LaVine traded to the Kings as part of 3 team deal (Huerter, Tre Jones to Bulls)

[Dez]

I really wanted to see him with the Warriors or Nuggets

Anybody know what’s up with the Portland pick nowadays?

Still worthless.

[Michael Jackson]

I really wanted to see him with the Warriors or Nuggets

Anybody know what’s up with the Portland pick nowadays?

Still worthless.

Yeah and it will continue to be it seems. If Dame was there yeah we likely would have seen it and maybe would have been lucky enough to draft Dalen Terry 2.0

[sco]

I really wanted to see him with the Warriors or Nuggets

Anybody know what’s up with the Portland pick nowadays?

Still worthless.

Yeah and it will continue to be it seems. If Dame was there yeah we likely would have seen it and maybe would have been lucky enough to draft Dalen Terry 2.0

Yeah, but I do think they are on an upswing, and I could see it convey in the next couple years.

[WindyCityBorn]

I think Zach is Zach if he is on our team or another. He is better than anyone on our team today, but the issue is/was that he wasn't good enough to be a #1 option on a contending team, so it was time to start our next search for "that guy". I do think he can be the #2 option on a contending team.

Our inept management had 8 years to find a #1. We got a glimpse of what that could have looked like when DeRozan played like Jordan his first season here.

[Stratmaster]

Ignore his bad games? Did you even read what I said? The first comment about his individual play was "he has struggled with his shooting, but the last 2 games..."

Do you think his career TS% and numbers point to the first few games being where he will settle in, or the last two?

I would guess he will be about the same player he was in Sacramento, and I described any changes to likely be due to variance or any number of possible factors and didn't make any firm judgments at all.

You said he's playing better (but he's not) and its due to the coach (which ignoring the fact your conclusion was already false, there's no evidence of).

Yes, there are many factors at play when changing teams. Especially after sitting out 5 games. Maybe some rust? Maybe acclamating to a slightly different role on the new team? Maybe getting used to your new teammates. Where they like to get the ball on the floor and when. New arrangements in your personal life? The coach figuring out how to slot you into the rotations properly?

Are you really making the case that "Zach is more motivated" and that somehow offsets all those other factors?

No, I'm not making any case. I'm rejecting your claim that Zach is playing better because of coaching. I have made no claim except to point out that factually he is not playing better and is in fact playing worse, and there are many reasons as to why the difference could occur (including effectively no reason whatsoever because its too short a time period), and that it shouldn't be evaluated at all.

The post I made was the first time I even looked to see how Lavine has been doing. I know you love Billy but does he pay you to defend him? It really is interesting how after all the seasons he has been here, and his complete failure to make progress of any sort, there is a group of diehard fans and media who still talk about him being a great coach. He's the stereotype meathead, big talking, gum chewing jock. I guess there are a lot of Chicago media who eat that **** up. DITKA!! Lol.

He has been a complete failure.

I don't love Billy, I just don't irrationally hate Billy. If behaved in the same way as you, I'd have said "Look how great a coach Billy Donovan is, Zach is playing worse in Sacramento!" which would be the "love" version of the argument you just made. I think that would be just as silly a thing to say (though at least it would factually track with Zach's play unlike what you said).

Show me where I said he was playing better? Show me where I said he is playing better because of coaching. His first few games he actually played worse. Which I stated before I said anything else. I will say his numbers are "different" the last couple games. I wasn't making anything of anything except that I think Sac will use him better. Which isn't difficult being that Donovan alienated his best player from the start and basically got him run out of town.

I haven't watched a single minute of Lavine since he left the Bulls. I freely admitted I am just looking at numbers and the last 2 games his assist to TO ration is way different than with the Bulls; while still putting up big scoring totals. It's funny. Billy had how many seasons to figure out how to use the talent he had; but you think Sac should have had it all down the first 5 games? That's ridiculous and you know it.

I don't irrationally hate Billy Donovan. I don't hate anyone. Billy hasn't accomplished a single thing in 5 seasons coaching the Bulls. He has been a complete failure. When asked to point out one thing he has accomplished in his tenure here, no one can. Any other coach would have been canned a long time ago. The Bulls will go nowhere as long as Billy Donovan is their head coach. Knowing the Bulls, they will keep him here to "reb build" and he will be the first coach in NBA history to coach for 10 years without ever winning a playoff series and not being fired.

[Stratmaster]

For Strat, Billy causes floods, locusts, and earthquakes. So, sure, it's his fault that Zach is now playing better after leaving the Bulls, even though Zach isn't now playing better after leaving the Bulls.

But to give the man his due, he was correct last year in keeping the faith on Zach, who is having quite a good season, if truth be told.

Floods and Erathquakes? Nah.

locusts?

Absolutely. Billy is indeeed a plague on the Chicago Bulls.

Again, I never said Zach was playing better. I specifically said he played worse the first 5 or whatever games.

And I wasn't just correct about him last year. I was correct about him his whole time in Chicago. Everyone can now enjoy Coby White jacking up shots from all over the court, having 2-15 games followed by 10-15 games followed by 2-15 games. Then they can savor the 3 minutes of professional basketball that Williams plays every 5 or 6 games.

[Dan Z]

I think Zach is Zach if he is on our team or another. He is better than anyone on our team today, but the issue is/was that he wasn't good enough to be a #1 option on a contending team, so it was time to start our next search for "that guy". I do think he can be the #2 option on a contending team.

Our inept management had 8 years to find a #1. We got a glimpse of what that could have looked like when DeRozan played like Jordan his first season here.

What year did Zach sign his current contract? Was it after the first season that DDR was on the Bulls?

One issue with AK is that he didn't see the writing on the wall. The team did well for a few months (DDRs first season), but once Lonzo got hurt it went downhill and ended badly. I could understanding waiting half a season to see what happens (and to have more time to assess Lonzo's injury) but after that...no. It was time to realize that the big three of DDR, Vucevic and Zach wasn't going to work. No tweaks were going to change that.

At that time DDR and Zach had more trade value. Caruso too (Vucevic probably not).

[dougthonus]

Show me where I said he was playing better? Show me where I said he is playing better because of coaching. His first few games he actually played worse. Which I stated before I said anything else. I will say his numbers are "different" the last couple games. I wasn't making anything of anything except that I think Sac will use him better. Which isn't difficult being that Donovan alienated his best player from the start and basically got him run out of town.

Fair enough, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, which was:

Kings are 4-3 since Lavine got there and have won 3 of their last 4. He struggled with his shooting but the last 2 games he has scored 55 points and has 17 assists. Last game he had 32 points, 10 assists and 3 steals.

Maybe they know how to use him better than Billy did?

To break this down by sentence, I would view this as you saying:
1: Zach LaVine is a big part of the Kings winning 3 of 4 games.

2: Zach has really good individual stats despite not shooting well.

3: You think this is true due to coaching.

If that's an incorrect interpretation of what you meant, my bad, but I think it's the pretty common way someone would interpret it. I hope Zach find success with the Kings. I know Zach has been short of supporters on the forum (with you being probably the biggest, but I'm in the same bus with you, maybe more quietly sitting in the back instead of driving though).

[WindyCityBorn]

Show me where I said he was playing better? Show me where I said he is playing better because of coaching. His first few games he actually played worse. Which I stated before I said anything else. I will say his numbers are "different" the last couple games. I wasn't making anything of anything except that I think Sac will use him better. Which isn't difficult being that Donovan alienated his best player from the start and basically got him run out of town.

Fair enough, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, which was:

Kings are 4-3 since Lavine got there and have won 3 of their last 4. He struggled with his shooting but the last 2 games he has scored 55 points and has 17 assists. Last game he had 32 points, 10 assists and 3 steals.

Maybe they know how to use him better than Billy did?

To break this down by sentence, I would view this as you saying:
1: Zach LaVine is a big part of the Kings winning 3 of 4 games.

2: Zach has really good individual stats despite not shooting well.

3: You think this is true due to coaching.

If that's an incorrect interpretation of what you meant, my bad, but I think it's the pretty common way someone would interpret it. I hope Zach find success with the Kings. I know Zach has been short of supporters on the forum (with you being probably the biggest, but I'm in the same bus with you, maybe more quietly sitting in the back instead of driving though).

I’m not even sure what they are talking about with Zach. He was having an all-star quality season here before he got traded and had numerous games where he a good amount of assists. He isn’t going to suddenly become a point guard in Sacramento though. It’s not his strength.

[Stratmaster]

Show me where I said he was playing better? Show me where I said he is playing better because of coaching. His first few games he actually played worse. Which I stated before I said anything else. I will say his numbers are "different" the last couple games. I wasn't making anything of anything except that I think Sac will use him better. Which isn't difficult being that Donovan alienated his best player from the start and basically got him run out of town.

Fair enough, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, which was:

Kings are 4-3 since Lavine got there and have won 3 of their last 4. He struggled with his shooting but the last 2 games he has scored 55 points and has 17 assists. Last game he had 32 points, 10 assists and 3 steals.

Maybe they know how to use him better than Billy did?

To break this down by sentence, I would view this as you saying:
1: Zach LaVine is a big part of the Kings winning 3 of 4 games.

2: Zach has really good individual stats despite not shooting well.

3: You think this is true due to coaching.

If that's an incorrect interpretation of what you meant, my bad, but I think it's the pretty common way someone would interpret it. I hope Zach find success with the Kings. I know Zach has been short of supporters on the forum (with you being probably the biggest, but I'm in the same bus with you, maybe more quietly sitting in the back instead of driving though).

The "Kings are 4-3" was more in reference to someone mentioning how inept the Kings are as an organization. IDK how big a part Zach was in that because I didn't watch any of the games. In addition, the 4-3 includes an overtime loss. the OT loss happened to be Zach's best numbers. Both counting (expected with the overtime) and advanced, assist to to ratio etc. So no. I have no clue how big Zach was in their successful stretch, other than they have him playing over 35 mpg.

I think Zach will be better because of the lack of Billy Donovan. It isn't too difficult to handle and use a player better than Billy did Zach. I mean, all you have to do is kind of get along with him and not try to neuter him.

[Dan Z]

I really wanted to see him with the Warriors or Nuggets

Anybody know what’s up with the Portland pick nowadays?

Still worthless.

Yeah and it will continue to be it seems. If Dame was there yeah we likely would have seen it and maybe would have been lucky enough to draft Dalen Terry 2.0

I never understood why AK didn't do a better job with the protections on that pick. Isn't Markkanen (even the Bulls version) worth more than a pick that may not convey for years down the road (and ends up as a 2nd if it doesn't)?

Even the last part is odd: why only one 2nd? Most deals end up giving two of them.

At that time DJJ wasn't worth that much.

[HomoSapien]

Read on Twitter

[Dan Z]

Read on Twitter

Hmmm....they suggest that the Bulls should've kept Zach. What do you think?

[HomoSapien]

Read on Twitter

Hmmm....they suggest that the Bulls should've kept Zach. What do you think?

I have a few floating thoughts that I can't help but shake.

1.) Not once in the 7 1/2 seasons we had him did we try to build a team that complemented his strengths or minimized his weaknesses. I don't think he's a proper first option, but I do think he'd be a legitimate contender-level 2nd option if we built the right way or had aggressively pursued stars during his time here.

2.) We didn't get enough for Zach in the trade.

3.) The dropoff in this team post-Zach makes it apparent that he was really elevating this team big time.

Do I think we should've kept Zach? Not really. It was time to move on and I've wanted us to rebuild for a long time. That said, I don't trust this FO to do it properly, and I think we'll perpetually be stuck in the play-in territory as long as they're in charge.

[PaKii94]

https://www.reddit.com/r/kings/comments/1ivm2yv/zach_lavine_24_plus_minus/

Kinda feel bad for the Kings but they are the Kangs what can you do?

[MrSparkle]

Well, it’s a league where 1 defender can **** up your defense severely (cough, D’Lo).

We had 1, 2, 3, 4… FOUR BAD (and undersized) defenders surrounding a bad defender in Zach. And the absolute worst defensive C in the NBA. So we played a poor 5-man defense all year, and frankly he did OK.

And the Kings essentially re-created the mess!

From that angle if Zach was surrounded by Gobert, Reid and McDaniels, I’m pretty sure he’d finally see some more success.

I continually acknowledge some major flaws he has. Getting stripped on drives, TOs, inconsistent IQ and reads, butter fingers in the clutch and the D is bad. I think my biggest factor is the injury proneness, combined with the contract amount, and the on-court floor/ceiling as a result of these injuries and his max salary (his bad days are brutal, his best days are still 1-way feats).

But the most competent rim protectors the guy EVER played with were short-lived or really inexperienced (Gafford, Wendell)… 2 months of Theis… really a nice run with Thad.

I kind of feel for the guy. We had a glimpse of what worked better (Thad at C, Pat PF, Temple at SF), but the GM/VP/HC kinda refused to follow that model.

I disagree with KC and Stacey though. I hate this trade in terms of value, but big picture, I’m relieved the salary is off the books. I do fear that we’ll fill it right back up with Coby Ayo and Giddey.

I don’t get why the Spurs didn’t take him for free. I know they wanted Fox, and he’s better, but Zach’s spacing and iso game would’ve helped Wemby & friends (disastrous/unexpected medical situation aside), and he’d finally have some cover in the paint.

[dougthonus]

Still worthless.

Yeah and it will continue to be it seems. If Dame was there yeah we likely would have seen it and maybe would have been lucky enough to draft Dalen Terry 2.0

I never understood why AK didn't do a better job with the protections on that pick. Isn't Markkanen (even the Bulls version) worth more than a pick that may not convey for years down the road (and ends up as a 2nd if it doesn't)?

Even the last part is odd: why only one 2nd? Most deals end up giving two of them.

At that time DJJ wasn't worth that much.

What was Portland's incentive to give you much in that trade? They didn't get Lauri, they dumped DJJ for Nance. That's a really minor move for them. The problem was fundamentally that it was a S&T, not trading a player under contract. You very rarely get much back for a S&T, especially for a guy on a just a bit above MLE contract.

Our return was limited because we waited too long to trade Lauri and should have moved him at the previous deadline or off-season when he had a year left.

[dougthonus]

https://www.reddit.com/r/kings/comments/1ivm2yv/zach_lavine_24_plus_minus/

Kinda feel bad for the Kings but they are the Kangs what can you do?

I mean they paid dead salary for 1.5 years for Zach's deal for 2.5 years, so not sure that's a bad deal for them. Though time will tell. It's sort of hilarious they've got a Zach/DeMar/Sabonis core. While Sabonis is a younger, better version of Vuc, he's the same archtype of a non shooting, non defensive center, and again you have 3 scorers where only one had range and none can defend.

[Dan Z]

Yeah and it will continue to be it seems. If Dame was there yeah we likely would have seen it and maybe would have been lucky enough to draft Dalen Terry 2.0

I never understood why AK didn't do a better job with the protections on that pick. Isn't Markkanen (even the Bulls version) worth more than a pick that may not convey for years down the road (and ends up as a 2nd if it doesn't)?

Even the last part is odd: why only one 2nd? Most deals end up giving two of them.

At that time DJJ wasn't worth that much.

What was Portland's incentive to give you much in that trade? They didn't get Lauri, they dumped DJJ for Nance. That's a really minor move for them. The problem was fundamentally that it was a S&T, not trading a player under contract. You very rarely get much back for a S&T, especially for a guy on a just a bit above MLE contract.

Our return was limited because we waited too long to trade Lauri and should have moved him at the previous deadline or off-season when he had a year left.

I bet both Portland and Chicago thought that Portland would make the playoffs the next year (and beyond) so maybe better negotiation would mean a better deal on those protections for the Bulls? Even if that wasn't possible it's still an odd set of protections....it was 7 years out!

If they can't get a better deal from Portland then just re-sign Lauri and keep him. They shouldn't have been in a rush to dump him for basically nothing. I know the Bulls version of Markkanen isn't what he is today, but he was still a #7 pick who they had been developing for years and had moments that showed some potential.

[dougthonus]

I bet both Portland and Chicago thought that Portland would make the playoffs the next year (and beyond) so maybe better negotiation would mean a better deal on those protections for the Bulls? Even if that wasn't possible it's still an odd set of protections....it was 7 years out!

I remember I said when we made the trade that I thought it was 50/50 we would get the pick, and I was mostly laughed off the forum because everyone had said Portland had made the playoffs 7 straight years (or whatever it was) and Dame alone would get them in, and I had noted they barely sneaked in the previous year, Dame might demand out or get hurt, and if they missed for any reason they'd enter a full rebuild that could easily take many years in the West.

Generally speaking, I agree the vast majority people expected the pick to convey immediately, but for Portland, they looked at it (I'm sure), like if it doesn't convey, then this deal was a huge bust for us, and we're not giving you a lottery pick some time in the future over it. Again, just not enough value for them.

If they can't get a better deal from Portland then just re-sign Lauri and keep him. They shouldn't have been in a rush to dump him for basically nothing. I know the Bulls version of Markkanen isn't what he is today, but he was still a #7 pick who they had been developing for years and had moments that showed some potential.

That certainly would have been a better move in reality, but Lauri didn't want to be here, and we didn't want him here. We wanted to develop Pat and didn't think Lauri could play next to Vuc. Another underrated reason why the Vuc trade was a disaster is that it also made us highly motivated to move on from Lauri which ended up being a mistake at that price.