Leslie Forman wrote: Giving Zach LaVine $200 million would be so bad, it'd end up with some new CBA rule named after his contract.
If you think locking up a 25+PPG efficient scorer for the peak years of his career would be the worst contract ever, I have reason to suspect you dont pay much attention to the rest of the NBA.
The Bulls have no plans for their cap space in the immediate future. There are no free agents coming here. There is a minimum team salary that is 90% of the cap so you need to spend something anyways. Retain your talent and grow your roster (with of course necessary trades to better reshape, which may include Zach).
Nba players on third contracts are all overpaid. That’s NBA life. At least with Zach you get a guy with a good injury history, that has improved every year, and works hard even in the most bleak of situations. In other words, he’s a safe bet to not tank the contract which is the only bad scenario to come out of one of these deals. Otherwise, he just becomes another overpaid contract that can be easily dealt in a few years.