Lets talk Zach Lavine

[Kukoc-Lauri]

Not trading him means paying him 190M.

Yes, they should save their money for.....Thad? Hutch? No no, Dotson?

For bad contracts attached with draft picks. I would trade Zach for Minny pick. For me in two or three years Kumminga,J.Johnson,Barnes,Zaire Williams would be better two way players who are playing winning basketball.

[netduri2]

Not trading him means paying him 190M.

Yes, they should save their money for.....Thad? Hutch? No no, Dotson?

Giving 190M contract to someone who never lead his team to the playoffs for what?

For competing for the 10th seed in this super weak conference and never reaching to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

How do you build around a player who can’t defend and lack feel for the game to make other players play better ? I’m just curious.

[netduri2]

They changed the lottery rules so now so if the Knicks end up with the 8th seed there’s a decent chance they’ll get a top 4 pick. Also this year’s draft is supposed to be really good and next year’s draft is supposed to be the “double draft” where they allow teams to take players straight out of high school.

If the Knicks include all 5 first round picks unprotected it’s something to consider. I like Lavine but he’s a defensive liability and I feel like we’ll have to give him the max in order to keep him and he’s not a top 15 player.

There’s a chance we could get a player much better than Lavine in the lottery.

Who? Who in the draft is a lock to be an elite scorer and be better than Lavine in other areas of their game? Are there 3 or 4 of those guys because odds are you don't get the first pick.

And even if those guys are out there, first you have to be lucky in the lottery to even be in a position to draft one of them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I don't get it. People are wanting to trade LaVine for a shot at another LaVine.

No I don’t want to select players who cannot defend and don’t have consistent passing ability with our high pick.

I want two-way players who can contribute on both ends of the floor. I want players who don’t take tons of bad shots and know how to pass when their teammates are wide-open.

[The Force.]

The issue I see is that there aren't any realistic trade partners unless GS is desperate to win now. Something like Wiggins/Wiseman/Minnesota FRP for Zach/Thad/Kornet would work but you're banking heavily on that pick to convert. Also, I doubt GS would even be interested.

Most of the teams who would want him simply don't have the necessary assets. And the bad teams probably don't want to mortgage their future for Zach LaVine.

Unless a team like Detroit or Orlando is willing to give up a Jrue Holiday-esq haul, I don't see it happening. We're better off giving him the max and trading him later down the line.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

[DroseReturnChi]

Unless a team like Detroit or Orlando is willing to give up a Jrue Holiday-esq haul, I don't see it happening. We're better off giving him the max and trading him later down the line.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with this is you delay the rebuild by 2 yrs and 21/22 draft is the best one since the Luka draft you do not want to miss out. Your also wasting Williams and other guys rookie contract now your capped out before even getting multiple max agents.
He will command the max but you want another team to pay it not the Bulls. Either way, he will be highest trade value possible with Beal, Simmons off the market so I expect at least a top 5 pick. With guaranteed own top 5 pick, if you luck out with Cade/Suggs/Williams/Lauri core thats a dynasty right there.

[cjbulls]

Not trading him means paying him 190M.

Yes, they should save their money for.....Thad? Hutch? No no, Dotson?

For bad contracts attached with draft picks. I would trade Zach for Minny pick. For me in two or three years Kumminga,J.Johnson,Barnes,Zaire Williams would be better two way players who are playing winning basketball.

No team is giving you a lottery pick, let alone a top 5 pick, to take on a bad contract.

[cjbulls]

Not trading him means paying him 190M.

Yes, they should save their money for.....Thad? Hutch? No no, Dotson?

Giving 190M contract to someone who never lead his team to the playoffs for what?

For competing for the 10th seed in this super weak conference and never reaching to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

How do you build around a player who can’t defend and lack feel for the game to make other players play better ? I’m just curious.

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

[cjbulls]

Unless a team like Detroit or Orlando is willing to give up a Jrue Holiday-esq haul, I don't see it happening. We're better off giving him the max and trading him later down the line.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with this is you delay the rebuild by 2 yrs and 21/22 draft is the best one since the Luka draft you do not want to miss out. Your also wasting Williams and other guys rookie contract now your capped out before even getting multiple max agents.
He will command the max but you want another team to pay it not the Bulls. Either way, he will be highest trade value possible with Beal, Simmons off the market so I expect at least a top 5 pick. With guaranteed own top 5 pick, if you luck out with Cade/Suggs/Williams/Lauri core thats a dynasty right there.

This makes no sense. With lottery odds, no team can guarantee you a top 5 pick. And if you mean wait until the lottery happens, once a team knows it has a top 5 pick, it isn’t trading it for Zach.

And the Bulls have no guaranteed top 5 pick themselves.

Zach has hit an age where contending teams want him, not bad teams. Bad teams at the top of the lottery want to rebuild with prospects.

[netduri2]

Yes, they should save their money for.....Thad? Hutch? No no, Dotson?

Giving 190M contract to someone who never lead his team to the playoffs for what?

For competing for the 10th seed in this super weak conference and never reaching to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

How do you build around a player who can’t defend and lack feel for the game to make other players play better ? I’m just curious.

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

No Bulls clearly have other options with cap space. They can fetch FRPs while they receive players who are overpaid.

While the Bulls signed with Jabari Parker and traded for Otto Porter the Hawks and the Grizzlies used their salary cap receiving players with unfavorable contract. Smart teams can use their salary cap like that.

Plus You don't have to spend 90% salary. In fact the Bulls were surcharged for being below the minimum team salary several times.

The league office don't FORCE teams to pay above the minimum team salary. Even if teams choose to pay below the minimum team salary it will be all fine except the fact that our rich owner is paying fine. That's all.

[cjbulls]

Giving 190M contract to someone who never lead his team to the playoffs for what?

For competing for the 10th seed in this super weak conference and never reaching to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

How do you build around a player who can’t defend and lack feel for the game to make other players play better ? I’m just curious.

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

Plus You don't have to spend 90% salary. In fact the Bulls were surcharged for being below the minimum team salary several times.

The league office don't FORCE teams to pay above the minimum team salary. Even if teams choose to pay below the minimum team salary it will be all fine except the fact that our rich owner is paying fine. That's all.

Ah yes, they don’t HAVE to, so they can further cement their cheap reputation by just not even signing anyone.

There is no benefit is the point. And no, they never came in under the limit although one year they were close.

[cjbulls]

Giving 190M contract to someone who never lead his team to the playoffs for what?

For competing for the 10th seed in this super weak conference and never reaching to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

How do you build around a player who can’t defend and lack feel for the game to make other players play better ? I’m just curious.

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

No Bulls clearly have other options with cap space. They can fetch FRPs while they receive players who are overpaid.

While the Bulls signed with Jabari Parker and traded for Otto Porter the Hawks and the Grizzlies used their salary cap receiving players with unfavorable contract. Smart teams can use their salary cap like that.

No team is giving you a good FRP for a bad contract. The most we’ve seen from the “smart” teams are guys in the 16-25 range. What is the point?

Those “smart” teams you listed didn’t let an All-Star caliber player go so they could take on bad contracts, they just had terrible rosters and felt that was the most efficient way to hit the minimum.

I can’t even imagine there’s a world where people prefer the #22 pick PLUS a bad contract over Zach LaVine. But here we are.

[netduri2]

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

Plus You don't have to spend 90% salary. In fact the Bulls were surcharged for being below the minimum team salary several times.

The league office don't FORCE teams to pay above the minimum team salary. Even if teams choose to pay below the minimum team salary it will be all fine except the fact that our rich owner is paying fine. That's all.

Ah yes, they don’t HAVE to, so they can further cement their cheap reputation by just not even signing anyone.

There is no benefit is the point. And no, they never came in under the limit although one year they were close.

Come on you can just simply google and find the fact that the Bulls went below the minimum team salary in the past.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/250465/Cavs-Warriors-Thunder-Wizards-Pay-Luxury-Tax-For-18-19

You are clearly wrong.

And you are the one said that no matter the Bulls have CHEAP reputation or not stars won't come to the Bulls so let's pay max monet to LaVine.

[cjbulls]

Plus You don't have to spend 90% salary. In fact the Bulls were surcharged for being below the minimum team salary several times.

The league office don't FORCE teams to pay above the minimum team salary. Even if teams choose to pay below the minimum team salary it will be all fine except the fact that our rich owner is paying fine. That's all.

Ah yes, they don’t HAVE to, so they can further cement their cheap reputation by just not even signing anyone.

There is no benefit is the point. And no, they never came in under the limit although one year they were close.

Come on you can just simply google and find the fact that the Bulls went below the minimum team salary in the past.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/250465/Cavs-Warriors-Thunder-Wizards-Pay-Luxury-Tax-For-18-19

You are clearly wrong.

And you are the one said that no matter the Bulls have CHEAP reputation or not stars won't come to the Bulls so let's pay max monet to LaVine.

Ah you got me, one year they were a couple of million short. Well that settles it, let’s not pay Zach now.

You realize them being under serves no propose. The money is still charged to the team. By not signing anyone, the team makes no greater profit nor does it get to carry over the cap space.

[netduri2]

Ah yes, they don’t HAVE to, so they can further cement their cheap reputation by just not even signing anyone.

There is no benefit is the point. And no, they never came in under the limit although one year they were close.

Come on you can just simply google and find the fact that the Bulls went below the minimum team salary in the past.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/250465/Cavs-Warriors-Thunder-Wizards-Pay-Luxury-Tax-For-18-19

You are clearly wrong.

And you are the one said that no matter the Bulls have CHEAP reputation or not stars won't come to the Bulls so let's pay max monet to LaVine.

Ah you got me, one year they were a couple of million short. Well that settles it, let’s not pay Zach now.

You realize them being under serves no propose. The money is still charged to the team. By not signing anyone, the team makes no greater profit nor does it get to carry over the cap space.

I didn't say paying below minimum team salary is beneficial or something good.

I just wanted to point out that paying massive 30% max contract to a player 'only because' we have to go above minimum team salary is absurd.

[cjbulls]

Come on you can just simply google and find the fact that the Bulls went below the minimum team salary in the past.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/250465/Cavs-Warriors-Thunder-Wizards-Pay-Luxury-Tax-For-18-19

You are clearly wrong.

And you are the one said that no matter the Bulls have CHEAP reputation or not stars won't come to the Bulls so let's pay max monet to LaVine.

Ah you got me, one year they were a couple of million short. Well that settles it, let’s not pay Zach now.

You realize them being under serves no propose. The money is still charged to the team. By not signing anyone, the team makes no greater profit nor does it get to carry over the cap space.

I didn't say paying below minimum team salary is beneficial or something good.

I just wanted to point out that paying massive 30% max contract to a player 'only because' we have to go above minimum team salary is absurd.

It’s absurd you think that’s the only reason. Zach’s market value is a max contract. Paying it is just giving him what he has earned by the NBA’s contract structure.

And if you don’t, you will still pay the 35-40M on someone else, whether that’s overpaying Andre Drummond as a FA or taking on Tobias Harris contract. So why not keep the top scorer in his prime instead?

[netduri2]

Ah you got me, one year they were a couple of million short. Well that settles it, let’s not pay Zach now.

You realize them being under serves no propose. The money is still charged to the team. By not signing anyone, the team makes no greater profit nor does it get to carry over the cap space.

I didn't say paying below minimum team salary is beneficial or something good.

I just wanted to point out that paying massive 30% max contract to a player 'only because' we have to go above minimum team salary is absurd.

It’s absurd you think that’s the only reason. Zach’s market value is a max contract. Paying it is just giving him what he has earned by the NBA’s contract structure.

And if you don’t, you will still pay the 35-40M on someone else, whether that’s overpaying Andre Drummond as a FA or taking on Tobias Harris contract. So why not keep the top scorer in his prime instead?

Why do you keep making stories I never spoke? Did I insist that instead of maxing LaVine the Bulls should sign with players like Andre Drummond or Tobias Harris?

Come on. You can do better than that.

If you think maxing LaVine is reasonable then you can think you're right. I think otherwise but that's fine. You can have your own opinion. But if you want to talk to somebody please stop making stories that never came out.

[cjbulls]

I didn't say paying below minimum team salary is beneficial or something good.

I just wanted to point out that paying massive 30% max contract to a player 'only because' we have to go above minimum team salary is absurd.

It’s absurd you think that’s the only reason. Zach’s market value is a max contract. Paying it is just giving him what he has earned by the NBA’s contract structure.

And if you don’t, you will still pay the 35-40M on someone else, whether that’s overpaying Andre Drummond as a FA or taking on Tobias Harris contract. So why not keep the top scorer in his prime instead?

Why do you keep making stories I never spoke? Did I insist that instead of maxing LaVine the Bulls should sign with players like Andre Drummond or Tobias Harris?

Come on. You can do better than that.

If you think maxing LaVine is reasonable then you can think you're right. I think otherwise but that's fine. You can have your own opinion. But if you want to talk to somebody please stop making stories that never came out.

Sorry, but those are the types of options you have. Otherwise, you are living in fantasyland assuming you're going to sign some great player or acquire some bad contract plus a top 5 pick.

If you can present what you think the other options are, then by all means let me know. What are the better FA signings? Who is the bad contract + pick you are acquiring? But we both know you don't have any better options than Zach.

[mtron32]

The issue I see is that there aren't any realistic trade partners unless GS is desperate to win now. Something like Wiggins/Wiseman/Minnesota FRP for Zach/Thad/Kornet would work but you're banking heavily on that pick to convert. Also, I doubt GS would even be interested.

Most of the teams who would want him simply don't have the necessary assets. And the bad teams probably don't want to mortgage their future for Zach LaVine.

Unless a team like Detroit or Orlando is willing to give up a Jrue Holiday-esq haul, I don't see it happening. We're better off giving him the max and trading him later down the line.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

This. The Dubs are the only club that has assets the Bulls would want unless AK were able to pull a Danny Ainge type fleece of Detroit. Plus, it's not like he suddenly becomes untradeable once he gets the bag.

[mtron32]

Unless a team like Detroit or Orlando is willing to give up a Jrue Holiday-esq haul, I don't see it happening. We're better off giving him the max and trading him later down the line.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

The problem with this is you delay the rebuild by 2 yrs and 21/22 draft is the best one since the Luka draft you do not want to miss out. Your also wasting Williams and other guys rookie contract now your capped out before even getting multiple max agents.
He will command the max but you want another team to pay it not the Bulls. Either way, he will be highest trade value possible with Beal, Simmons off the market so I expect at least a top 5 pick. With guaranteed own top 5 pick, if you luck out with Cade/Suggs/Williams/Lauri core thats a dynasty right there.

Really? Lauri and dynasty in the same sentence

[Kukoc-Lauri]

You need to spend money on players and you get no bonus for not spending.

The league requires teams to spend 90% of the salary cap. A mediocre Bulls team isn t attracting any top FAs, probably even middling ones unless it’s an overpay (think like maxing out some other teams version of Lauri).

There is nothing else to do with the money. So yeah, paying a 25+ efficient scorer in their prime is the best thing you can do with the money you have to spend anyways.

No Bulls clearly have other options with cap space. They can fetch FRPs while they receive players who are overpaid.

While the Bulls signed with Jabari Parker and traded for Otto Porter the Hawks and the Grizzlies used their salary cap receiving players with unfavorable contract. Smart teams can use their salary cap like that.

No team is giving you a good FRP for a bad contract. The most we’ve seen from the “smart” teams are guys in the 16-25 range. What is the point?

Those “smart” teams you listed didn’t let an All-Star caliber player go so they could take on bad contracts, they just had terrible rosters and felt that was the most efficient way to hit the minimum.

I can’t even imagine there’s a world where people prefer the #22 pick PLUS a bad contract over Zach LaVine. But here we are.

You will get 2 frp for Lavine and free cap space to recieve two bad contracts one or two years for two more mid to late picks. Alongside two Bulls frp most likley in top 10, Bulls can set them to have two first rounders in next 3 years each or possibly three frp in one year. Than you can package pick for top pick and franchise player. Bulls timeline is not equal Lavine's timeline.