What no one ever coherently explained to me about Lavine

[dice]

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.

wait, so there are a lot of bad contracts out there? yeah, that's not news to ANYBODY, son

In fact, if we were to put Lavine on the trading block, we would not have any problems trading that salary.

you're right. we could actually get decent value back. which is exactly why he should be a goner

[bullsnewdynasty]

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

[johnnyvann840]

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

I disagree. That's your guess. All I know is that the other players on the team looked better when Lavine was not playing and if you just look at the team's lineup data for the last few seasons it's clear as day. ANY player? Come on now. I would bet that if you replaced him with, say, Jimmy Butler, for instance, the Bulls are a .500 team, at least.. and that makes the playoffs in either conference, most likely.

Now, replace him with Lebron, Kawhi or even 20 year old Luka and the Bulls, IMO, are definitely a playoff team.

And that is as good a guess as yours.

[bullsnewdynasty]

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

I disagree. That's your guess. All I know is that the other players on the team looked better when Lavine was not playing and if you just look at the team's lineup data for the last few seasons it's clear as day. ANY player? Come on now. I would bet that if you replaced him with, say, Jimmy Butler, for instance, the Bulls are a .500 team, at least.. and that makes the playoffs in either conference, most likely.

Now, replace him with Lebron, Kawhi or even 20 year old Luka and the Bulls, IMO, are definitely a playoff team.

And that is as good a guess as yours.

The Bulls were a bottom 5 offensive team, replacing LaVine with a inferior scorer in Butler makes them 10 wins better? Huh?

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that. Yet LaVine playing with similar G-league talent for a full season is a reflection on his ability to impact winning?

[Andi Obst]

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that.

They played 4 games with him. Four.

[johnnyvann840]

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

I disagree. That's your guess. All I know is that the other players on the team looked better when Lavine was not playing and if you just look at the team's lineup data for the last few seasons it's clear as day. ANY player? Come on now. I would bet that if you replaced him with, say, Jimmy Butler, for instance, the Bulls are a .500 team, at least.. and that makes the playoffs in either conference, most likely.

Now, replace him with Lebron, Kawhi or even 20 year old Luka and the Bulls, IMO, are definitely a playoff team.

And that is as good a guess as yours.

The Bulls were a bottom 5 offensive team, replacing LaVine with a inferior scorer in Butler makes them 10 wins better? Huh?

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that. Yet LaVine playing with similar G-league talent for a full season is a reflection on his ability to impact winning?

That's not how you evaluate things. Jimmy is a high impact positive force and has been on four different teams now. Lavine doesn't make his team's any better overall. In fact, as horrible as the crappy Bulls are/were this season, they were actually still better when Lavine was off the floor. That is freaking hard to do. His defensive impact and his his affect on others playing with him is so absolutely terrible that he cannot even make one of the worst team's in the league just slightly better on the scoreboard. That is a FACT. numbers don't lie. For 6 years he's been that type of impact player. He's also the leagues worst closer. And how many times do we have to watch the guy just throw a game away at the end to realize how bad it is? I hope our new management is smart enough and perceptive enough to make a trade ASAP. We need intelligent leaders and two way players. Zach is the opposite of this.

[sco]

Here's what's hard about the Zach question:

On the one hand we have been terrible, with Zach being inefficient in the #1 option role. That is important.

On the other hand, Zach isn't paid like a #1, nor has there been a #1 on the roster in his time here where he's shown his willingness/ability to be the #2 guy. What tips me toward keeping Zach are that he:

1) Has a good work ethic - many uber athletes just get by on that. He has improved many aspects of his game since he's been here - that comes with work.

2) He seems to encourage the younger guys and isn't aloof.

3) He has done a decent job (not perfect, but decent) dealing with the injury and coach sh*t storm here the past two seasons.

[PaKii94]

Lol at some of the takes here. Y'all want objective facts and then bring in subjectivity to defend Lavine. Lavine is a very polarizing player. Everything outside of actual on court positive impact, Lavine is actually good in. He seems to have a good mentality, work ethic, gets along with the dudes, says the right things, seems to produce the numbers but somehow his teams don't win. Why? Cause it's a team game. Lavine has honed the individual aspect to superstar levels but the team aspect is severely lacking. The way to improve that is to continue to work at it along with a good dose of league experience.

Now if Zach was a "bad" dude or a "fucboi", it would be very easy to root against him and be a "hater" but because he does seem like a genuinely good dude, I will root for him while he is on the bulls.

However, the reason we follow the bulls is to see Bulls wins that will eventually lead to a chip. Alas, the winning just doesn't seem to be happening with Zach so it is valid to critique him.

Anyway, here is an objective fact, these are the players Zach is a positive in +/-.... for his career:
2020 WCJ -- 917 minutes -- +0.2
2019 OPJ -- 378 minutes -- +4.3
2019 Rolo -- 887 minutes -- +1.7
*strong negative in 2018* (ACL recovery)
2017 Tyus Jones -- 137 minutes -- +6.1
*strong negative in 2016*
*one of the worst in the league in 2015*

He's been a negative to a strong negative to everyone else.

So in nearly 11k total minutes in the league, Lavine has been a positive during
- spot minutes with Tyus
- February miracle last season with OPJ (who has consistently been a positive for almost all his teammates)
- bigmen with "garbage collection" roles in WCJ and Rolo (barely a positive in that)

Looking at the trend there Zach's work ethic HAS helped him improve. He went from worst in the league to a net neutral -> That's a HUGE jump. However, it's another bigger jump to get from net neutral to consistently positive and that's where I don't think Zach will reach anytime soon.

So I just laugh when people say "Zach needs better players around him". It's more like the team needs a much more impactful player compared to zach and we need him to have much less of a role.

[PaKii94]

To add to the previous post. Like I said, OPJ is consistently a positive with all of his teammates. From the main rotation this year, can y'all guess who OPJ has the lowest rating with? Yup. Lavine at +0.2. Even a high positive impact player like OPJ can only raise Lavine to a net neutral player.

[PaKii94]

pretty sure that lavine's defensive deficiencies, low IQ and poor clutch performance have been sufficiently discussed. none of it is complicated

It must be personal, because you always seem to have some biased opinions on Lavine. For your info, based on advanced stats, Lavine was in the top 16 in the league in clutchness, ahead of many all-star players, including James Harden. He just finished the season with his highest defensive rating, which is encouraging considering he is still relatively young. My post was not about how bad Lavine is as a player, but it was more of a fair assessment of what kind of player that he is and how we can maximize what he can do.

What is this advanced stat that rates clutchness? Last I checked, he was one of the top players in clutch time usage but one of the lowest in assisting/efficiency and one of the highest in turning it over. Being rated 16 there is not something to celebrate.

And kudos to him for finishing with his best defensive rating ever.... which when put on the scale of the league overall lines up with "Bad". I will give him credit for the improvement but I am not going to be bragging about his defense.

I love the irony in that the defense for Lavine always turns to subjectively "personal" and "being a hater" when people bring up objective facts in critiquing him.

[PaKii94]

Let's try to get some better players. Or maybe ones that are here like Wendell, Lauri and Porter can stay healthy AND play well. Zach is the least of our problems.

Exactly. It always seems strange to spend endless amounts of time discussing a teams very clear best player instead of discussing all the other things that need to be fixed.

The exception is when the best player is vastly overplayed, or when the best player ignores the game plan and puts the team at risk. I don’t think either qualify here. Lots of much bigger issues. Failing young players, a loser of a head coach, a dysfunctional front office. It’s actually quite amazing at this point he has been able to improve his game and keep a good efficiency despite the chaos around him.

Declaring him the best player on this team is subjective. Objective facts say he's a middling player on this team at best when it comes to impact.

Kram shares Five Thirty-Eight’s advanced player rating stat, which reveals a very concerning, albeit intuitive, reality: LaVine adds only 1.2 points per 100 possessions over a league average player. For context, Trae Young (7.1), Bradley Beal (5.4), Devin Booker (3.5), D’Angelo Russell (3.1), CJ McCollum (2.7), and DeMar DeRozan (2.5) are all players on losing teams this season that – according to this stat – play a bigger role on offense as a whole than LaVine. Ouch.

Russell Westbrook was worse than Lavine on this metric, he only added +0.3 points per 100 compared to Lavine's +1.2 per 100.

Westbrook averages what, 27 8 8? Some absurd number anyway.

+/- stats almost never speak to whether a player is talented or not. They only speak to how effectively a team and coaching are utilizing these player assets into a winning formula. And that's absolutely not happening in Chicago. And poor utilization can happen even with stars on good teams as well.

+/- goes both ways -- team and individually. Yes it's how well team utilizes a player but it is also how well the player applies his skills to make an impact. Zach (along with RW) are poor applications of their talent (which they have an immense amount).

[PaKii94]

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

I disagree. That's your guess. All I know is that the other players on the team looked better when Lavine was not playing and if you just look at the team's lineup data for the last few seasons it's clear as day. ANY player? Come on now. I would bet that if you replaced him with, say, Jimmy Butler, for instance, the Bulls are a .500 team, at least.. and that makes the playoffs in either conference, most likely.

Now, replace him with Lebron, Kawhi or even 20 year old Luka and the Bulls, IMO, are definitely a playoff team.

And that is as good a guess as yours.

The Bulls were a bottom 5 offensive team, replacing LaVine with a inferior scorer in Butler makes them 10 wins better? Huh?

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that. Yet LaVine playing with similar G-league talent for a full season is a reflection on his ability to impact winning?

It seems like your only counter is "scoring". Is the objective to score or to win games? You can be a scorer and a bad player. Being a scorer does help raise potential ceilings for players but it doesn't automatically make you good.

Jimmy Butler is far and away a much better player and a much more impactful player compared to lavine regardless of "scoring"

[JimmyJammer]

I disagree. That's your guess. All I know is that the other players on the team looked better when Lavine was not playing and if you just look at the team's lineup data for the last few seasons it's clear as day. ANY player? Come on now. I would bet that if you replaced him with, say, Jimmy Butler, for instance, the Bulls are a .500 team, at least.. and that makes the playoffs in either conference, most likely.

Now, replace him with Lebron, Kawhi or even 20 year old Luka and the Bulls, IMO, are definitely a playoff team.

And that is as good a guess as yours.

The Bulls were a bottom 5 offensive team, replacing LaVine with a inferior scorer in Butler makes them 10 wins better? Huh?

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that. Yet LaVine playing with similar G-league talent for a full season is a reflection on his ability to impact winning?

It seems like your only counter is "scoring". Is the objective to score or to win games? You can be a scorer and a bad player. Being a scorer does help raise potential ceilings for players but it doesn't automatically make you good.

Jimmy Butler is far and away a much better player and a much more impactful player compared to lavine regardless of "scoring"

y

You can have an argument based on emotion and bias, but the facts cannot be denied and overridden. There are many players who score the ball in a very inefficient way, which negates the purpose of scoring, but Zach is not one of them. When you post 25.5ppg, 45%fg, 38% 3ptfg in 8 attempts, 6ft attempt and shooting 80% ft, at the young age of 24-25, with all the défense keying on you, that can never be discounted. From January and beyond, Zach's stats got even more jawdropping, which is a sign that his best is yet to come as he is about to enter his prime.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Let's try to get some better players. Or maybe ones that are here like Wendell, Lauri and Porter can stay healthy AND play well. Zach is the least of our problems.

Exactly. It always seems strange to spend endless amounts of time discussing a teams very clear best player instead of discussing all the other things that need to be fixed.

The exception is when the best player is vastly overplayed, or when the best player ignores the game plan and puts the team at risk. I don’t think either qualify here. Lots of much bigger issues. Failing young players, a loser of a head coach, a dysfunctional front office. It’s actually quite amazing at this point he has been able to improve his game and keep a good efficiency despite the chaos around him.

Declaring him the best player on this team is subjective. Objective facts say he's a middling player on this team at best when it comes to impact.

Kram shares Five Thirty-Eight’s advanced player rating stat, which reveals a very concerning, albeit intuitive, reality: LaVine adds only 1.2 points per 100 possessions over a league average player. For context, Trae Young (7.1), Bradley Beal (5.4), Devin Booker (3.5), D’Angelo Russell (3.1), CJ McCollum (2.7), and DeMar DeRozan (2.5) are all players on losing teams this season that – according to this stat – play a bigger role on offense as a whole than LaVine. Ouch.

Russell Westbrook was worse than Lavine on this metric, he only added +0.3 points per 100 compared to Lavine's +1.2 per 100.

Westbrook averages what, 27 8 8? Some absurd number anyway.

+/- stats almost never speak to whether a player is talented or not. They only speak to how effectively a team and coaching are utilizing these player assets into a winning formula. And that's absolutely not happening in Chicago. And poor utilization can happen even with stars on good teams as well.

+/- goes both ways -- team and individually. Yes it's how well team utilizes a player but it is also how well the player applies his skills to make an impact. Zach (along with RW) are poor applications of their talent (which they have an immense amount).

Really, middling impact at best? So he is the bottom half of this team in terms of impact, that's your take? I'd love to see a player ranking then.

Rankings on the team (min 500 minutes, sorry Shaq Harrison)

PPG: 1st
APG: 2nd
RPG: 4th
Win Shares: 1st
VORP: 1st
BPM: 1st
RPM: 1st (28th in league)
82games Simply Rating: 1st

[PaKii94]

The Bulls were a bottom 5 offensive team, replacing LaVine with a inferior scorer in Butler makes them 10 wins better? Huh?

Steph Curry playing with garbage was getting blown out before getting injured, nobody talks about that. Yet LaVine playing with similar G-league talent for a full season is a reflection on his ability to impact winning?

It seems like your only counter is "scoring". Is the objective to score or to win games? You can be a scorer and a bad player. Being a scorer does help raise potential ceilings for players but it doesn't automatically make you good.

Jimmy Butler is far and away a much better player and a much more impactful player compared to lavine regardless of "scoring"

y

You can have an argument based on emotion and bias, but the facts cannot be denied and overridden. There are many players who score the ball in a very inefficient way, which negates the purpose of scoring, but Zach is not one of them. When you post 25.5ppg, 45%fg, 38% 3ptfg in 8 attempts, 6ft attempt and shooting 80% ft, at the young age of 24-25, with all the défense keying on you, that can never be discounted. From January and beyond, Zach's stats got even more jawdropping, which is a sign that his best is yet to come as he is about to enter his prime.

Again I am not discounting his individual scoring abilities. He's one of the best in the league at scoring. I've said it multiple times before that he has the talent/ability of an MVP level scorer. It's the application of that scoring that is severely lacking (the team part). Yes he is not inefficient (honestly he is impressively efficient for the shot selection he has and the tough shots he takes) but he is very inefficient in his timing.

A 40% pull up 3 is impressive at high volume on an individual level. However on a team level, a 50% wide open catch and shoot 3 from a teammate is a better option. That's a net negative on impact.

A 50% midrange shot is impressive for a bailout shot (and multiple stars have made a killing/won chips with it). However, it is not the best option if there is an opportunity to pass the ball around and get a 80% shot at the rim.

When it comes to crunch time and you DO need a shot, either of those would be quality options (and that's where Lavine's type of shots have a positive impact)... but you need to get to crunch time to have that kind of opportunity. Also the best of the best don't usually take it to crunch time to have an impact.

Finally, if it is truly a case of bad teammates, then yes, a scorer shooting his shot is much more impactful vs ineffective role players... but in that case, the positive impact that the scorer has is usually shown in advanced stats (which Lavine doesn't show).

---

^ All of the above (along with his work ethic) is why I remain hopeful that with some more time (and maybe a higher alpha on the team) something will click with Lavine and he will "get it", however, I am not optimistic that it will happen with the current bulls team. The player archetype that Lavine is, usually requires quite a few years to learn the game and by the time they are positive impact, they are past their physical prime (a la Lou will).

[PaKii94]

Exactly. It always seems strange to spend endless amounts of time discussing a teams very clear best player instead of discussing all the other things that need to be fixed.

The exception is when the best player is vastly overplayed, or when the best player ignores the game plan and puts the team at risk. I don’t think either qualify here. Lots of much bigger issues. Failing young players, a loser of a head coach, a dysfunctional front office. It’s actually quite amazing at this point he has been able to improve his game and keep a good efficiency despite the chaos around him.

Declaring him the best player on this team is subjective. Objective facts say he's a middling player on this team at best when it comes to impact.

Russell Westbrook was worse than Lavine on this metric, he only added +0.3 points per 100 compared to Lavine's +1.2 per 100.

Westbrook averages what, 27 8 8? Some absurd number anyway.

+/- stats almost never speak to whether a player is talented or not. They only speak to how effectively a team and coaching are utilizing these player assets into a winning formula. And that's absolutely not happening in Chicago. And poor utilization can happen even with stars on good teams as well.

+/- goes both ways -- team and individually. Yes it's how well team utilizes a player but it is also how well the player applies his skills to make an impact. Zach (along with RW) are poor applications of their talent (which they have an immense amount).

Really, middling impact at best? So he is the bottom half of this team in terms of impact, that's your take? I'd love to see a player ranking then.

Rankings on the team (min 500 minutes, sorry Shaq Harrison)

PPG: 1st
APG: 2nd
RPG: 4th
Win Shares: 1st
VORP: 1st
BPM: 1st
RPM: 1st (28th in league)
82games Simply Rating: 1st

PPG: 1st -> counting stats
APG: 2nd -> counting stats
RPG: 4th -> counting stats
Win Shares: 1st -> counting stats, inflated by minutes/usage. With a good sample of minutes, WS/48 is better
VORP: 1st -> counting stats (inflated by minutes/usage)
BPM: 1st -> counting stats
RPM: 1st (28th in league) -> closest to a legitimate advanced stat...but was recently was tweaked in favor of offense
82games Simply Rating: 1st -> dunno this stat, will get back to you on that but if I was putting money on it...counting stats

Again I said impact. I want the team to be better. I couldn't care less about how many points he has.

Above 500 minutes (and OPJ):
ORTG -- 8/12
DRTG -- 6/12
On court +/- -- 9/12
On/off +/- -- 10/12

With by far the highest usage (31%) on the team (nearly double everyone besides Coby(24%) /Lauri (21%))
AST/TO ratio -- 6/12
eFG% -- 5/12


The stats you shared (along with his scoring volume + efficiency) do show the enormous potential he has but so far he hasn't applied it the right way to produce positive results. If something clicks with Lavine, we would have a superstar in our hands but until then, yeah he's a middling player with inflated usage on a poorly functioning team. His low impact stats aren't the product of the team, the team is a product of his low impact at high usage.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Declaring him the best player on this team is subjective. Objective facts say he's a middling player on this team at best when it comes to impact.



+/- goes both ways -- team and individually. Yes it's how well team utilizes a player but it is also how well the player applies his skills to make an impact. Zach (along with RW) are poor applications of their talent (which they have an immense amount).

Really, middling impact at best? So he is the bottom half of this team in terms of impact, that's your take? I'd love to see a player ranking then.

Rankings on the team (min 500 minutes, sorry Shaq Harrison)

PPG: 1st
APG: 2nd
RPG: 4th
Win Shares: 1st
VORP: 1st
BPM: 1st
RPM: 1st (28th in league)
82games Simply Rating: 1st

PPG: 1st -> counting stats
APG: 2nd -> counting stats
RPG: 4th -> counting stats
Win Shares: 1st -> counting stats, inflated by minutes/usage. With a good sample of minutes, WS/48 is better
VORP: 1st -> counting stats (inflated by minutes/usage)
BPM: 1st -> counting stats
RPM: 1st (28th in league) -> closest to a legitimate advanced stat...but was recently was tweaked in favor of offense
82games Simply Rating: 1st -> dunno this stat, will get back to you on that but if I was putting money on it...counting stats

Again I said impact. I want the team to be better. I couldn't care less about how many points he has.

Above 500 minutes (and OPJ):
ORTG -- 8/12
DRTG -- 6/12
On court +/- -- 9/12
On/off +/- -- 10/12

With by far the highest usage (31%) on the team (nearly double everyone besides Coby(24%) /Lauri (21%))
AST/TO ratio -- 6/12
eFG% -- 5/12


The stats you shared (along with his scoring volume + efficiency) do show the enormous potential he has but so far he hasn't applied it the right way to produce positive results. If something clicks with Lavine, we would have a superstar in our hands but until then, yeah he's a middling player with inflated usage on a poorly functioning team. His low impact stats aren't the product of the team, the team is a product of his low impact at high usage.

Production matters, offensive rating and defensive ratings and on/off numbers for 3/4 of a season aren't going to give you a full picture look into a player's value. Offensive rating says Felicio is the best offensive player on the team, followed by Gafford then WCJ. It's silly to use this data, isn't it? Surely there is more context than needs to be looked at than the data your are using alone. Are you of the opinion that this offense is better with Lavine removed than it would be with Gafford removed?

And if you look at RPM, VORP, and WS, the data is much more in line with conventional wisdom.

Also a little disingenuous to use eFG% over TS%, where Lavine is 3rd. He is also 2nd in Assist % and is middle of the pack in Turnover %, which agrees with the picture we all see, which is he's asked to do a ton.

FWIW, the following I believe about Lavine:

-He will never be the best player on a championship team.
-He will very likely never be the 2nd best player on a championship team.
-I believe he can be the 3rd best player on a championship team.
-He has good value for what he is paid. Maybe you can argue if you really don't like him, that 19.5 is too much. But how off would that be, down to 16 million? I don't think it's sensible to say he is a 12-14 million dollar player.
-He's been surrounded by awfulness his entire stay here.

-The guys that are underperforming need to be looked at to be dealt. WCJ, Lauri, the Bulls 2020 pick should be on the table for an allstar.

I like the idea of throwing the kitchen sink at Embiid this offseason, having an Embiid-Lavine team, and then get that allstar wing in free agency in a year or two.

[drosereturn]

Here's what's hard about the Zach question:

On the one hand we have been terrible, with Zach being inefficient in the #1 option role. That is important.

On the other hand, Zach isn't paid like a #1, nor has there been a #1 on the roster in his time here where he's shown his willingness/ability to be the #2 guy. What tips me toward keeping Zach are that he:

Has a good work ethic - many uber athletes just get by on that. He has improved many aspects of his game since he's been here - that comes with work.

The idea that Zach should be kept bc he is not paid like number 1 lacks logic. Why should we pay him like one if he hasnt dont anything and what are you going to do after he gets paid like one in 2 years which is pretty much now considering the next 2 yrs is literally retooling phase. Now you have a overpaid 27yr old veteran that doesnt know how to lead and discourages defense.
This is the most likely scenario they should worry abt which is why I have been saying to let other team deal with the baggage.

Good worth ethic is overrated if you dont know your deficiencies and work on the wrong part of the game.

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

Well, Lavine was useless when it came to winning both in advanced stats and eye test. When he was out, the Bulls never lost more than he was playing and most of the games it was a lot closer than I imagined. It was when Lauri and Porter was out, they starting to pile up losses.

[drosereturn]

To add to the previous post. Like I said, OPJ is consistently a positive with all of his teammates. From the main rotation this year, can y'all guess who OPJ has the lowest rating with? Yup. Lavine at +0.2. Even a high positive impact player like OPJ can only raise Lavine to a net neutral player.

OPJ is literally the only positive player on this roster that has any resemblance to an All star player which is disgusting considering he was dumped for peanuts. Would love to give him a lifetime contract to retire only if he had health.
But OPJ as your best player isnt going to win anything. Not a knock on him but the Bulls need to find better talent so he can be a sidekick number 2 potentially. I would offer contract better than Lavine's but with similar injury protection provision.

If AK get his Luka or magically turns Lauri into Jokic, I can see him playing the Scottie Pippen role. OPJ has Klay lite shooting ability and his passing is rapidly developing he can become that secondary playmaker anytime soon like Kawhi.

[sco]

Here's what's hard about the Zach question:

On the one hand we have been terrible, with Zach being inefficient in the #1 option role. That is important.

On the other hand, Zach isn't paid like a #1, nor has there been a #1 on the roster in his time here where he's shown his willingness/ability to be the #2 guy. What tips me toward keeping Zach are that he:

Has a good work ethic - many uber athletes just get by on that. He has improved many aspects of his game since he's been here - that comes with work.

The idea that Zach should be kept bc he is not paid like number 1 lacks logic. Why should we pay him like one if he hasnt dont anything and what are you going to do after he gets paid like one in 2 years which is pretty much now considering the next 2 yrs is literally retooling phase. Now you have a overpaid 27yr old veteran that doesnt know how to lead and discourages defense.
This is the most likely scenario they should worry abt which is why I have been saying to let other team deal with the baggage.

Good worth ethic is overrated if you dont know your deficiencies and work on the wrong part of the game.

I have no idea why we're even talking about LaVine impacting winning when there is no standard of measurement. There's not a single player in the league who you could replace LaVine with and make the Bulls a playoff team this past year.

The way people talk about Zach, you would think he was a 12 ppg guy on a max contract who played 14 games.

Well, Lavine was useless when it came to winning both in advanced stats and eye test. When he was out, the Bulls never lost more than he was playing and most of the games it was a lot closer than I imagined. It was when Lauri and Porter was out, they starting to pile up losses.

Yeah, the fact that we didn't such materially worse when he was out isn't enough of a reason for me to try to get rid of him. Like Lauri, I am happy to see what these guys could do alongside a complete starting line-up for a season before giving up. Show me what Coby, Zach, Otto, Lauri and WCJ can do next season (with a better coach)...then I'll decide who should go.