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

[SensiBull]

A. Isaiah Thomas (knee), Gordon Hayward (ankle) and Boogie Cousins (achilles) have 'circumstances' too. Contract negotiations will be affected, like it or not. We're all grown-ups here.

B. The word 'replace' is elusive. What needs to be 'replaced' is the difference between the next best scorer to LaVine and LaVine, not his entire production. When you reduce that to about the 4ppg difference between himself and, say, Justin Holiday, and give Holiday the whole "he just needs to work on (this or that)" treatment that, for some strange reason, we're more inclined to give LaVine, then, even his rookie contract is more justified by getting Dunn and Markkanen in the haul for Butler than what we got from LaVine himself.

Why pay triple the price for it. We've had our 30-day trial.

No thanks.

[Betta Bulleavit]

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

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

[Betta Bulleavit]

A. Isaiah Thomas (knee), Gordon Hayward (ankle) and Boogie Cousins (achilles) have 'circumstances' too. Contract negotiations will be affected, like it or not. We're all grown-ups here.

B. The word 'replace' is elusive. What needs to be 'replaced' is the difference between the next best scorer to LaVine and LaVine, not his entire production. When you reduce that to about the 4ppg difference between himself and, say, Justin Holiday, and give Holiday the whole "he just needs to work on (this or that)" treatment that, for some strange reason, we're more inclined to give LaVine, then, even his rookie contract is more justified by getting Dunn and Markkanen in the haul for Butler than what we got from LaVine himself.

Why pay triple the price for it. We've had our 30-day trial.

No thanks.

I'm not sure if this post was in response to mine's but I will assume that it was.

To your first point, I don't see what any of the players that you just mentioned have to do with Zach Lavine. When I said circumstances, I wasn't referring to his injury. But the lack of depth in your reasoning apparently doesn't allow you to get the that point. The circumstances that I was referring to is the fact that he has been in nothing but losing situations that lacked direction and structure. Should he have been able to rise above that? Perhaps. But I just happen to believe that with more structure and continued hard work, those +/- numbers can and will get better.

With regards to the replacement argument, I am not saying that Zach isn't replaceable. What I am saying is that if we let him walk for nothing, where are we going. Your answer seems to suggest that Holliday would be a feasible option mainly due to his production vs his contract. My position is that Holliday may hold value. But that doesn't make him our answer. Have we not already seen what happens when we play him next to Dunn consistently? He was so busy trying to be Durant lite that even his defensive value took a hit. Agree or disagree?

[JohnnyKILLroy]

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

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

Or you look at their money and see that they’re spending 13 million on 2 SGs that are better overall and definitely more bang for your buck than Lavine.

AND once you’ve been around long enough you learn to take these reports with a boulder size dose of skepticism. Interesting how this comes out right after their are reports of the Bulls lowballing Zach or being interested in other FAs.

[TheSuzerain]

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

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

That's pretty **** reasoning honestly. Not much reason to believe that Vlade Divac and Vivek Ranadive are good evaluators.

[Betta Bulleavit]

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

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

Or you look at their money and see that they’re spending 13 million on 2 SGs that are better overall and definitely more bang for your buck than Lavine.

AND once you’ve been around long enough you learn to take these reports with a boulder size dose of skepticism. Interesting how this comes out right after their are reports of the Bulls lowballing Zach or being interested in other FAs.

Correct. Hence the reason that I led with "if the rumor is true". What you are saying could very well be the case.

Too lazy to check, who is their second SG outside of Hield?

[Betta Bulleavit]

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

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

That's pretty **** reasoning honestly. Not much reason to believe that Vlade Divac and Vivek Ranadive are good evaluators.

If you say so. Then again, everyone's reason seems to be **** outside of yours. So it's whatever as far as I'm concerned.

[SensiBull]

From someone called BettaBulleavit, I'd think you'd recognise and respect someone willing to state an opinion and defend it until controverting evidence presents itself.

I find this response juvenile, soft, and not worthy of further comment.

[SensiBull]

"Mom! SensiBull won't play fair!!!"

[TheSuzerain]

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

That's pretty **** reasoning honestly. Not much reason to believe that Vlade Divac and Vivek Ranadive are good evaluators.

If you say so. Then again, everyone's reason seems to be **** outside of yours. So it's whatever as far as I'm concerned.

I mean there is clear precedent in sports where the top nerds on blogs were better talent evaluators than the actual GMs/decision makers themselves. Speaking obviously of the MLB.

[SensiBull]

And, every year, 29 of them don't win NBA Championship either.

[SensiBull]

Maybe I should start thinking what other people think more, so that they don't get their feelings hurt when I disagree with them so vehemently.

[Betta Bulleavit]

From someone called BettaBulleavit, I'd think you'd recognise and respect someone willing to state an opinion and defend it until controverting evidence presents itself.

I find this response juvenile, soft, and not worthy of further comment.

Yet you still found it necessary to respond? I'm not losing sleep one way or the other when it comes to other people's opinion on this stuff.

I was simply calling out the fact that you assumed that when I mentioned circumstances I was talking about his injury rather than taking the time to realize that I was referring to the circumstances in their totality. That's fair isn't it?

You say evidence. Did we not have evidence of Holliday and Dunn playing together last season. You do remember us barely being able to crack 90 points on most nights during that stretch don't you?

[JohnnyKILLroy]

If this rumor is true, it's obvious that THEY don't think that. I'm just saying. I hate to be that guy that calls out the qualifications of others on a message board. But I have to say that even the suckiest of GMs are likely better talent evaluators than we are. Otherwise, we'd probably be doing what they do rather than....what we're doing.

Or you look at their money and see that they’re spending 13 million on 2 SGs that are better overall and definitely more bang for your buck than Lavine.

AND once you’ve been around long enough you learn to take these reports with a boulder size dose of skepticism. Interesting how this comes out right after their are reports of the Bulls lowballing Zach or being interested in other FAs.

Correct. Hence the reason that I led with "if the rumor is true". What you are saying could very well be the case.

Too lazy to check, who is their second SG outside of Hield?

Bogdan Bogdanovic is actually their starter and Buddy comes off the bench......IIRC

[Evil_Headband]

Edit: Never mind.

[Red Larrivee]

I think Sacramento's logic is just finding any super talented player who can present the idea of a playoff push. They struggle attracting players anyway, so it makes some sense to overpay a restricted free agent.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TheJordanRule]

A. Isaiah Thomas (knee), Gordon Hayward (ankle) and Boogie Cousins (achilles) have 'circumstances' too. Contract negotiations will be affected, like it or not. We're all grown-ups here.

B. The word 'replace' is elusive. What needs to be 'replaced' is the difference between the next best scorer to LaVine and LaVine, not his entire production. When you reduce that to about the 4ppg difference between himself and, say, Justin Holiday, and give Holiday the whole "he just needs to work on (this or that)" treatment that, for some strange reason, we're more inclined to give LaVine, then, even his rookie contract is more justified by getting Dunn and Markkanen in the haul for Butler than what we got from LaVine himself.

Why pay triple the price for it. We've had our 30-day trial.

No thanks.

A. I’m glad you’re making this point. Recent major injuries should ALWAYS play a role in the contract you’re handing out to a player. Once the player is injured to that degree, the likelihood of more injuries increases significantly.
B. Please do not say that Holiday is on Zach’s level. Zach has major breakout potential due to his world class athleticism and young age. Zach can play himself into a role with the core group we’re building with. Holiday can’t.

[TheJordanRule]

I think Sacramento's logic is just finding any super talented player who can present the idea of a playoff push. They struggle attracting players anyway, so it makes some sense to overpay a restricted free agent.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If they overpay Zach, that frees us up to “overpay” Exum. Given all the studs on their roster looking for paydays, the Jazz may not be able to match a 10-12 mil per year offer for Exum... especially not if we front load the contract. And I’d take Exum at 12 mil per year over Zach at 17+. Shoot, I’d take Exum at 12 over Zach at 12.

[Truebiscuit]

A. Isaiah Thomas (knee), Gordon Hayward (ankle) and Boogie Cousins (achilles) have 'circumstances' too. Contract negotiations will be affected, like it or not. We're all grown-ups here.

B. The word 'replace' is elusive. What needs to be 'replaced' is the difference between the next best scorer to LaVine and LaVine, not his entire production. When you reduce that to about the 4ppg difference between himself and, say, Justin Holiday, and give Holiday the whole "he just needs to work on (this or that)" treatment that, for some strange reason, we're more inclined to give LaVine, then, even his rookie contract is more justified by getting Dunn and Markkanen in the haul for Butler than what we got from LaVine himself.

Why pay triple the price for it. We've had our 30-day trial.

No thanks.

I'm not sure if this post was in response to mine's but I will assume that it was.

To your first point, I don't see what any of the players that you just mentioned have to do with Zach Lavine. When I said circumstances, I wasn't referring to his injury. But the lack of depth in your reasoning apparently doesn't allow you to get the that point. The circumstances that I was referring to is the fact that he has been in nothing but losing situations that lacked direction and structure. Should he have been able to rise above that? Perhaps. But I just happen to believe that with more structure and continued hard work, those +/- numbers can and will get better.

With regards to the replacement argument, I am not saying that Zach isn't replaceable. What I am saying is that if we let him walk for nothing, where are we going. Your answer seems to suggest that Holliday would be a feasible option mainly due to his production vs his contract. My position is that Holliday may hold value. But that doesn't make him our answer. Have we not already seen what happens when we play him next to Dunn consistently? He was so busy trying to be Durant lite that even his defensive value took a hit. Agree or disagree?

He thinks Sean Kilpatrick is a viable, if not better, replacement for Zach LaVine.

Sean.

Kilpatrick.


That tells you all you need to know, fam.

[Red Larrivee]

I think Sacramento's logic is just finding any super talented player who can present the idea of a playoff push. They struggle attracting players anyway, so it makes some sense to overpay a restricted free agent.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If they overpay Zach, that frees us up to “overpay” Exum. Given all the studs on their roster looking for paydays, the Jazz may not be able to match a 10-12 mil per year offer for Exum... especially not if we front load the contract. And I’d take Exum at 12 mil per year over Zach at 17+. Shoot, I’d take Exum at 12 over Zach at 12.

I wouldn't give Exum anything big. Way too deep an injury history. If LaVine walks, I'm starting Valentine and riding into the season.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk