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

[Bully6789]

You are right chicago would be a nice place for both. But you gotta remember jimmy was sent out of Chicago because of several reasons 1. His locker room presence 2. Most important his criticism of Hoiberg as s coach and 3. His demand either they trade him or remove Hoiberg.

They were not about to let a player demand it demonstrate all that and bring him back. But this is sports never say never but we are talking Pax/Gar


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[musiqsoulchild]

I see. I actually generally believe the same thing in terms of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. but he was talking about signing One Max free agent and trading for another. Which is like one bird in a bush across the state and one bird in a bush in China. And I don't really consider LaVine to be a bird in our hand but rather kind of like a scrap of toilet paper in our hand.

Then you're not reading this correctly.

Most of the teams will be looking at the same strategy. The smart ones then pivot 180 and benefit from it. Lets facilitate another team getting cap space by taking on their long-term contracts.

The 2 FA thing is nice on paper, but you dont leave yourself any outs if it doesnt work. Its a lot better to have a SOLID foundation on which to add 1 Max FA and complementary pieces.

everyone on this forum is open to taking on long-term contracts for the correct assets. We can address any specific actual possibilities instead of generic imaginary possibilities. I'm open to discuss. A generic strategy is not something meaningful to discuss in terms of advocacy.

But again I don't understand what you're not getting. We don't have to do anything and we're not removing any options. What myself and much of the board are advocating is to wait on Bobby Portis wait on nwaba or give him a OnePlus One contract and give lavine a one plus one contract. Do you agree or disagree with this? I'm not asking if you think the Bulls will do this or whether or not you think another team will give him a multi-year offer. In the absence of an offer would you like to offer LaVine a OnePlus One contract or a long-term contract?

By offering a OnePlus One contract we can do anything next summer. We can keep Lavine we can keep Portis we can generically take on long-term salary from other teams for draft picks and or we can try to get two Max contract free agents. That's the beauty of it. We suck as a team and I want to maximize our possibilities to become great.

Its ironic that you talk about giving actual names that we can discuss. Meanwhile, the alternative school of thought that you are propounding is the more mythical and etheral 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.

Hedging is a 1+1 deal featuring an insane one time over pay with a team option for that second year. You’re not hedging if you sign him to a long term deal that costs us seventeen million every season. You’re straight up committing.

TJR, I dont want Zach to blow up after we let him go. I think its very likely that happens. Its happening with Niko.

[MrFortune3]

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.

Mavs, Clippers, Nets, Kings, Pacers, all project to have at least 53 mil in space next off-season. Knicks, Sixers, Hawks all project to have 40+ mil in cap space.
Philly could sign one and then S&T for the other or S&T for both with their assets.
Pacers have Oladipo so they have a legit budding superstar player on the roster.
Knicks have Porzingis and also a legit budding superstar player on their roster.
Chicago is probably 3rd on the list on possible destinations since you said the East, but that also depends upon the continue development of the young players.

[Bully6789]

The Niko situation all over.

Which is why I want a hedge.

Hedging is a 1+1 deal featuring an insane one time over pay with a team option for that second year. You’re not hedging if you sign him to a long term deal that costs us seventeen million every season. You’re straight up committing.

TJR, I dont want Zach to blow up after we let him go. I think its very likely that happens. Its happening with Niko.

How many years did we wait for Niko to blow up? I think the Bulls are just waiting for the market to establish the price gif Lavine I don’t think the Bulls should be the first to offer when it gives these other teams the right t out bid and start a bidding war over LaVine


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

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.

I've never said or implied that such a thing was impossible. It's extremely rare for me to speak in certainties about anything in the future.

Although it's worth noting that you are something like six million dollars over the projected salary cap with that roster and you are not counting about two-and-a-half to three million dollars of cap hold for the minimum roster spots. Or for the first rounder next summer.

but the biggest thing for me probably is that I do not presume we can get rid of Felicio by offering what would project as a bad first round pick. Even with one year of Denzel Valentine attached. If you were a team in the opening days of free agency and you had a bunch of cap space would you waste it on a 3rd string caliber player in Felicio guaranteed for another 2 years just for the benefit of getting a draft pick in the 20s? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[musiqsoulchild]

Hedging is a 1+1 deal featuring an insane one time over pay with a team option for that second year. You’re not hedging if you sign him to a long term deal that costs us seventeen million every season. You’re straight up committing.

TJR, I dont want Zach to blow up after we let him go. I think its very likely that happens. Its happening with Niko.

How many years did we wait for Niko to blow up? I think the Bulls are just waiting for the market to establish the price gif Lavine I don’t think the Bulls should be the first to offer when it gives these other teams the right t out bid and start a bidding war over LaVine


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They wont. They're seasoned players. We'll see what Zach's agent can bring in. If he cant bring in an offer sheet, then 1+ 1 is of course the best way to go ( Doug's plan).

Or, there's also the Cousins route that Zach can take.

He can ask to be moved to a contending team to play for cheap and get visibility as he prepares for 2019 free agency. A team that can use him is LA Lakers.

[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.

I've never said or implied that such a thing was impossible. It's extremely rare for me to speak in certainties about anything in the future.

Although it's worth noting that you are something like six million dollars over the projected salary cap with that roster and you are not counting about two-and-a-half to three million dollars of cap hold for the minimum roster spots. Or for the first rounder next summer.

but the biggest thing for me probably is that I do not presume we can get rid of Felicio by offering what would project as a bad first round pick. Even with one year of Denzel Valentine attached. If you were a team in the opening days of free agency and you had a bunch of cap space would you waste it on a 3rd string caliber player in Felicio guaranteed for another 2 years just for the benefit of getting a draft pick in the 20s? I sure as hell wouldn't.

We both know its not that diffucult. We gave Kirk + 17 th pick + 3 Million in cash in 2010 to do just that.

Here's an example: Felicio+Asik + Valentine+ 2019 first round pick for Melo + Thunder's FRP. Done.

Its just a question of what do the Bulls think are acceptable losses. And at what point is it better for them to decide " No Zach" or "Yay Zach".

[Truebiscuit]

Sam Smith:

Sorry, I'd rather have LaVine. Again, I get these requests fairly frequently to not resign LaVine, which is strange to me. OK, he's hasn't defended much in Minnesota, either. But here's an excellent athlete who is a very good three-point shooter, solid citizen, anxious to improve, a young 6-5 guard. Yes, he had ACL surgery and we hate that phrase, and he didn't finish last season, though who really knows with the artificial competition after the All-Star break. I find it hard to believe given his health situation LaVine gets any sort of break-the-bank offer as a restricted free agent. Teams are no longer allowed to say they'll match to scare off competitors or restricted free agents. If LaVine were in this draft, he'd have been a top 10 player. He's 23 years old and ready to have a full season again after missing much of the last two. He's a top athlete for a team long searching for more athletes and the biggest name in the Jimmy Butler trade. I cannot personally see a circumstance in which I would not want to work out a contract with LaVine. I think he's going to be a terrific player again.

I agree 110%.

[League Circles]

Then you're not reading this correctly.

Most of the teams will be looking at the same strategy. The smart ones then pivot 180 and benefit from it. Lets facilitate another team getting cap space by taking on their long-term contracts.

The 2 FA thing is nice on paper, but you dont leave yourself any outs if it doesnt work. Its a lot better to have a SOLID foundation on which to add 1 Max FA and complementary pieces.

everyone on this forum is open to taking on long-term contracts for the correct assets. We can address any specific actual possibilities instead of generic imaginary possibilities. I'm open to discuss. A generic strategy is not something meaningful to discuss in terms of advocacy.

But again I don't understand what you're not getting. We don't have to do anything and we're not removing any options. What myself and much of the board are advocating is to wait on Bobby Portis wait on nwaba or give him a OnePlus One contract and give lavine a one plus one contract. Do you agree or disagree with this? I'm not asking if you think the Bulls will do this or whether or not you think another team will give him a multi-year offer. In the absence of an offer would you like to offer LaVine a OnePlus One contract or a long-term contract?

By offering a OnePlus One contract we can do anything next summer. We can keep Lavine we can keep Portis we can generically take on long-term salary from other teams for draft picks and or we can try to get two Max contract free agents. That's the beauty of it. We suck as a team and I want to maximize our possibilities to become great.

Its ironic that you talk about giving actual names that we can discuss. Meanwhile, the alternative school of thought that you are propounding is the more mythical and etheral 2 MAX FA's.

Well all I'm saying is that if you want to discuss trade-ideas I'm open to discuss them. Otherwise it's just a philosophy and nothing else to discuss further. On the other hand what I advocate is not a philosophy. It's a specific plan. Do not commit any guaranteed salary to anyone right now unless they are a high-end player. That's the plan. Then wait, play the season,and reassess. The plan involves unknowns. There may be 20 different players both FAs and trade targets that I want to target after the season. Or zero. Maybe I'll want to max Lavine and Portis. my point is that at the current time I'm interested in discussing what we should currently do. And what I believe we should currently do is not offer Bobby Portis an extension and only offer one plus one extensions to David nawaba and Zach LaVine. If one or both of them sign an offer sheet then I will look at what it is and discuss that further.

[JimmyJammer]

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.

As an organization, you cannot keep on playing the game of musical chairs, because it's either you want continuity or not. It's either you believe or you don't. When the trade was made last June, it was understood that the LaVine's contract would have to be dealt with. At this point, I don't know what the official offer is, but I know that I'd feel quite comfortable with LaVine having a 72-75mil contract for the next four years.

[aguifs]

Sam Smith:

Sorry, I'd rather have LaVine. Again, I get these requests fairly frequently to not resign LaVine, which is strange to me. OK, he's hasn't defended much in Minnesota, either. But here's an excellent athlete who is a very good three-point shooter, solid citizen, anxious to improve, a young 6-5 guard. Yes, he had ACL surgery and we hate that phrase, and he didn't finish last season, though who really knows with the artificial competition after the All-Star break. I find it hard to believe given his health situation LaVine gets any sort of break-the-bank offer as a restricted free agent. Teams are no longer allowed to say they'll match to scare off competitors or restricted free agents. If LaVine were in this draft, he'd have been a top 10 player. He's 23 years old and ready to have a full season again after missing much of the last two. He's a top athlete for a team long searching for more athletes and the biggest name in the Jimmy Butler trade. I cannot personally see a circumstance in which I would not want to work out a contract with LaVine. I think he's going to be a terrific player again.

I agree 110%.

It's the first time I agree with Sam Smith!

[blicka]

The only people who don't want anything to do with lavine are the ones who rely on box scores and advanced stats to analyze players

Highly doubt they watched him in minny and using the 24 games last year to judge him is foolish.

[League Circles]

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.

I've never said or implied that such a thing was impossible. It's extremely rare for me to speak in certainties about anything in the future.

Although it's worth noting that you are something like six million dollars over the projected salary cap with that roster and you are not counting about two-and-a-half to three million dollars of cap hold for the minimum roster spots. Or for the first rounder next summer.

but the biggest thing for me probably is that I do not presume we can get rid of Felicio by offering what would project as a bad first round pick. Even with one year of Denzel Valentine attached. If you were a team in the opening days of free agency and you had a bunch of cap space would you waste it on a 3rd string caliber player in Felicio guaranteed for another 2 years just for the benefit of getting a draft pick in the 20s? I sure as hell wouldn't.

We both know its not that diffucult. We gave Kirk + 17 th pick + 3 Million in cash in 2010 to do just that.

Here's an example: Felicio+Asik + Valentine+ 2019 first round pick for Melo + Thunder's FRP. Done.

Its just a question of what do the Bulls think are acceptable losses. And at what point is it better for them to decide " No Zach" or "Yay Zach".

I know no such thing. just because something happened 9 years ago doesn't mean that a similar thing is likely to happen now. Besides I'm not really interested in likelihoods. I'm interested in certainties. I want the certainty of having two maximum contract offers available to make. You talking about giving up a first-round pick and Valentine and Felicio just for the privilege of committing long-term to LaVine instead of doing a one plus one deal? I'm not interested in that trade off.

[musiqsoulchild]

everyone on this forum is open to taking on long-term contracts for the correct assets. We can address any specific actual possibilities instead of generic imaginary possibilities. I'm open to discuss. A generic strategy is not something meaningful to discuss in terms of advocacy.

But again I don't understand what you're not getting. We don't have to do anything and we're not removing any options. What myself and much of the board are advocating is to wait on Bobby Portis wait on nwaba or give him a OnePlus One contract and give lavine a one plus one contract. Do you agree or disagree with this? I'm not asking if you think the Bulls will do this or whether or not you think another team will give him a multi-year offer. In the absence of an offer would you like to offer LaVine a OnePlus One contract or a long-term contract?

By offering a OnePlus One contract we can do anything next summer. We can keep Lavine we can keep Portis we can generically take on long-term salary from other teams for draft picks and or we can try to get two Max contract free agents. That's the beauty of it. We suck as a team and I want to maximize our possibilities to become great.

Its ironic that you talk about giving actual names that we can discuss. Meanwhile, the alternative school of thought that you are propounding is the more mythical and etheral 2 MAX FA's.

Well all I'm saying is that if you want to discuss trade-ideas I'm open to discuss them. Otherwise it's just a philosophy and nothing else to discuss further. On the other hand what I advocate is not a philosophy. It's a specific plan. Do not commit any guaranteed salary to anyone right now unless they are a high-end player. That's the plan. Then wait, play the season,and reassess. The plan involves unknowns. There may be 20 different players both FAs and trade targets that I want to target after the season. Or zero. Maybe I'll want to max Lavine and Portis. my point is that at the current time I'm interested in discussing what we should currently do. And what I believe we should currently do is not offer Bobby Portis an extension and only offer one plus one extensions to David nawaba and Zach LaVine. If one or both of them sign an offer sheet then I will look at what it is and discuss that further.

And I am in full agreement with you. And, keep Lavine.

[MrFortune3]

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.

As an organization, you cannot keep on playing the game of musical chairs, because it's either you want continuity or not. It's either you believe or you don't. When the trade was made last June, it was understood that the LaVine's contract would have to be dealt with. At this point, I don't know what the official offer is, but I know that I'd feel quite comfortable with LaVine having a 72-75mil contract for the next four years.

I agree.
They knew he was hurt, they knew they had to pay him. I doubt the team went into this thinking they were going to let him walk.
Signing Zach is not going to stop you from trading nor signing anyone else.
Cause guess what is going to happen if a player truly wants to come to Chicago? He'll either sign here or force his team to trade him here.

[League Circles]

The only people who don't want anything to do with lavine are the ones who rely on box scores and advanced stats to analyze players

Highly doubt they watched him in minny and using the 24 games last year to judge him is foolish.

there's almost no one on this board at all who wants nothing to do with LaVine. Some of us just don't see the purpose in committing long-term to him as opposed to offering him a OnePlus One contract.

hell I would give LaVine the max right now for next year with a team option for the max for the following year. I would do that deal in 2 seconds.

[VolumePoster]

I really enjoy this board, but the amount of pop-ups is pretty oppressive. Four pop ups just to make a post. Can this be improved somehow? Thanks.

[League Circles]

Its ironic that you talk about giving actual names that we can discuss. Meanwhile, the alternative school of thought that you are propounding is the more mythical and etheral 2 MAX FA's.

Well all I'm saying is that if you want to discuss trade-ideas I'm open to discuss them. Otherwise it's just a philosophy and nothing else to discuss further. On the other hand what I advocate is not a philosophy. It's a specific plan. Do not commit any guaranteed salary to anyone right now unless they are a high-end player. That's the plan. Then wait, play the season,and reassess. The plan involves unknowns. There may be 20 different players both FAs and trade targets that I want to target after the season. Or zero. Maybe I'll want to max Lavine and Portis. my point is that at the current time I'm interested in discussing what we should currently do. And what I believe we should currently do is not offer Bobby Portis an extension and only offer one plus one extensions to David nawaba and Zach LaVine. If one or both of them sign an offer sheet then I will look at what it is and discuss that further.

And I am in full agreement with you. And, keep Lavine.

I want to keep Lavine also. I just don't want to preemptively offer him a contract longer than one plus one. If he signs an offer sheet for longer than that I will reassess.

[musiqsoulchild]

I've never said or implied that such a thing was impossible. It's extremely rare for me to speak in certainties about anything in the future.

Although it's worth noting that you are something like six million dollars over the projected salary cap with that roster and you are not counting about two-and-a-half to three million dollars of cap hold for the minimum roster spots. Or for the first rounder next summer.

but the biggest thing for me probably is that I do not presume we can get rid of Felicio by offering what would project as a bad first round pick. Even with one year of Denzel Valentine attached. If you were a team in the opening days of free agency and you had a bunch of cap space would you waste it on a 3rd string caliber player in Felicio guaranteed for another 2 years just for the benefit of getting a draft pick in the 20s? I sure as hell wouldn't.

We both know its not that diffucult. We gave Kirk + 17 th pick + 3 Million in cash in 2010 to do just that.

Here's an example: Felicio+Asik + Valentine+ 2019 first round pick for Melo + Thunder's FRP. Done.

Its just a question of what do the Bulls think are acceptable losses. And at what point is it better for them to decide " No Zach" or "Yay Zach".

I know no such thing. just because something happened 9 years ago doesn't mean that a similar thing is likely to happen now. Besides I'm not really interested in likelihoods. I'm interested in certainties. I want the certainty of having two maximum contract offers available to make. You talking about giving up a first-round pick and Valentine and Felicio just for the privilege of committing long-term to LaVine instead of doing a one plus one deal? I'm not interested in that trade off.

I am "giving up" Valentine and 2019 FRP to get rid of 2 more cap slots. Replace with 600 K roster hold. That 1.8 Million in ( for Felicio / Val and 2019 FRP) and 14 MILLION out for 2019 offseason.

Which means you are getting closer to keeping Lavine AND having very close to 2 MAX FA cap space.