Lets talk Zach Lavine

[FriedRise]

Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.

It's also a vastly different situation. I hated it when we traded Butler (especially the pick swap situation), but it needed to be done because the team was so old and was way past its prime. Outside of the three alphas, our next best young asset was a toss-up between Denzel Valentine or Bobby Portis. It was that bad and depressing.

This time it's different. Outside of Zach, we have multiple productive vets in Thad, Temple, Sato, and a collection of young guys with upside in Coby, PW, Wendell, and Lauri. They're all still so young that it's impossible to guess the kind of player they're gonna become once they hit their prime.

[DuckIII]

Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.

The most hilariously confusing sports media success story is Nick Friedell. As far as I can tell from my exposure to him he: (a) has very few sources; (b) is technically a poor and un-entertaining writer; (c) has no presence or charisma on TV, and is generally a wet blanket, but not the over the top contrarian type who sometimes make it on generating controversy; and (d) is a superficial analyst.

I don’t get it. Good for him though, I guess.

[DuckIII]

Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.

It's also a vastly different situation. I hated it when we traded Butler (especially the pick swap situation), but it needed to be done because the team was so old and was way past its prime. Outside of the three alphas, our next best young asset was a toss-up between Denzel Valentine or Bobby Portis. It was that bad and depressing.

This time it's different. Outside of Zach, we have multiple productive vets in Thad, Temple, Sato, and a collection of young guys with upside in Coby, PW, Wendell, and Lauri. They're all still so young that it's impossible to guess the kind of player they're gonna become once they hit their prime.

And the young guys, frustrating as well all find them at times, have all shown enough in their careers that they are assets one would expect to draw some interest on the trade market. It’s actually possible to build something out of this roster.

The Butler situation had one hope: that he could attract a superstar to join a mediocre team to play with him. And maybe he could have done that. But some people tend to act like it’s a lock. Hardly. Bear in mind I say the following as a big Butler fan, but:

1. He had strained relationships with multiple Bulls veterans, most notably Noah.

2. He hated, and was hated in return, in Minny. And pulled the incredibly unprofessional stunt with the Rachel Nichols interview that was shockingly disrespectful to Thibs, who had Butler’s back his whole career. He bailed on Philly despite having multiple star players to go to a team that had no stat players. Since joining Miami, their roster has stagnated.

The fact is Butler has a reputation as an old school ball buster who ends up in friction with those around him. There is way, way more evidence to project that he can’t attract a superstar to play with him, than that he can.

That is not to say he won’t. Especially not in a top 3 destination market like Miami. But it was a much longer shot than anti-Butler-trade folks perhaps appreciate.

[TheSuzerain]

Zach is making so many people look stupid and I love it.

There's a local radio duo in town on ESPN 1000 from 6-8 PM. They have been against Zach and wrong about Zach over and over since the trade, all the way into last year when they got their own show.

Now that they are clearly wrong about Zach, they are refusing to admit it and have even doubled down. They say Zach needs to be traded but provide no possible offers that would make sense - because there aren't any. They don't do their homework, they double down when they are wrong. Unlike other radio hosts with hot takes, these two aren't doing a hot take. They've been wrong about him from the beginning.

Not the best strategy guys. Admit you are wrong, and maybe people will listen. As it is, I no longer tune into them when I'm in the car from 6-8 as it's unbearable to listen to such foolishness.

Even when Zach was still developing and not the greatest when he first came to town, he was still fun to watch in my opinion. Now his hard work is paying off and doofuses like this radio duo clearly don't watch much of the games and just blabber about their uneducated opinions.

We need to trade for a second star, or sign one. Not trade Zach for middling or late first rounders. He's 25, 7 years of prime ball left.

No one is advocating to trade Zach for middling/late first rounders.

But if someone were to offer a Kevin Love caliber package, I do think we are in a situation where you strongly consider it. Mainly because our core is presently Zach and little else aside from a 19 year old who isn't ready yet. It sucks that not even one of the GarPax draft picks hit in a way where it's a no-brainer re-sign.

[League Circles]

Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.

The most hilariously confusing sports media success story is Nick Friedell. As far as I can tell from my exposure to him he: (a) has very few sources; (b) is technically a poor and un-entertaining writer; (c) has no presence or charisma on TV, and is generally a wet blanket, but not the over the top contrarian type who sometimes make it on generating controversy; and (d) is a superficial analyst.

I don’t get it. Good for him though, I guess.

I completely agree and I don't even hate him. But it's obvious he got in via some sort of connection/blackmail lol.

[TheFinishSniper]

The most hilariously confusing sports media success story is Nick Friedell. As far as I can tell from my exposure to him he: (a) has very few sources; (b) is technically a poor and un-entertaining writer; (c) has no presence or charisma on TV, and is generally a wet blanket, but not the over the top contrarian type who sometimes make it on generating controversy; and (d) is a superficial analyst.

I don’t get it. Good for him though, I guess.

Some people make it in life undeservingly so. Nick is one of them. I can't rewrite my brain and logicially conclude how guy like that ends up in position he is in. It's like he stumbling upwards all his life. I mean for god sake this guy was cheerleader and mascot once in his life.

And guy like that is basically giving you "profesional opinion" on public television what to do with your franchise in next decade. Basically clown for who parties were organized when it was announced he is leaving Chicago to cover up another team in NBA. Again stumbling upwards...

[League Circles]

Zach is making so many people look stupid and I love it.

There's a local radio duo in town on ESPN 1000 from 6-8 PM. They have been against Zach and wrong about Zach over and over since the trade, all the way into last year when they got their own show.

Now that they are clearly wrong about Zach, they are refusing to admit it and have even doubled down. They say Zach needs to be traded but provide no possible offers that would make sense - because there aren't any. They don't do their homework, they double down when they are wrong. Unlike other radio hosts with hot takes, these two aren't doing a hot take. They've been wrong about him from the beginning.

Not the best strategy guys. Admit you are wrong, and maybe people will listen. As it is, I no longer tune into them when I'm in the car from 6-8 as it's unbearable to listen to such foolishness.

Even when Zach was still developing and not the greatest when he first came to town, he was still fun to watch in my opinion. Now his hard work is paying off and doofuses like this radio duo clearly don't watch much of the games and just blabber about their uneducated opinions.

We need to trade for a second star, or sign one. Not trade Zach for middling or late first rounders. He's 25, 7 years of prime ball left.

No one is advocating to trade Zach for middling/late first rounders.

But if someone were to offer a Kevin Love caliber package, I do think we are in a situation where you strongly consider it. Mainly because our core is presently Zach and little else aside from a 19 year old who isn't ready yet. It sucks that not even one of the GarPax draft picks hit in a way where it's a no-brainer re-sign.

Ugh, I mean, by that logic, the only players that are no-brainer resigns are guys who are superstars by the end of their rookie contracts, which are very few and far between.

Lauri and Wendell are easily starting caliber players for good teams going forward in terms of caliber of play. Now there is significant durability concerns with both, and neither project as clear top guys on contenders of course, and yes there is a risk that virtually ANY player is heavily overpaid on their second contract, but these are pretty good players IMO. Coby also is looking very likely to be at least a very good 6th man scorer for much of his career ahead of him IMO.

[TheSuzerain]

There's a local radio duo in town on ESPN 1000 from 6-8 PM. They have been against Zach and wrong about Zach over and over since the trade, all the way into last year when they got their own show.

Now that they are clearly wrong about Zach, they are refusing to admit it and have even doubled down. They say Zach needs to be traded but provide no possible offers that would make sense - because there aren't any. They don't do their homework, they double down when they are wrong. Unlike other radio hosts with hot takes, these two aren't doing a hot take. They've been wrong about him from the beginning.

Not the best strategy guys. Admit you are wrong, and maybe people will listen. As it is, I no longer tune into them when I'm in the car from 6-8 as it's unbearable to listen to such foolishness.

Even when Zach was still developing and not the greatest when he first came to town, he was still fun to watch in my opinion. Now his hard work is paying off and doofuses like this radio duo clearly don't watch much of the games and just blabber about their uneducated opinions.

We need to trade for a second star, or sign one. Not trade Zach for middling or late first rounders. He's 25, 7 years of prime ball left.

No one is advocating to trade Zach for middling/late first rounders.

But if someone were to offer a Kevin Love caliber package, I do think we are in a situation where you strongly consider it. Mainly because our core is presently Zach and little else aside from a 19 year old who isn't ready yet. It sucks that not even one of the GarPax draft picks hit in a way where it's a no-brainer re-sign.

Ugh, I mean, by that logic, the only players that are no-brainer resigns are guys who are superstars by the end of their rookie contracts, which are very few and far between.

Lauri and Wendell are easily starting caliber players for good teams going forward in terms of caliber of play. Now there is significant durability concerns with both, and neither project as clear top guys on contenders of course, and yes there is a risk that virtually ANY player is heavily overpaid on their second contract, but these are pretty good players IMO. Coby also is looking very likely to be at least a very good 6th man scorer for much of his career ahead of him IMO.

They are not easily starting caliber players.

Need I remind you that our lineup with White, Lavine, Williams, Lauri, WCJ has always been abysmal.

And when you are making top 10 picks, then you are indeed looking for no-brainer re-signs. We sucked entire seasons for the "right" to draft these guys.

Lauri seems like the definition of fool's gold to me as he's a man without a position since slow footed PFs are extinct. I don't see why we'd have any interest in committing to that.

WCJ has an offensive toolbox that is basically empty. Combine that with league average physical ability and you're only left with a good team defender. Sounds MLE quality to me.

Coby White has a few glaring warts to his game and has nothing he does well enough to offset those liabilities.

[mtron32]

No one is advocating to trade Zach for middling/late first rounders.

But if someone were to offer a Kevin Love caliber package, I do think we are in a situation where you strongly consider it. Mainly because our core is presently Zach and little else aside from a 19 year old who isn't ready yet. It sucks that not even one of the GarPax draft picks hit in a way where it's a no-brainer re-sign.

Ugh, I mean, by that logic, the only players that are no-brainer resigns are guys who are superstars by the end of their rookie contracts, which are very few and far between.

Lauri and Wendell are easily starting caliber players for good teams going forward in terms of caliber of play. Now there is significant durability concerns with both, and neither project as clear top guys on contenders of course, and yes there is a risk that virtually ANY player is heavily overpaid on their second contract, but these are pretty good players IMO. Coby also is looking very likely to be at least a very good 6th man scorer for much of his career ahead of him IMO.

They are not easily starting caliber players.

Need I remind you that our lineup with White, Lavine, Williams, Lauri, WCJ has always been abysmal.

And when you are making top 10 picks, then you are indeed looking for no-brainer re-signs. We sucked entire seasons for the "right" to draft these guys.

Lauri seems like the definition of fool's gold to me as he's a man without a position since slow footed PFs are extinct. I don't see why we'd have any interest in committing to that.

WCJ has an offensive toolbox that is basically empty. Combine that with league average physical ability and you're only left with a good team defender. Sounds MLE quality to me.

Coby White has a few glaring warts to his game and has nothing he does well enough to offset those liabilities.

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

[TheSuzerain]

Ugh, I mean, by that logic, the only players that are no-brainer resigns are guys who are superstars by the end of their rookie contracts, which are very few and far between.

Lauri and Wendell are easily starting caliber players for good teams going forward in terms of caliber of play. Now there is significant durability concerns with both, and neither project as clear top guys on contenders of course, and yes there is a risk that virtually ANY player is heavily overpaid on their second contract, but these are pretty good players IMO. Coby also is looking very likely to be at least a very good 6th man scorer for much of his career ahead of him IMO.

They are not easily starting caliber players.

Need I remind you that our lineup with White, Lavine, Williams, Lauri, WCJ has always been abysmal.

And when you are making top 10 picks, then you are indeed looking for no-brainer re-signs. We sucked entire seasons for the "right" to draft these guys.

Lauri seems like the definition of fool's gold to me as he's a man without a position since slow footed PFs are extinct. I don't see why we'd have any interest in committing to that.

WCJ has an offensive toolbox that is basically empty. Combine that with league average physical ability and you're only left with a good team defender. Sounds MLE quality to me.

Coby White has a few glaring warts to his game and has nothing he does well enough to offset those liabilities.

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

[mtron32]

They are not easily starting caliber players.

Need I remind you that our lineup with White, Lavine, Williams, Lauri, WCJ has always been abysmal.

And when you are making top 10 picks, then you are indeed looking for no-brainer re-signs. We sucked entire seasons for the "right" to draft these guys.

Lauri seems like the definition of fool's gold to me as he's a man without a position since slow footed PFs are extinct. I don't see why we'd have any interest in committing to that.

WCJ has an offensive toolbox that is basically empty. Combine that with league average physical ability and you're only left with a good team defender. Sounds MLE quality to me.

Coby White has a few glaring warts to his game and has nothing he does well enough to offset those liabilities.

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

This I agree with but with Zach, I see that dude bring something new to his game every year, whereas with Lauri, the dude is the same as he was his rookie year. Still can't dribble, still using that tired drag step, still afraid of the post and now want's the bag. I wonder if he even has a trainer.

[MrSparkle]

They are not easily starting caliber players.

Need I remind you that our lineup with White, Lavine, Williams, Lauri, WCJ has always been abysmal.

And when you are making top 10 picks, then you are indeed looking for no-brainer re-signs. We sucked entire seasons for the "right" to draft these guys.

Lauri seems like the definition of fool's gold to me as he's a man without a position since slow footed PFs are extinct. I don't see why we'd have any interest in committing to that.

WCJ has an offensive toolbox that is basically empty. Combine that with league average physical ability and you're only left with a good team defender. Sounds MLE quality to me.

Coby White has a few glaring warts to his game and has nothing he does well enough to offset those liabilities.

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

[TheSuzerain]

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

This I agree with but with Zach, I see that dude bring something new to his game every year, whereas with Lauri, the dude is the same as he was his rookie year. Still can't dribble, still using that tired drag step, still afraid of the post and now want's the bag. I wonder if he even has a trainer.

See my thing with Lavine is that I'm not convinced that he adds new things to his game. It's more like he's maxing out what he's actually good at (scoring) to levels that I think most people didn't expect (myself included). He's basically a hair away from prime Curry's scoring output for volume/efficiency with 30ppg at 65% TS%. That's rare air. That is why he's a much better player this year. It doesn't have much to do with new things like defense/playmaking. He's just gone supernova when it comes to scoring the ball.

[HoopsterJones]

Bulls will likely have to max LaVine to keep him which I’m good with. Hopefully the Bulls can earn a playoff spot this year to give them some positive momentum to build on next year.

[CobyWhite0]

There's not going to be any negotiations next summer for Zach - either the Bulls will give him the max, or he'll get it from another team. It's really that simple.

And before that Bulls need to go all in to find 2nd piece. When Zach gets max there is no rebuilding anymore. What we do now year from now is where will be 5 next years.

First of all, MAX contracts are rarely the right price for guys...it tends to be either a significant overpay or underpay. In Zach's case, given his age and production, I think it's close to fair with a chance for an underpay if he continues to improve.

I think improving through the draft will become harder for NBA teams when the one and done rule goes anyway. The ability for GM's to rank guys with 4 years of college and guys coming out of HS with any precision is gonna be very hampered, which means, good teams will have a better chance to nab great players later in the draft.

You can only laugh at the thought that Zach on the max means this team is done improving. Or that we somehow can't get another max player because Zach gets paid the max.

A person who actually believes that obviously has zero understanding of the CBA, or the Salary Cap, or the Bulls' cap situation. Which is fine, but why act like you do?

Only July 1, 2022, when Zach becomes a free agent, this is the Bulls' salary situation:

PWill $7,775,400
Coby $7,413,955

That's it. WCJ will be a RFA, but we'll have nobody else under contract.

We can EASILY max out Lavine and still have cap space for another max salary. I'll try to make it simple for those who aren't proficient in cap-related matters.

We'll assume the worst-case, historically bad scenario - the Salary Cap doesn't even go up for 2 straight years, staying at the current $110 million:

PWill $7,775,400
Coby $7,413,955
Zach $33,000,000 (max w/$110 million salary cap)
9 min $9,000,000

TOTAL $57,000,000

Cap Room $53,000,000

[Peelboy]

Nick Friedell came on the nbc podcast the other day and was asked about Lavine. His take was in line with Cowley's take - that he is not deserving of max money and it makes sense to trade him now. If Bulls didn't give Butler who is better that kind of money, then why should they give Lavine that money?

This of course completely misses the point. First of all, if you trade Lavine, who are getting back that is equal to or better? That guy doesn't appear to exist. Secondly, the Butler trade was bad at the time, but that doesn't mean you make the same mistake again. You learn your lesson as an organization and don't trade away star players that have developed well. Otherwise you're perpetually trading away talent waiting for them to hit their payday and never taking the next step at winning. How the hell are you supposed to be a contender if you trade away stars only to keep searching for the next star? It makes no sense.

Friedell/Cowley are among the dumber takes. First, it ignores the obvious - Zach is 25, has demonstrated an insane work ethic, and has improved at both ends of the floor. Even Friedell/Cowley will admit that he's improved at D, and then say things like "if he was just a bit better at it he'd be worth it, but he's not so trade him." But at almost 26, with his history of improvement, what reason is there to believe that he can't/won't make that next improvement? Seems more likely than not, especially given that he's finally under a good coach.

Second, it relies 1000% on the nirvana fallacy, aka the underpants gnomes. Assume Zach is what he is (as wrong as that seems). What's your alternative route to a title? If you get a monster package in return, sure. But say you get a single unprotected lottery pick and a non-star young player. What's the plan to turn that into a title? What FA are you attracting with your cap space, what's the likelihood of hitting on that pick (given that the team trading it is going to improve because...Zach. It's like they just say "Zach isn't worth $35M, so trade him......profit."

Instead, pay him $35M, use him and a team with him on it to recruit, if you need to free up space, do so in other ways. If your plan is "dump everyone until I can rerun "the decision" and sign 2-3 of the top 10 players in the game," that's not a plan, it's a lottery ticket. Far far better to accumulate assets, pay the ones that are in range of being worth their contracts (like Zach), and be in position to move as needed.

[Peelboy]

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

This I agree with but with Zach, I see that dude bring something new to his game every year, whereas with Lauri, the dude is the same as he was his rookie year. Still can't dribble, still using that tired drag step, still afraid of the post and now want's the bag. I wonder if he even has a trainer.

See my thing with Lavine is that I'm not convinced that he adds new things to his game. It's more like he's maxing out what he's actually good at (scoring) to levels that I think most people didn't expect (myself included). He's basically a hair away from prime Curry's scoring output for volume/efficiency with 30ppg at 65% TS%. That's rare air. That is why he's a much better player this year. It doesn't have much to do with new things like defense/playmaking. He's just gone supernova when it comes to scoring the ball.

Not statistically-based, but eye test wise, he's made substantial changes to his offensive game. Driving more, that stepback/pullup is improved, etc. Saying it's just "improved scoring and he's always scored" IMO minimizes the actual improvements he's made. Also ignores the passing and defensive improvements.

[TheSuzerain]

While I'm out on Lauri, WCJ and Coby are pretty dammed young to be tossing away right now, especially when they spent a year not being fully developed. People shat on LaVine for a pretty long time and had issues when the Bulls agreed to match the Kings offer, can you imagine the butthurt that would be oozing out of this forum had he blossomed there instead of here?

I'd like to see these pieces develop, if they come with the work ethic I've seen from Zach, then we could very well see some growth from them, especially with Thad showing PWill and WCJ how it's done. It sucks that Lauri got injured, maybe we could've made a trade deadline swap for something interesting, as it stands, that dude has no place on this squad because he has no heart and cant stay healthy.

Lavine always had very evident scoring talent. A lot of the concern with re-signing Lavine was how terrible he looked his first year in Chicago coming back from the knee injury. He only played 25 games in Chicago before we had to decide to re-sign him, and he was terrible in those games.

Lauri is probably the closest comp to that version of Lavine. He does have scoring talent. Similar struggles defensively. I think he has extra problems because he's more targetable defensively and doesn't have self-creating offensive ability like Lavine's off the dribble shooting.

WCJ and Coby aren't in the Lavine category at all. They are simply low-talent prospects.

How did Zach look terrible in those 25 games? He looked much better than your usual athlete returning under 12 months from a complete ACL tear. He basically picked up where he left off before the injury, which is uncommon in the NBA. He also dueled head-to-head with Jimmy in that impressive win against the Thibs Wolves. The only concern was paying big guaranteed money for a guy fresh off an ACL injury after having just paid the super max for Rose's 3-year ACL recovery. It was a no-brainer matching the Kings' $20m RFA offer from a basketball POV. He was low-IQ with bad defensive skills, but at 20m on a tank job, you're not gunning for Lebron.

The question was whether he was a core player, or a pump-and-dump asset. Up until this year, it was largely looking like the latter IMO. So I don't necessarily think he was a different asset than the rest of the guys. Main thing we keep coming back to , is that guys under 24 are judged way too harshly. A starting line-up of sub-24 guys has no business winning NBA games. Don't get me wrong, I'd trade Wendell and Coby for a lotto pick, but their value isn't there. They're going to improve, particularly Coby, so it also doesn't make sense to dump him for the hell of it. I don't know what games you are watching but Wendell and Coby have been adding skills and improving in most areas. Not expecting the moon, but they're steadily expanding.

Coby has potentially elite skill. Sure, he might flame out and stay a low-% no-position combo guard; or he might elevate his efficiency like FVV did. Kind of silly writing him off; he's barely played 82 games, and the Covid-shortened Boylen season was about the strangest rookie season you could have.

But I don't see how Lauri is comparable to Zach's pre-RFA/Bulls stint. If Lauri tore his ACL, I'm not sure if he'd even get offered a NBA contract. He'd go from being a spot-up shooter with bad defense and rebounding to a spot-up shooter with unplayable defense at the PF position. It's just a bummer that he has not developed any part of his game at all, except improving his 3P% and TS in small-sample size (to what it should've been all along).

Wendell and Lauri are a wash to me. If Lauri was on his 3rd year, I'd go easier on him. Unfortunately 4 seasons is a long time to show very poor growth as a player. Wendell is at least showing some signs of why he was drafted (though, all in all he is a very disappointing #7; he does have a year to show more, and atleast he did demonstrate that he is in fact much more valuable than Gafford and the GarPax scrap-heap). A "skilled shooter" demonstrating skilled shooting in his 4th year is a pretty disappointing return. His rebounding, blocking, post-game are way below NBA standards.

You clearly don't remember those 25 games if you are questioning whether Zach looked terrible or not. Hint: he looked terrible.

What is Coby's elite skill? Elite is a big word. Maybe Coby could be considered an elite shooter in the 2000s but not anymore barring some extreme improvement. The new group of 3-point specialists like Harris/Duncan Robinson have changed the definition of elite.

It's Lavine and not much else in terms of actual assets. Pat Williams is an asset but that's mostly to do with future projection rather than actual on-court goodness. The comparison to the Butler situation is more apt than I think many on this forum will admit due to the dissonance between wanting to move on from Butler and now arguing we should keep/pay Lavine.

Also I was glancing at that last Bull's roster with Butler, and the McDermott trade does not get enough hate. We traded McDermott, Taj Gibson, and the pick that would become MITCHELL ROBINSON for Cam Payne. That's shocking. McDermott would probably start for us this year.

[mtron32]

This I agree with but with Zach, I see that dude bring something new to his game every year, whereas with Lauri, the dude is the same as he was his rookie year. Still can't dribble, still using that tired drag step, still afraid of the post and now want's the bag. I wonder if he even has a trainer.

See my thing with Lavine is that I'm not convinced that he adds new things to his game. It's more like he's maxing out what he's actually good at (scoring) to levels that I think most people didn't expect (myself included). He's basically a hair away from prime Curry's scoring output for volume/efficiency with 30ppg at 65% TS%. That's rare air. That is why he's a much better player this year. It doesn't have much to do with new things like defense/playmaking. He's just gone supernova when it comes to scoring the ball.

Not statistically-based, but eye test wise, he's made substantial changes to his offensive game. Driving more, that stepback/pullup is improved, etc. Saying it's just "improved scoring and he's always scored" IMO minimizes the actual improvements he's made. Also ignores the passing and defensive improvements.

Exactly, I'd also add his decision making has gotten better though I still want to rage once every few games where it used to be once per night. I think even those lapses will drop further when and if he gets a solid co pilot.

[CobyWhite0]

This I agree with but with Zach, I see that dude bring something new to his game every year, whereas with Lauri, the dude is the same as he was his rookie year. Still can't dribble, still using that tired drag step, still afraid of the post and now want's the bag. I wonder if he even has a trainer.

See my thing with Lavine is that I'm not convinced that he adds new things to his game. It's more like he's maxing out what he's actually good at (scoring) to levels that I think most people didn't expect (myself included). He's basically a hair away from prime Curry's scoring output for volume/efficiency with 30ppg at 65% TS%. That's rare air. That is why he's a much better player this year. It doesn't have much to do with new things like defense/playmaking. He's just gone supernova when it comes to scoring the ball.

Not statistically-based, but eye test wise, he's made substantial changes to his offensive game. Driving more, that stepback/pullup is improved, etc. Saying it's just "improved scoring and he's always scored" IMO minimizes the actual improvements he's made. Also ignores the passing and defensive improvements.

100% spot on. If you can't see that, you're not watching the games.