How overpaid is Derozan, and will it matter?

[MGB8]

Talking about WCJ's extension and others today made me think about DeRozan's contract.

I think almost everyone would agree that it's an overpay. He got the same amount of money as Lowry - which seems fair enough given Lowry's greater impact but greater age / health concerns. And it's also less than what Gordon Hayward has left on his deal....

But... it is also barely more than Jaylen Brown's extension... I think pretty much everyone would take Jaylen Brown. Or John Collins, for that matter, who is averaging 25M per year instead of 28. Gallinari is at 21M; the more impactful Jrue getting paid on a similar scale at a 33M/year average. Tim Hardaway and Evan Fournier are interesting comps in that they are a couple of years younger and not as productive - but signed for 18.5M and 19.5M average, respectively - similar to Joe Harris, and a bit under Aaron Gordon's 22M+ average.

I'm thinking a "fair" contract for DeRozan would have been more in line with Gordon's - about 6M/year less. But DeRozan is on a 3 year deal, Gordon on a 1+4.

So here's the big question - will overpaying DeRozan have any meaningful negative impact on the Bulls, given the cap situation (an over the cap team for the foreseeable future, but an under the lux tax team given expected cap increases)? If so, how much does he have to produce to negate that expected damage and make him a not-net-negative tradeable contract?

[TheSuzerain]

On one hand, building your team around Derozan at all means you're lowering your absolute ceiling quite a bit. Especially so on a large contact.

On the other hand, he filled a huge need we had for a half-court playmaker if we want to make the playoffs. And there wasn't really other attainable options to fill that hole immediately.

Derozan signing was a play to reach the NBA middle class.

[League Circles]

I don't think it's an overpay.

[Grodoboldo]

https://premiumhoops.org/2021/10/12/in-defense-of-overpaying/amp/

Really recommend this article.

[kulaz3000]

I don't think anyone would argue that it was an overpay, but by how much, I wouldn't say by a whole lot. I guess the better way to look at is, is the overpay going to net you more positives over negatives?

Put it this way, DeRozan despite his flaws is a very well respected player in the league, he gives your team credibility and experience. He is still in his prime, who has signed only a 3 year deal. At worst, he is a bad contract for 2 seasons only, which isn't a long time. And I don't think his deal is SO bad, that he couldn't be moved if necessary.

I'm not worried about his contract at all. In fact, I actually quite like where the Bulls are at with all their current contracts, they are all decent length and value, and all moveable. It becomes more interesting next season once Zach gets the max, and their ability to fill out the ability to fill out the roster, the same way they did this off season.

[detlef_schrempf]

Ludicrous on multiple levels

Firstly, if we didn’t spend it on DeRozan what would we have done? Brought back Lauri/kept Thad? Nah. It’s not your money and he was easily the best option for that amount of money. No, I don’t care about John Hollinger or 538.

Secondly, if he’s not a good fit (he is tho), the money can be dealt with firsts or Paw to attain another star. Whether it be next offseason to appease Zach if things bomb (they won’t), or mid-season, you always need to match $$$.

Thirdly, it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s only worth 22 million or 23 million in a bubble. 28 is what it took to get him here. Therefore he is worth it no matter what because he wouldn’t be here for less and there wouldn’t be a better option.

The idea of a player’s value in a standalone bubble is usually ludicrous.

He’s worth it to the Bulls and their goals. And people will be singing the Bulls praises in the national media by the All-Star break, and this will be even more absurd a question then.

[SHO'NUFF]

I'm okay with his contract. I personally (as a Bulls fan) have no issues with it at all.

[Pax for Prez]

DeRozen overpay might come in handy if he is flipped in the future for a better player that wants to force his way to Chicago.

[Hold That]

He’s definitely worth the contract, he’s a consistent bucket and a good passer. That’s what he was brought in for.

I feel like a lot of people either see if he’s a bargain or a bad deal. There’s no middle ground with some posters. It’s fair value.

[kodo]

Maybe $5M a year? He's past his prime, but his resume is still multiple time All-Star, All-NBA 2nd teamer, and top 10 MVP vote list player. And last year he was still the #10 most effective half court scorer in the league, everyone else on that list was unobtainable. You're just not going to get an UFA with that resume for $20M a year, basically what Gallinari got. The most effective contracts happen from rookie scale or being RFA extensions where they know they are severely limited in offer sheets from other teams.

Hayward got $30M a year.
1 All Star Game
No All-NBA.
Never got MVP vote shares.
Massive injury risk.

We, an embarrassing EC team that didn't even make the play in, aren't really getting anyone on this list at a bargain contract.
Caruso said he would have resigned in LA for less money than what we offered.
Derozan said he thought he was going to be signing for one of the LA teams.
Chicago had to come in with something other than the promise of Chicago winters to get both guys.

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[sco]

To me, it comes down to what is the opportunity cost of the transaction. Is there someone that we otherwise could have signed with that money, who would have come here and made more of a difference?

[Dresden]

I don't really care if he is overpaid or not. We need someone like him- someone who can score in the half court and get to the line, someone who is reliable, who makes good decisions, who can carry the offense at times. Without him, we're back to relying on Zach and Vuc all the time, and if one of them is hurt or having an off night, we become much easier to defend.

Great teams have multiple scoring threats. That is what has held us back for a long time. Even during the Rose era we had problems finding someone to take the load off of Rose. We had Boozer and Deng, which helped, but they were not always able to get their own.

A little bit of redundancy is a good thing. Like the Warriors having Curry and Thompson. If we had to pay a bit over market value, so what? Not every deal can be a bargain.

[Rowland Garrett]

...it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s only worth 22 million or 23 million in a bubble. 28 is what it took to get him here. Therefore he is worth it no matter what because he wouldn’t be here for less and there wouldn’t be a better option.

This^

[Jcool0]

If Derozan was brought in to be the #1 option, maybe you could discuses his contract. But he is what, the 3rd option on this team? 2B? Besides a healthy Nets team you aren't going to find to many better 3rd options in the league.

[meekrab]

Personally I think it's probably 8-10 million more than what equivalent impact players get paid, but mostly because those equivalent players are mostly coming off their rookie deals and are CBA limited as far as what they can make. You always have to "overpay" to get veterans who are better than "role player" level in the NBA.

It's no big deal for this season, because we traded a role player, dead salary, and a protected pick for his sign and trade, it wasn't like we could go out on the free agency market and spend the money. The issue is this contract pushes us hard up against the tax line next season when Zach gets his bag, so our free agent options get a lot smaller and absent a commitment from Reinsdorf HQ to pay the tax for a few years 2023's team could very well be worse than 2022's, which would be a bummer, and then after that season you're looking at new contracts for or replacing Vuc Coby Alize Javonte and Ayo.

[Tetlak]

Talking about WCJ's extension and others today made me think about DeRozan's contract.

I think almost everyone would agree that it's an overpay. He got the same amount of money as Lowry - which seems fair enough given Lowry's greater impact but greater age / health concerns. And it's also less than what Gordon Hayward has left on his deal....

But... it is also barely more than Jaylen Brown's extension... I think pretty much everyone would take Jaylen Brown. Or John Collins, for that matter, who is averaging 25M per year instead of 28. Gallinari is at 21M; the more impactful Jrue getting paid on a similar scale at a 33M/year average. Tim Hardaway and Evan Fournier are interesting comps in that they are a couple of years younger and not as productive - but signed for 18.5M and 19.5M average, respectively - similar to Joe Harris, and a bit under Aaron Gordon's 22M+ average.

I'm thinking a "fair" contract for DeRozan would have been more in line with Gordon's - about 6M/year less. But DeRozan is on a 3 year deal, Gordon on a 1+4.

So here's the big question - will overpaying DeRozan have any meaningful negative impact on the Bulls, given the cap situation (an over the cap team for the foreseeable future, but an under the lux tax team given expected cap increases)? If so, how much does he have to produce to negate that expected damage and make him a not-net-negative tradeable contract?

Would literally never pay John Collins 25, Gallo 21, or Aaron Gordon 22.

I am much more comfortable paying an offensive creator 20+ mil than a limited roleplayer. Not terribly concerned by Demar's contract

[jordanwilliams6]

The contract is fine with me. It’s pretty clear this current team has a two year window to see if it works. If it doesn’t, then in 2023 we don’t re-sign Vuc & ship off Demar’s final year of his contract which will be easy enough.

That’s what I like about the current roster build is that we’re not locked into this exact core. If this current makeup doesn’t work, we can attack the 2023 off season with a pretty decent and young core of Lonzo/Zach/PWill and the ability go after any available SF/PF/C. I’m looking at you Joker.

[Michael Jackson]

Over pay? Yeah it is but that is what it takes. You pay for fit and overall success. As mentioned earlier not everything is a bargain. Bulls have a bargain with Zach currently. Vuc is good value. Getting those other guys like DDR and AC cost something, that’s why they come here. Personally if I am going to take a bargain rate I am going to a sure thing, which the Bulls aren’t. I also think everyone of us would like to get our high end in market value at any job we are doing and DDR did that. I think we can agree he is less of an overpay that Felicio was? It’s the cost of doing business. The fact he isn’t a number one means little to me if we are competitive. Say you got him for 5 or 6 million less? Doesn’t really matter as we look to be operating over the cap as it is so it’s a moot point. Is DDR worth the money? Well how this team performs will answer that, as he is part of a bigger picture.

[Andi Obst]

I absolutely think the Bulls gave up too many assets and paid DeRozan too much in that deal. I also think he's an obvious fit with this roster and we should move on from the assets/money the Bulls gave up and just focus on the on-court product. We'll see how it plays out, no need to over-think it right now.

[TeamMan]

Talking about WCJ's extension and others today made me think about DeRozan's contract.

I think almost everyone would agree that it's an overpay. He got the same amount of money as Lowry - which seems fair enough given Lowry's greater impact but greater age / health concerns. And it's also less than what Gordon Hayward has left on his deal....

But... it is also barely more than Jaylen Brown's extension... I think pretty much everyone would take Jaylen Brown. Or John Collins, for that matter, who is averaging 25M per year instead of 28. Gallinari is at 21M; the more impactful Jrue getting paid on a similar scale at a 33M/year average. Tim Hardaway and Evan Fournier are interesting comps in that they are a couple of years younger and not as productive - but signed for 18.5M and 19.5M average, respectively - similar to Joe Harris, and a bit under Aaron Gordon's 22M+ average.

I'm thinking a "fair" contract for DeRozan would have been more in line with Gordon's - about 6M/year less. But DeRozan is on a 3 year deal, Gordon on a 1+4.

So here's the big question - will overpaying DeRozan have any meaningful negative impact on the Bulls, given the cap situation (an over the cap team for the foreseeable future, but an under the lux tax team given expected cap increases)? If so, how much does he have to produce to negate that expected damage and make him a not-net-negative tradeable contract?

IMO this is a "retreat" to the Gar/Pax mindset.

And in fact, it's what got them fired.

In todays NBA, before you ever have a chance of winning a championship, you must 1st win free agency.

By signing DDR and Ball, the Bulls took the 1st step by winning free agency.

And in so doing, brought the Bulls out of the (Gar/Pax inflicted) stone age and into the the reality of the present day NBA.

Now AK is getting "feelers" (some call it tampering) from players that want to play for the Bulls.

And it took him less than a year-and-a-half to achieve what gar Pax never achieved after D-Rose was traded away.