Knicks/Nets Looking At Lavine

[StunnerKO]

Beal or Booker can’t be your best player IMO strong number 2 or at least pairing them with similar talent. Well Booker maybe has another level but Beal pretty much who he is when Wall is there he’s always considered second fiddle

[Leslie Forman]

If you were one of those people on the "trade Jimmy" bandwagon, you should be riding every single "trade Zach" bandwagon you can possibly find.

He's got two years left and isn't even remotely the player Jimmy was. What the hell is this franchise going to do in the next two years?

Ummm Jimmy was a 3x allstar, 3x all defense team, all nba player who led two different teams to the playoffs.

Lavine has not accomplished any one of those things.

If they're trading this years draft pick unprotected, I say go for it. Lavine is a nice player but he's not going to lead you anywhere and he will make you just good enough that you'll get the #7 pick.

I'm not sure what your argument is, because this just sounds like all the more reason to trade the guy while his value is relatively high.

[drosereturn]

If you were one of those people on the "trade Jimmy" bandwagon, you should be riding every single "trade Zach" bandwagon you can possibly find.

He's got two years left and isn't even remotely the player Jimmy was. What the hell is this franchise going to do in the next two years?

Ummm Jimmy was a 3x allstar, 3x all defense team, all nba player who led two different teams to the playoffs.

Lavine has not accomplished any one of those things.

If they're trading this years draft pick unprotected, I say go for it. Lavine is a nice player but he's not going to lead you anywhere and he will make you just good enough that you'll get the #7 pick.

I'm not sure what your argument is, because this just sounds like all the more reason to trade the guy while his value is relatively high.

Jimmy was a tough trade although I wanted him gone since he seemed to be a typical alpha Laker. He was really the closest as a 1st option since Jordan, Rose days but garpax was holding the entire roster hostage. Always welcome to come back anytime.

Lavines a different story. He is good enough to mess up your tank which is why the Bulls are picking #7 four times in a row making it impossible to draft superstars. Never ever a 1st option and 90% he reached his absolute prime and already overachieved his ceiling theres no reason not to trade him when his value is at its highest.

[StunnerKO]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[TheStig]

If you were one of those people on the "trade Jimmy" bandwagon, you should be riding every single "trade Zach" bandwagon you can possibly find.

He's got two years left and isn't even remotely the player Jimmy was. What the hell is this franchise going to do in the next two years?

Ummm Jimmy was a 3x allstar, 3x all defense team, all nba player who led two different teams to the playoffs.

Lavine has not accomplished any one of those things.

If they're trading this years draft pick unprotected, I say go for it. Lavine is a nice player but he's not going to lead you anywhere and he will make you just good enough that you'll get the #7 pick.

I'm not sure what your argument is, because this just sounds like all the more reason to trade the guy while his value is relatively high.

I don't think you can compare the two. To me, Jimmy shouldn't have been traded unless you got something great for him.

I'm fine with trading Lavine if the return is good. I just don't know who's rushing out to give you a nice return for Lavine. If you're trading him for a late middle or late first, what's the point?

If you can get the Knicks pick, then you do it.

[TheFinishSniper]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Thats what everyone is saying about lavine for years. And while he improved. This didnt necessarily translate fully on court. And is reason why we have discussion about possible trade. I am still not trading him for anything short of superstar or #1 in this class

[Andi Obst]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

I don't think anyone doubts LaVine's work ethic. He is definitely working super hard to become better and he has come a long way to be who he is now. Whether you like his game or not, I think this is something that we should all be able to agree on.

My main issues with him are his bad awareness on defense, which makes it extremely unlikely that he will ever be a positive team defender, and his lack of vision/playmaking skills, which will not allow him to be a primary option. To me, he seems to be a willing passer at least most of the time, he is just not a very good one. I wish we could see him with an elite primary ball handler once before his contract ends to see how LaVine responds to playing less with the ball in his hands and more off ball, but that seems very unlikely in the next two years. Definitely don't want to trade him unless there is a really good offer out there. That being said, he should be available for the right price like everyone else on this roster, especially considering his contract situation.

[StunnerKO]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[Poohdini1]

Zach is only 25 years old. He proved a lot to me this season. Trading him for anybody on the Knicks/Nets is asinine.

[King Ken]

https://pippenainteasy.com/2020/07/25/chicago-bulls-3-possible-zach-lavine-trades-with-the-knicks/

These are pretty rationale, fair trades.

The ideas the Knicks fans posted are comical.

Anyway, I do think there’s some flexibility and logic to working out something. I don’t think Knicks fans realize they don’t have anybody remotely close to Zach’s scoring range, and the draft doesn’t address it.

We have Coby to develop. I don’t think Zach fits compliments anybody here. I also don’t think AK will want to build around him, whereas Thibs would be content giving Zach the keys and focusing on his defensive armada. The approach and stylistic goal counts for something.

These were not fair. This line is the worst:

"About the only way that the Knicks are going to be able to pull off a trade deal with the Bulls to get their hands on LaVine is by trading at least one unprotected first round draft pick."

This terrible Knicks team is not trading unprotected future firsts in virtually any scenario, let alone Zach. Yet all three offers have them giving up one or two future unprotected picks. Really?

Although I think the value is pretty close, I can confidently say the Knicks would not trade RJ Barrett for Zach, just as a straight swap. We can make fun of Knicks fans but need to be reasonable ourselves.

You can get mad at me but I honestly don't think Zach is worth more than a couple late 1st rounders. Maybe I am wrong but I think most would agree with me who aren't Bulls fans. Then again, as a Hawk fan, I remember saying Giannis for Horford is a fair value for Horford. That would have been a horrendous trade for the Bucks even if Horford was clearly better at that time, the potential was just too much as well as the age of Giannis who was like 20 or 21.

LeVine is established. I don't see a team being willing to trade a mid 1st for him honestly. Who's missing piece is LeVine? Nobody.

[DASMACKDOWN]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Thats what everyone is saying about lavine for years. And while he improved. This didnt necessarily translate fully on court. And is reason why we have discussion about possible trade. I am still not trading him for anything short of superstar or #1 in this class

I just have always hated the narrative. All because you have a guy that is great player on a bad team doesn't mean he isn't a star player. That's how you underrate a player.

Put that said player on a team that has great talent, good coaching etc and that narrative instantly disappears.

People literally have said the exact same thing about Kemba Walker, Karl Anthony Towns, Devin Booker. Heck even Anthony Davis! It would be silly to think if Bradley Beal joined a good squad, he would now turn into a 15ppg players. It just defies logic.

I have yet to find a player who was really good on a bad team, joins a good squad and ended up being absolutely terrible. Cant find one.

[sco]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Thats what everyone is saying about lavine for years. And while he improved. This didnt necessarily translate fully on court. And is reason why we have discussion about possible trade. I am still not trading him for anything short of superstar or #1 in this class

I just have always hated the narrative. All because you have a guy that is great player on a bad team doesn't mean he isn't a star player. That's how you underrate a player.

Put that said player on a team that has great talent, good coaching etc and that narrative instantly disappears.

People literally have said the exact same thing about Kemba Walker, Karl Anthony Towns, Devin Booker. Heck even Anthony Davis! It would be silly to think if Bradley Beal joined a good squad, he would now turn into a 15ppg players. It just defies logic.

I have yet to find a player who was really good on a bad team, joins a good squad and ended up being absolutely terrible. Cant find one.

Players on bad teams often need to adopt roles that make them look worse statistically. IMO this is Zach's situation. He's being asked to be a #1 scoring option, he's really a #2 scoring option payed like at #3 scoring option. We should keep him barring one of those disgruntled star situations, he's not gonna bring a top 10 player via trade (which, of course we'd do).

[dougthonus]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

A trainer discussing how good his client is? No way.

Though Zach's work ethic in training has been talked about from other sources as well.

[dougthonus]

Thats what everyone is saying about lavine for years. And while he improved. This didnt necessarily translate fully on court. And is reason why we have discussion about possible trade. I am still not trading him for anything short of superstar or #1 in this class

Not sure how much improvement you expected from Zach, but his last two years have been pretty astronomically better than anything he did prior to them. There are still holes, and he may never be the player people think he can be, but he's, at worst, a starting caliber player with another 6-8 quality years left in his career barring injury.

[StunnerKO]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[chefo]

Zach seems like a really good, serious dude. Let's get that out of the way. He doesn't seem like a prima donna, or a spoiled child, but rather a guy who knows he's good, but can't understand why it never translates in the W column.

After his first half season, I opined that the Bulls will inevitably do the stupid thing because of political and marketing purposes and make him a lead guard with super high usage... and if that is the case, the Bulls will not break low/mid 30 Ws while that lasts.

The Wolves tried Zach as a lead/PG for a couple of years, and it drove his coaches insane on top of being an unmitigated disaster. Go lookup Sam Mitchell's comments from way back then about how Zach doesn't know HOW to play ball. He just did not have the technique, or the understanding and just got by on his natural talents.

Zach has obviously put in a ton of work over the years--his jumper and shooting motion is one of the smoothest I've ever seen. When open, he's pretty much money from anywhere within 30 feet. The guy overcame an injury that has wrecked many a career. It shows resilience and dedication.

The problem is not with him, per say... it's how the Bulls have decided to use him and I stand by that old statement. His one biggest weakness is that he does not see the game well, neither on O, nor on D. That's why he can't anticipate what's about to happen, nor see the triple team in the lane when he drives. That's why he does not rotate well on D, or at all many times.

But, he is an insanely talented scorer, if put in the right spots and the only player apart from Lauri on the current team that has 'gravity'. The Dubs pre-Durant showed how you use two players with gravity... and that is, get somebody else (Dray) who moves the ball very well and sees the game, and have these two (Steph and Klay) move constantly, off-ball. That was Kerr's genius and why Mark Jackson couldn't get anywhere with almost the same roster. When you put the ball in the hands on an elite shooter and ask him to create, you actually emphasize his weaknesses (unless they are an all-time great) because he needs to make decisions on the P&R, when to pass, when to drive, etc... and that is with two extremely high IQ players. If you remember, the pre-Kerr Dubs were in essence Klay and Steph taking turns going solo with some David Lee P&R thrown in there. These guys still got numbers, and won some, but a simple change in play style (and Dray + Iggy facilitating) turned them into a dynasty.

That's how Zach has to be used on a good team. The D can't afford to lose him or else he'd be dunking or shooting open 3s all night. He'll have to learn to move off ball and cut and the like, but unlike real-time feel for the game, moving off-ball CAN be taught. And there is evidence to back that up--some of Zach's best games as a Bull came when he was a catch-and-shoot, catch-and-dunk player.

But, the Bulls need a playmaker or two who sees the field well. I was hoping that can be WCJ when he got drafted, but he's been put in the garbage-man role. It's not Lauri--Lauri needs a playmaker more than anybody else on the team. The Bulls need a poor-man's Scottie at the 3 real, real bad, if Coby is to start. In other words, the Bulls need at least two very bright players that touch the ball in good spots a lot. Bam for example, will make Zach look much better, just like a healthy and engaged Otto did for that brief stint.

Anyhow, on topic--I don't see what the NY teams can possibly offer that makes sense for the Bulls. If Zach is used as I described and is a 21 ppg off-ball scorer at 60% TS, he'd be worth the 25-30M he'll get on his next contract, if the cap moves back up. But, Zach as your lead guard and 35% usage is like a homeless-man Harden and that is only good for high lottery most years.

[ImSlower]

chefo, at the risk of going even more off-topic, thanks for that post. I agree whole-heartedly that the Bulls offense needs to compliment our two best scorers with a third guy who keeps them moving off-ball. And that's why I'm so sad about Satoransky. When we signed him, I thought he'd be the low-key starter who became the glue guy for a really exciting offense. Whether I completely misunderstood scouting reports and my own (consistently terrible) player evaluation skills, or the Bulls simply misuse him, I am really disappointed that we didn't see more smooth-as-butter plays with off-screen movement and Sato/Zach/Lauri magic. He just kind of sucked out there. Heck, the player that I saw make the cleverest passes to our scorers the last couple years has been RoLo.

Edit: for some reason Sefalosha and Satoransky are conjoined twins in my neurons.

[MrSparkle]

chefo, at the risk of going even more off-topic, thanks for that post. I agree whole-heartedly that the Bulls offense needs to compliment our two best scorers with a third guy who keeps them moving off-ball. And that's why I'm so sad about Sefalosha. When we signed him, I thought he'd be the low-key starter who became the glue guy for a really exciting offense. Whether I completely misunderstood scouting reports and my own (consistently terrible) player evaluation skills, or the Bulls simply misuse him, I am really disappointed that we didn't see more smooth-as-butter plays with off-screen movement and Thabo/Zach/Lauri magic. He just kind of sucked out there. Heck, the player that I saw make the cleverest passes to our scorers the last couple years has been RoLo.

Thabo?

Do you mean Sato or Hutchinson?

[ImSlower]

Ugh. Sato. Of course Satoransky. I have no idea why those two players wholly different names are identical in my head.

[JohnnyTapwater]

Read on Twitter

I have no corroboration for this report just the consistent idea that I would want a kings ransom.

I don't care, I don't care. I'm a Zach LaVine STAN!