Would You Support Rebuilding Around Josh Giddey?
Posted: Sat Mar 8, 2025 10:10 pm
I know there's another Giddey thread, but for the sake of preventing mega threads that are hard to navigate I thought I'd start a new conversation here. Mods feel free to merge if necessary.
Right now, there's a consensus about who Giddey is as a player (talented but incomplete, better on bad teams than good ones), but much less agreement on what to do with him. I want to use this thread to make an argument that the best thing the Bulls can do is attempt to rebuild around Josh Giddey. Not because it's ideal, but because it makes the most sense for the team we currently have.
Right now the biggest arguments against investing in Giddey from a team-building perspective are that he's an empty-calorie stat padder and that there's no precedent for championship teams having a guy like him as your primary ball-handler. I think the first point is somewhat true, and the second one definitely is.
But it still makes sense to roll with Giddey.
Here's why:
- It's true that you probably can't build a contending team with Giddey as the focal point of your offense, but there's precedent for building an annual playoff team with someone like him. The post-Rose Thibodeau Bulls used Noah as their primary playmaker. When Nicolas Batum was with the Blazers he initiated a lot offense so Lilliard and CJ McCollum could focus more on scoring the ball. The Ben Simmons offense worked pretty well for Philly, and so on. None of those teams were destined for greatness, but I think planning for a 50 win team is more sensible than planning for a championship team because there's less luck involved.
- Giddey doesn't function well with an all-star level primary ball-handler, but we have no one close to that on our roster. And even if we get lucky in the draft and acquire someone with that potential, they'll likely need 2-3 years to fully grow into their role. We're not compromising our current roster construction by keeping him around. Likewise, prospects that don't project into the alpha-playmaker role will greatly benefit from playing with him.
- Giddey's playing a lot better without Lavine, but the opposite was not true. Zach's stats weren't noticeably different when he shared the court with Giddey this season, so we're not destined to be holding back our best offensive players if we ever acquire them.
- A lot of the cap difficulties of signing him to a big deal get better if we sign him to one that declines in value. For example, if we signed him to a 5/150 million deal with maximum salary decreases he'd be making 23 million by the end of it. If you assume 10% cap increases over this time, he'd be making 10% of the cap in the final year of his contract. Players at a similar level right now are Isaiah Stewart, Jordan Clarkson, Onyeka Okungwu and Naz Reid. There's absolutely a trade market for Giddey at those levels. And that's using worst-case scenario contract numbers. This also reduces the risk that the team outgrows him as time goes on.
- If his role doesn't project to a contending team, why even bother? I think the reason is that most successful rebuilds aren't linear, but camel shaped. You build something up that's good but imperfect, then use the pieces from that to either get the right guy or go into a second rebuild, but with acceleration. The Thunder were a middling first round playoff team before they nuked it with the Paul George trade. The Magic built themselves up to a perennial 40 win team before they used Vuc to catapult back to the bottom. The Rockets were a 44 win team the year before they traded James Harden. And so on. The notion that you just continually suck until you scoop up your franchise player doesn't work out in practice. Just ask New Orleans. Unless you get lucky you have to climb up the closest hill you can find so you can parachute back into the valley of suckitude, but with more material to climb the hill that really matters. This Bulls team has to find a local maximum before it can start building for the global one.
Right now, with the team we have, Giddey and Matas are the only two players that matter. We absolutely don't have anyone else that provides what he does, and unless we get hit with dumb luck we don't project to. There is no clear path to being a contender with or without him, and keeping him gives our team the most upside over the next 5 years.
Right now, there's a consensus about who Giddey is as a player (talented but incomplete, better on bad teams than good ones), but much less agreement on what to do with him. I want to use this thread to make an argument that the best thing the Bulls can do is attempt to rebuild around Josh Giddey. Not because it's ideal, but because it makes the most sense for the team we currently have.
Right now the biggest arguments against investing in Giddey from a team-building perspective are that he's an empty-calorie stat padder and that there's no precedent for championship teams having a guy like him as your primary ball-handler. I think the first point is somewhat true, and the second one definitely is.
But it still makes sense to roll with Giddey.
Here's why:
- It's true that you probably can't build a contending team with Giddey as the focal point of your offense, but there's precedent for building an annual playoff team with someone like him. The post-Rose Thibodeau Bulls used Noah as their primary playmaker. When Nicolas Batum was with the Blazers he initiated a lot offense so Lilliard and CJ McCollum could focus more on scoring the ball. The Ben Simmons offense worked pretty well for Philly, and so on. None of those teams were destined for greatness, but I think planning for a 50 win team is more sensible than planning for a championship team because there's less luck involved.
- Giddey doesn't function well with an all-star level primary ball-handler, but we have no one close to that on our roster. And even if we get lucky in the draft and acquire someone with that potential, they'll likely need 2-3 years to fully grow into their role. We're not compromising our current roster construction by keeping him around. Likewise, prospects that don't project into the alpha-playmaker role will greatly benefit from playing with him.
- Giddey's playing a lot better without Lavine, but the opposite was not true. Zach's stats weren't noticeably different when he shared the court with Giddey this season, so we're not destined to be holding back our best offensive players if we ever acquire them.
- A lot of the cap difficulties of signing him to a big deal get better if we sign him to one that declines in value. For example, if we signed him to a 5/150 million deal with maximum salary decreases he'd be making 23 million by the end of it. If you assume 10% cap increases over this time, he'd be making 10% of the cap in the final year of his contract. Players at a similar level right now are Isaiah Stewart, Jordan Clarkson, Onyeka Okungwu and Naz Reid. There's absolutely a trade market for Giddey at those levels. And that's using worst-case scenario contract numbers. This also reduces the risk that the team outgrows him as time goes on.
- If his role doesn't project to a contending team, why even bother? I think the reason is that most successful rebuilds aren't linear, but camel shaped. You build something up that's good but imperfect, then use the pieces from that to either get the right guy or go into a second rebuild, but with acceleration. The Thunder were a middling first round playoff team before they nuked it with the Paul George trade. The Magic built themselves up to a perennial 40 win team before they used Vuc to catapult back to the bottom. The Rockets were a 44 win team the year before they traded James Harden. And so on. The notion that you just continually suck until you scoop up your franchise player doesn't work out in practice. Just ask New Orleans. Unless you get lucky you have to climb up the closest hill you can find so you can parachute back into the valley of suckitude, but with more material to climb the hill that really matters. This Bulls team has to find a local maximum before it can start building for the global one.
Right now, with the team we have, Giddey and Matas are the only two players that matter. We absolutely don't have anyone else that provides what he does, and unless we get hit with dumb luck we don't project to. There is no clear path to being a contender with or without him, and keeping him gives our team the most upside over the next 5 years.