What's new
By:

Should The Jazz Target Zach Lavine?

Jingled said:
Something Locke mentioned this morning that I agree with is that Lavine could be a good trade chip for us in the down the road if we try to trade for a bigger star. I think teams would be more interested in a package centered around Lavine and draft picks than they would say Sexton, Collins, Clarkson, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah Lockes an idiot when it comes to trades.
 
whatthe said:
He is significant player that has made it with bad coaching. Maybe Hardy's staff can unlock more but it is risky. However if he can retain a high value, he might be good in another trade. One more thing, if Lauri likes playing with him then that alone may make it worth it.
Click to expand...
As far as I understood, after all I am on the Lauri bandwagon, LaVine pretty much suffocated Lauri's game. I don't have any recollection of them meshing up together.

LaVine is a BIG NO for me.
 
Mr. T said:
As far as I understood, after all I am on the Lauri bandwagon, LaVine pretty much suffocated Lauri's game. I don't have any recollection of them meshing up together.

LaVine is a BIG NO for me.
Click to expand...
Im pretty positive it was coaching, not LaVine.
 
whatthe said:
He is significant player that has made it with bad coaching. Maybe Hardy's staff can unlock more but it is risky. However if he can retain a high value, he might be good in another trade. One more thing, if Lauri likes playing with him then that alone may make it worth it.
Click to expand...
Billy D is a good coach, so he has had good coaching the last few years. The issue is the roster construction has been *** since Lonzo went down. They just dont have a whole lot of talent and his co-star cant space the floor for him.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Would honestly rather go after Lonzo (no picks) and just pray that his groundbreaking surgery has groundbreaking results.
Click to expand...
It’s a losing proposition to dwell on this. Either you’ll be down and blue for not getting Ball or you’ll get excited and end up with blue balls for not getting him. There’s no winning.
 
People are exaggerating Lavine's defensive and bbiq deficiencies. He's a good player. Only slightly worse than Mitchell overall, I'd say. And he fits our timeline. The problem is that the Bulls are looking for multiple first round picks in return, and I'm not entirely sure he's worth it.

He might be though. He's fairly young and under contract for the rest of his prime.
 
Fosto said:
People are exaggerating Lavine's defensive and bbiq deficiencies. He's a good player. Only slightly worse than Mitchell overall, I'd say. And he fits our timeline. The problem is that the Bulls are looking for multiple first round picks in return, and I'm not entirely sure he's worth it.

He might be though. He's fairly young and under contract for the rest of his prime.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MAxFQgE28


He's a dummy. He has tools to be good defensively but just completely checks out of making rotations at times. I don't think the BBIQ or defensive stuff is overstated.

Super talented and skilled dude... I'd take a chance on him if he's cheap... the current price is not likely worth it and you can't just assume the warts will smooth out magically.
 
One criticism about LaVine has been that he doesn’t play a team game (cares more about his own stats). His defense has also been an issue over the years. Although he is a good shooter, I don’t think he would be a good fit for us going forward. We need defense and playmaking more than anything. I'm hoping Ainge and Zanik can stay patient because it usually pays off.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MAxFQgE28


He's a dummy. He has tools to be good defensively but just completely checks out of making rotations at times. I don't think the BBIQ or defensive stuff is overstated.

Super talented and skilled dude... I'd take a chance on him if he's cheap... the current price is not likely worth it and you can't just assume the warts will smooth out magically.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but Mitchell cost us a crucial game in the playoffs with a backcourt violation, on top of playing no defense, and taking 10 shots a game in clutch time at a 20% clip. He's still seen as a great player worthy of multiple first round picks. I have more faith that Lavine's shortcomings can be mitigated with some good coaching.

Lavine is not perfect, but very few players are. He might end up being worth the cost to acquire him. I'm not sure.
 
Fosto said:
Yeah, but Mitchell cost us a crucial game in the playoffs with a backcourt violation, on top of playing no defense, and taking 10 shots a game in clutch time at a 20% clip. He's still seen as a great player worthy of multiple first round picks. I have more faith that Lavine's shortcomings can be mitigated with some good coaching.

Lavine is not perfect, but very few players are. He might end up being worth the cost to acquire him. I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
An 8 second violation can happen in the heat of the moment. Zach shot a 2 with like 2 seconds left when they were down 3. He just had to focus for 5 seconds.

His defensive issues are similar to Donovan's and he's not like a 23 YO guy still developing. He just doesn't care and doesn't focus on defense and constantly leaves his teammates out to dry. I'm sure these can be mitigated... slightly... but just like with Don it might be the players around him that have to cover for him.

I don't see the Bulls in a great situation to rebuild... they may wait a year or two before tearing it down.
 
Players have lapses.

I agree with everyone that I wouldnt break the bank for LaVine, but expecting him to ever be available for next to free is ridiculous.

To me he is easily worth two high quality first rounders (and would throw a low quality/highly protected first as well), filler, and a young rookie contract as long as he still has multiple years left on his deal (so this season or start of next season).


I just dont want the Jazz to find themselves in a position where they've sat on all their assets waiting for the perfect player or perfect bargain to become available. LaVine's prime matches up with our best players prime and he's an elite shooter who isnt the worst thing in the world defensively. He's a theoretical fit with Lauri/Giga-Chad and there's potential there for getting hidden value since he has never been in a great situation.

And yeah, I get that he is like a worse version of Donovan in most ways (yes, I see the irony in me making a trade for LaVine thread, not that I'm fully into the idea, but I think it's probably one of the more realistic "stars" out there that we could get without giving up a crazy amount just for a 1-2 year contract if we are interested in maximizing Lauri's prime), but his relative contract value is better w/ the way contract are going for the next few years and we can get him for cheaper than we sold on Donovan.
 
The beauty of sitting where we are is we don't have to force fetch to happen. We also shouldn't just sit on our assets indefinitely. It doesn't have to be some supreme bargain... pay full price or even more on the right opportunity. I just don't think Zach is that opportunity unless he comes at a discount. Currently the price I'd be willing to pay is not something Chicago would be willing to accept.

I do get that when you look out at the landscape its tough to see the next star that might ask out so you get a bit antsy. I'd rather sit on our picks and just use them to draft guys than force the wrong deal. The closer we get to those picks conveying the more value they will have.
 
I would love this iteration to be contending at one point. But reality of things is that we dont know if we can ever find/develop the guys we need, before the clock runs out on them.

However I'm not worried about "sitting on the draft picks inevitably", since they are equity that doesnt lose value. If we convert that equity to players, then we should be more worried about losing that value. I would rather gamble on developing the stars internally from the prospects we have (or will have) than use the assets to upgrade any positions marginally.

I guess it comes down to whether I think Lavine is going to be able to be "that guy", and I dont. And if he isnt, then we are still in the same position after trading for him: looking for "the guy". So he is good but not good enough. If I were to use our assets to take a gamble on a high profile player (non superstar) who isnt going to be the #1 guy then I would find the best playmaker possible and hope he unlocks new levels for Lauri and Kessler. And Lavine isnt that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top