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

[Stratmaster]

I don't agree with the characterization of using leverage as screwing the player. It's a 2 way street. Agents and players understand this completely. No franchise operates on the generosity principle. Unless in an extreme circumstance where the player has a long record of accomplishment for the team. Safe to say, that is not Lavine at all.

So if the Bulls offered, say 8 mil, you're fine with that?

I remember the Bulls telling Scottie he might regret signing their offer, because he could likely get more if he waited. We all know he signed anyway, took the financial security. And he did regret it. The market is what it is. And Zach Lavine is no Scottie Pippen..

What had that got to do with anything? You would be ok with an 8 mil offer?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[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.

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

of course it's not simple. I never implied it was. But it's quite evident that it is more simple to sign two max players when you have two Max offers available to make without any contingencies than it is to get two max players only if multiple contingencies work out involving competing teams cooperating with us. Not to mention the assets lost from trading for players.

Again, help me understand why its not possible to have the following team structure as we enter 2019:

Kyrie ( 35 M) / Dunn ( 5.5 M) ---- ( 41.5 M)
Zach ( 17 M) / Kilpatrick ( 2M) ----( 19 M)
Jimmy ( 35 M) / Hutch ( 2.3M) ---- (37.3 M)
Lauri ( 5.3 M) / Crap ( 2 M) -------- ( 7.3 M)
Wendell ( 5.2M) / Crap ( 2M) ------ ( 7.2 M)

Thats 9 players. Add 1st round pick next season and 3 players with vet min and you are at the 13 man roster. No cap holds neeeded to be accounted for.

I am almost there. The question boils down to really one thing alone. Do you rather keep the assets needed to get rid of Felicio ( 1 FRP in 2020 + maybe Valentine)? Do you keep Portis?

Or, do you keep Zach.

[League Circles]

So if he plays on the qualifying offer it is roughly 11,250,000? 2.5 times his qualifying offer. Seems like the best case scenario as far as creating cap room next season. But no win long term, if he blows up you are going to have to pay him way more to stay. And he might just leave because he’s mad how he was treated.

The Niko situation all over.

Which is why I want a hedge.

The Niko contract turned out to be absolutely fantastic for the Bulls. Too bad they botched it by trading him when they did.

[jacoby1us]

The Bulls cannot let the potential difference between 16mil and 21mil be the reason they don't resign a player they tried to sell to us as the centerpiece of the Jimmy Butler trade. What has changed from last June until now? The organization clearly stated that their goal was to see LaVine hit the ground running at some point during the season, which he did. They also stated that they expected to see bumps on the road to his recovery, which there were. Additionally, the organization cannot intentionally hold back the players during the season to supposedly minimize risks of reinjuring himself and try to use these same stats to determine his worth. So, what is really the problem? You cannot start leaking stories about how you are now building around Lauri because it is time to negotiate a contract. This is the kind of things I find to be unethical.

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

can you be more specific on what you mean by it was known That Lavine would be the future and why you believe it?

Did anyone on this forum not believe that Lavine was brought here to be apart of the Bulls future? We traded an older all star and a lottery pick for a lottery pick and two young former lottery picks. We knew coming in that he was not going to play a lot recovering from an ACL tear. What were the Bulls expecting to see with him playing 22-24 games in a potential contract season.

What’s going to happen now, both sides will agree to disagree. Sign the QO, Lavine will play his ass off this next season. Walk away from the Bulls in Free Agency next summer, leaving us without any compensation.

[MisterRoy]

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

of course it's not simple. I never implied it was. But it's quite evident that it is more simple to sign two max players when you have two Max offers available to make without any contingencies than it is to get two max players only if multiple contingencies work out involving competing teams cooperating with us. Not to mention the assets lost from trading for players.

Again, help me understand why its not possible to have the following team structure as we enter 2019:

Kyrie ( 35 M) / Dunn ( 5.5 M) ---- ( 41.5 M)
Zach ( 17 M) / Kilpatrick ( 2M) ----( 19 M)
Jimmy ( 35 M) / Hutch ( 2.3M) ---- (37.3 M)
Lauri ( 5.3 M) / Crap ( 2 M) -------- ( 7.3 M)
Wendell ( 5.2M) / Crap ( 2M) ------ ( 7.2 M)

Thats 9 players. Add 1st round pick next season and 3 players with vet min and you are at the 13 man roster. No cap holds neeeded to be accounted for.

I am almost there. The question boils down to really one thing alone. Do you rather keep the assets needed to get rid of Felicio ( 1 FRP in 2020 + maybe Valentine)? Do you keep Portis?

Or, do you keep Zach.

Keep both. We have bird rights on Bobby, no?

[dougthonus]

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

Doesn't make much sense to think that. At the time of the trade, they got three young assets. Those three assets probably were valued at that moment as:
1: LaVine
2: #7
3: Dunn

A year has gone by, and right now, I would value those assets like this:
1: Lauri
2: Dunn
3: LaVine

There's no sense in trying to say "at the time of the trade, the value was this, so let's ignore the last 12 months and proceed as if they didn't happen and then make our decision based around that".

I don't know why so many people are so excited to give Zach all this money. I want them to play "tight wallet" and preserve as much cap room as possible for next year whether they keep Zach long term, 1+1 or not at all. I don't know why anyone would rather just dive in and give Zach whatever he wants while hurting the team future in the process, but thank god no one with that mentality is running the org.

[musiqsoulchild]

You are using extremes Doug. Nwaba and Max contract is illogical. Neither you or I will / should dwell on the illogical.

But Zach at 18 Million is not illogical. It passes the feasibility test.

You are missing the point entirely. I brought up this ridiculous circumstance because your logic was "you think the Bulls will do this, and thus that's what you want them to do" to highlight what are we really discussing?

What is the best thing?
or
What will the Bulls do?

You have conflated your logic around what the Bulls should do based around what you think they will do. I have stated what I think the best thing to do is regardless of what I think they will or won't do (though I happen to think they will do what I suggest too only because its so obviously the right thing IMO).

If we want to predict what they might do with LaVine or Portis rather than what the right thing to do with LaVine and Portis then it is a separate discussion. I care more about the first debate and will just wait and see on the second.

The best thing to do is not a simple unconstrained analysis. It has to be viewed AND weighed against the probability of actually getting 2 max FA's.

I see the probability that Zach delivers fair value in return for a 17 Millionish contract as much higher than the probability of signing 2 Max players in 2019.

And even then, I actually think its possible ( but will require assets) to give Zach a 17 M contract, keep Dunn, Lauri, Wendell, and still get 2 Max FA's.

[dougthonus]

Do you think it's "that simple" to sign two max FA players? In Chicago? Have you been following this team lately

I think having the option to do it gives you a chance.

I think if you don't do it, that the fall back plans are as good as the present plans that don't give you the option.

[musiqsoulchild]

of course it's not simple. I never implied it was. But it's quite evident that it is more simple to sign two max players when you have two Max offers available to make without any contingencies than it is to get two max players only if multiple contingencies work out involving competing teams cooperating with us. Not to mention the assets lost from trading for players.

Again, help me understand why its not possible to have the following team structure as we enter 2019:

Kyrie ( 35 M) / Dunn ( 5.5 M) ---- ( 41.5 M)
Zach ( 17 M) / Kilpatrick ( 2M) ----( 19 M)
Jimmy ( 35 M) / Hutch ( 2.3M) ---- (37.3 M)
Lauri ( 5.3 M) / Crap ( 2 M) -------- ( 7.3 M)
Wendell ( 5.2M) / Crap ( 2M) ------ ( 7.2 M)

Thats 9 players. Add 1st round pick next season and 3 players with vet min and you are at the 13 man roster. No cap holds neeeded to be accounted for.

I am almost there. The question boils down to really one thing alone. Do you rather keep the assets needed to get rid of Felicio ( 1 FRP in 2020 + maybe Valentine)? Do you keep Portis?

Or, do you keep Zach.

Keep both. We have bird rights on Bobby, no?

I dont think you can generate the 70 Million cap space needed though --- IF you hold bird rights. I could be wrong on this as this isnt my expertise.

Basically, we clear the deck of everyone except Dunn / Wendell / Lavine ( 17 Million) / Lauri / Hutch. Thats 36 Million in total. 6 Roster holds = 4 Million. Just enough to still have cap space for 2 Max FA's.

[musiqsoulchild]

So if he plays on the qualifying offer it is roughly 11,250,000? 2.5 times his qualifying offer. Seems like the best case scenario as far as creating cap room next season. But no win long term, if he blows up you are going to have to pay him way more to stay. And he might just leave because he’s mad how he was treated.

The Niko situation all over.

Which is why I want a hedge.

The Niko contract turned out to be absolutely fantastic for the Bulls. Too bad they botched it by trading him when they did.

Huh?

I am talking about Zach walking away after 1 year and becoming a bonafide playoff performer ( like Niko did ). Or, spending an entire year sulking that he is not making the money he deserves.

[VolumePoster]

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

Doesn't make much sense to think that. At the time of the trade, they got three young assets. Those three assets probably were valued at that moment as:
1: LaVine
2: #7
3: Dunn

A year has gone by, and right now, I would value those assets like this:
1: Lauri
2: Dunn
3: LaVine

There's no sense in trying to say "at the time of the trade, the value was this, so let's ignore the last 12 months and proceed as if they didn't happen and then make our decision based around that".

I don't know why so many people are so excited to give Zach all this money. I want them to play "tight wallet" and preserve as much cap room as possible for next year whether they keep Zach long term, 1+1 or not at all. I don't know why anyone would rather just dive in and give Zach whatever he wants while hurting the team future in the process, but thank god no one with that mentality is running the org.

In my opinion they are playing this quite well. Nobody else is lining up to pay Zach Lavine anything. If we can get him on a value contract, which he outperforms, he could actually become a trade asset rather than an impediment to the free agency game, either to acquire other assets or as a piece himself. Perhaps he plays himself into being a valuable piece of the future. It’s in the realm of possibility. But locking yourself in to an unknown (and that is the charitable estimation) is a foolish position to take.

Zach Lavine at 12-14 million can be easily moved if he doesn’t work out. Zach Lavine at 20 million is albatross money. There’s no reason here to bid against ourselves given the market.

See Felicio, Christiano.

[SensiBull]

it's actually much more complicated than that which is why you don't see these type of contract often given especially to free agents for teams operating under the salary cap. The reason is that when you have incentives the league decides on whether the incentive is likely or unlikely to be reached and adjust the salary cap hit preemptively according to their determination. And the cap hit is really all that matters not how much we actually pay him. So this is extremely unlikely to happen in my opinion.

The Bulls cannot let the potential difference between 16mil and 21mil be the reason they don't resign a player they tried to sell to us as the centerpiece of the Jimmy Butler trade. What has changed from last June until now? The organization clearly stated that their goal was to see LaVine hit the ground running at some point during the season, which he did. They also stated that they expected to see bumps on the road to his recovery, which there were. Additionally, the organization cannot intentionally hold back the players during the season to supposedly minimize risks of reinjuring himself and try to use these same stats to determine his worth. So, what is really the problem? You cannot start leaking stories about how you are now building around Lauri because it is time to negotiate a contract. This is the kind of things I find to be unethical.

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

The Bulls took Zach on a 'date', and, in full disclosure, told him about two other 'eligible bachelorettes' they were seeing. The Bulls are about to hand him his rose and now he's waiving around a positive pregnancy test.

Somebody get Maury Povich on the phone.

[NDave79]

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.

I haven't participated because the number of years plays a crucial role.

I think options like the following would be more interesting.

1 + 1 (team option) for an over market amount (say 20 a year) - this is my choice

long term deal at around 15 million (give or take a couple million)

Take advantage of the tight market and squeeze him for the cheapest deal possible even if it might harm future negotiations and loyalty

Zach takes qualifying offer

[SensiBull]

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

Doesn't make much sense to think that. At the time of the trade, they got three young assets. Those three assets probably were valued at that moment as:
1: LaVine
2: #7
3: Dunn

A year has gone by, and right now, I would value those assets like this:
1: Lauri
2: Dunn
3: LaVine

There's no sense in trying to say "at the time of the trade, the value was this, so let's ignore the last 12 months and proceed as if they didn't happen and then make our decision based around that".

I don't know why so many people are so excited to give Zach all this money. I want them to play "tight wallet" and preserve as much cap room as possible for next year whether they keep Zach long term, 1+1 or not at all. I don't know why anyone would rather just dive in and give Zach whatever he wants while hurting the team future in the process, but thank god no one with that mentality is running the org.

BOOM!

Exactly.

[MisterRoy]

Everyone keeps talking about preserving cap room. Who are we going to spend this money on? Can someone please identify realistic players we can spend all this cap space on?

[dougthonus]

Everyone keeps talking about preserving cap room. Who are we going to spend this money on? Can someone please identify realistic players we can spend all this cap space on?

Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving reportedly want to play together on the same team in the East.

Boston reportedly just offered Kyrie up in a trade for Kawhi, so they clearly aren't totally linked on him staying.

Name all the teams that will be able to sign both as an FA next year and tell me which of those teams will have better pieces around them than the Bulls.

I don't know the answer for sure, but my guess is probably almost none, and none are the answer to those questions.

Now maybe it won't work out that way and Jimmy will join LeBron in LA or go out west, or not play with Kyrie, or do something else all together. However, if they want to do this thing (which has been reported and also has some logic), I don't think there is a better destination than Chicago on the table with cap room.

[Ctownbulls]

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

can you be more specific on what you mean by it was known That Lavine would be the future and why you believe it?

Did anyone on this forum not believe that Lavine was brought here to be apart of the Bulls future? We traded an older all star and a lottery pick for a lottery pick and two young former lottery picks. We knew coming in that he was not going to play a lot recovering from an ACL tear. What were the Bulls expecting to see with him playing 22-24 games in a potential contract season.

What’s going to happen now, both sides will agree to disagree. Sign the QO, Lavine will play his ass off this next season. Walk away from the Bulls in Free Agency next summer, leaving us without any compensation.

Why can't they sign him next summer if he proves his worth? I'd rather lose him and have an open spot and cap room to replace him with then sign him to a bad contract and be stuck.

[MisterRoy]

Everyone keeps talking about preserving cap room. Who are we going to spend this money on? Can someone please identify realistic players we can spend all this cap space on?

Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving reportedly want to play together on the same team in the East.

Boston reportedly just offered Kyrie up in a trade for Kawhi, so they clearly aren't totally linked on him staying.

Name all the teams that will be able to sign both as an FA next year and tell me which of those teams will have better pieces around them than the Bulls.

I don't know the answer for sure, but my guess is probably almost none, and none are the answer to those questions.

Now maybe it won't work out that way and Jimmy will join LeBron in LA or go out west, or not play with Kyrie, or do something else all together. However, if they want to do this thing, I don't think there is a better destination than Chicago on the table with cap room.

Jimmy and Kyrie want to play on a team in the East. This is true. I don't think Jimmy is coming back here. Not with Fred. Boston would be foolish NOT to offer Kyrie up in a trade for Kawhi. Kyrie already said he isn't signing an extension in Boston. I would bet more money on New York as the destination than Chicago.

[blicka]

Everyone keeps talking about preserving cap room. Who are we going to spend this money on? Can someone please identify realistic players we can spend all this cap space on?

Jimmy Butler and Kyrie Irving reportedly want to play together on the same team in the East.

Boston reportedly just offered Kyrie up in a trade for Kawhi, so they clearly aren't totally linked on him staying.

Name all the teams that will be able to sign both as an FA next year and tell me which of those teams will have better pieces around them than the Bulls.

I don't know the answer for sure, but my guess is probably almost none, and none are the answer to those questions.

Knicks and clippers can sign both. And playing with porzingis in new york city>>>>>> playing with lauri markannen in chicago

And several reporters say kyrie wants to play in new york this has been a rumor for 5 years.

clippers will have sga and robinson,avery bradley and jerry west's brain making decisions in l.a.

2 better options than the bulls

[MrFortune3]

I agree. At the point of the Butler trade it was known that Lavine would be the future. Now it’s time to pay and the Bulls are playing “ tight wallet” as usual. Guess Felicios over payment gave them PTSD.

Doesn't make much sense to think that. At the time of the trade, they got three young assets. Those three assets probably were valued at that moment as:
1: LaVine
2: #7
3: Dunn

A year has gone by, and right now, I would value those assets like this:
1: Lauri
2: Dunn
3: LaVine

There's no sense in trying to say "at the time of the trade, the value was this, so let's ignore the last 12 months and proceed as if they didn't happen and then make our decision based around that".

I don't know why so many people are so excited to give Zach all this money. I want them to play "tight wallet" and preserve as much cap room as possible for next year whether they keep Zach long term, 1+1 or not at all. I don't know why anyone would rather just dive in and give Zach whatever he wants while hurting the team future in the process, but thank god no one with that mentality is running the org.

The team knew Zach was hurt when they traded for him. He was the hold up in the trade for over 2 years.
24 games didn't change their opinion of him. He's likely valued the same as he was before the trade by the FO.

People keep talking about all this cap room and hurting the teams future if we spend it now.
Have you not watched the same FA over the past few years? Players are not flocking to teams with a bunch of cap space. They are getting traded to places already established or they are flocking to teams with talented cores in place that they can grow with.

Having 70+ mil in cap room and the Chicago market isn't going to mean a damn thing come 2019 if LaVine, Dunn, Lauri and WCJ haven't developed into a splendid core to attract those wonderful FA's you all so covet with the cap space.
If the Bulls are going to sign 2 max FA's it will be because the young talent on the roster has evolved to where they are an attraction and people think highly of Hoiberg as a coach. Otherwise it will be 2019, you guys will still be talking about having cap space, flexibility and then complaining about how the Bulls are not in on any key FA's cause they are signing with other teams.