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

[BullsFTW]

S&T LaVine for Hield & Shumpert

[LordBaldric]

Read on Twitter

Sign and trade Lavine for their pick. Bulls should really consider doing something like this to get a higher pick this way instead of trying to lose games all year. Obviously might take giving up another player or pick maybe but imo it’s something they should do. Then can always sign Smart/Hood/ Barton or whoever else they want from free agency to fill in Lavines spot.

Their pick is already going to Boston.

[bad knees]

Read on Twitter

Who could have guessed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Zach and Sacramento are a match made in heaven. Hate to stand between them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[HomoSapien]

I'm not a huge Buddy Hield fan, but I think I'd take him over LaVine.

[RedBulls23]

IMO the issue w ACL is if you get the same degree of athleticism, speed, etc. That's what Zach proved this year, which is why to me the ACL isn't really an issue anymore.

Not really. People said the same exact thing about Derrick Rose when he came back. We heard the same thing about Baron Davis years ago and he was never close to the same player. Same thing with Shumpert. Gallinari. Brandon Rush.

Athletically, Rose looked great after returning. The injury that did him in was the MCL 10 games into the season. Tearing your ACL isn't really a prelude to losing athleticism. LaVine still looked explosive, fast, shifty and extremely athletic. He just had awful shot selection and poor efficiency. If you can get LaVine to play smarter and more versatile on offense, we're having a completely different discussion about his long-term worth to this team.

That's the big question. Can he be a smarter player, because he's never shown to be that high IQ of a player in regards to his shot selection, tunnel vision, and really poor off the ball defensive instincts.

And at what dollar amount is it not worth the risk? For me personally, I'd bite the bullet on 18 mill even though I think it would be overpaying, but if a team like the Kings offer him more or the max I say let him walk.

[dumbell78]

Not really. People said the same exact thing about Derrick Rose when he came back. We heard the same thing about Baron Davis years ago and he was never close to the same player. Same thing with Shumpert. Gallinari. Brandon Rush.

Athletically, Rose looked great after returning. The injury that did him in was the MCL 10 games into the season. Tearing your ACL isn't really a prelude to losing athleticism. LaVine still looked explosive, fast, shifty and extremely athletic. He just had awful shot selection and poor efficiency. If you can get LaVine to play smarter and more versatile on offense, we're having a completely different discussion about his long-term worth to this team.

That's the big question. Can he be a smarter player, because he's never shown to be that high IQ of a player in regards to his shot selection, tunnel vision, and really poor off the ball defensive instincts.

And at what dollar amount is it not worth the risk? For me personally, I'd bite the bullet on 18 mill even though I think it would be overpaying, but if a team like the Kings offer him more or the max I say let him walk.

We may have to bite the bullet at 18 mil, I agree its overpay but they most likely give it to him. Hopefully a 3 year deal with an option and pray for a VDipo emergence.

[SensiBull]

I think what is happening is that, when the media flags a contract as a bad contract, or an albatross around the neck of the franchise who holds it, fans can understand the concept of taking on that bad contract, in 3-player deal, to get the other two players.

In this case, LaVine is still on his rookie deal. So, to begin with, looking at his stats, the presumption is that he is worth at least what he is getting paid now.

On the other hand, if you look at it from the standpoint that all three (LaVine, Dunn and Markkanen) are auditioning for *eligibility* for second contracts - even if not the contracts themselves - then, you at least have to admit that:

1. Unless these three are the young core of the future, they're not all getting re-upped.
2. Regardless of the reasons, including injury, Markkanen and Dunn have done a better job of cementing their spots than LaVine has done of cementing his; and
3. At some point you have to reserve room, even if only in your mind (in pencil, not ink), that Wendell Carter, Jr., may earn that 3rd large contract spot in a more meaningful way to the team than LaVine has so far.

LaVine has not surpassed Dunn or Markkanen in terms of bookmarking a spot for himself on a long-term Bulls roster, and, unfortunately, having the shortest remaining contract of the three means making a final decision on him before making one on the other two is necessary, chronologically.

Although it wasn't explicitly labelled as a "bad contract", there is nothing afoul about accepting the value received in the form of Dunn and Markkanen, and accepting, emotionally and psychologically, that LaVine was more the peel rather than the banana itself not for lack of point production, but, for lack of ability to adapt to a style of play that involves his teammates.

[SensiBull]

You got LeBron James dropping nearly 50, in some games, and still losing.

Unless you think Zach LaVine is the next LeBron, his pure scoring ability is a bridge to nowhere, and even LeBron will get double-digit assists in those losses.

Anything more than a sixth man, and you're paying too much. How do you cement someone as a 6th man when you haven't even identified your starting five?

He has to go.

[ThreeMileAllan]

Anyone listen to the Dunc'd on podcast's Mock Off-Season? ( http://www.blogtalkradio.com/duncdon ) It really illustrated just how much leverage the Bulls have unless Lavine is willing to take his qualifying offer.

The Bulls initial proactive offer was 3 years for 40 million, which was then reduced to 3 years for 30 million after the market dried up. No team even really reconsidered Lavine. He ended up actually taking the qualifying offer because he refused to take the 3 year offer.

I really hope the Bulls drive down his price, even if it risks him walking. After handing Felicio a ridiculous deal despite their leverage, they really better not screw this up.

I havent listened to it, but was that proactive offer official or are these hypotheticals? This seems like news that came out of nowhere

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[kulaz3000]

You got LeBron James dropping nearly 50, in some games, and still losing.

Unless you think Zach LaVine is the next LeBron, his pure scoring ability is a bridge to nowhere, and even LeBron will get double-digit assists in those losses.

Anything more than a sixth man, and you're paying too much. How do you cement someone as a 6th man when you haven't even identified your starting five?

He has to go.

I think I understand what you're attempting to say, but the reasoning and method in which you stated your point seems way off base.

What has LeBron got to do with anything? And if LeBron is going to be the benchmark for every player we have on our roster, and whether we should resign them or let them go, then we may as well retire the Bulls franchise. Hell, even as a high benchmark example, you still think there is no point because his team still loses.

[gf2020hotmail]

I havent listened to it, but was that proactive offer official or are these hypotheticals? This seems like news that came out of nowhere

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

It's a hypothetical off-season with four nba experts including ESPN's Kevin Pelton playing out everything.

This piece by The Athletic and RealGm Danny Leroux summarizes the larger conclusions from the nearly four exercise:
https://basketball.realgm.com/article/250389/What-To-Expect-In-The-2018-Offseason

[robert76]

You got LeBron James dropping nearly 50, in some games, and still losing.

Unless you think Zach LaVine is the next LeBron, his pure scoring ability is a bridge to nowhere, and even LeBron will get double-digit assists in those losses.

Anything more than a sixth man, and you're paying too much. How do you cement someone as a 6th man when you haven't even identified your starting five?

He has to go.

I think I understand what you're attempting to say, but the reasoning and method in which you stated your point seems way off base.

What has LeBron got to do with anything? And if LeBron is going to be the benchmark for every player we have on our roster, and whether we should resign them or let them go, then we may as well retire the Bulls franchise. Hell, even as a high benchmark example, you still think there is no point because his team still loses.

He's saying a pure scorer will only give you so much. If he wants a big contract he has to be a better facilitator and a better defender, which he hasn't proved to be so far and he needs a better BBIQ, which again he doesn't seem to posses. Since a player like LeBron can score 50 and the team still loses, how decisive and ultimately useful can LaVine be, when he's nowhere near that level? I hope that's what you meant, SensiBull.

[KevinPandawong]

Monta Ellis never made more than $11mil and was constantly labeled a bad signing/contract. Zach reminds me a lot of Monta, and I am very hesitant to buy into the fool's gold again. I doubt it's going to happen but I really hope he only signs for 2-3 years.

He has all of the tools to be a superstar, he just needs a brain. If anything, Cameron Payne gives me a lot of hope for Lavine's development; he went from the absolute worst player in the league to a serviceable back-up point guard.

[rtblues]

The arguments here are interesting but, again, it's the MARKET that will decide his worth, not him, and the Bulls can sit back and wait and watch as Lavine either gets no offers, gets low-balled, or the remote possibility of an overpay that the Bulls won't match.

What's his qualifying offer? 4.4MIL? He may not like it, but....

[No-Man]

with his low QO and injury you are in the ideal position to squeeze him, if Sacto wants him and overpays let him go, if not just negotiate a S&T

[johnnyvann840]

Read on Twitter

I really hope they throw big money at him . That would be such a Sacramento thing to do. Dumbest run team in the entire league. Let him go there and put up 25 PPG on a crappy team.

[SensiBull]

You got LeBron James dropping nearly 50, in some games, and still losing.

Unless you think Zach LaVine is the next LeBron, his pure scoring ability is a bridge to nowhere, and even LeBron will get double-digit assists in those losses.

Anything more than a sixth man, and you're paying too much. How do you cement someone as a 6th man when you haven't even identified your starting five?

He has to go.

I think I understand what you're attempting to say, but the reasoning and method in which you stated your point seems way off base.

What has LeBron got to do with anything? And if LeBron is going to be the benchmark for every player we have on our roster, and whether we should resign them or let them go, then we may as well retire the Bulls franchise. Hell, even as a high benchmark example, you still think there is no point because his team still loses.

He's saying a pure scorer will only give you so much. If he wants a big contract he has to be a better facilitator and a better defender, which he hasn't proved to be so far and he needs a better BBIQ, which again he doesn't seem to posses. Since a player like LeBron can score 50 and the team still loses, how decisive and ultimately useful can LaVine be, when he's nowhere near that level? I hope that's what you meant, SensiBull.

That's EXACTLY what I meant.

Well done.

[SensiBull]

You'd think this was the Yanni/Laurel phenomena or something.

[TheFinishSniper]

Read on Twitter

S&T for Bogdanovic please.

[NewEra21]

Sign and trade to Sacramento makes a lot of sense if they really want Zach. Several contracts there they could dump on us with some intriguing young pieces. I think something like Shumpert and Hield or Giles would work