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

[Stratmaster]

Sadly we’re the only ones who’ll say that. Media definitely won’t spin it that way.

Personally I don't think you can take anything from last season. Honestly, I don't think any of us really know how LaVine is going to turn out. The Bulls could refuse to match an offer and he could go somewhere else and end up an All-Star. They could also agree to match a big offer and end up with a bench player being paid 20 million a year.

He still has the most upside of anyone in that deal. Remember, the Bulls didn't trade Butler for Lauri. They traded him for a number 7 draft pick which ended up being Lauri.

I expect he will still be a Bull this year.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

The point is, if nobody knows what he will be since he was just returning from injury and played poorly in just a few games then why is he deserving of a big deal?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I don't know, you tell me. What is a freakishly athletic 23 year old player, who has already shown signs of being a scoring machine and has tons of upside worth in the NBA?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

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.

In retrospect, I think the only thing management did wrong in that situation is not realize that the big 3 were all going to Miami and had agreed upon it before FA started. Which was the same mistake as virtually the entire NBA.

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.

You don't have to give up Zach or Portis to try for 2 max FAs. You extend Portis a QO, you get Zach on a deal that has him non guaranteed past the first couple days in FA. If you sign 2 guys, you revoke Portis's QO and waive Zach.

If you sign one, you opt into Zach and have enough room to keep Portis on his QO and the negotiate with him.

You are turning this into an "either or" when it doesn't have to be. That's why the plan is so incredibly simple and obvious.

If Zach gets an offersheet for a long term deal, then the plan is off the table, and you have to choose, but until that point, the Bulls should operate by doing the best thing possible.

[musiqsoulchild]

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.

It didn't hurt us in 2010. We moved Kirk in the off-season by attaching the 17th pick and giving away cash to Washington.

And yet, we lost out. We got the Wiggins of PF's ( Boozer). And it was only because of spreading out that second Max slot ( Korver, Brewer, Kurt, CJ) that we were able to compete in the playoffs that year.

I agree with your math. I don't agree with the scenario. If that's the strategy, then Felicio will get a lot of playing time this season and be traded at the midseason deadline. With a pick attached.

[musiqsoulchild]

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.

In retrospect, I think the only thing management did wrong in that situation is not realize that the big 3 were all going to Miami and had agreed upon it before FA started. Which was the same mistake as virtually the entire NBA.

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.

I'm not sure what part of it is hard to understand. You don't have to give up Zach or Portis to try for 2 max FAs. You extend Portis a QO, you get Zach on a deal that has him non guaranteed past the first couple days in FA. If you sign 2 guys, you revoke Portis's QO and waive Zach.

If you sign one, you opt into Zach and have enough room to keep Portis on his QO and the negotiate with him.

You are turning this into an "either or" when it doesn't have to be. That's why the plan is so incredibly simple and obvious.

If Zach gets an offersheet for a long term deal, then the plan is off the table, and you have to choose, but until that point, the Bulls should operate by doing the best thing possible.

I also operating entirely under 2 assumptions:

1) Zach will get a multi year offer sheet
2) Portis will be offered a contract by the Bulls

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

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.

In retrospect, I think the only thing management did wrong in that situation is not realize that the big 3 were all going to Miami and had agreed upon it before FA started. Which was the same mistake as virtually the entire NBA.

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.

I'm not sure what part of it is hard to understand. You don't have to give up Zach or Portis to try for 2 max FAs. You extend Portis a QO, you get Zach on a deal that has him non guaranteed past the first couple days in FA. If you sign 2 guys, you revoke Portis's QO and waive Zach.

If you sign one, you opt into Zach and have enough room to keep Portis on his QO and the negotiate with him.

You are turning this into an "either or" when it doesn't have to be. That's why the plan is so incredibly simple and obvious.

If Zach gets an offersheet for a long term deal, then the plan is off the table, and you have to choose, but until that point, the Bulls should operate by doing the best thing possible.

If we sign Zach to a 1+1 (team option), do we have his bird rights for 2020-2021 if we decide to bring him back?

[Stratmaster]

IM not advocating signing Zach to big money. I’m simply agreeing with Ralph that it’s more to a contract than just what have you done for me now..

Not a lot more. Not really. If you are rolling almost strictly on upside, those are tiny contracts. Low risk high reward. That is almost where we are with this guy

What I will say is if bulls can get Zach at 14 -17mil I’m all for it.

"Zach" is not worth this at all. 'Super Zach', perhaps is. I'd love to see Super Zach. No-one really knows if he exists. So I'm not all for it. I'll tolerate it if I have to. And chew my nails all summer until I see some return on the gamble.

Meh... super-zach would be worth way more than this. If Zach just matches his pre-injury expectations he will be worth way more than this.

While there does seem to be some leveling out on the exorbitant salaries, it's not 1999 all over again.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

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.

It didn't hurt us in 2010. We moved Kirk in the off-season by attaching the 17th pick and giving away cash to Washington.

And yet, we lost out. We got the Wiggins of PF's ( Boozer). And it was only because of spreading out that second Max slot ( Korver, Brewer, Kurt, CJ) that we were able to compete in the playoffs that year.

I agree with your math. I don't agree with the scenario. If that's the strategy, then Felicio will get a lot of playing time this season and be traded at the midseason deadline. With a pick attached.

Boozer was waaaay better than Wiggins, and we were hurt cause we didn't have even two fullmax slots let alone the three we'd have needed to compete with Miami (despite many rumors to the contrary I do not believe that they had fully decided to play in Miami. Why? Because LeBron Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh would likely much much rather play with Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah then play with Udonis Haslem.

if we did have two max deals we probably would have been able to get Joe Johnson who is much better than who we spread out that money towards which was three bench players in Kyle Korver Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson. And all three of them made up less salary than Joe Johnson got. Which is why we didn't catch joe Johnson. Despite his agent being basically best friends with Jerry reinsdorf.

[League Circles]

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.

In retrospect, I think the only thing management did wrong in that situation is not realize that the big 3 were all going to Miami and had agreed upon it before FA started. Which was the same mistake as virtually the entire NBA.

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.

I'm not sure what part of it is hard to understand. You don't have to give up Zach or Portis to try for 2 max FAs. You extend Portis a QO, you get Zach on a deal that has him non guaranteed past the first couple days in FA. If you sign 2 guys, you revoke Portis's QO and waive Zach.

If you sign one, you opt into Zach and have enough room to keep Portis on his QO and the negotiate with him.

You are turning this into an "either or" when it doesn't have to be. That's why the plan is so incredibly simple and obvious.

If Zach gets an offersheet for a long term deal, then the plan is off the table, and you have to choose, but until that point, the Bulls should operate by doing the best thing possible.

If we sign Zach to a 1+1 (team option), do we have his bird rights for 2020-2021 if we decide to bring him back?

Yes

[Ice Man]

]I don't know, you tell me. What is a freakishly athletic 23 year old player, who has already shown signs of being a scoring machine and has tons of upside worth in the NBA?

If by "worth" you mean "will be paid," the answer is "a lot." If you mean instead how useful are these guys, the answer is not much. Jumper/chuckers who aren't good NBA players by Year 4 rarely do much. OJ Mayo, Brandon Jennings, Rudy Gay, Jordan Crawford, etc. Well, JR Smith ended up being modestly useful, so there's that.

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

[League Circles]

I also operating entirely under 2 assumptions:

1) Zach will get a multi year offer sheet
2) Portis will be offered a contract by the Bulls

Why make these assumptions? If these happened there's basically nothing to talk about and our likely mediocre team is probably set for a long time.

You can always pivot when new information comes available. That's what we do.

[Stratmaster]

]I don't know, you tell me. What is a freakishly athletic 23 year old player, who has already shown signs of being a scoring machine and has tons of upside worth in the NBA?

If by "worth" you mean "will be paid," the answer is "a lot." If you mean instead how useful are these guys, the answer is not much. Jumper/chuckers who aren't good NBA players by Year 4 rarely do much. OJ Mayo, Brandon Jennings, Rudy Gay, Jordan Crawford, etc. Well, JR Smith ended up being modestly useful, so there's that.

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth. You won't get any argument from me on that. Unless you are LBJ or Steph you are getting overpaid if you play in the NBA right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

I also operating entirely under 2 assumptions:

1) Zach will get a multi year offer sheet
2) Portis will be offered a contract by the Bulls

1: There's only two teams left in the NBA that can even do this, and until one of them does, it seems silly to assume this. If it happens, then you deal with the new reality at that point. I might be fine matching Zach on a 4/70 deal or something if my choice is matching or losing, but there's no reason to discuss this until it happens, because it seems more likely that it won't happen.

2: Since we are discussing what the best plan for the Bulls is, the best plan is to not make such an offer, and they aren't forced to do so. I find it exceptionally unlikely that such an offer would be accepted though, as non max guys rarely take 3rd year contract extensions.

[Ice Man]

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth.[/quote]

Well, that's not what I intended to say. What I meant to say was that shoot-first athletes who don't much defend get overpaid, because they look cool. I don't think anybody on the Celtics is overpaid, to give one example. Those guys play with their teammates and get stuck in. Except for Kyrie, but he's so good that he gets away with it.

[dougthonus]

Boozer was waaaay better than Wiggins, and we were hurt cause we didn't have even two fullmax slots let alone the three we'd have needed to compete with Miami (despite many rumors to the contrary I do not believe that they had fully decided to play in Miami. Why? Because LeBron Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh would likely much much rather play with Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah then play with Udonis Haslem.

if we did have two max deals we probably would have been able to get Joe Johnson who is much better than who we spread out that money towards which was three bench players in Kyle Korver Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson. And all three of them made up less salary than Joe Johnson got. Which is why we didn't catch joe Johnson. Despite his agent being basically best friends with Jerry reinsdorf.

We had 2 max slots. I'm not sure why you think we didn't. The Bulls didn't spend up to the cap that year and had 4 million in cap room left after signing everyone. Also the order of signings probably mean they could have operated with closer to 6 million left because guys that signed for the vet min made more than their cap holds were. You also forgot about Kieth Bogans who signed.

As for Joe Johnson, he got a heck-ton more money to stay in Atlanta because he could sign for more years with bigger raises. The contract he signed was viewed as ridiculously bad at the time, but Atlanta was forced into it or losing him.

[SensiBull]

Something else that informs my view on LaVine is a positive comment made about another Bulls player - Wendell Carter, Jr.

About two months before the draft, an NBA fan made a video touting WCJ as the best big in the draft. He talked about the usual stuff we've all heard ((Bagley's reclassifiation concealed his true ability, unselfish player, rim protector w/2 blks per game, 3 pt range, good shot mechanics, turned down Harvard, etc.). You know the pitch. We all heard it.


Then he said something really subjective that I've never heard anyone else say about WCJ in relation to other bigs in this draft that I'm not sure I'd say about lots of players, not just Zach Lavine. It was one of those things that you see all the time, but can't put your finger on until someone says it out loud.

He said, "Plus, Wendell just moves like what I call a 'hooper.''"

I don't want to misquote him, but he went on to point out how some young players have natural physical gifts, and you can tell that someone tapped them on the shoulder one day, and said, "Have you ever thought of applying that gift to basketball?" as opposed to someone who spent long days playing 21 or horse all day, out of love, and just happened to have the physical makeup later in life, just as an aside, to actually do it for a living.

I ask myself, "If LaVine did NOT have a 44" vert (and one day he won't), what would his all-around game look like? How would it be structured?"

In the absence of anything more than an enigmatic answer to that question, my natural instinct is to insure myself against that quite realistic scenario.

[League Circles]

Boozer was waaaay better than Wiggins, and we were hurt cause we didn't have even two fullmax slots let alone the three we'd have needed to compete with Miami (despite many rumors to the contrary I do not believe that they had fully decided to play in Miami. Why? Because LeBron Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh would likely much much rather play with Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah then play with Udonis Haslem.

if we did have two max deals we probably would have been able to get Joe Johnson who is much better than who we spread out that money towards which was three bench players in Kyle Korver Ronnie Brewer and CJ Watson. And all three of them made up less salary than Joe Johnson got. Which is why we didn't catch joe Johnson. Despite his agent being basically best friends with Jerry reinsdorf.

We had 2 max slots. I'm not sure why you think we didn't.

Joe Johnson got a heck-ton more money to stay in Atlanta because he could sign for more years with bigger raises. The contract he signed was viewed as ridiculously bad at the time, but Atlanta was forced into it or losing him.

I'm not sure exactly. I base that not on specific memory but on the fact that Boozer did not quite get the full Max and that Korver Brewer & Watson combined salaries did not equal what Johnson got in obviously Johnson could not have gotten more than the max. I'm pretty sure we signed Omer and/or Bogans with the room exception.

[dougthonus]

I'm not sure exactly. I base that not on specific memory but on the fact that Boozer did not quite get the full Max and that Korver Brewer & Watson combined salaries did not equal what Johnson got in obviously Johnson could not have gotten more than the max. I'm pretty sure we signed Omer and/or Bogans with the room exception.

I edited my post to provide more detail.

Bulls didn't spend up to the cap and still had money left and you also forgot Bogans.

[SensiBull]

For the record, the choices in the thread poll range from $13 - $18 MM; but, while the top option says "$18MM+" the bottom option only says "13MM."

It doesn't say "or less."

This may be affecting both participation levels and the results.

[Stratmaster]

Those type of players are for loser franchises.

The market is the market. Basically what you are saying is NBA players get paid more than they are worth.

Well, that's not what I intended to say. What I meant to say was that shoot-first athletes who don't much defend get overpaid, because they look cool. I don't think anybody on the Celtics is overpaid, to give one example. Those guys play with their teammates and get stuck in. Except for Kyrie, but he's so good that he gets away with it.[/quote]

What about the Cavs?

[musiqsoulchild]

I also operating entirely under 2 assumptions:

1) Zach will get a multi year offer sheet
2) Portis will be offered a contract by the Bulls

1: There's only two teams left in the NBA that can even do this, and until one of them does, it seems silly to assume this. If it happens, then you deal with the new reality at that point. I might be fine matching Zach on a 4/70 deal or something if my choice is matching or losing, but there's no reason to discuss this until it happens, because it seems more likely that it won't happen.

2: Since we are discussing what the best plan for the Bulls is, the best plan is to not make such an offer, and they aren't forced to do so. I find it exceptionally unlikely that such an offer would be accepted though, as non max guys rarely take 3rd year contract extensions.

If 1 happens, then the Bulls will in all likelihood push for 2. We already have reports that they want to offer an extension.

If I doesn't happen, then sure wr can go the 1+1 route and QO to Portis as we clear cap space.

But we don't control Step 1. Other teams do. All it takes is 1 offer. And suddenly, all the scenarios we are debating become real AF.