No one is a GM here, and, even half of them aren't in it to win it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/15/nba-teams-can-still-pack-in-the-fans-even-if-they-dont-win.htmlThat doesn't mean that any of us are obligated to feel
any less passionately about how we see the game, or to pretend to agree with others when we truly don't. If that's too much for some, there are lots of other internet-based activities on offer.
Today's player assessments by GM's are not like those of the last decade's. People are still carrying around this 2K mentality, where a really expensive machete is worth more than a collection of affordable Swiss Army knives.
Today's desired player is multi-skilled. A jack-of-all-trades is treated as more desirable to winning GM's than a master of one, even when that one 'skill' is inefficient scoring at 2 pts a possession.
By multi-skilled, I mean:
- In baseball, you're starting to see, in all sports, players like Shohei Ohtani, who can pitch and bat. You ask athletes who the best athlete of all time is, and they say Bo Jackson, because he was multi-sport, multi-position.
- In football, you're seeing players who can play Wide Receiver OR Quarterback competently. Running backs are catching out of the backfield. Linemen are declaring eligibility to run or receive on Red Zone plays.
In basketball, you're starting to see a financial premium put on players who can display the skills normally associated with a variety of positions.
- Forwards who can distribute, like LeBron, Ben Simmons, Draymond and Giannis.
- Bigs who can both shoot the 3 on offence and switch out to defend on the perimeter in pick-and-roll situations
- Guards who not only score, but create turnovers, distribute an shoot the 3 effectively enough to make opposing teams respects, rather than sagging off, ready to help double-team someone in the paint, knowing that your sad range is probably going to lead to you to try to score in traffic too
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/steals/sort/avgSteals/year/2018/seasontype/2None of this is Zach Lavine.
- Sean Kilpatrick is just as one-dimensional as he is. I didn't say either one of them was 'good.'
- Justin Holiday isn't as potent a scorer, but, he averages 4 rebounds per game, averages 36% from the arc and isn't afraid to pull the trigger from there (rather than put his head down and charge like a rhino), which keeps the floor spaced, even when he's not hitting, and, the loss of LaVine's marginal additional scoring is not the drop off of a cliff's face that justifies 8-figure dollar amounts. What Holiday does may do more for the team both spatially and financially.
- In today's NBA, a Swiss Army knife like Denzel Valentine, who shoots better from the field and from 3 than LaVine, and yet is 9th on the Bulls in FG Attempts with 9 (as compared to Zach's 1st on the team with 15 FG Attempts), and isn't commanding an 8-figure salary, I can afford to lose Zach. I definitely consider him a viable option to save that money.
That's before even
DISCUSSING other free agents or the trade market.
And, in case we (like Zach himself) have forgotten, basketball is a team sport.
If the risk of 'losing' LaVine is that we lose his 17ppg (because he sure as hell doesn't offer you anything else) then OF COURSE it matters whether any new addition to the team can make up for the loss of that scoring. 'Replace' was not my word.
Yet, there is a player coming to the team, in fact two players, who, without spending $40MM can combine to make up for his loss AND keep the Bulls in a position to get involved in both trades and free agency.
As for free agency, if you notice, NY, Brooklyn, Philly, Chicago, Miami, the Clippers, have ALL struggled in free agency. Our 'free agency problem' isn't any bigger than a lot of large-market, warm-weather teams. If there is a way to stay competitive, hamstringing ourselves with a one-dimensional, inefficient ball-hog and slapping a 'star' label on him isn't that way.
