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

[TheJordanRule]

What this discussion about Lavine is showing me is tantamount to learning that half the Bulls fan base is actually made up of A.I.

They talk like they want to bake a cake, but, when you start talking eggs, flour, sugar and butter, they start talking Vodka, Vermouth and olives.Yet, if you ask them straight up if they would rather have a martini than cake, they look you straight in the eye and ask, "How dare you? Are you accusing me of being an alcoholic?"

Well, by the end of this video, this pro-Zach fan comes clean and just goes ahead and orders his martini, which is a much more respectable way to handle it.

I feel this post by SensiBull. It really describes the disorienting unreasonableness and underlying disingenuousness in some of the arguments created by Zach apologists. For instance:
*the complete dismissal of his ACL injury or using it in a positive light (“Zach would be Booker’s twin except the ACL injury happened so now we get to sign Zach post ACL to a 20 mil per year contract instead of a 30 mil per year contract”)
* even though a soft and hard cap exist, and often as little as 2 or 3 mil per year extra determine where a star is gonna go, the claim that no deal we sign Zach to, no matter how humongous, will affect our ability to throw money at free agents in the future
*the claim that the market has determined Zach as someone worthy of 15-20 million per year when literally nothing has happened regarding Zach

[keloms]

[JimmyJammer]

This is one of the most logical articles written about the LaVine's situation with the Bulls. This perspective is a non-biased one, with no self-interest and hidden agenda.

Chicago will miss LeBron James the way we would miss potholes and traffic, two other painful realities known to ruin a good trip — in the Bulls’ case, a playoff run.

In any local game of Sports Jeopardy, the answers are James, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and broadcaster Joe Buck. The question? Name three sports figures Chicago’s fans always are thrilled to see leave town.

King James abdicated the throne in the Eastern Conference, bolting for the Lakers through free agency and leaving Cleveland’s grit for Los Angeles’ glitz. This was as anticipated as a James buzzer-beater and, similarly, nearly impossible for anyone to stop.

Good for James, whose greatness gives him the right to finish an unparalleled career however he chooses. James chose the Lakers and the Western Conference, a cluttered mess of wannabe teams chasing the dynastic Warriors, instead of the 76ers or even the Cavaliers, who would have provided James a clearer path to the NBA Finals from the East.


This seems less like ring-chasing than life-fulfilling for James, despite criticism to the contrary, and merely the method the game’s biggest star chose to ride off into the Hollywood sunset after one final act. And if James, at 33, leads a third franchise to an NBA title before the credits roll, he will leave a legacy that would exceed Michael Jordan’s — but that’s an argument for another day. For now, Lakers fans only care how LeBron measures up to the franchise’s other one-name legends: Magic, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem and Wilt. No pressure there.

Meanwhile, back in the East — now perhaps the NBA’s other developmental league — James’ departure changes the dynamic for several teams, especially the Bulls. Once the Bulls stop celebrating how they will welcome James only once annually to the United Center, the reality will sink in: It’s time to think playoffs again.

There is no other reasonable way to view James leaving the East than a positive development for the Bulls, one year into a rebuilding plan that now accelerates slightly. Without James, Giannis Antetokounmpo of the Bucks and Joel Embiid of the Sixers can battle on Twitter and the court over who is the conference’s best player — I’ll take the “Greek Freak.” As far as teams go, nobody in the conference immediately will benefit more than the Celtics. But the Bucks, Raptors and Pacers probably popped a few corks Sunday night anyway. As for the Bulls, they have every reason to eliminate tanking from the local lexicon once and for all.

That starts with accepting this new truth: LeBron’s exit creates even more urgency over Zach LaVine’s return. The Bulls soon could face a dilemma of whether to match an offer sheet to LaVine, a restricted free agent expected to draw interest from at least the Kings. The four-year, $84 million contract to which the Magic signed restricted free agent Aaron Gordon

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-spt-bulls-lebron-james-zach-lavine-haugh-20180702-story.html

[aguifs]

This is one of the most logical articles written about the LaVine's situation with the Bulls. This perspective is a non-biased one, with no self-interest and hidden agenda.

Chicago will miss LeBron James the way we would miss potholes and traffic, two other painful realities known to ruin a good trip — in the Bulls’ case, a playoff run.

In any local game of Sports Jeopardy, the answers are James, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and broadcaster Joe Buck. The question? Name three sports figures Chicago’s fans always are thrilled to see leave town.

King James abdicated the throne in the Eastern Conference, bolting for the Lakers through free agency and leaving Cleveland’s grit for Los Angeles’ glitz. This was as anticipated as a James buzzer-beater and, similarly, nearly impossible for anyone to stop.

Good for James, whose greatness gives him the right to finish an unparalleled career however he chooses. James chose the Lakers and the Western Conference, a cluttered mess of wannabe teams chasing the dynastic Warriors, instead of the 76ers or even the Cavaliers, who would have provided James a clearer path to the NBA Finals from the East.


This seems less like ring-chasing than life-fulfilling for James, despite criticism to the contrary, and merely the method the game’s biggest star chose to ride off into the Hollywood sunset after one final act. And if James, at 33, leads a third franchise to an NBA title before the credits roll, he will leave a legacy that would exceed Michael Jordan’s — but that’s an argument for another day. For now, Lakers fans only care how LeBron measures up to the franchise’s other one-name legends: Magic, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem and Wilt. No pressure there.

Meanwhile, back in the East — now perhaps the NBA’s other developmental league — James’ departure changes the dynamic for several teams, especially the Bulls. Once the Bulls stop celebrating how they will welcome James only once annually to the United Center, the reality will sink in: It’s time to think playoffs again.

There is no other reasonable way to view James leaving the East than a positive development for the Bulls, one year into a rebuilding plan that now accelerates slightly. Without James, Giannis Antetokounmpo of the Bucks and Joel Embiid of the Sixers can battle on Twitter and the court over who is the conference’s best player — I’ll take the “Greek Freak.” As far as teams go, nobody in the conference immediately will benefit more than the Celtics. But the Bucks, Raptors and Pacers probably popped a few corks Sunday night anyway. As for the Bulls, they have every reason to eliminate tanking from the local lexicon once and for all.

That starts with accepting this new truth: LeBron’s exit creates even more urgency over Zach LaVine’s return. The Bulls soon could face a dilemma of whether to match an offer sheet to LaVine, a restricted free agent expected to draw interest from at least the Kings. The four-year, $84 million contract to which the Magic signed restricted free agent Aaron Gordon

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-spt-bulls-lebron-james-zach-lavine-haugh-20180702-story.html

Overpaying is crazy, but you need to get creative and convince Lavine, asap, that staying here is the only way for him to reach the playoffs. Offer him 1+1 and roll the dices... The east is open now, you have to position yourself for the next free agency periods, but you can't hit Hawks, Nets, Magic rock bottom level. We won't be players in free agency without some fast growing perspective.

Pull the trigger Garpax!!!

[musiqsoulchild]

No one seems to be able to articulate that. It's all feelings.

Nailed it. This is why I've stayed out of this thread... no matter what Zach signs for with us (assuming he stays here) it's not going to impact our ability to throw money at top-tier free agents moving forward. The rest is just fluff and over-zealous evaluations of a dude coming off a torn ACL that played in only 24 games for us last season. I'm willing to bet the vast majority watched very little -- if any -- of LaVine in Minnesota or UCLA. They're just box score/stat line scouting and attempting to provide analysis based on the numbers they see.

Someone earlier cited his vertical leap and chided that LaVine never had a 10 rebound game. I mean, really?

Because math doesn't exist?

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

[League Circles]

Nailed it. This is why I've stayed out of this thread... no matter what Zach signs for with us (assuming he stays here) it's not going to impact our ability to throw money at top-tier free agents moving forward. The rest is just fluff and over-zealous evaluations of a dude coming off a torn ACL that played in only 24 games for us last season. I'm willing to bet the vast majority watched very little -- if any -- of LaVine in Minnesota or UCLA. They're just box score/stat line scouting and attempting to provide analysis based on the numbers they see.

Someone earlier cited his vertical leap and chided that LaVine never had a 10 rebound game. I mean, really?

Because math doesn't exist?

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

[musiqsoulchild]

Because math doesn't exist?

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

A max contract is just that. A contract. The player may or may not be worthy of it. A max player on the other hand is definitely worth the max contract.

You are not going to get 2 Max players. You can only get 1 (maybe) with another max contract ( not player). It's probability. Instead, go for a sub-par max contract player and a true max player.

For example, trading for Wiggins. That's the max contract. And then you add a max level player in free agency.

Or, don't believe in our in the sky scenarios like Kyrie and Jimmy. Instead just re-up Dunn, Portis and sign the best Max level player there is available who fits with the team in 2019.

It's good to want 2 Max players cap space in theory. In practice, you sacrifice actual present value talent and skill for a chance at something EVERY team is angling for next offseason.

I don't buy into the 2 Max FA farce. I think we can pull that off EVEN by retaining Zach.

[dougthonus]

Where was that reported?

I didn't see the article, someone on twitter said the Sacramento Bee had it. I'm not sure if it was someone's idea or a true rumor.

[dougthonus]

1+1 deal 20 mill per season.

This would probably be best for both sides. Lavine gets paid a lot for this year and has the opportunity to get his value back up in order to get a better multi year contract. Then bulls would have another season to evaluate him,see if he’s really worth it or not and also keeps them more in the game for next years free agency. Both would benefit out of a one plus one deal, but whoever controls the option for that second year has the upper hand, for us a team option would be best case scenario.

The only one who would control the option is us.

In any contract, the price is almost always going to be good for one side and bad for the other. If you give Zach a player option, then the deal means he only executes it if he's worth less than 20 million. If that's the case, the Bulls wouldn't want him to execute. In the case where he executes the Bulls pay him 16 million extra this year, and 20 million next year they'd rather not.

The QO is simply a better choice for the Bulls, so they would never offer a 1+1 with a 2nd year player option.

The non guaranteed (not team option) on a 1+1 would make sense for both sides. The value to the Bulls is potential control of Zach for an additional year. The value for Zach is that even if he's worth a max contract, the Bulls can pay enough that his deal is worth more than a QO+ 1 year max, so he can't lose money.

In this sense, the Bulls are paying 16 million extra for the control next year. This makes sense, because now they are getting some benefit for all that extra money they are paying Zach. It makes no sense to just hand Zach free money and not get extra benefit which would be the 1+1 player option.

In the 1+1 non guaranteed deal, both sides gain some value, Zach gets a ton of extra money, the Bulls get the option of trying out FA first to see if they can lure 2 max stars (And waive Zach) or 1 max star and keep Zach (if he's good), or no stars and keep Zach (if he's good) or just waive him if he's poor. This fundamentally makes sense for both sides.

In this sense, Zach gives up the 100% chance to hit FA in 2019, the Bulls give up the chance to use that extra cap room to facilitate trades.

[StunnerKO]

I'm still not understanding the Jabari stuff. Has he proven he can play the 3? If that's not the case, I dunno why bringing him in would make sense.

He played high school basketball in Chicago. For some people, that’s reason enough to be interested. You see it with Okafor and others as well.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I'm not nuts though, right? He hasn't shown he's capable of playing thay wing spot on both ends.

Offensively he can play it’s the defense everyone is concerned

[musiqsoulchild]

Ultimately, this boils down to Risk Tolerance Vs. Anticipated Returns.

Secanrio 1: (The one that I think is more probable in 2019)

Dunn (re-signed)/ Payne (re-signed)
Lavine (matched) / Valentine
STUD FA / Hutch
Lauri / Portis ( re-signed)
Wendell / Lopez (re-signed)

Vs. the less reasonable / probable:

Kyrie (MAX)/ Dunn
MLE / Vet Min
Jimmy (MAX) / Hutch
Lauri / Portis
Wendell / Felicio

And you still have to figure out how to retain Portis + Dunn and pay the LT on that.

I know which one the Bulls will be more inclined to do. Especially, after what they learned from 2010.

[dougthonus]

You are not going to get 2 Max players. You can only get 1 (maybe) with another max contract ( not player). It's probability. Instead, go for a sub-par max contract player and a true max player.

Getting the 1st one makes getting the 2nd one more likely.

For example, trading for Wiggins. That's the max contract. And then you add a max level player in free agency.

Wiggins makes your team worse and makes you less likely to get 1 max FA not more likely.

Or, don't believe in our in the sky scenarios like Kyrie and Jimmy. Instead just re-up Dunn, Portis and sign the best Max level player there is available who fits with the team in 2019.

This is terrible and defeatist. "I don't think we can do the best thing possible, so instead, I'm not going to try, and I'm going to do something I find really unlikely to be useful". Why would you ever have this attitude. It's so easy to try for 2 quality max FAs as plan A and then do something else as plan B if it doesn't work.

Why would you ever destroy the only plan that gives you a reasonable shot at a title and has no opportunity cost just because you think its unlikely to work? I agree, it's unlikely to work, but "unlikely" in the sense that it still has a 20-30% chance and immediately makes you a top 3 team in the NBA if it does.

Your plan makes you a top 15 team if it works and can easily be opted into if the 2 max FA plan fails.

It's good to want 2 Max players cap space in theory. In practice, you sacrifice actual present value talent and skill for a chance at something EVERY team is angling for next offseason.

This is totally false.

Step 1: Use your cap room to make a deal with Denver or OKC for a pick to take on 1 year salary.
Step 2: Sign Zach to 1+1 deal with second year full non guaranteed and a July 3rd-4th guarantee date.
Step 3: Don't sign anyone else that goes into next year.

You have not sacrificed any present / future talent and will have room for 2 max contracts next season.

Not every team is angling for this, very few teams will have room for even 1 30 mil max contract let alone 2.

Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving reportedly want to play together in the East. How many teams in the East do you think will be able to pull that off and have good teammates to put around them? I'd say probably one. The Bulls.

It may not happen for a variety of reasons, but the odds are far, far higher than you admit.

I don't buy into the 2 Max FA farce. I think we can pull that off EVEN by retaining Zach.

Not using FA money. That's just mathematically impossible.

[League Circles]

It really doesn't impact it. You trade for a max FA and you sign another.

Or, you just go after 1 Max FA. And keep Dunn and Portis.

Just trade for them? It's that simple? The pieces going out are irrelevant? And we're assured to get the player? And the contigency of doing a trade or not couldn't possibly affect the other guy's interest in joining us as a FA?

I remember you assured us that GS would be cutting salary and basically giving away Iggy to anyone who would absorb him. But instead they're spending more to add Boogie. Trades should never be presumed to be available IMO. Because they require the explicit cooperation of at least one competing franchise.

Might a well say we'll just trade for two max guys and advocate signing Nwaba, Lavine, Vonleh and Bobby all to 4 year deals.

A max contract is just that. A contract. The player may or may not be worthy of it. A max player on the other hand is definitely worth the max contract.

You are not going to get 2 Max players. You can only get 1 (maybe) with another max contract ( not player). It's probability. Instead, go for a sub-par max contract player and a true max player.

For example, trading for Wiggins. That's the max contract. And then you add a max level player in free agency.

Or, don't believe in our in the sky scenarios like Kyrie and Jimmy. Instead just re-up Dunn, Portis and sign the best Max level player there is available who fits with the team in 2019.

It's good to want 2 Max players cap space in theory. In practice, you sacrifice actual present value talent and skill for a chance at something EVERY team is angling for next offseason.

I don't buy into the 2 Max FA farce. I think we can pull that off EVEN by retaining Zach.

Guys like Wiggins aren't even worth close to that though. And so what? My plan still gives us the option to do that. Why would the Timberwolves trade us Wiggins anyway and who are they taking back if anyone?

Portis is irrelevant because we can just wait until the last moment to renounce him and if nothing better comes along we can consider resigning him next summer. Dunn is still going to be under contract so he is also irrelevantelevant.

I literally just did the math down to the exact dollar presuming the most recently reported projected salary-cap next season meaning the 2019-2020 season of 108 million dollars. My projections also include the associated small increase in the minimum roster cap hold amount. This is how we stand:

Guaranteed money for 6 players on roster = 29,725,916:

Carter
Felicio
Lauri
Hutchison
Valentine
Dunn
(1 million for Asik not on roster after being stretch waived where his 3mil turns into 1 mil)

Then considering two Max contract guys as our 7th and 8th men means we need 4 minimum roster spot cap holds (it might actually be 5 but I'm using 4 because I think that's what it is):

4 x 896575 = 3,586,401 gets added to the cap amount for the 6 players under contract (plus Asik) for a total of 33,312,217 leaving us exactly:

74,687,782 to go shopping for 2 players

Which is only 69.155% of the cap, whereas the most two players can cost us would be 70% (if they had enough years of service which I understand may not be the case for some of the guys we'll be chasing).

If we are able to get one or more guys that are only 25 or 30% of the cap maximum guys then that would leave some money left over to not have to renounce Bobby Portis and extend him to play Off the Bench. I simply don't want to rely on having to move around contracts at the last moment. We might have to give up important future draft picks and more likely it'll just delay the process and turn off our targets from agreeing to sign with us. I simply do not think that relatives scrub players like Zach LaVine Bobby Portis David nawaba Etc are worth giving up our very best chance to do what I want to do next summer. We can still keep them if my plan fails. Just let Bobby play out his contract unless you can get a good future pick for him in trade right now and sign LaVine to a OnePlus One contract. He'll sign nwaba to a OnePlus One contract too for all I care.

if multiple teams are angling for this method that I think it will be especially helpful to be one of if not the only team that can actually make it happen without a bunch of other contingent moving pieces. I just think that is messy and more likely to fail and it has hurt us in 2010 and 2014 free agency.

[Ice Man]

Wiggins makes your team worse and makes you less likely to get 1 max FA not more likely..

Exactly. Wiggins isn't an asset. He's a detriment, because an FA knows that's not only $30 million sunk that can't be used to strengthen the team, but that also the guy will play even if his game hurts the team because he's paid too much not to play.

[Evil_Headband]

This article by the Sac Bee Kings beat writer makes me think an offer to Zach will not come:

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/kings-blog/article214035079.html

The Kings have been linked to restricted free agents such as Milwaukee's Jabari Parker and Chicago's Zach LaVine, but nothing has come of the speculation.

The Kings have expressed a level of interest in both, a league source said, but a deal would require the Kings to reshape their roster that has a lot of young players they'd like to develop.


LaVine was the 13th overall pick in the 2014 NBA draft and appeared in just 24 games for the Bulls last season, averaging 16.7 points, after returning from a torn left ACL. LaVine was averaging 18.9 points for Minnesota before his injury in February 2017.

LaVine's athleticism and ability to possibly play both guard spots is intriguing, but the Kings like Bogdanovic and Hield and would have to deal one or both to make adding LaVine sensible.

The Kings are also committed to developing Fox at point guard while using Bogdanovic as a playmaker along with Frank Mason III. Temple can play point guard, too.

The more complicated things are (reshaping a roster) the more unlikely they are to actually happen.

[musiqsoulchild]

You are not going to get 2 Max players. You can only get 1 (maybe) with another max contract ( not player). It's probability. Instead, go for a sub-par max contract player and a true max player.

Getting the 1st one makes getting the 2nd one more likely.

For example, trading for Wiggins. That's the max contract. And then you add a max level player in free agency.

Wiggins makes your team worse and makes you less likely to get 1 max FA not more likely.

Or, don't believe in our in the sky scenarios like Kyrie and Jimmy. Instead just re-up Dunn, Portis and sign the best Max level player there is available who fits with the team in 2019.

This is terrible and defeatist. "I don't think we can do the best thing possible, so instead, I'm not going to try, and I'm going to do something I find really unlikely to be useful". Why would you ever have this attitude. It's so easy to try for 2 quality max FAs as plan A and then do something else as plan B if it doesn't work.

Why would you ever destroy the only plan that gives you a reasonable shot at a title and has no opportunity cost just because you think its unlikely to work? I agree, it's unlikely to work, but "unlikely" in the sense that it still has a 20-30% chance and immediately makes you a top 3 team in the NBA if it does.

Your plan makes you a top 15 team if it works and can easily be opted into if the 2 max FA plan fails.

It's good to want 2 Max players cap space in theory. In practice, you sacrifice actual present value talent and skill for a chance at something EVERY team is angling for next offseason.

This is totally false.

Step 1: Use your cap room to make a deal with Denver or OKC for a pick to take on 1 year salary.
Step 2: Sign Zach to 1+1 deal with second year full non guaranteed and a July 3rd-4th guarantee date.
Step 3: Don't sign anyone else that goes into next year.

You have not sacrificed any present / future talent and will have room for 2 max contracts next season.

Not every team is angling for this, very few teams will have room for even 1 30 mil max contract let alone 2.

Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving reportedly want to play together in the East. How many teams in the East do you think will be able to pull that off and have good teammates to put around them? I'd say probably one. The Bulls.

It may not happen for a variety of reasons, but the odds are far, far higher than you admit.

I don't buy into the 2 Max FA farce. I think we can pull that off EVEN by retaining Zach.

Not using FA money. That's just mathematically impossible.

I am basing my viewpoint on what our owner said about moving Kirk in pursuit of 2 Max FA's in 2010. He abhorred the move. I tend to agree with him.

In retrospect, having Kirk would have actually lightened the load (physical, mental AND ballhandling) on Derrick. Let's not forget that we then got the same Kirk and saw what was possible as we kept going to the playoffs even without Derrick.

You and I agree that the 1 Max FA plan is more probable and likely than 2 Max FA's.

The only place we disagree is about making moves right now to overtly position us for 2 Max FA's. I am NOT ok with losing out on a shot at 2 Max FA's for a player like Nwaba or Felicio.

But, you have to at least do the due diligence as a front office if that decision now revolves around players of the calibre of Zach and Portis.

[musiqsoulchild]

Wiggins makes your team worse and makes you less likely to get 1 max FA not more likely..

Exactly. Wiggins isn't an asset. He's a detriment, because an FA knows that's not only $30 million sunk that can't be used to strengthen the team, but that also the guy will play even if his game hurts the team because he's paid too much not to play.

Well, if you read my post.....that's what I was saying.


I used Wiggins SPECIFICALLY as an example of a max contract AND not a max player.

[Stratmaster]

I think a lot more sense is being talked in this thread now, and, for those who feel that this discussion has gone one way too long, or, that there is no point in talking about it, because 'que sera sera', I offer this:

Zach LaVine is the object of this thread, not the subject. The actual subject of the thread is what the fan base, incliuding us, are hoping that management is trying to achieve.

What we're doing through these discusssions here is almost a form of the old Dating Game, where a couple that is engaged to be married is asked questions about the other spouse, and, they wind up shocked and surprised about how much they didn't truly understand about the other person, or, how much the other person didn't understand about them.

And, this isn't just happening on this board.

This is a fascinating discussion about this very topic that starts out with both sides posing llke they have a mutual interest in championships.

By the end, one of them inadvertently confesses to wanting a 'decent' team, and, having a grand entertainment vision for Zach Lavine, on the Atlanta Hawks, where, rather than being a crucial piece to winning basketball franchise, he becomes almost a sword-swallower, fire-breather or buxom beer maid for a hip-hop happening where Quavo from Migos, Offset, Future and Atlanta's hip-hop royalty and elite can be amused by Zach's windmill dunks.

Guess which side that it. Do you think it's the pay Zach the most you can crowd or the 'let the market set the price' crowd?

Remember, both of them start out as if they are serious about basketball and winning.

Watch on YouTube

Psychologists will tell you that we use celebrities to calibrate our values with each other, not necessarily out of genuine interest in these strangers. What my best friend thinks of Ozzy Osbourne biting the head off of a bat is more important to me than Ozzy Osbourne or the welfare of small animals.

It's a calibration tool.

What this discussion about Lavine is showing me is tantamount to learning that half the Bulls fan base is actually made up of A.I.

They talk like they want to bake a cake, but, when you start talking eggs, flour, sugar and butter, they start talking Vodka, Vermouth and olives.Yet, if you ask them straight up if they would rather have a martini than cake, they look you straight in the eye and ask, "How dare you? Are you accusing me of being an alcoholic?"

Well, by the end of this video, this pro-Zach fan comes clean and just goes ahead and orders his martini, which is a much more respectable way to handle it.

I'm SO happy I didn't grow up in Atlanta.

What in the freaking world was that all about? You're on a sports message board, not in a class on the philosophy of psychology.

No one is surprised that there are differing opinions.

Psychologists tell you that we use celebrities to calibrate our values about each other? I would tell you those psychologists are full of #%%^, at least for me and the people I know.

As far as the ozzy reference, your best friend needs a new best friend

And no, I'm not watching the video after reading that mess.

Geesh.


Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[rtblues]

Wondering if Zach shows some "Jimmy stones" and takes the Q/O and plays a prove it year?

[League Circles]

Ultimately, this boils down to Risk Tolerance Vs. Anticipated Returns.

Secanrio 1: (The one that I think is more probable in 2019)

Dunn (re-signed)/ Payne (re-signed)
Lavine (matched) / Valentine
STUD FA / Hutch
Lauri / Portis ( re-signed)
Wendell / Lopez (re-signed)

Vs. the less reasonable / probable:

Kyrie (MAX)/ Dunn
MLE / Vet Min
Jimmy (MAX) / Hutch
Lauri / Portis
Wendell / Felicio

And you still have to figure out how to retain Portis + Dunn and pay the LT on that.

I know which one the Bulls will be more inclined to do. Especially, after what they learned from 2010.

here you go again merging your predictions with what you Advocate. It's just not that interesting what you feel the Bulls are likely to do to be honest no offense. You were very confident that Golden State would be shedding salary and giving Iguodala away. It's fine to talk about what you predict the Bulls will do but it's much more productive to make it a distinct conversation or comment from what you want them to do.

Signing Cam Payne? For the love of God. And again you are one year early on Kris Dunn.

there is nothing to figure out with Bobby and Chris dunn in that scenario. You sign them if you want to and you pay the luxury tax like we have two times in the past for far inferior teams. Or you just let Bobby Portis go and have a different backup power forward to playing 10 to 15 minutes per game.

and it oversimplifies things to use Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving as specific examples. The entire philosophy is based on the idea of not committing to meaningless players excessively early so that you can have a chance at much better players later. Two of many better players in this league.