Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[TallDude]

Lauri said he is around 42% shooter in 3`s if he can stay healty. That would be true some good PG. Lauri has only played good pg in team Finland. NBA miss so many great pg:s. Coby would not be even starting line in best Euroteams. I`m glad that plenty of palyers stay in Europea or China. Otherwise there would have no good international games. For me Chicago is just a city not a nation. So my first option is team Finland and second Bulls. I know u can`t understand it. Lauri is no Bulls player forever but he is Finland player. Happy new year and i wish many good games

[DroseReturnChi]

Lauri said he is around 42% shooter in 3`s if he can stay healty. That would be true some good PG. Lauri has only played good pg in team Finland. NBA miss so many great pg:s. Coby would not be even starting line in best Euroteams. I`m glad that plenty of palyers stay in Europea or China. Otherwise there would have no good international games. For me Chicago is just a city not a nation. So my first option is team Finland and second Bulls. I know u can`t understand it. Lauri is no Bulls player forever but he is Finland player. Happy new year and i wish many good games

Dont worry. with how many doubters, he will most likely join the mavs and become that 3rd option. very excited to prove them wrong.

[Stratmaster]

We started the deep, deep rebuild a few seasons ago. Sorry, I am not willing to just shed the 2 players who actually have talent for small returns.

That is sunk cost mentality. We're a bottom 5 team in the league with these guys on value contracts, how are we going to build a good team with them chewing up all the cap room?

What is the point? Are the Bulls trying to build players to their highest value and shed them at the exact right moment to be able to say what great contract managers they are, or are they trying to win?

My opinion is you won't be able to win with these two guys on big contracts. The point is that while we started a deep rebuild three years ago, it was a failure, and so the best move is to get out as best we can, recognize that fact, and start over. Now if you believe this rebuild can go somewhere meaningful after you have to pay Zach + Lauri a combined 35M more dollars or so, then you can keep these guys, but I don't believe that will work for us.

I want to hear your plan for building a winning team after you strip the Bulls down to Carter, Coby and Pwill, 2 of whom don't even appear to be starter quality players with one too early to tell. May as well just start an expansion franchise.

When someone can give me a viable plan to rebuild the team starting with those 3 players I will be all in for trades of the best player and best upside prospect on the team.

My plan is:
Trade Zach + Lauri for as much as you can get
Trade anyone else that can return picks that you think are more valuable than their long term growth (Sato, Thad, Porter, WCJ are the prime candidates)
Use your 2021 cap room to facilitate deals and try to get as many additional picks as you can
Be bottom 3 this year
Rebuild through the draft

There's no obvious way to get out of this mess. The other plan is keep these guys and hope Zach LaVine is really the next Harden in a couple years and becomes an absolutely dominant offensive player or that Lauri Markkanen turns into a star, or that you just get super lucky in the draft somewhere. If you very much believe in those guys, that's fine. I don't. Staying the course but paying these core guys 35M more doesn't seem likely to yield great results to me.

I didn't believe in tanking and rebuilding through the draft the first time. I certainly don't believe in it now with the new draft structure.

Even the tanks people point to as being successful took almost a decade, and it is hard to draw the arrow from point A to point Z to show any real cause and effect other than if you draft enough players sooner or later you get lucky.

Sunk cost? Sunk cost assumes you have already expended a cost without expected return and can not recover it. Please explain how that applies to my comment.

How are you getting to this 35 mil extra per season number. let's say you pay Lavine. That's what... 13-15 mil more per season than what he is making now? The real increase would be Lauri. But at his current status he would certainly be attainable around 20 mil., wouldn't he? That's a 14 mil increase. So we are at 28-30 mil more.

Porter is making 29 mil per season right now, so there's your increase. Your starting SF is a rookie.

If it's me, I pay Lavine unless I get a significant return for him. I am still up in the air on Lauri right now depending on how he plays and the price tag.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

I didn't believe in tanking and rebuilding through the draft the first time. I certainly don't believe in it now with the new draft structure.

What do you believe in? What is your plan?

Even the tanks people point to as being successful took almost a decade, and it is hard to draw the arrow from point A to point Z to show any real cause and effect other than if you draft enough players sooner or later you get lucky.

Agreed, I'm not a tank guy either as a general rule, but I do think when you want to rebuild, you want to burn it to the ground once, get as many extra picks as you can then build up. The reason why I would make these moves now is:
1: I think we're one of the worst teams in the league.
2: We will actually have to pay these players a ton more money than currently if we don't trade them.
3: There's no reason to think these same guys will move us away from being one of the worst teams in the league.
4: This upcoming draft class is lights out, so load up on it

Sunk cost? Sunk cost assumes you have already expended a cost without expected return and can not recover it. Please explain how that applies to my comment.

You referenced how we're already 3 years into this rebuild, so we shouldn't give up on these guys. That is thinking that we need to extract value out of these guys because we invested 3 years into them. My view is that is we have sunk those years and there is no value to extract in terms of getting more wins on the court. Instead of keep hoping the same failed group improves, it is time to dramatically change the group.

How are you getting to this 35 mil extra per season number. let's say you pay Lavine. That's what... 13-15 mil more per season than what he is making now? The real increase would be Lauri. But at his current status he would certainly be attainable around 20 mil., wouldn't he? That's a 14 mil increase. So we are at 28-30 mil more.

If Lauri plays as well as he is now, someone will max him. That is the threat you have to prepare for. LaVine at max will be about 17M more than this year, Lauri at max would be 22M more, so potentially 39M more. 35M was just a guess, but a reasonable one to me.

Porter is making 29 mil per season right now, so there's your increase. Your starting SF is a rookie.

So we will have the same team, minus Porter.

If it's me, I pay Lavine unless I get a significant return for him. I am still up in the air on Lauri right now depending on how he plays and the price tag.

So let's say you decide to wait and see on Lauri instead of trading him at the deadline, and he has a season equivalent to year 2 Lauri, and you now have to decide whether to pay him a max deal or let him walk for nothing, what do you do? I would let him walk at that price. Especially if I'm prepared to pay LaVine a max in 2 years (which I also wouldn't do, but if I'm in your shoes, then maybe I do). Now if I let Lauri walk, I'm probably out a low 20s draft pick vs if I traded him at the deadline. I probably also increased my draft slot by maybe 1 spot as well by having more talent on the roster. So now I'm picking 9th instead of 8th and don't have maybe the 22nd pick in the draft, and I have nothing to show for it.

This is why I said, my plan would have been to reach extensions with those guys or trade them. Going with uncertainty and being forced to let people leave for nothing or overpay them when your team is very poor is a tough position to be in. If we were the 7th seed, then I'd get wanting to hang on, hope for internal improvement, new coaching, and some luck in FA or the draft, but being a bottom 5 team in the league, there's no reason to hold on to these guys. Especially when you see that it is our vets making all the difference.

[League Circles]

I didn't believe in tanking and rebuilding through the draft the first time. I certainly don't believe in it now with the new draft structure.

What do you believe in? What is your plan?

Even the tanks people point to as being successful took almost a decade, and it is hard to draw the arrow from point A to point Z to show any real cause and effect other than if you draft enough players sooner or later you get lucky.

Agreed, I'm not a tank guy either as a general rule, but I do think when you want to rebuild, you want to burn it to the ground once, get as many extra picks as you can then build up. The reason why I would make these moves now is:
1: I think we're one of the worst teams in the league.
2: We will actually have to pay these players a ton more money than currently if we don't trade them.
3: There's no reason to think these same guys will move us away from being one of the worst teams in the league.
4: This upcoming draft class is lights out, so load up on it

Sunk cost? Sunk cost assumes you have already expended a cost without expected return and can not recover it. Please explain how that applies to my comment.

You referenced how we're already 3 years into this rebuild, so we shouldn't give up on these guys. That is thinking that we need to extract value out of these guys because we invested 3 years into them. My view is that is we have sunk those years and there is no value to extract in terms of getting more wins on the court. Instead of keep hoping the same failed group improves, it is time to dramatically change the group.

How are you getting to this 35 mil extra per season number. let's say you pay Lavine. That's what... 13-15 mil more per season than what he is making now? The real increase would be Lauri. But at his current status he would certainly be attainable around 20 mil., wouldn't he? That's a 14 mil increase. So we are at 28-30 mil more.

If Lauri plays as well as he is now, someone will max him. That is the threat you have to prepare for. LaVine at max will be about 17M more than this year, Lauri at max would be 22M more, so potentially 39M more. 35M was just a guess, but a reasonable one to me.

Porter is making 29 mil per season right now, so there's your increase. Your starting SF is a rookie.

So we will have the same team, minus Porter.

If it's me, I pay Lavine unless I get a significant return for him. I am still up in the air on Lauri right now depending on how he plays and the price tag.

So let's say you decide to wait and see on Lauri instead of trading him at the deadline, and he has a season equivalent to year 2 Lauri, and you now have to decide whether to pay him a max deal or let him walk for nothing, what do you do? I would let him walk at that price. Especially if I'm prepared to pay LaVine a max in 2 years (which I also wouldn't do, but if I'm in your shoes, then maybe I do). Now if I let Lauri walk, I'm probably out a low 20s draft pick vs if I traded him at the deadline. I probably also increased my draft slot by maybe 1 spot as well by having more talent on the roster. So now I'm picking 9th instead of 8th and don't have maybe the 22nd pick in the draft, and I have nothing to show for it.

This is why I said, my plan would have been to reach extensions with those guys or trade them. Going with uncertainty and being forced to let people leave for nothing or overpay them when your team is very poor is a tough position to be in. If we were the 7th seed, then I'd get wanting to hang on, hope for internal improvement, new coaching, and some luck in FA or the draft, but being a bottom 5 team in the league, there's no reason to hold on to these guys. Especially when you see that it is our vets making all the difference.

I'm not opposed to trading any or all of our players, but I just don't see draft position as a factor. The draft itself has been leaning towards being a crapshoot for a long time now, and now the new odds make it that much worse, and that's besides the cultural impact of being a loser team.

I never wanted to tank, because when I was young and did want it (Krause era), I saw how lots of high picks, and even being pretty accurate with them (Chandler, Artest, Brand, Crawford...), Still didn't move the needle. I guess I think there may be something fundamentally wrong with trying to have a lot of pics at once. So I'm actually strongly opposed to the idea of just trying to maximize the number of picks.

If we truly are one of the worst teams in the league which I question, then letting our players Walk for nothing should actually not be something to fear. I currently have zero fear of losing anyone on this team for nothing. I think you have to have faith in both free agency and in the ability of role to elevate players.

our problem which has been our problem since we traded Jimmy Butler is that we simply do not have any good players. even having one or two or especially three good players would really move the needle in terms of this team's competitiveness. But we currently have zero. Fortunately we have several guys who could be. If they aren't good by the time their deals end, oh well, let some other team roll the dice unless they want to re-sign with us on a 1+1 Niko/Jabari Parker type deal.

Literally every one of these losers that we have that people may be afraid to lose or think that we have to pay a lot of money to keep has one or two players on our existing roster at their same position who arguably could turn out better.

I've almost never seen a roster that is more in need of a consolidation trade to simply bring in one good veteran player. if my memory is correct this organization has not done that in something like 18 years since we traded for Jalen rose. Just disgusting.

[Jiipee84]

Not surprised that Lauri is injured again, same season after season. He is not built to play NBA level game for longer stretches and thus he can never make any comeback. I don’t know which NBA team is willing to have black hole in D unless he comes from bench as 6th-7th man with limited minutes.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/261041/Chandler-Hutchison-Tests-Positive-For-COVID-19
So based in your opinion Lauri should have broke NBA's Covid-19 rules and health and safety protocol
and play last two games ( Wizards and Bucks ) after that when Chandler Hutchinson was tested positive to Covid-19.
Are you totally lost your mind if you really think that-way.

Also i can't understand how freaking difficult it is to do first basic background research today
and try found out new updates before to start posting that type **** in here.

Even 10 yrs old kid can use google today so next time do your research first and post after that.
And what comes that calf-contusion maybe it really wasn't so bad as first thought.
Coach Donovan has offcially confirmed Lauri wasn't out of Wizards game due to calf-contusion.
The reason was that Lauri was out due to NBA's Covid-19 protocol because he may have been exposed for Covid-19.

By the way Lauri has got quarantined in Chicago does that make him again injury prone huh ?

[sami71]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

[Stratmaster]

I didn't believe in tanking and rebuilding through the draft the first time. I certainly don't believe in it now with the new draft structure.

What do you believe in? What is your plan?

Even the tanks people point to as being successful took almost a decade, and it is hard to draw the arrow from point A to point Z to show any real cause and effect other than if you draft enough players sooner or later you get lucky.

Agreed, I'm not a tank guy either as a general rule, but I do think when you want to rebuild, you want to burn it to the ground once, get as many extra picks as you can then build up. The reason why I would make these moves now is:
1: I think we're one of the worst teams in the league.
2: We will actually have to pay these players a ton more money than currently if we don't trade them.
3: There's no reason to think these same guys will move us away from being one of the worst teams in the league.
4: This upcoming draft class is lights out, so load up on it

Sunk cost? Sunk cost assumes you have already expended a cost without expected return and can not recover it. Please explain how that applies to my comment.

You referenced how we're already 3 years into this rebuild, so we shouldn't give up on these guys. That is thinking that we need to extract value out of these guys because we invested 3 years into them. My view is that is we have sunk those years and there is no value to extract in terms of getting more wins on the court. Instead of keep hoping the same failed group improves, it is time to dramatically change the group.

How are you getting to this 35 mil extra per season number. let's say you pay Lavine. That's what... 13-15 mil more per season than what he is making now? The real increase would be Lauri. But at his current status he would certainly be attainable around 20 mil., wouldn't he? That's a 14 mil increase. So we are at 28-30 mil more.

If Lauri plays as well as he is now, someone will max him. That is the threat you have to prepare for. LaVine at max will be about 17M more than this year, Lauri at max would be 22M more, so potentially 39M more. 35M was just a guess, but a reasonable one to me.

Porter is making 29 mil per season right now, so there's your increase. Your starting SF is a rookie.

So we will have the same team, minus Porter.

If it's me, I pay Lavine unless I get a significant return for him. I am still up in the air on Lauri right now depending on how he plays and the price tag.

So let's say you decide to wait and see on Lauri instead of trading him at the deadline, and he has a season equivalent to year 2 Lauri, and you now have to decide whether to pay him a max deal or let him walk for nothing, what do you do? I would let him walk at that price. Especially if I'm prepared to pay LaVine a max in 2 years (which I also wouldn't do, but if I'm in your shoes, then maybe I do). Now if I let Lauri walk, I'm probably out a low 20s draft pick vs if I traded him at the deadline. I probably also increased my draft slot by maybe 1 spot as well by having more talent on the roster. So now I'm picking 9th instead of 8th and don't have maybe the 22nd pick in the draft, and I have nothing to show for it.

This is why I said, my plan would have been to reach extensions with those guys or trade them. Going with uncertainty and being forced to let people leave for nothing or overpay them when your team is very poor is a tough position to be in. If we were the 7th seed, then I'd get wanting to hang on, hope for internal improvement, new coaching, and some luck in FA or the draft, but being a bottom 5 team in the league, there's no reason to hold on to these guys. Especially when you see that it is our vets making all the difference.

I didn't say anything about not giving up on anyone. I didn't say anything about sticking wth the same team sans Porter.

I have heard the loaded and can't miss draft argument before. I have watched supposedley loaded drafts yield very little. It is always a crap shoot. Who are your can't miss draft picks?

My plan is to find incremental improvements wherever you can.

You aren't going to acquire an incremental improvement over Lavine as your go to guy, and if you did somehow fall into that and have Lavine as your second option you are likely an instant playoff team with just reasonable moves to upgrade other spots. So, I pay Lavine.

I don't see any scenario where Lauri plays well enough that I pay him the max. If the Bulls really believe, like you do, that he will get a max I absolutely try to move him. I still don't give him away. If the right trade isn't there I make somebody else offer him more than I am willing to match. Trading him for next to nothing ensures your sunk cost just as much as letting him walk for nothing.

Porter's salary has to go. Paying Zach 35 mil and shedding Porter means a net savings of 14 mil per season. About what I would be willing to pay Lauri for his performance to date in his career. He won't take that, so see my previous paragraph.

I put out word that Coby, Carter, Otto, and anyone else not named Lavine, Pwill or Gafford are available and see what offers I get. To be clear, Gafford is certainly available also but his salary isn't going to be much of a filler and you aren't getting anything for him alone. I think he can be a long term asset as first big off the bench, and you won't ever have to worry about paying him a max.

If you don't get what you feel is an improvement at a rotation spot by trading Coby, you keep him for now and play him as a 6th man.... and when the time comes you pay him based on the level of 6th man he is.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

I am for a consolidation trade also, but not one that includes Lavine, because you aren't getting a better scorer back in return no matter who you package with him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

I am for a consolidation trade also, but not one that includes Lavine, because you aren't getting a better scorer back in return no matter who you package with him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm not a zach hater and I think he's probably our best player and very close to being a "good" player, BUT, I am firmly of the mindset that you don't need a "go-to" scorer when you're not a good team. To the extent that I think treating someone as a go-to scorer is actually a detriment to a team. One of the reasons why the BG/Deng/Kirk Bulls were solid. They didn't try to position anyone as a scoring savior the way Lavine increasingly believes he is. Now making difficult shots is important for at least someone to do. But making easy shots or rather creating easy shots is even more important. Lavine is no good at that at all and not really frankly any good at anything other than making difficult shots. I see Levine very much like a Carmelo Anthony type.

[Stratmaster]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

I am for a consolidation trade also, but not one that includes Lavine, because you aren't getting a better scorer back in return no matter who you package with him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm not a zach hater and I think he's probably our best player and very close to being a "good" player, BUT, I am firmly of the mindset that you don't need a "go-to" scorer when you're not a good team. To the extent that I think treating someone as a go-to scorer is actually a detriment to a team. One of the reasons why the BG/Deng/Kirk Bulls were solid. They didn't try to position anyone as a scoring savior the way Lavine increasingly believes he is. Now making difficult shots is important for at least someone to do. But making easy shots or rather creating easy shots is even more important. Lavine is no good at that at all and not really frankly any good at anything other than making difficult shots. I see Levine very much like a Carmelo Anthony type.

I think we define go to scorer differently. Every team has one.

Basically you and I disagree on how easy it is to replace Lavine, because we disagree on his skill level and value.

I mean, why would a bad team need a good scorer? Really?

No one thinks anyone is a savior. Not sure where you got that from. Take the hyperbolic bias out of the equation and tell me how getting rid of Lavine for a draft pick makes the Bulls better.

As far as the baby bulls. They are the exact example of a go to ball stopping scorer that you seem to dislike. That was who Ben Gordon was. You don't remember the Hinrich/Gordon wars?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[League Circles]

I am for a consolidation trade also, but not one that includes Lavine, because you aren't getting a better scorer back in return no matter who you package with him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I'm not a zach hater and I think he's probably our best player and very close to being a "good" player, BUT, I am firmly of the mindset that you don't need a "go-to" scorer when you're not a good team. To the extent that I think treating someone as a go-to scorer is actually a detriment to a team. One of the reasons why the BG/Deng/Kirk Bulls were solid. They didn't try to position anyone as a scoring savior the way Lavine increasingly believes he is. Now making difficult shots is important for at least someone to do. But making easy shots or rather creating easy shots is even more important. Lavine is no good at that at all and not really frankly any good at anything other than making difficult shots. I see Levine very much like a Carmelo Anthony type.

I think we define go to scorer differently. Every team has one.

Basically you and I disagree on how easy it is to replace Lavine, because we disagree on his skill level and value.

I mean, why would a bad team need a good scorer? Really?

No one thinks anyone is a savior. Not sure where you got that from. Take the hyperbolic bias out of the equation and tell me how getting rid of Lavine for a draft pick makes the Bulls better.

As far as the baby bulls. They are the exact example of a go to ball stopping scorer that you seem to dislike. That was who Ben Gordon was. You don't remember the Hinrich/Gordon wars?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, as I said I think Zach is probably our best player, and I made no specific assessment of his worth. Though I think it's self evident that trading him for a pick would depend on the pick. A #1 overall pick, in any draft? Of course I'd trade him for that. A more realistic, lower pick? No, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't max him after his deal is up unless he improves notably, which he might. But I'd definitely consider paying him a lot to re-sign as-is.

I think Zach is a bit more talented than Gordon was but not really any better of a player and probably worse compared to bull's-era Gordon because Zack in my opinion makes notably worse decisions. This is purely anecdotal so I may be wrong but I get the impression that Zach takes way more of his shots earlier in the shot clock than Gordon did. also it's hard to quantify but Gordon seemed to be a much more composed and better player when the pressure was higher such as in the clutch. it's not that controversial of an opinion either. Gordon was a much higher draft pick and won awards as an NBA player.

I think Zack sees himself as somewhat of a savior considering his very high shot rate and usage rate and my perception of him doing too much of it too early in the shot clock.

No, I don't remember any BG/Kirk "wars". They both always played big minutes and both got the number of shots that made sense concerning their ability level. Sure there was disagreement amongst fans on who is better and for some reason by the coach on whether Gordon should start or Chris effing duhon, but I thought Kirk and BG complemented each other quite well.

[League Circles]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

Very vaguely, the caliber of player that I think could reasonably be targeted by the Bulls are guys in the Derozan/Westbrook/Chris Paul etc range.

[Stratmaster]

I'm not a zach hater and I think he's probably our best player and very close to being a "good" player, BUT, I am firmly of the mindset that you don't need a "go-to" scorer when you're not a good team. To the extent that I think treating someone as a go-to scorer is actually a detriment to a team. One of the reasons why the BG/Deng/Kirk Bulls were solid. They didn't try to position anyone as a scoring savior the way Lavine increasingly believes he is. Now making difficult shots is important for at least someone to do. But making easy shots or rather creating easy shots is even more important. Lavine is no good at that at all and not really frankly any good at anything other than making difficult shots. I see Levine very much like a Carmelo Anthony type.

I think we define go to scorer differently. Every team has one.

Basically you and I disagree on how easy it is to replace Lavine, because we disagree on his skill level and value.

I mean, why would a bad team need a good scorer? Really?

No one thinks anyone is a savior. Not sure where you got that from. Take the hyperbolic bias out of the equation and tell me how getting rid of Lavine for a draft pick makes the Bulls better.

As far as the baby bulls. They are the exact example of a go to ball stopping scorer that you seem to dislike. That was who Ben Gordon was. You don't remember the Hinrich/Gordon wars?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, as I said I think Zach is probably our best player, and I made no specific assessment of his worth. Though I think it's self evident that trading him for a pick would depend on the pick. A #1 overall pick, in any draft? Of course I'd trade him for that. A more realistic, lower pick? No, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't max him after his deal is up unless he improves notably, which he might. But I'd definitely consider paying him a lot to re-sign as-is.

I think Zach is a bit more talented than Gordon was but not really any better of a player and probably worse compared to bull's-era Gordon because Zack in my opinion makes notably worse decisions. This is purely anecdotal so I may be wrong but I get the impression that Zach takes way more of his shots earlier in the shot clock than Gordon did. also it's hard to quantify but Gordon seemed to be a much more composed and better player when the pressure was higher such as in the clutch. it's not that controversial of an opinion either. Gordon was a much higher draft pick and won awards as an NBA player.

I think Zack sees himself as somewhat of a savior considering his very high shot rate and usage rate and my perception of him doing too much of it too early in the shot clock.

No, I don't remember any BG/Kirk "wars". They both always played big minutes and both got the number of shots that made sense concerning their ability level. Sure there was disagreement amongst fans on who is better and for some reason by the coach on whether Gordon should start or Chris effing duhon, but I thought Kirk and BG complemented each other quite well.

And I couldn't disagree more on Ben Gordon. So yhere we are.

If Lavine does shoot earlier, it's because Ben Gordon dribbled around for 10 seconds before launching his shot. Certainly wasn't because he was moving the ball.

Ben Gordon wasn't in the same league as Lavine.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

Very vaguely, the caliber of player that I think could reasonably be targeted by the Bulls are guys in the Derozan/Westbrook/Chris Paul etc range.

Would you trade Zach, Lauri and Carter for any 1 of those 3 players?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[WindyCityBorn]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

Very vaguely, the caliber of player that I think could reasonably be targeted by the Bulls are guys in the Derozan/Westbrook/Chris Paul etc range.

Would you trade Zach, Lauri and Carter for any 1 of those 3 players?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I would absolutely trade Carter for Chris Paul...but that contract would make me puke.

[DorO]

Not surprised that Lauri is injured again, same season after season. He is not built to play NBA level game for longer stretches and thus he can never make any comeback. I don’t know which NBA team is willing to have black hole in D unless he comes from bench as 6th-7th man with limited minutes.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/261041/Chandler-Hutchison-Tests-Positive-For-COVID-19
So based in your opinion Lauri should have broke NBA's Covid-19 rules and health and safety protocol
and play last two games ( Wizards and Bucks ) after that when Chandler Hutchinson was tested positive to Covid-19.
Are you totally lost your mind if you really think that-way.

Also i can't understand how freaking difficult it is to do first basic background research today
and try found out new updates before to start posting that type **** in here.

Even 10 yrs old kid can use google today so next time do your research first and post after that.
And what comes that calf-contusion maybe it really wasn't so bad as first thought.
Coach Donovan has offcially confirmed Lauri wasn't out of Wizards game due to calf-contusion.
The reason was that Lauri was out due to NBA's Covid-19 protocol because he may have been exposed for Covid-19.

By the way Lauri has got quarantined in Chicago does that make him again injury prone huh ?

Lauri is very injury prone and the fact does not need google search. He has injured every season, now calf, and in some seasons several times. That’s the part you get eating vegan diet, not strengthen your body enough in off season or not hiring fysio coach - I don’t know which is the most meaningful reason for him getting injured like all the time. Nothing to do with covid which is obvious to everyone.

[ZOMG]

Not surprised that Lauri is injured again, same season after season. He is not built to play NBA level game for longer stretches and thus he can never make any comeback. I don’t know which NBA team is willing to have black hole in D unless he comes from bench as 6th-7th man with limited minutes.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/261041/Chandler-Hutchison-Tests-Positive-For-COVID-19
So based in your opinion Lauri should have broke NBA's Covid-19 rules and health and safety protocol
and play last two games ( Wizards and Bucks ) after that when Chandler Hutchinson was tested positive to Covid-19.
Are you totally lost your mind if you really think that-way.

Also i can't understand how freaking difficult it is to do first basic background research today
and try found out new updates before to start posting that type **** in here.

Even 10 yrs old kid can use google today so next time do your research first and post after that.
And what comes that calf-contusion maybe it really wasn't so bad as first thought.
Coach Donovan has offcially confirmed Lauri wasn't out of Wizards game due to calf-contusion.
The reason was that Lauri was out due to NBA's Covid-19 protocol because he may have been exposed for Covid-19.

By the way Lauri has got quarantined in Chicago does that make him again injury prone huh ?

Lauri is very injury prone and the fact does not need google search. He has injured every season, now calf, and in some seasons several times.

Wendell kicked him in the leg. FFS.

That’s the part you get eating vegan diet

For the last time - he's not a vegan and never has been. I think he's mentioned once in an interview that he doesn't eat red meat, which is super common with NBA players these days. It's incredible how these things take on lives of their own. I think his WIFE was a vegan at some point.

[Stratmaster]

Very vaguely, the caliber of player that I think could reasonably be targeted by the Bulls are guys in the Derozan/Westbrook/Chris Paul etc range.

Would you trade Zach, Lauri and Carter for any 1 of those 3 players?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I would absolutely trade Carter for Chris Paul...but that contract would make me puke.

I thought the proposition was trading all 3 in a package. Hell, I would trade Carter for any of their children they may or may not know about.

[League Circles]

@League Circles I like the idea of trading many for one - getting one really good player for our average players. But who would bite? Usually it is my understanding that getting the best asset wins the trade. Who could Bulls target for Zach, Lauri and WCJ f.ex.? Again, please note that I think the idea is very very robust and I completely agree.

I think the problems are older than Jimmy Butler, though. I think his departure was a symptom.

I also agree with - seemingly - almost everyone that everyone should be available for a decent trade, with the possible exception of Williams.

There is a new management - very shiny new - and we have every right to expect it to be a competent one. We have a new coach, a real coach. My plan, even if it was not asked for, is take it slow. I don't think there is any other way. Draft well, develop well and trade well with what you have. Coach and train well to nurture the precious little we have. In the end Bulls will end up in a good place if the work is put in due to great BB market being able to support the inevitable succesful moves. For now in practical terms it means Bulls must maximize the value of Zach and to a lesser extend due to being smaller parts: Lauri, WCJ and even Coby and do a deal when a good one comes along. But, I understand it is easy for me to say from all the way over here.

As a fan I don't understand the cheering of failure of our players just for that reason. We desperately need them to play lights out, because maybe apart from Coby we pretty much know what we have, in that there is not a single real winning center piece there. If they can be sold high - great! That is exactly what Bulls should be doing for a few years. Acquire and trade assets to gather value to start something for real.

Very vaguely, the caliber of player that I think could reasonably be targeted by the Bulls are guys in the Derozan/Westbrook/Chris Paul etc range.

Would you trade Zach, Lauri and Carter for any 1 of those 3 players?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

All three of them? No. And I don't think it would have been necessary to offer that much.