Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Stratmaster]

It's effectively a market survey data from the people who will make the market.



Temperature doesn't shift based on the opinion of how hot or cold people think it is. Giddey's contract is exactly based on those opinions. It's a nonsensical comparison to take ask people a factual question and compare answers to asking people how much would you pay for a product when trying to determine the products price.

In such a question, you don't necessarily use the average (or even care about the average). That's why I noted in my response to the article, that based on it, Giddey's market value was 25M (peak value), not the average value, and made no point about the average value at all.



No, from an integrity standpoint, it is much better to include the number and note it as an outlier than to note include the number. As I said, the article did not emphasize the average, and emphasized in much greater amounts of words the commonality of 4 years and 25M per year.



In the world where someone doesn't like the fit of the player on their team which I would infer is due to a lot of the reasons that have been brought up in this thread, and yes, there are organizations that have a core set of beliefs and will only take something that violates those beliefs with extreme incentives to do so.

Once again, you are justifying the answer based on a different question. How a question is asked heavily influences the answers. The question was a fair contact value. There is no way Giddey's next contract will be anywhere near 4/50 unless it is because there is no agreement and it is the QO. You know it. I know it. Twist it around any way you would like and it is still the actual reality.

You seem to believe that asking someone what they subjedtively believe "fair contract" would be for a given player is asking them to predict what they think the player will actually get. That misunderstanding seems to be why you're angry at the article. This particular outlier staffer is not predicting what Giddey will get, he's saying he values him less than the market, which is tacitly admitting Giddey will be paid more than this guy would pay him. So, it doesn't make sense to be arguing things like the bolded above. Neither the person quoted nor the article itself suggest that Giddey would ever sign for 4/50.

There is no universe where 12.5 a year is FMV for Josh Giddey. The premise of the article is that these "sources" have some level of expertise. You seem to believe any opinion is worthy of consideration in an exercise like this. That is just patently false.

And I'm not mad about anything. I laughed at this person being included. And for good reason. That's it.

I'm not even mad that you keep ignoring the point and are just looking for a way to prove me wrong regardless of the facts.

[PaKii94]

Lol you can easily tell who actually does data analysis and who doesn't with this thread.

The outlier being not including in the averaging is valid. (Guy is just not interested in giddey)

Acknowledging why it's an outlier is valid. (There is at least some legitimate concerns/unknown about giddeys game that produced this outlier result)

A generic graph representing this situation is the one under model 3 below



The outlier is still "valid data" (present on the graph) but it's not heavily factored into when estimating the low high boundary on his market value

So for those of us who you believe don't understand data analysis, help us understand what those graphs are stating and how it applies to this situation.

I don't disagree with your general statement. I am just curious how you are translating it. The vertical measure is listed as a weighting factor. How was the Athletic article end result weighted to adjust for the outlier ?

This is where I stand generally

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

Specifically why I think that model kind of represents the situation I'm talking about the shape. Not what's on the y-axis Label. (obviously this is not how you would formally use this graph it's just one I found on the Internet that shows a low end outlier in model 3)

Upper limit - This is what he wants it's roughly 30 mil aav

Lower limit - That's what AK wants to pay roughly 20 mil aav


Q3 - I would peg around 26 mil This is what I would consider top end of his fair market value

Q1 - I would peg around 22-23 mil This is the bottom end of his fair market value

Median is what he probably gets 25 mil

Now the outlier here is the one who would give less than 13 mil per

You can see fmv range is biased towards lower end and concentrate around that 25 mark which shows the agreement with all the other survey responders.

But again in the end this is not based on fair market value it's a based on what someone's willing to pay for him so it's whatever the max he can get not the average

[GetBuLLish]

You seem to believe that asking someone what they subjedtively believe "fair contract" would be for a given player is asking them to predict what they think the player will actually get. That misunderstanding seems to be why you're angry at the article. This particular outlier staffer is not predicting what Giddey will get, he's saying he values him less than the market, which is tacitly admitting Giddey will be paid more than this guy would pay him. So, it doesn't make sense to be arguing things like the bolded above. Neither the person quoted nor the article itself suggest that Giddey would ever sign for 4/50.

This is exactly right. The people slamming the article are doing so based on an obvious misrepresentation of what the article is actually saying.

And the misrepresentation stems from an emotional outburst that anyone would dare say they don't think Giddey is that good of a player.

[jnrjr79]

Once again, you are justifying the answer based on a different question. How a question is asked heavily influences the answers. The question was a fair contact value. There is no way Giddey's next contract will be anywhere near 4/50 unless it is because there is no agreement and it is the QO. You know it. I know it. Twist it around any way you would like and it is still the actual reality.

You seem to believe that asking someone what they subjedtively believe "fair contract" would be for a given player is asking them to predict what they think the player will actually get. That misunderstanding seems to be why you're angry at the article. This particular outlier staffer is not predicting what Giddey will get, he's saying he values him less than the market, which is tacitly admitting Giddey will be paid more than this guy would pay him. So, it doesn't make sense to be arguing things like the bolded above. Neither the person quoted nor the article itself suggest that Giddey would ever sign for 4/50.

There is no universe where 12.5 a year is FMV for Josh Giddey.

I agree, but your use of FMV shows the disconnect here. The source was not asked to identify his FMV. If he were saying "I believe Giddey's fair market value is $12.5 million," I would agree with you that this is ludicrous. But he's not saying that. He's effectively saying "I know the market for Giddey is higher than $12.5 million, but $12.5 million is all I personally would be inclined to pay." I don't agree with that assessment, but it wasn't somehow inappropriate to include that opinion.

The premise of the article is that these "sources" have some level of expertise. You seem to believe any opinion is worthy of consideration in an exercise like this. That is just patently false.

This misses the point again. An opinion can't be "false." A prediction could be. "I would only pay Josh Giddey $12.5 million" is not the same thing as "the market will only give Josh Giddey a $12.5 million contract."

And I'm not mad about anything. I laughed at this person being included. And for good reason. That's it.

I'm not even mad that you keep ignoring the point and are just looking for a way to prove me wrong regardless of the facts.

I don't know what "the point" is here. You're misconstruing what this person was asked and how he answered to declare him "wrong" about something where there is inherently no right or wrong answer.

[dougthonus]

Maybe its not facetious. But it reads to me very much like "I don't like Giddey's game, I wouldn't even pay him the MLE." Like hyperbole. But if you want to call it his real number, fine. Changes nothing about the merit of criticizing the inclusion of a wild outlier in establishing a reliable mean.

The mean isn't particularly relevant in this situation, nor is establishing a reliable mean. Again, there are a lot of different statistical values, and they have different purposes. There is no reason to focus on the mean in this case, the author does not focus on the mean. He presents a large set of statistical values (mentioned median and max, and focused more on those in terms of words).

His words around the min offer to me had reasonable caveats as well, but in the end, it wasn't an opinion article. It was a presentation of survey information. The results of the survey provide some context and information, even the part we all disagree with in terms of its value.

To question the integrity of the author (which is where this started from) by presenting the results of a survey is ludicrous.

If you just want to say this responder is an outlier and obviously wrong, I presume we all agree. That doesn't make the survey wrong or the author poor for noting it in presenting the results of the survey. It would be much more wrong to alter the data given.

I don't understand why anyone is even batting an eye at this criticism. Rejection of outlier data happens in here all the time, including with Giddey's recent positive outlier stats as way to diminish their significance in the larger discussion. Which, by the way, is also valid. Three years of historical data weighed against one albeit more recent outlier year, is a meaningful consideration. That approach appears to be selectively applied to Giddey.

Who is rejecting Giddey's recent positive outlier stats? If you rejected those and based his contract on the first 50ish games of the season, he would be an MLE player. The 25M range weighs those pretty heavily IMO.

[dougthonus]

That's not really what unfolded here. Strat criticized the inclusion of that data point in evaluating the merit of the over-all conclusion. Doug said it was a "wild take" to exclude it as an outlier data point. As someone who argues data points all the time, including through expert witnesses whose job is to evaluate the relative significance and weight of different data points and how that is to be factored in as well, I can tell you that chucking outliers - or questioning the inclusion of outliers in assessing a conclusion - is far from a "wild" or unreasonable approach. And in this case, I'd say its clearly the appropriate approach.

The odd part is people who seem to insist on defending its inclusion even though we all know its an utter hogwash number. If the number was $45 AAV would anyone seriously be saying its a valuable data point to weigh?

The original contention I had is that the author did not have integrity because they included this data point.

The mean is entirely irrelevant in this article.

These are the things that are relevant in the article:
1: There is a consensus at 25M
2: No one wants to bid above 25M (positive outliers would have been really interesting if there were any)
3: 4-5 years is the consensus in years
4: A couple teams are quite low on Giddey so not everyone is sold

The mean is not a useful thing to discuss, and if this data point were removed from the calculation, it still would not be a meaningful thing to discuss, it just doesn't matter at all.

I'm not arguing this data point is important to from a Giddey contract standpoint. It completely isn't. That point + the 18M point are just interesting from showing point #4.

My only comment was the attack on the credibility of the author for presenting the actual survey results. That's ridiculous.

[Stratmaster]

You seem to believe that asking someone what they subjedtively believe "fair contract" would be for a given player is asking them to predict what they think the player will actually get. That misunderstanding seems to be why you're angry at the article. This particular outlier staffer is not predicting what Giddey will get, he's saying he values him less than the market, which is tacitly admitting Giddey will be paid more than this guy would pay him. So, it doesn't make sense to be arguing things like the bolded above. Neither the person quoted nor the article itself suggest that Giddey would ever sign for 4/50.

There is no universe where 12.5 a year is FMV for Josh Giddey.

I agree, but your use of FMV shows the disconnect here. The source was not asked to identify his FMV. If he were saying "I believe Giddey's fair market value is $12.5 million," I would agree with you that this is ludicrous. But he's not saying that. He's effectively saying "I know the market for Giddey is higher than $12.5 million, but $12.5 million is all I personally would be inclined to pay." I don't agree with that assessment, but it wasn't somehow inappropriate to include that opinion.

The premise of the article is that these "sources" have some level of expertise. You seem to believe any opinion is worthy of consideration in an exercise like this. That is just patently false.

This misses the point again. An opinion can't be "false." A prediction could be. "I would only pay Josh Giddey $12.5 million" is not the same thing as "the market will only give Josh Giddey a $12.5 million contract."

And I'm not mad about anything. I laughed at this person being included. And for good reason. That's it.

I'm not even mad that you keep ignoring the point and are just looking for a way to prove me wrong regardless of the facts.

I don't know what "the point" is here. You're misconstruing what this person was asked and how he answered to declare him "wrong" about something where there is inherently no right or wrong answer.

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation

[Stratmaster]

That's not really what unfolded here. Strat criticized the inclusion of that data point in evaluating the merit of the over-all conclusion. Doug said it was a "wild take" to exclude it as an outlier data point. As someone who argues data points all the time, including through expert witnesses whose job is to evaluate the relative significance and weight of different data points and how that is to be factored in as well, I can tell you that chucking outliers - or questioning the inclusion of outliers in assessing a conclusion - is far from a "wild" or unreasonable approach. And in this case, I'd say its clearly the appropriate approach.

The odd part is people who seem to insist on defending its inclusion even though we all know its an utter hogwash number. If the number was $45 AAV would anyone seriously be saying its a valuable data point to weigh?

The original contention I had is that the author did not have integrity because they included this data point.

The mean is entirely irrelevant in this article.

These are the things that are relevant in the article:
1: There is a consensus at 25M
2: No one wants to bid above 25M
3: 4-5 years is the consensus in years
4: A couple teams are quite low on Giddey so not everyone is sold

The mean is not a useful thing to discuss, and if this data point were removed from the calculation, it still would not be a meaningful thing to discuss, it just doesn't matter at all.

I'm not arguing this data point is important to from a Giddey contract standpoint. It completely isn't. That point + the 18M point are just interesting from showing point #4.

My only comment was the attack on the credibility of the author for presenting the actual survey results. That's ridiculous.

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation.

I did not question anyone's integrity. I questioned the journalistic competency. It is lazy internet reporting.

[jnrjr79]

There is no universe where 12.5 a year is FMV for Josh Giddey.

I agree, but your use of FMV shows the disconnect here. The source was not asked to identify his FMV. If he were saying "I believe Giddey's fair market value is $12.5 million," I would agree with you that this is ludicrous. But he's not saying that. He's effectively saying "I know the market for Giddey is higher than $12.5 million, but $12.5 million is all I personally would be inclined to pay." I don't agree with that assessment, but it wasn't somehow inappropriate to include that opinion.

The premise of the article is that these "sources" have some level of expertise. You seem to believe any opinion is worthy of consideration in an exercise like this. That is just patently false.

This misses the point again. An opinion can't be "false." A prediction could be. "I would only pay Josh Giddey $12.5 million" is not the same thing as "the market will only give Josh Giddey a $12.5 million contract."

And I'm not mad about anything. I laughed at this person being included. And for good reason. That's it.

I'm not even mad that you keep ignoring the point and are just looking for a way to prove me wrong regardless of the facts.

I don't know what "the point" is here. You're misconstruing what this person was asked and how he answered to declare him "wrong" about something where there is inherently no right or wrong answer.

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation

He did answer the question. You seem to not understand that the question was not asking him what Giddey's market value is, nor was it to predict what contract Giddey will get. Hence this continued needless disagreement.

[dougthonus]

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation.

I did not question anyone's integrity. I questioned the journalistic competency. It is lazy internet reporting.

If there was a number that was 35M would you think it should be removed?

I wouldn't. I would want to know it.

[Stratmaster]

I agree, but your use of FMV shows the disconnect here. The source was not asked to identify his FMV. If he were saying "I believe Giddey's fair market value is $12.5 million," I would agree with you that this is ludicrous. But he's not saying that. He's effectively saying "I know the market for Giddey is higher than $12.5 million, but $12.5 million is all I personally would be inclined to pay." I don't agree with that assessment, but it wasn't somehow inappropriate to include that opinion.



This misses the point again. An opinion can't be "false." A prediction could be. "I would only pay Josh Giddey $12.5 million" is not the same thing as "the market will only give Josh Giddey a $12.5 million contract."



I don't know what "the point" is here. You're misconstruing what this person was asked and how he answered to declare him "wrong" about something where there is inherently no right or wrong answer.

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation

He did answer the question. You seem to not understand that the question was not asking him what Giddey's market value is, nor was it to predict what contract Giddey will get. Hence this continued needless disagreement.

Ok. Tell me exactly how the question was worded. From what I can read without paying, the question was "what is a fair contract for Josh Giddey?" What did I miss?

[nomorezorro]

the fact that "fair" and "market value" are not definitionally synonymous?

[Stratmaster]

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation.

I did not question anyone's integrity. I questioned the journalistic competency. It is lazy internet reporting.

If there was a number that was 35M would you think it should be removed?

I wouldn't. I would want to know it.

Knowing it, and including it, are 2 different things. But if the range is 20-30 mil, 12.5 is way more of an outlier than 35. End of bench players often get 12.5. An argument could be reasonably made that there are players in the 30-35 range who have no more value than Giddey.

[jnrjr79]

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation

He did answer the question. You seem to not understand that the question was not asking him what Giddey's market value is, nor was it to predict what contract Giddey will get. Hence this continued needless disagreement.

Ok. Tell me exactly how the question was worded. From what I can read without paying, the question was "what is a fair contract for Josh Giddey?" What did I miss?

The actual language from the survey is not included in the article and it's not even clear to me whether when they say they "polled" these front office personnel, whether it was in writing or orally. Given there are quotes, it seems like it may have been oral. The article itself says "The Athletic recently polled 16 people who work in NBA front offices (including no one from Giddey’s incumbent Chicago Bulls), asking what they would deem a 'fair' contract" for Giddey.

This is not asking the respondent to either identify Giddey's market value or predict what contract he'll get. It's asking what they (i.e. that specific person) would view as a fair contract. Put in other words, it's like asking them "what would you pay this player?"

In that context, the response is appropriate. I disagree with the guy and think he's underrating Giddey, but he's giving an honest answer about what value he would place on Giddey. And the same staffer "admitted he would be far lower than the consensus," meaning the staffer knew full well that Giddey's market value (i.e. what Giddey will actually get) is higher than what he personally would be inclined to pay. If he were predicting Giddey's market value, he would not need to note that his view was less than the market - that wouldn't make any sense. And heck, the article even throws some subtle shade at this opinion, by noting it would be "less than the midlevel exception for a player who put up 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists in 2024-25 and who averaged nearly a 20-point triple-double over his final 19 games."

This seems fine!

[Infinity2152]

Jnrjr brought a great point, would be great if someone did a survey of NBA agents and see what they think Giddey's market value is. It's a major part of their job to determine market value, and I wouldn't expect ANY GM to put their top number out there for a non max player truthfully. 100% natural for a GM to lowball. Still like having the data, but I'd expect the max they would pay to be higher than what they're saying he's worth.

Are any of these teams the teams that signed Deandre Ayton 4yrs/ $133 mill, Anfernee Simons 4yrs/$100 mill, Cam Johnson 4yrs/$108 mill, Immanuel Quickley 4yrs/$175 mill, Brandon Ingram 5yrs/$158 mill (222 mill in todays money)? John Collins 5yrs/$125 ($171 mill in todays money)?

Teams can say anything, these are all within the last 5 years. Now lets add in rookie extensions. Jalen Green 5yrs/$185 mill. Franz Wagner 5yrs/$244 mill. Scottie Barnes 5yrs/$224 mill. Jalen Suggs 5yrs/$150 mill. Freaking Trey Murphy, 4yrs/$112 mill. Jalen Johnson 3yrs/$150 mill.

The same GM's that gave out all these contracts are saying they wouldn't give Giddey 5yrs/$125 mill at max? History shows what they'll pay their own young guys at Giddey's level when they have the ability to. Not like most of these guys were consistently great for 4 years before getting their contracts.

[GetBuLLish]

The actual language from the survey is not included in the article and it's not even clear to me whether when they say they "polled" these front office personnel, whether it was in writing or orally. Given there are quotes, it seems like it may have been oral. The article itself says "The Athletic recently polled 16 people who work in NBA front offices (including no one from Giddey’s incumbent Chicago Bulls), asking what they would deem a 'fair' contract" for Giddey.

This is not asking the respondent to either identify Giddey's market value or predict what contract he'll get. It's asking what they (i.e. that specific person) would view as a fair contract. Put in other words, it's like asking them "what would you pay this player?"

In that context, the response is appropriate. I disagree with the guy and think he's underrating Giddey, but he's giving an honest answer about what value he would place on Giddey. And the same staffer "admitted he would be far lower than the consensus," meaning the staffer knew full well that Giddey's market value (i.e. what Giddey will actually get) is higher than what he personally would be inclined to pay. If he were predicting Giddey's market value, he would not need to note that his view was less than the market - that wouldn't make any sense. And heck, the article even throws some subtle shade at this opinion, by noting it would be "less than the midlevel exception for a player who put up 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists in 2024-25 and who averaged nearly a 20-point triple-double over his final 19 games."

This seems fine!

The author didn't do enough. He should have immediately called 911 and reported the staffer to law enforcement. Any varying opinion on Giddey cannot be tolerated in a just society.

[Stratmaster]

He did answer the question. You seem to not understand that the question was not asking him what Giddey's market value is, nor was it to predict what contract Giddey will get. Hence this continued needless disagreement.

Ok. Tell me exactly how the question was worded. From what I can read without paying, the question was "what is a fair contract for Josh Giddey?" What did I miss?

The actual language from the survey is not included in the article and it's not even clear to me whether when they say they "polled" these front office personnel, whether it was in writing or orally. Given there are quotes, it seems like it may have been oral. The article itself says "The Athletic recently polled 16 people who work in NBA front offices (including no one from Giddey’s incumbent Chicago Bulls), asking what they would deem a 'fair' contract" for Giddey.

This is not asking the respondent to either identify Giddey's market value or predict what contract he'll get. It's asking what they (i.e. that specific person) would view as a fair contract. Put in other words, it's like asking them "what would you pay this player?"

In that context, the response is appropriate. I disagree with the guy and think he's underrating Giddey, but he's giving an honest answer about what value he would place on Giddey. And the same staffer "admitted he would be far lower than the consensus," meaning the staffer knew full well that Giddey's market value (i.e. what Giddey will actually get) is higher than what he personally would be inclined to pay. If he were predicting Giddey's market value, he would not need to note that his view was less than the market - that wouldn't make any sense. And heck, the article even throws some subtle shade at this opinion, by noting it would be "less than the midlevel exception for a player who put up 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists in 2024-25 and who averaged nearly a 20-point triple-double over his final 19 games."

This seems fine!

Do you want to go dancing sometime? I think I could learn a lot from you.

So the question was exactly what I said it was. The answer is 12.5 is idiotic.

They didn't ask "what would you be willing to pay Giddey?". If they had there are only a couple teams in the league who could answer at a 20 mil or more level.

[dougthonus]

The point is, and has been
that he did not answer the question, and his answer should not have been included in the calculation.

I did not question anyone's integrity. I questioned the journalistic competency. It is lazy internet reporting.

If there was a number that was 35M would you think it should be removed?

I wouldn't. I would want to know it.

Knowing it, and including it, are 2 different things. But if the range is 20-30 mil, 12.5 is way more of an outlier than 35. End of bench players often get 12.5. An argument could be reasonably made that there are players in the 30-35 range who have no more value than Giddey.

If the median is 25, it is 2.5M more of an outlier, so let's say it's 37.5M. I'd still want to know it. The mean, again, is more or less irrelevant. You're hyperfocused on a meaningless piece of data.

[jnrjr79]

Ok. Tell me exactly how the question was worded. From what I can read without paying, the question was "what is a fair contract for Josh Giddey?" What did I miss?

The actual language from the survey is not included in the article and it's not even clear to me whether when they say they "polled" these front office personnel, whether it was in writing or orally. Given there are quotes, it seems like it may have been oral. The article itself says "The Athletic recently polled 16 people who work in NBA front offices (including no one from Giddey’s incumbent Chicago Bulls), asking what they would deem a 'fair' contract" for Giddey.

This is not asking the respondent to either identify Giddey's market value or predict what contract he'll get. It's asking what they (i.e. that specific person) would view as a fair contract. Put in other words, it's like asking them "what would you pay this player?"

In that context, the response is appropriate. I disagree with the guy and think he's underrating Giddey, but he's giving an honest answer about what value he would place on Giddey. And the same staffer "admitted he would be far lower than the consensus," meaning the staffer knew full well that Giddey's market value (i.e. what Giddey will actually get) is higher than what he personally would be inclined to pay. If he were predicting Giddey's market value, he would not need to note that his view was less than the market - that wouldn't make any sense. And heck, the article even throws some subtle shade at this opinion, by noting it would be "less than the midlevel exception for a player who put up 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists in 2024-25 and who averaged nearly a 20-point triple-double over his final 19 games."

This seems fine!

Do you want to go dancing sometime? I think I could learn a lot from you.

So the question was exactly what I said it was. The answer is 12.5 is idiotic.

They didn't ask "what would you be willing to pay Giddey?". If they had there are only a couple teams in the league who could answer at a 20 mil or more level.

The question is obviously not asking these personnel to provide an answer that takes into account that team’s own cap space, or lack thereof. It’s anonymous! The question is very clearly “in a vacuum, what would you pay this guy?” The fact that this guy’s answer is “idiotic” demonstrates you are misconstruing the question, because nobody predicting Giddey’s market value would give that answer. And in responding, he specifically acknowledged the market value was higher!

I am not trying to be a jerk about this, but your answers make me conclude there are only two possibilities for your position here: 1) you know what the question means, but are deliberately pretending it means something else, or 2) you do not know what the question means (i.e. you think “fair contract” means “market value,” which it does not).

[Stratmaster]

The actual language from the survey is not included in the article and it's not even clear to me whether when they say they "polled" these front office personnel, whether it was in writing or orally. Given there are quotes, it seems like it may have been oral. The article itself says "The Athletic recently polled 16 people who work in NBA front offices (including no one from Giddey’s incumbent Chicago Bulls), asking what they would deem a 'fair' contract" for Giddey.

This is not asking the respondent to either identify Giddey's market value or predict what contract he'll get. It's asking what they (i.e. that specific person) would view as a fair contract. Put in other words, it's like asking them "what would you pay this player?"

In that context, the response is appropriate. I disagree with the guy and think he's underrating Giddey, but he's giving an honest answer about what value he would place on Giddey. And the same staffer "admitted he would be far lower than the consensus," meaning the staffer knew full well that Giddey's market value (i.e. what Giddey will actually get) is higher than what he personally would be inclined to pay. If he were predicting Giddey's market value, he would not need to note that his view was less than the market - that wouldn't make any sense. And heck, the article even throws some subtle shade at this opinion, by noting it would be "less than the midlevel exception for a player who put up 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists in 2024-25 and who averaged nearly a 20-point triple-double over his final 19 games."

This seems fine!

Do you want to go dancing sometime? I think I could learn a lot from you.

So the question was exactly what I said it was. The answer is 12.5 is idiotic.

They didn't ask "what would you be willing to pay Giddey?". If they had there are only a couple teams in the league who could answer at a 20 mil or more level.

The question is obviously not asking these personnel to provide an answer that takes into account that team’s own cap space, or lack thereof. It’s anonymous! The question is very clearly “in a vacuum, what would you pay this guy?” The fact that this guy’s answer is “idiotic” demonstrates you are misconstruing the question, because nobody predicting Giddey’s market value would give that answer. And in responding, he specifically acknowledged the market value was higher!

I am not trying to be a jerk about this, but your answers make me conclude there are only two possibilities for your position here: 1) you know what the question means, but are deliberately pretending it means something else, or 2) you do not know what the question means (i.e. you think “fair contract” means “market value,” which it does not).

You keep quibbling over my use of FMV. It's shorter than typing "fair contract". Quibble away. The argument you just gave supports my point perfectly. It's exactly what I have been saying lol. The fact you keep trying to make a simple question mean something else tells me you either:

1) are deliberately pretending it means something else or:

2) you don't understand what the word "fair" means.

-The question was "what is a fair contract"

-not a single poster on here, including you, thinks 12.5 is a fair contract.

-the responder, as you said, more or less admitted as much and did not answer the question that was asked.

- therefore, the response, while reasonably reported, should not have been considered in the calculation.

You can decide whether the responder was being sarcastic, facetious, idiotic, or just wanting to blow smoke up his own ass. I honestly don't care how you rationalize it.