if you were our GM.

[panthermark]

I would call the Wiz and talk about Otto Porter.

[DanTown8587]

No contract would be better. But the fact that it’s for one year and has no collateral impact on the team is why it’s excellent.

I see your point. But I also said he sucks in the same post. Kinda have to read it together.

That contract at best is "not detrimental" but has little upside potential unless you strongly believed this team was ready to win this year. The point of a short term deal is you want to only pay or have a guy on a team for a short time and you do not want him at the end of the deal when he's either overpaid and/or replaced by better players. In the case of Parker, there is nothing really there

- If he's good, the team simply has to pay him more long term money at a higher rate than he likely would have received last year
or
- He's bad, he stole money that could have been used in more productive ways and he also stole development time and minutes from younger players that you are less sure of

So sure, a one year deal has no real downside but it also doesn't have upside. When you look at the modern salary cap history of the league, the best non-rookie deal was Steph Curry for 4/48 at a time when his ankle injuries said there was risk there. If the Warriors would have signed him to a one year deal, they would have lost tens if not maybe over a hundred million dollars when Steph became the league MVP. They wouldn't have gotten Durant.

I disagree here, too. If Parker had really played well - let's say looking like Tobias Harris - the Bulls would have gotten one more year out of him and then had inside track at resigning a Tobias Harris level player at whatever the market rate was, when he was 24-25 years old (after next year). That's not nothing. Just like signing a LaVine at a market rate looks like a good call right now (though I was super skeptical at the time).

So the upside of him playing well would then be he's not locked in to a deal for the future. Imagine if the Bulls did a one year deal with lavine; whether or not I think he's a high impact guy (we simply need more time to evaluate that), he would likely be far more expensive.

[MGB8]

I disagree here, too. If Parker had really played well - let's say looking like Tobias Harris - the Bulls would have gotten one more year out of him and then had inside track at resigning a Tobias Harris level player at whatever the market rate was, when he was 24-25 years old (after next year). That's not nothing. Just like signing a LaVine at a market rate looks like a good call right now (though I was super skeptical at the time).

So the upside of him playing well would then be he's not locked in to a deal for the future. Imagine if the Bulls did a one year deal with lavine; whether or not I think he's a high impact guy (we simply need more time to evaluate that), he would likely be far more expensive.

It's a one and one year deal.

Let's say Parker had blown up a bit and looked like a bigger Paul Pierce, having lost weight to improve his quickness and thus positively impacting both sides of his game. At that point, the 20M the following year would be a value contract (for that year) and keeping him at a more expensive deal down the line still would be desirable. If an extension would not be possible, they would still have a trade asset (a la how Jimmy Butler brought back value despite being on essentially an expiring deal).

If he doesn't play well... nice to know ya, Jabari.

It was a flier - a swing on a fast ball that at this point surely seems like a big miss, but without any real consequences. The "opportunity cost" would have been getting players with no long term future with Chicago and no real upside, but who were known enough factors to be counted on to hurt draft positioning (for this season).

[MGB8]

I would call the Wiz and talk about Otto Porter.

I thought about that, too, but it sure looks like Porter's best position may be as a smallball 4....

[ChettheJet]

I wouldn't make any quick deal until Dunn and Markkanen return and I see what kind of rotation they Lavine and Carter make going forward. Parker has the rest of the year to show he can mesh with those four or there's no reason to keep him. Hutchison and Archy need to look good coming off the bench. I'd consider bringing Portis at the right price and there's no one better on the market. Payne and Blankeny are gone, Holiday probably leaves