Wiretap: Bulls Hope To Re-Sign Zach LaVine At $14M-$16M

[DanTown8587]

History repeats itself—bulls offer zach 12-13 mil per over 4 and Zach bets on himself just like butler and plays out his final year; Zach averages 20pts 5.8 rbs and 3.3 assists just like Butler did and bulls offer him a max contract like butler w player option in 3 yrs; bulls trade him in 2nd year bc they don’t want to pay super max for 2 young prospects (one coming off a season ending injury) and draft pick swap; rinse wash repeat woohoo! Go bulls!

Good thing Lavine isn't eligible for a supermax deal since he was already traded but never let facts get in the way of being mad for no reason.

He is eligible for the supermax since he was traded on his rookie deal. Might want to sit the next few out.

[SensiBull]

I honestly feel like there are two different types of Bulls fans.

A. There are some that just straight out have a Messiah Complex.

They're like gamblers. Their attitude is, "Which one of these beans might grow into a stalk?" It's like they're trying to hit on a lucky number in roulette. They want someone to 'lead' the team, to take responsibility off of everyone, to say, 'Trust in me because I can take you there', put everyone else on their own backs and just take the team to the Finals.

They simply want the next Jordan, and, just about any rim-attacking run-jump athlete, with a shoe deal, will do. It's a cloak of credibility that feels familiar to them, and they're happy to waste season after season hoping every run-jump athlete they put faith in will become that.

It's been everyone from Ron Mercer to Ben Gordon to Derrick Rose to Jimmy Butler to, now, Zach LaVine. (And, no, I'm not saying Ron Mercer had a shoe deal. I'm saying that if some company gave him one, the kind of 'fan' I'm talking about would see that as an additional gem in the crown of legitimacy that this could be The One.)

B. Then, on the other hand, and sorry if I sound biased, but, it's because I am. There are the fans who know what's really going on. It is the era of analytics.

Billy Bean's tactics aren''t only being applied to baseball. Basketball is crunching the numbers too.

It's Moneyball.

It's that midget with the small strike zone gets on base with walks as often as Pete Rose or Rod Carew, Adam Eaton or Dee Gordon, and still represents the tying or go-ahead run.

Today's successful players don't always look like the 'stars' of yesterday. That's part of why I'm skeptical of DeAndre Ayton.

So, I'm looking at players like CJ McCollum or Bradley Beal or Brandon Ingram, not because I see them as the traditional, charismatic Alpha males. I'm not necessarily looking for a leader, or a 'magic bullet' type of player.

I'm looking at them for their reliable outside shooting, to space the floor, so that slashers like Kris Dunn, Jerian Grant, David Nwaba and Zach LaVine can have room to operate; but, only one of those 4 slashers is trying to at least triple if not quadruple or quintuple his salary right now.

Nevermind charisma or image.

From a BASKETBALL perspective, what skill set am I losing if I don't pay him and he walks or forces me to sign him to a modest deal and trade him?

[the ultimates]

History repeats itself—bulls offer zach 12-13 mil per over 4 and Zach bets on himself just like butler and plays out his final year; Zach averages 20pts 5.8 rbs and 3.3 assists just like Butler did and bulls offer him a max contract like butler w player option in 3 yrs; bulls trade him in 2nd year bc they don’t want to pay super max for 2 young prospects (one coming off a season ending injury) and draft pick swap; rinse wash repeat woohoo! Go bulls!

Good thing Lavine isn't eligible for a supermax deal since he was already traded but never let facts get in the way of being mad for no reason.

He is eligible for the supermax since he was traded on his rookie deal. Might want to sit the next few out.

So you of all people are going to be the arbiter of board morals? I was wrong I'll admit on a technicality but still wrong. Let's not make this post seem like it isn't made to drive home the Bulls are cheap narrative.

[Threekola]

I honestly feel like there are two different types of Bulls fans.

A. There are some that just straight out have a Messiah Complex.

They're like gamblers. Their attitude is, "Which one of these beans might grow into a stalk?" It's like they're trying to hit on a lucky number in roulette. They want someone to 'lead' the team, to take responsibility off of everyone, to say, 'Trust in me because I can take you there', put everyone else on their own backs and just take the team to the Finals.

They simply want the next Jordan, and, just about any rim-attacking run-jump athlete, with a shoe deal, will do. It's a cloak of credibility that feels familiar to them, and they're happy to waste season after season hoping every run-jump athlete they put faith in will become that.

It's been everyone from Ron Mercer to Ben Gordon to Derrick Rose to Jimmy Butler to, now, Zach LaVine. (And, no, I'm not saying Ron Mercer had a shoe deal. I'm saying that if some company gave him one, the kind of 'fan' I'm talking about would see that as an additional gem in the crown of legitimacy that this could be The One.)

B. Then, on the other hand, and sorry if I sound biased, but, it's because I am. There are the fans who know what's really going on. It is the era of analytics.

Billy Bean's tactics aren''t only being applied to baseball. Basketball is crunching the numbers too.

It's Moneyball.

It's that midget with the small strike zone gets on base with walks as often as Pete Rose or Rod Carew, Adam Eaton or Dee Gordon, and still represents the tying or go-ahead run.

Today's successful players don't always look like the 'stars' of yesterday. That's part of why I'm skeptical of DeAndre Ayton.

So, I'm looking at players like CJ McCollum or Bradley Beal or Brandon Ingram, not because I see them as the traditional, charismatic Alpha males. I'm not necessarily looking for a leader, or a 'magic bullet' type of player.

I'm looking at them for their reliable outside shooting, to space the floor, so that slashers like Kris Dunn, Jerian Grant, David Nwaba and Zach LaVine can have room to operate; but, only one of those 4 slashers is trying to at least triple if not quadruple or quintuple his salary right now.

Nevermind charisma or image.

From a BASKETBALL perspective, what skill set am I losing if I don't pay him and he walks or forces me to sign him to a modest deal and trade him?

Well from a basketball perspective he can create his own shot, get to the rim and finish, and hit 3s at a high rate. Who can we get that has that skill set?

[TheJordanRule]

1st let me say wiggins has ALWAYS been overrated. He has athletic ability/physical tools but low motor,no play making ability,no handles,no dog in him nothing. Another prospect that was all hype I was saying years ago embiid looked better than wiggins when they were at kansas

As far as the bolded,I disagree the ability to get your own shot is never overrated. Systems and specific plays aren't gonna always work.You need players who can isolate and get to the line or create offense on their own.

As far as the efficiency goes

Lavine averaged 14 ppg shot 45% fg 12 fga and 39% 3's(4 attempts) in 28 mins his 2nd year

Lavine averaged 19 ppg shot 46% fg 15 fga 39% 3's(7 attempts) in 37 mins his 3rd year

Rookie year and last year returning from an acl injury were the only times he wasn't efficient.Bulls fans are way too hard on lavine and I think outside the 24 games he played for the bulls a lot of fans haven't really watched him. They just check the advanced stats

In Lavine's third year he had .82 WS/48. I don't really understand advanced stats, but that indicates he was a slightly below average starter in his first year. If you dive into his conventional stats he scored a lot of points that year on average efficiency, he didn't get to the line much and he didn't feast in the paint like other elite guards.

Elite players know how to get themselves easy buckets. Guys like Dwayne Wade are always cutting off the ball, I never see Lavine do that. Every shot he takes seems to be off the dribble.

Being effective without the ball in your hands is more important than being able to get your own shot. For one, off-ball scoring tends to be more efficient. Two, it takes pressure off your teammates. Three, off ball scoring doesn't require as much energy. Earlier this week, I played some two on two basketball with a teammate who couldn't play basketball or speak English. I had to try and create my own shot on every possession, by the end of the game I felt like I had just run the Boston marathon.

There are things about Lavine's game I like. I like that he can run the pick and roll, and that he can pass a little. I like that he has a good three point shot. I like that he's a decent rebounder for a guard. I don't like his inability to cut off the ball, or find himself easy shots. I don't like his defense or focus.

I'm all for keeping Lavine around at the right price, but not if it costs us the ability to bring in other players.

Devin booker win share .63 in his 3rd year and booker is -2.5 dpm for his career. He is considered just as bad a defender as zach lavine

with a much higher usage rate,more fga's more mins booker is .3 higher opm than lavine. Booker is considered a franchise cornerstone for phoenix and will get a 140 million extension this fall.

Let anyone tell it booker is one of the best young players in the nba .Advanced stats arent the end all be all for judging a player especially on bad teams that stay in the lottery.Booker is about to get a contract that value wise won't make sense and may never will ,and lavine is equally as good based off several ppp offensive stats.

Guarantee you won't see any suns fans talking about booker the way bulls fans talk about lavine.

Booker is only 21. Zach is 23. Booker's high volume scoring (24.9 PPG) comes on high volume efficiency (his TS % was at 56.1 last year). Zach's mediocre volume scoring (16.7 PPG) has been on much worse efficiency (Zach's TS % was at 49.9 last year). Booker has a PER that is over one standard deviation higher than Zach's (Booker is at 18.1 PER, Zach is at 14.6 PER). Both Zach and Booker have defensive concerns, but they are far from equals. The Suns fan base have much better reasons to support Booker from a statistical and eye test standpoint. LaVine's major advantage over Booker is elite athleticism. He's much faster, quicker, stronger, jumps higher, etc. And that IS something important to consider. But there are plenty of unskilled athletic phenoms who have gone nowhere in the NBA.

[DanTown8587]

Good thing Lavine isn't eligible for a supermax deal since he was already traded but never let facts get in the way of being mad for no reason.

He is eligible for the supermax since he was traded on his rookie deal. Might want to sit the next few out.

So you of all people are going to be the arbiter of board morals? I was wrong I'll admit on a technicality but still wrong. Let's not make this post seem like it isn't made to drive home the Bulls are cheap narrative.

[Threekola]

In Lavine's third year he had .82 WS/48. I don't really understand advanced stats, but that indicates he was a slightly below average starter in his first year. If you dive into his conventional stats he scored a lot of points that year on average efficiency, he didn't get to the line much and he didn't feast in the paint like other elite guards.

Elite players know how to get themselves easy buckets. Guys like Dwayne Wade are always cutting off the ball, I never see Lavine do that. Every shot he takes seems to be off the dribble.

Being effective without the ball in your hands is more important than being able to get your own shot. For one, off-ball scoring tends to be more efficient. Two, it takes pressure off your teammates. Three, off ball scoring doesn't require as much energy. Earlier this week, I played some two on two basketball with a teammate who couldn't play basketball or speak English. I had to try and create my own shot on every possession, by the end of the game I felt like I had just run the Boston marathon.

There are things about Lavine's game I like. I like that he can run the pick and roll, and that he can pass a little. I like that he has a good three point shot. I like that he's a decent rebounder for a guard. I don't like his inability to cut off the ball, or find himself easy shots. I don't like his defense or focus.

I'm all for keeping Lavine around at the right price, but not if it costs us the ability to bring in other players.

Devin booker win share .63 in his 3rd year and booker is -2.5 dpm for his career. He is considered just as bad a defender as zach lavine

with a much higher usage rate,more fga's more mins booker is .3 higher opm than lavine. Booker is considered a franchise cornerstone for phoenix and will get a 140 million extension this fall.

Let anyone tell it booker is one of the best young players in the nba .Advanced stats arent the end all be all for judging a player especially on bad teams that stay in the lottery.Booker is about to get a contract that value wise won't make sense and may never will ,and lavine is equally as good based off several ppp offensive stats.

Guarantee you won't see any suns fans talking about booker the way bulls fans talk about lavine.

Booker is only 21. Zach is 23. Booker's high volume scoring (24.9 PPG) comes on high volume efficiency (his TS % was at 56.1 last year). Zach's mediocre volume scoring (16.7 PPG) has been on much worse efficiency (Zach's TS % was at 49.9 last year). Booker has a PER that is over one standard deviation higher than Zach's (Booker is at 18.1 PER, Zach is at 14.6 PER). Both Zach and Booker have defensive concerns, but they are far from equals. The Suns fan base have much better reasons to support Booker from a statistical and eye test standpoint. LaVine's major advantage over Booker is elite athleticism. He's much faster, quicker, stronger, jumps higher, etc. And that IS something important to consider. But there are plenty of unskilled athletic phenoms who have gone nowhere in the NBA.

But how can we put so much weight in last year’s handful of games coming off an acl? He obviously had awesome games and some bad ones, but what he showed is he can get to the rim and still has elite athleticism, in addition to his shot. You have to think there will be in uptick in the stats next year.

[thewraith]

I honestly feel like there are two different types of Bulls fans.

A. There are some that just straight out have a Messiah Complex.

They're like gamblers. Their attitude is, "Which one of these beans might grow into a stalk?" It's like they're trying to hit on a lucky number in roulette. They want someone to 'lead' the team, to take responsibility off of everyone, to say, 'Trust in me because I can take you there', put everyone else on their own backs and just take the team to the Finals.

They simply want the next Jordan, and, just about any rim-attacking run-jump athlete, with a shoe deal, will do. It's a cloak of credibility that feels familiar to them, and they're happy to waste season after season hoping every run-jump athlete they put faith in will become that.

It's been everyone from Ron Mercer to Ben Gordon to Derrick Rose to Jimmy Butler to, now, Zach LaVine. (And, no, I'm not saying Ron Mercer had a shoe deal. I'm saying that if some company gave him one, the kind of 'fan' I'm talking about would see that as an additional gem in the crown of legitimacy that this could be The One.)

B. Then, on the other hand, and sorry if I sound biased, but, it's because I am. There are the fans who know what's really going on. It is the era of analytics.

Billy Bean's tactics aren''t only being applied to baseball. Basketball is crunching the numbers too.

It's Moneyball.

It's that midget with the small strike zone gets on base with walks as often as Pete Rose or Rod Carew, Adam Eaton or Dee Gordon, and still represents the tying or go-ahead run.

Today's successful players don't always look like the 'stars' of yesterday. That's part of why I'm skeptical of DeAndre Ayton.

So, I'm looking at players like CJ McCollum or Bradley Beal or Brandon Ingram, not because I see them as the traditional, charismatic Alpha males. I'm not necessarily looking for a leader, or a 'magic bullet' type of player.

I'm looking at them for their reliable outside shooting, to space the floor, so that slashers like Kris Dunn, Jerian Grant, David Nwaba and Zach LaVine can have room to operate; but, only one of those 4 slashers is trying to at least triple if not quadruple or quintuple his salary right now.

Nevermind charisma or image.

From a BASKETBALL perspective, what skill set am I losing if I don't pay him and he walks or forces me to sign him to a modest deal and trade him?

I don't think your group or the other group or any better tbh. You just think your way works and it has some merit but just like the first group y'all over really on your little systems and think that can just tell the whole story. It needs to be a mix of both styles and if it isn't your way and the other way is not good overall. I think the analytics crew for the most part can't breakdown things from an eye test perspective and vice versa with the messiah complex crew.

[TheJordanRule]

Devin booker win share .63 in his 3rd year and booker is -2.5 dpm for his career. He is considered just as bad a defender as zach lavine

with a much higher usage rate,more fga's more mins booker is .3 higher opm than lavine. Booker is considered a franchise cornerstone for phoenix and will get a 140 million extension this fall.

Let anyone tell it booker is one of the best young players in the nba .Advanced stats arent the end all be all for judging a player especially on bad teams that stay in the lottery.Booker is about to get a contract that value wise won't make sense and may never will ,and lavine is equally as good based off several ppp offensive stats.

Guarantee you won't see any suns fans talking about booker the way bulls fans talk about lavine.

Booker is only 21. Zach is 23. Booker's high volume scoring (24.9 PPG) comes on high volume efficiency (his TS % was at 56.1 last year). Zach's mediocre volume scoring (16.7 PPG) has been on much worse efficiency (Zach's TS % was at 49.9 last year). Booker has a PER that is over one standard deviation higher than Zach's (Booker is at 18.1 PER, Zach is at 14.6 PER). Both Zach and Booker have defensive concerns, but they are far from equals. The Suns fan base have much better reasons to support Booker from a statistical and eye test standpoint. LaVine's major advantage over Booker is elite athleticism. He's much faster, quicker, stronger, jumps higher, etc. And that IS something important to consider. But there are plenty of unskilled athletic phenoms who have gone nowhere in the NBA.

But how can we put so much weight in last year’s handful of games coming off an acl? He obviously had awesome games and some bad ones, but what he showed is he can get to the rim and still has elite athleticism, in addition to his shot. You have to think there will be in uptick in the stats next year.

Idk Threekola. Everyone said similar things about Rose after his first year back from his ACL injury-- "Well, he wasn't that consistent, but he looked fast out there and had some really good games." We waited for two years on that premise-- put our franchise in limbo for YEARS-- only to find out that there would be no improvement or return to MVP form. MVP form? Ha. Rose could barely be counted on as a decent 7th or 8th man.

[Threekola]

Booker is only 21. Zach is 23. Booker's high volume scoring (24.9 PPG) comes on high volume efficiency (his TS % was at 56.1 last year). Zach's mediocre volume scoring (16.7 PPG) has been on much worse efficiency (Zach's TS % was at 49.9 last year). Booker has a PER that is over one standard deviation higher than Zach's (Booker is at 18.1 PER, Zach is at 14.6 PER). Both Zach and Booker have defensive concerns, but they are far from equals. The Suns fan base have much better reasons to support Booker from a statistical and eye test standpoint. LaVine's major advantage over Booker is elite athleticism. He's much faster, quicker, stronger, jumps higher, etc. And that IS something important to consider. But there are plenty of unskilled athletic phenoms who have gone nowhere in the NBA.

But how can we put so much weight in last year’s handful of games coming off an acl? He obviously had awesome games and some bad ones, but what he showed is he can get to the rim and still has elite athleticism, in addition to his shot. You have to think there will be in uptick in the stats next year.

Idk Threekola. Everyone said similar things about Rose after his first year back from his ACL injury-- "Well, he wasn't that consistent, but he looked fast out there and had some really good games." We waited for two years on that premise-- put our franchise in limbo for YEARS-- only to find out that there would be no improvement or return to MVP form. MVP form? Ha. Rose could barely be counted on as a decent 7th or 8th man.

I hear you but you can’t discount the multiple other injuries. Who knows what would have happened if it was only the one ACL for Rose? I think you have to give Zach a full season and see what it is, otherwise why did you ever trade for him to begin with? What was expected in limited minutes in a handful of games, all-star level play?

[blicka]

In Lavine's third year he had .82 WS/48. I don't really understand advanced stats, but that indicates he was a slightly below average starter in his first year. If you dive into his conventional stats he scored a lot of points that year on average efficiency, he didn't get to the line much and he didn't feast in the paint like other elite guards.

Elite players know how to get themselves easy buckets. Guys like Dwayne Wade are always cutting off the ball, I never see Lavine do that. Every shot he takes seems to be off the dribble.

Being effective without the ball in your hands is more important than being able to get your own shot. For one, off-ball scoring tends to be more efficient. Two, it takes pressure off your teammates. Three, off ball scoring doesn't require as much energy. Earlier this week, I played some two on two basketball with a teammate who couldn't play basketball or speak English. I had to try and create my own shot on every possession, by the end of the game I felt like I had just run the Boston marathon.

There are things about Lavine's game I like. I like that he can run the pick and roll, and that he can pass a little. I like that he has a good three point shot. I like that he's a decent rebounder for a guard. I don't like his inability to cut off the ball, or find himself easy shots. I don't like his defense or focus.

I'm all for keeping Lavine around at the right price, but not if it costs us the ability to bring in other players.

Devin booker win share .63 in his 3rd year and booker is -2.5 dpm for his career. He is considered just as bad a defender as zach lavine

with a much higher usage rate,more fga's more mins booker is .3 higher opm than lavine. Booker is considered a franchise cornerstone for phoenix and will get a 140 million extension this fall.

Let anyone tell it booker is one of the best young players in the nba .Advanced stats arent the end all be all for judging a player especially on bad teams that stay in the lottery.Booker is about to get a contract that value wise won't make sense and may never will ,and lavine is equally as good based off several ppp offensive stats.

Guarantee you won't see any suns fans talking about booker the way bulls fans talk about lavine.

Booker is only 21. Zach is 23. Booker's high volume scoring (24.9 PPG) comes on high volume efficiency (his TS % was at 56.1 last year). Zach's mediocre volume scoring (16.7 PPG) has been on much worse efficiency (Zach's TS % was at 49.9 last year). Booker has a PER that is over one standard deviation higher than Zach's (Booker is at 18.1 PER, Zach is at 14.6 PER). Both Zach and Booker have defensive concerns, but they are far from equals. The Suns fan base have much better reasons to support Booker from a statistical and eye test standpoint. LaVine's major advantage over Booker is elite athleticism. He's much faster, quicker, stronger, jumps higher, etc. And that IS something important to consider. But there are plenty of unskilled athletic phenoms who have gone nowhere in the NBA.

you're cherry picking stats to make a point. Using lavines 24 games returning from an acl to compare is unfair

Booker put up 18.1 per on a 61 loss team.Before last season bookers per were on par with lavines(14.6) which was right below league average

lavine highest ts% is better than anything booker has ever shot and lavine has never taken 18 and 19.5 fga's a game like booker has.

Booker is putting up hollow individual stats on terrible teams. It means nothing besides he shoots the ball more and has higher usage rates than lavine has ever had. If lavine shot the ball 18-20 times a game he'd average 22-24 ppg just like booker

[SensiBull]

I honestly feel like there are two different types of Bulls fans.

A. There are some that just straight out have a Messiah Complex.

They're like gamblers. Their attitude is, "Which one of these beans might grow into a stalk?" It's like they're trying to hit on a lucky number in roulette. They want someone to 'lead' the team, to take responsibility off of everyone, to say, 'Trust in me because I can take you there', put everyone else on their own backs and just take the team to the Finals.

They simply want the next Jordan, and, just about any rim-attacking run-jump athlete, with a shoe deal, will do. It's a cloak of credibility that feels familiar to them, and they're happy to waste season after season hoping every run-jump athlete they put faith in will become that.

It's been everyone from Ron Mercer to Ben Gordon to Derrick Rose to Jimmy Butler to, now, Zach LaVine. (And, no, I'm not saying Ron Mercer had a shoe deal. I'm saying that if some company gave him one, the kind of 'fan' I'm talking about would see that as an additional gem in the crown of legitimacy that this could be The One.)

B. Then, on the other hand, and sorry if I sound biased, but, it's because I am. There are the fans who know what's really going on. It is the era of analytics.

Billy Bean's tactics aren''t only being applied to baseball. Basketball is crunching the numbers too.

It's Moneyball.

It's that midget with the small strike zone gets on base with walks as often as Pete Rose or Rod Carew, Adam Eaton or Dee Gordon, and still represents the tying or go-ahead run.

Today's successful players don't always look like the 'stars' of yesterday. That's part of why I'm skeptical of DeAndre Ayton.

So, I'm looking at players like CJ McCollum or Bradley Beal or Brandon Ingram, not because I see them as the traditional, charismatic Alpha males. I'm not necessarily looking for a leader, or a 'magic bullet' type of player.

I'm looking at them for their reliable outside shooting, to space the floor, so that slashers like Kris Dunn, Jerian Grant, David Nwaba and Zach LaVine can have room to operate; but, only one of those 4 slashers is trying to at least triple if not quadruple or quintuple his salary right now.

Nevermind charisma or image.

From a BASKETBALL perspective, what skill set am I losing if I don't pay him and he walks or forces me to sign him to a modest deal and trade him?

Well from a basketball perspective he can create his own shot, get to the rim and finish, and hit 3s at a high rate. Who can we get that has that skill set?

The question is pre-mature, couched in subjective terms and ignores the entire supply-and-demand argument I've laid out.

1. The question, particularly the use of the expression "go out and get" presumes that there is no one on the current roster who can ALREADY do what LaVine does. Yet, in the very post you're disputing, I already named slashers who can create their own shot and get to the rim, including Dunn, Kilpatrick, Jerian Grant and Nwaba, for much less money.

You kind of just breezed past that.

2. You conveniently use the expression "hit 3's at a high rate" rather than actually naming that numeric rate. That "high" rate that you refer to is 34%. I've already pointed out that that's the 9th highest on the team. So, what other than slashing and 34% shooting are we paying for?

http://www.espn.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/chi/cat/threePointFieldGoalPct

3. There is no need to obfuscate this with a myriad of unprovable hypothetical trade scenarios. I'm not taking that bait.

Sean Kilpatrick.

[SensiBull]

But how can we put so much weight in last year’s handful of games coming off an acl? He obviously had awesome games and some bad ones, but what he showed is he can get to the rim and still has elite athleticism, in addition to his shot. You have to think there will be in uptick in the stats next year.

Idk Threekola. Everyone said similar things about Rose after his first year back from his ACL injury-- "Well, he wasn't that consistent, but he looked fast out there and had some really good games." We waited for two years on that premise-- put our franchise in limbo for YEARS-- only to find out that there would be no improvement or return to MVP form. MVP form? Ha. Rose could barely be counted on as a decent 7th or 8th man.

I hear you but you can’t discount the multiple other injuries. Who knows what would have happened if it was only the one ACL for Rose? I think you have to give Zach a full season and see what it is, otherwise why did you ever trade for him to begin with? What was expected in limited minutes in a handful of games, all-star level play?

A. There is a concept in accounting called 'sunk cost.' It means that, once a price has been paid, there is nothing you can do to get it back. You can do things with what you have acquired to increase your revenue, but, it is in no way limited to, nor supported by, or the price you paid for the previously-owned item.

It's 'water under the bridge.'

B. I want to say that it was the Dan Patrick Show that I was watching, where a GM was explaining how franchises often ruin themselves, not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal.

Whomever it was referred to Memphis' Chandler Parsons' contract as an example.

There was talk that Memphis was shopping the 4th pick because they thought they might be able to get someone to take on Parsons' contract as part of that deal. In the process, they would miss out on JJJ and draft someone lower.

Effectively, they would ruin themselves,"not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal."

C. Stat for stat, Jimmy Butler and Zach LaVine are looking a lot like the same player at this juncture. In fact, when you look at their roster, with Derrick Rose, Taj Gibson, Jimmy Butler and even Aaron Brooks, it's clear that what Minnesota wanted to do was to give the roster that Thibodeau had in Chicago another chance, using Karl-Anthony Towns in place of Joakim Noah.

That's what was in it for Minnesota.

What was in it for the Bulls was not only a chance to hit the 'Reset' button, with players who had more time left in their careers than the outgoing players, but:

1. Lauri Markkanen
2. Kris Dunn
3. Whatever residual value Zach LaVine might have even if he didn't work out

I think it's clear that the Bulls got more back for Jimmy Butler than what they lost by giving up Jimmy Butler.

[Threekola]

I honestly feel like there are two different types of Bulls fans.

A. There are some that just straight out have a Messiah Complex.

They're like gamblers. Their attitude is, "Which one of these beans might grow into a stalk?" It's like they're trying to hit on a lucky number in roulette. They want someone to 'lead' the team, to take responsibility off of everyone, to say, 'Trust in me because I can take you there', put everyone else on their own backs and just take the team to the Finals.

They simply want the next Jordan, and, just about any rim-attacking run-jump athlete, with a shoe deal, will do. It's a cloak of credibility that feels familiar to them, and they're happy to waste season after season hoping every run-jump athlete they put faith in will become that.

It's been everyone from Ron Mercer to Ben Gordon to Derrick Rose to Jimmy Butler to, now, Zach LaVine. (And, no, I'm not saying Ron Mercer had a shoe deal. I'm saying that if some company gave him one, the kind of 'fan' I'm talking about would see that as an additional gem in the crown of legitimacy that this could be The One.)

B. Then, on the other hand, and sorry if I sound biased, but, it's because I am. There are the fans who know what's really going on. It is the era of analytics.

Billy Bean's tactics aren''t only being applied to baseball. Basketball is crunching the numbers too.

It's Moneyball.

It's that midget with the small strike zone gets on base with walks as often as Pete Rose or Rod Carew, Adam Eaton or Dee Gordon, and still represents the tying or go-ahead run.

Today's successful players don't always look like the 'stars' of yesterday. That's part of why I'm skeptical of DeAndre Ayton.

So, I'm looking at players like CJ McCollum or Bradley Beal or Brandon Ingram, not because I see them as the traditional, charismatic Alpha males. I'm not necessarily looking for a leader, or a 'magic bullet' type of player.

I'm looking at them for their reliable outside shooting, to space the floor, so that slashers like Kris Dunn, Jerian Grant, David Nwaba and Zach LaVine can have room to operate; but, only one of those 4 slashers is trying to at least triple if not quadruple or quintuple his salary right now.

Nevermind charisma or image.

From a BASKETBALL perspective, what skill set am I losing if I don't pay him and he walks or forces me to sign him to a modest deal and trade him?

Well from a basketball perspective he can create his own shot, get to the rim and finish, and hit 3s at a high rate. Who can we get that has that skill set?

The question is pre-mature, couched in subjective terms and ignores the entire supply-and-demand argument I've laid out.

1. The question, particularly the use of the expression "go out and get" presumes that there is no one on the current roster who can ALREADY do what LaVine does. Yet, in the very post you're disputing, I already named slashers who can create their own shot and get to the rim, including Dunn, Kilpatrick, Jerian Grant and Nwaba, for much less money.

You kind of just breezed past that.

2. You conveniently use the expression "hit 3's at a high rate" rather than actually naming that numeric rate. That "high" rate that you refer to is 34%. I've already pointed out that that's the 9th highest on the team. So, what other than slashing and 34% shooting are we paying for?

http://www.espn.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/chi/cat/threePointFieldGoalPct

3. There is no need to obfuscate this with a myriad of unprovable hypothetical trade scenarios. I'm not taking that bait.

Sean Kilpatrick.

The problem with naming a bunch of guys who can do one thing LaVine can do is you can only play 5 guys at once. None of those guys can shoot, create their own shot, and finish at the rim. Dunn is the only guy who can be a good NBA player, but he plays another position, and can’t shoot. By the way, I think we should keep Dunn too.

And LaVine is a career 37% shooter. I don’t see any reason to think moving forward that last years numbers are some kind of high water mark. He was obviously forcing it last year.

And Kilpatrick is not a good NBA player. Any argument that you don’t need a guy like LaVine because you can get Kilpatrick leads you to nowhere but being horrible. I’m not making serious arguments based on 9 game sample sizes.

[Threekola]

Idk Threekola. Everyone said similar things about Rose after his first year back from his ACL injury-- "Well, he wasn't that consistent, but he looked fast out there and had some really good games." We waited for two years on that premise-- put our franchise in limbo for YEARS-- only to find out that there would be no improvement or return to MVP form. MVP form? Ha. Rose could barely be counted on as a decent 7th or 8th man.

I hear you but you can’t discount the multiple other injuries. Who knows what would have happened if it was only the one ACL for Rose? I think you have to give Zach a full season and see what it is, otherwise why did you ever trade for him to begin with? What was expected in limited minutes in a handful of games, all-star level play?

A. There is a concept in accounting called 'sunk cost.' It means that, once a price has been paid, there is nothing you can do to get it back. You can do things with what you have acquired to increase your revenue, but, it is in no way limited to, nor supported by, or the price you paid for the previously-owned item.

It's 'water under the bridge.'

B. I want to say that it was the Dan Patrick Show that I was watching, where a GM was explaining how franchises often ruin themselves, not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal.

Whomever it was referred to Memphis' Chandler Parsons' contract as an example.

There was talk that Memphis was shopping the 4th pick because they thought they might be able to get someone to take on Parsons' contract as part of that deal. In the process, they would miss out on JJJ and draft someone lower.

Effectively, they would ruin themselves,"not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal."

C. Stat for stat, Jimmy Butler and Zach LaVine are looking a lot like the same player at this juncture. In fact, when you look at their roster, with Derrick Rose, Taj Gibson, Jimmy Butler and even Aaron Brooks, it's clear that what Minnesota wanted to do was to give the roster that Thibodeau had in Chicago another chance, using Karl-Anthony Towns in place of Joakim Noah.

That's what was in it for Minnesota.

What was in it for the Bulls was not only a chance to hit the 'Reset' button, with players who had more time left in their careers than the outgoing players, but:

1. Lauri Markkanen
2. Kris Dunn
3. Whatever residual value Zach LaVine might have even if he didn't work out

I think it's clear that the Bulls got more back for Jimmy Butler than what they lost by giving up Jimmy Butler.

If we want to get into accounting terms and get moneyball on this, you have to tell me what you’re doing with the money if you let him go. No getting around that. If you think you’re signing an all-star instead of Zach next year, fine, but I don’t see it. There is not an unlimited supply of talent that you can get just because you have money, that’s a big fallacy with a lot of this stuff.

[the ultimates]

I hear you but you can’t discount the multiple other injuries. Who knows what would have happened if it was only the one ACL for Rose? I think you have to give Zach a full season and see what it is, otherwise why did you ever trade for him to begin with? What was expected in limited minutes in a handful of games, all-star level play?

A. There is a concept in accounting called 'sunk cost.' It means that, once a price has been paid, there is nothing you can do to get it back. You can do things with what you have acquired to increase your revenue, but, it is in no way limited to, nor supported by, or the price you paid for the previously-owned item.

It's 'water under the bridge.'

B. I want to say that it was the Dan Patrick Show that I was watching, where a GM was explaining how franchises often ruin themselves, not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal.

Whomever it was referred to Memphis' Chandler Parsons' contract as an example.

There was talk that Memphis was shopping the 4th pick because they thought they might be able to get someone to take on Parsons' contract as part of that deal. In the process, they would miss out on JJJ and draft someone lower.

Effectively, they would ruin themselves,"not through a bad deal they made, but, through the subsequent bad deals that they made to make up for the bad deal."

C. Stat for stat, Jimmy Butler and Zach LaVine are looking a lot like the same player at this juncture. In fact, when you look at their roster, with Derrick Rose, Taj Gibson, Jimmy Butler and even Aaron Brooks, it's clear that what Minnesota wanted to do was to give the roster that Thibodeau had in Chicago another chance, using Karl-Anthony Towns in place of Joakim Noah.

That's what was in it for Minnesota.

What was in it for the Bulls was not only a chance to hit the 'Reset' button, with players who had more time left in their careers than the outgoing players, but:

1. Lauri Markkanen
2. Kris Dunn
3. Whatever residual value Zach LaVine might have even if he didn't work out

I think it's clear that the Bulls got more back for Jimmy Butler than what they lost by giving up Jimmy Butler.

If we want to get into accounting terms and get moneyball on this, you have to tell me what you’re doing with the money if you let him go. No getting around that. If you think you’re signing an all-star instead of Zach next year, fine, but I don’t see it. There is not an unlimited supply of talent that you can get just because you have money, that’s a big fallacy with a lot of this stuff.

If Lavine is given a max or near max deal do you want the Bulls to match it? Just because you have the money to spend doesn't mean you have to spend it. If the Bulls don't match a large offer they can sign other players to smaller deals to help maintain cap space or use the space to help take on bad contracts or be a third team facilitator for picks. We saw two summers ago how signing guys to big deals just because cap space is available backfired. Crabbe, Mozgov, Biyambo, Carroll off the top of my head were on the trade block a year after getting their deals.

[PrimzyBulls81]

https://hoopshype.com/2018/06/23/nba-free-agency-2018-shooting-guards/

T.Evans, Z.Lavine, W.Barton, A.Bradley, KCP, M.Smart, D.Wade, JJ Redick and soo on.. FA SG
I would much rather prefer to sign Barton or KCP for Lavine's possible contract.. Zach 15M max for me

[samwana]

Zach's scoring skills individually are good, fine, better than a lot of other players. His basketball IQ is not, his team play is not, his defense is not. He doesn't make his teammates better, he makes them worse. Lauri, Dunn played way worse with LaVine in the lineup.
The moment he is able to accept a 6th man scoring role he will be valuable, but only with the right price tag.
I'd rather sign Barton or KCP over LaVine, thanks primzy for providing fa sg list.
Even better, just see what summer league brings and take a chance on someone.

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

[JimmyButler21]

LaVine really isn't that good and he never played well with Markkanen last season. The worst thing the Bulls can possibly do is overpay him.

[SHO'NUFF]

He played 24 damn games! This is after coming from an injury while NOT being able to workout in the offseason. 24 damn games after missing significant time!

I’d absolutely love to sign Lavine to a fair deal. There was NOTHING from his 24 games that made me think this guy isn’t worth keeping here long term. Not a fair sample size for me or anyone to determine the type of player he could be.

He’s been working out hard this offseason....I don’t even count last seasons 24 games (which isn’t so bad after what he went through). Come on now....