The Zach Lavine Problem

Red Larrivee · Post #741 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:01 am

Hangtime84 wrote:All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

Post #742 » by **kulaz3000** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:03 am

Red Larrivee wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

Yeah, by all accounts, the front office had to propose this new direction to the ownership team, and they received approval to do so. There is no way the ownership weren't aware of this new direction, and in turn aren't supporting this.

Post #743 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:04 am

Red Larrivee wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

By saying that, you absolve Reinsdorf for his involvement with Rondo and Wade. It's like, can this guy ever take a bullet?

kodo · Post #744 » by **kodo** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:09 am

People outside of Chicago were admiring Lavine's season well before this trade.

His play got worse with some minor injures, which then led to the ACL. But here's a non-Chicago media blurb about him at the end of December, about a month away from his injury.

https://sircharlesincharge.com/2016/11/30/minnesota-timberwolves-wiggins-lavine/

At first glance, it doesn’t seem like anyone is out playing anyone if you judge by the first three basic stats. After those, though, LaVine runs away with everything else. LaVine has been much more efficient in every form of shooting this season, by a large margin too – he is up +.04 in FG% , +.05 in 3P% and +.07 in TS%.

Wiggins has struggled with his shot throughout his career but LaVine is killing him across the board in those metrics.

As far as defense goes, both have been really bad, posting a 115 DRTG. Wiggins has Defensive Real Plus-Minus of -2.43. LaVine has one of -2.79. Both are pretty bad.

On the other hand, LaVine has ran the offense better as well as put his teammates in better positions to make plays. That is also backed up by his +12 advantage in ORTG (Offensive Rating). The last advanced metric I looked at was value over replacement and LaVine KILLS Wiggins in it. Andrew is actually at a negative value rating while LaVine is +.08 on the season so far.

If healthy, a rather huge if, he's the best asset we've seen from any of the recent star trades (Cousins, CP3, Paul George, Harden, Durant, I could keep going on & on). On top of the #7. Dunn feels like he was traded straight up for our mid 1st rounder.

Red Larrivee · Post #745 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:12 am

fleet wrote:By saying that, you absolve Reinsdorf for his involvement with Rondo and Wade. It's like, can this guy ever take a bullet?

I'm confused. Are we pretending that Reinsdorf just has no idea what's going on with his team right now? There's no indication that he's preventing the team from rebuilding.

Post #746 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:15 am

kodo wrote:If healthy, a rather huge if, he's the best asset we've seen from any of the recent star trades (Cousins, CP3, Paul George, Harden, Durant, I could keep going on & on). On top of the #7. Dunn feels like he was traded straight up for our mid 1st rounder.

^^^^Durant was no comparable situation, nor was Paul George as a rental. Cousins as a nut. Jimmy Butler on a great deal was worth something good. Lavine is a fine player. A pick swap on top of it, and a possibly busting PG wasn't awesome return imo.

Post #747 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:17 am

Red Larrivee wrote:
fleet wrote:By saying that, you absolve Reinsdorf for his involvement with Rondo and Wade. It's like, can this guy ever take a bullet?

I'm confused. Are we pretending that Reinsdorf just has no idea what's going on with his team right now? There's no indication that he's preventing the team from rebuilding.

Didn't say he wasn't. Even if it looked for a minute like he and Hahn were pulling some of the same crap. That is somebody else's theory. Just for once, I'd like him to take more arrows that he deserves instead of a wall of defense sometimes. Obviously you like him, we disagree.

Red Larrivee · Post #748 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:21 am

fleet wrote:Didn't say he wasn't. Even if it looked for a minute like he and Hahn were pulling some of the same crap. That is somebody else's theory. Just for once, I'd like him to take more arrows that he deserves instead of a wall of defense sometimes. Obviously you like him, we disagree.

I don't feel any sort of way about Reinsdorf. Neither he or his family are going anywhere and the principles he's established in the Bulls organization will likely stand the test of time.

It is what it is.

Post #749 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:23 am

I'm not so sure about that though. The White Sox appear to be bucking some of the old treadmill principles, I have hope still.

MrFortune3 · Post #750 » by **MrFortune3** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:25 am

So let me understand this, people think that Jerry is against saving a ton of money both now and in future contracts over a period of 3 or more years and believe he won't like this for a few years while he gets to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

Post #751 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:28 am

MrFortune3 wrote:So let me understand this, people think that Jerry is against saving a ton of money both now and in future contracts over a period of 3 or more years and believe he won't like this for a few years while he gets to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

You think he is about to spend a ton of money on the Sox? Maybe in 8 years. Then again, maybe he will trade out of huge contracts when they come up that he and Kenny have sworn for decades they would never do.

Paxson43 · Post #752 » by **Paxson43** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:30 am

Hangtime84 wrote:
Rerisen wrote:^

Zach ON, Wiggins OFF: Team 103.0 PPP | Opponent 107.4 PPP = -4.4

Wiggins ON, Lavine OFF: Team 111.4 PPP | Opponent 110.6 PPP = +0.8

Wiggins having the ball hurting Zach doesn't hold up in the numbers, if anything the opposite.

Rerisen I've watched wolves games and talked with many wolves fans. This is one of those things advance stats suck without context moments.

Lavine was their best shooter out of main scorers and made argument was who should be the SG Wiggins or Lavine. Many saw Lavine rising up over Wiggins as the better offensive player.

This is my favorite part, we have a Wolves fan explaining what he saw in watching all the Timberwolves games that he did, and then we have a Bulls fan that is looking only at the numbers and saying he's wrong. It's maddening.

On/off is a fun stat to look at, but it completely discounts any changes in style of play or things that change when the player is injured and misses roughly half the season.

Hangtime84 · Post #753 » by **Hangtime84** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:32 am

MrFortune3 wrote:So let me understand this, people think that Jerry is against saving a ton of money both now and in future contracts over a period of 3 or more years and believe he won't like this for a few years while he gets to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

Yes a lot posters feel Ownership group is responsible especially when comes to paying out contracts avoiding lux tax. A common complaint is we are large market team that's ran like small market group.

A lot fans here are also white sox fans as well. The agrument from those fans was Jerry running both franchises similar when rebuilding was best approach he tries to retool to maximize game renvue profits instead of blowing it up.

In both franchises management retool failed and they were forced to rebuild.

Meanwhile Hawks and Cubs fans have been enjoying watching their rebuilt franchises.

MrFortune3 · Post #754 » by **MrFortune3** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:32 am

fleet wrote:
MrFortune3 wrote:So let me understand this, people think that Jerry is against saving a ton of money both now and in future contracts over a period of 3 or more years and believe he won't like this for a few years while he gets to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

You think he is about to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

3.5 mil for Bell and all of a sudden their top draft pick is signed for 3.7 mil the next day. You have about what 48 mil committed to next year, Niko will probably take around 13 mil so after cap holds you are taking about what 70 mil for the Bulls next year.

Sox have a ton of talented prospects they could be in the mix next year in a similar fashion to the Yankees this year. Team might get a tad antsy and a spend a little in FA, plus the next class after that is loaded.

Post #755 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:38 am

MrFortune3 wrote:
fleet wrote:
MrFortune3 wrote:So let me understand this, people think that Jerry is against saving a ton of money both now and in future contracts over a period of 3 or more years and believe he won't like this for a few years while he gets to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

You think he is about to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

3.5 mil for Bell and all of a sudden their top draft pick is signed for 3.7 mil the next day. You have about what 48 mil committed to next year, Niko will probably take around 13 mil so after cap holds you are taking about what 70 mil for the Bulls next year.

Sox have a ton of talented prospects they could be in the mix next year in a similar fashion to the Yankees this year. Team might get a tad antsy and a spend a little in FA, plus the next class after that is loaded.

overall payroll and expenditures are going down. While yes, more money is being pushed in minor league aquisitions.

They aren't spending big money on free agents when rookies with talent are ready to plug in either. This team is minimally 5 years away from spending money (longer probably), and I'll believe they do when they resign some of these kids to Bryce Harper deals, or the deal Kris Bryant is about to get.

MrFortune3 · Post #756 » by **MrFortune3** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:45 am

fleet wrote:
MrFortune3 wrote:
fleet wrote:You think he is about to spend a ton of money on the Sox?

3.5 mil for Bell and all of a sudden their top draft pick is signed for 3.7 mil the next day. You have about what 48 mil committed to next year, Niko will probably take around 13 mil so after cap holds you are taking about what 70 mil for the Bulls next year.

Sox have a ton of talented prospects they could be in the mix next year in a similar fashion to the Yankees this year. Team might get a tad antsy and a spend a little in FA, plus the next class after that is loaded.

which way is the overall payroll and expenditures going?

They aren't spending big money on free agents when rookies with talent are ready to plug in either. This team is minimally 5 years away from spending money (longer probably), and I'll believe they do when they resign some of these kids to Bryce Harper deals, or the deal Kris Bryant is about to get.

They have what 27 mil committed to Robertson, Shields, Jones and Anderson next year? 17 for 3 if they deal Robertson.
Their average payroll has been around 107 mil of so since 2006. Even in a rebuild you will likely spend 85-90 mil to fill out the roster and sign some guys to attract fans. So yes, I would imagine Jerry would be likely to spend some money on the Sox.

Post #757 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:49 am

They have pretty significant prospects at most positions. My bet is on paying them instead. Rodon will get paid though. He's not on the same timeline. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that Bulls money will overrun the White Sox long standing ideals against mega contracts for just one player. Each entity has it's own financial organization anyway.

The more they win, the more the payroll will incrementally go up, of course. But a new money direction? We'll see about that. No evidence.

Post #758 » by **kingkirk** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:50 am

Red Larrivee wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

They are allowing it to happen. The real question is how long will they allow it to occur for. I don't believe for second that this rebuild was signed off for it to be a multi-year thing with several cracks at top 3 picks over several seasons.

It may happen naturally if players don't develop, but it won't be the plan.

Red Larrivee · Post #759 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:57 am

Mark K wrote:They are allowing it to happen. The real question is how long will they allow it to occur for. I don't believe for second that this rebuild was signed off for it to be a multi-year thing with several cracks at top 3 picks over several seasons.

It may happen naturally if players don't develop, but it won't be the plan.

There isn't a likely scenario where the Bulls are not awful over the next 3-4 seasons unless they draft the next LeBron. I think that is the plan, or at least that's what Paxson is strongly suggesting in press conferences.

I see it lasting longer than that, but whatever.

Ralphb07 · Post #760 » by **Ralphb07** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:58 am

Mark K wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

They are allowing it to happen. The real question is how long will they allow it to occur for. I don't believe for second that this rebuild was signed off for it to be a multi-year thing with several cracks at top 3 picks over several seasons.

It may happen naturally if players don't develop, but it won't be the plan.

Whats your definition of multi though? Besides Hinke what team says let's suck for 5 years? If the Bulls could get two top 5 picks in 2018 and 2019 then start to add to that to win games why is that bad? There's multiple correct ways to build this back.