's no where near as good as klay is.

Klay is signing a year earlier. He taking security and the ability to stay where he is at. He is not turning money down.

Stop making stuff up.

Klay also demand the max his first contract.

[R3AL1TY]

We should have a better assessment of Lavine's game next season barring no major injury. I see his level of play somewhere around his 3rd season before the ACL injury, but he needs to be limited to 15 FGA in most games.

[Dan Z]

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

If he sucks, but is on a team-beneficial deal, do you think he's moveable? Or do you think The Bulls would then have to give up an asset to trade him?

I don't think short term is "lose-lose". It means he'll have to prove himself and, if he does well, we'd pay for that production. Sure that means it's no longer a deal, but it means that we know what we're getting (or should get).

I can see both sides. Personally a short term deal is what I'd do, but that's because I don't trust that he'll be anything more than a Jamal Crawford type of player.

[bulliedog8]

Klay Thompson looking at a 4yr 100mil extension with the warriors. Willing to take a 50 mil pay cut.

Just based on that alone, I wouldnt offer Lavine anymore than 4/60. I know lavine personally will want as much as possible since it will be his first big contract, but he's no where near as good as klay is.

Klay is signing a year earlier. He taking security and the ability to stay where he is at. He is not turning money down.

Stop making stuff up.

Klay also demand the max his first contract.

Hed have security no matter what. And he is still turning down up to 50 mil. There is no way to spin that. Whether he is worth it or not, another team would be willing to offer the max to him. He is willing to take less to stay with the warriors. I didnt make anything up (going of the article released today)

[TheSuzerain]

Our goal should not be to pay Lavine a "Fair" contract. Our goal should be to get him on a team-beneficial deal.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he excels, how is that going to end well for us? We'll have to pay him a **** load.

If we sign him for a short-term deal, and he continues to suck, how is that going to end well for us? He'll just be a bad player that walks.

Short term deal is a lose-lose.

If he sucks, but is on a team-beneficial deal, do you think he's moveable? Or do you think The Bulls would then have to give up an asset to trade him?

I don't think short term is "lose-lose". It means he'll have to prove himself and, if he does well, we'd pay for that production. Sure that means it's no longer a deal, but it means that we know what we're getting (or should get).

I can see both sides. Personally a short term deal is what I'd do, but that's because I don't trust that he'll be anything more than a Jamal Crawford type of player.

You're talking about raising the basement. Reducing risk to zero before committing, which in turn gets rid of most of the upside. This is exactly how GarPax operates.

I hope you all enjoy first-round exits.

[sco]

If he sucks, but is on a team-beneficial deal, do you think he's moveable? Or do you think The Bulls would then have to give up an asset to trade him?

I don't think short term is "lose-lose". It means he'll have to prove himself and, if he does well, we'd pay for that production. Sure that means it's no longer a deal, but it means that we know what we're getting (or should get).

I can see both sides. Personally a short term deal is what I'd do, but that's because I don't trust that he'll be anything more than a Jamal Crawford type of player.

You're talking about raising the basement. Reducing risk to zero before committing, which in turn gets rid of most of the upside. This is exactly how GarPax operates.

I hope you all enjoy first-round exits.

I disagree conceptually. IMO, the way to win in this league is to have great players on the team before worrying about finding/keeping good ones. Finding out if Lavine can be great is job 1, dumping him fast if he's not is job 2, worrying that I didn't get him cheaply before I knew if he was great is not in my top 10.

[TheSuzerain]

If he sucks, but is on a team-beneficial deal, do you think he's moveable? Or do you think The Bulls would then have to give up an asset to trade him?

I don't think short term is "lose-lose". It means he'll have to prove himself and, if he does well, we'd pay for that production. Sure that means it's no longer a deal, but it means that we know what we're getting (or should get).

I can see both sides. Personally a short term deal is what I'd do, but that's because I don't trust that he'll be anything more than a Jamal Crawford type of player.

You're talking about raising the basement. Reducing risk to zero before committing, which in turn gets rid of most of the upside. This is exactly how GarPax operates.

I hope you all enjoy first-round exits.

I disagree conceptually. IMO, the way to win in this league is to have great players on the team before worrying about finding/keeping good ones. Finding out if Lavine can be great is job 1, dumping him fast if he's not is job 2, worrying that I didn't get him cheaply before I knew if he was great is not in my top 10.

We already know he can't be great. Airhead who doesn't play defense.

Now what?

And I'm fine with letting him walk by the way.

[transplant]

If he sucks, but is on a team-beneficial deal, do you think he's moveable? Or do you think The Bulls would then have to give up an asset to trade him?

I don't think short term is "lose-lose". It means he'll have to prove himself and, if he does well, we'd pay for that production. Sure that means it's no longer a deal, but it means that we know what we're getting (or should get).

I can see both sides. Personally a short term deal is what I'd do, but that's because I don't trust that he'll be anything more than a Jamal Crawford type of player.

You're talking about raising the basement. Reducing risk to zero before committing, which in turn gets rid of most of the upside. This is exactly how GarPax operates.

I hope you all enjoy first-round exits.

I disagree conceptually. IMO, the way to win in this league is to have great players on the team before worrying about finding/keeping good ones. Finding out if Lavine can be great is job 1, dumping him fast if he's not is job 2, worrying that I didn't get him cheaply before I knew if he was great is not in my top 10.

I'm confused. What Bulls action is being recommended?

[sco]

You're talking about raising the basement. Reducing risk to zero before committing, which in turn gets rid of most of the upside. This is exactly how GarPax operates.

I hope you all enjoy first-round exits.

I disagree conceptually. IMO, the way to win in this league is to have great players on the team before worrying about finding/keeping good ones. Finding out if Lavine can be great is job 1, dumping him fast if he's not is job 2, worrying that I didn't get him cheaply before I knew if he was great is not in my top 10.

We already know he can't be great. Airhead who doesn't play defense.

Now what?

And I'm fine with letting him walk by the way.

I see potential there, but I get why others may see differently.

[khufure]

I see potential there, but I get why others may see differently.

SG is a premium position, and by all accounts Zach is a very hard worker. He's 23. I also think he can be good, despite his FG% dropping. You're right he has potential! ... I just don't think we should pay the max or even close for potential.