RealGM

Was just a one off comment, probably should have waited for feedback before making it a thread..

Chicago: Kuzma and Mil 2031 top 4 protected first (2 times)

Chicago gets a first post Giannis prime for Giddey since they don’t want to just pay him… Kuzma is the cost..

Milwaukee: Giddey (30 mil first year, flat imo but can be raising/declining whatever you think. Full 4 years though, no player option)

Milwaukee hopes Giddey’s end of year run was real. Turner/Giannis/Giddey and 3/d pieces can contend.

Giddey - signs with the team that will pay him what he wants. Gets to be second option to a top 2 player.

Suns will give you Beal for Giddey ($30mill) & Patrick Williams

or

Oneale and Allen + future pick for Giddey

jayjaysee wrote:Was just a one off comment, probably should have waited for feedback before making it a thread..

Chicago: Kuzma and Mil 2031 top 4 protected first (2 times)

Chicago gets a first post Giannis prime for Giddey since they don’t want to just pay him… Kuzma is the cost..

Milwaukee: Giddey (30 mil first year, flat imo but can be raising/declining whatever you think. Full 4 years though, no player option)

Milwaukee hopes Giddey’s end of year run was real. Turner/Giannis/Giddey and 3/d pieces can contend.

Giddey - signs with the team that will pay him what he wants. Gets to be second option to a top 2 player.

think milwaukee owes bit more value. would make it 2031 1st + 2032 swap

Bulls only do this deal if the Bucks 2031 FRP is unprotected.

Interesting proposal. I at least think if we are sending out the pick, this and not DDR old vets make sense.

KdoubleDees23 wrote:Suns will give you Beal for Giddey ($30mill) & Patrick Williams

or

Oneale and Allen + future pick for Giddey

Phoenix has no pick to trade and has to get below first apron to do a sign and trade.

But to make a legal counter?

-

Kuzma, Patrick Williams, and one of Huerter/Collins to Phoenix
Giddey to Milwaukee
Beal, “Phoenix value” and “Milwaukee value” to Chicago

So Chicago gets out of Patrick’s third and fourth years by paying Beal way too much money for two years. And gets some value from Phoenix (though they don’t have much to send really, they probably have something..).. Maybe Beal likes the idea of being back on a team that will chase play-in and let him do what he wants..

Phoenix avoids stretching Beal and gets 3 playable bodies.

If Phoenix was under the second apron, you could get a Vuc/Richards swap done. But I think Phoenix is still over the second apron..

Didn’t have a sign and trade returning that much, but if it calls for the pick being unprotected or needing to add the swap but keeping the pick slightly protected - good for Chicago?

I doubt the Bulls see Jones and White as their PG going forward. I know they don't want Kuzma for another season when they're starting Buzelis, have Huerter, Okoro and Wiliams to play the forward slots with Essengue and Olbrich in place as the future. They don't need to play Kuzma for 2 years over getting the young guys experience.

You get that the freshman they pick in 2031 is in the 8th grade right now

jayjaysee wrote:Didn’t have a sign and trade returning that much, but if it calls for the pick being unprotected or needing to add the swap but keeping the pick slightly protected - good for Chicago?

Swapping Giddey for Kuzma is a pretty massive on-court downgrade. A distant 1st is low-value enough but then it gets protected? It would need to be unprotected at minimum. Even then the actual Bulls FO doesn't do this as they want to make the playoffs (or at a bare minimum the play-ins) and the immediate downgrade is too great.

giberish wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:Didn’t have a sign and trade returning that much, but if it calls for the pick being unprotected or needing to add the swap but keeping the pick slightly protected - good for Chicago?

Swapping Giddey for Kuzma is a pretty massive on-court downgrade. A distant 1st is low-value enough but then it gets protected? It would need to be unprotected at minimum. Even then the actual Bulls FO doesn't do this as they want to make the playoffs (or at a bare minimum the play-ins) and the immediate downgrade is too great.

A distant first is not low value though.. Especially considering Milwaukee’s situation.

If Chicago wants to pay Giddey what he wants, then there’s really no need for the discussion. But they seem to be playing hard ball which is why we’re seeing Giddey trade ideas.

I think the value might be alright, but the fit is probably poor.
IMO Bucks need to figure out how to turn Kuzma into someone like IQ, Reaves, Simons.
If Smart is bought out and looks like he wants to go to Boston, maybe Boston will move Simons straight out for Kuz?

Same deal for Cam Thomas?

jayjaysee wrote:

giberish wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:Didn’t have a sign and trade returning that much, but if it calls for the pick being unprotected or needing to add the swap but keeping the pick slightly protected - good for Chicago?

Swapping Giddey for Kuzma is a pretty massive on-court downgrade. A distant 1st is low-value enough but then it gets protected? It would need to be unprotected at minimum. Even then the actual Bulls FO doesn't do this as they want to make the playoffs (or at a bare minimum the play-ins) and the immediate downgrade is too great.

A distant first is not low value though.. Especially considering Milwaukee’s situation.

If Chicago wants to pay Giddey what he wants, then there’s really no need for the discussion. But they seem to be playing hard ball which is why we’re seeing Giddey trade ideas.

It is low value if you cap the upside

babyjax13 wrote:Same deal for Cam Thomas?

Yeah, I suggested Mann/Thomas for Kuzma/protected first after this one didn’t go well.

Godaddycurse wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:

giberish wrote:
Swapping Giddey for Kuzma is a pretty massive on-court downgrade. A distant 1st is low-value enough but then it gets protected? It would need to be unprotected at minimum. Even then the actual Bulls FO doesn't do this as they want to make the playoffs (or at a bare minimum the play-ins) and the immediate downgrade is too great.

A distant first is not low value though.. Especially considering Milwaukee’s situation.

If Chicago wants to pay Giddey what he wants, then there’s really no need for the discussion. But they seem to be playing hard ball which is why we’re seeing Giddey trade ideas.

It is low value if you cap the upside

The OP is top 4 protected for two years…

jayjaysee wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:
A distant first is not low value though.. Especially considering Milwaukee’s situation.

If Chicago wants to pay Giddey what he wants, then there’s really no need for the discussion. But they seem to be playing hard ball which is why we’re seeing Giddey trade ideas.

It is low value if you cap the upside

The OP is top 4 protected for two years…

Hence upside capped..

Godaddycurse wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
It is low value if you cap the upside

The OP is top 4 protected for two years…

Hence upside capped..

Yeah, but to make it “low value” you probably need to cap it more than 50% two years in a row? The new lottery odds matter.

I already agreed OP might be short. Just think things should be represented fairly.

And what I responded to and you quoted actually called the first low value regardless of the protection?

jayjaysee wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:
The OP is top 4 protected for two years…

Hence upside capped..

Yeah, but to make it “low value” you probably need to cap it more than 50% two years in a row? The new lottery odds matter.

I already agreed OP might be short. Just think things should be represented fairly.

And what I responded to and you quoted actually called the first low value regardless of the protection…. But I’ll double down on top 4 protection 2x being plenty valuable in general.

Yea OP is well short for me. I think i am lower on far future first than others though. Dont like the idea of waiting 6 years for return on investment

Godaddycurse wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Hence upside capped..

Yeah, but to make it “low value” you probably need to cap it more than 50% two years in a row? The new lottery odds matter.

I already agreed OP might be short. Just think things should be represented fairly.

And what I responded to and you quoted actually called the first low value regardless of the protection…. But I’ll double down on top 4 protection 2x being plenty valuable in general.

Yea OP is well short for me. I think i am lower on far future first than others though. Dont like the idea of waiting 6 years for return on investment

Also should be relative to other sign and trades.. the first is as much for getting stuck with Kuz as it is for letting go of Giddey..

Don’t know if we’ve seen a high variance first involved in a sign and trade? But maybe we have.

Bucks accept. Enjoy.