Bulls Not Currently Making Zach LaVine Available On Trade Market

Post #1 » by **RealGM Wiretap** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 12:48 pm

Zach LaVine re-signed with the Chicago Bulls on a five-year, $215.2 million deal this past offseason. LaVine is averaging 22.2 points, 4.7 rebounds and 4.3 assists in 20 games this season as the Bulls have struggled to establish themselves in the playoff picture.

There has been speculation that the Bulls could pivot with their roster at some point, but LaVine is not believed to be currently available in trade talks.

"The Knicks will be watching Chicago," said Adrian Wojnarowski when referencing the next star that the New York Knicks could pursue after losing out on Donovan Mitchell. "Is Zach LaVine a player who before the deadline possibly can become available? He certainly isn't now."

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/ESPN

Pickled Prunes · Post #2 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 7:59 pm

Who would want him on that deal? ORL? CHA? I think most teams would rather keep their picks. LAL might trade him for Russ straight up but I don't see them including even one pick in the deal. LaVine wasn't a max-worthy player in his best season.

coolness · Post #3 » by **coolness** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 9:43 pm

I think there was the same article about Donovan Mitchell before Utah traded him.

MitchB3 · Post #4 » by **MitchB3** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 10:13 pm

coolness wrote:I think there was the same article about Donovan Mitchell before Utah traded him.

I mean the Bulls are truly a mysterious team.

MitchB3 · Post #5 » by **MitchB3** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 10:16 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:Who would want him on that deal? ORL? CHA? I think most teams would rather keep their picks. LAL might trade him for Russ straight up but I don't see them including even one pick in the deal. LaVine wasn't a max-worthy player in his best season.

Orlando already has their core so throwing him into the mix doesn't make sense. I do see a team like the Knicks maybe, you also have the Sixers, and possibly the Nets, who could and would be interested in Zach services.

MitchB3 · Post #6 » by **MitchB3** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 10:21 pm

Not sure why the Bulls even offered him the max when they themselves aren't sold on Zach as being the face of the team. Right now the league has a lot of B-'s, B's, B+, and a C+ player getting paid near max contract when they shouldn't be. Guys such as Zach, Dame, Beal, are all guys that shouldn't be getting maxed out, I'm sorry.

Pickled Prunes · Post #7 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Thu Dec 8, 2022 10:35 pm

MitchB3 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:Who would want him on that deal? ORL? CHA? I think most teams would rather keep their picks. LAL might trade him for Russ straight up but I don't see them including even one pick in the deal. LaVine wasn't a max-worthy player in his best season.

Orlando already has their core so throwing him into the mix doesn't make sense. I do see a team like the Knicks maybe, you also have the Sixers, and possibly the Nets, who could and would be interested in Zach services.

The Knicks... why didn't I think of that? I don't know that the Sixers would be interested. Yeah, his money lines up nicely with Harris.... but I'd rather have Harris. He's healthy and his advanced stats are better than LaVine's, pretty much across the board. Tobias is a better player, particularly for the role of 3rd option. And with what they just went through with Simmons, I don't see them locking in long term to a maybe. (I understand that PHI fans have an irrational hate for Harris, and I'm OK with it.)

The reality is that when you have a "star" that a team like ORL isn't interested in, then you don't have a star. :wink:

Pickled Prunes · Post #8 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Fri Dec 9, 2022 4:31 am

MitchB3 wrote:Not sure why the Bulls even offered him the max when they themselves aren't sold on Zach as being the face of the team. Right now the league has a lot of B-'s, B's, B+, and a C+ player getting paid near max contract when they shouldn't be. Guys such as Zach, Dame, Beal, are all guys that shouldn't be getting maxed out, I'm sorry.

Dame's recent extension was inadvisable, but you can't put him in the same category as LaVine and Beal. Lillard has been in the NBA for 10 seasons and made the playoffs in the West all but two times. (His rookie season and last season when he was injured.) He was arguably the best player on his team in each of those seasons. LaVine has made the playoffs once in 8 years and was swept. He still hasn't won a playoff game. Beal is the best player on a bad team. He's made the playoffs 5 times in the East, but only once as the best player on his team, and that was in 20/21 when WAS finished 4 games under .500%.

MitchB3 · Post #9 » by **MitchB3** » Mon Dec 12, 2022 9:04 am

Pickled Prunes wrote:
MitchB3 wrote:Not sure why the Bulls even offered him the max when they themselves aren't sold on Zach as being the face of the team. Right now the league has a lot of B-'s, B's, B+, and a C+ player getting paid near max contract when they shouldn't be. Guys such as Zach, Dame, Beal, are all guys that shouldn't be getting maxed out, I'm sorry.

Dame's recent extension was inadvisable, but you can't put him in the same category as LaVine and Beal. Lillard has been in the NBA for 10 seasons and made the playoffs in the West all but two times. (His rookie season and last season when he was injured.) He was arguably the best player on his team in each of those seasons. LaVine has made the playoffs once in 8 years and was swept. He still hasn't won a playoff game. Beal is the best player on a bad team. He's made the playoffs 5 times in the East, but only once as the best player on his team, and that was in 20/21 when WAS finished 4 games under .500%.

Allow me to better explain myself then, Dame, Zach, and Beal are all 2's & 3's on a legit contender.

Pickled Prunes · Post #10 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:39 am

MitchB3 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:
MitchB3 wrote:Not sure why the Bulls even offered him the max when they themselves aren't sold on Zach as being the face of the team. Right now the league has a lot of B-'s, B's, B+, and a C+ player getting paid near max contract when they shouldn't be. Guys such as Zach, Dame, Beal, are all guys that shouldn't be getting maxed out, I'm sorry.

Dame's recent extension was inadvisable, but you can't put him in the same category as LaVine and Beal. Lillard has been in the NBA for 10 seasons and made the playoffs in the West all but two times. (His rookie season and last season when he was injured.) He was arguably the best player on his team in each of those seasons. LaVine has made the playoffs once in 8 years and was swept. He still hasn't won a playoff game. Beal is the best player on a bad team. He's made the playoffs 5 times in the East, but only once as the best player on his team, and that was in 20/21 when WAS finished 4 games under .500%.

Allow me to better explain myself then, Dame, Zach, and Beal are all 2's & 3's on a legit contender.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Dame could clearly be a 1A or 1B. Beal is a #3 and LaVine is a #4-5. If you put these three on the same team, Dame would be the clear #1 and they wouldn't win anything. But that would be more about Beal and LaVine. Keep in mind that Lillard has a career .557 win% as the best player on his team. Beal is at .490 and was only the best player on his team in losing seasons. LaVine is at .356

and last season, which was his only winning season, he wasn't the best player on his team and had a .552 winning%, which is lower than Lillard's career average. And once again, Lillard did it in the West while the West was vastly deeper than the East.

Yes, Lillard's extension was too rich for too long. No, he should not be mentioned in the same breath as Beal or LaVine.

MitchB3 · Post #11 » by **MitchB3** » Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:45 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:
MitchB3 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:Dame's recent extension was inadvisable, but you can't put him in the same category as LaVine and Beal. Lillard has been in the NBA for 10 seasons and made the playoffs in the West all but two times. (His rookie season and last season when he was injured.) He was arguably the best player on his team in each of those seasons. LaVine has made the playoffs once in 8 years and was swept. He still hasn't won a playoff game. Beal is the best player on a bad team. He's made the playoffs 5 times in the East, but only once as the best player on his team, and that was in 20/21 when WAS finished 4 games under .500%.

Allow me to better explain myself then, Dame, Zach, and Beal are all 2's & 3's on a legit contender.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Dame could clearly be a 1A or 1B. Beal is a #3 and LaVine is a #4-5. If you put these three on the same team, Dame would be the clear #1 and they wouldn't win anything. But that would be more about Beal and LaVine. Keep in mind that Lillard has a career .557 win% as the best player on his team. Beal is at .490 and was only the best player on his team in losing seasons. LaVine is at .356 and last season, which was his only winning season, he wasn't the best player on his team and had a .552 winning%, which is lower than Lillard's career average. And once again, Lillard did it in the West while the West was vastly deeper than the East.

Yes, Lillard's extension was too rich for too long. No, he should not be mentioned in the same breath as Beal or LaVine.

In what world is he a 1A or 1B?

Pickled Prunes · Post #12 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:58 pm

MitchB3 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:
MitchB3 wrote:
Allow me to better explain myself then, Dame, Zach, and Beal are all 2's & 3's on a legit contender.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Dame could clearly be a 1A or 1B. Beal is a #3 and LaVine is a #4-5. If you put these three on the same team, Dame would be the clear #1 and they wouldn't win anything. But that would be more about Beal and LaVine. Keep in mind that Lillard has a career .557 win% as the best player on his team. Beal is at .490 and was only the best player on his team in losing seasons. LaVine is at .356 and last season, which was his only winning season, he wasn't the best player on his team and had a .552 winning%, which is lower than Lillard's career average. And once again, Lillard did it in the West while the West was vastly deeper than the East.

Yes, Lillard's extension was too rich for too long. No, he should not be mentioned in the same breath as Beal or LaVine.

In what world is he a 1A or 1B?

In a world where the second best player on his team isn't 6' 3" or under. Dame has never had a running mate at his level, and as long as POR runs their "too small" backcourt he won't win anything. But why ask me? Why not just go watch last night's highlights?

Watch on YouTube