Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[CROBulls]

IMO, going into the season, the conundrum was that Giddey would be looking for around $30M/yr on his next deal, coupled with his play not supporting that value. We're almost half way through the season and his play, while trending up a little, still doesn't support a $30M contract. If I had to ascribe a current value to his play, it would be around $12M to $16M.

Now he's young, which some ascribe additional value to because there's "upside"; however he's been playing for a long time in the NBA, working against that premise. Also, he's an RFA, which also depresses his market value.

I am currently at a similar spot that I was at with Pat last season. He may have upside, but it's going from 3rd quartile starting PG (or whatever you call him) to a 2nd quartile starting PG. The part that I struggle with here is that there are very few players, after 4 seasons as a starter in the NBA, that make big leaps in the weaknesses of their game...maybe they score more when going from low usage to high usage, but rarely do they become good at something they were bad at. That said, I think a fair deal is something around what Pat got. If we keep him, it should be with the recognition that he isn't ever going to be an above average 3pt shooter or defender, and that's ok, he can likely get to average, and that may be good enough.

The key is that this team won't ever contend with players like Pat, Coby or Giddey starting, if they don't find a true #1 option. I also don't think that trading them will likely bring you back a young undiscovered #1 or a pick with a decent shot at that. So if you keep him (them), you need to probably get lucky in FA as your "strategy".

No way they gonna let Giddey walk away. I mean for godsake everyone expect they would not extend Vuc and they double down on that. And instead letting Pat play on qualifying offer, they gave him 20M per year for 5 full guaranteed years. So after dumb and more dumber decision you expect AKME to start acting like good GM's. No way. Giddey is gonna get extended. It's just matter of time if he is gonna be a-n-o-t-h-e-r bad contract or not. I bet around 25-28M per year.

[Infinity2152]

I can't imagine any team has had more starters out for injuries than the Bulls during AK's time either. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. The Bulls have literally been starting two-three bench players every night for the last few years, between Zach, Ball, and Pat's injuries. A team built thru strength in numbers can't afford that as easily as a team with two top tier stars as long as the stars are healthy. Add in the fact that the one out the longest is the QB of the offense and defense and maybe the only high BBall IQ player on the team, exacerbates the problem. I bet the metrics when all are healthy are entirely different. Injuries happen, but we've had multiple guys out damn near entire seasons.

So yeah, our team minus 2-3 starters is not as good as most teams with their starting lineups primarily intact. Is that surprising?

[CROBulls]

I can't imagine any team has had more starters out for injuries than the Bulls during AK's time either. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. The Bulls have literally been starting two-three bench players every night for the last few years, between Zach, Ball, and Pat's injuries. A team built thru strength in numbers can't afford that as easily as a team with two top tier stars as long as the stars are healthy. Add in the fact that the one out the longest is the QB of the offense and defense and maybe the only high BBall IQ player on the team, exacerbates the problem. I bet the metrics when all are healthy are entirely different. Injuries happen, but we've had multiple guys out damn near entire seasons.

So yeah, our team minus 2-3 starters is not as good as most teams with their starting lineups primarily intact. Is that surprising?

Bulls dont have stars. Or star players. Otherwise we wouldnt have 139-139 record in last 4 years. And we also have zero All-Star selections in last two years which includes this year.

[League Circles]

I wasn't complaining that it was arbitrarily biased against the Bulls specifically. I'm saying that it's obviously a ridiculously arbitrary measure of success, period. It's just another way to regurgitate the incredibly oversimplified and tired notion that essentially most teams should be tanking most of the time. Which is absurd on its face obviously.

It isn't arbitrary though. It is measuring are you presently successful, and if not, are you collecting high upside assets. If you have a less arbitrary way to measure "collecting high upside assets", I'm all game to hear it.

BTW, edited, but here's the results for just the AK piece of this era:

CHI: (1) - 1 win / Picks none
CHO: (2) - 0 wins / Picks at #2, #6
TOR: (3) - 2 wins / Pick #4
NOP: (4) - 2 wins / Picks #8, #10
WAS: (4) - 1 win / Picks at #2, #8, #10
DET: (4) - 0 wins / Picks at #1, #5, #5, #5
HOU: (4) - 0 wins / Picks at #2, #3, #3, #4
SAS: (4) - 0 wins / Picks at #1, #4, #8, #9
POR: (5) - 2 wins / Picks #3, #7, #7

But hey, if you want to ignore whether picks are valuable, then only 4 teams in the league have had less playoff success in the AK era than AK with one team tied with them. 25 teams have had more playoff success over the AK era.

Well there is definitely a lot more nuance required than dividing assets up into "high upside" and "not high upside".

I don't really have any problem with criticism of the Bulls FO in recent years. I don't think they've done a good job. However I think the specifics of what should be criticized and what would work better instead are often laughably oversimplified.

Josh Giddey and Demar DeRozan, for example, were "high upside" "collectables". But for various reasons, weren't helpful in us becoming successful.

There's always a lot of gymnastics involved in trashing them. Always regular season wins are ignored, and instead we focus on playoff wins, playoff series wins, or top BLANK draft picks. IMO nothing is essential and everything should be considered holistically.

Most fans have been trashing the FO for years now because the outcomes haven't been as bad or as good as they want. They've mostly moved beyond criticism of actual decisions (which is all a FO should be evaluated on IMO). People think tanking is a choice that any FO is free to make at any time, which is false, and that should be made most of the time by teams outside of the second round of the playoffs. I think people just have a really hard time coping with the realities of competition and being mediocre.

[Infinity2152]

I can't imagine any team has had more starters out for injuries than the Bulls during AK's time either. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. The Bulls have literally been starting two-three bench players every night for the last few years, between Zach, Ball, and Pat's injuries. A team built thru strength in numbers can't afford that as easily as a team with two top tier stars as long as the stars are healthy. Add in the fact that the one out the longest is the QB of the offense and defense and maybe the only high BBall IQ player on the team, exacerbates the problem. I bet the metrics when all are healthy are entirely different. Injuries happen, but we've had multiple guys out damn near entire seasons.

So yeah, our team minus 2-3 starters is not as good as most teams with their starting lineups primarily intact. Is that surprising?

Bulls dont have stars. Or star players. Otherwise we wouldnt have 139-139 record in last 4 years. And we also have zero All-Star selections in last two years which includes this year.

First, stars doesn't mean All-Star. There are way more stars than All Stars every year. Second, you don't stop being a doctor the year after you get the degree. If you're a star, you're a star and both Vuc and Zach have been All-Stars, and not 10 years ago. They've both been the same players basically as when they were considered All Star. I'd say a .500 record while missing 2-3 starters most of the time is a pretty good accomplishment. It's all relative. Means they're a middle of the pack team minus 2-3 starters. Draymond Green might have been the fourth best player on the Warriors, but his loss would have hurt them tremendously and they had superior 1A, 2A players. This also includes very little growth from the Bulls recent number 4 pick, which was not very predictable. Pat Will follows Haliburton or even Jalen Johnson's trajectory, Bulls win more games, we're not having this argument. Isn't that what we're hoping this new 2025 rookie will do, elevate the team?

Notice you use two years, but didn't Derozan go to the All-Star game with the Bulls just last year?

[dougthonus]

There's always a lot of gymnastics involved in trashing them. Always regular season wins are ignored, and instead we focus on playoff wins, playoff series wins, or top BLANK draft picks. IMO nothing is essential and everything should be considered holistically.

It's really not much in terms of mental gymnastics.

Very few people care about regular season wins without playoff wins. It's a metric that lines up with what the vast majority of fans care about. Top draft picks are _by far_ the most likely way your team goes from bad to very good. Any other method is exceedingly unlikely.

Most fans have been trashing the FO for years now because the outcomes haven't been as bad or as good as they want. They've mostly moved beyond criticism of actual decisions (which is all a FO should be evaluated on IMO). People think tanking is a choice that any FO is free to make at any time, which is false, and that should be made most of the time by teams outside of the second round of the playoffs. I think people just have a really hard time coping with the realities of competition and being mediocre.

It isn't arbitrary though. Fans by and largely agree with this. You may not agree, but most fans prioritize playoff wins / playoff chances.

I view there as two fundamental components:
1: Strategy - How are you trying to win
2: Execution - How effectively have you implemented the above

The combination of those two things, I'd say they're worst in the league based on where they have been overall vs how I would measure a team, but people can have different standards. I would base it on past success achieved and future success projected with a focus on the playoffs.

[CROBulls]

First, stars doesn't mean All-Star. There are way more stars than All Stars every year. Second, you don't stop being a doctor the year after you get the degree. If you're a star, you're a star and both Vuc and Zach have been All-Stars, and not 10 years ago. They've both been the same players basically as when they were considered All Star. I'd say a .500 record while missing 2-3 starters most of the time is a pretty good accomplishment. It's all relative. Means they're a middle of the pack team minus 2-3 starters. Draymond Green might have been the fourth best player on the Warriors, but his loss would have hurt them tremendously and they had superior 1A, 2A players. This also includes very little growth from the Bulls recent number 4 pick, which was not very predictable. Pat Will follows Haliburton or even Jalen Johnson's trajectory, Bulls win more games, we're not having this argument. Isn't that what we're hoping this new 2025 rookie will do, elevate the team?

Notice you use two years, but didn't Derozan go to the All-Star game with the Bulls just last year?

In 2024 All-Star game no Bulls made selection. As for 2024-25 season certainly nobody from Bulls gonna make it. But DeRozan did make it in 2023. Only him. Lavine made All-Star last time 2022, and Vuc made All-Star last time 2021.

Either way Bulls dont have any current All-Stars, only ones who made it last time basically 3 and 4 years ago.

[Infinity2152]

There's always a lot of gymnastics involved in trashing them. Always regular season wins are ignored, and instead we focus on playoff wins, playoff series wins, or top BLANK draft picks. IMO nothing is essential and everything should be considered holistically.

It's really not much in terms of mental gymnastics.

Very few people care about regular season wins without playoff wins. It's a metric that lines up with what the vast majority of fans care about. Top draft picks are _by far_ the most likely way your team goes from bad to very good. Any other method is exceedingly unlikely.

Most fans have been trashing the FO for years now because the outcomes haven't been as bad or as good as they want. They've mostly moved beyond criticism of actual decisions (which is all a FO should be evaluated on IMO). People think tanking is a choice that any FO is free to make at any time, which is false, and that should be made most of the time by teams outside of the second round of the playoffs. I think people just have a really hard time coping with the realities of competition and being mediocre.

I view there as two fundamental components:
1: Strategy - How are you trying to win
2: Execution - How effectively have you implemented the above

I think their strategy is probably among the most short sighted, worst in the NBA. I think their execution is below average, but not abysmal.

The thought very few people care about regular season games is personal. That's mostly for purists. Fans don't watch 82 games in a season because they don't care about the games. The regular season is way longer than the playoffs. I'll say personally the season matters a great deal to me, and I'm not alone. Most people watch basketball for entertainment, they want to see the best product right now, not suck for three years so you can give me a good product then.

This is a business. Purist notions and ideals don't fill seats. Losing teams don't sell jerseys. And multiple injuries can derail the best laid plan, and can't be magically erased. The strategy they implemented had the Bulls at the top of the East until the injury. I'll take any strategy that leads us back to the top of the East, even for half a season. And do it in one year. You have that strategy? AK did.

[League Circles]

There's always a lot of gymnastics involved in trashing them. Always regular season wins are ignored, and instead we focus on playoff wins, playoff series wins, or top BLANK draft picks. IMO nothing is essential and everything should be considered holistically.

It's really not much in terms of mental gymnastics.

Very few people care about regular season wins without playoff wins. It's a metric that lines up with what the vast majority of fans care about. Top draft picks are _by far_ the most likely way your team goes from bad to very good. Any other method is exceedingly unlikely.

Most fans have been trashing the FO for years now because the outcomes haven't been as bad or as good as they want. They've mostly moved beyond criticism of actual decisions (which is all a FO should be evaluated on IMO). People think tanking is a choice that any FO is free to make at any time, which is false, and that should be made most of the time by teams outside of the second round of the playoffs. I think people just have a really hard time coping with the realities of competition and being mediocre.

I view there as two fundamental components:
1: Strategy - How are you trying to win
2: Execution - How effectively have you implemented the above

I think their strategy is probably among the most short sighted, worst in the NBA. I think their execution is below average, but not abysmal.

Interesting, this highlights a lot of the disconnect.

I've never believed that FOs should have a "strategy" at all. Such a thing would be way too limited. FOs should instead be highly opportunistic amd ready to change gears at any time in terms of what type of a roster they are trying to put together and how they'll do it.

Execution evaluation to me is results-based hindsight based largely on luck and it's important to me.

For example, I was highly against signing Lonzo Ball. Mostly cause I didn't know how much his shot had improved or how good he was on defense, but also cause I was concerned about him being injury prone.

It turned out to be a really good, or really bad signing, depending on how you look at it. He was a good player and great fit whose injuries crippled us for years. All I think AK should be graded on is how good or bad the decision was to sign him at the time.

I thought the Vuc signing was relatively bad, but not for the common reason that "bad teams shouldn't trade future assets for win-now moves". But rather just because Vuc has never actually been very good (until this year lol). Before or after the trade.

Getting Demar in a vacuum was good (good player value on his contract), but the obvious on court chemistry concerns between Zach, Demar, Vuc and Ball could have been seen a mile away. Those guys don't complement each other well on the court, and that should have been pretty obvious.

I agree many fans don't care about regular season wins. That's why these conversations are often dead-ended. From an entertainment standpoint (which is the point for fans), you're talking about 82 games vs 5-10 probably. I think a lot of people don't actually love basketball that much. They love a winner. So yes, a lot of people see very little difference in entertainment value between an 8th seed and the 4th worst team in the league. I'm not one of them. I basically value "entertaining nights per year" above all else. Sure maybe I'd count playoff wins as equalling 2-3 regular season wins in entertainment impact. I think many fans are more focused on how entertaining the narrative is than the product itself.

[MrSparkle]

I can't imagine any team has had more starters out for injuries than the Bulls during AK's time either. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. The Bulls have literally been starting two-three bench players every night for the last few years, between Zach, Ball, and Pat's injuries. A team built thru strength in numbers can't afford that as easily as a team with two top tier stars as long as the stars are healthy. Add in the fact that the one out the longest is the QB of the offense and defense and maybe the only high BBall IQ player on the team, exacerbates the problem. I bet the metrics when all are healthy are entirely different. Injuries happen, but we've had multiple guys out damn near entire seasons.

So yeah, our team minus 2-3 starters is not as good as most teams with their starting lineups primarily intact. Is that surprising?

The Lonzo injury was as bad/unfortunate as it gets, and our injury rates that first season were ridiculous (Pat/Coby/Caruso/DJJ). But overall, besides Lonzo, I'd say the Bulls have been on par with the average NBA team that sees a lot of ups and downs with health.

Clippers? They keep staying over 500, with tons of vet min guys playing heavy minutes. Kawhi and George during his time there.

I can't remember the last time Middleton made it through a season. He was a key part of the Bucks' chip.

Celtics lost Porzingis most the year and won a ring.

Grizzlies have been making do with or without Ja (wisely tanking when he was entirely out).

Hawks have had a deluge of injuries to their core (Hunter, Okongwu, etc.). Magic keep winning, with Franz/Paolo nursing serious injuries. Cavs had a rough stretch last year- now they're healthy and loaded.

My point is, it was an excuse until it wasn't an excuse. Sorry, but you don't get to say for 4 years straight that injuries are the reason you can't make it to .500. At that point, you just suck, and you're not doing anything smart to get out the treadmill.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Top draft picks are _by far_ the most likely way your team goes from bad to very good.

It's definitely a way to get very good, but I don't believe it's by far the most likely. Jokic was taken 41st so not a top draft pick. Giannis was the 15th pick. Teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Heat, and Suns continue to get "good" by trading or signing players from other teams.

The Warriors could be a decent counterpoint. Curry was drafted 7th which is somewhat of a top pick, although Green was drafted 35th and Klay was 11th. Boston drafted Tatum and Brown both with the 3rd overall pick. Oklahoma has seen a great boon due to drafting well, but teams like Washington haven't.

I could be misinterpreting your idea of "very bad to very good", and I think top draft picks are probably over 50% of the cause. But I don't like its the overwhelming majority of cases.

[dougthonus]

It's definitely a way to get very good, but I don't believe it's by far the most likely. Jokic was taken 41st so not a top draft pick. Giannis was the 15th pick. Teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Heat, and Suns continue to get "good" by trading or signing players from other teams.

Yeah, I've amended in other posts that it's about the draft, not just high picks but getting volumes of picks, but there is a pretty smooth curve of talent drop off relative to selection if you look at the draft over a long enough period of time.

I could be misinterpreting your idea of "very bad to very good", and I think top draft picks are probably over 50% of the cause. But I don't like its the overwhelming majority of cases.

Let me rephrase it this way. If you list out all causes and how much team has control over that cause, they're the most controllable and predictable method of doing a thing which you have very little control or predictability out of it.

Effectively the reasons in order are something like:
1: Built through the draft with high picks
2: Built through the draft with unexpected picks
3: Built through FA because you are a warm weather party city and can attract players with even with nothing there
4: Some other reason which is pretty highly unique.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

It's definitely a way to get very good, but I don't believe it's by far the most likely. Jokic was taken 41st so not a top draft pick. Giannis was the 15th pick. Teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Heat, and Suns continue to get "good" by trading or signing players from other teams.

Yeah, I've amended in other posts that it's about the draft, not just high picks but getting volumes of picks, but there is a pretty smooth curve of talent drop off relative to selection if you look at the draft over a long enough period of time.

I could be misinterpreting your idea of "very bad to very good", and I think top draft picks are probably over 50% of the cause. But I don't like its the overwhelming majority of cases.

Let me rephrase it this way. If you list out all causes and how much team has control over that cause, they're the most controllable and predictable method of doing a thing which you have very little control or predictability out of it.

Effectively the reasons in order are something like:
1: Built through the draft with high picks
2: Built through the draft with unexpected picks
3: Built through FA because you are a warm weather party city and can attract players with even with nothing there
4: Some other reason which is pretty highly unique.

I'd be interested to look at the history of teams with most improved win totals over the last 20 years and then figure out the exact reason for each turnaround. Is it possible that there's a team or 2 in that list that improved significantly due to a coaching change?

Edit: I was actually thinking about it some more and how many improvements are based on a new hire at GM? The GM controls the draft picks, trades, etc. I think #1 on your list should be hire a good GM.

[sco]

I have noticed an uptick in Giddey's defense of late. Some of you are more observant than me. What's your take?

[Dez]

I have noticed an uptick in Giddey's defense of late. Some of you are more observant than me. What's your take?

He's active, he still needs improvement but he has been much better.

Coby is the worst defender we have.

[The Box Office]

Let's try NOT to commit a big contract to Josh Giddey. His game is not worth it. He's not a game changer. He barely plays defense.
An uptick on defense? What do you mean? That's not winning ball games here.

But don't worry, AKME will give him a big contract.

[HomoSapien]

I have noticed an uptick in Giddey's defense of late. Some of you are more observant than me. What's your take?

He's active, he still needs improvement but he has been much better.

Coby is the worst defender we have.

I noticed Giddey playing superb defense on Gary Trent Jr. when we beat the Bucks recently. Did a great job of blocking and challenging his shot all night long.

[kodo]

I have noticed an uptick in Giddey's defense of late. Some of you are more observant than me. What's your take?

IMO yes. And the recent defensive ratings collaborate that eye test.
Defensive rating, last 15 games worst to best:
Vuc: 116
Patrick: 116
Lavine: 114
Coby: 113
Lonzo: 108
Giddey: 106
Smith: 105
Buzelis: 103

By +/-, he's also been better than most of the team. Last 15 games:
Buzelis +2.4
Giddey: +1.7
Lavine: -1.8
Vuc: -3.6
Patrick: -4.8
Coby: -5.4

[Dez]

He struggled in the recent games when Coby for some reason ended up being the focal point and not coincidentally we sucked.

Keep the ball out of Coby's hands unless it’s a catch and shoot.

[Chi town]

AK gonna pay this kid.

He has shown what he can do with his triple doubles and improved defense.

Let’s talk about his disappearing act, leading the tank in games like the Wiz where he literally makes us worse and can not score, and his awful 3pt heave that looks worse than ever.

I don’t like a team built with Giddey as a starter. He doesn’t provide enough 3s, defense, or gravity to help a 5 man unit win.

The only way he becomes good enough is if he has a Lonzo like transformation in that 3 ball with makes and volume.

I wouldn’t make that bet.