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

[Red Larrivee]

Sacramento could just sign him to an offer sheet. They don't have a reason to trade players to sign him. Once they sign him to an offer sheet, a sign and trade is off the table.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[jump]

Why would we want Shumpert?

[MalagaBulls]

Sacramento could just sign him to an offer sheet. They don't have a reason to trade players to sign him. Once they sign him to an offer sheet, a sign and trade is off the table.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I agree Red, all they have to do is go above our price range and possibly Garpax won't match. Let's see what happens.

Enviado desde mi SM-A520F mediante Tapatalk

[Red Larrivee]

Why would we want Shumpert?

We wouldn't. LaVine would just walk for nothing if Sacramento signs him to an offer sheet starting at $20-21M.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GimmeDat]

Hope Kings don't bid. They've also been linked to Hezonja and Jabari, hopefully the prioritize them. I don't want to pay Lavine any more than we need to.

[NewEra21]

Sacramento could just sign him to an offer sheet. They don't have a reason to trade players to sign him. Once they sign him to an offer sheet, a sign and trade is off the table.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

With Sacramento essentially having no pick next year barring another year of lotto luck, If they really like Lavine, I would imagine they would try to unload some of the dead weight they have to add some more free agents this year instead of spending it all on Lavine.

[MalagaBulls]

As long as we are in year II of a proper rebuild I wouldn't mind LaVine walking. But that is out of our control.

[Red Larrivee]

Sacramento could just sign him to an offer sheet. They don't have a reason to trade players to sign him. Once they sign him to an offer sheet, a sign and trade is off the table.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

With Sacramento essentially having no pick next year barring another year of lotto luck, If they really like Lavine, I would imagine they would try to unload some of the dead weight they have to add some more free agents this year instead of spending it all on Lavine.

Yeah, but Chicago wouldn't want that dead weight unless there was incentive. And, Sacramento currently has no incentives without a pick. They've done dumb things, but I can't see them dealing Bogdanovic to get rid of salary.

Just sign LaVine to a near max and keep everyone.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Truebiscuit]

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.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that we, collectively, have better talent around LaVine than LeBron has around himself.

I'll hang up and listen.

[MalagaBulls]

I think we are early enough in the rebuild really to let LaVine and a couple of vets walk at the end of the year.

[DASMACKDOWN]

I believe we went from Lavine being properly rated to being severely underrated on the board.

[johnnyvann840]

Hope Kings don't bid. They've also been linked to Hezonja and Jabari, hopefully the prioritize them. I don't want to pay Lavine any more than we need to.

Maybe they make a high enough offer that we don't match. That would be the best case, IMO. I would take Buddy Hield, but no way in hell is Sacramento doing that. Why on earth would they trade a player who was better in his last two seasons than Lavine has ever been? Hield shoots .430 from 3 pt on high volume. That is prime Kyle Korver good.

Per 36 Hield gets you 19.2, 5.5 and 2.8 with 1.5 steals. His defense is not bad either, he he's Gary Payton compared to Lavine. Hield is a +7.5 net positive on court. He makes the Kings offense better and he makes their defense better. His TS% last two seasons. .600 and .557. Lavine makes the Bulls offense and defense far worse and is net neg on court -6.3.

Those talking about a sign and trade can forget Hield. Kings would be insane to trade Buddy Hield for Lavine. Even if a we took Shumpert.

[NewEra21]

Sacramento could just sign him to an offer sheet. They don't have a reason to trade players to sign him. Once they sign him to an offer sheet, a sign and trade is off the table.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

With Sacramento essentially having no pick next year barring another year of lotto luck, If they really like Lavine, I would imagine they would try to unload some of the dead weight they have to add some more free agents this year instead of spending it all on Lavine.

Yeah, but Chicago wouldn't want that dead weight unless there was incentive. And, Sacramento currently has no incentives without a pick. They've done dumb things, but I can't see them dealing Bogdanovic to get rid of salary.

Just sign LaVine to a near max and keep everyone.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I agree with you, I guess I just don't value Lavine all that much. To me taking back someone like Hield, and not paying Lavine 18 million dollars for the next 4 years is good enough for me.

[TheJordanRule]

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.

No, he doesn’t have to go UNLESS a) it’s gonna cost us an arm and a leg for the long term and b) we find a cheaper wing who also has a high ceiling (Hezonja). Which other team is looking to give Zach a fat contract right now? Zach is in the position Steph Curry was in right after his rookie deal was up, where the GSW signed Curry to a long term 11 mil per year deal. The leverage is entirely in our favor. Lauri and Kris outplayed him during the season, there are a couple of UFAs and RFAs who can compete with him, and few teams have the cap space to throw significant money at him. In summary, we are in prime position to retain our asset.

To be clear, that’s what Zach is— an asset. Potentially a BIG asset. For instance, in a 20 year history of the league’s Rising Stars challenge, 14 of the 20 players who won the MVP award in that game went on to become NBA all-stars. Zach is in a group of players 70 percent of which reached all-star status. And Zach is a world class athlete at the tender age of 23. It’s true that he’s been a bone head at both ends of the floor, but it’s also true that even a marginal improvement in IQ would result in a massive spike in production. At 23, Zach is a good bet to make that marginal improvement in IQ, and become the more productive stud his tools tell us he will be.

I am not a Zach apologist. I would prefer Exum over Zach because Exum plays defense, and has good court vision while having, arguably, bigger tools than Zach (strength, more lateral quickness, a post up game, etc). Hezonja is someone I think we should take a hard look at depending on how much cheaper he will be than Zach. But let’s allow the situation to play out, and as Johnny Vann put it, make the smart play.

[SensiBull]

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.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that we, collectively, have better talent around LaVine than LeBron has around himself.

I'll hang up and listen.

This totally misses the universally-observable 'object lesson' that is the last ten years of NBA basketball if not the entire post-Jordan era.

How many times does the bumble-bee have to fly? How many times does the mongoose have to thrash the cobra?

Hero ball keeps losing to under-rated teams. You talk like last year was the only time that LeBron, the 'hero' of this generations 'hero ball' lost in the finals.

How many of LeBron's finals losses were to teams that had a better individual performer than himself?

Everybody keeps trolling the marshes for the next four-leaf clover, the river bed for the next bucket of gold, and coming home with soggy socks and a handful of mud.

This site is not called 'RealFan.' It's called 'RealGM.'

If you haven't noticed, GM'ing is going through a bit of a revolution - a revolution that is not unlike the West Coast offence in football or MoneyBall in baseball.

GM's have stopped going for QB's like Doug Flutie and Johnny Manziel who throw Hail Maries in desperate situations, giving everyone an 'oh so delicious', momentary adrenaline rush, that RealFans never forget and constantly 'jones' for, in favour of the more precise arm, who can consistently throw on-target, short distances, putting together higher probability links in a chain rather than the big arm.

GM's are successively hitting singles instead of swinging for the fences every at bat.

They aren't looking around the league, in successful front offices, saying, "Who can we throw a max contract at so that we can call someone (anyone) our 'star' for this era, only to be stuck with his contract WHEN (not if) he doesn't become the next Jordan?"

[johnnyvann840]

I believe we went from Lavine being properly rated to being severely underrated on the board.

Nah. Can't really underrate someone who's never really proven they're good or shown any skills other than scoring (and never even all that efficiently). 4 years in and it's still all speculation and hope. Four years of making his teams a lot worse, never better. He's just not a very good player. He's a tremendous athlete. Great dunker and good scorer, but he hurts more than he helps even when he's scoring points.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Sac makes no sense - BOTH of their SGs are better than Lavine.

[Betta Bulleavit]

I believe we went from Lavine being properly rated to being severely underrated on the board.

Nah. Can't really underrate someone who's never really proven they're good or shown any skills other than scoring (and never even all that efficiently). 4 years in and it's still all speculation and hope. Four years of making his teams a lot worse, never better. He's just not a very good player. He's a tremendous athlete. Great dunker and good scorer, but he hurts more than he helps even when he's scoring points.

Well, it's more like 3 years. Given that he missed basically half of two seasons. I get the +/- argument though and I'm not going to poo poo on anybody that wants to use that as an end all be all with regards to whether or not he makes his teams better or worse. I just choose not to do that. I like to look at the entirety of the circumstances. And the circumstances are that Zach is a very hard worker by most accounts and I am a believer that a person that puts in that kind of work and commitment always stands a shot at getting substantially better. His raw numbers (outside of the low shooting % for 24 games) aren't all that bad. And it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the raw numbers were steadily climbing up until the injury.

So my response to you is that there is speculation and hope because there has been substantial reason for speculation and hope. Sure, we can all agree 100% that Zach needs to get much better in several aspects of the game. But at least the guy seems to be putting in the work. If you subtract him, that's fine. But who are we replacing him with? And remember, it has to be a scorer otherwise we would be doing a great disservice to Dunn who just isn't a guy that she be called upon as a primary scorer on a team that you expect to win consistently. Given the field, I (personally) would rather roll the dice on Zach so long as it's at a reasonable price.

[MalagaBulls]

All it takes is 1 desperate GM to offer max or close to.

Enviado desde mi SM-A520F mediante Tapatalk

[Truebiscuit]

That's EXACTLY what I meant.

Well done.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that we, collectively, have better talent around LaVine than LeBron has around himself.

I'll hang up and listen.

This totally misses the universally-observable 'object lesson' that is the last ten years of NBA basketball if not the entire post-Jordan era.

How many times does the bumble-bee have to fly? How many times does the mongoose have to thrash the cobra?

Hero ball keeps losing to under-rated teams. You talk like last year was the only time that LeBron, the 'hero' of this generations 'hero ball' lost in the finals.

How many of LeBron's finals losses were to teams that had a better individual performer than himself?

Everybody keeps trolling the marshes for the next four-leaf clover, the river bed for the next bucket of gold, and coming home with soggy socks and a handful of mud.

This site is not called 'RealFan.' It's called 'RealGM.'

If you haven't noticed, GM'ing is going through a bit of a revolution - a revolution that is not unlike the West Coast offence in football or MoneyBall in baseball.

GM's have stopped going for QB's like Doug Flutie and Johnny Manziel who throw Hail Maries in desperate situations, giving everyone an 'oh so delicious', momentary adrenaline rush, that RealFans never forget and constantly 'jones' for, in favour of the more precise arm, who can consistently throw on-target, short distances, putting together higher probability links in a chain rather than the big arm.

GM's are successively hitting singles instead of swinging for the fences every at bat.

They aren't looking around the league, in successful front offices, saying, "Who can we throw a max contract at so that we can call someone (anyone) our 'star' for this era, only to be stuck with his contract WHEN (not if) he doesn't become the next Jordan?"

Boy, a lot of assumptions you're making there.

1. Zach LaVine does thrive in hero ball, so does James Harden/Russell Westbrook/Kevin Durant (no, I'm not saying LaVine is on their level), but I do believe that LaVine has a TON of value in his ability to run around/off screens and shoot the three ball. I believe we would see him in more of that role here in Chicago moving forward IF we decided he was in our long term plans.

2. If you want to talk QBs, Russel Wilson is precisely your shorter, more athletic, heave-it-downfield type of QBs and the Seahawks hit a home run getting him in the 3rd round (and winning a Super Bowl because of it). Did you see what QB just went #1 overall? Another 'hail mary' midget in Baker Mayfield. I do not agree with your premise here, at all.

3. Nobody said throw a max contract at Zach LaVine, and I certainly did not intimate that he's the next Jordan. I don't believe anyone on this board did, either. Believe it or not, there actually IS a happy medium between "give him all the money" and "he's a bum"; I hope that GarPax find it.