Bulls sign Lonzo Ball to 2 year, $20 million extension

[jnrjr79]

let me just ask: if Lonzo Ball enters free agency, which team is using $10mil out of their cap space to sign him?

I'm not against the signing because I like Lonzo and I hate Giddey and somebody needs to play basketball for this team. It's not much money or for very long. there's a team option. It's not the Pat or Benintendi special. I just don't think it's a "sweetheart deal" or like he took a paycut because the Bulls were so nice to him while he was healing. I think he got a good deal and took it.

actually it's amusing how polarizing the deal is. maybe it evens out in the middle as "fair". I think it's inconsequential. he won't be traded and that's fine with me, I suspect he's here to just play. I used to see him on ads around the city and I don't anymore. He's a celebrity, a star, I hope his game returns with the Bulls and he signs a long term extension so I can look at him next to Coby advertising the hospital while I wait for a train.

honestly this 'deadline shakeup' stuff has sort of re-inspired my interest in the sport. I'm totally a conspiracy theorist and I think that was the point of the Luka deal (gambling is a factor as well. possibly reptillians) -- and it worked. for now. I'll miss Zach but it's refreshing that he's not on the team anymore.

A one-year sub-MLE-level deal with a team option in year 2? About half the league would be up for that, IMO.

Room MLE: $7,983,000
Non-Taxpayer MLE: $12,822,000
Taxpayer MLE: $5,168,000

I have no doubt about the taxpayer MLE, but considering how many of the competing teams are cleaning up their books and also in the position to want, let alone be able to offer the full non-taxpayer MLE. Low.

These aren't the right numbers because they're for this season, not next. Next year, it's:

Room - $8.782
Tax - $5.685
Standard - $14.105

So, the Bulls basically gave him a small premium over the room exception and got him at a substantial discount to the standard.

According to Spotrac, only 10 teams in the league are projected to be above the tax next year, so there are plenty of teams in the market to make an offer for Zo.

[Tetlak]

let me just ask: if Lonzo Ball enters free agency, which team is using $10mil out of their cap space to sign him?

I'm not against the signing because I like Lonzo and I hate Giddey and somebody needs to play basketball for this team. It's not much money or for very long. there's a team option. It's not the Pat or Benintendi special. I just don't think it's a "sweetheart deal" or like he took a paycut because the Bulls were so nice to him while he was healing. I think he got a good deal and took it.

actually it's amusing how polarizing the deal is. maybe it evens out in the middle as "fair". I think it's inconsequential. he won't be traded and that's fine with me, I suspect he's here to just play. I used to see him on ads around the city and I don't anymore. He's a celebrity, a star, I hope his game returns with the Bulls and he signs a long term extension so I can look at him next to Coby advertising the hospital while I wait for a train.

honestly this 'deadline shakeup' stuff has sort of re-inspired my interest in the sport. I'm totally a conspiracy theorist and I think that was the point of the Luka deal (gambling is a factor as well. possibly reptillians) -- and it worked. for now. I'll miss Zach but it's refreshing that he's not on the team anymore.

Lonzo Ball would quite obviously be a popular MLE target for winning teams.

[jnrjr79]

His Bird rights aren't relevant to this discussion. The Bird rights allow the retaining team to give him a higher salary than other teams. The Bulls were never going to be in a position of "they can only offer you the MLE, but we can go higher," but even if some team were going to sign him to the MLE, then the Bulls would have to had paid him considerably more than they just did.

Lonzo was set to be an UFA as well, so the Bulls would have had no matching ability if another team made an offer.

Sure they are... it all plays a part in the totality of it. If money was his true motivator, his agent would know those rights would allow him to go back to Bulls and negotiate for more.

And who are we kidding here? Nobody out there was going to offer him the full MLE... but we practically did. 10M vs 12.8.

We offered him 25% less than the MLE for one season. IMO he could have trivially gotten the full MLE for 2-4 years from someone.

Minimally, I think someone would have offered him the full MLE for one year with a 2nd year team option.

[League Circles]

No we got a half of lottery pick for Lavine. Less than half. 10-15 range. We owned 1-9.

This is incomplete. It's not just the effect of this year, where the Bulls had a decent chance, but weren't certain, to keep the pick. The bigger deal is eliminating the 1-8 protections in the following two seasons, and to a lesser extent not having to shell our 2 2nds if the Bulls could indeed stay in the bottom 8 through 2027.

It's not all that easy to guarantee you'll stay in the bottom 8 (and not get jumped by a team behind you and lose the pick anyway) through 2027, so I'd imagine it was more likely than not they were going to lose a 1st to SA at some point.

if bulls are interested in rebuild, retool whatever you wanna call it they will still gonna be bottom 8 next year. just from start of season. if your plan is to move coby white and vuc and extend ayo and josh. and give keys to matas. I dont see a way where that team is not bottom 8 next year.

Nobody is signing here in FA who is actually worth a damn. And you should not be interested in FA to give any kind of deals to mid players given you looking to move mid players like White and Vuc. So bottom 8 is guaranteed next year. We can argue semantics, but Bulls really didnt get anything for Zach. Bulls just wanted to get rid of Zach's salary, getting control over pick is just not something AKME values like you and me do.

It's lunacy to proclaim that bottom 8 is guaranteed next year. That's not even remotely how this league works.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

let me just ask: if Lonzo Ball enters free agency, which team is using $10mil out of their cap space to sign him?

I'm not against the signing because I like Lonzo and I hate Giddey and somebody needs to play basketball for this team. It's not much money or for very long. there's a team option. It's not the Pat or Benintendi special. I just don't think it's a "sweetheart deal" or like he took a paycut because the Bulls were so nice to him while he was healing. I think he got a good deal and took it.

actually it's amusing how polarizing the deal is. maybe it evens out in the middle as "fair". I think it's inconsequential. he won't be traded and that's fine with me, I suspect he's here to just play. I used to see him on ads around the city and I don't anymore. He's a celebrity, a star, I hope his game returns with the Bulls and he signs a long term extension so I can look at him next to Coby advertising the hospital while I wait for a train.

honestly this 'deadline shakeup' stuff has sort of re-inspired my interest in the sport. I'm totally a conspiracy theorist and I think that was the point of the Luka deal (gambling is a factor as well. possibly reptillians) -- and it worked. for now. I'll miss Zach but it's refreshing that he's not on the team anymore.

I think it is likely that a team would have offered a multi year MLE deal to him this summer. I sure would if I had a good team that needed a multi positional versatile 2 way player and only had the MLE to work with.

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

[League Circles]

I think Lonzo signed for cheap here because he believes continuity and certainty of system as well as the likelihood of his role being secure (and likely expanded over this season) is the best thing for his long term future. Yes he probably knows he could have made more money next year as a FA with a different team, but that may very well be in a more limited role that could go sideways a bit and leave him permanently in more of a bench role player zone.

[jnrjr79]

let me just ask: if Lonzo Ball enters free agency, which team is using $10mil out of their cap space to sign him?

I'm not against the signing because I like Lonzo and I hate Giddey and somebody needs to play basketball for this team. It's not much money or for very long. there's a team option. It's not the Pat or Benintendi special. I just don't think it's a "sweetheart deal" or like he took a paycut because the Bulls were so nice to him while he was healing. I think he got a good deal and took it.

actually it's amusing how polarizing the deal is. maybe it evens out in the middle as "fair". I think it's inconsequential. he won't be traded and that's fine with me, I suspect he's here to just play. I used to see him on ads around the city and I don't anymore. He's a celebrity, a star, I hope his game returns with the Bulls and he signs a long term extension so I can look at him next to Coby advertising the hospital while I wait for a train.

honestly this 'deadline shakeup' stuff has sort of re-inspired my interest in the sport. I'm totally a conspiracy theorist and I think that was the point of the Luka deal (gambling is a factor as well. possibly reptillians) -- and it worked. for now. I'll miss Zach but it's refreshing that he's not on the team anymore.

I think it is likely that a team would have offered a multi year MLE deal to him this summer. I sure would if I had a good team that needed a multi positional versatile 2 way player and only had the MLE to work with.

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

Even on a prove-it deal, there is a 0.0% chance that the minimum would have done it.

And I don't think it's the Bulls "doing right by Lonzo" since they negotiated themselves a team option. That doesn't make any sense. They're getting him on the cheap and not taking any risk.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I think it is likely that a team would have offered a multi year MLE deal to him this summer. I sure would if I had a good team that needed a multi positional versatile 2 way player and only had the MLE to work with.

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

Even on a prove-it deal, there is a 0.0% chance that the minimum would have done it.

And I don't think it's the Bulls "doing right by Lonzo" since they negotiated themselves a team option. That doesn't make any sense. They're getting him on the cheap and not taking any risk.

well I guess we're at an impasse because I wouldn't pay him 10 million dollars if I had 10 million dollars+ in cap space. the MLE is the logical route, but probably better spent elsewhere and I'm not sure Lonzo would want to be locked in to that if he's actually good. someone is losing that deal. he can sign a fair deal in 1 to 2 years. maybe he doesn't sign anywhere. you make a good point about the team option, that alone might be worth $10mil.

[League Circles]

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

Even on a prove-it deal, there is a 0.0% chance that the minimum would have done it.

And I don't think it's the Bulls "doing right by Lonzo" since they negotiated themselves a team option. That doesn't make any sense. They're getting him on the cheap and not taking any risk.

well I guess we're at an impasse because I wouldn't pay him 10 million dollars if I had 10 million dollars+ in cap space. the MLE is the logical route, but probably better spent elsewhere and I'm not sure Lonzo would want to be locked in to that if he's actually good. someone is losing that deal. he can sign a fair deal in 1 to 2 years. maybe he doesn't sign anywhere. you make a good point about the team option, that alone might be worth $10mil.

Yeah I don't think anyone would pay him 10 -15 mil in cap space, but the MLE is infinitely different than the same amount of cap space in terms of how teams are willing to use it.

[step]

Sure they are... it all plays a part in the totality of it. If money was his true motivator, his agent would know those rights would allow him to go back to Bulls and negotiate for more.

And who are we kidding here? Nobody out there was going to offer him the full MLE... but we practically did. 10M vs 12.8.

We offered him 25% less than the MLE for one season. IMO he could have trivially gotten the full MLE for 2-4 years from someone.

Minimally, I think someone would have offered him the full MLE for one year with a 2nd year team option.

Cheers for the new figures.

I think with recent behaviours, teams have been less and less offering the full MLE to a single player as they often need to fix more than 1 need come the offseason. Especially the contenders.

And I think I have a different take on how many are seeing him now, barely playing half the season, no back to backs, still has the injury cloud hanging over his head, and going, I'm going to throw all my MLE chickens into one basket and give him the full amount.

I think the new aprons and rules have teams rethinking their old strategies and how they structure new deals.
The MLE in the past, without a doubt was handed out like candy.

[step]

Yeah I don't think anyone would pay him 10 -15 mil in cap space, but the MLE is infinitely different than the same amount of cap space in terms of how teams are willing to use it.

True. But I also think teams are now more focused on trying to get the 2-3 superstars or have them and are dealing with the financial headaches of trying to spread the rest around enough to cover the gaps that it causes, they aren't as keen to repeat that old behaviour of throwing around the MLE at a single guy like candy. Definitely feels the most recent behaviour has been to split it on multiple guys.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I looked back to 2023 and beyond and excluding star players this is what I found:

- Hornets got Grant Williams, Seth Curry, and a 2027 1st for P.J. Washington and two 2nds

- Wizards got Richaun Holmes and a 2024 1st for Daniel Gafford

- Hornets got Kyle Lowry and a 2027 1st lottery protected for Terry Rozier

- Blazers got Malcolm Brogdon, Bob Williams, a 2024 1st, and an unprotected 2029 1st for Jrue Holiday

- Wizards got Malcolm Brogon, Carlton Carrington, two 2nds, and a 2029 1st for Deni Avdija

I definitely think the best-case scenario Lonzo could be had for something like a non-lottery first and fillers and whatnot, maybe we'd also have to send a 2nd or something. If he's healthy and averaging like 10-12 PPG with his great defense and around a 40% 3-point shot he's going to look very appealing to contenders.

What separates Lonzo from these comps (aside from the obv non-comp in Jrue Holiday) is that it’s almost impossible to project him as a full time starter. He probably won’t average 30 mpg or play in back to backs and he’s never had a 65 game season. He has awesome per minute impact, but there’s a hard ceiling on his total impact because of injury management. Which makes him a high-level utility player. It’s hard to see a team forking over a first for that. And chasing the outside chance he returns late 1st value doesn’t justify hurting our draft odds.

Like I said early thread, I’m a lot more interested in this if Coby and Vuc go tomorrow. But signing Lonzo as a minor asset play - or a ‘mentor’ - is an indulgence the Bulls can’t afford if he and other win-now players are driving this team to 35 wins.

Two things here:

As far as I know, neither Lonzo or the Bulls have said whether the intent is to keep his current minutes restrictions or prohibition on back-to-backs on a permanent basis. It could easily be a thing where that was the protocol for this season, but if his body holds up, they talk to docs and evaluate whether he can play a larger role.

The other thing is that with that cheap salary and the team option, he becomes a more valuable trade chip than he was before extending (and, sneakily, he can still be traded today if they want). From an asset management perspective, it makes sense to do the deal, even if you don't think he makes sense on a rebuilding squad.

1. No, they haven’t said they’ll limit his minutes. And they wouldn’t this far out. Especially when they were fielding trade offers. But it seems very likely that Lonzo will be injury managed to some degree. He just isn’t built for 30+ minutes over 65 games. We have six seasons of play (and two he didn’t play) to go on. You can run him until the wheels fall off - or do maintenance before that happens. Either way, he’s going to miss significant time. And I suspect that’s going to be baked into his trade value even if even if he has a strong season.

2. I didn’t have a problem with the deal in a vacuum. It’s a perfectly fine asset play. But in tandem with keeping Coby/Vuc, the Bulls are missing the plot. You don’t worsen your chances of getting the #1 pick in hopes of trading Lonzo/Vuc for the 28th pick instead of the 38th. That’s setting your oven temperature to the potatoes and burning the turkey.

[jnrjr79]

What separates Lonzo from these comps (aside from the obv non-comp in Jrue Holiday) is that it’s almost impossible to project him as a full time starter. He probably won’t average 30 mpg or play in back to backs and he’s never had a 65 game season. He has awesome per minute impact, but there’s a hard ceiling on his total impact because of injury management. Which makes him a high-level utility player. It’s hard to see a team forking over a first for that. And chasing the outside chance he returns late 1st value doesn’t justify hurting our draft odds.

Like I said early thread, I’m a lot more interested in this if Coby and Vuc go tomorrow. But signing Lonzo as a minor asset play - or a ‘mentor’ - is an indulgence the Bulls can’t afford if he and other win-now players are driving this team to 35 wins.

Two things here:

As far as I know, neither Lonzo or the Bulls have said whether the intent is to keep his current minutes restrictions or prohibition on back-to-backs on a permanent basis. It could easily be a thing where that was the protocol for this season, but if his body holds up, they talk to docs and evaluate whether he can play a larger role.

The other thing is that with that cheap salary and the team option, he becomes a more valuable trade chip than he was before extending (and, sneakily, he can still be traded today if they want). From an asset management perspective, it makes sense to do the deal, even if you don't think he makes sense on a rebuilding squad.

1. No, they haven’t said they’ll limit his minutes. And they wouldn’t this far out. Especially when they were fielding trade offers. But it seems very likely that Lonzo will be injury managed to some degree. He just isn’t built for 30+ minutes over 65 games. We have six seasons of play (and two he didn’t play) to go on. You can run him until the wheels fall off - or do maintenance before that happens. Either way, he’s going to miss significant time. And I suspect that’s going to be baked into his trade value even if even if he has a strong season.

Lonzo effectively has a totally new knee and neither of us has any idea how he’ll be managed moving forward. In theory, his issues could just be over in that regard. But who knows!

2. I didn’t have a problem with the deal in a vacuum. It’s a perfectly fine asset play. But in tandem with keeping Coby/Vuc, the Bulls are missing the plot. You don’t worsen your chances of getting the #1 pick in hopes of trading Lonzo/Vuc for the 28th pick instead of the 38th. That’s setting your oven temperature to the potatoes and burning the turkey.

I don’t think Vooch is going to move the needle on wins or losses the rest of the year. But I agree the Bulls have generally not prioritized draft positioning as well as they should. That said, i think unloading Zach will make them appreciably worse down the stretch.

[dougthonus]

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

We will see how the rest of the season goes, but watching him, he looks like he's gotten healthier and healthier to me. His minute restriction is basically gone now which is an objective measure that this is true. January he shot 39% from 3, and he's taking 6.2 attempts per game, and he takes quick release, high difficulty shots that fit well within any team. His defense has been consistently awesome, he's still a good passer, his on/off numbers and on court impact are great as they always have been.

There's definitely some unknowable health risk with Lonzo, because the procedures he's tried are not well tested and he is the first in the NBA to have them, but he had his meniscus and cartilage replaced. It is an entirely new knee. It isn't worn down or lacking cartilage or a multi-shaved meniscus or a weakened ACL, this is a whole new knee, and so I can easily see the path where it is not going to have all these problems. It might not turn out that way, but there's a pretty logical line to draw of why it might.

If Lonzo is stays healthy the remainder of this year and continues to play like January, this is going to be an incredible trade asset in the off season. A high impact guy at 10M with a team option of 10M that you don't have to pick up if things go horribly wrong, but is one of the best impact guys in the league, can defend four positions, is a super high volume, good 3 point shooter, and is a great locker room / winning player?

I could see Lonzo being worth multiple 1sts at the deadline next year if he makes it healthy until then. If he was on a one year vet min deal, then he'd actually be worth way less due to the lack of lock in. Sure, he might get hurt, and it might go bad, but we are likely chasing draft picks next year and unlikely to be a cap space team anyway, and the risk is one year long, so if it blows up in our faces who cares?

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I made a different post about it and I don't want to be a broken record, but I'm skeptical he's getting a deal like that because he hasn't proven to be fully healthy or back to form. Will teams take a multi-year risk on that? I'm surprised the Bulls didn't tbh.
Also, if Lonzo is actually still the player he was, he's getting a way better deal than the MLE. So I guess this is a "prove it" deal, which I don't mind, I just would have expected a "prove it" deal for Lonzo to be a vet min deal. In that way, I don't mind the deal, I just think it's more that the Bulls are doing right by Lonzo rather than the other way around.

We will see how the rest of the season goes, but watching him, he looks like he's gotten healthier and healthier to me. His minute restriction is basically gone now which is an objective measure that this is true. January he shot 39% from 3, and he's taking 6.2 attempts per game, and he takes quick release, high difficulty shots that fit well within any team. His defense has been consistently awesome, he's still a good passer, his on/off numbers and on court impact are great as they always have been.

There's definitely some unknowable health risk with Lonzo, because the procedures he's tried are not well tested and he is the first in the NBA to have them, but he had his meniscus and cartilage replaced. It is an entirely new knee. It isn't worn down or lacking cartilage or a multi-shaved meniscus or a weakened ACL, this is a whole new knee, and so I can easily see the path where it is not going to have all these problems. It might not turn out that way, but there's a pretty logical line to draw of why it might.

If Lonzo is stays healthy the remainder of this year and continues to play like January, this is going to be an incredible trade asset in the off season. A high impact guy at 10M with a team option of 10M that you don't have to pick up if things go horribly wrong, but is one of the best impact guys in the league, can defend four positions, is a super high volume, good 3 point shooter, and is a great locker room / winning player?

I could see Lonzo being worth multiple 1sts at the deadline next year if he makes it healthy until then. If he was on a one year vet min deal, then he'd actually be worth way less due to the lack of lock in. Sure, he might get hurt, and it might go bad, but we are likely chasing draft picks next year and unlikely to be a cap space team anyway, and the risk is one year long, so if it blows up in our faces who cares?

Good post and I’ve already been talked into liking the deal…however I really disagree that he’ll be worth multiple first round picks with 1.5 years left on his deal. He’d have to do something pretty incredible, and at that point maybe we extend him to a long term deal. Wouldn’t mind Lonzo sticking around if he can still play, I’m a big fan. I appreciate your optimism re: the new knee. I’m less optimistic about what good players are “worth” after this deadline. Buyers market it feels like. AK loves to buy and sell players at the worst possible times. What an idiot.

[dougthonus]

Good post and I’ve already been talked into liking the deal…however I really disagree that he’ll be worth multiple first round picks with 1.5 years left on his deal. He’d have to do something pretty incredible, and at that point maybe we extend him to a long term deal. Wouldn’t mind Lonzo sticking around if he can still play, I’m a big fan. I appreciate your optimism re: the new knee. I’m less optimistic about what good players are “worth” after this deadline. Buyers market it feels like. AK loves to buy and sell players at the worst possible times. What an idiot.

I guess it always depends on the quality of picks. Multiple firsts probably doesn't mean much in a vacuum as two picks in the 20s isn't really all that much and less than one pick projected in the 10-15 range.

So I'll put it this way, if Lonzo stays healthy the rest of this season and next year, and continues to make the iterative improvements healthwise that we have seen so that he looks like a pretty similar player to prior to his injury, then he's worth more than Ayo or Coby is at this deadline (just as a compare and contract).

Obviously those upside things may not happen, but those upside things are on the path he is presently on. Ie, I see the steady improvement and health hasn't been an issue so far. Fingers crossed of course.

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

[Chi town]

AK turned down a 1st for Lonzo.

He should be able to get a 1st at the draft for sure with his new cheap deal and team option.

I know it looks awful now but I think AK wants to know where these picks land before he trades a player for them. That goes both ways though. Some teams won’t trade once they know their pick is so high.

Could Zo get the 20th pick in this draft if we take back worse contract? He will outperform that rookie for sure in the next two years.

[kulaz3000]

Read on Twitter

I call Bull on this. And even if it were true, it would have likely involved the Bulls taking back a terrible contract in return, which I'm glad the Bulls didn't do simply for what was likely a late first round pick.

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

I call Bull on this. And even if it were true, it would have likely involved the Bulls taking back a terrible contract in return, which I'm glad the Bulls didn't do simply for what was likely a late first round pick.

That's what you do when you rebuild. You take bad contracts for draft picks.