Is Zach LaVine a Winner?

[Ice Man]

I'm pretty sure the Bulls didn't count on Lauri Markkanen (a 7th pick one-and-done rookie) or Kris Dunn (fresh out of Thibs' doghouse) to lead the team in any way. That role was always for Zach.

I don't agree with everything in your post, but I want to reiterate this post, because in the past several people have written that Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. (Mostly because GarPax somehow "knew" that Lauri would be great.) But you have it right. The trade conversation went like this -

GarPax - We're interested in KAT ...
Thibs - Stop right there!
GarPax - Sorry, we meant Wiggins
Thibs - [Checks with Taylor.] Sorry gents, no can do
GarPax - OK LaVine then, but you gotta give us some other stuff too
Thibs - Alright, let's talk

[HomoSapien]

There's two different questions here. The first is: "Is Zach LaVine a winner" and the question is overwhelmingly no. He's in his sixth season and never been on a team that's won more than 31 games. He hasn't had the **** teammates either, the issue is that he's always been on teams that are young, rebuilding, and have injury issues (including his past issues).

The second question is can Zach LaVine be a winner. To me that question is overwhelmingly yes. The guy clearly has a great work ethic and I'm surprised more people aren't excited to have a young shooting guard that's averaging over 24 points a game (14th in the league!). Not a lot of players can score like him and his natural gifts are sometimes astonishingly underrated. To me his offensive talent is through the roof, his mental game just needs to catch up. LaVine himself has alluded to this and has essentially said that fans/pundits don't understand that it's a process --- that it takes time learn and understand the game and that he's still growing. He's right about that, and the moment he gains that understanding he's just going to be such a lethal player. I don't think he can be a full-time number one, but if we were able to pair him with someone like Towns (his former teammate, but a guy who is now in his prime) or even a Lillard type of star, then I think we'd very quickly start looking like a dangerous team.

[Mech Engineer]

IMO, even though Zach is old, he is still figuring out his role in the league. It wasn't the case with Derrick in his 3rd year. And, Jimmy had to figure it out himself because the Bulls didn't trust him. And, many folks don't trust Jimmy even today to make that decision because they think somebody more talented than him should make it.

Players like Lavine are stuck in this cycle forever because unless they are on a championship team or have better players, it is never defined well.

Westbrook, Melo spent a decade or more with people arguing their roles because those guys played a role which didn't impact winning in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Zach has to first play the proper role for the regular season and then if he is lucky, in the playoffs.

It is going to be a tough road ahead for Zach.

[kodo]

Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. Why? Because that trade was Chicago's last option, and Zach isn't on any other team than Minnesota. If Zach was the centerpiece, the Minny trade would have been their first option.

Chicago approaches many teams about a Butler trade, which makes no sense if their target was Lavine.

The Minny trade only happened because a better pick wasn't available.
#4 was at Phoenix, no deal.
#5 was at Sacramento, they loved Fox and weren't going to trade.
#6 was at Orlando, they had no need for a win-now player like Jimmy being in their own rebuild. Isaac also fits exactly their draft profile of long, lanky defenders.
#7 was the best pick available for Chicago in a trade.

Source: Zach Lowe

It's not as if Chicago didn't canvas the league, either. The Bulls talked to Phoenix about a package centered around Eric Bledsoe and the No. 4 pick, but nothing came close, according to league sources.

They poked around with Denver, but the Nuggets drew a line at Jamal Murray, sources say. Those teams had to weigh the possibility of Butler bolting in 2019, which cooled the market a bit, sources say.

Boston has danced around Butler for almost a year now, and would not include the No. 3 pick in any package for him as the draft approached, sources say.

This is the one instance leaguewide in which the Warriors intimidation factor may be chilling a potential win-now deal. There was no bidding war for Butler.

And further, if Lavine was so the core of the trade why did they almost let him go in FA to Sacramento? Bulls didn't resign Lavine like they would a core piece, they let him go explore the market and if the competing bids were too high they were going to let him go. If Sac had bid a little higher, Lavine would be in a King's uniform.

[Mech Engineer]

You cannot make a judgment on who was the centerpiece of the Jimmy trade. GarPax probably expected all 3 of them to be future starters on a contending team at the minimum. They thought they had fleeced Thibs because in their assumption, Thibs was desperate for a star in a small market. He would sell almost anything because he wants to win now and thus they were getting 3 great young players.

And, what they did later was their non-decisive stuff like they did with Jimmy. They seem to have gone the other way after the Deng, Noah contract extensions backfired.

[HomoSapien]

I'm pretty sure the Bulls didn't count on Lauri Markkanen (a 7th pick one-and-done rookie) or Kris Dunn (fresh out of Thibs' doghouse) to lead the team in any way. That role was always for Zach.

I don't agree with everything in your post, but I want to reiterate this post, because in the past several people have written that Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. (Mostly because GarPax somehow "knew" that Lauri would be great.) But you have it right. The trade conversation went like this -

GarPax - We're interested in KAT ...
Thibs - Stop right there!
GarPax - Sorry, we meant Wiggins
Thibs - [Checks with Taylor.] Sorry gents, no can do
GarPax - OK LaVine then, but you gotta give us some other stuff too
Thibs - Alright, let's talk

But Zach wasn't the centerpiece. I mean he was an important part of the talks, but like you said they wanted Wiggins (Thibs actually wanted to keep LaVine, but Taylor preferred Wiggins). Lauri was probably a more swing for the fences mystery player for them since they never really scouted him before the draft and had no intention of starting him until Portis eliminated Mirotic (and himself) from the rotation. To me, it's pretty clear they thought Dunn was a big get. We were rumored to be after Dunn a year a before we got him, tried to trade up for him in the draft, etc. That said, I do think the overall purpose of this trade was to create young depth since the propaganda they spread through KC was that it was impossible to add talent and pay Butler at the same time.

[Mech Engineer]

I'm pretty sure the Bulls didn't count on Lauri Markkanen (a 7th pick one-and-done rookie) or Kris Dunn (fresh out of Thibs' doghouse) to lead the team in any way. That role was always for Zach.

I don't agree with everything in your post, but I want to reiterate this post, because in the past several people have written that Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. (Mostly because GarPax somehow "knew" that Lauri would be great.) But you have it right. The trade conversation went like this -

GarPax - We're interested in KAT ...
Thibs - Stop right there!
GarPax - Sorry, we meant Wiggins
Thibs - [Checks with Taylor.] Sorry gents, no can do
GarPax - OK LaVine then, but you gotta give us some other stuff too
Thibs - Alright, let's talk

But Zach wasn't the centerpiece. I mean he was an important part of the talks, but like you said they wanted Wiggins and Thibs wanted to keep LaVine. Lauri was probably a more swing for the fences mystery player for them since they never really scouted him before the draft and had no intention of starting him until Portis eliminated Mirotic (and himself) from the rotation. To me, it's pretty clear they thought Dunn was a big get here. We were rumored to be after Dunn a year a before we got him, tried to trade up for him in the draft, etc.

Imo, if there was a centerpiece in their minds, it was Dunn. And, unfortunately, they seem to be clueless evaluating PGs.

[sco]

I don't agree with everything in your post, but I want to reiterate this post, because in the past several people have written that Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. (Mostly because GarPax somehow "knew" that Lauri would be great.) But you have it right. The trade conversation went like this -

GarPax - We're interested in KAT ...
Thibs - Stop right there!
GarPax - Sorry, we meant Wiggins
Thibs - [Checks with Taylor.] Sorry gents, no can do
GarPax - OK LaVine then, but you gotta give us some other stuff too
Thibs - Alright, let's talk

But Zach wasn't the centerpiece. I mean he was an important part of the talks, but like you said they wanted Wiggins and Thibs wanted to keep LaVine. Lauri was probably a more swing for the fences mystery player for them since they never really scouted him before the draft and had no intention of starting him until Portis eliminated Mirotic (and himself) from the rotation. To me, it's pretty clear they thought Dunn was a big get here. We were rumored to be after Dunn a year a before we got him, tried to trade up for him in the draft, etc.

Imo, if there was a centerpiece in their minds, it was Dunn. And, unfortunately, they seem to be clueless evaluating PGs.

I don't think there was a true centerpiece to that deal. It was receiving three high-potential guys back for Jimmy and our pick.

[HomoSapien]

I don't agree with everything in your post, but I want to reiterate this post, because in the past several people have written that Zach wasn't the centerpiece of the trade. (Mostly because GarPax somehow "knew" that Lauri would be great.) But you have it right. The trade conversation went like this -

GarPax - We're interested in KAT ...
Thibs - Stop right there!
GarPax - Sorry, we meant Wiggins
Thibs - [Checks with Taylor.] Sorry gents, no can do
GarPax - OK LaVine then, but you gotta give us some other stuff too
Thibs - Alright, let's talk

But Zach wasn't the centerpiece. I mean he was an important part of the talks, but like you said they wanted Wiggins and Thibs wanted to keep LaVine. Lauri was probably a more swing for the fences mystery player for them since they never really scouted him before the draft and had no intention of starting him until Portis eliminated Mirotic (and himself) from the rotation. To me, it's pretty clear they thought Dunn was a big get here. We were rumored to be after Dunn a year a before we got him, tried to trade up for him in the draft, etc.

Imo, if there was a centerpiece in their minds, it was Dunn. And, unfortunately, they seem to be clueless evaluating PGs.

Funny enough, I randomly came across an old thread from that draft night and it said that Dunn was number one on our board and Valentine was number two. Not exactly sure where that report came from, but it's really staggering if true. Something is clearly broken in our scouting department.

[MrSparkle]

Well, the simple answer is "no." His career record speaks for itself. Jimmy is an example of a player who wills regular season wins, which is admirable. Only about 5-8 players do that in the league. All the more impressive that Chicago thought it's a good idea to dump a player whose #2 scoring option was 35yo Wade with no knees and #3 was RoLo. Oh boy there's that Jimmy tangent again.

But the deeper answer is , Zach's developed, and he's been on very bad teams. Make him a 2nd option, or get an actually legitimate defensive team (tall wings and rim protection), and you should be over .500.

I think there is only 1 type of player who will can swing your team wildly in the +/- win column, and it's a two-way wing who can create plays. Kawhi, Durant, Lebron, Luka, Harden (ok perhaps a knock on defense but he makes up for it with his 25 FTAs), Jimmy, George (though PG's injuries are piling up). Am I missing anyone?

At their best, a Westbrook/Paul/Curry/Lillard/old-Rose can lead a charge, but they really need help from defensive big men, wings and coaching. Anthony Davis could hardly do it. He was sub .500 without Lebron, or without Jrue/Rondo/Niko stepping up.

I consider Zach a small guard. He's not as short as McCollum, but he doesn't have that wing-span to make defense and paint scoring easy for him. He needs to rely on acrobatic athleticism, and his instincts aren't good. If he had passing skills he'd be a special player, but still, that's why I think he's in the same boat as Mitchell and Beal (with worse defense and playmaking). Without good teams, neither these guys win -- sure helps to have Gobert, vets, coaching and depth. Or in Beal's case, that Wall/Otto/Gortat team wasn't exactly a push-over.

You need to build around a wing. Zach is certainly a 'building block' at this point, just not the center point. I wouldn't give him up (unless it's for an all-star wing), because you need somebody like him to help that wing. That's why you give up your over-hyped big men when their value is high (or don't draft them to begin with).

[DorO]

I've made my peace with who Zach is--A superb athlete that can score with the best of them when hot, and who would drive ANY coach absolutely nuts with some of the things he does.

There are players that just can't process the game fast enough in real time--Jerian Grant comes to mind from the recent Bulls. Unlike Jerian, who was an average to good athlete, Zach is elite, even by NBA standards so he'll put up numbers, given that he has the ball in his hands so much of the time.

His instincts on D are bad--some of it is not paying attention, some of it is probably saving up energy, and some of it is not caring enough, and some of it is not having technique, but he's actually a decent man defender if he doesn't get screened. But yeah, I agree with the scout that he's very often in the wrong place on D, either because he doesn't know where to be schematics-wise, or because he can't read the game.

He's like the Trae young of SGs... not for the same reasons on D (Trae can't guard neither strength nor size, and it's difficult to hide him), but because he compromises the D because he's just not where he's supposed to be.

To defend him just a little--the Bulls have been confused about that all year long so it's not just him. Most of them don't understand WHERE to rotate to, given what D they are playing. Because of less effort on that end, Zach just stands out more--but Kris also rotates poorly often, it's just that he hustles like crazy this year so it looks better (I call it the Nocioni effect)... but when we were discussing the coaching, I noted that the Bulls seemed to make a LOT of mistakes on D, and I blamed it on Boylen, and I still do. But to the scout's point--some of it has to be the players recognizing what the hell is going on the court in real-time.

You either have to drill them non-stop Thibs style so that they rotate on cue in their sleep, or you have to teach them how to READ ball--and the Bulls main players, apart from WCJ, are all really bad at reading the game, both on O and on D. I think Otto was pretty decent last year, and Rolo was as well, he was just as slow as slow gets.

Anyhow, he needs to lock himself in a room with an assistant coach for a summer and go through video as an 8-5 job and if that doesn't fix it, there is no fixing it.

Unfortunately, the reason Trae is bad on D is physical aspects. For Lavine it's mental aspects and that a much harder hurdle to cross.

Anyhow, he needs to lock himself in a room with an assistant coach for a summer and go through video as an 8-5 job and if that doesn't fix it, there is no fixing it

I would assume it's already being done. Zach says the right things but the decision making in game realtime just isn't there.

Unfortunately you are wrong as so many times before.

[Mech Engineer]

A 2-way wing, a 1-way wing, a guard who can shoot and run a team, a guard who can run a team, an athletic big who can shoot and protect the rim are all important roles before you get to what Zach can do. And, the Bulls need 2 players who can fill those roles at a high level before they tell what Zach should do. Otherwise, it is a 2020 version of Ron Mercer show all over again.

[PaKii94]

I've made my peace with who Zach is--A superb athlete that can score with the best of them when hot, and who would drive ANY coach absolutely nuts with some of the things he does.

There are players that just can't process the game fast enough in real time--Jerian Grant comes to mind from the recent Bulls. Unlike Jerian, who was an average to good athlete, Zach is elite, even by NBA standards so he'll put up numbers, given that he has the ball in his hands so much of the time.

His instincts on D are bad--some of it is not paying attention, some of it is probably saving up energy, and some of it is not caring enough, and some of it is not having technique, but he's actually a decent man defender if he doesn't get screened. But yeah, I agree with the scout that he's very often in the wrong place on D, either because he doesn't know where to be schematics-wise, or because he can't read the game.

He's like the Trae young of SGs... not for the same reasons on D (Trae can't guard neither strength nor size, and it's difficult to hide him), but because he compromises the D because he's just not where he's supposed to be.

To defend him just a little--the Bulls have been confused about that all year long so it's not just him. Most of them don't understand WHERE to rotate to, given what D they are playing. Because of less effort on that end, Zach just stands out more--but Kris also rotates poorly often, it's just that he hustles like crazy this year so it looks better (I call it the Nocioni effect)... but when we were discussing the coaching, I noted that the Bulls seemed to make a LOT of mistakes on D, and I blamed it on Boylen, and I still do. But to the scout's point--some of it has to be the players recognizing what the hell is going on the court in real-time.

You either have to drill them non-stop Thibs style so that they rotate on cue in their sleep, or you have to teach them how to READ ball--and the Bulls main players, apart from WCJ, are all really bad at reading the game, both on O and on D. I think Otto was pretty decent last year, and Rolo was as well, he was just as slow as slow gets.

Anyhow, he needs to lock himself in a room with an assistant coach for a summer and go through video as an 8-5 job and if that doesn't fix it, there is no fixing it.

Unfortunately, the reason Trae is bad on D is physical aspects. For Lavine it's mental aspects and that a much harder hurdle to cross.

Anyhow, he needs to lock himself in a room with an assistant coach for a summer and go through video as an 8-5 job and if that doesn't fix it, there is no fixing it

I would assume it's already being done. Zach says the right things but the decision making in game realtime just isn't there.

Unfortunately you are wrong as so many times before.

Helpful take. Thanks guy. show me where i am wrong "so many times before". Take off your lavine colored glasses this time and tell me something other than points

[cool007]

I really wish Zach is traded to a playoff team with a good coach and 1 year later, we will talk about if he is a winner or not.

The Wolves team that he was on, was really young and bad and the Bulls team he was traded to, has always been injury riddled with bad coaching and pathetic front office who try to fit in square in a circle.

But Lavine is not a winner? Heck you swap Kyrie/Oladipo (healhty)/Beal/etc (non-superstars) with Lavine and we still would be a non-playoff team. Speaking of Beal, is he also not a "Winner" this year?

[Ice Man]

Chicago approaches many teams about a Butler trade, which makes no sense if their target was Lavine.

He wasn't their initial target, but he was the most important element of the deal that they ended up making. Thus, LaVine was the centerpiece. He had elite superstar athleticism and skills, plus a 58% TS% the year that he got injured, and he was still plenty young. Sure there were lots of questions about his BBIQ and toughness, but not about his upside. He clearly had more potential than a rookie bust who was older than he was, and some #7 pick who had never played an NBA minute.

[Dez]

Unless we're going to say winners are only players that can lift a franchise to a title as the primary option, winners don't exist. People are often dubbed winners when they are put in a role that they can exceed expectations in.

If Zach LaVine were playing your spark plug off the bench role and averaged 20 points on efficient scoring for your second unit while your stars rested, would he then be considered a winner instead of when he's attempting to play the role of franchise player and #1 option?

Is Bruce Bowen a winner? Is Robert Horry a winner? Odds are, most people would say yes. If they were the #1 on option on your team they sure as hell wouldn't be winners.

Theres various definition of winners so theres no usual right and wrong. But in no way Zach is a winner in any form.
Im not even talking about 1st option. He never makes winning plays and doesnt contribute to the team other than scoring.
You can call even guys like Carter, Sato,Gafford winners bc they make plays that usually turn the tide. Having a good stat (20pt) and being a winner is an entirely different conversation unless he scored like Kyrie today (10/11fg).
Zach is a useless player unless he gets 30 usg and 30 usg is usually reserved for superstars. You dont want a "borderline all-star" taking all your possessions and calling the final shot. Which is why you tank/trade the farm for that savior.

No they don't, Satoransky has been nothing short of meh at his absolute best this season.

Your irrational hatred of LaVine is staggeringly bad, LaVine is so far down the list of problems for the Bulls that it's illegible.

[dice]

If there is one player that is a winner in current Bulls team, it's Zach - all others are projects or pure rubbish.

nobody, including zach, is going to LEAD a winning team. but whether it's zach or OPJ or sato or WCJ or even dunn, all could play supporting roles on winning teams

[Red Larrivee]

After a slow start, LaVine is having the best season of his career in terms of on-court impact:

- ORPM: 1.67 (career best)
- DRPM: -0.45 (career best)
- WS: 3.0 (T-career best)
- oRTG on/off: +7.1 (career best)
- OBPM: 2.4 (career best)
- DBPM: -0.8 (career best)
- BPM: 1.6 (career best)
- VORP: 1.2 (career best)

I'd argue that it's not even a question of whether LaVine plays winning basketball or not right now; he is playing winning basketball.

Is he a player that you build your team around? No, but if he's a sometimes-secondary, sometimes-tertiary option, then I think you're in good shape. He's been an efficient, high volume scorer for the Bulls without having a consistent second option and being keyed in on most of the time. Sure, there's still more things you'd love to see from him, but he's absolutely matured as a player this season.

[PaKii94]

After a slow start, LaVine is having the best season of his career in terms of on-court impact:

- ORPM: 1.67 (career best)
- DRPM: -0.45 (career best)
- WS: 3.0 (T-career best)
- oRTG on/off: +7.1 (career best)
- OBPM: 2.4 (career best)
- DBPM: -0.8 (career best)
- BPM: 1.6 (career best)
- VORP: 1.2 (career best)

I'd argue that it's not even a question of whether LaVine plays winning basketball or not right now; he is playing winning basketball.

Is he a player that you build your team around? No, but if he's a sometimes-secondary, sometimes-tertiary option, then I think you're in good shape. He's been an efficient, high volume scorer for the Bulls without having a consistent second option and being keyed in on most of the time. Sure, there's still more things you'd love to see from him, but he's absolutely matured as a player this season.

The tallest of the midgets is probably still too short. But yeah Zach has DEFINITELY improved this season. He still has the tools for another big leap if he can ever get his head straight.... And players usually do get better with more experience on the league. Unfortunately we were hoping for him to mature too quickly

[dice]

Zach has a positive Bpm on a losing team.
Winning player? Thats totally subjective.
He is doing his job, excelling at his role as a number 1 scorer.

He is literally on pace for a 2,000 point season.
Got to give big props to Zach. He is allstar deserving. Best player on the team by a wide margin.

actually not unreasonable given the dearth of star power in the east and his improved defense. but i'd have him on the outside looking in