Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[TheSuzerain]

This board is funny. People see the increased pace, passing, movement... and give zero credit to Giddey.

Meanwhile Zach, Coby and Vuc have spent years playing terrible D, but all the current defensive issues - Giddey.

A fundamental premise of this thread is that its hard to evaluate Giddey specifically because he's surrounded by a roster almost entirely comprised of poor defenders, denying us the ability to evaluate how me might play with a team that does not collectively suck on D.

The Thunder were a team of great shooters and defenders, theoretically, the exact guys that would complement Giddey, and they didn't view him as a starting guy.

That seems a bit harsh considering he started 80 games for them last year.

[dougthonus]

A fundamental premise of this thread is that its hard to evaluate Giddey specifically because he's surrounded by a roster almost entirely comprised of poor defenders, denying us the ability to evaluate how me might play with a team that does not collectively suck on D.

The Thunder were a team of great shooters and defenders, theoretically, the exact guys that would complement Giddey, and they didn't view him as a starting guy.

That seems a bit harsh considering he started 80 games for them last year.

They started reducing his role in large parts through the season and the playoffs, and came to view him as a non-starting player. Then they explicitly went to him and said they wanted him to come off the bench this year, and he requested to be traded instead because he didn't want that role.

Moreover though, ignoring the semantics of how OKC viewed him, we saw that surrounded by the ideal cast of shooters and defenders, that teams still attacked him relentlessly in the playoffs and played him off the floor.

Maybe he will improve with time, but he really has to improve quite a bit. It isn't just building the right pieces around him.

[DuckIII]

This board is funny. People see the increased pace, passing, movement... and give zero credit to Giddey.

Meanwhile Zach, Coby and Vuc have spent years playing terrible D, but all the current defensive issues - Giddey.

A fundamental premise of this thread is that its hard to evaluate Giddey specifically because he's surrounded by a roster almost entirely comprised of poor defenders, denying us the ability to evaluate how me might play with a team that does not collectively suck on D.

The Thunder were a team of great shooters and defenders, theoretically, the exact guys that would complement Giddey, and they didn't view him as a starting guy.

Certainly not after they realized they already had the best guy on Earth at his position already on their roster, at least.

[TheSuzerain]

The Thunder were a team of great shooters and defenders, theoretically, the exact guys that would complement Giddey, and they didn't view him as a starting guy.

That seems a bit harsh considering he started 80 games for them last year.

They started reducing his role in large parts through the season and the playoffs, and came to view him as a non-starting player. Then they explicitly went to him and said they wanted him to come off the bench this year, and he requested to be traded instead because he didn't want that role.

Moreover though, ignoring the semantics of how OKC viewed him, we saw that surrounded by the ideal cast of shooters and defenders, that teams still attacked him relentlessly in the playoffs and played him off the floor.

Maybe he will improve with time, but he really has to improve quite a bit. It isn't just building the right pieces around him.

Giddey had a +7 on/off in the playoffs in fact. And it was entirely because the defense was better with him on the floor. Not claiming causation there but it's wrong to say they were a sieve because Giddey was being relentlessly targeted.

He has warts. But even after removing Giddey from their top 5-man group, the Thunder still struggled against the Mavs.

[coldfish]

I mean, yes, but that also ruins options #1-#3

I don't actually mind the traded for Giddey. While I thought it was a long shot it would work, and it doesn't appear it would. The alternative paths were keeping Caruso or trading for #13 and selecting someone like Devin Carter (whom is already as old as Giddey).

I'd have been okay with the 2nd of those things if part of a larger rebuilding effort we weren't going to do. If you wanted to win now, probably just keeping Caruso was your best bet, but also a road to nowhere.

I think in the end, people are overly negative around the trade as much for vastly overvaluing what Caruso could bring back in a trade as much as disliking Giddey.

FWIW, I actually like Giddey and am fine with the trade. I always saw him as a 3/4 though. If he bulks up and adds a shot, he could be an asset in that position. He just isn't an NBA pg. You need to be able to stay in front of your man and keep people honest around the arc to be considered a PG.

So in that scenario Ayo becomes our PG? Or we need to acquire a PG? Pat stays at PF?

What about Ayo Coby Pat Buz… is that enough defense for him?

If Giddey is not the PG and QB of the offense then he’s a good passing non shooting non defending wing?

Personally, I suspect that no one currently on the roster will be on the team the next time the Bulls win 50 or more games. As such, who goes where is an exercise in mediocrity.

Regardless, like I said, I could see Giddey as a Boris Diaw type player. Just kind of a glue guy at the 3 or 4 spot. Who does he glue together? I dunno.

[dougthonus]

Certainly not after they realized they already had the best guy on Earth at his position already on their roster, at least.

If your view is he has to be the primary on ball player, then we already know the answer, it doesn't matter what you put around him, he's not good enough as a primary on ball player to have that role regardless of what else is there. That spot is reserved for guys who can take on double/triple teams and still make the offense go.

[GuardianEnzo]

It’s crazy to give up on a 22 year-old with Giddey’s skill set. I do think it’s encouraging that he’s at least self-aware about his defensive shortcomings. And Billy pointed out that White was a total sieve early in his career and improved to the point where teams don’t directly hunt him anymore.

[dougthonus]

That seems a bit harsh considering he started 80 games for them last year.

They started reducing his role in large parts through the season and the playoffs, and came to view him as a non-starting player. Then they explicitly went to him and said they wanted him to come off the bench this year, and he requested to be traded instead because he didn't want that role.

Moreover though, ignoring the semantics of how OKC viewed him, we saw that surrounded by the ideal cast of shooters and defenders, that teams still attacked him relentlessly in the playoffs and played him off the floor.

Maybe he will improve with time, but he really has to improve quite a bit. It isn't just building the right pieces around him.

Giddey had a +7 on/off in the playoffs in fact. And it was entirely because the defense was better with him on the floor. Not claiming causation there but it's wrong to say they were a sieve because Giddey was being relentlessly targeted.

He has warts. But even after removing Giddey from their top 5-man group, the Thunder still struggled against the Mavs.

You might be right, it was a big narrative in the playoffs, but it may have just been a couple games that made it stand out really bad and feel worse than it was in reality.

[DrModesty]

They started reducing his role in large parts through the season and the playoffs, and came to view him as a non-starting player. Then they explicitly went to him and said they wanted him to come off the bench this year, and he requested to be traded instead because he didn't want that role.

Moreover though, ignoring the semantics of how OKC viewed him, we saw that surrounded by the ideal cast of shooters and defenders, that teams still attacked him relentlessly in the playoffs and played him off the floor.

Maybe he will improve with time, but he really has to improve quite a bit. It isn't just building the right pieces around him.

Giddey had a +7 on/off in the playoffs in fact. And it was entirely because the defense was better with him on the floor. Not claiming causation there but it's wrong to say they were a sieve because Giddey was being relentlessly targeted.

He has warts. But even after removing Giddey from their top 5-man group, the Thunder still struggled against the Mavs.

You might be right, it was a big narrative in the playoffs, but it may have just been a couple games that made it stand out really bad and feel worse than it was in reality.

He was an outright positive player in the first round against the Pels. There was even one game where the Thunder don't win without him. In the second round he got benched because of mostly his defense, and the entire teams shots deserted them. He had some rough games for sure, but there were also games where his 12 minutes were solid enough. It did feel like you 'got away with it' with some of those second round stints though.

He MUST improve his defense to at least below average. For the efficiency, I think he is just in an early season slump at the moment from inside the arc. His 2% is significantly lower than any other season he has played, even his rookie season.

[MikeDC]

In light of these new facts of which I now realize I was largely aware, it is time to take action!

[Chi town]

I expect him to show a lot of effort against the Rockets tonight. He’s had two bad games with bad effort on D.

Think he turns it around and has a strong game.

[DuckIII]

Certainly not after they realized they already had the best guy on Earth at his position already on their roster, at least.

If your view is he has to be the primary on ball player, then we already know the answer, it doesn't matter what you put around him, he's not good enough as a primary on ball player to have that role regardless of what else is there. That spot is reserved for guys who can take on double/triple teams and still make the offense go.

That is general proposition that I don’t agree with philosophically on any level in the way I use those words. It also seems like a straw man. You seem to be using “primary on ball player” to mean franchise player by defining it to require guys “who can take on double and triple teams and still make the offense go.” That is a definition of a franchise player. This thread is about Josh Giddey, not franchise players.

I’m talking about him as your point guard. You put Giddey at PG next to Ant or Freak and of course those guys become the “primary on ball player” aka franchise player aka triple team attacker.

What any of that has to do with Josh Giddey, I don’t know. I’m analyzing whether I even want him as the PG. Slayer of triple team analysis doesn’t apply. If he were that - or hoped for to be that - this particular thread would not even exist.

[dougthonus]

That is general proposition that I don’t agree with philosophically on any level in the way I use those words. It also seems like a straw man. You seem to be using “primary on ball player” to mean franchise player by defining it to require guys “who can take on double and triple teams and still make the offense go.” That is a definition of a franchise player. This thread is about Josh Giddey, not franchise players.

I’m talking about him as your point guard. You put Giddey at PG next to Ant or Freak and of course those guys become the “primary on ball player” aka franchise player aka triple team attacker.

What any of that has to do with Josh Giddey, I don’t know. I’m analyzing whether I even want him as the PG. Slayer of triple team analysis doesn’t apply. If he were that - or hoped for to be that - this particular thread would not even exist.

Not being sarcastic, I am legitimately confused as to why you think he couldn't play with SGA but Giannis / Ant would be different.

I referenced OKC as a team that had shooters and defense, and you said that wouldn't work because they had SGA and thus didn't need Giddey. What kind of team is going to have shooters, defense, and a star and need Giddey?

[JimmyButler21]

They won't accept defeat and extend him just like they did with LaVine, Vuc, and Patrick Williams.

[Mk0]

They won't accept defeat and extend him just like they did with LaVine, Vuc, and Patrick Williams.

This. This FO may not offer him the deal he wants but they will compromise and give him a 2 year deal at an overpay.

Hell knowing this FO they may add a 3rd year player option.

[prolific passer]

That is general proposition that I don’t agree with philosophically on any level in the way I use those words. It also seems like a straw man. You seem to be using “primary on ball player” to mean franchise player by defining it to require guys “who can take on double and triple teams and still make the offense go.” That is a definition of a franchise player. This thread is about Josh Giddey, not franchise players.

I’m talking about him as your point guard. You put Giddey at PG next to Ant or Freak and of course those guys become the “primary on ball player” aka franchise player aka triple team attacker.

What any of that has to do with Josh Giddey, I don’t know. I’m analyzing whether I even want him as the PG. Slayer of triple team analysis doesn’t apply. If he were that - or hoped for to be that - this particular thread would not even exist.

Not being sarcastic, I am legitimately confused as to why you think he couldn't play with SGA but Giannis / Ant would be different.

I referenced OKC as a team that had shooters and defense, and you said that wouldn't work because they had SGA and thus didn't need Giddey. What kind of team is going to have shooters, defense, and a star and need Giddey?

I thought Giddey would have been great with the spurs and Wemby. Him throwing alley oops to Wemby on the break or in half court would have been fun but that's just me.

[MrSparkle]

That is general proposition that I don’t agree with philosophically on any level in the way I use those words. It also seems like a straw man. You seem to be using “primary on ball player” to mean franchise player by defining it to require guys “who can take on double and triple teams and still make the offense go.” That is a definition of a franchise player. This thread is about Josh Giddey, not franchise players.

I’m talking about him as your point guard. You put Giddey at PG next to Ant or Freak and of course those guys become the “primary on ball player” aka franchise player aka triple team attacker.

What any of that has to do with Josh Giddey, I don’t know. I’m analyzing whether I even want him as the PG. Slayer of triple team analysis doesn’t apply. If he were that - or hoped for to be that - this particular thread would not even exist.

Not being sarcastic, I am legitimately confused as to why you think he couldn't play with SGA but Giannis / Ant would be different.

I referenced OKC as a team that had shooters and defense, and you said that wouldn't work because they had SGA and thus didn't need Giddey. What kind of team is going to have shooters, defense, and a star and need Giddey?

I thought Giddey would have been great with the spurs and Wemby. Him throwing alley oops to Wemby on the break or in half court would have been fun but that's just me.

He'd be a great MLE/6th man for somebody.

Unfortunately he'll be a terrible $25M starter for the Bulls.

[prolific passer]

Not being sarcastic, I am legitimately confused as to why you think he couldn't play with SGA but Giannis / Ant would be different.

I referenced OKC as a team that had shooters and defense, and you said that wouldn't work because they had SGA and thus didn't need Giddey. What kind of team is going to have shooters, defense, and a star and need Giddey?

I thought Giddey would have been great with the spurs and Wemby. Him throwing alley oops to Wemby on the break or in half court would have been fun but that's just me.

He'd be a great MLE/6th man for somebody.

Unfortunately he'll be a terrible $25M starter for the Bulls.

I think some were expecting him to put up his Olympic numbers with this squad which he can probably do on a different squad who have the players that allow him to do so but the bulls are not that team. He's struggling to find his place on this team but then again so is everyone else on the squad. What a mess.

[dougthonus]

I think some were expecting him to put up his Olympic numbers with this squad which he can probably do on a different squad who have the players that allow him to do so but the bulls are not that team. He's struggling to find his place on this team but then again so is everyone else on the squad. What a mess.

I don't think there are any complaints about him putting up numbers in this thread.

The complaints are that he is absolutely horrific defensively, and inefficient on offense.

[DuckIII]

That is general proposition that I don’t agree with philosophically on any level in the way I use those words. It also seems like a straw man. You seem to be using “primary on ball player” to mean franchise player by defining it to require guys “who can take on double and triple teams and still make the offense go.” That is a definition of a franchise player. This thread is about Josh Giddey, not franchise players.

I’m talking about him as your point guard. You put Giddey at PG next to Ant or Freak and of course those guys become the “primary on ball player” aka franchise player aka triple team attacker.

What any of that has to do with Josh Giddey, I don’t know. I’m analyzing whether I even want him as the PG. Slayer of triple team analysis doesn’t apply. If he were that - or hoped for to be that - this particular thread would not even exist.

Not being sarcastic, I am legitimately confused as to why you think he couldn't play with SGA but Giannis / Ant would be different.

Because SGA is the best point guard in the world and Josh Giddey is a PG. This seems like a pretty obvious part of the reason Giddey was kind of demoted at the end of the year and wanted a trade because SGA had rightly taken his spot. Giddey would be a PG and facilitator for Ant/Freak or any other non PG star. Your question is strange.

I also never said he couldn't play with SGA, which is another straw man. I said OKC moved on from him because they had SGA and had other specialty needs to contend. Furthermore, no one determined it couldn't work. Just that they wouldn't make sense together as starters. Not a wise distribution of assets.

I referenced OKC as a team that had shooters and defense, and you said that wouldn't work because they had SGA and thus didn't need Giddey. What kind of team is going to have shooters, defense, and a star and need Giddey?

Again, I absolutely did not say anything like that. I said they moved on from him because they had the best player in the world already playing his position. Not that it didn't work. It obviously worked quite well as they were one of the best teams in the NBA. But wise team building is about asset allocation, and having that kind of investiment in two young PGs when you are gunning for a ring in an open window is not optimal.

A team that has shooters, defense and a star and would still want Giddey would be any team that has those things and wants a pace pushing ball distributing PG. Again, I really don't even understand your questions. You make it sound like contending teams aren't built every year with a weak defender in the starting line up. Its not a death sentence. It depends on the collecive talent of what you put out there and how well they compliment one another. The problem is we have a roster that is basically the opposite of that, which hampers our ability to evaluate Giddey during this tiny window.

As of today I would not resign Giddey to anything meaningful. But this notion that he's some guy no NBA competitive team should want on its roster in a regular role is pretty laughable to me, and is tantamount to what you are saying.