RealGM

With the current dead FA market, what do people now think these two RFA's will get. Just going for average salary here.

Vote once for each player.

My thinking:

Giddy's late season run had him playing at a level where a $30M/yr or even a $35M/yr contract would be reasonable. However while that run is too long to ignore you can't complete buy into it either and he was much lower before that. So $25M or so seems reasonable.

JK really hasn't established himself as a starter quality player yet, but he's close and young enough to plausibly expect the improvement to get to low-end starter quality - which is around $20M/yr.

Both should sign 2+1 80/3 contract, get 2 years to showcase, get generational wealth money and then have the option to hit FA if you stuill think you're owed more.

Too much.

I think they will both take the QO. No one has cap space (except the Jazz if they want one of these players). Their current teams are not offering what they want. If Giddey took 20 million per year for 3 years but he can get 30 million per year for two years next offseason then that means he would be losing out on whatever amount his QO is worth by accepting a smaller contract. Being a UFA makes it easier to get competitive bids, and increases a player's ability to choose their location. I think we will see more players take the QO moving forward.

Whatever Kuminga gets, Giddey should get $5m per year more.

I'm guessing Chicago and Giddey come to an agreement. Giddey's value is being suppressed by the absence of any suitors with cap room, but it's not like Chicago can drive him all the way down to the MLE plus 1 dollar. Giddey has the option of just accepting the qualifying offer, but that has it's risks too.

In a normal, competitive free agency market, I think Giddey might be able to get $30M, but in the current scenario, I think he'll settle for something around $22-25M but on a shorter deal - either 3 years, or 2 years plus a PO. At that price, he is getting lowballed, but going the QO route might be worse.

I think there's a real chance that Kuminga just signs the QO.

Chicago should sign Giddey long-term. They don't have anyone else on the roster who projects to be a Max Contract scale player, which means they can sacrifice some flexibility in order to lock in their 2nd most valuable asset (Matas Buzelis probably being #1). Giddey has intriguing tools and is incredibly young, meaning they can lock him in through Age 26 or 27.

Kuminga is more up in the air. His skill set simply isn't valuable or additive, but there is talent and physical traits there. He reminds me of the wing version of Bennedict Mathurin, which is a player who you don't want to commit a large salary or responsibility to.

Is there any advantage to bringing them back on 1 year deals larger than the QO from a trade perspective?

I think they both end up in the $20M range but with player options so they can try this again in 2 years. They are both only 22, so that would be really low risk for them. They become wildly rich as a floor and still have a ton of earning upside. There aren't a lot of examples of guys forcing the situation and taking the QO and it working out well for them.

Utah should bid on Giddey. They have a big TPE to fit him into and they need to start adding in some foundational pieces. They have plenty of low level assets to send back to Chicago for them to save face. And if they don't want to pay him market value, then getting some value back makes sense.

zimpy27 wrote:Whatever Kuminga gets, Giddey should get $5m per year more.

10M+ more.

Is a Kuzma for Giddey sign and trade worth Mil’s last first with real minor protection? Making it a thread since I like the bad idea..

Giddey deserves 30m flat imo. Happily give him a fifth year.

Kuminga deserves a more like 25m with a third year team option just in case.

youngcrev wrote:Is there any advantage to bringing them back on 1 year deals larger than the QO from a trade perspective?

Re-signing them on a one year deal (or 1+1) gives them veto power over a trade, same as accepting a QO would. If they consent to a trade their Bird rights revert to non-Bird, so no, no advantage.

Texas Chuck wrote:Utah should bid on Giddey. They have a big TPE to fit him into and they need to start adding in some foundational pieces. They have plenty of low level assets to send back to Chicago for them to save face. And if they don't want to pay him market value, then getting some value back makes sense.

Can you sign a free agent with a TPE?

I know they made the change so that the MLE can be used like a TPE, but I don't think it works the other way. I don't think a TPE can be used the same as cap room or a MLE type of exception. To utilize the TPE, Utah would need to get Chicago to cooperate in a trade, and Chicago has no real incentive to do that.

nate33 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Utah should bid on Giddey. They have a big TPE to fit him into and they need to start adding in some foundational pieces. They have plenty of low level assets to send back to Chicago for them to save face. And if they don't want to pay him market value, then getting some value back makes sense.

Can you sign a free agent with a TPE?

I know they made the change so that the MLE can be used like a TPE, but I don't think it works the other way. I don't think a TPE can be used the same as cap room or a MLE type of exception. To utilize the TPE, Utah would need to get Chicago to cooperate in a trade, and Chicago has no real incentive to do that.

he means with a sign and trade

Utah can dump Nurk on Brooklyn and probably give Giddey 30~ mil first year?

So Chicago/Utah working together makes some sense as Utah can pretty easily give Giddey a big contract that Chicago clearly is hesitant to, if they wanted to.

xdrta+ wrote:

youngcrev wrote:Is there any advantage to bringing them back on 1 year deals larger than the QO from a trade perspective?

Re-signing them on a one year deal (or 1+1) gives them veto power over a trade, same as accepting a QO would. If they consent to a trade their Bird rights revert to non-Bird, so no, no advantage.

How long do they need to sign to keep bird right and get traded later? 2? 3? Because, I think that's what I expect Kuminga to sign. I don't think Kuminga wants to lose his bird right by accepting QO and be a UFA next off-season. And, he probably wants some financial security by signing some sort of small deal like 2/40 or 3/60ish.

Lenneth wrote:

xdrta+ wrote:

youngcrev wrote:Is there any advantage to bringing them back on 1 year deals larger than the QO from a trade perspective?

Re-signing them on a one year deal (or 1+1) gives them veto power over a trade, same as accepting a QO would. If they consent to a trade their Bird rights revert to non-Bird, so no, no advantage.

How long do they need to sign to keep bird right and get traded later? 2? 3? Because, I think that's what I expect Kuminga to sign. I don't think Kuminga wants to lose his bird right by accepting QO and be a UFA next off-season. And, he probably wants some financial security by signing some sort of small deal like 2/40 or 3/60ish.

Yeah, that only applies to re-signing for one year (or one year with an option.) Anything more than that is fine.

Giddey and the Bulls should be happy at $25M, he looked very good to finish the season but he was just part of the Bulls finishing strong. I don't think he's the leader of a a juggernaut to the 4-6 playoff slot

Kuminga is big time potential but if he was so good that he'd be a big piece for the GSW, they would have signed him and moved on from some veterans to give him room for a playoff push. He may end up somewhere where he puts up serious numbers or he could get a GM fired because he ends up being a one man show that drags his team down