Josh Giddey 3.0

[DuckIII]

FWIW, I think it's worth noting that the Bulls are so far away from "winning every negotiation" that it is laughable. This is the first time they've even really negotiated hard with anyone in the AK era. They landed on good contracts for Coby / Ayo, but I don't get the impression they put either guy through the ringer, those guys just played better after being signed. They were insanely generous to Vuc, Pat, and Zach with no negotiation at all.

The last thing anyone should be worried about is AK playing hard ball so often it is unsustainable, this is literally the first time he's tried it in five years of negotiations. The pendulum was way, way, way on the the other side of this one.

I wasn't referring to the Bulls history. I was making a general statement based on what they are doing right now. Which in part is probably an effort to counter-balance that history. It just needs to be checked. It can't be a new norm in which this is just how we do it.

I think a lot of negotiations feel this way up until they get done, then afterwards its all smiles.

No doubt, and that remains the likely outcome here. My post is a cautionary one, not that an alarm actually needs to be pulled.

[DuckIII]

I still think this thing ends up landing somewhere in the $23-27M/year range, if I had to guess.

Me too, at less years. I'm thinking 3 years/$70 million with a third year player option. That seems like something everyone could live with. It allows Giddey to make real money by NBA standards while also betting on himself to make the really, really, real dough if he proves it up. It also keeps him in Chicago, which the FO desperately needs as well.

I also don't know why all the focus is on the Bulls not coming up from $20M.

Is it? The issue that got me to post about the negotiations - which I haven't bothered with much because I largely consider a non-QO deal inevitable - is the Golden State bull ****. I'm not okay with that. That isn't just negotiating hard. That's buggering a player. You send the message out to the league that you won't entertain trade offers to kill the market, and then try to bully the player into a below-value deal.

Again, human beings. There's negotiating tough and there's buggering people. Its not a great way to treat the guy you plan on making, in the short term at least, the focal point of your entire team-building game plan and offensive style of play. There's a balance to this. It can't always be "FU, take it or leave it, or go find an offer." It should be obvious why.

All the reports are Giddey has also not come down from $30M. It seems like both sides are equally responsible for a deal not being done. Would you go to $30M?

As opposed to the QO? I would actually if it were only for two years with everything after being a team option. I think Giddey at $20 million is a very clear underpayment (which I would be happy to get him for) in today's NBA market. I think Giddey at $30 million is not "clearly" an overpayment, but there is certainly a material risk that it would be. So I'd pay it in a short window while we are "rebuilding" anyway because I don't think it would really hurt us in a two year period. But I really can't ever imagine it coming to that.

[jnrjr79]

I still think this thing ends up landing somewhere in the $23-27M/year range, if I had to guess.

Me too, at less years. I'm thinking 3 years/$70 million with a third year player option. That seems like something everyone could live with. It allows Giddey to make real money by NBA standards while also betting on himself to make the really, really, real dough if he proves it up. It also keeps him in Chicago, which the FO desperately needs as well.

Yea, a shorter deal could make sense at some point if both sides can never see eye-to-eye on AAV on a longer deal.

I also don't know why all the focus is on the Bulls not coming up from $20M.

Is it? The issue that got me to post about the negotiations - which I haven't bothered with much because I largely consider a non-QO deal inevitable - is the Golden State bull ****. I'm not okay with that. That isn't just negotiating hard. That's buggering a player. You send the message out to the league that you won't entertain trade offers to kill the market, and then try to bully the player into a below-value deal.

I think it is? I have not seen a lot of sentiment like "Why is Giddey being so stubborn, the Bulls are ready to fork over big bucks!," but I've seen plenty in the other direction.

I one million percent agree that GS is handling the Kuminga situation in a really cruddy fashion. But I think the situation here is that the Bulls actually like Giddey and GS is pretty lukewarm on Kuminga and would rather trade him. They just can't get a package they like. And they probably figure the worst case scenario is he walks, which they can live with, and the best case is they get him locked up on an under-market contract and can flip him for something better once he's been locked in to a deal. But going to the media about it sucks,

All the reports are Giddey has also not come down from $30M. It seems like both sides are equally responsible for a deal not being done. Would you go to $30M?

As opposed to the QO? I would actually if it were only for two years with everything after being a team option. I think Giddey at $20 million is a very clear underpayment (which I would be happy to get him for) in today's NBA market. I think Giddey at $30 million is not "clearly" an overpayment, but there is certainly a material risk that it would be. So I'd pay it in a short window while we are "rebuilding" anyway because I don't think it would really hurt us in a two year period. But I really can't ever imagine it coming to that.

Yeah, if we're talking a two year deal, or three with a team option, then I can see the argument to risk the $30M AAV. I'd be pretty hesitant to go there on 4 or 5 guaranteed years. Though I acknowledge he could absolutely outplay $30M AAV and it could be a win in the end. It's just so tough to judge given Giddey playing like Superman was over a pretty brief stretch of games.

[samwana]

I still think a frontloaded contract with bonus on a lot of milestones is the best for both parties. Start at about 27 or 28 so he is happy now and end in the low 20s so Bulls are happy later.
If he wants to bet on himself, do it with AllNBA, reaching playoffs, player of the month or things like that.

[TheJordanRule]

We should be able to make 25 mil per year palatable by overpaying up front and making it a declining contract. Sitting at 20 mil per year, with our thumbs up our butts, is not a good idea. Giddey is a major young talent, he's likely to get better over time as a shooter, and distributor at minimum. I don't think housing him at $25 mil per year is going to be that much of an impediment to the construction of a championship caliber team, especially not if we put him on a declining deal. Let's imagine we decide to give Josh a deal for 5 years for $125 million total. After "eating it" at $29.76905 million in year 1, and then again at $27.380952 in year 2, Years three, four and five are at 25 million, 22 million and 20 million, respectively. Those are value deals for those years, even if the cap doesn't continue to explode, even if Josh stays largely the guy he is-- but we have good reasons to expect that the cap will explode, and Josh will improve. Move Coby for picks and to make room for a "full boat" free agent next off season-- Mikal Bridges?, KD?, LeBron?-- and we might challenge for a chip much sooner than any of us even imagine.

Pretty much what I have been saying, but better spelled out.

To me that's a no lose contract for both sides

Typically players don't want to sign declining contracts because the value of the last year gets used as a bit of a signpost as to where future contracts are negotiated from. It normally requires some external factors to encourage them to agree to a deal like that. For example, if they are getting paid more if they sign a declining contract. Or if it has tax implications that you can pay hardball with. Or if you are a fringe rotation player who needs to secure their one significant contract. Or if the team has several other players on that type of deal where it has been normalized in that culture.

Being at $20m in 5 years time will have him heavily underpaid if he is even at the mid point of production for the two halves of the season. But if he isn't a nailed on max, it is something that could cost him significantly down the line.

A similar phenomenon is when a veteran player signs a vet minimum. It becomes very hard to get out of that perception from a value proposition.

If you think that the $25m is an overpay which necessitates the declining contract then fair enough. But if Giddey views that as being underpaid (which we do from various reports) then I doubt he would want to commit long term like that.

Hm... good post, bringing in the nuance. Love it!

[dougthonus]

I wasn't referring to the Bulls history. I was making a general statement based on what they are doing right now. Which in part is probably an effort to counter-balance that history. It just needs to be checked. It can't be a new norm in which this is just how we do it.

Sure, just making the counter point, that when on a scale of 1 to 100 of 1 being too player friendly in negotiations and 100 being too much of a hard ass, we're probably under 10. Until this negotiation concludes, it is hard to say how stubborn we are being. If we're holding the line hard at 20M, I'd say too stubborn, but I don't think that's what we will actually do. Just hard to say until it's over.

No doubt, and that remains the likely outcome here. My post is a cautionary one, not that an alarm actually needs to be pulled.

Yeah, I have very little concern about it because I just assume that we'll really move when push comes to shove as will Giddey, but as we both note, no way to really tell until we get to the point where there is pressure and we see if either side actually does move. It could be that either side has dug in their heels too much, but we'll see. Until we get to the point where there is time pressure to make something happen, I'm going to just ignore all the mutual posturing.

[dougthonus]

Me too, at less years. I'm thinking 3 years/$70 million with a third year player option. That seems like something everyone could live with. It allows Giddey to make real money by NBA standards while also betting on himself to make the really, really, real dough if he proves it up. It also keeps him in Chicago, which the FO desperately needs as well.

FWIW, if I'm the Bulls, and we land on a 3 year deal, I'm not offering him a PO unless the money is way less than that. I want to lock in for at least 3 years. If he wants a PO, then maybe 3/60. I'd do something like 4/100 with 4th year PO (3 years locked, 1 year insurance for Giddey). Granted neither side needs to listen to me.

As opposed to the QO? I would actually if it were only for two years with everything after being a team option. I think Giddey at $20 million is a very clear underpayment (which I would be happy to get him for) in today's NBA market. I think Giddey at $30 million is not "clearly" an overpayment, but there is certainly a material risk that it would be. So I'd pay it in a short window while we are "rebuilding" anyway because I don't think it would really hurt us in a two year period. But I really can't ever imagine it coming to that.

If you look at the Athletic contracts for him (which is the only data point we have sourced from NBA people), $30M is the exact same amount of overpayment as the Bulls are in underpayment at $20M. They're both $5M from the peak value anyone in the NBA ascribed to him of the 16 (of 29) teams interviewed.

[DuckIII]

Yeah, if we're talking a two year deal, or three with a team option, then I can see the argument to risk the $30M AAV. I'd be pretty hesitant to go there on 4 or 5 guaranteed years. Though I acknowledge he could absolutely outplay $30M AAV and it could be a win in the end. It's just so tough to judge given Giddey playing like Superman was over a pretty brief stretch of games.

The difference in views on Giddey is that some people see what he did once Lavine left and said "boy, given his past that seems like a fluke." And others said "wow, look what happened once we gave him the ball and started playing Giddey's style of basketball."

I'm in the latter camp. To me there was a clear and immediate shift, and the game logs back up my memory. That's why I'd pay him $30 mil a year on a short deal with a team option rather than see him take the QO. Its also why if I were Josh Giddey I'd tell the Bulls to take a 4-5 year $20 mil AAV and shove it right up the brown eye.

If we get Giddey on a 4 year deal at something like $23 mil AAV, I predict it will be one of the best contracts in the NBA within 2 years.

[DuckIII]

As opposed to the QO? I would actually if it were only for two years with everything after being a team option. I think Giddey at $20 million is a very clear underpayment (which I would be happy to get him for) in today's NBA market. I think Giddey at $30 million is not "clearly" an overpayment, but there is certainly a material risk that it would be. So I'd pay it in a short window while we are "rebuilding" anyway because I don't think it would really hurt us in a two year period. But I really can't ever imagine it coming to that.

If you look at the Athletic contracts for him (which is the only data point we have sourced from NBA people), $30M is the exact same amount of overpayment as the Bulls are in underpayment at $20M. They're both $5M from the peak value anyone in the NBA ascribed to him of the 16 (of 29) teams interviewed.

I don't know why that matters. I'm saying I'd pay him that for two years to avoid him playing on the QO. The extent to which I'd be happy to under-pay him would be irrelevant to this analysis. I.e., it would be much more important to me, as GM, to keep him for two more years than it would be rigidly stick with the lower number and risk losing him outright. At the end of the day I'd "overpay" for it at that number so long as it was for no more than 2 years (or with a team option in case he earns it).

[jnrjr79]

Yeah, if we're talking a two year deal, or three with a team option, then I can see the argument to risk the $30M AAV. I'd be pretty hesitant to go there on 4 or 5 guaranteed years. Though I acknowledge he could absolutely outplay $30M AAV and it could be a win in the end. It's just so tough to judge given Giddey playing like Superman was over a pretty brief stretch of games.

The difference in views on Giddey is that some people see what he did once Lavine left and said "boy, given his past that seems like a fluke." And others said "wow, look what happened once we gave him the ball and started playing Giddey's style of basketball."

I'm in the latter camp. To me there was a clear and immediate shift, and the game logs back up my memory. That's why I'd pay him $30 mil a year on a short deal with a team option rather than see him take the QO. Its also why if I were Josh Giddey I'd tell the Bulls to take a 4-5 year $20 mil AAV and shove it right up the brown eye.

If we get Giddey on a 4 year deal at something like $23 mil AAV, I predict it will be one of the best contracts in the NBA within 2 years.

So, I think I'm a little in between those two views. On the one hand, I think it does show what kind of player Giddey can be if you hand him the keys and have a team that fits pretty well with his style (excluding perhaps Vooch). But it also shows, perhaps, that Giddey requires a pretty specific supporting cast to be effective. Assuming you don't view Giddey as a #1 player on a contending team, I think it potentially raises concerns about whether the tail could be wagging the dog at some point.

[TheJordanRule]

Pretty much what I have been saying, but better spelled out.

To me that's a no lose contract for both sides

Typically players don't want to sign declining contracts because the value of the last year gets used as a bit of a signpost as to where future contracts are negotiated from. It normally requires some external factors to encourage them to agree to a deal like that. For example, if they are getting paid more if they sign a declining contract. Or if it has tax implications that you can pay hardball with. Or if you are a fringe rotation player who needs to secure their one significant contract. Or if the team has several other players on that type of deal where it has been normalized in that culture.

Being at $20m in 5 years time will have him heavily underpaid if he is even at the mid point of production for the two halves of the season. But if he isn't a nailed on max, it is something that could cost him significantly down the line.

A similar phenomenon is when a veteran player signs a vet minimum. It becomes very hard to get out of that perception from a value proposition.

If you think that the $25m is an overpay which necessitates the declining contract then fair enough. But if Giddey views that as being underpaid (which we do from various reports) then I doubt he would want to commit long term like that.

Hm... good post, bringing in the nuance. Love it!

We may be able to sell Josh on stability instead of our typical cheapness. For instance, we could guarantee pay out of 80 - 90 percent of his deal regardless of what happens, and along those same lines, give Josh a player option in Year 4. Also, if the FO truly cares about winning, we could lay out performance based incentives each year that may pay out 2- 3 million more total if he reaches them. Finally, we may impress upon this kid the Tom Brady mentality of taking a little less than he could to ensure he has teammates he can win with, along with building his brand. The goal is championship or bust, not getting paid or bust. If Josh can't stomach that, he may not be the type of dude you build with. I would be pretty frustrated with this kid if we give him the first three options, only to find out that it's not enough.

[Stratmaster]

WT has Giddey (via agent, reading tea leaves) threatening to take the QO

Bargaining hard, but if Bulls aren't sold on him, they should be looking at sign and trades. Of course, that presumes that there are teams our there who would pay Giddey what he wants - which there well may not be. And even then, would they pay and send a meaningful asset back? You would think that Giddey should at least get a LaVine or DeRozan level return, but I'm not so sure that there is even that level of market for him.

What teams would trade a decent package for Giddey at 30 or 28 (noting 1 for 1 is hard with the BYC rules) What would a package from such a team look like?

The reports I have seen recently were that the Bulls had rejected any sign and trade discussions out of hand. If that is true, it is what makes their position so egregious from Giddey's perspective. Basically that is a "we aren't going to pay you what you think (right or wrong) you are worth AND we also are not going to let anyone else pay you more than our offer". Basically, paraphrased, "we are holding you hostage until we decide how badly we really want you".

Again. That is just a possible view from Giddey's perspective. But it is why I think the way the Bulls are approaching it is dangerous if they really think they may want him long term. Then again, as others have said, if they give him 25m a season I think all will be forgotten quickly. If they stick him at 20-22m....not so sure of that.

If the Bulls and Giddey truly reach an impasse (which I doubt, but possible), there's nothing that stops the Bulls from entertaining S&T offers now, even if they were rejecting them before.

Well, the quotes I posted after that post were from the last 48 hours. And if the sources are correct, the Bulls have been refusing those offers because they have no intention of letting Giddey go. So they certainly could decide to entertain those offers. It would mean the front office once again screwed up and completely failed with their approach to contract negotiations.

[Stratmaster]

Yeah, if we're talking a two year deal, or three with a team option, then I can see the argument to risk the $30M AAV. I'd be pretty hesitant to go there on 4 or 5 guaranteed years. Though I acknowledge he could absolutely outplay $30M AAV and it could be a win in the end. It's just so tough to judge given Giddey playing like Superman was over a pretty brief stretch of games.

The difference in views on Giddey is that some people see what he did once Lavine left and said "boy, given his past that seems like a fluke." And others said "wow, look what happened once we gave him the ball and started playing Giddey's style of basketball."

I'm in the latter camp. To me there was a clear and immediate shift, and the game logs back up my memory. That's why I'd pay him $30 mil a year on a short deal with a team option rather than see him take the QO. Its also why if I were Josh Giddey I'd tell the Bulls to take a 4-5 year $20 mil AAV and shove it right up the brown eye.

If we get Giddey on a 4 year deal at something like $23 mil AAV, I predict it will be one of the best contracts in the NBA within 2 years.

Yep. It isn't just "the numbers". He obviously affected winning in a significant manner. The only caveat is that they were playing a lot of weak teams, some of whom were trying to tank. I openly acknowledge that (in fact, I was one of the first ones to point it out during the end of season hot streak). But even so, there is n o denying that he positively impacted results and the W/L percentage.

[Stratmaster]

Me too, at less years. I'm thinking 3 years/$70 million with a third year player option. That seems like something everyone could live with. It allows Giddey to make real money by NBA standards while also betting on himself to make the really, really, real dough if he proves it up. It also keeps him in Chicago, which the FO desperately needs as well.

FWIW, if I'm the Bulls, and we land on a 3 year deal, I'm not offering him a PO unless the money is way less than that. I want to lock in for at least 3 years. If he wants a PO, then maybe 3/60. I'd do something like 4/100 with 4th year PO (3 years locked, 1 year insurance for Giddey). Granted neither side needs to listen to me.

As opposed to the QO? I would actually if it were only for two years with everything after being a team option. I think Giddey at $20 million is a very clear underpayment (which I would be happy to get him for) in today's NBA market. I think Giddey at $30 million is not "clearly" an overpayment, but there is certainly a material risk that it would be. So I'd pay it in a short window while we are "rebuilding" anyway because I don't think it would really hurt us in a two year period. But I really can't ever imagine it coming to that.

If you look at the Athletic contracts for him (which is the only data point we have sourced from NBA people), $30M is the exact same amount of overpayment as the Bulls are in underpayment at $20M. They're both $5M from the peak value anyone in the NBA ascribed to him of the 16 (of 29) teams interviewed.

I am down with your 4/100 with a year 4 player option.

[jnrjr79]

The reports I have seen recently were that the Bulls had rejected any sign and trade discussions out of hand. If that is true, it is what makes their position so egregious from Giddey's perspective. Basically that is a "we aren't going to pay you what you think (right or wrong) you are worth AND we also are not going to let anyone else pay you more than our offer". Basically, paraphrased, "we are holding you hostage until we decide how badly we really want you".

Again. That is just a possible view from Giddey's perspective. But it is why I think the way the Bulls are approaching it is dangerous if they really think they may want him long term. Then again, as others have said, if they give him 25m a season I think all will be forgotten quickly. If they stick him at 20-22m....not so sure of that.

If the Bulls and Giddey truly reach an impasse (which I doubt, but possible), there's nothing that stops the Bulls from entertaining S&T offers now, even if they were rejecting them before.

Well, the quotes I posted after that post were from the last 48 hours. And if the sources are correct, the Bears have been refusing those offers because they have no intention of letting Giddey go. So they certainly could decide to entertain those offers. It would mean the front office once again screwed up and completely failed with their approach to contract negotiations.

Sure, the point I'm making is the deadline to accept the QO is 10/1. There's no reason for Giddey to sign it before then, even if he's written off the Bulls, because even in that scenario, he'd prefer some other team free up cap space or do a S&T, presumably. So the Bulls could still say "we don't want to trade him" for the next few weeks and reverse course if that changes.

The risk is that Giddey signs the QO early and they're screwed, but it isn't in Giddey's interest to do that.

[Almost Retired]

I know a lot of posters want to "play hardball" but these are human beings and there is a balance here. We all want the organization to be frugal and not overpay so that we have more flexibility later. But teams are comprised of human beings and going full bore to beat down a player and "win" every negotiation isn't sustainable. This is the kind of BS the Cowboys do all the time and in a league with incredible parity and despite being one of the most famous sports brands on Earth, they have sucked for over 30 years.

Find the balance, get the deal done in a way that makes sense for the Bulls and for Giddey. I still think that is going to be the outcome, but I don't like this report that basically we are being GS-midwest: "We will not trade you. We love and value you. But we're going to take full advantage of these market conditions, which will only last 1 year, to bugger you in a way that lasts 4 years."

This organization is on the cusp of finally showing positive signs of moving in a logical, sustainable direction. I'd hate to see it all get **** up in a fool's errand to deny as much money to Giddey as possible to "win" the negotiation. Giddey's going to lose the negotiation no matter what. He doesn't have anything approaching equal leverage. But he is not without leverage. Giddey on the QO is a nightmare unless we go full tank and let him walk.

But you know that isn't what AK will do. If he FUBARs the Giddey situation, he'll look to make up for it by bringing in "win now" veterans faster than you can blink. In which case we will be doubly screwed.

Well put. In a general sense I think the player contracts are getting obscene at the higher end. But AKME threw $18 million at PWill who is at best a bench player. Giddey is a starter and the engine of the offense. I don't think $25 Million average over 4 years is out of line. This franchise has wasted so much salary money in the last 20 years it's ridiculous. But all of sudden AKME wants to pinch pennies? How about meeting Giddey half way and then concentrating on moving Vuc and getting us a defensive presence in the middle. Just more mismanagement from AKME. Why they were retained I'll never know.

[dougthonus]

I don't know why that matters. I'm saying I'd pay him that for two years to avoid him playing on the QO. The extent to which I'd be happy to under-pay him would be irrelevant to this analysis. I.e., it would be much more important to me, as GM, to keep him for two more years than it would be rigidly stick with the lower number and risk losing him outright. At the end of the day I'd "overpay" for it at that number so long as it was for no more than 2 years (or with a team option in case he earns it).

Yeah, if I can't get Giddey for at least 3 years, I'd rather chase the draft. I'd probably pivot to S&T if he has real other suitors. If he doesn't have real other suitors, then it also probably pressures him back into my deal, but we aren't going to accomplish anything with Giddey in the next two years regardless, so I'd either want him here as a firmer part of the direction or not at all.

And to the extent it matters, is it really doesn't matter. You just said you think Giddey is closer to his reasonable market value. I said that based on the numbers we have they are exactly equidistant from what we best know (which may not be very good) is his reasonable market value rather than Giddey is being more reasonable. They appear to be equally and oppositely reasonable right now, which also is likely by design from both sides.

[DuckIII]

The difference in views on Giddey is that some people see what he did once Lavine left and said "boy, given his past that seems like a fluke." And others said "wow, look what happened once we gave him the ball and started playing Giddey's style of basketball."

I'm in the latter camp. To me there was a clear and immediate shift, and the game logs back up my memory. That's why I'd pay him $30 mil a year on a short deal with a team option rather than see him take the QO. Its also why if I were Josh Giddey I'd tell the Bulls to take a 4-5 year $20 mil AAV and shove it right up the brown eye.

If we get Giddey on a 4 year deal at something like $23 mil AAV, I predict it will be one of the best contracts in the NBA within 2 years.

So, I think I'm a little in between those two views. On the one hand, I think it does show what kind of player Giddey can be if you hand him the keys and have a team that fits pretty well with his style (excluding perhaps Vooch). But it also shows, perhaps, that Giddey requires a pretty specific supporting cast to be effective. Assuming you don't view Giddey as a #1 player on a contending team, I think it potentially raises concerns about whether the tail could be wagging the dog at some point.

Two things:

1. He'd definitely a guy who requires a pretty specific roster (I wouldn't say "supporting cast" really because I don't see him being a franchise player) in order to maximize his abilities as a PG while accounting for his weaknesses. Agree 100%. I think I wrote about that as a concern in the "conundrum" thread. Its a downside, but one with workarounds.

2. He didn't have a team built around his strengths and weaknesses. He just had what was left after trading Lavine, and what we got back. None of which was designed around Giddey's game. "Designed around Giddey's game" is drafting Noa Essengue. Its the first time we did that. The second time was trading for Okoro. The third time hasn't happened yet. We've been in this era for about 5 months. And despite that he still immediately went into ridiculous production mode as soon as Lavine (not a hater) left and we stopped playing walk it up half court basketball. That to me is not tail wagging the dog. Its a player showing what he can do in a role even without teammates ideally suited to the task.

[Stratmaster]

If the Bulls and Giddey truly reach an impasse (which I doubt, but possible), there's nothing that stops the Bulls from entertaining S&T offers now, even if they were rejecting them before.

Well, the quotes I posted after that post were from the last 48 hours. And if the sources are correct, the Bears have been refusing those offers because they have no intention of letting Giddey go. So they certainly could decide to entertain those offers. It would mean the front office once again screwed up and completely failed with their approach to contract negotiations.

Sure, the point I'm making is the deadline to accept the QO is 10/1. There's no reason for Giddey to sign it before then, even if he's written off the Bulls, because even in that scenario, he'd prefer some other team free up cap space or do a S&T, presumably. So the Bulls could still say "we don't want to trade him" for the next few weeks and reverse course if that changes.

The risk is that Giddey signs the QO early and they're screwed, but it isn't in Giddey's interest to do that.

The other risk is the teams who expressed interest have moved on, made other moves, and are no longer interested or able to make an offer.

[HomoSapien]

This will be a big disaster if he signs for the QO. We like him. He wants to be here. He did well for us. He's young and has a history of being productive.. Let's not overcomplicate this.