Lets talk Zach Lavine

[sco]

Help me understand where the 190 mil number comes from.

Also, just to be clear on Lauri, you aren't saying 190 mil for him also, correct? Just that the options will be the same.

5/190 is roughly the Zach max contract in 2 years. It might go up 10M or so based on cap increases.

Lauri's number is less since he's only eligible for the 25% max and not the 30% max, his would be more like 5/150, but because we can match any offer, we could make him go get a deal, then match a 4/117 deal if someone else offers. Of course, there are threats of the QO in there too if no one makes him an offer.

With Zach you will most likely be forced to dangle the extra year to get him to come, but it will be a negotiation. In your head you should be thinking 5/190 will be his cost even if there is some chance of it being less.

Let me ask you this. Say he continues to improve his efficiency and defense each year over next two years, he'll essentially be about as good as Beal at that time. He'll be 27, a 5 year deal for a guy like that isn't a terrible MAX. So what's the opportunity cost of doing that? Who are we realistically losing or missing out on with that money.

[Stratmaster]

Help me understand where the 190 mil number comes from.

Also, just to be clear on Lauri, you aren't saying 190 mil for him also, correct? Just that the options will be the same.

5/190 is roughly the Zach max contract in 2 years. It might go up 10M or so based on cap increases.

Lauri's number is less since he's only eligible for the 25% max and not the 30% max, his would be more like 5/150, but because we can match any offer, we could make him go get a deal, then match a 4/117 deal if someone else offers. Of course, there are threats of the QO in there too if no one makes him an offer.

With Zach you will most likely be forced to dangle the extra year to get him to come, but it will be a negotiation. In your head you should be thinking 5/190 will be his cost even if there is some chance of it being less.

I just looked again and realized I was using this year's max number to come in lower.

If I understand correctly, the most another team will be able to offer him is roughly 4/144.

I think a lot depends on this season. If Zach decides Billy is his coach, the Bulls show improvement; maybe even scare a .500 record, then I think there will be room in Zach's mind for negotiation on that high end number. The question is, do you want Zach even if it becomes 5/165 (the bare minimum I could see him taking under any circumstances other than him forgetting how to shoot). I say yes but many in here would say no.

The Bulls are paying Porter almost 30 mil. which goes away after this season. Felicio and his 8 mil will be gone.

Young will have 1 more season at 14 mil. That needs to be packaged in a trade as soon as he proves healthy if a trade can be found.

In theory, the Bulls only salaries on the books heading into off season negotiations with Lavine could be Lauri's salary (assuming they come to terms or match an offer) and 1.9 mil to Gafford. It won't work like that (they will obviously pick up the rook options on PWill and Coby unless they completely wet the bed, which would be a very bad outcome for their last 2 draft picks) but it could if they wanted it to.

That doesn't mean you start overpaying people, but it is hard to overpay a 25 ppg scorer in the NBA. If they think they can find a 25 year old Lavine level scorer with a more rounded game who will sign with them for 4/144... good luck. Realistically, wouldn't they will have a lot better chance of nabbing a top free agent with Lavine locked into the team than without him?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Help me understand where the 190 mil number comes from.

Also, just to be clear on Lauri, you aren't saying 190 mil for him also, correct? Just that the options will be the same.

5/190 is roughly the Zach max contract in 2 years. It might go up 10M or so based on cap increases.

Lauri's number is less since he's only eligible for the 25% max and not the 30% max, his would be more like 5/150, but because we can match any offer, we could make him go get a deal, then match a 4/117 deal if someone else offers. Of course, there are threats of the QO in there too if no one makes him an offer.

With Zach you will most likely be forced to dangle the extra year to get him to come, but it will be a negotiation. In your head you should be thinking 5/190 will be his cost even if there is some chance of it being less.

I just read your post again. You are expecting the Bulls will pay Lauri 29 mil a year but are concerned that 36 is an overpay for Zach?

Unless something changes dramatically there is no way I give Lauri 4/117.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

Let me ask you this. Say he continues to improve his efficiency and defense each year over next two years, he'll essentially be about as good as Beal at that time. He'll be 27, a 5 year deal for a guy like that isn't a terrible MAX. So what's the opportunity cost of doing that? Who are we realistically losing or missing out on with that money.

If you are okay paying Zach the max, then just keep him. I started off my premise by saying these are hte scenarios:
1: Max LaVine in 2 years
2: Trade him now for something (probably less than you think he's worth)
3: Trade him next year for even less than this year
4: Let him walk for nothing

Given the Bulls situation, I would probably be in boat #2, but if you are high on LaVine then I understand being in boat #1. Boat #3 and #4 are the ones you need to avoid.

[dougthonus]

I just read your post again. You are expecting the Bulls will pay Lauri 29 mil a year but are concerned that 36 is an overpay for Zach?

Unless something changes dramatically there is no way I give Lauri 4/117.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly?

I'm expecting the Bulls will need to be prepared to match a max offer to keep Lauri if they want to keep him. If they are unwilling to do so, they should trade him for whatever they can get.

I'm expecting the Bulls will need to pay Zach a max deal in 2 years, and if they are unwilling to do so, they should trade him for whatever they can get.

My opinion is that I would trade both players for whatever I can get because I don't want either of them at those price tags. Of the two, I would probably take Zach, but my opinion on that matter might change by the end of the year as that opinion is based largely assuming they will do what they did last year.

If Lauri has a bounce back year and plays like he is currently playing for the remainder of the year, his deal would probably be the better of the two, but I'm not really anticipating that.

[dougthonus]

Let me ask you this. Say he continues to improve his efficiency and defense each year over next two years, he'll essentially be about as good as Beal at that time. He'll be 27, a 5 year deal for a guy like that isn't a terrible MAX. So what's the opportunity cost of doing that? Who are we realistically losing or missing out on with that money.

Cap room could be valuable to:
1: Garner extra first round picks through trades
2: Reshape your roster in the AKME image
3: Sign future FAs

You could make an argument that Sato + Thad is more valuable than LaVine because they're more two way players. They don't create as many shots, but maybe Coby takes the hero ball role and does it as well as Zach and you get more Thads/Satos.

Fundamentally, you have to make sure you have enough of a variety of skills on your roster. Zach gives you a lot of scoring and efficient scoring, but having more average two way players and not having a singular efficient scorer might trivially result in much better team results.

[dougthonus]

I just looked again and realized I was using this year's max number to come in lower.

If I understand correctly, the most another team will be able to offer him is roughly 4/144.

I think a lot depends on this season. If Zach decides Billy is his coach, the Bulls show improvement; maybe even scare a .500 record, then I think there will be room in Zach's mind for negotiation on that high end number. The question is, do you want Zach even if it becomes 5/165 (the bare minimum I could see him taking under any circumstances other than him forgetting how to shoot). I say yes but many in here would say no.

The Bulls are paying Porter almost 30 mil. which goes away after this season. Felicio and his 8 mil will be gone.

Young will have 1 more season at 14 mil. That needs to be packaged in a trade as soon as he proves healthy if a trade can be found.

In theory, the Bulls only salaries on the books heading into off season negotiations with Lavine could be Lauri's salary (assuming they come to terms or match an offer) and 1.9 mil to Gafford. It won't work like that (they will obviously pick up the rook options on PWill and Coby unless they completely wet the bed, which would be a very bad outcome for their last 2 draft picks) but it could if they wanted it to.

That doesn't mean you start overpaying people, but it is hard to overpay a 25 ppg scorer in the NBA. If they think they can find a 25 year old Lavine level scorer with a more rounded game who will sign with them for 4/144... good luck. Realistically, wouldn't they will have a lot better chance of nabbing a top free agent with Lavine locked into the team than without him?

If Zach can't impact winning well, which seems to be the case so far, then you are probably better off spreading his points around. It's not like he is destroying the league average in terms of efficiency. He's valuable for sure. He's an efficient, high volume scorer, but you might get similar efficiency by moving the ball around and then not paying as big a toll on defense and be much better.

In terms of whether Zach attracts other FAs, who knows. I think team success will attract FAs, maybe Zach is the best way to achieve team success, but that hasn't been the case so far.

Over the next two years, I'm not saying its nuts to think LaVine won't prove himself worth such a contract, obviously I think there's a very high chance someone will offer it to him for the reasons you state. I just don't think it should be us.

[HotelVitale]

I just looked again and realized I was using this year's max number to come in lower.

If I understand correctly, the most another team will be able to offer him is roughly 4/144.

I think a lot depends on this season. If Zach decides Billy is his coach, the Bulls show improvement; maybe even scare a .500 record, then I think there will be room in Zach's mind for negotiation on that high end number. The question is, do you want Zach even if it becomes 5/165 (the bare minimum I could see him taking under any circumstances other than him forgetting how to shoot). I say yes but many in here would say no.

The Bulls are paying Porter almost 30 mil. which goes away after this season. Felicio and his 8 mil will be gone.

Young will have 1 more season at 14 mil. That needs to be packaged in a trade as soon as he proves healthy if a trade can be found.

In theory, the Bulls only salaries on the books heading into off season negotiations with Lavine could be Lauri's salary (assuming they come to terms or match an offer) and 1.9 mil to Gafford. It won't work like that (they will obviously pick up the rook options on PWill and Coby unless they completely wet the bed, which would be a very bad outcome for their last 2 draft picks) but it could if they wanted it to.

That doesn't mean you start overpaying people, but it is hard to overpay a 25 ppg scorer in the NBA. If they think they can find a 25 year old Lavine level scorer with a more rounded game who will sign with them for 4/144... good luck. Realistically, wouldn't they will have a lot better chance of nabbing a top free agent with Lavine locked into the team than without him?

If Zach can't impact winning well, which seems to be the case so far, then you are probably better off spreading his points around. It's not like he is destroying the league average in terms of efficiency. He's valuable for sure. He's an efficient, high volume scorer, but you might get similar efficiency by moving the ball around

He’s also not particularly efficient, landed around league average the last couple years in shooting efficiency and his playmaking efficiency isn’t great (weak assist to TO for a perimeter creator).

But one thing he does have is the ability to create in a vacuum—his team can suck and he can still put up big volume on decent efficiency. His game isn’t that context dependent, which is very valuable in some circumstances but less valuable in others.

[DroseReturnChi]

Let me ask you this. Say he continues to improve his efficiency and defense each year over next two years, he'll essentially be about as good as Beal at that time. He'll be 27, a 5 year deal for a guy like that isn't a terrible MAX. So what's the opportunity cost of doing that? Who are we realistically losing or missing out on with that money.

If you are okay paying Zach the max, then just keep him. I started off my premise by saying these are hte scenarios:
1: Max LaVine in 2 years
2: Trade him now for something (probably less than you think he's worth)
3: Trade him next year for even less than this year
4: Let him walk for nothing

Given the Bulls situation, I would probably be in boat #2, but if you are high on LaVine then I understand being in boat #1. Boat #3 and #4 are the ones you need to avoid.

Your sacrificing draft pick which is not worth alone. He is the best asset and you cannot get good back unless you trade him.
Lauri is basically Lavine 2.0 bust cheaper 4 yrs garpax offered him 20mil. Lesser risk, same reward.

[dougthonus]

Your sacrificing draft pick which is not worth alone. He is the best asset and you cannot get good back unless you trade him.
Lauri is basically Lavine 2.0 bust cheaper 4 yrs garpax offered him 20mil. Lesser risk, same reward.

There really isn't much sense comparing Zach and Lauri. They are just totally different. The decision behind both is similar though. You have to guess whether they are guys you want to pay on their next deal, and there's a really good chance the answer to both is no, because neither is a slam dunk at the price it will cost.

[Stratmaster]

Let me ask you this. Say he continues to improve his efficiency and defense each year over next two years, he'll essentially be about as good as Beal at that time. He'll be 27, a 5 year deal for a guy like that isn't a terrible MAX. So what's the opportunity cost of doing that? Who are we realistically losing or missing out on with that money.

Cap room could be valuable to:
1: Garner extra first round picks through trades
2: Reshape your roster in the AKME image
3: Sign future FAs

You could make an argument that Sato + Thad is more valuable than LaVine because they're more two way players. They don't create as many shots, but maybe Coby takes the hero ball role and does it as well as Zach and you get more Thads/Satos.

Fundamentally, you have to make sure you have enough of a variety of skills on your roster. Zach gives you a lot of scoring and efficient scoring, but having more average two way players and not having a singular efficient scorer might trivially result in much better team results.

The variety of skills didn't have to come from all 1 position, and it rarely does.

You could make an argument that Sato/Thad are more valuable than Zach? Wow. Didn't expect that coming from you.

Maybe Coby can do it as well as Zach? Yeah. Maybe Carter can also. And Hutch.

Please make that argument. I have to hear it before I let this color my perception of every other post you have ever made.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

I just looked again and realized I was using this year's max number to come in lower.

If I understand correctly, the most another team will be able to offer him is roughly 4/144.

I think a lot depends on this season. If Zach decides Billy is his coach, the Bulls show improvement; maybe even scare a .500 record, then I think there will be room in Zach's mind for negotiation on that high end number. The question is, do you want Zach even if it becomes 5/165 (the bare minimum I could see him taking under any circumstances other than him forgetting how to shoot). I say yes but many in here would say no.

The Bulls are paying Porter almost 30 mil. which goes away after this season. Felicio and his 8 mil will be gone.

Young will have 1 more season at 14 mil. That needs to be packaged in a trade as soon as he proves healthy if a trade can be found.

In theory, the Bulls only salaries on the books heading into off season negotiations with Lavine could be Lauri's salary (assuming they come to terms or match an offer) and 1.9 mil to Gafford. It won't work like that (they will obviously pick up the rook options on PWill and Coby unless they completely wet the bed, which would be a very bad outcome for their last 2 draft picks) but it could if they wanted it to.

That doesn't mean you start overpaying people, but it is hard to overpay a 25 ppg scorer in the NBA. If they think they can find a 25 year old Lavine level scorer with a more rounded game who will sign with them for 4/144... good luck. Realistically, wouldn't they will have a lot better chance of nabbing a top free agent with Lavine locked into the team than without him?

If Zach can't impact winning well, which seems to be the case so far, then you are probably better off spreading his points around. It's not like he is destroying the league average in terms of efficiency. He's valuable for sure. He's an efficient, high volume scorer, but you might get similar efficiency by moving the ball around

He’s also not particularly efficient, landed around league average the last couple years in shooting efficiency and his playmaking efficiency isn’t great (weak assist to TO for a perimeter creator).

But one thing he does have is the ability to create in a vacuum—his team can suck and he can still put up big volume on decent efficiency. His game isn’t that context dependent, which is very valuable in some circumstances but less valuable in others.

What is the value of a high volume shooter who matches our exceeds league average efficiency.

Speaking of vacuums, we shouldn't view stats from inside of one.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[pipfan]

I think a core of White, Williams, Lauri is alright, to add a top draft pick to. We can get good assets for Lavine, and we'll see what Carter becomes. Let's say Carter is not terrible, and can be a 5th starter
White
top 3 2021 pick
Williams
Lauri
Carter
with Hutch, Gafford and assets from dealing Lavine, Porter and Young to play with-plus cap space, is a nice start to a new squad under BD. Keeping Lavine is going to get us the 10th pick this year

[dougthonus]

The variety of skills didn't have to come from all 1 position, and it rarely does.

I may not have been clear, but I'm explicitly stating the roster as a whole needs a variety of traits. They can't all come from one position unless you have a LeBron, but even then, you need enough traits from the other guys.

You need enough guys whom can get a shot off when the offense breaks down. This is the one area Zach really brings to the table that we don't have a whole lot of. You need someone who can just get points in isolation when scheme didn't yield you anything. That's really what the Bulls need to replace if Zach leaves IMO.

You could make an argument that Sato/Thad are more valuable than Zach? Wow. Didn't expect that coming from you.

Last year Sato/Thad weren't, but if you go back to how they were in Washington/Indy, where they were competent two way players, then they won't replace what Zach did, but they might help the team more if you find another way to replace what Zach did.

Maybe Coby can do it as well as Zach? Yeah. Maybe Carter can also. And Hutch.

Coby definitely can create shots in isolation. Not as well as Zach yet, but he can definitely do it. Obviously Carter/Hutch don't won't do that, and I know you were just being facetious. If you moved on from Zach and had more two way players, part of the thought is you won't need to create so many shots in isolation, because a more functional offense will spread the ball around more and create less hero ball scenarios. Your defense will be improved and also allow for less scoring.

We won't have a dominant 25 PPG scorer if Zach leaves necessarily, and no one needs to necessarily become that guy. You can make the case that packing the roster with a well rounded equal opportunity offense where everyone can defend will get you more wins for the same money.

Please make that argument. I have to hear it before I let this color my perception of every other post you have ever made.

Man that's a lot of pressure

I like LaVine, I think he's a good player, but he hasn't made the Bulls a great offensive team. You see the stretches where he goes into hero mode and the Bulls offense tanks, he isn't a guy who can carry an offense. If you agree with me so far there, then it isn't a stretch to say that his biggest strength, which is shot creation for himself, is somewhat offset by his weaknesses. He's just not quite good enough to lead a team, and his overall skillset loses value in a secondary role.

The Bulls will need to find more iso creation if Zach leaves, but they will likely be able to improve in other areas if he leaves too. Granted, maybe Zach will also improve in these other areas under Donovan and maybe he will become a no brainer max guy. It is a possibility, but I think he's been in the league too long for me to think there is a lot of improvement left there.

[Stratmaster]

The variety of skills didn't have to come from all 1 position, and it rarely does.

I may not have been clear, but I'm explicitly stating the roster as a whole needs a variety of traits. They can't all come from one position unless you have a LeBron, but even then, you need enough traits from the other guys.

You need enough guys whom can get a shot off when the offense breaks down. This is the one area Zach really brings to the table that we don't have a whole lot of. You need someone who can just get points in isolation when scheme didn't yield you anything. That's really what the Bulls need to replace if Zach leaves IMO.

You could make an argument that Sato/Thad are more valuable than Zach? Wow. Didn't expect that coming from you.

Last year Sato/Thad weren't, but if you go back to how they were in Washington/Indy, where they were competent two way players, then they won't replace what Zach did, but they might help the team more if you find another way to replace what Zach did.

Maybe Coby can do it as well as Zach? Yeah. Maybe Carter can also. And Hutch.

Coby definitely can create shots in isolation. Not as well as Zach yet, but he can definitely do it. Obviously Carter/Hutch don't won't do that, and I know you were just being facetious. If you moved on from Zach and had more two way players, part of the thought is you won't need to create so many shots in isolation, because a more functional offense will spread the ball around more and create less hero ball scenarios. Your defense will be improved and also allow for less scoring.

We won't have a dominant 25 PPG scorer if Zach leaves necessarily, and no one needs to necessarily become that guy. You can make the case that packing the roster with a well rounded equal opportunity offense where everyone can defend will get you more wins for the same money.

Please make that argument. I have to hear it before I let this color my perception of every other post you have ever made.

I like LaVine, I think he's a good player, but he hasn't made the Bulls a great offensive team. You see the stretches where he goes into hero mode and the Bulls offense tanks, he isn't a guy who can carry an offense. If you agree with me so far there, then it isn't a stretch to say that his biggest strength, which is shot creation for himself, is somewhat offset by his weaknesses. He's just not quite good enough to lead a team, and his overall skillset loses value in a secondary role.

The Bulls will need to find more iso creation if Zach leaves, but they will likely be able to improve in other areas if he leaves too. Granted, maybe Zach will also improve in these other areas under Donovan and maybe he will become a no brainer max guy. It is a possibility, but I think he's been in the league too long for me to think there is a lot of improvement left there.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[/quote]I can't agree with logic that is based on what 2 players used to be and what 1 player might become, especially when Coby hasn't even shown signs he is starter quality.

We have a chicken and egg situation here with one of us taking the chicken and the other taking the egg. You say Zach goes into hero mode and the offense bogs down. I say the offense bogs down so Zach has to go into "hero" mode. This hero mode we speak of is no different than the top scorer behavior of any team from grammar school through the pros. When you are struggling to score you put it on your best scorer to try to get you buckets. The weaker the team, the more you have to rely on this.

I guarantee you Lavine makes the team more money at 36 mil than Lauri at 29 mil. You do still have to sell a product and right now I can't imagine watching this roster without Lavine. Talk about a snooze fest. Get yourself a roster of Sato and Thads and see if anyone watches.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

The variety of skills didn't have to come from all 1 position, and it rarely does.

I may not have been clear, but I'm explicitly stating the roster as a whole needs a variety of traits. They can't all come from one position unless you have a LeBron, but even then, you need enough traits from the other guys.

You need enough guys whom can get a shot off when the offense breaks down. This is the one area Zach really brings to the table that we don't have a whole lot of. You need someone who can just get points in isolation when scheme didn't yield you anything. That's really what the Bulls need to replace if Zach leaves IMO.

You could make an argument that Sato/Thad are more valuable than Zach? Wow. Didn't expect that coming from you.

Last year Sato/Thad weren't, but if you go back to how they were in Washington/Indy, where they were competent two way players, then they won't replace what Zach did, but they might help the team more if you find another way to replace what Zach did.

Maybe Coby can do it as well as Zach? Yeah. Maybe Carter can also. And Hutch.

Coby definitely can create shots in isolation. Not as well as Zach yet, but he can definitely do it. Obviously Carter/Hutch don't won't do that, and I know you were just being facetious. If you moved on from Zach and had more two way players, part of the thought is you won't need to create so many shots in isolation, because a more functional offense will spread the ball around more and create less hero ball scenarios. Your defense will be improved and also allow for less scoring.

We won't have a dominant 25 PPG scorer if Zach leaves necessarily, and no one needs to necessarily become that guy. You can make the case that packing the roster with a well rounded equal opportunity offense where everyone can defend will get you more wins for the same money.

Please make that argument. I have to hear it before I let this color my perception of every other post you have ever made.

Man that's a lot of pressure

I like LaVine, I think he's a good player, but he hasn't made the Bulls a great offensive team. You see the stretches where he goes into hero mode and the Bulls offense tanks, he isn't a guy who can carry an offense. If you agree with me so far there, then it isn't a stretch to say that his biggest strength, which is shot creation for himself, is somewhat offset by his weaknesses. He's just not quite good enough to lead a team, and his overall skillset loses value in a secondary role.

The Bulls will need to find more iso creation if Zach leaves, but they will likely be able to improve in other areas if he leaves too. Granted, maybe Zach will also improve in these other areas under Donovan and maybe he will become a no brainer max guy. It is a possibility, but I think he's been in the league too long for me to think there is a lot of improvement left there.

By the way, I really was joking about the "coloring my opinion" thing. It was a sincere smiley.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[HotelVitale]

He’s also not particularly efficient, landed around league average the last couple years in shooting efficiency and his playmaking efficiency isn’t great (weak assist to TO for a perimeter creator).
But one thing he does have is the ability to create in a vacuum—his team can suck and he can still put up big volume on decent efficiency. His game isn’t that context dependent, which is very valuable in some circumstances but less valuable in others.

What is the value of a high volume shooter who matches our exceeds league average efficiency. Speaking of vacuums, we shouldn't view stats from inside of one.

I can't quite tell what you're arguing here, but wasn't knocking Lavine nor am I thinking of him as a walking stat. It's definitely valuable to get a Lavine-style 23-25 ppg on average efficiency without needing any particular system, it's just a certain type of value. On a team that has a great defense but limited shot creation, for example, that could easily account for like a dozen more wins.

But when he's not required to carry a struggling offense, he's still useful but not to the same extent. We could probably go back and forth for a long time about how good he is as an off ball player but I think we can agree he's most valuable as a high volume iso/DHO creator, and that he's not amazing at anything else. So he's not nearly as valuable for, say, the Clippers or Bucks. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance, and think it's important to keep in mind when assessing trade value.

[Kukoc-Lauri]

We will become better basketball team when we trade Lavine (hopefully at deadline). Other players will play better, ball will circulate, defense would become better plus we would get assets, hopefully young player and draft pick. Even this year if we are bad top 3 or top 5 pick is worth it. Green Jaylen floor is prime Lavine and ceeling Kobe light. Top 5 pick is best player on Bulls next season Cade,Green,Suggs,Mobley,Kumminga all have talent for franchise players not like just solid players like White and Carter.

[dougthonus]

I can't agree with logic that is based on what 2 players used to be and what 1 player might become, especially when Coby hasn't even shown signs he is starter quality.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting specifically Thad/Sato will replace Zach. I'm saying that is an example of 2 guys you can get with less cap room than Zach, so whomever the Thad/Sato of two years from now would be the guys.

We have a chicken and egg situation here with one of us taking the chicken and the other taking the egg. You say Zach goes into hero mode and the offense bogs down. I say the offense bogs down so Zach has to go into "hero" mode. This hero mode we speak of is no different than the top scorer behavior of any team from grammar school through the pros. When you are struggling to score you put it on your best scorer to try to get you buckets. The weaker the team, the more you have to rely on this.

If you have competent two way players then you don't need to go into hero ball mode as much and Zach's ability to score tons in isolation isn't as valuable, and you also have a better team defense and more ball movement and fewer turnovers.

There is an overall talent problem on this roster, but Zach LaVine doubling his salary does nothing to solve that talent problem. It just means you have less money to figure it out. Same is true of Lauri. In either case, you need to get a lot better in other areas with fewer resources. I don't think either guy is moving you in a positive direction at those numbers, at best they are just worth their money.

I guarantee you Lavine makes the team more money at 36 mil than Lauri at 29 mil. You do still have to sell a product and right now I can't imagine watching this roster without Lavine. Talk about a snooze fest. Get yourself a roster of Sato and Thads and see if anyone watches.

Wins make the team more money. I'm not sure either player at those numbers adds a lot of wins. We have both now on much cheaper deals and don't have wins.

[Stratmaster]

He’s also not particularly efficient, landed around league average the last couple years in shooting efficiency and his playmaking efficiency isn’t great (weak assist to TO for a perimeter creator).
But one thing he does have is the ability to create in a vacuum—his team can suck and he can still put up big volume on decent efficiency. His game isn’t that context dependent, which is very valuable in some circumstances but less valuable in others.

What is the value of a high volume shooter who matches our exceeds league average efficiency. Speaking of vacuums, we shouldn't view stats from inside of one.

I can't quite tell what you're arguing here, but wasn't knocking Lavine nor am I thinking of him as a walking stat. It's definitely valuable to get a Lavine-style 23-25 ppg on average efficiency without needing any particular system, it's just a certain type of value. On a team that has a great defense but limited shot creation, for example, that could easily account for like a dozen more wins.

But when he's not required to carry a struggling offense, he's still useful but not to the same extent. We could probably go back and forth for a long time about how good he is as an off ball player but I think we can agree he's most valuable as a high volume iso/DHO creator, and that he's not amazing at anything else. So he's not nearly as valuable for, say, the Clippers or Bucks. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance, and think it's important to keep in mind when assessing trade value.

I believe Zach was in the top 80 or 90 last season (depending on how you set qualifiers) as far as TS%. Is that how you are measuring efficiency? That is certainly not league average.

I do not agree he is most valuable as an ISO creator. If the Bulls had a true creator getting players open shots Lavine would still score 25 and would do it at well over .600 TS%.

But going full circle to where I entered this thread several days ago, I am not against trading Lavine. Just need to be sure you understand you are trading a top 10 scorer who can score at all levels. That is not easy to replace. In fact, in the Bulls circumstance right now, it is impossible to replace in the near term.

No quality free agent scorer is coming to the current Bulls roster sans Lavine. Hell, IDK if they will come with Lavine here, but there is certainly a better chance of it.

So we can flip nickels around like manhole covers all day, but it's going to be a bleak next 4 seasons if they don't pay Lavine, and Donovan will likely be gone. At least with Lavine you have a chance of assembling a team that has some resemblance to a playoff quality team. I think we need to take that into account before assessing his value in a vacuum.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app