The convenient math here is yours - largely the fact that you think your math is the one that matters here and it doesnāt. The Bulls math matters. Your entire argument is based on the underlying idea that he has to get significantly better to move this contract or to be worth it for the bulls. They have dedicated what they believe a player of his caliber will get annually based on his current value in the league and locked him in at that rate for several years. If he doesnāt improve one bit they think he is worth this annually. Thatās what youāre struggling to come to grips with - they donāt agree with your valuation. Harrison Barnes averaged 2 more points than him and played worse defense and is making the same money while being much older.the years do not benefit the bulls because they've invested long-term equity in a guy who's literally stagnated since his first offseason. he has no incentive to play for his next contract, no urgency to protect his position, and the bulls have no way to convince anyone else to take on long-term contracts except through attaching picks that they never stockpiled - hampering their own trade flexibility going forward
"if he breaks out" can't be the only convenient math man
Moreover, heās 22 and the 5th year is a player option so he does have an incentive to be playing career ball around that time to be able to out for a longer term deal and likely his last shot at real money at 26 years old. This isnāt the deal to be outraged about.