How much is Josh Giddey worth?

[flranger]

He's so young that he could have been in this draft. College seniors are older than he is.

If he was in this last draft, he'd be a top five pick.

If the Bulls can hit at 4/100 they should jump on it, doesn't mean they keep him but he would be a tradeable contract.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Pretty much going with Mavrelous and FrodoBaggins here. I think Giddey is undervalued at $20 million, and may be at $25 million, though that’s what I’d start him at. We’re entering a new area of players salaries where there’s a distinct middle class—better than MLE players, not as good as stars or super stars. It’s a weird time for salaries.

The obvious comp here is another FA who is trying to get more, Jonathan Kuminga. They’re the same age. They’re close to the same size. I’d give Kuminga a nod for defense and athleticism—but Giddey has larger pluses in rebounding and playmaking. Giddey’s efficiency has increased every year; Kuminga’s has decreased every year. Giddey has played more games and minutes. I know Kuminga is saying the Warriors “stunted his growth,” especially after the Jimmy Butler trade, but that’s a big bet for guy that missed 35 games last year and didn’t shoot particularly well on a well-coached team vying for playoff positioning. Yes, he had four good playoff games. Were they better than Giddey’s post All-Star break run, which was a lot longer? Do they make his upside more realistic or tangible? I don’t see it.

Kuminga is turning down $25 million a year for a contract that would make him a FA at 24 or 25. I think he’s an idiot. I don’t think he’s as good of a player as Giddey now. The original offer to Kuminga at $20M a year seems a little rich but understandable for me. Signing Giddey for 3 years/$80 million with small guarantee and maybe options on year 3 seems like a good bet for both sides.

I think guys falling in those ranges have always been tricky, because it's hard for them to be a "bargain" the same way rookies, minimums and star players can be.
What I suspect is happening now, for these guys, is a combination of two things:
1) teams are no more willing to pay high money for "flawed" wannabe stars, that could put a low ceiling on your team. So, either you're good enough to be an on ball guy for a good to great team, and then you're a max guy, or you must be able to scale down and be successful in a secondary role. if neither is true, you're a sixth man. Right or wrong, this is the perception on those guys and their teams don't want to pay for tank commanders. That's been happening a few times, see how the extension for Markkanen and Sexton went, with those guys having to settle at some point.
2) most top guys end up being extended now. Because of that, less and less good teams try top cap space. So, more and more guys are incentivized to extend, knowing how dry the market might be. With little UFA available, even less teams will go for the cap space route. On top of that, the new CBA raised the level of the minimum payroll, adding steeper penalties for not reaching it at the beginning of the season. This has been devastating for the RFA. Not much money available in the first place, and the few teams who have it can't afford to have it locked in an offer sheet when all the signings are happening. The risk is having like a 30m hole to fill and no decent players left to sign. See what happened with Austin Reaves and why San Antonio made no offer.

The combination of these two factors has been lethal for these guys.
I think that, of all the flaws of the CBA, the RFA is the worst injustice.
And it's incredibly penalizing for two way guys, in particular.
In my opinion, to keep matching rights, a team should be forced to offer someone a full 4y max. The goal should be to allow teams to keep their stars, not to lowball guys as you took away all their alternatives.