What no one ever coherently explained to me about Lavine

[dice]

I love an argument based on emotion and things said as fact that you cannot prove. Adios.

when a person claims that an argument is "based on emotion" despite no actual expression of emotion in the post he is referring to, and loads his response with sarcasm, that's an indication that it is actually the responder that is being emotional. it's what's known in psychology as 'projection': assigning to others characteristics that one fears about one's own self

as for lavine's future with the team, i'll know that the new FO is serious about shaking things up if they deal their most notable player. let's have a real fresh start. i'm very confident that the best offer for lavine would be one worth taking

You mean like the projection that LaVine has a massive ego despite never showing evidence to suggest that is the case?

he has to show evidence in order for his argument to not be based in emotion? that makes no damn sense. if i say that michael jordan is the GOAT without providing evidence when i do so, does that make my statement emotional? of course not

and there are multiple examples of lavine having a big ego in his public statements. whether his ego qualifies as "massive" i don't know. that's subjective. it certainly doesn't make him particularly unique as a guy who makes a boatload of money and is famous

[Dez]

when a person claims that an argument is "based on emotion" despite no actual expression of emotion in the post he is referring to, and loads his response with sarcasm, that's an indication that it is actually the responder that is being emotional. it's what's known in psychology as 'projection': assigning to others characteristics that one fears about one's own self

as for lavine's future with the team, i'll know that the new FO is serious about shaking things up if they deal their most notable player. let's have a real fresh start. i'm very confident that the best offer for lavine would be one worth taking

You mean like the projection that LaVine has a massive ego despite never showing evidence to suggest that is the case?

he has to show evidence in order for his argument to not be based in emotion? that makes no damn sense. if i say that michael jordan is the GOAT without providing evidence when i do so, does that make my statement emotional? of course not

and there are multiple examples of lavine having a big ego in his public statements. whether his ego qualifies as "massive" i don't know. that's subjective. it certainly doesn't make him particularly unique as a guy who makes a boatload of money and is famous

By all means provide these multiple examples.

[drosereturn]

Put LaVine on a winning team and all the criticism goes away.

and that's the problem. because when you put zach lavine on a team and pay him $20 million bucks, that team is less likely to win

The Bulls aren't losing because of LaVine.

the bulls are losing IN PART because of lavine. all the evidence suggests it

The guy has been in the league 6 years and had 5 different coaches. When the Bulls fire Boylen, it will be 7 years and 6 different coaches. Most of that time spent on rebuilding teams not expected to make the playoffs, including having to overcome a serious ACL injury and team dysfunction.

that might explain why he's not a better player, but it doesn't mean that he actually IS a better player but we're just not seeing it because of circumstances

Lavine with his Jordan-esque hardware has the tools to be a great player. I admit it.
But he has been a terrible player for the Bulls, a perennial lottery team so painful to watch blowing up 20pt leads or getting blown out by 40 points.
You bring in Simmons, Embiid and hell I would offer him a blank cheque but the roster is filled with g leaguers.
Ride with Lavine who everyone agrees he is not a number 1 guy and now your picks are handcuffed and a treadmill team with cap space barely able to get mpact player. We had this conversation with Jimmy's Bulls which was much better and dismantled it.

The coaching excuse was one of the most terrible ive heard. Lavine was the number 1 beneficiary under Pax, and Boylen because he was advertised as the fake number 1 option to sell tickets and was used as a marketing tool. But he really thought he was a superstar since last yr bc he was putting up stats. Thats what make me insane him not realizing he has deficiencies and getting cocky with his huge ego. Attitude is very important in evaluating talent and Lavine does not share the Bulls blue collared nature.

[Dez]

Put LaVine on a winning team and all the criticism goes away.

and that's the problem. because when you put zach lavine on a team and pay him $20 million bucks, that team is less likely to win

The Bulls aren't losing because of LaVine.

the bulls are losing IN PART because of lavine. all the evidence suggests it

The guy has been in the league 6 years and had 5 different coaches. When the Bulls fire Boylen, it will be 7 years and 6 different coaches. Most of that time spent on rebuilding teams not expected to make the playoffs, including having to overcome a serious ACL injury and team dysfunction.

that might explain why he's not a better player, but it doesn't mean that he actually IS a better player but we're just not seeing it because of circumstances

Lavine with his Jordan-esque hardware has the tools to be a great player. I admit it.
But he has been a terrible player for the Bulls, a perennial lottery team so painful to watch blowing up 20pt leads or getting blown out by 40 points.
You bring in Simmons, Embiid and hell I would offer him a blank cheque but the roster is filled with g leaguers.
Ride with Lavine who everyone agrees he is not a number 1 guy and now your picks are handcuffed and a treadmill team with cap space barely able to get mpact player. We had this conversation with Jimmy's Bulls which was much better and dismantled it.

The coaching excuse was one of the most terrible ive heard. Lavine was the number 1 beneficiary under Pax, and Boylen because he was advertised as the fake number 1 option to sell tickets and was used as a marketing tool. But he really thought he was a superstar since last yr bc he was putting up stats. Thats what make me insane him not realizing he has deficiencies and getting cocky with his huge ego. Attitude is very important in evaluating talent and Lavine does not share the Bulls blue collared nature.

Literally every time you attempt to describe LaVine you describe these personality traits that he simply has not shown and keep trying to pass them off as fact.

[dice]

You mean like the projection that LaVine has a massive ego despite never showing evidence to suggest that is the case?

he has to show evidence in order for his argument to not be based in emotion? that makes no damn sense. if i say that michael jordan is the GOAT without providing evidence when i do so, does that make my statement emotional? of course not

and there are multiple examples of lavine having a big ego in his public statements. whether his ego qualifies as "massive" i don't know. that's subjective. it certainly doesn't make him particularly unique as a guy who makes a boatload of money and is famous

By all means provide these multiple examples.

off the top of my head, he said that he thought he deserved to be an all-star, which he clearly didn't. and when asked about it said that he wouldn't mind the team running personnel moves by him beforehand, which is preposterous. and he pouts sometimes, which makes him seem a bit entitled. nothing major, though. again, nothing different from a lot of other guys in his situation. i'd say he mostly says the right things and probably means it. i certainly don't think he's a bad kid. and he's in a tough situation being the media focal point of an awful team

[bullsnewdynasty]

Lavine with his Jordan-esque hardware has the tools to be a great player. I admit it.
But he has been a terrible player for the Bulls, a perennial lottery team so painful to watch blowing up 20pt leads or getting blown out by 40 points.
You bring in Simmons, Embiid and hell I would offer him a blank cheque but the roster is filled with g leaguers.
Ride with Lavine who everyone agrees he is not a number 1 guy and now your picks are handcuffed and a treadmill team with cap space barely able to get mpact player. We had this conversation with Jimmy's Bulls which was much better and dismantled it.

The coaching excuse was one of the most terrible ive heard. Lavine was the number 1 beneficiary under Pax, and Boylen because he was advertised as the fake number 1 option to sell tickets and was used as a marketing tool. But he really thought he was a superstar since last yr bc he was putting up stats. Thats what make me insane him not realizing he has deficiencies and getting cocky with his huge ego. Attitude is very important in evaluating talent and Lavine does not share the Bulls blue collared nature.

Lauri avatar? Sorry, no credibility.

Talking about our cap space, why does LaVine generate so many threads but not Otto? One is on a max deal, one is on a team friendly deal. Figure that one out.

[Dez]

he has to show evidence in order for his argument to not be based in emotion? that makes no damn sense. if i say that michael jordan is the GOAT without providing evidence when i do so, does that make my statement emotional? of course not

and there are multiple examples of lavine having a big ego in his public statements. whether his ego qualifies as "massive" i don't know. that's subjective. it certainly doesn't make him particularly unique as a guy who makes a boatload of money and is famous

By all means provide these multiple examples.

off the top of my head, he said that he thought he deserved to be an all-star, which he clearly didn't. and when asked about it said that he wouldn't mind the team running personnel moves by him beforehand, which is preposterous. and he pouts sometimes, which makes him seem a bit entitled. nothing major, though. again, nothing different from a lot of other guys in his situation. i'd say he mostly says the right things and probably means it. i certainly don't think he's a bad kid. and he's in a tough situation being the media focal point of an awful team

“You just saw the trend that they more went for the players on winning teams. It sucks. Everybody feels like they’re deserving but there are only so many spots. I feel there are a lot of guys who can make their case. It’s the way it goes,” LaVine said at Barclays Center before the Bulls' matchup with the Nets. “I’m not going to let it define me or who I think I am. I think I know who I am every time I step on the court. I’m still looking forward to trying to help us make the playoffs.”

Pretty level headed and realistic there.

"You have to have goals. We had a goal coming into the year and we didn't achieve it," LaVine told Mitchell. "We fell really short. We weren't as good as we thought we were. We didn't play as well as we could've.

"There was times, this year, where we were in a lot of games, and we just lost it, so as a coach, they take a lot of flak for that. But sometimes it's on the players and we have to stand up and do that as well. The main thing for me is to make sure everybody comes to the gym and we have one goal at hand. We've got to come into training camp and be prepared with one goal in mind and we've just got to go for it. For some people, you have to know your role, some people taking a backseat and some people stepping forward in leadership. But we have to talk about that and be communicative and all be on the same boat. You can't be spread apart."

"I just want to be able to win. I'm a winning player. I'll do whatever it takes. I stay in the gym. I appreciate your words," LaVine said. "I think I was an All-Star this year, I thought I had an All-Star season last year, as well. That's not going to stop me, though, from what I think I am and where I think I'll be at. You know where my mindset is. I just want to be able to win because I think everything comes with it."

Saying you thought you were an All-Star isn't ego and the whole "clearly didn't" deserve to be an All-Star is debatable.

It’s not the type of power guard Zach LaVine is looking to grab, but if the Bulls’ front office wants to summon him to discuss trade possibilities — what he likes and doesn’t like — he wouldn’t turn it down.

But is LaVine requiring the Bulls to do so? He isn’t that egotistical.

‘‘I mean, if they come to me and let me know, I think it would be great,’’ LaVine said when he was asked if he would like that type of relationship with the front office. ‘‘If not, I’m not taking offense to it, either. It’s not something that I’m asking for.

‘‘I know what I stand for. I’m trying to help us get there, and I don’t think you can question what my intentions are.’’

He didn't say he wanted a say in roster decisions but would offer input if asked, so again this ego that people keep talking about just doesn't exist.

[dice]

By all means provide these multiple examples.

off the top of my head, he said that he thought he deserved to be an all-star, which he clearly didn't. and when asked about it said that he wouldn't mind the team running personnel moves by him beforehand, which is preposterous. and he pouts sometimes, which makes him seem a bit entitled. nothing major, though. again, nothing different from a lot of other guys in his situation. i'd say he mostly says the right things and probably means it. i certainly don't think he's a bad kid. and he's in a tough situation being the media focal point of an awful team

"I just want to be able to win. I'm a winning player. I'll do whatever it takes. I stay in the gym. I appreciate your words," LaVine said. "I think I was an All-Star this year, I thought I had an All-Star season last year, as well. That's not going to stop me, though, from what I think I am and where I think I'll be at. You know where my mindset is. I just want to be able to win because I think everything comes with it."

Saying you thought you were an All-Star isn't ego

delusion? and saying he thought he deserved it the PREVIOUS year is flat out ridiculous

and the whole "clearly didn't" deserve to be an All-Star is debatable.

what's not debatable is that he's has yet to impact winning. and those players aren't close to all-star caliber

It’s not the type of power guard Zach LaVine is looking to grab, but if the Bulls’ front office wants to summon him to discuss trade possibilities — what he likes and doesn’t like — he wouldn’t turn it down.

But is LaVine requiring the Bulls to do so? He isn’t that egotistical.

‘‘I mean, if they come to me and let me know, I think it would be great,’’ LaVine said when he was asked if he would like that type of relationship with the front office. ‘‘If not, I’m not taking offense to it, either. It’s not something that I’m asking for.

‘‘I know what I stand for. I’m trying to help us get there, and I don’t think you can question what my intentions are.’’

He didn't say he wanted a say in roster decisions but would offer input if asked, so again this ego that people keep talking about just doesn't exist.

fair enough. just saying, if i was a player of lavine's caliber and someone asked me if i wanted the FO to consult with me on personnel moves, i'd like to think i'd say something like "c'mon, man. seriously?"

[Dez]

delusion? and saying he thought he deserved it the PREVIOUS year is flat out ridiculous

what's not debatable is that he's has yet to impact winning. and those players aren't close to all-star caliber

So he's basically mirroring Devin Booker, Donovan Mitchell production wise who were both All-Stars.

Booker despite having Ayton, Bridges, Rubio etc only mustered 4 more wins than the injury riddled/Boylen coached Bulls.

Mitchell has the likes of Gobert, Ingles, Conley, Bogdanovic etc and the coaching of Snyder to help him "impact winning".

Let's also look at the garbage Atlanta Hawks who produced less wins than Chicago yet Trae Young was an All-Star, does Trae Young impact winning? You'd be silly to say no but the record suggests yes.

It's almost as if people put far too much emphasis on one player to "impact winning", it's a team game.

fair enough. just saying, if i was a player of lavine's caliber and someone asked me if i wanted the FO to consult with me on personnel moves, i'd like to think i'd say something like "c'mon, man. seriously?"

You'd like to think you would say that but you wouldn't, nobody would.

[dice]

delusion? and saying he thought he deserved it the PREVIOUS year is flat out ridiculous

what's not debatable is that he's has yet to impact winning. and those players aren't close to all-star caliber

So he's basically mirroring Devin Booker, Donovan Mitchell production wise who were both All-Stars.

Let's also look at the garbage Atlanta Hawks who produced less wins than Chicago yet Trae Young was an All-Star, does Trae Young impact winning? You'd be silly to say no but the record suggests yes.

first of all, when i talk about impacting winning, i'm talking about how much better you make your team, not mere win/loss record, which is obviously very variable depending on supporting cast

secondly, trae young and booker are elite scorers and very good passers. lavine is neither. and yet, i don't think that they deserved to be all-stars, either. because...

finally, unlike the others, mitchell plays defense. and yes, defense matters when it comes to helping your team

[johnnyvann840]

I just want him traded for the best deal we can get and have a fresh start. I want this team to be fresh because the Lavine led Bulls are stale and they just play idiotic basketball. He has been the highest usage player and has pretty much run this show for the last couple years. It has been an epic failure in both entertainment and results. These have been the worst, most painful to watch teams in my lifetime. I can't stand watching the Bulls when Lavine is trying to be the man. It disgusts me quite honestly. It's unwatchable. I hate stupid basketball more than anything. It drives me crazy. I want smart players. You win with smart players, just look at the best teams ever in history and even currently... They are all led by intelligent players who make good decisions. Zach is simply never going to be that. He's one of the dumbest players I've ever watched and it makes me not want to watch my favorite team. New GM and new coach will be great but I just can't get excited about any of it until Lavine is gone.

You want to talk about making teammates better and how it's a team game? Well, Lavine not only doesn't make them better but he makes them worse. Just look at the Bulls lineup data and it is so clear what is happening out there. If you can't see it, you're just not looking.

Now that is an emotional post, but it's the truth.

[Dez]

delusion? and saying he thought he deserved it the PREVIOUS year is flat out ridiculous

what's not debatable is that he's has yet to impact winning. and those players aren't close to all-star caliber

So he's basically mirroring Devin Booker, Donovan Mitchell production wise who were both All-Stars.

Let's also look at the garbage Atlanta Hawks who produced less wins than Chicago yet Trae Young was an All-Star, does Trae Young impact winning? You'd be silly to say no but the record suggests yes.

first of all, when i talk about impacting winning, i'm talking about how much better you make your team, not mere win/loss record, which is obviously very variable depending on supporting cast

secondly, trae young and booker are elite scorers and very good passers. lavine is neither. and yet, i don't think that they deserved to be all-stars, either. because...

finally, unlike the others, mitchell plays defense. and yes, defense matters when it comes to helping your team

I'm sorry but how is LaVine not an elite scorer? 25PPG on 57TS% without decent help to get easy buckets is pretty damn elite, LeBron and Luka are only a fraction better at 58TS%.

LaVine also attempts significantly less FTs (6 Fts per game) than Trae (9 FTs per game) and one less than Booker (7 FTs per game), he doesn't get calls he should which again impacts that TS%.

Also Mitchell plays defense? That's been one of his biggest knocks and the advanced stats I'm looking at have him on the same level as LaVine.

[The Box Office]

Guys like Michael Finley, Ron Harper, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Danny Ainge, Allan Houston, Clyde Drexler, Michael Redd, Monta Ellis, Dan Majerle, Jimmy Butler, Rex Chapman, and Eddie Jones get traded. Jerry Stackhouse averaged damn near 30 points with Detroit. His production dropped big time the following season with 21 points.

The biggest one, who comes to my mind, is Dominique Wilkins. He tore his ACL in 1992. He bounced back to average 30 points. Then the season after that, he averaged 26 points. He was still a superstar. He was still making All Star games. Atlanta got rid of him anyway.

Zach is not an All Star even coming off his best season thus far. He doesn't have any playoff experience to help us.

I'm not comparing these guys to LaVine. I'm showing that quality swingman get traded, too. Somewhere, LaVine will be traded. I wouldn't gamble another season with Zach since his value is high right now. Because he's healthy. There's nothing wrong with him physically. He bounced back from the ACL tear. He's game fit. We're done "showcasing" him.

I know, right now, that he's 100 percent healthy. He might get injured next season. Can we trade him this Summer? Obviously, this scenario depends on our draft position. I'd trade him on Draft Night if I can to grab someone in the Top 3.

[WindyCityBorn]

Guys like Michael Finley, Ron Harper, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Danny Ainge, Allan Houston, Clyde Drexler, Michael Redd, Monta Ellis, Dan Majerle, Jimmy Butler, Rex Chapman, and Eddie Jones get traded. Jerry Stackhouse averaged damn near 30 points with Detroit. His production dropped big time the following season with 21 points.

The biggest one, who comes to my mind, is Dominique Wilkins. He tore his ACL in 1992. He bounced back to average 30 points. Then the season after that, he averaged 26 points. He was still a superstar. He was still making All Star games. Atlanta got rid of him anyway.

Zach is not an All Star even coming off his best season thus far. He doesn't have any playoff experience to help us.

I'm not comparing these guys to LaVine. I'm showing that quality swingman get traded, too. Somewhere, LaVine will be traded. I wouldn't gamble another season with Zach since his value is high right now. Because he's healthy. There's nothing wrong with him physically. He bounced back from the ACL tear. He's game fit. We're done "showcasing" him.

I know, right now, that he's 100 percent healthy. He might get injured next season. Can we trade him this Summer? Obviously, this scenario depends on our draft position. I'd trade him on Draft Night if I can to grab someone in the Top 3.

[MrSparkle]

Guys like Michael Finley, Ron Harper, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Danny Ainge, Allan Houston, Clyde Drexler, Michael Redd, Monta Ellis, Dan Majerle, Jimmy Butler, Rex Chapman, and Eddie Jones get traded. Jerry Stackhouse averaged damn near 30 points with Detroit. His production dropped big time the following season with 21 points.

The biggest one, who comes to my mind, is Dominique Wilkins. He tore his ACL in 1992. He bounced back to average 30 points. Then the season after that, he averaged 26 points. He was still a superstar. He was still making All Star games. Atlanta got rid of him anyway.

Zach is not an All Star even coming off his best season thus far. He doesn't have any playoff experience to help us.

I'm not comparing these guys to LaVine. I'm showing that quality swingman get traded, too. Somewhere, LaVine will be traded. I wouldn't gamble another season with Zach since his value is high right now. Because he's healthy. There's nothing wrong with him physically. He bounced back from the ACL tear. He's game fit. We're done "showcasing" him.

I know, right now, that he's 100 percent healthy. He might get injured next season. Can we trade him this Summer? Obviously, this scenario depends on our draft position. I'd trade him on Draft Night if I can to grab someone in the Top 3.

I'd explore trading Zach , cause you might get somebody to overpay him. But I doubt you find fair value - league perception is low. You could tell he wasn't even really considered for the ASG; most coaches and GMs see him as an empty calorie player, I think.

But while I've got a list of criticisms for Zach's game, I tend to see the gray area. He's very talented. I think he needs to work on his skills. He shows maturity and hunger to improve, so I do think the right coach can take him to the next level.

I generally don't believe in "addition by subtraction." I don't entirely agree with the Monta Ellis comparisons that some articles tossed around, cause (A) we don't have a Curry/Klay back-court and (B) Monta was 6'2 (definitely a SG in a PG's body), Zach is 6'6 (definitely a SG body).

So I'm totally fine with keeping Zach long-term, but would I prefer a healthy Klay, Beal or Harden? Sure.

[The Box Office]

Guys like Michael Finley, Ron Harper, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Danny Ainge, Allan Houston, Clyde Drexler, Michael Redd, Monta Ellis, Dan Majerle, Jimmy Butler, Rex Chapman, and Eddie Jones get traded. Jerry Stackhouse averaged damn near 30 points with Detroit. His production dropped big time the following season with 21 points.

The biggest one, who comes to my mind, is Dominique Wilkins. He tore his ACL in 1992. He bounced back to average 30 points. Then the season after that, he averaged 26 points. He was still a superstar. He was still making All Star games. Atlanta got rid of him anyway.

Zach is not an All Star even coming off his best season thus far. He doesn't have any playoff experience to help us.

I'm not comparing these guys to LaVine. I'm showing that quality swingman get traded, too. Somewhere, LaVine will be traded. I wouldn't gamble another season with Zach since his value is high right now. Because he's healthy. There's nothing wrong with him physically. He bounced back from the ACL tear. He's game fit. We're done "showcasing" him.

I know, right now, that he's 100 percent healthy. He might get injured next season. Can we trade him this Summer? Obviously, this scenario depends on our draft position. I'd trade him on Draft Night if I can to grab someone in the Top 3.

I'd explore trading Zach , cause you might get somebody to overpay him. But I doubt you find fair value - league perception is low. You could tell he wasn't even really considered for the ASG; most coaches and GMs see him as an empty calorie player, I think.

But while I've got a list of criticisms for Zach's game, I tend to see the gray area. He's very talented. I think he needs to work on his skills. He shows maturity and hunger to improve, so I do think the right coach can take him to the next level.

I generally don't believe in "addition by subtraction." I don't entirely agree with the Monta Ellis comparisons that some articles tossed around, cause (A) we don't have a Curry/Klay back-court and (B) Monta was 6'2 (definitely a SG in a PG's body), Zach is 6'6 (definitely a SG body).

So I'm totally fine with keeping Zach long-term, but would I prefer a healthy Klay, Beal or Harden? Sure.

Thanks for responding. But again, I was not comparing LaVine to Monta Ellis. I wasn't comparing LaVine to anyone.

Zach LaVine WILL be traded as I stated with past players. It's not unusual. We been through this with John Paxson. He falls in love with the players and holds on too long. At least he did Jimmy Butler a favor by trading him at the right time. I didn't wanna see Butler wasting his years here. Paxson actually agreed.

[MrSparkle]

I'd explore trading Zach , cause you might get somebody to overpay him. But I doubt you find fair value - league perception is low. You could tell he wasn't even really considered for the ASG; most coaches and GMs see him as an empty calorie player, I think.

But while I've got a list of criticisms for Zach's game, I tend to see the gray area. He's very talented. I think he needs to work on his skills. He shows maturity and hunger to improve, so I do think the right coach can take him to the next level.

I generally don't believe in "addition by subtraction." I don't entirely agree with the Monta Ellis comparisons that some articles tossed around, cause (A) we don't have a Curry/Klay back-court and (B) Monta was 6'2 (definitely a SG in a PG's body), Zach is 6'6 (definitely a SG body).

So I'm totally fine with keeping Zach long-term, but would I prefer a healthy Klay, Beal or Harden? Sure.

Thanks for responding. But again, I was not comparing LaVine to Monta Ellis. I wasn't comparing LaVine to anyone.

Zach LaVine WILL be traded as I stated with past players. It's not unusual. We been through this with John Paxson. He falls in love with the players and holds on too long. At least he did Jimmy Butler a favor by trading him at the right time. I didn't wanna see Butler wasting his years here. Paxson actually agreed.

The Monta comparison was something I read elsewhere, sorry didn't mean to say you brought him up. Just regarding the idea of addition-by-subtraction, which is what I think a Zach trade would look like.

I was very adamantly against the Jimmy trade. If we got 2x the value, I'd have been happy with it (like two future 1sts from MN, and kept #16 on top of what we got, maybe take a bad contract like Dieng to balance assets). But I thought an ACL Zach, bust Dunn and unknown #7 pick-swap was dirt cheap for a $16m prime all-star with 2 years guaranteed left.

So ironically, we are almost in the EXACT same position with Zach: prime age (26), underpaid for his production, and 2 years guaranteed left. Except unlike Jimmy, Zach has yet to make a playoff and all-star game. And I know year-to-year player values are very different, but fact is , we're technically looking at less return than Jimmy. That thought doesn't excite me. This draft is also less hopeful than 2017 (and most the guys ended up being busts anyway; well maybe the reverse happens here, but doubtful).

[WindyCityBorn]

I'd explore trading Zach , cause you might get somebody to overpay him. But I doubt you find fair value - league perception is low. You could tell he wasn't even really considered for the ASG; most coaches and GMs see him as an empty calorie player, I think.

But while I've got a list of criticisms for Zach's game, I tend to see the gray area. He's very talented. I think he needs to work on his skills. He shows maturity and hunger to improve, so I do think the right coach can take him to the next level.

I generally don't believe in "addition by subtraction." I don't entirely agree with the Monta Ellis comparisons that some articles tossed around, cause (A) we don't have a Curry/Klay back-court and (B) Monta was 6'2 (definitely a SG in a PG's body), Zach is 6'6 (definitely a SG body).

So I'm totally fine with keeping Zach long-term, but would I prefer a healthy Klay, Beal or Harden? Sure.

Thanks for responding. But again, I was not comparing LaVine to Monta Ellis. I wasn't comparing LaVine to anyone.

Zach LaVine WILL be traded as I stated with past players. It's not unusual. We been through this with John Paxson. He falls in love with the players and holds on too long. At least he did Jimmy Butler a favor by trading him at the right time. I didn't wanna see Butler wasting his years here. Paxson actually agreed.

The Monta comparison was something I read elsewhere, sorry didn't mean to say you brought him up. Just regarding the idea of addition-by-subtraction, which is what I think a Zach trade would look like.

I was very adamantly against the Jimmy trade. If we got 2x the value, I'd have been happy with it (like two future 1sts from MN, and kept #16 on top of what we got, maybe take a bad contract like Dieng to balance assets). But I thought an ACL Zach, bust Dunn and unknown #7 pick-swap was dirt cheap for a $16m prime all-star with 2 years guaranteed left.

So ironically, we are almost in the EXACT same position with Zach: prime age (26), underpaid for his production, and 2 years guaranteed left. Except unlike Jimmy, Zach has yet to make a playoff and all-star game. And I know year-to-year player values are very different, but fact is , we're technical byly looking at less return than Jimmy. That thought doesn't excite me. This draft is also less hopeful than 2017 (and most the guys ended up being busts anyway; well maybe the reverse happens here, but doubtful).

Zach just turned 25 years old. I believe we are better off finding a better player to play with him than saying let's get rid our best player because we suck. There is no magical talent that will make Markkanen, Carter, Porter better than cannot benefit LaVine as well. It just annoys me that he is the only player people focus on trading and not the other guys that are actually the major disappointments. Zach being gone won't make them better. We saw that already.

[NZB2323]

Zach Lavine reminds me of Ben Gordon. He can score, but not do much else, and you probably don't want him as your #1 or highest paid player.

They're both very hard working, and both have caused a lot of debates on this forum.

[JimmyJammer]

Put LaVine on a winning team and all the criticism goes away.

and that's the problem. because when you put zach lavine on a team and pay him $20 million bucks, that team is less likely to win

The Bulls aren't losing because of LaVine.

the bulls are losing IN PART because of lavine. all the evidence suggests it

The guy has been in the league 6 years and had 5 different coaches. When the Bulls fire Boylen, it will be 7 years and 6 different coaches. Most of that time spent on rebuilding teams not expected to make the playoffs, including having to overcome a serious ACL injury and team dysfunction.

that might explain why he's not a better player, but it doesn't mean that he actually IS a better player but we're just not seeing it because of circumstances

I am sorry to break it to you this way, but in a league where Harrison Barnes, Whiteside, Otto Porter, Devin Booker, Aaron Gordon, John Wall, Michael Conley, Wiggins and Tobias Harris making crazy money like they are making, a 20-million dollar contract is not much money anymore. In fact, if we were to put Lavine on the trading block, we would not have any problems trading that salary.