As far as I'm aware, most team proprietary "all in one" metrics are substantively similar to the public metrics - there's not that much action happening on that end. A few teams have reached out to me asking for help building their own DARKO-like model, which likewise suggests to me the public metrics are basically fine as far the entire concept goes. I discussed
this on a podcast the other day, but essentially we've hit the diminishing returns point with the various all-in-one metrics.
Teams are rather focused much more on issues of fit, and understanding which specific actions various players excel or struggle at (e.g. pick and roll, help defense, on-ball defense), and which specific contexts players perform well in/struggle in (e.g., in the bonus, with the other team in foul trouble, playing opposite a big/small defender, etc...). A lot of this work depends on non-public raw tracking data, and the goal essentially is to find a guy who grades as subpar in his current role who can excel in another context. The distinction we usually draw when discussing these things is that RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM, etc... are all "impact" metrics. They're trying to understand (or project) how impactful a player will be in his current role/context. They're not really "talent" metrics, since ascertaining that requires pretty detailed understanding of context (talent + context = impact).
To tie this back to DeRozan, I would be surprised if there were teams with sophisticated stats departments which had DeRozan as a top 40-50 player coming into this year on any impact metric (the Bulls do not have a particularly sophisticated stats department, but their group likewise didn't like DeRozan). On the other hand, it's very possible that a bunch of teams thought DeRozan had a lot of talent and thought they could use him differently to maximize his skillset, or hide his flaws (on the defensive end in particular).