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

blicka · Post #841 » by **blicka** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:38 am

Ideal lavine contract would be 4 years 64 mil, anything lower is gravy.Hopefully he accepts an offer in that range instead of looking for more because the idiot kings scare me

the absolute max I'd offer/match lavine is 4 years 80 mil.If bums like allen crabbe,evan turner and ryan anderson are earning 18-20 mil annually it's absurd to think lavine can't get that.the cap spike and market caused this

anything more than that, bye

Risk Addict · Post #842 » by **Risk Addict** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:38 am

he Is [url][/url]a high usage player who has a negative impact on offensive efficiency and defensive awareness. Plus he is coming off a major injury. He has the sexy skills that make highlights but rarely results in wins. It would be nice to have a guy like that on the team, but not at max and not with that usage. Nate Robinson could put up similar stats at that usage for the league minimum.

When your game plan is based on fast movement efficient offense, a black hole like Zach is not a good player. Same issue on offense as when we had butler but with worse defense by far. Now people want to give him butler money?

Axolotl · Post #843 » by **Axolotl** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:36 am

LaVine's problems are off-ball defence and bbiq. Other than those, he is great, and fun to watch too.

The main problem in the 24 games as a bull was the bbiq, what he decided to do when he had the ball. Those decisions were often poor, and didn't help the team.

LaVine is supposed to have some skills as a playmaker. Those skills were not showing, but instead he played as an anti-playmaker would. Playmaking, however, requires a degree of bbiq, and it is hard to imagine he has gained the reputation of being a secondary playmaker by playing the way he did for the Bulls.

I have not watched enough of LaVine playing with the Timberwolves to form a personal opinion, but what I have gathered is that while he wasn't a major positive impact, he wasn't such a iso-ball hole either.

Maybe he was trying too much, and only succeeded against the T-wolves in what he was set out to do, but I don't think that level of play is sustainable for him. If it was, he'd be a superstar worth the max and then some.

Can he fix his issues, and if he can, to what degree? The answers mean millions of dollars, and the FO has to cough up with answers and make decisions that are based on insufficient data. It was a gamble to begin with. LaVine could have returned with a clear upward trajectory - he didn't. He could have come back with an improved bbiq - he didn't. He could have become a better defender - I don't think he did.

Although other people's contracts should have no effect on LaVine's, they are likely to be a factor in the negotiations. Let's take Felicio's contract: he is, or at least was last season, unusable. LaVine had a high usage, but was a net negative, and in a longer term net negatives are not desirable players to have. His contract should mirror that, and whatever the FO thinks he will realistically become. The data so far suggests he should be much closer to Felicio money than a max contract.

tunit213 · Post #844 » by **tunit213** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:20 am

The dude is a hard worker.

bearadonisdna · Post #845 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:39 am

One thing I keep hearing is 24 games but in like 12 of them he was a beast.

PrimzyBulls81 · Post #846 » by **PrimzyBulls81** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:58 am

bearadonisdna wrote:One thing I keep hearing is 24 games but in like 12 of them he was a beast.

not really -- he had 5-6 really good games and 3 more good shooting nights..but NOT good games

samwana · Post #847 » by **samwana** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:10 am

I can't find the video being on mobile, but there was one in this thread showing Zach on offense. He hit most of his shots, but the other 4 guys just stood there an watched. They were completely ignored by Zach. Frozen out. It was a perfect example of Zach's teamplay. It's non existent. Our offense even if it may not be great yet, was flowing and everyone was involved, it was fun to watch even in losses, until Zach came back. Him playing iso ball resulted in other players trying to get theirs too. I can't stand that kind of game and eventually it won't work in the playoffs. We've seen enough of that.

Zach is a great scorer and a bad basketball player all in one. He may put it together at one point in his career as a 6th man, but if he doesn't accept that, he will always be an albatross contract as soon as he gets more than 10m a year imo.

Sent from my SM-G920F using RealGM mobile app

rtblues · Post #848 » by **rtblues** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:37 am

Ugh, just go to Sacramento and help them not win....

SensiBull · Post #849 » by **SensiBull** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:11 am

There are at least 3 furphies floating around this board:

1. "No one ever said anything about offering Zach LaVine max money."

False:

viewtopic.php?t=1714255&start=80

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/250118/Aaron-Gordon-Zach-LaVine-Could-Command-Max-Offer-Sheets-In-RFA

I used to post on this board years ago, when Jamal Crawford was on the Bulls, and, rumour had it that his sister used to post under some username. I'm starting to believe that Zach has PR people on here.

There are people in here talking about 'settling' on 4 years for $80 MM, like it's some sort of humble compromise.

Cummowen, Sunn!! GTFOHWTBS.

2. People are ignoring the fact that Zach is coming off an ACL, and, before that, he was a beast, and Bulls FO and fans are the only ones who would hold that against a free agent.

Watch on YouTube

;t=160s

Prior to his achilles injury, Demarcus Cousins stood to re-sign with New Orleans for $188 MM over 4-5 years. After the ACL, and looking at the free agency landscape, ESPN's Bobby Marks estimates his value at $25MM per for 2-3 years. That's the kind of money some people on this board are saying that LaVine should reluctantly settle, and even have an attitude about 'settling' for.

https://fullpresscoverage.com/2018/06/29/isaiah-thomas-the-forgotten-free-agent/

Cummowen, Sunn!! GTFOHWTBS.

3. "The reason that Zach LaVine shot so much (and to be fair, I don't think 15 attempts per game is much for a Shooting Guard on a crowded roster - those aren't Kobe numbers*) is that the Bulls had no one else on their roster who could create his own shot."

Watch on YouTube

* 3b. "How can you not fault LaVine for taking 15 shots a game and, at the same time, say that he 'calls his own number too much.' Isn't that a contradiction?"

No.

In game theory, it's the reduction of your opponents' options that marks success, not 'kills' per se. A game of chess is not won by actually capturing the king. It's won by eliminating his options.

When animals that hunt in packs corner an animal, it might only be one of them that gets the actual bite on the neck, but the whole pack eats. Everyone plays their position, the prey has nowhere to run, and the cubs get fed. That's how it works.

Having one prolific killer who the rest of the pack lives off, like pan-handlers of is not a substitute for an efficient team, and prolific is a stretch when it comes to Zach LaVine, before or after his injury, which brings us to.....

4. "Zach LaVine was a 'beast' before his ACL injury."

First, not to harp on his injury, but, let's just put into perspective that he played 50 games in 2016-17 and 24-games in 2017-18. So, out of the (82+82) 164 games he should have played in over the past two seasons, he played 74. That's not even half.

So, you really have to go back to 2015-16, which is unfair to any developing, young player, including Zach to get any sense of a full season's worth of production.

The point is that he has never been 'a beast' for a full season.

"Sure thing" money should be off the table.

I can see that the thread has been merged and re-titled, to say that the Bulls are thinking $14-16, and, on a short deal, I'd suck it up as a Bulls fan, because that's not too much to pay a quality sixth man who can come off the bench and keep the 2nd unit going while the starters rest, but, this ISO-ball is not team-oriented, and everybody else is clicking with each other.

Still, I wouldn't put it past another franchise to offer him more, in hopes that they have some sort of diamond in the rough, and if that happens to be a dysfunctional team in the Western Conference that hasn't been decent since the days of Arvydas Sabonis and Chris Webber, who we would never face in the playoffs, that's even better.

sco · Post #850 » by **sco** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:08 pm

His worth is not the key to me. Let's say we want 2 max contracts in 2019. Can we sign Zach at all? If so, for how much? If we can't do 2 if sign Zach, what's the cut-off for 1 max?

Betta Bulleavit · Post #851 » by **Betta Bulleavit** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:21 pm

sco wrote:His worth is not the key to me. Let's say we want 2 max contracts in 2019. Can we sign Zach at all? If so, for how much? If we can't do 2 if sign Zach, what's the cut-off for 1 max?

If we want 2 max contracts (which there aren’t even enough desireable guys out there for) then we can’t sign Zach. Period. If one, we can pretty much sign Zach for whatever we want and still have enough. Or pretty close to it.

thxfrthmmrs · Post #852 » by **thxfrthmmrs** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:32 pm

sco wrote:His worth is not the key to me. Let's say we want 2 max contracts in 2019. Can we sign Zach at all? If so, for how much? If we can't do 2 if sign Zach, what's the cut-off for 1 max?

The ideal contract to me is a prove it contract. Give him 4/$72M front loaded. With team options years 2 and 3. If he puts up an all star level season, we may only need to sign 1 max player next year or 2020. If he disappoints we can simply decline the team option or trade him so we can clear room for 2 max.

sco · Post #853 » by **sco** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:36 pm

thxfrthmmrs wrote:
sco wrote:His worth is not the key to me. Let's say we want 2 max contracts in 2019. Can we sign Zach at all? If so, for how much? If we can't do 2 if sign Zach, what's the cut-off for 1 max?

The ideal contract to me is a prove it contract. Give him 4/$72M front loaded. With team options years 2 and 3. If he puts up an all star level season, we may only need to sign 1 max player next year or 2020. If he disappoints we can simply decline the team option or trade him so we can clear room for 2 max.

I was there, but I think the prove it concept requires no competition in the market. Sounds like Zach is th proverbial best looking girl/guy/other in the bar at 3am this offseason. Somebody's gonna bid a quasi market deal for him.

SensiBull · Post #854 » by **SensiBull** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:54 pm

How many max contracts do Indiana or Boston have on the books?

sco · Post #855 » by **sco** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:03 pm

SensiBull wrote:How many max contracts do Indiana or Boston have on the books?

Did they make the finals?

They are on their path, and the first step is to find your top 10 NBA talent. Boston, IMO, found theirs in Bell and Indy with Dip. To win it all they'll need to add their KD or they'll just be another pretender like CLE.

None of our guys have shown to be on the same level as Bell or Dipo. Not saying one of our guys can't take a Dipo-like quantum leap, but until they do, I'm of the mind that we haven't achieved step 1.

League Circles · Post #856 » by **League Circles** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:15 pm

Yeah we basically can't sign anyone else to any guaranteed money in 2019-20 and still have 2 max slots to offer. Not Lavie, not Bobby, not Nwaba. I haven't done the exact math with roster spot cap holds and all that, but the basic roster would be:

5: Carter, Felicio, (Asiks partial guarantee)
4: Lauri
3: Hutchison
2: Valentine
1. Dunn
Plus a first round pick next year

IMO the above is what we should go into FA with next summer. Obviously we should try to dump Felicio.

SensiBull · Post #857 » by **SensiBull** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:50 pm

A. GSW's have a pre-Durant ring in 2014. KD's the gravy, not the roast. Him being the 2nd 'max contract' is not the magic-bullet that made them champs. In their first winning season, David Lee ($15 MM), Andrew Bogut ($13 MM) and Andre Iguodala ($12 MM) all got paid more than Steph Curry ($10 MM). There were no two max players. It's a superstition, not a fact.

B. I don't agree that the word 'pretender' applies to either team that takes the perennial Eastern Conference champs to 7 games on barely more than half the payroll of those champs.

I also don't think that the Golden State Warriors, in 2015-16, having lost to Cleveland 3 games to 4 in the Finals, were 'pretenders' because of that loss.

The entire Analytics Era has been ushered in by an analysis of pay-to-performance that was made between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox, as outlined in the movie Money Ball, about Billy Bean. Spoiler alert: Oakland doesn't win the World Series at the end.

Yet, in sports well beyond baseball, it has ushered in an attitude among franchise owners that it's NOT 'six and two threes' as the saying goes. Teams are saying, "I'll take the two threes, thank you very much."

C. If LeBron does go to the Western Conference, which could happen as early as next week, Boston and Indiana become our chief in-conference opponents. Every win against them is both a win for us and a loss for them. It's worth noting that:

- Indiana was 24th out of 30 in team payroll this season,
- Philadelphia is 29th out of 30, and
- Boston would have been 23rd if not for the money that they spent on Gordon Hayward who missed the entire season anyway

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Toronto plays hero-ball around DerMarr DeRozan, got swept in the playoffs and fired the Coach of the Year according to sports writers. They're also 3rd in the league in payroll, behind Golden State and Miami.

I don't think we have a disagreement about Zach LaVine and that the best place for him is somewhere else. I'm firmly in the 'find your Starting Five before you contract your Sixth Man' camp.

I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily take 2 max contracts to win the East (as also evidenced by LeBron getting there post-Kyrie against expectations). So, I wouldn't bookmark that as the difference between success and failure; and, we're about to spend the next 5 years competing with Indiana, Boston and Philadelphia for scarce resources like free agents to play in the East and home-court.

This clearly isn't a spending race, and, when it becomes one, that's what Luxury Tax is for. It's not a can-or-can't situation to get that 2nd max player, assuming one is even necessary.

TheJordanRule · Post #858 » by **TheJordanRule** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:33 pm

sco wrote:
thxfrthmmrs wrote:
sco wrote:His worth is not the key to me. Let's say we want 2 max contracts in 2019. Can we sign Zach at all? If so, for how much? If we can't do 2 if sign Zach, what's the cut-off for 1 max?

The ideal contract to me is a prove it contract. Give him 4/$72M front loaded. With team options years 2 and 3. If he puts up an all star level season, we may only need to sign 1 max player next year or 2020. If he disappoints we can simply decline the team option or trade him so we can clear room for 2 max.

I was there, but I think the prove it concept requires no competition in the market. Sounds like Zach is th proverbial best looking girl/guy/other in the bar at 3am this offseason. Somebody's gonna bid a quasi market deal for him.

This is a "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" type situation. Zach is the gold digging fat chick who everyone thinks could become smoking hot if she loses 100 lbs. Most people pass on looks alone, and the ones who give her time of day still end up passing on the price tag. Zach's either got to accept the 3:00 am booty call or settle for a contract where the only other option is shacking up with a man who don't give anyone the girlfriend title. Someone's gotta put a ring on this hoe for me to believe this situation is anything else.

SensiBull · Post #859 » by **SensiBull** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:49 pm

Dayum.

[BTW TheJordanRule, wasn't it you who was talking about Mario Hezonja?

I went and looked up some of his games, and I really liked what I saw. Moves REALLY well without the ball, has an eye for teammates, dangerous from deep range, defends well in the post for his size.

Stats over the entirety of last season didn't really seem to back that up, and, because I don't follow Orlando, I don't know the ins and outs, but, he seemed to struggle at the beginning of last season, found some form in December, exploded onto the scene in February and then kind of just maintained decency for the rest of the season.

The price tags people are talking about for him next season seem like bargains for a player with an array of facets to his game.]

Watch on YouTube

;t=281s

Betta Bulleavit · Post #860 » by **Betta Bulleavit** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:51 pm

TheJordanRule wrote:
sco wrote:
thxfrthmmrs wrote:
The ideal contract to me is a prove it contract. Give him 4/$72M front loaded. With team options years 2 and 3. If he puts up an all star level season, we may only need to sign 1 max player next year or 2020. If he disappoints we can simply decline the team option or trade him so we can clear room for 2 max.

I was there, but I think the prove it concept requires no competition in the market. Sounds like Zach is th proverbial best looking girl/guy/other in the bar at 3am this offseason. Somebody's gonna bid a quasi market deal for him.

This is a "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" type situation. Zach is the gold digging fat chick who everyone thinks could become smoking hot if she loses 100 lbs. Most people pass on looks alone, and the ones who give her time of day still end up passing on the price tag. Zach's either got to accept the 3:00 am booty call or settle for a contract where the only other option is shacking up with a man who don't give anyone the girlfriend title. Someone's gotta put a ring on this hoe for me to believe this situation is anything else.

I’m sure that all sounded cool while you were typing it. But this has to be one of the most piss poor analogies that I’ve ever seen on this board. First, we don’t know exactly what Zach is asking for. Secondly, you assume that everyone devalues “fat chicks” and their only option is to lower their standards for superficial jerks. Your whole vibe stinks.

What's he worth?