League Circles wrote:MGB8 wrote:League Circles wrote:
God forbid we discuss whether or not to pick up multi million dollar team options on 3rd string players that we have to imminently decide on.
I've never understood the notion that every player needs so many chances to evaluate. The goal isn't to be as fair and thorough as possible with players, it's to put together a winning roster. Dalen Terry at 5.4 million to quite likely be a 3rd string player in year 4 might prevent that. That 5.4 mil can instead be offered to a FA as first year salary on a 4 year deal which means roughly $20 million in opportunity cost. This is (one reason) why we can't have nice things.
First, opportunity cost can’t be measured across 4 years. It’s the cap difference for the one year, unless that cap difference can be aggregated its other space for a larger FA. Which ain’t happening - Giddey cap hold or extension plus factoring in Pat’s 18M puts the Bulls pretty close to the cap for 2025 (assuming cap hold, something like 142M, so over projected cap). Your assertion regarding 20 M makes zero sense. When Terry expires, the cap room would be there and they could sign someone to a 3 year deal.
The opportunity cost is about 3 million… and the impact is less because the Bulls could only use exceptions and minimums being over the cap (or take in some salary in trades, but still far away from the LT so not a big deal). So it’s Terry vs. a minimum contract flier on likely another guy who hasn’t developed as hoped.
Second, the issue isn’t whether to pick up the option or not, but instead (1) the tone of the discussion regarding actual human beings, and (2) the lack of acknowledgement that with young players, who don’t get a lot of burn and are in the “development” part of their curve, we (a) don’t have near enough information for our opinions to approach anywhere close to certainty (because most of the info is from practices and such that we have no access to), and (b) the uncertainty factor is huge (so even if we have better information, for instance with Lauri or Pat, and think certain things from certain reasons, there is a very good chance that we are wrong, in either direction).
A LOT can change cap wise for us over the next year. We have a bunch of players who MIGHT be traded as they aren't likely intended to be a big part of our long term future:
Zach
Vuc
Carter
Terry himself
Phillips
Not to mention other actual key pieces might get traded for a desirable player.
Yes we're very, very far from any certainty of evaluation on Dalen, but that's irrelevant, because we HAVE TO make the evaluation.
The 20 mil I mentioned is actually about 18.5 mil over 4 years. What that means is that if we maneuver our way into actual cap space next summer, the difference between keeping Terry on his 5.4 mil team option vs not having him under contract means being able to offer a free agent an additional 18.5 mil in guaranteed money (over a 4 year deal). That could obviously be the difference between getting any particular player or not.
I'm not trying to assess Dalen Terry as a person lol. He's a third string player who hasn't done anything meaningful yet and we need to decide very soon whether or not to pay him meaningful money.
IMO, the chances of moving LaVine or Vuc’s contracts for expirings is basically zero at this point. And while Zach’s play could increase the odds, Terry staying still wouldn’t make much, if any, difference if we were able to open up that room.
Meaning, the real opportunity cost for Terry’s option is a flier on a minimum contract for another guy who wasn’t good enough to get extended, nothing more.
Why? Let’s assume the Bulls are able to trade an exploding Zach for a protected first and, say, Ben Simmons’ expiring contract (either directly or indirectly). Terry isn’t picked up and we get another 3 mil of space, and with Giddey 190% hold (16M) and Pat at 18 M, and the cap hold for the first (6 M ish), down to 102M or so in committed caps (probably a little more due to roster holds)… near a veteran Max, enough room for 1 younger player Max.
So who actually projects to be available? Exactly two younger players who may or may not be extended (as opposed to guaranteed to be, or older vets who wouldn’t consider coming to a bottom feeder)… Brandon Ingram and Lauri Markkanen. Does Lauri come back to Chicago? Negative (and he very well may not be available). Do you throw a max deal at Brandon Ingram? I wouldn’t.
Maybe you throw a Max at RFA Kuminga…. except chances of him not extending with Warriors is slim, and if he didn’t extend, what are chances GSW would match? Or if not, did you just buy another albatross contract?
Now, you might want to overpay Naz Reid (non Max, say 25M per year)… but just moving off LaVine’s deal would give you enough room for that - Terry doesn’t make a difference.
The real opportunity cost of picking up Terry’s option is effectively zero. You only do so, if, at the time the decision must be made, the COACHING STAFF thinks that a flier on some other guy who hasn’t established himself is worth more than Terry taking up the roster spot.
(as for trade for a good player possibility, Terry’s extra 3M in salary isn’t going to impact that, either, if we have moved LaVine, or even if we haven’t… but Bulls are currently too asset poor to pull any such big trade off).
