Chanel Bomber wrote:Fury wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Utah gives me a glimmer of hope that the Knicks can build a legitimately good team if they trade for or sign Zach Lavine while keeping their core intact.
I think Lavine is the epitome of a player who's never been in the right situation. But his scoring efficiency is elite, he's a dynamic and fluid perimeter player in the mold of Mitchell (perhaps not as good), Murray or Booker. He's just not a floor raiser, but add him to a solid core of players with a strong defensive identity and he elevates your ceiling significantly.
Lavine-Randle-RJ is the only way to go if you're neither team tank or team Dameism.
I think he'd be great but I don't think Chicago is going to trade him and if they wanted to trade him, we don't have much to offer.
It largely depends on his willingness to leave Chicago. I personally believe the Bulls as currently constructed are doomed, and that he has no shot at making the playoffs next year with the core they have put together. So does he want to rot in Chicago or does he want to finally be relevant in New York?
I think 3 or 4 firsts and a young player would be a fair offer for a player who's technically a threat to leave (assuming he does use that leverage), especially when you consider Chicago's lack of draft capital. If they get a top 4 pick in this year's lottery, it could change everything, obviously. But Lavine is not exactly proven anyway, frankly speaking.
To add to this, his contract is about to expire next year, and it has been reported that he's going to decline any contract extension from the bulls this summer. They'd be wise to deal him for something rather than let him walk and get nothing in return.
That said, we should only really sign him if we get assurances that he'll be here long term and will sign an extension. To me he seems like a west coast kinda guy, born in washington, huge kobe fan growing up, went to school at UCLA. I would think his most likely destination would be the lakers
