'Cause I just don't get it.
I'm specifically thinking about young PGs, here. Supposedly we're offering several 1-year deals to developing players with potential. That seems stupid.
A 3-year, ~$10mil deal gives us Bird rights. It lets us hold on to a player if we think they're going to be solid.
If they play well on a 1-year deal, they'll raise their stock and we won't be able to keep them. If they're not good we're not on the hook for their future salary, but it's not like ~3mil is a major drain on our cap anyway, and those guys wouldn't be hard to trade.
More importantly, a 3-year deal says to a guy "We think you've got potential to be part of what we're building here" while a 1-year deal says the opposite. Even if the money is the same (or better), most players would rather take the affirmation of being considered part of the core.