Assembling Core 2.0

[coldfish]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2020.html

You can easily go through the draft history there. I encourage people to actually go year by year. Don't just focus on Luka Doncic. Look at all of the relatively mediocre players taken in the top of the draft. Its far more of a crap shoot then people want to admit.

You don't win in the NBA by tanking. Its a fairy tale that has been made obsolete by the CBA changes over the years.

[TheSuzerain]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2020.html

You can easily go through the draft history there. I encourage people to actually go year by year. Don't just focus on Luka Doncic. Look at all of the relatively mediocre players taken in the top of the draft. Its far more of a crap shoot then people want to admit.

You don't win in the NBA by tanking. Its a fairy tale that has been made obsolete by the CBA changes over the years.

Of course there is risk at the top of the draft. Don't really see anyone saying otherwise. There is no risk-free way to build a contender.

But you want to talk fairy tales? How about creating a contender with Lavine, Markkanen, PWill, Coby, and WCJ as the core?

[coldfish]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2020.html

You can easily go through the draft history there. I encourage people to actually go year by year. Don't just focus on Luka Doncic. Look at all of the relatively mediocre players taken in the top of the draft. Its far more of a crap shoot then people want to admit.

You don't win in the NBA by tanking. Its a fairy tale that has been made obsolete by the CBA changes over the years.

Of course there is risk at the top of the draft. Don't really see anyone saying otherwise. There is no risk-free way to build a contender.

But you want to talk fairy tales? How about creating a contender with Lavine, Markkanen, PWill, Coby, and WCJ as the core?

Oh, I don't think they have a shot. I just advocate pump and trade. Most teams win with players someone else drafted. Who those players are and what the trades are . . . well, is above my paygrade.

[TheSuzerain]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2020.html

You can easily go through the draft history there. I encourage people to actually go year by year. Don't just focus on Luka Doncic. Look at all of the relatively mediocre players taken in the top of the draft. Its far more of a crap shoot then people want to admit.

You don't win in the NBA by tanking. Its a fairy tale that has been made obsolete by the CBA changes over the years.

Of course there is risk at the top of the draft. Don't really see anyone saying otherwise. There is no risk-free way to build a contender.

But you want to talk fairy tales? How about creating a contender with Lavine, Markkanen, PWill, Coby, and WCJ as the core?

Oh, I don't think they have a shot. I just advocate pump and trade. Most teams win with players someone else drafted. Who those players are and what the trades are . . . well, is above my paygrade.

I basically am advocating for pump and trade. I actually think the pump phase has gone surprisingly well for Lauri/Lavine.

It smacks of hubris to me to think that AK can basically take a situation that got GarPax fired (despite their open chumminess with the Reinsdorfs) and turn that into an actual good situation via internal development and trading players-for-players.

I want to reset this once for AK (trade off Core 1.0) and then we build up from there and leave "tanking" entirely in the rear-view mirror.

[coldfish]

Of course there is risk at the top of the draft. Don't really see anyone saying otherwise. There is no risk-free way to build a contender.

But you want to talk fairy tales? How about creating a contender with Lavine, Markkanen, PWill, Coby, and WCJ as the core?

Oh, I don't think they have a shot. I just advocate pump and trade. Most teams win with players someone else drafted. Who those players are and what the trades are . . . well, is above my paygrade.

I basically am advocating for pump and trade. I actually think the pump phase has gone surprisingly well for Lauri/Lavine.

It smacks of hubris to me to think that AK can basically take a situation that got GarPax fired (despite their open chumminess with the Reinsdorfs) and turn that into an actual good situation via internal development and trading players-for-players.

I want to reset this once for AK (trade off Core 1.0) and then we build up from there and leave "tanking" entirely in the rear-view mirror.

IMO, 1 of 2 things is going to happen here:
- The Bulls are going to continue to struggle up to the trade deadline being around the 6th or 7th worst record. If that happens, maybe you make some small moves to try to get a slightly better pick and you get the lottery pick many want.
- The Bulls somehow turn this around by winning the close games instead of losing every one of them. If that happens, you can't fall in love with anyone on the team but people like Lavine should have massive trade value. A prospect plus 5 picks and pick swaps. I wouldn't dump him for a pick or two. Same idea to a lesser degree with Lauri. Wendell and Coby . . . . well, they are tradeable but I still wouldn't dump them.

I just can't overstate my aversion to giving away these players for virtually nothing just to improve the draft pick by a slot or two. The difference in draft pick value just isn't there to justify that.

[Andi Obst]

Definitely in on THT now. He has impressed me so far + I‘m willing to bet on young wings with his tools.

[TheSuzerain]

Oh, I don't think they have a shot. I just advocate pump and trade. Most teams win with players someone else drafted. Who those players are and what the trades are . . . well, is above my paygrade.

I basically am advocating for pump and trade. I actually think the pump phase has gone surprisingly well for Lauri/Lavine.

It smacks of hubris to me to think that AK can basically take a situation that got GarPax fired (despite their open chumminess with the Reinsdorfs) and turn that into an actual good situation via internal development and trading players-for-players.

I want to reset this once for AK (trade off Core 1.0) and then we build up from there and leave "tanking" entirely in the rear-view mirror.

IMO, 1 of 2 things is going to happen here:
- The Bulls are going to continue to struggle up to the trade deadline being around the 6th or 7th worst record. If that happens, maybe you make some small moves to try to get a slightly better pick and you get the lottery pick many want.
- The Bulls somehow turn this around by winning the close games instead of losing every one of them. If that happens, you can't fall in love with anyone on the team but people like Lavine should have massive trade value. A prospect plus 5 picks and pick swaps. I wouldn't dump him for a pick or two. Same idea to a lesser degree with Lauri. Wendell and Coby . . . . well, they are tradeable but I still wouldn't dump them.

I just can't overstate my aversion to giving away these players for virtually nothing just to improve the draft pick by a slot or two. The difference in draft pick value just isn't there to justify that.

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

[coldfish]

I basically am advocating for pump and trade. I actually think the pump phase has gone surprisingly well for Lauri/Lavine.

It smacks of hubris to me to think that AK can basically take a situation that got GarPax fired (despite their open chumminess with the Reinsdorfs) and turn that into an actual good situation via internal development and trading players-for-players.

I want to reset this once for AK (trade off Core 1.0) and then we build up from there and leave "tanking" entirely in the rear-view mirror.

IMO, 1 of 2 things is going to happen here:
- The Bulls are going to continue to struggle up to the trade deadline being around the 6th or 7th worst record. If that happens, maybe you make some small moves to try to get a slightly better pick and you get the lottery pick many want.
- The Bulls somehow turn this around by winning the close games instead of losing every one of them. If that happens, you can't fall in love with anyone on the team but people like Lavine should have massive trade value. A prospect plus 5 picks and pick swaps. I wouldn't dump him for a pick or two. Same idea to a lesser degree with Lauri. Wendell and Coby . . . . well, they are tradeable but I still wouldn't dump them.

I just can't overstate my aversion to giving away these players for virtually nothing just to improve the draft pick by a slot or two. The difference in draft pick value just isn't there to justify that.

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

[Pax for Prez]

IMO, 1 of 2 things is going to happen here:
- The Bulls are going to continue to struggle up to the trade deadline being around the 6th or 7th worst record. If that happens, maybe you make some small moves to try to get a slightly better pick and you get the lottery pick many want.
- The Bulls somehow turn this around by winning the close games instead of losing every one of them. If that happens, you can't fall in love with anyone on the team but people like Lavine should have massive trade value. A prospect plus 5 picks and pick swaps. I wouldn't dump him for a pick or two. Same idea to a lesser degree with Lauri. Wendell and Coby . . . . well, they are tradeable but I still wouldn't dump them.

I just can't overstate my aversion to giving away these players for virtually nothing just to improve the draft pick by a slot or two. The difference in draft pick value just isn't there to justify that.

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe and also Adams

[TheSuzerain]

IMO, 1 of 2 things is going to happen here:
- The Bulls are going to continue to struggle up to the trade deadline being around the 6th or 7th worst record. If that happens, maybe you make some small moves to try to get a slightly better pick and you get the lottery pick many want.
- The Bulls somehow turn this around by winning the close games instead of losing every one of them. If that happens, you can't fall in love with anyone on the team but people like Lavine should have massive trade value. A prospect plus 5 picks and pick swaps. I wouldn't dump him for a pick or two. Same idea to a lesser degree with Lauri. Wendell and Coby . . . . well, they are tradeable but I still wouldn't dump them.

I just can't overstate my aversion to giving away these players for virtually nothing just to improve the draft pick by a slot or two. The difference in draft pick value just isn't there to justify that.

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

[Chi town]

From GB

The problem for most teams, though, is that under what is known as the “Gilbert Arenas rule,” the Lakers will be in position to give Horton-Tucker a bigger deal, starting around $10.5 million. Opposing teams, though, will be limited by the mid-level exception which, if it comes in at about what it was this year, will be a bit more than $9 million. Advantage, Lakers.

But there is a quirk in the rules that allows for a third-year balloon payment worth as much as the maximum salary, with a raise in the fourth year. So a team could potentially pay Horton-Tucker $9 million in the first year, $10 million in the second year, then jump to more than $30 million in the third year and about $32 million in the fourth year.


Would AK pay 4/83M? You'd have to think Lebron would force Lakers to match.

What could Bulls do after that with the rest of their money?

Bring home the Chicago kid... THT!

If the Lakers match, it would be extremely costly to them.

Even if THT is only making $10 million the first two years, that could easily be $20 million per year or more after Luxury tax is accounted for. And then in years 3/4, they'd have to pay him $30 million+ per year before even accounting for lux tax.

Hey maybe they will match, but we should absolutely offer it to THT. He's a starting caliber 20 year old that projects as plus on both ends.

Lakers won’t be able to match because he’s a RFA. They could always trade him when his cap hit goes way up in year 3 and 4.

I agree that he’s the best fit and value in FA. He has good upside for the risk too. He fits the modern NbA to a t. Screwing Lebron would be great too.

I just see the Lakers paying and then trading him if Lebron falls off a cliff. Or keeping him on a value deal to rebuild w AD. It makes no sense to not resign him for them.

[Chi town]

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

You don’t trade Zach at the deadline. No way. You have to know where those picks end up. It’s a 5 player draft w a big drop off after.

Knicks and Thibs would overpay this summer.
IQ NYK Pick and Dal pick for starters. One of those picks would have to be top 5. Both top 10.

I think AK will attract or trade for another player on Zach’s level to try and win.

[Chi town]

From GB

The problem for most teams, though, is that under what is known as the “Gilbert Arenas rule,” the Lakers will be in position to give Horton-Tucker a bigger deal, starting around $10.5 million. Opposing teams, though, will be limited by the mid-level exception which, if it comes in at about what it was this year, will be a bit more than $9 million. Advantage, Lakers.

But there is a quirk in the rules that allows for a third-year balloon payment worth as much as the maximum salary, with a raise in the fourth year. So a team could potentially pay Horton-Tucker $9 million in the first year, $10 million in the second year, then jump to more than $30 million in the third year and about $32 million in the fourth year.


Would AK pay 4/83M? You'd have to think Lebron would force Lakers to match.

What could Bulls do after that with the rest of their money?

Bring home the Chicago kid... THT!

If the Lakers match, it would be extremely costly to them.

Even if THT is only making $10 million the first two years, that could easily be $20 million per year or more after Luxury tax is accounted for. And then in years 3/4, they'd have to pay him $30 million+ per year before even accounting for lux tax.

Hey maybe they will match, but we should absolutely offer it to THT. He's a starting caliber 20 year old that projects as plus on both ends.

Lakers won’t be able to match because he’s not a RFA. They could always trade him when his cap hit goes way up in year 3 and 4.

I agree that he’s the best fit and value in FA. He has good upside for the risk too. He fits the modern NbA to a t. Screwing Lebron would be great too.

I just see the Lakers paying and then trading him if Lebron falls off a cliff. Or keeping him on a value deal to rebuild w AD. It makes no sense to not resign him for them.

[TheSuzerain]

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

You don’t trade Zach at the deadline. No way. You have to know where those picks end up. It’s a 5 player draft w a big drop off after.

Knicks and Thibs would overpay this summer.
IQ NYK Pick and Dal pick for starters. One of those picks would have to be top 5. Both top 10.

I think AK will attract or trade for another player on Zach’s level to try and win.

Nope. You have to trade Zach at the deadline. His entire trade value revolves around getting 2 playoff runs out of the guy on his current contract.

You certainly don't have to know where those picks end up. You'll have a good enough idea at the trade deadline.

NYK is definitely another trade option as well with the picks you mention.

[Chi town]

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

You don’t trade Zach at the deadline. No way. You have to know where those picks end up. It’s a 5 player draft w a big drop off after.

Knicks and Thibs would overpay this summer.
IQ NYK Pick and Dal pick for starters. One of those picks would have to be top 5. Both top 10.

I think AK will attract or trade for another player on Zach’s level to try and win.

Nope. You have to trade Zach at the deadline. His entire trade value revolves around getting 2 playoff runs out of the guy on his current contract.

You certainly don't have to know where those picks end up. You'll have a good enough idea at the trade deadline.

NYK is definitely another trade option as well with the picks you mention.

So let’s say both teams make a run post deadline and you are looking at a 7 and 11 pick...

No Thanks. I don’t see AK doing that.

[DroseReturnChi]

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

You don’t trade Zach at the deadline. No way. You have to know where those picks end up. It’s a 5 player draft w a big drop off after.

Knicks and Thibs would overpay this summer.
IQ NYK Pick and Dal pick for starters. One of those picks would have to be top 5. Both top 10.

I think AK will attract or trade for another player on Zach’s level to try and win.

Dude u think gs is going to give 3 picks if Min pick falls to 4? Hell no.
Thats why you run with those picks and dont look back.

[Leslie Forman]

Oh, I don't think they have a shot. I just advocate pump and trade. Most teams win with players someone else drafted. Who those players are and what the trades are . . . well, is above my paygrade.

How is this any more of a sure thing than the draft? Isn't the trade-and/or-sign-for-a-superstar idea basically what this franchise hung its hat on for the last 20 years and completely failed at doing?

And like you said…exactly what is the trade? And when it comes time to do it, why would the Bulls be the favorites to pull it off when the roster is so barren of desirable young players besides Pat, who is exactly (in theory) the kind of versatile, two-way player you'd want to keep, not trade? What are you going to do, offer your 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, and 2033 unprotected first rounders?

Relying on the draft has failed, sure, but it's also brought genuine superstar talent for the Bulls. The only ones to ever play for this franchise, as a matter of fact. Meanwhile, waiting around for that superstar trade has a 0.0% success rate in the entire history of this franchise. And I don't wanna hear "well now the bad man's gone," it's not like Denver ever pulled it off either while Karnisovas was there.

And even if you did somehow get a superstar through a trade, who's to say it'd even work? Did it work for Paul and LAC or Houston? Nope. Did it work for Dwight and LAL? Nope. Did it work for Kyrie and Boston? Nope. Did it work for Jimmy and Minnesota or Philly? Nope. Did it work for McGrady and Houston? Nope. Did it work for PG and OKC? Nope. Did it work for Deron and Brooklyn? Nope. Did it work for Melo and NY? LOL heeeelllll no. Often times with these trades, you're just getting dudes near the final years of their primes and/or contracts. So you can end up losing them a year later, or just plain disappointed.

You can't judge the result, you have to judge the plan. And having your entire plan basically be:

1. Stick with this trash roster
2. ??????????????
3. Collect rings

Sure doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

[Am2626]

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

In your scenario are you expecting Wiggins to be an important part of your future core? MN 1st is only conveyed if it is not in the top 3. GS 1st is probably going to be a mid first round pick because they are probably going to be a playoff team. I would rather build around LaVine and the Bulls ‘21 first round pick which hopefully will be a top 5 pick.

[TheSuzerain]

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

I think the Jrue package is about right for Lavine's value. My favorite trade is with the Warriors:

Lavine
Sato

for

Wiggins horrible contract
'21 MN 1st
'21 GS 1st
'26 GS 1st

In your scenario are you expecting Wiggins to be an important part of your future core? MN 1st is only conveyed if it is not in the top 3. GS 1st is probably going to be a mid first round pick because they are probably going to be a playoff team. I would rather build around LaVine and the Bulls ‘21 first round pick which hopefully will be a top 5 pick.

If the '21 MN 1st isn't conveyed, it becomes an unprotected '22 1st.

I'm not counting Wiggins as a core member. He's just a bad contract we can eat for draft compensation.

[Kukoc-Lauri]

We have a couple of posters who are hardcore anti-Lavine or anti-Lauri, but for the most part I think you're tilting at windmills when you bring up your aversion to giving them away for virtually nothing. That's certainly not what is advocated for in this thread or anywhere else I've seen. Lavine is a top 10 scorer in the NBA right now, and Lauri is scoring very well himself. The plan should be to sell high not to dump the players.

If you equate trading for draft picks as "virtually nothing" that is a separate conversation.

Also, I don't really agree that us winning/losing some of these close games in the coming weeks will have a meaningful impact on Lavine's trade value. Bottom line is that if we only make "minor moves" at the trade deadline, we are in big trouble because Lauri and Lavine's trade value will quickly decline after the deadline just due to their contract situation.

Here is what the Pelicans got for Holiday: 2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe.

IMO, Lavine is worth more. A lot of these trade suggestions amount to far less and as a result, seem to me like just giving Zach away.

2 picks, 2 pick swaps and Bledsoe and also Adams

And Bucks could offer that same package for Lavine but they choose Holiday, wonder why. Because as best player he won playoff series in west and was all star and two way player. Everything that Zach was never be able to acomplish.