Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[_txchilibowl_]

My new theory is that AKME posts here and just wanted to give us something interesting to debate all off-season

Maybe it was AK who said he was worth 12.5 in an attempt to drive down his price.

4D chess, AK. I see you.

[dougthonus]

I will add that I think the percentage is way below 5% a year, especially with constantly advancing medical techniques. 50 years ago, if you blew a knee out it likely ended your career. Now we have players who have multiple procedures on their knee and come back and perform at levels similar to their pre-injury level.

The best estimate I can find is that 15% of NBA players will have their season end due to an injury. Of course, that could be an injury in game 1 or in game 71, and it could be major (most likely earlier in the season) or minor (a possibility later in the season).

Any "career ending" estimate would also have to be adjusted by age. Someone who blows a knee out at 34 may technically be able to return from it. But their skills and value may have already been waning and they decide retirement is the better choice. At age 22, I think it would be a big outlier for an injury to occur that ends their career or diminishes their future capabilities to a point of ruining their career. I would guess there is more chance that an off-the-court event (Accident, violent crime, etc...) could result in them not being able to play basketball. So I guess there is that consideration.

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

[Infinity2152]

That was a ton of words spent ignoring the argument.

Bottom line, if Giddey takes the QO, he may play worse without a career ending injury - and cost himself 10s of millions of dollars.

Further, even if he doesn't play worse than last season, if he doesn't progress, the optimism / upside on him will be seen as diminished, and his market value likely would not be improved - he would not hit 30 M. He would be viewed as more a "is he what he is" type player with serious flaws to their game.

It doesn't matter what Giddey thinks - these are real risks and he would be a giant fool to take the QO over, Sat, 3 years 70 million.

What do you think is the argument? How do you think you get to call him a fool for taking a risk you wouldn't? I dare you to post what you think the likelihood of him having that critical injury actually is, using any statistics you want. How likely are these real risks? Do you not drive because there's a risk you might be in an accident? Higher probability than Giddey having a career ending injury next year.

To be a fool, he would have to think those risks are high like you apparently do and still take the risk. He's not a GIANT FOOL for taking a minimal risk. It definitely matters what he thinks if you're calling him a fool, lmao!! Your view of his decision is based on entirely different assumptions, that you have absolutely no idea if they are true or not. It's all "what if" everything goes wrong, or something improbable happens.

His market value doesn't have to improve for him to end up with more guaranteed money. He's a restricted free agent and no teams have cash, he's automatically signing below market value. With probably less guaranteed years. More guaranteed years at his current market value, which looks like the consensus is $25 mill, yields him more guaranteed money in just a year than a 3yr/22.5 mill AAV contract. He'd lose like 11 mill taking the QO, he needs like an extra $2.5 mill AAV on a 4yr contract to make that up ($25 mill), but would be protected against all those weird things, complete regression, total injury etc for four years. You do realize all those things could happen in 2026 or 2027 and not 2025, right? When he would have already signed a 4 year contract with the team of his choice for the same money or likely more, but now he gets paid for 2028, 2029 regardless of injury.

Also, the fact that there will be 10-15 teams able to bid on him rather than zero might SLIGHTLY increase what he gets in 2026, maybe? Since there will be actual competition and no really good free agents available? Plus a 7% larger salary cap?

lots of strawmen there. Lots of work to unpack

First, plenty of players don't improve after their rookie contracts end. They are what they are by year 4. This season will be key for Giddey in showing if he is like that, or still likely to improve. Far from a guarantee - but if he doesn't perception on him, and valuation - will decline. "Hope" factor would take a severe hit.

Second, critical injury risk isn't the issue. Any sort of mid level injury can cause shooting percentages to materially decline. And, of course, so can non-injury factors - bad shooting years. Ayo wasn't shooting well before injury - injury aggravated it. But outside of last year, he went from 38% from 3 as a rook to 31% on the same volume in year 2. Vuc went to 40% during the trade year, then down to 31, up to 35, down to 29, then last year to 40.

Guys who are consistently with a sort of 3% band (like Coby) are likely more exception than norm.

Giddey is accurately perceived as a weak shooter. A second season of above average percentage, even if it does not create gravity, would help. But a season of decline would, otoh, significantly hurt - in that he had been trending upwards and that would kill that trend

Third, IMO there is about a 50/50 chance that Giddey's overall stat picture at the end of the coming season looks the same or worse than last year's total picture.

Risk of an injury that negatively impacts performance enough to lower stats season long is probably in the vicinity of 15-20% or so. I ran a query on how many NBA players are expected to miss at least 10 games due to injury per season and got back "about 200" - over 1/3 of players who are playing enough to even qualify for that kind of search. And that is almost certainly low. Only about 100 players played over 72 games last year: ~2/3 of players who play meaningful amounts of games missed at least 10 games. Of the 335 or so who played over 41 games, only about 200 played 62 or more.

Point being, NBA players get hurt, a lot.

But it isn't just that, Giddey himself has seen year over year stat declines already. He went from about 16.5 pts, 8 rb, 6 apg in year 2 to 12.5 , 6.5, 5 in year 3. Minutes change explains about half the difference. Year 4 was in between year 2 and 3 in scoring, similar to year 2 in boards, 1 assist better than year 2. Minutes on par with year 2.

4th, as for cap space, there were several teams that could have made a 30 M offer if they wanted to for Giddey. Brooklyn very easily, others if they made relatively mild moves. This has been discussed. If he had big value, chances are that with Bulls reluctance, someone would have made big offer.

More $ next year might of course means greater chance of a bigger offer - but that is only if he is valued. And if his shooting declines, defense looks bad, numbers don't improve on the whole - what team is going to pay to have a terrible defending, not efficient, hurts team unless ball is in his hand 14-16 PPG player? What team is going to take the ball out of a better scoring player's hands to pay 30+ M per year to Giddey? NONE.

The 30 M+ upside is solely based on him continuing to trend up.

You take that as a far more likely than not prospect - but it really isn't. Not just due to injury . But because Giddey doesn't have more untapped potential just based on athleticism and may have already maximized his skills via a via his athleticism. You add in that his best stats to push up last year's came against a cream puff part of the schedule - bad teams, tankers, hurt teams - and even ignoring injury risks, you can't be over-confident of improvement. Add in injury risk and getting to around 50/50.

Lots of strawman back at you. Plenty of players don't improve after 22. Okay. Is that the majority? Is it your opinion the majority of players get worse after 22. I've asked you for your best estimates. You keep throwing possibilities out, when I ask you what you think the probability is, crickets. When your basing your argument on unlikely events, hard to debate. If you tell me you think 51% of players get worse after 22 for the rest of their careers, I'll accept your argument. Plenty is not the same as most, 60+ new players enter the league every year. Most 25-26 year old NBA players are better than they were at 22.

The $30 mill number wasn't even brought up. The choices were take the contract he's looking at now, or take the QO and he's a fool if he does that. He's looking at $22.5 mill to my knowledge. He doesn't need to get nearly $30 mill AAV to come out ahead taking the QO, especially in terms of guaranteed money. And he could get well over that, since we're playing the "What If?" game.

There was 1 team that could have made Giddey an offer. One. Again, you're talking about what teams could have done that never happened. One team did it, cost them a ton, to get Myles Turner. Phoenix crippled their cap to clear money. Nets came straight out and said they weren't signing any RFA's. Why are Cam Thomas, Kuminga and Quentin Grimes all not getting offers if so much money is easily out there? These teams that could easily clear $30 mill, where are they sending the money to if no teams have cap space?

When I'm talking about Giddey improving year over year, not just talking about raw stats. Although 3pt% has improved over year, which is the major flaw people keep bringing up if you want to go there. Defense looks better year over year. This was his first year ever starting at PG. When he plays less minutes, he puts up less numbers.

TS% over 4 years, 48%, 53%, 55%, 57%. So if 3pt% doesn't count and TS% doesn't count for getting better, what does?
VORP .5, 1.9, 1.8, 2.7.
BPM -.9, 1.2, 1.5, 3.0.
TRB% 12.7, 13.6, 14.2, 14.0
PER 13.3, 17.1, 16.6, 18.1

Looks like pretty constant improvement, without nitpicking.

Why would he need more untapped potential if the consensus around the league is $20-$25 mill already? And that's as an RFA with no available buyers. He has to improve to be worth $25 mill next year, with more bidders? Look at the numbers of the last 5 players who received between $20-$30 mill before they got their contracts and tell me what numbers Giddey has to match to be worth $25 mill. His full season, forget the half season, let's count when he had to defer to Zach and had just joined a new team for the first time in his career. For the entire year.

Are 15pts, 8 rebounds, 7 assists 38% 3pt MLE numbers for a 22 year old? Honestly? That guy doesn't get $25 mill easily as a UFA?

You should run your query on how many 22 year olds missed between 10 and 20 games and still got great contracts. Survey says, most of them. We can't judge Giddey's perfomance or level based on half a season, and other teams are going to judge him if he misses 10 or more games. His per game stats don't go down if he misses games, lol. And how many starters played over 70 games last year? Or free agents for that matter?

Regression, injury risk etc are equal risks for every player. He's been healthy, he should have less injury risk than average. He's been improving, he should have less regression risk than say Pat Williams, Jalen Green, Anfernee Simons, Kuminga, his peers.

If he was injury prone, y'all would jump all over that. But not being injury prone, that doesn't matter. If he regressed year over year, that would matter. But improving year over year doesn't matter. OK

[MGB8]

Ugh. The bulk stat mix is irrelevant - impacted by both playing time, role and mix. 163 player put up better per 36 pts than Giddey probably 125 for folks with meaningful minutes. He was top 20 in ap36, and high on rebounds, but that is due to his uniqueness as a point forward - which is in many ways more a liability than a positive.

Meanwhile, scroll through players and you will see that yes, most don't improve much of at all post rookie deal. A good amount of those exit the league, others, like KCP, grant Williams, Big Bogdanovic, Grayson Allen, Mo Wagner, Alec Burks, Taurean Prince, Luke Kennard, and so many more are good enough where they stick long term. Can't give you a good percentage breakdown but at a glance looks like about half "are who they are" by end of rookie deal.

[Infinity2152]

Ugh. The bulk stat mix is irrelevant - impacted by both playing time, role and mix. 163 player put up better per 36 pts than Giddey probably 125 for folks with meaningful minutes. He was top 20 in ap36, and high on rebounds, but that is due to his uniqueness as a point forward - which is in many ways more a liability than a positive.

Meanwhile, scroll through players and you will see that yes, most don't improve much of at all post rookie deal. A good amount of those exit the league, others, like KCP, grant Williams, Big Bogdanovic, Grayson Allen, Mo Wagner, Alec Burks, Taurean Prince, Luke Kennard, and so many more are good enough where they stick long term. Can't give you a good percentage breakdown but at a glance looks like about half "are who they are" by end of rookie deal.

If I scroll through 10 random players in the league you think most will be worse at 26 than 22? Good luck. You're comparing Giddey to players who have NEVER put up anywhere near the numbers Giddey has, didn't show nearly the potential. Then adding in players not good enough to stick in the league to pad the numbers. Guess that works if we believe Giddey barring catastrophic injury is out of the league in the next 2 years because he's so bad. Talking about playing time and roles when Giddey's a PG playing behind SGA and still got his minutes playing out of position.

You say the stat mix is irrelevant and then run to per 36, lmao! I think the stats I posted are considered more valid than per 36. Then talk about points without including assists which for a PG is hilarious. Not to mention rebounds. How many people put up better total points, rebounds and assists per 36 last year? Very few? Now let's focus on why he gets assists and rebounds. Then go back and analyze why and how each and every scorer on your list gets their points, their usage, age, team composition, etc. And their rebounds. And their assists. Or we could just use the actual numbers.

Players who averaged at least 15pts, 7rbs, 7assist last year. Jokic, Lebron, Luka, Giddey. Yeah, Giddey looks real average.

[2weekswithpay]

NBAvisuals has a stat, Wins above Contract (WAC). They use BBall Index's LEBRON WAR - (Player Salary/Cost of a Win).

Giddey had 2.98 WAC for 2024-25 and accumulated 4.93 WAR. Giddey was paid 8.4M, and his production was worth around 21M. I don't agree with all the player values, but I've been playing around with the tool and found it interesting that it places Giddey right in the 20-25M price range.

[Infinity2152]

NBAvisuals has a stat, Wins above Contract (WAC). They use BBall Index's LEBRON WAR - (Player Salary/Cost of a Win).

Giddey had 2.98 WAC for 2024-25 and accumulated 4.93 WAR. Giddey was paid 8.4M, and his production was worth around 21M. I don't agree with all the player values, but I've been playing around with the tool and found it interesting that it places Giddey right in the 20-25M price range.

Interesting, good look. Edit Great info. Maybe the most objective calculation of his value I've seen yet. That $21 mill from last year equals $23 mill now. Factoring in 7% average cap raises, if he starts at $23 mill + 7%/yr raise, that puts him around 4yrs/$102 mill. Around the $25 mill AAV most think is pretty fair.

[TheJordanRule]

Ugh... why are we holding firm at 20 million per year? Pay him 25 per year on a declining contract, whatever, just get it done already. This is stupid. It's not Josh's fault if our best offer is 80 over 4 years. That's a problem with management.

[MGB8]

Ugh. The bulk stat mix is irrelevant - impacted by both playing time, role and mix. 163 player put up better per 36 pts than Giddey probably 125 for folks with meaningful minutes. He was top 20 in ap36, and high on rebounds, but that is due to his uniqueness as a point forward - which is in many ways more a liability than a positive.

Meanwhile, scroll through players and you will see that yes, most don't improve much of at all post rookie deal. A good amount of those exit the league, others, like KCP, grant Williams, Big Bogdanovic, Grayson Allen, Mo Wagner, Alec Burks, Taurean Prince, Luke Kennard, and so many more are good enough where they stick long term. Can't give you a good percentage breakdown but at a glance looks like about half "are who they are" by end of rookie deal.

If I scroll through 10 random players in the league you think most will be worse at 26 than 22? Good luck. You're comparing Giddey to players who have NEVER put up anywhere near the numbers Giddey has, didn't show nearly the potential. Then adding in players not good enough to stick in the league to pad the numbers. Guess that works if we believe Giddey barring catastrophic injury is out of the league in the next 2 years because he's so bad. Talking about playing time and roles when Giddey's a PG playing behind SGA and still got his minutes playing out of position.

You say the stat mix is irrelevant and then run to per 36, lmao! I think the stats I posted are considered more valid than per 36. Then talk about points without including assists which for a PG is hilarious. Not to mention rebounds. How many people put up better total points, rebounds and assists per 36 last year? Very few? Now let's focus on why he gets assists and rebounds. Then go back and analyze why and how each and every scorer on your list gets their points, their usage, age, team composition, etc. And their rebounds. And their assists. Or we could just use the actual numbers.

Players who averaged at least 15pts, 7rbs, 7assist last year. Jokic, Lebron, Luka, Giddey. Yeah, Giddey looks real average.

You keep up with the dishonest tactics.

“Is what they are” at the end of the rookie contract - which is what I wrote - does not equal worse, which is what you wrote. STOP LYING.

And you keep raining arbitrary bulk stats that are meaningless. Basically more lying by you.

If we want points rebounds and assists from a lead guard without consideration for off off ball ability or defense, sign Westbrook for the MLE and he will give you more bulk stats than Giddey and defend better against guards, too.

Fultz at 24 yers old gave you 14 pts, 4 rebounds and 6 assists (20/10/5 per36) on league average TS and GOOD POA / perimeter defense… and is currently unsigned. Elfrid Payton at 24 gave you 11 pts, 5 rebounds 8 assists per game (13/6/9 per36), similar the 2 years before qns t year after, with ok ish D…. Unsigned. MCW 15/5/7 as a sophomore (16/7/8 per36)… out of league.

Guess what, Giddey’s extra rebounds come because he is a forward.., and at the expense of him being a bottom tier defensive player against guards - Doug McDermott “really shouldn’t play this guy too much” bad. The fact that he gets a couple extra rebounds means JACK SQUAT.

By the way, those are great examples of players who didn’t develop, at all, beyond their rookie deals. More than half of players don’t seem too. THT is another example - same player now that he was at end of his rookie deal. And he was 24 last year, so another young guy. Killian Hayes. Dante Exum. Shaun Livingston. Devontae Graham. Denzel Valentine. Troy Brown. Was looking at points first but it carries all around.

[Infinity2152]

Ugh. The bulk stat mix is irrelevant - impacted by both playing time, role and mix. 163 player put up better per 36 pts than Giddey probably 125 for folks with meaningful minutes. He was top 20 in ap36, and high on rebounds, but that is due to his uniqueness as a point forward - which is in many ways more a liability than a positive.

Meanwhile, scroll through players and you will see that yes, most don't improve much of at all post rookie deal. A good amount of those exit the league, others, like KCP, grant Williams, Big Bogdanovic, Grayson Allen, Mo Wagner, Alec Burks, Taurean Prince, Luke Kennard, and so many more are good enough where they stick long term. Can't give you a good percentage breakdown but at a glance looks like about half "are who they are" by end of rookie deal.

If I scroll through 10 random players in the league you think most will be worse at 26 than 22? Good luck. You're comparing Giddey to players who have NEVER put up anywhere near the numbers Giddey has, didn't show nearly the potential. Then adding in players not good enough to stick in the league to pad the numbers. Guess that works if we believe Giddey barring catastrophic injury is out of the league in the next 2 years because he's so bad. Talking about playing time and roles when Giddey's a PG playing behind SGA and still got his minutes playing out of position.

You say the stat mix is irrelevant and then run to per 36, lmao! I think the stats I posted are considered more valid than per 36. Then talk about points without including assists which for a PG is hilarious. Not to mention rebounds. How many people put up better total points, rebounds and assists per 36 last year? Very few? Now let's focus on why he gets assists and rebounds. Then go back and analyze why and how each and every scorer on your list gets their points, their usage, age, team composition, etc. And their rebounds. And their assists. Or we could just use the actual numbers.

Players who averaged at least 15pts, 7rbs, 7assist last year. Jokic, Lebron, Luka, Giddey. Yeah, Giddey looks real average.

You keep up with the dishonest tactics.

“Is what they are” at the end of the rookie contract - which is what I wrote - does not equal worse, which is what you wrote. STOP LYING.

And you keep raining arbitrary bulk stats that are meaningless. Basically more lying by you.

If we want points rebounds and assists from a lead guard without consideration for off off ball ability or defense, sign Westbrook for the MLE and he will give you more bulk stats than Giddey and defend better against guards, too.

Fultz at 24 yers old gave you 14 pts, 4 rebounds and 6 assists (20/10/5 per36) on league average TS and GOOD POA / perimeter defense… and is currently unsigned. Elfrid Payton at 24 gave you 11 pts, 5 rebounds 8 assists per game (13/6/9 per36), similar the 2 years before qns t year after, with ok ish D…. Unsigned. MCW 15/5/7 as a sophomore (16/7/8 per36)… out of league.

Guess what, Giddey’s extra rebounds come because he is a forward.., and at the expense of him being a bottom tier defensive player against guards - Doug McDermott “really shouldn’t play this guy too much” bad. The fact that he gets a couple extra rebounds means JACK SQUAT.

By the way, those are great examples of players who didn’t develop, at all, beyond their rookie deals. More than half of players don’t seem too. THT is another example - same player now that he was at end of his rookie deal. And he was 24 last year, so another young guy.

OK, you want to get personal. I am not lying. Because you're stupid enough to think only your stats are valid, now they're the only ones that are honest? You have no problem presenting your stats, when I present mine, I'm lying and mine are all meaningless or arbitrary. Who are you to say what stats are meaningless? Done debating with you, you're offensive and I don't have time for this. You're going way past talking basketball. Blocking you, you should block me too. We can just not see each other's posts.

[MGB8]

Yes, you are lying. You keep moving goalposts and misstating what people wrote. That is lying. Swear all you want, you are the one who deserves it.

You even just did it again. Misstating what was written, ignoring the argument made rather than addressing it.

[Infinity2152]

My apologies, everybody else. He's blocked, don't take kindly to people calling me liars repeatedly. Took the bad language out.

[kulaz3000]

Everybody, can we please refrain from turning discussions personal. If you disagree, or can simply not come to an agreement, that's perfectly fine. It's okay to move on.

[dougthonus]

Ugh... why are we holding firm at 20 million per year? Pay him 25 per year on a declining contract, whatever, just get it done already. This is stupid. It's not Josh's fault if our best offer is 80 over 4 years. That's a problem with management.

The reality is if the Bulls offer 25M today, Josh will say no, then hold out for 27M. If Josh offers 25M today, the Bulls will say no and hold out for 23M (or some version of that). Nether side is more at fault than the other here, it's too sides both playing conservative with negotiations because being first mover makes both look weaker, so they are both waiting until the end of the deadline for maximum leverage.

Neither management nor Josh is at fault for this, it's just the way negotiations work.

[kulaz3000]

Ugh... why are we holding firm at 20 million per year? Pay him 25 per year on a declining contract, whatever, just get it done already. This is stupid. It's not Josh's fault if our best offer is 80 over 4 years. That's a problem with management.

The reality is if the Bulls offer 25M today, Josh will say no, then hold out for 27M. If Josh offers 25M today, the Bulls will say no and hold out for 23M (or some version of that). Nether side is more at fault than the other here, it's too sides both playing conservative with negotiations because being first mover makes both look weaker, so they are both waiting until the end of the deadline for maximum leverage.

Neither management nor Josh is at fault for this, it's just the way negotiations work.

I'm confounded by why there is a fuss about this. As you say, this is what negotiations are. What's funny is that many Bulls fans made the complaint that the Bulls front office DIDN'T negotiate hard enough when it came to Patrick and Vuc, and now there are complaints that they are playing hardball.

As they say with negotiations, you want both sides to be a little upset to know that it was likely a fair deal for both parties.

[Indomitable]

Ugh... why are we holding firm at 20 million per year? Pay him 25 per year on a declining contract, whatever, just get it done already. This is stupid. It's not Josh's fault if our best offer is 80 over 4 years. That's a problem with management.

The reality is if the Bulls offer 25M today, Josh will say no, then hold out for 27M. If Josh offers 25M today, the Bulls will say no and hold out for 23M (or some version of that). Nether side is more at fault than the other here, it's too sides both playing conservative with negotiations because being first mover makes both look weaker, so they are both waiting until the end of the deadline for maximum leverage.

Neither management nor Josh is at fault for this, it's just the way negotiations work.

I'm confounded by why there is a fuss about this. As you say, this is what negotiations are. What's funny is that many Bulls fans made the complaint that the Bulls front office DIDN'T negotiate hard enough when it came to Patrick and Vuc, and now there are complaints that they are playing hardball.

As they say with negotiations, you want both sides to be a little upset to know that it was likely a fair deal for both parties.

It is just boredom and there is nothing else. Most of these storylines are just meant to get clicks.

I believe September will be the time we find out some real facts.

[Stratmaster]

I will add that I think the percentage is way below 5% a year, especially with constantly advancing medical techniques. 50 years ago, if you blew a knee out it likely ended your career. Now we have players who have multiple procedures on their knee and come back and perform at levels similar to their pre-injury level.

The best estimate I can find is that 15% of NBA players will have their season end due to an injury. Of course, that could be an injury in game 1 or in game 71, and it could be major (most likely earlier in the season) or minor (a possibility later in the season).

Any "career ending" estimate would also have to be adjusted by age. Someone who blows a knee out at 34 may technically be able to return from it. But their skills and value may have already been waning and they decide retirement is the better choice. At age 22, I think it would be a big outlier for an injury to occur that ends their career or diminishes their future capabilities to a point of ruining their career. I would guess there is more chance that an off-the-court event (Accident, violent crime, etc...) could result in them not being able to play basketball. So I guess there is that consideration.

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

[Stratmaster]

Ugh... why are we holding firm at 20 million per year? Pay him 25 per year on a declining contract, whatever, just get it done already. This is stupid. It's not Josh's fault if our best offer is 80 over 4 years. That's a problem with management.

The reality is if the Bulls offer 25M today, Josh will say no, then hold out for 27M. If Josh offers 25M today, the Bulls will say no and hold out for 23M (or some version of that). Nether side is more at fault than the other here, it's too sides both playing conservative with negotiations because being first mover makes both look weaker, so they are both waiting until the end of the deadline for maximum leverage.

Neither management nor Josh is at fault for this, it's just the way negotiations work.

I'm confounded by why there is a fuss about this. As you say, this is what negotiations are. What's funny is that many Bulls fans made the complaint that the Bulls front office DIDN'T negotiate hard enough when it came to Patrick and Vuc, and now there are complaints that they are playing hardball.

As they say with negotiations, you want both sides to be a little upset to know that it was likely a fair deal for both parties.

I have never been upset that the Bulls didn't negotiate hard enough with Williams, Vuc, or I will add in Billy Donovan.

I was upset that they didn't negotiate at all with Williams. Frankly, I was upset they re-signed him period. I might have been OK at 10 mil as a "just in case" he ever figures out how to play basketball at an NBA level.

I was never upset with the amount of the Vuc contract. If someone thinks you are getting a double-double machine in the NBA to sign a contract worse than 3/60 they haven't been paying attention for the last 2 decades. I mean, he is putting up those numbers and making 2 mil more a season than Williams. Vuc's contract was more than reasonable. There are arguments to be made that he doesn't fit the team. There are arguments to be made that they should have shed him right after signing him. There are arguments to be made that they should have let him go instead of giving him 3 more seasons. There is no argument to be made that they overpaid him.

I am upset that they gifted Donovan 2 early extensions. I know my opinion of Donovan as a head coach is lower than most. But I can't hear any argument that he has accomplished anything to warrant pro-actively re-upping him before you have to. Donovan was on a 4 year 24 mil contract. 2 seasons in they extended him. Now they have extended him again. No one seems to know how much, or how long, either of those extensions were. He certainly didn't sign an extension for less.

I don't see anyone really making a fuss about this. Just a lot of differing opinions on what Giddey's value is. From my perspective, I simply have great confidence in AKME's ability to screw this up trying to prove he is a master negotiator after he shat the bed on Williams and Donovan.

[dougthonus]

I will add that I think the percentage is way below 5% a year, especially with constantly advancing medical techniques. 50 years ago, if you blew a knee out it likely ended your career. Now we have players who have multiple procedures on their knee and come back and perform at levels similar to their pre-injury level.

The best estimate I can find is that 15% of NBA players will have their season end due to an injury. Of course, that could be an injury in game 1 or in game 71, and it could be major (most likely earlier in the season) or minor (a possibility later in the season).

Any "career ending" estimate would also have to be adjusted by age. Someone who blows a knee out at 34 may technically be able to return from it. But their skills and value may have already been waning and they decide retirement is the better choice. At age 22, I think it would be a big outlier for an injury to occur that ends their career or diminishes their future capabilities to a point of ruining their career. I would guess there is more chance that an off-the-court event (Accident, violent crime, etc...) could result in them not being able to play basketball. So I guess there is that consideration.

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

Random thoughts:

1: Giddey has generational wealth already from marketing deals. He's got a ton of stuff due to being Australia's biggest star. So the risk of not being generationally wealthy probably doesn't exist. Of course everyone wants the most money they can get though. He wouldn't want to get hosed by settling too low on this deal or hosed from taking the QO and not having it work out.

2: Giddey's marketing potential is probably greatest in Chicago due to the dynasty / Longley / Australia connection and the fact that his marketing impact is highest in Australia vs globally or in the U.S.

3: Because of the above, the dollars from this deal not being fully maximized may not matter much either. Like say he ends his career with 400M in earnings instead of 440M in earnings, does that really matter to him? So a lot of this posturing is likely his agent just doing his job.

4: The Bulls have the same thing in reverse. Over the next few years, it probably doesn't really matter if they pay Giddey an extra 5M a year vs some other number. Based on all of their previous decisions, they really need to get this done and gamble on Giddey. You can argue whether that was a good boat to get into, but you'd be arguing after they climbed in and sailed it out to the middle of the Atlantic.

5: I can't see any way both sides don't get this done based on all of the above. They both want each other, need each other, and benefit from each other. They're far apart in theory, but they are equidistantly far apart from the number I peg as reasonable (as well as the Athletic) which feels like an asymmetrical game of the Bulls making their offer specifically to be equidistant from where they wanted to settle vs Giddey's demands.

[Stratmaster]

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

Random thoughts:

1: Giddey has generational wealth already from marketing deals. He's got a ton of stuff due to being Australia's biggest star. So the risk of not being generationally wealthy probably doesn't exist. Of course everyone wants the most money they can get though. He wouldn't want to get hosed by settling too low on this deal or hosed from taking the QO and not having it work out.

2: Giddey's marketing potential is probably greatest in Chicago due to the dynasty / Longley / Australia connection and the fact that his marketing impact is highest in Australia vs globally or in the U.S.

3: Because of the above, the dollars from this deal not being fully maximized may not matter much either. Like say he ends his career with 400M in earnings instead of 440M in earnings, does that really matter to him? So a lot of this posturing is likely his agent just doing his job.

4: The Bulls have the same thing in reverse. Over the next few years, it probably doesn't really matter if they pay Giddey an extra 5M a year vs some other number. Based on all of their previous decisions, they really need to get this done and gamble on Giddey. You can argue whether that was a good boat to get into, but you'd be arguing after they climbed in and sailed it out to the middle of the Atlantic.

5: I can't see any way both sides don't get this done based on all of the above. They both want each other, need each other, and benefit from each other. They're far apart in theory, but they are equidistantly far apart from the number I peg as reasonable (as well as the Athletic) which feels like an asymmetrical game of the Bulls making their offer specifically to be equidistant from where they wanted to settle vs Giddey's demands.

The marketing dollars is a good point. And yeah, I still see this ending at 25 mil AAV regardless. The only question in my mind is length and which side demands and gets an option in the last season of it. My questions were more of a general thought exercise around the psychology of an NBA player versus the hard business model of ownership.

I have been a moonlighter/weekend warrior musician most of my life. When I was able to retire early from my "real" job music became my only job. If I was doing it for money, I wouldn't be doing it. I don't need the money. That doesn't mean I am filthy rich. Just means that if the $10k a year I can make from playing a couple shows a month would make or break me I wouldn't have retired from my day job, and at my age I have no "upside" lol. But I still negotiate for the highest possible pay for 2 reasons.

First, it hurts everyone else who does what I do if I accept less. In fact, my ability to earn money playing has always been negatively impacted by others willing to do it for less than they are worth.

2nd, working musicians judge their progress and achievement based on how much they can demand from the market. It is such a subjective endeavor. What you are able to get paid is really the only metric for anyone other than the elite 1% of musicians, which I am not.

I think both of those apply to NBA players at some level. Granted, there are all kinds of awards and stats for NBA players. But, if you aren't at the franchise level/elite player level of the top 2 or 3% of players you have no clear claim to any status level because it is a team sport. For uber-competitive individuals in a highly competitive environment, I do believe salary is a status measurement.