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

[TheJordanRule]

Devin Booker just got 5/148 and if you look at Lavine pre ACL and Booker the numbers are similar. The risk you take with Zach is kinda what happen with Jimmy. The Bulls and him were 2 mil apart when he bet on himself and it cost the Bulls a lot more the following year. So for me if people think he’s worth only 13 mil but 17 gets the deal done that’s a gamble I’m willing to take because Zach at 17 mil could turn out to be a real value contract.

I do know teams would be lining up to sign Zach at 14-16 mil if he was a UFA. His value is for actual NBA team are a bit higher than fans. The same applied with the value of Jimmy on the open market vs what fans thought his value was.

Spot on and this is what separates fans from the actual GMs. It’s not checkers it’s chess. Teams don’t just go for the now they aim for the future too. Fans only take what we see now which is why we have a lot of those moments going back to previous threads looking how wrong or hyperbolic we were about a player or situation.

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment. But Jimmy played defense when he was at 13 PER and he was selfless on offense, which made Jimmy much more valuable to a team than Zach is at 14 PER.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Spot on and this is what separates fans from the actual GMs. It’s not checkers it’s chess. Teams don’t just go for the now they aim for the future too. Fans only take what we see now which is why we have a lot of those moments going back to previous threads looking how wrong or hyperbolic we were about a player or situation.

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

[Ralphb07]

Spot on and this is what separates fans from the actual GMs. It’s not checkers it’s chess. Teams don’t just go for the now they aim for the future too. Fans only take what we see now which is why we have a lot of those moments going back to previous threads looking how wrong or hyperbolic we were about a player or situation.

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Until you can show me where I said pay Zach 31 mil this post doesn’t even warrant a response completely. If Zach doesn’t tear his ACL his career was on pace for more than the 17 mil I’m saying he should get.

[dougthonus]

Doug what’s silly is freezing your money on a free agent you have no shot at getting because you know the current team is matching? Do you think teams don’t value Capella, Parker, Smart or Gordon as no team looked at them. The RFA market is tough but it’s doesn’t mean you purposely not try and lock your guy up because of it. Obviously don’t go overboard but try and still get a deal done.

Sacramento has locked up all their money anyway. We'll see what they end up doing tomorrow (if anything). Gordon got a massive deal immediately so he doesn't belong on the list. I don't know that LaVine, Parker or Smart have that much value. I do agree though, the RFA market is tough, because you have to overpay to feel you will get a guy, but I don't think teams are that excited about any of these guys.

Zach pre injury career is on par with Booker. Also I never said give Zach 31 million like Booker got. I’m saying that a pre injured Zach being paid 17 mil is more than fair. Also that besides being rusty last season to me at least shown he didn’t lose anything from that injury.

What was Derrick Rose's pre-injury career on par with? What is his post injury career on par with?

Zach's pre-injury career consisted totally of one good half season of basketball as 3rd option where he still had a sub 15 PER and provided nothing outside of scoring and was terrible in all advanced metrics. At that level, you would still be taking a big gamble at 17 million a year that he resolves at least some of those issues.

I won't jump off a cliff if the Bulls match a 17 million offer sheet or anything. It would be understandable, but far and away the most likely outcome is that Zach won't be worth that much. Never in his career has he shown he is worth that much, and the most recent data is really bad.

[Ctownbulls]

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

Yes, he is $17M a year better. If every single team in the league had available cap space then every single team would be willing to give Booker that contract. Very few teams seem to be interested in Zach at $18-$20M even $15M (yes, I know not many teams have the room right now).

[musiqsoulchild]

Devin Booker just got 5/148

Donovan Mitchell was +2.15 in RPM as a rookie, and Devin Booker was -0.95 in his 3rd year. Which, granted, was up substantially from where he had previously been. I would be dying if I were a Phoenix GM betting my franchise on a guy who hasn't yet been good, when the team the next state over has a guy who you know will be good. Because he already is. If I were the Phoenix GM, I'd ship out my maybe player and look to get a sure-thing like Mitchell.

Which I guess gives my view on LaVine. Although at least he's not a gamble of the sort that Minnesota made on Wiggins, Orlando did on Gordon, and Phoenix has done on Booker. He is a lesser gamble. But man, those moves worry me.

I think the point that a few of us are making is that 17 Million a year is not that big of a gamble. In fact, its probably a great deal with little downside.

Here's something that we know Zach does very well ( I'll make the numbers more readable by rounding up):

He has attempted close to 1,000 3's in just 230 games and he has converted 375 of those.

As our younger players grow and Lavine plays in system ( a risk), just that skill along with his other attributes is enough to retain him. His youth just allows us the flexibility of using him as a tradeable asset UNLIKE some of the mega-monster deals you mentioned in your post.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

Yes, he is $17M a year better. If every single team in the league had available cap space then every single team would be willing to give Booker that contract. Very few teams seem to be interested in Zach at $18-$20M even $15M (yes, I know not many teams have the room right now).

And you know this how? Oh, gotcha. Based on the fact that everyone offered Booker 31M per year while nobody has offered a RFA Zach Lavine anything...is that right?

EDIT: And no. Sarcasm aside, Booker is not 17M PER YEAR better than Lavine. Everybody likes advanced stats so much. Well take that medicine. The advanced stats don't back that up.

[Ctownbulls]

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

Yes, he is $17M a year better. If every single team in the league had available cap space then every single team would be willing to give Booker that contract. Very few teams seem to be interested in Zach at $18-$20M even $15M (yes, I know not many teams have the room right now).

And you know this how? Oh, gotcha. Based on the fact that everyone offered Booker 31M per year while nobody has offered a RFA Zach Lavine anything...is that right?

I obviously don't know and I am clearly speculating. It is my belief that every single franchise in the NBA would be willing to give Devin Booker a max contract.

Oh ya, and BTW, the Suns would never, ever, ever have traded Devin Booker straight up for Jimmy Butler a year ago, never-the-less include the #7 pick and another top 5 pick from the year before. They two players are just not even comparable.

[dougthonus]

Nobody said that Zach deserves the money that Booker just got. The belief is that Booker didn't deserve the money that Booker just got. But he did. So when we talk about the possibility of having to pay Zach 10-12M less per year, the picture starts to become a little clearer. Booker is better...but if we only want to pay Zach say...14M per year (which was never really going to happen) the question then becomes, is Booker 17M per year better??

It's a silly comparison though. It is a question you shouldn't ask.

1: If Booker is viewed as overpaid, why would we want to use him as a benchmark
2: Booker's best season is WAY better than Zach's best season
3: Booker isn't coming off an injury that frequently ends careers
4: Zach hasn't shown to be able to do even close to what he did pre-injury after the injury

These things add up to make this a comparison which is like comparing whether Roma tomatoes are a good deal at $1.50 a pound vs whether you should pay $140k for a Tesla. The differences in context and situation are so vast that there is simply no relationship between the two.

[TheJordanRule]

Spot on? We are comparing Devon Booker to Zach Lavine here. Maybe their stats were on par two years ago but Zach has had an ACL injury since and played poorly in his return. Also, let's not compare those two players over simple statistics. The entire basketball community understands Booker is an untouchable, future star. Zach isn't even being wooed in free agency.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Until you can show me where I said pay Zach 31 mil this post doesn’t even warrant a response completely. If Zach doesn’t tear his ACL his career was on pace for more than the 17 mil I’m saying he should get.

Two quick points Ralph:
1. You’re assuming that without the ACL injury, Zach would have improved. But he could have just as easily regressed or stayed at his pre ACL level. And if he had done either of those things he wouldn’t be worth 17 million per year.
2. He’s not worth 17 million per year right now. Zach is a talented young draft pick type player with world class athleticism and great potential... who has been unproductive at both ends of the floor, who is experiencing a post-ACL injury career. Even without the incompetence on both ends of the floor and without the ACL, you are overpaying for a draft pick type player if you are spending more than 8 million per season. 8 million is what the first pick in the draft makes. I’m fine with a 2-5 million per year overpay if the team believes in Zach so much. Nearly 10 million per year overpay? If it ain’t a short term deal, we’d be ridiculous to accept.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Yes, he is $17M a year better. If every single team in the league had available cap space then every single team would be willing to give Booker that contract. Very few teams seem to be interested in Zach at $18-$20M even $15M (yes, I know not many teams have the room right now).

And you know this how? Oh, gotcha. Based on the fact that everyone offered Booker 31M per year while nobody has offered a RFA Zach Lavine anything...is that right?

I obviously don't know and I am clearly speculating. It is my belief that every single franchise in the NBA would be willing to give Devin Booker a max contract.

Oh ya, and BTW, the Suns would never, ever, ever have traded Devin Booker straight up for Jimmy Butler a year ago, never-the-less include the #7 pick and another top 5 pick from the year before. They two players are just not even comparable.

That's a fine position if I were actually trying to make the argument that Lavine was just as good as Booker. But I'm not. What I am saying is that if Booker is worth the max (you obviously feel that he is...but many feel that he isn't), then where does that place the value of a guy like Lavine? The injury itself knocks him down at least 10M a year. I get that. The statistical difference accounts for maybe another 2-3M per year. So where does that place Lavine's value...yeah, 18-19M per year give or take. Right?

[dougthonus]

I think the point that a few of us are making is that 17 Million a year is not that big of a gamble. In fact, its probably a great deal with little downside.

Zach's most recent action in the NBA is at a level of vet minimum. If he plays this coming year like he did last year, then that would be a 16 million dollar overpay.

I don't know how you could have just gone through the Derrick Rose era and come away thinking "of course he'll recover to be much better than he was pre-ACL" when there are very few guards that ever meet their previous best after an ACL injury, yet that seems to be the prevailing thought with those that want to bring LaVine back on a long term deal.

He tore his ACL, an injury that destroys many careers, particularly those of guards who rely on athleticism.
He has been absolutely putrid as a basketball player in the limited time since returning from said injury.
He missed the tail end of the season with compensatory injuries (possibly fake to tank though).
He will be at heightened risk for more injuries going forward.

Yet, let's treat his value as if he will significantly eclipse the small sample size in his career of 47 games where he almost reached the PER of the league average.

[aguifs]

What do you think... Would we have some tank material in case we let him walk? We would only have G-league talent playing the 2.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Until you can show me where I said pay Zach 31 mil this post doesn’t even warrant a response completely. If Zach doesn’t tear his ACL his career was on pace for more than the 17 mil I’m saying he should get.

Two quick points Ralph:
1. You’re assuming that without the ACL injury, Zach would have improved. But he could have just as easily regressed or stayed at his pre ACL level. And if he had done either of those things he wouldn’t be worth 17 million per year.
2. He’s not worth 17 million per year right now. Zach is a talented young draft pick type player with world class athleticism and great potential... who has been unproductive at both ends of the floor, who is experiencing a post-ACL injury career. Even without the incompetence on both ends of the floor and without the ACL, you are overpaying for a draft pick type player if you are spending more than 8 million per season. 8 million is what the first pick in the draft makes. I’m fine with a 2-5 million per year overpay if the team believes in Zach so much. Nearly 10 million per year overpay? If it ain’t a short term deal, we’d be ridiculous to accept.

Well, my gut instinct is that we are probably going to be VERY ridiculous according to your assessment. I just don't think there is a snowball's chance in you know where that he gets anything less than 15M per year. And even that's feeling like wishful thinking based on what we've seen.

[Ctownbulls]

And you know this how? Oh, gotcha. Based on the fact that everyone offered Booker 31M per year while nobody has offered a RFA Zach Lavine anything...is that right?

I obviously don't know and I am clearly speculating. It is my belief that every single franchise in the NBA would be willing to give Devin Booker a max contract.

Oh ya, and BTW, the Suns would never, ever, ever have traded Devin Booker straight up for Jimmy Butler a year ago, never-the-less include the #7 pick and another top 5 pick from the year before. They two players are just not even comparable.

That's a fine position if I were actually trying to make the argument that Lavine was just as good as Booker. But I'm not. What I am saying is that if Booker is worth the max (you obviously feel that he is...but many feel that he isn't), then where does that place the value of a guy like Lavine? The injury itself knocks him down at least 10M a year. I get that. The statistical difference accounts for maybe another 2-3M per year. So where does that place Lavine's value...yeah, 18-19M per year give or take. Right?

Max players get Max contracts because they are franchise players. So you can't really just subtract $10M from that and say it is fair value.

The best way to value a player is to find someone more comparable. Lavine is probably on the level of Will Barton (Zach is actually probably a little worse but might have more potential). Barton got around 4/$50M. I think Zach should be around there. That is the market.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Red Larrivee]

Yes, he is $17M a year better. If every single team in the league had available cap space then every single team would be willing to give Booker that contract. Very few teams seem to be interested in Zach at $18-$20M even $15M (yes, I know not many teams have the room right now).

Booker is not $17M per year better than LaVine. Those two are literally the same player, except Booker hasn't torn his ACL, isn't as athletic and the Suns don't care if he takes a ton of shots and gets beat on defense.

Booker this year (Per 36):

26.0 Points
4.9 assists
4.7 rebounds
.432/.383/.878
18.1 PER
56 TS%
31.7 Usage

RPM last 3 seasons: -.95, -1.30, -4.60

Is he better? Sure, but not by a ton. Booker is definitely going to be overpaid, so it shouldn't be justification to overpay LaVine. It's just interesting to look at the perception of both despite having eerily similar strengths and weaknesses.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[chefo]

Let me state the obvious -- the Bulls would rather pay $25m to a star Zach Lavine than $17m to a train wreck, post-injury Zach that may turn into a star, maybe, kinda', one day. Especially given how things transpired with Rose.

Unfortunately for them, they are stuck because all they have is a homeless-man Harden (who adds little to no value to a team currently) who's looking to get paid like a upper middle class Harden.

If Zach can prove he can be more than a major net negative next year, the Bulls will be ecstatic to pay him very handsomely, just like they did with Jimmy.

Btw, I am in the camp that thinks that he can be a useful player but he requires a LOT of coaching up, because Steve Wonder can tell he does not read the game well. A useful Lavine is worth $17m plus.

My biggest issue is that I see confirmation in his mindset which justifies his view of himself as a top player in his league, which is quite detached from current and past reality. That's why he needs a dedicated coach who can get through to him, because if he doesn't change, he'll set the franchise back plenty.

On another note, working hard is good, but I don't think shooting mechanics and reps are his issue per say. I've mentioned this before, but he does not need time with his dad, he needs time with a smart coach in the video room. A lot of time. If that doesn't help, then he's a lost cause.

[blicka]

Devin booker just put up hollow stats on a 60 loss team that was ranked 30th in offense and 30th in defense and he had a 32% usage rate

Put zach lavine on the suns or kings and he can put up the same individual hollow stats that don't contribute to wins just like booker

[musiqsoulchild]

Jimmy went from a 13 PER to a 21 PER during his breakout season. Blaming the Bulls FO for not expecting that is insane. Not many players experience a 7 or 8 point increase in PER. And even though we waited and had to pay him more, Jimmy’s contract still ended up an excellent value and an excellent investment.

And man, it’s a weird reaction when an ACL injury convinces people that a player deserves more cash not less. The ACL injury discounts Zach’s poor play and puts Zach on the same level as Devin Booker, right? Talk about apologist drivel. But it’s even more perplexing when those same people want to simultaneously ignore the fact that an injury even occurred.

Until you can show me where I said pay Zach 31 mil this post doesn’t even warrant a response completely. If Zach doesn’t tear his ACL his career was on pace for more than the 17 mil I’m saying he should get.

Two quick points Ralph:
1. You’re assuming that without the ACL injury, Zach would have improved. But he could have just as easily regressed or stayed at his pre ACL level. And if he had done either of those things he wouldn’t be worth 17 million per year.
2. He’s not worth 17 million per year right now. Zach is a talented young draft pick type player with world class athleticism and great potential... who has been unproductive at both ends of the floor, who is experiencing a post-ACL injury career. Even without the incompetence on both ends of the floor and without the ACL, you are overpaying for a draft pick type player if you are spending more than 8 million per season. 8 million is what the first pick in the draft makes. I’m fine with a 2-5 million per year overpay if the team believes in Zach so much. Nearly 10 million per year overpay? If it ain’t a short term deal, we’d be ridiculous to accept.

Zach has played 3 full seasons prior to his injury ( 2 in Minny and 1 in UCLA). Thats data that we should look at to see how he would fare when / if healed.

He has been a CONSISTENT 38% 3 point shooter on high volume.

Now, after his ACL recovery, he shot 34%, but I hesitate to look at the 24 game sample instead of the 200 game sample prior to that.

Finally, the Bulls FO has data from practice that we are not privy to. That is the ultimate decider of how much of a role his ACL injury will play. What we definitely know is that he is terrible at defense. And good defense requires proper ACL's. So, yeah, we'll see.

[ChiTownNation]

Lavine has no leverage until he gets an offer sheet. The Bulls are being smart by not offering over what they think the player is worth. As much as the front office gets flack, they bailed on Lu and Jo at the right time because their contracts are 2 of the worst in the NBA. It was the same reason we traded Butler. The front office couldn't see paying him in excess of $30 million to lead us to championships so they got rid of him at a good time to get value in return.