RealGM

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/275415/Bulls-Offered-DeMar-DeRozan-Two-Year-Contract

discuss

Looks like they're on plan "play in for 2 years" by overpaying DeMar for two seasons then literally the whole team is a blank slate except one year of LaVine (whom they probably move this off-season anyway).

A bit of what I want vs. whats the most I think the Bulls are willing to actually do - but I believe the Bulls plan to effectively "run it back but without Lavine" for the next year or 2 and if they are set on that path you might as well bring Demar back. 2/80 seems steep for a guy coming off of a $27.3M AAV contract - but im kinda meh on the short term future at this point anyway.

dougthonus wrote:Looks like they're on plan "play in for 2 years" by overpaying DeMar for two seasons then literally the whole team is a blank slate except one year of LaVine (whom they probably move this off-season anyway).

I think many would agree that next season won't see the Bulls likely competing for a title. The question on the table is what can be done for the 25-26 season. Ball should be gone. Vuc is still under contract, but at least by then he'll be on an easier to trade, expiring deal. It's not crazy to sign Demar to parallel that. We're going to be luck to work our way under the tax before the end of next season, much less improve via FA.

I chose to trade Demar for a rotation-level or better asset for a few reasons. First, I'm less optimistic Zach can be traded and I think we now know that a team built around Demar ain't it. I'm not saying it is going to be even as good as it was with Zach, but we KNOW what we have with Demar alone and with both of them. Keeping Zach is more likely to lead to a better return for him at the deadline or after next season than it will now.

HearshotKDS wrote:A bit of what I want vs. whats the most I think the Bulls are willing to actually do - but I believe the Bulls plan to effectively "run it back but without Lavine" for the next year or 2 and if they are set on that path you might as well bring Demar back. 2/80 seems steep for a guy coming off of a $27.3M AAV contract - but im kinda meh on the short term future at this point anyway.

Honestly - turning down 2/80 for a 34 year old seems crazy to me. Is he really going to get 3/120? It seems like he wants a Vanvleet or Beal contract - but they’re both 30 (currently). Tobias Harris is the same deal. Yeah, Demar is better than Lavine - but the circumstances of the signing were different, he’s in a different trajectory (and that contract was a huge mistake)

Seems to me: there’s no bigger contract the Bulls should offer - and demar doesn’t want 2/80 - so that feels like it’s over.

I guess we’ll know more once we see what kind of contracts other teams offer him - but if a competent team can put together a good offer sheet, I think he’s gone. That exit interview felt like Demar saying he wants the playoffs every year until he retires - and he’s definitely not getting that with this current roster.

It’s possible he wants to see what kind of moves out team makes - but that seems like a very charitable reading of the situation

LateNight wrote:

HearshotKDS wrote:A bit of what I want vs. whats the most I think the Bulls are willing to actually do - but I believe the Bulls plan to effectively "run it back but without Lavine" for the next year or 2 and if they are set on that path you might as well bring Demar back. 2/80 seems steep for a guy coming off of a $27.3M AAV contract - but im kinda meh on the short term future at this point anyway.

Honestly - turning down 2/80 for a 34 year old seems crazy to me. Is he really going to get 3/120? It seems like he wants a Vanvleet or Beal contract - but they’re both 30 (currently). Tobias Harris is the same deal. Yeah, Demar is better than Lavine - but the circumstances of the signing were different, he’s in a different trajectory and it was a huge mistake.

Seems like: there’s no bigger contract the Bulls should offer - so, if demar doesn’t want 2/80 - that feels like it’s over.

And I like derozan

I agree, its not reasonable to expect teams to just ignore his age when it comes to financial commitment length in a league with garaunteed contracts. I hope Bulls have the sense not to get in a bidding war in case another team wants to overspend.

Don't want him back even for no return.

It's nothing against DeMar at all but im ready to move on. I was anti-tank after how poorly that last one went but this team has managed to be the true definition of basketball hell: Unwatchable with no hope to get better.

Axl Rose wrote:Don't want him back even for no return.

It's nothing against DeMar at all but im ready to move on. I was anti-tank after how poorly that last one went but this team has managed to be the true definition of basketball hell: Unwatchable with no hope to get better.

I think there’s an almost zero percent chance of tanking right now - just based on everything AK has said

Would like to get something back for him. Now some other team might not have great assets to return, I'll take a young unproven kid and a 1st or 3-4 2nds. But not taking back even an expiring bad contract, that's not progress, rather get nothing.

Now the reason I don't want him back, gawd not for $80M is that when they change the things around him, we're not going to make big improvements shipping OUT the veterans, keeping the Coby, Ayo, Patrick, Phillips group and end up with a better team to get 10 more wins. There's no guarantee there won't be a series of 2024-25 injuries. If that were to happen then they're stuck trying to unload a $40M Demar at the deadline. That's another 2 seasons flushed.

There's just no scenario where they have a better team keeping him

Axl Rose wrote:Don't want him back even for no return.

Same. And would vote the same for Zach and Vuc as well if that’s what it comes down to. The most important thing is that they all no longer be here so we can clean the slate.

DuckIII wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:Don't want him back even for no return.

Same. And would vote the same for Zach and Vuc as well if that’s what it comes down to. The most important thing is that they all no longer be here so we can clean the slate.

Same. Cmon, what are we doing here?

fleet wrote:

DuckIII wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:Don't want him back even for no return.

Same. And would vote the same for Zach and Vuc as well if that’s what it comes down to. The most important thing is that they all no longer be here so we can clean the slate.

Same. Cmon, what are we doing here?

Of the three, the one I’m most interested in keeping would be demar. But I’m fine with moving on from everybody

I didn't vote because none of the options applied to my thinking on the situation.

First things first, I'd be trying very hard to trade Vuc and/or Zach BEFORE free agency. Then, I'd take a long hard look at what I have after those trade(s) and the draft. Then depending on details, I'd be open to any of these:

1. Sign Demar for big money for 1-2 years. Ideal here is the max for one year with a team option for year 2.
2. Let him walk entirely. This might make sense if we got a SF in a zach trade that might really have a chance to be part of our future for example.
3. Sign him to 2-3 years at maybe a modest raise over what he makes now. Something like 3 years 90 mil max.

All depends on the specifics of our roster at the time we have to make the decision. Ideally we want to be strengthened at the 4/5 position, be in a beter salary situation, yet still need Demar. Then it makes sense to pay him.

We definitely shouldn't trade Demar for a "rotation level asset". If people want to tank, silly as that is, then we don't want any return. If you want to win games, Demar is obviously a lot better than a "rotation level player". We have enough of those. We need guys that are actually good players or are likely to become them. Otherwise just let guys expire and trim the fat.

Also, IMO, I'm very hesitant to sign Demar to a 3 year deal unless I'm letting Patrick walk. I'm not interested in trying to force Patrick to be the "PF" that he isn't for any more than 2 more years max. And if we keep them both, IMO that means Zach or Caruso must go, for the same reason. Redundancy is how you squander assets.

I was against re-signing Vuc. I was for trading Zach for peanuts after the shenanigans this season. There was no good argument for keeping either of those 2 (or Billy), but Demar has been a reliable contributor every season. 2 years under 30 million doesn't bother me.

DuckIII wrote:

Axl Rose wrote:Don't want him back even for no return.

Same. And would vote the same for Zach and Vuc as well if that’s what it comes down to. The most important thing is that they all no longer be here so we can clean the slate.

DDR is a good player, but the problem is he's crutch to lean on. I know he has blinders on sometimes, but he does help the team when they need points in the 4th quarter.

If DDR never came to Chicago where would the team be in the last three years? I know it's difficult to say because no DDR means they'd have other player, but what if those players were average starters at best (and not the kind of player who can help take over in the 4th). I have my doubts that Zach would do a good job of filling that role and I can't see anyone else on the roster who is capable of doing that. Maybe Coby, when he has a hot hand, but that's inconsistent.

I think it's entirely possible that the Bulls, without DDR, wouldn't even have the "good" season of 2021-22.

League Circles wrote:We definitely shouldn't trade Demar for a "rotation level asset". If people want to tank, silly as that is, then we don't want any return. If you want to win games, Demar is obviously a lot better than a "rotation level player". We have enough of those. We need guys that are actually good players or are likely to become them. Otherwise just let guys expire and trim the fat.

If the Bulls want to move in a new direction, and go for a top pick in 2025, then they don't have to tank. You let DDR walk (or sign and trade him), trade Zach and then that should be enough to be a bad team. They could also trade Caruso for a future asset.

I don't think AK will actually do any of this, but I'm pointing out that it's easy for the team to aim for a top pick in 2025.

League Circles wrote:Also, IMO, I'm very hesitant to sign Demar to a 3 year deal unless I'm letting Patrick walk. I'm not interested in trying to force Patrick to be the "PF" that he isn't for any more than 2 more years max. And if we keep them both, IMO that means Zach or Caruso must go, for the same reason. Redundancy is how you squander assets.

PW at the 3 might be a strong reason to trade Demar unless Demar moves to SG. I definitely don't want PW playing PF for 2 more years. I want an actual PF on this team. Been saying this since AK lost Thad and Theiss.

Dan Z wrote:

League Circles wrote:We definitely shouldn't trade Demar for a "rotation level asset". If people want to tank, silly as that is, then we don't want any return. If you want to win games, Demar is obviously a lot better than a "rotation level player". We have enough of those. We need guys that are actually good players or are likely to become them. Otherwise just let guys expire and trim the fat.

If the Bulls want to move in a new direction, and go for a top pick in 2025, then they don't have to tank. You let DDR walk (or sign and trade him), trade Zach and then that should be enough to be a bad team. They could also trade Caruso for a future asset.

I don't think AK will actually do any of this, but I'm pointing out that it's easy for the team to aim for a top pick in 2025.

To me, aiming for a top pick is the definition of tanking. Depends on what comes back for Zach, but if we're trying to get worse, that's what tanking is.