Vuc Trade Thread

[League Circles]

There is an argument that they (especially Lavine) allow us to jumpstart a reset more quickly on the roster than off.

What is that argument?

They may increase short term win totals (though even that is dicey), but they will not increase future assets which is required in a rebuild. In fact, the minutes they play will detract from our ability to play and develop other prospects.

The argument can be made that Zach is himself a "future asset". There is a pretty good chance he has 5 quality years left.

[sco]

There is an argument that they (especially Lavine) allow us to jumpstart a reset more quickly on the roster than off.

What is that argument?

They may increase short term win totals (though even that is dicey), but they will not increase future assets which is required in a rebuild. In fact, the minutes they play will detract from our ability to play and develop other prospects.

The argument can be made that Zach is himself a "future asset". There is a pretty good chance he has 5 quality years left.

I think that's right. Moreover, Zach, if he stays healthy (that's the risk), will be worth more during the offseason (esp on draft night when more teams will have a 1st to deal), and even more the following season as his contract shortens.

[dougthonus]

There is an argument that they (especially Lavine) allow us to jumpstart a reset more quickly on the roster than off.

What is that argument?

They may increase short term win totals (though even that is dicey), but they will not increase future assets which is required in a rebuild. In fact, the minutes they play will detract from our ability to play and develop other prospects.

The argument can be made that Zach is himself a "future asset". There is a pretty good chance he has 5 quality years left.

Maybe true for Zach. The counter-argument is that Zach has been here for 7 years an hasn't seemed to make a big contribution to wins, especially relative to cost, and has also passed his expiration date with fans and likely cultural fit within the org.

[League Circles]

What is that argument?

They may increase short term win totals (though even that is dicey), but they will not increase future assets which is required in a rebuild. In fact, the minutes they play will detract from our ability to play and develop other prospects.

The argument can be made that Zach is himself a "future asset". There is a pretty good chance he has 5 quality years left.

Maybe true for Zach. The counter-argument is that Zach has been here for 7 years an hasn't seemed to make a big contribution to wins, especially relative to cost, and has also passed his expiration date with fans and likely cultural fit within the org.

Always hard to determine true contributions to wins, but I'd agree he hasn't been a big winner for us. That said, he's playing his best ball ever on both sides of the ball IMO and he wants to stay and things seem good with the org IMO. If the Bulls trade him now it will be solely due to whatever assets they get in the trade plus tank effort (our 2025 pick), not cause they can't win with him playing a big role and on his current contract or cause they think he's a cultural problem.

Zach is literally the least of our problems right now. Personally I think he took the lack of trade interest in him as constructive criticism and has made a determined effort to try to play the right way.

[Guru]

??

Tis

Oft attribed to Einstein. He didn't say it

But somebody did say it, so it is technically a quote.

But that's not the definition of insanity

[Guru]

If they hit on a lottery pick this year they would be adding them to a veteran team vs a team of youth. That's undeniable.

It would be much better to add Flagg to this current roster than a roster of nincompoops.

Now I am actually on board with your argument that it's better to trade at the very least Vuc because he won't be here long enough for the rebuild anyway and his absence likely assures our lottery pick.

Both arguments exist. And there is a continuum across their poles.

How do Vuc and Zach specifically, other than adding short term wins, help Flagg develop?

You can easily replace them with veteran mentor type players. Do you think Vuc and Zach are specifically elite at taking a guy under their wing and helping them reach their potential? I don't know that I would think that of either guy.

I'm not sure either guy is the "coach on the floor" type. Lonzo Ball would probably teach him more about basketball than these guys.

Players develop more quickly playing with better players and in meaningful games. That's the argument. AND the team as a whole is better more quickly.

[pipfan]

I think the lineup of
Ayo/Ball
Lavine/?
Matas
?
Vuc
Is very interesting. But, the PF would have to be prime KG to make us contenders

I want White traded more than anyone else (I REALLY wanted him dealt at the last draft) and be careful paying Giddy (he's a very good bench player/spot starter, not a core guy to build around)

[Andi Obst]

There's no way people are talking themselves into building a team around Vuc and Zach again.

I don't know if that's hilarious or really sad or both.

[dougthonus]

Players develop more quickly playing with better players and in meaningful games. That's the argument. AND the team as a whole is better more quickly.

We haven't played made the playoffs in 3 years with those guys. Not much evidence they will lead us to more meaningful games. Also not really sure this is all that important for development either in year 1 or year 2. At some point, you obviously need to get to meaningful games, but lots of superstars weren't playing in them in year 1, and very few teams (probably no teams) look to make short term moves to try and get to playoffs in year 1.

[Guru]

Players develop more quickly playing with better players and in meaningful games. That's the argument. AND the team as a whole is better more quickly.

We haven't played made the playoffs in 3 years with those guys. Not much evidence they will lead us to more meaningful games. Also not really sure this is all that important for development either in year 1 or year 2. At some point, you obviously need to get to meaningful games, but lots of superstars weren't playing in them in year 1, and very few teams (probably no teams) look to make short term moves to try and get to playoffs in year 1.

I definitely see your argument. But players of Lavines caliber are very hard to get. If I had my druthers I'd trade Vuc-White-Craig-Carter and try for a quick rebuild with the leftovers.

[League Circles]

There's no way people are talking themselves into building a team around Vuc and Zach again.

I don't know if that's hilarious or really sad or both.

Yeah, pretty sure no one has suggested that. Keeping a player does not equal "building around".

[SirKaiser]

We could absolutely rebuild a team around Lavine if everyone but him, Matas, Ayo, and maybe Jalen Smith are on the trade block. Vuc absolutely needs to go though imo.

Even if Lavine isn't part of any long term plans, the guy is still under 30, has 3 years left on his deal, and is steadily improving his trade value. No rush to move him.

[dougthonus]

I definitely see your argument. But players of Lavines caliber are very hard to get. If I had my druthers I'd trade Vuc-White-Craig-Carter and try for a quick rebuild with the leftovers.

It doesn't seem that difficult. We've been trying to more or less give him away without success. If we were in the reverse scenario, we could acquire LaVine pretty easily. That could be because LaVine is not valued properly or it could be that we are overvaluing him.

[League Circles]

I definitely see your argument. But players of Lavines caliber are very hard to get. If I had my druthers I'd trade Vuc-White-Craig-Carter and try for a quick rebuild with the leftovers.

It doesn't seem that difficult. We've been trying to more or less give him away without success. If we were in the reverse scenario, we could acquire LaVine pretty easily. That could be because LaVine is not valued properly or it could be that we are overvaluing him.

Has it actually been reported anywhere, ever, that we were willing to give Zach away (trade for bad expiring contracts)? I mean, I don't pay close attention to trade rumors, but I read a couple days ago that we were trying to get a FRP for Vuc, let alone Zach, who we pretty clearly value more highly than Vuc.

[ChettheJet]

Always hard to determine true contributions to wins, but I'd agree he hasn't been a big winner for us. That said, he's playing his best ball ever on both sides of the ball IMO and he wants to stay and things seem good with the org IMO. If the Bulls trade him now it will be solely due to whatever assets they get in the trade plus tank effort (our 2025 pick), not cause they can't win with him playing a big role and on his current contract or cause they think he's a cultural problem.

Zach is literally the least of our problems right now. Personally I think he took the lack of trade interest in him as constructive criticism and has made a determined effort to try to play the right way.

If the thinking in the building is the offers for Zach aren't what we're looking for so we'll just keep him and fill in the players around him. Does this, or any, front office have the perfect plan as to who they want to add at the other 4 starting positions around Zach to win? Nobody has the guaranteed right answers of what lineup gels with Zach. But what they do know is they probably won't have a Top 6 pick, there's no for sure FAs looking at CHI but you start with Zach taking a huge chunk of cap space and you're skipping over any SG's on the available list.

To me with 7 years to look back on, rare is the stretch that Zach played poorly, his issue has been injuries. I think if a team comes with a reset offer, and not just dumping unwanted salaries, even underachieving players on rookie deals, you've got to consider which path, with or without Zach. improves the odds of building a group that's winning more than you lose.

[Guru]

I definitely see your argument. But players of Lavines caliber are very hard to get. If I had my druthers I'd trade Vuc-White-Craig-Carter and try for a quick rebuild with the leftovers.

It doesn't seem that difficult. We've been trying to more or less give him away without success. If we were in the reverse scenario, we could acquire LaVine pretty easily. That could be because LaVine is not valued properly or it could be that we are overvaluing him.

Are there other players similar to Zach that we could get?

[Guru]

There's no way people are talking themselves into building a team around Vuc and Zach again.

I don't know if that's hilarious or really sad or both.

Yeah, pretty sure no one has suggested that. Keeping a player does not equal "building around".

I think it's inarguable that you are in a better place with Zach-Buz-2025 Lottery Pick than just Buz-2025 Lottery Pick.

Unless Zach somehow nets us a bunch of non-20 something picks you should prudently just keep him

[League Circles]

Always hard to determine true contributions to wins, but I'd agree he hasn't been a big winner for us. That said, he's playing his best ball ever on both sides of the ball IMO and he wants to stay and things seem good with the org IMO. If the Bulls trade him now it will be solely due to whatever assets they get in the trade plus tank effort (our 2025 pick), not cause they can't win with him playing a big role and on his current contract or cause they think he's a cultural problem.

Zach is literally the least of our problems right now. Personally I think he took the lack of trade interest in him as constructive criticism and has made a determined effort to try to play the right way.

If the thinking in the building is the offers for Zach aren't what we're looking for so we'll just keep him and fill in the players around him. Does this, or any, front office have the perfect plan as to who they want to add at the other 4 starting positions around Zach to win? Nobody has the guaranteed right answers of what lineup gels with Zach. But what they do know is they probably won't have a Top 6 pick, there's no for sure FAs looking at CHI but you start with Zach taking a huge chunk of cap space and you're skipping over any SG's on the available list.

To me with 7 years to look back on, rare is the stretch that Zach played poorly, his issue has been injuries. I think if a team comes with a reset offer, and not just dumping unwanted salaries, even underachieving players on rookie deals, you've got to consider which path, with or without Zach. improves the odds of building a group that's winning more than you lose.

We definitely don't know a perfect 4 players to combine with Zach, but no one is saying we should build "around" Zach. The idea would be that he's a top 2 or 3 scoring option.

But yeah, if a deal is offered that gives us something nice for the future, whether it be a good young prospect or good pick (s), of course we should and will consider it. It's just that no one has really identified such an offer, real or hypothetical.

[patryk7754]

What is that argument?

They may increase short term win totals (though even that is dicey), but they will not increase future assets which is required in a rebuild. In fact, the minutes they play will detract from our ability to play and develop other prospects.

The argument can be made that Zach is himself a "future asset". There is a pretty good chance he has 5 quality years left.

Maybe true for Zach. The counter-argument is that Zach has been here for 7 years an hasn't seemed to make a big contribution to wins, especially relative to cost, and has also passed his expiration date with fans and likely cultural fit within the org.

The thing with Lavine is that he's not a player that will carry you to wins. He's probably best served in a 3rd option role, similar to what MPJ does for the Nuggets. I think Lavine would be better in that role just because of how elite his efficiency is and in short spurts, he would be able to carry the majority of the scoring load and keep the team from going on a loosing streak, if options 1 and 2 are out. The problem with that, is most people will probably say he's paid too much to be a 3rd option. I think it doesn't matter if you build a contending roster around him.

I think if the goal is to contend as quickly as possible rather than tanking, then it would be ideal to keep Lavine. It's rare how elite he is in his efficiency and if we trade him away, he'll be the exact player we'll be looking for to put us over the top in a couple of years. Now, the problem is adding option 1 and 2 players. Theoretically, we have the players to trade for stars, but we probably don't have the draft assets. Free agency would also be an option but that would be difficult. For one, star rarely become free agents now-a-days and we would have to dump significant salary. Our best hope to build a contender is hoping other teams value their stars a little less and our players a little more. Theoretically we can make two groups of players for two separate trades. For example:

Trade one Group: White/Williams/Giddey
Trade two Group: Lonzo and Vucevic

Their salaries combine enough to land high-dollar stars. But teams would probably only be willing to take those guys on under specific conditions. A couple of examples I can think of.....

1. the Kings value our young guys enough that they would be willing to part ways with Fox a combo of players like white/williams/giddey plus a pick or two.

2. The Pelicans are done with Zion and want to get whatever they can for him. Lonzo would expire so they would value that and they can possibly flip Vuc for other assets. They'd probably also want a pick in return.

Fox/Lavine/Zion would be a pretty damn good starting point (ignoring Zion's injury issues) and if you surround them with 3 point shooting and versatile defenders we would be very good. BUT, that's a very specific scenario that's very unlikely to happen.


Another player that could become available is Trae Young, but the amount of draft assets that would be needed to get him would keep us from making a trade for another all-nba caliber player and we would have to depend on someone becoming a free agent- which is also unlikely.


Long story short: If we can make Lavine the 3rd option, we should keep him. If not, it's probably best to move on from him

[HomoSapien]

Tis

Oft attribed to Einstein. He didn't say it

But somebody did say it, so it is technically a quote.

But that's not the definition of insanity

Oh boy. This exchange might be the definition of insanity.