Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[League Circles]

I don't think Lonzo's comeback is a reason for us to not need Giddey.

Especially since Lonzo and Giddey are a +12.5 this season per 100 possessions in over 300 minutes played together.

Can we for once maybe listen to what the lineup data is telling us?

The lineup data should be considered, but I think all Ball's signing does is lessen our need for Giddey. Gives us leverage. Doesn't mean we should let him walk, but it does decrease the price at which we should let him walk.

We have 3 different guys who can play point already under contract next year in Ball, Coby and Ayo. None of the 4 are close to what we'd really want, but Giddey doesn't really separate himself in that group, which isn't much of a comparison anyways because Giddey is a 3/4 and the others are basically playing the 1/2.

Also, 300 minutes really isn't much at all.

Just to give the 310 minutes context.

That's the third-highest shared minutes between Ball and any other player this season:

1. Ball + Vuc 484 minutes and a +7.6 per 100 possessions
2. Ball + Zach 389 minutes and a +11.3 per 100 possessions
3. Ball + Giddey 310 minutes and a +12.5 per 100 possessions


So when looking at Ball specifically it is a significant amount of minutes.

Well yeah, Lonzo Ball is 10th on our team in minutes played and we're not even 2/3 of the way through the season. He hasn't played that much with anyone.

[Infinity2152]

It’s kind of irrelevant to bring up Luka and Jokic as an example because he’s simply not nearly as talented as those guys. Those two are future HOFers Giddey as a solid role player as best.

You say that he has a chance to be a top tier PG. let’s look at a list of top tier PGs (in no particular order) and see what they have in common.
1. Luka Doncic
2. Steph
3. Darius Garland
4. Damian Lillard
5. Jalen Brunson
6. Tyrese Haliburton
7. SGA
8. Cade Cunningham
9. De’Aaron Fox
10. Ja Morant
11. Tyrese Maxey
12. Trae Young
13. James Harden
14. LaMelo Ball
15. Jamal Murray

Not only they’re threats to facilitate, they all are threats to score and not just score 12-15 points on middling efficiency. They’re threats to score 20 on at least league average efficiency. I’ve said it before he’s Joe Ingles or Kyle Anderson. He will never be a top level PG.

The argument is about paying him more than $15 mill. He doesn't have to be a top tier point guard for that. That's the point. In 2019 Joe Ingles got a $14 mill extension. That's probably close to $18 mill/now. So if he is Joe Ingles, he's worth more than $15 mill.

Those players you posted, some are making $50 mill and pretty much all are max players. So, getting paid two-three times what we're proposing for Giddey. He doesn't have to become a top tier star to be a solid starter. Average pay for a solid starter is around $20 mill. For $18 mill, when you're paying a 22 year old, he clearly has flaws. No perfectly skilled scoring, facilitating, rebounding, defensive 22 year old is getting $18 mill nowadays. They're getting Scottie Barnes contract, who just signed a five year rookie extension worth $270 mill.

Don't care that you think you have a crystal ball and predict that Giddey will be the only player in NBA history that doesn't get better after 22. There's a reason Jokic went in the second round. Because even professionals who do this for a living can't predict who's going to improve. They look at things like athleticism and cap a players potential. Every NBA team had a chance to grab Joker.

Maybe Joe Ingles should have never been given that deal?

IMO, you have to look at what guys would / should be worth on a great team to figure out how they should be paid. If Giddey was on a great team he'd most likely be a 15-20 mpg bench player and make no more than the MLE.

I would say, generally speaking, if you're rebuilding a bad team which is what we're doing, you shouldn't sign ANY players to multi year deals unless one of two things is true:

1. They project as a clear above average starter - which means clear top 10-15 at their position long term.

2. You're getting someone who COULD start, if needed, and do a pretty good job, but at backup money, so as to free up huge money for high level player(s) at other positions. Ball's new deal, Jalen Smith and Ayo are probably examples of this.

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

[dawhizz]

The question I keep coming back to with Giddey (a player I kind of like in spite of myself) is: How likely is it that we regret resigning him v. regret letting him go? IMO, I think it’s much more likely we end up regretting resigning him as opposed to regretting letting him go. Incidentally, that would have been my assessment in resigning Pat. Whereas resigning White, while I wouldn’t have predicted how he developed, had a pretty low chance of having us actually regret resigning him at that contract. This FO has not earned the benefit of the doubt here.

[Infinity2152]

Don't see how the amount of money the average 22 year old makes has to do with his skill progression. If anything, the fact that Giddey is expected to get significantly more would indicate he's better than the average player his age. Age is 100% factored in when evaluating contracts. This whole lobby was saying Jimmy wouldn't/shouldn't get paid because he's too old. Old age matters, but youth does not, apparently.

It also ignores the point. Most advanced comparative statistics will use the average of all players. If the average age is 26.5 or 27, comparing TS%, rebounding rate or any other stat compared to average means a 22-year-old is being compared to NBA players in their prime, around 27. Seems to make sense the average 22-year-old would be below average in many areas if the average age is 27. Those 27-year-olds have 5 more years of experience and skill progression.

Giddey's shooting 34% from three. That's pretty far from being "very poor" at shooting. Player average for 2024 was around 36.7, according to Statmuse. That would mean he needs to hit another 2.7 3s per 100 shots to be average. He averages about 4 3PA a game, so an extra 2-3 makes every 25 games. So you all are expecting absolutely NO improvement in his shooting over the next few years, for some inexplicable reason. Because his shooting has improved every year.

Healthy Ball is worth much more and would get much more than $20 mill a year, lmao! Ball got $20 mill 4 years ago. He also shot 41% from the field, so while his three point shot improved, he wasn't scoring all that efficiently. The salary cap that year was 112 mill, the salary cap for next year is 141 mill. The cap has increased around 25%, so that contract is equivalent to a $25 mill/yr contract today. And Ball had previous injury issues.

We'll see how it goes.

I think you are missing the forest through the trees on Giddey's shooting. It's not the percentage which is in the realm of fine. It's the way the defense completely ignores him and is not punished that causes the problem. The defense chases Lonzo around screens to stop him from getting a 3 point shot. The defense doesn't even put a body on Giddey at the three point line.

Those things make a radical difference in how the rest of your offense runs, and they are not reflected in three point shooting percentage. If Giddey were to start shooting a little better, then maybe teams would kind of stick a body within 15 feet of him instead of playing straight 5 on 4 vs the other guys, but that still would be worse off than a 35% shooter that they actively care about because they know he's a 40%+ shooter if he's left alone.

I hope it works for Giddey, I was a fan of the trade at the time, but I don't see it happening unless he completely reworks his shot, and he acknowledge the problem last year, and he didn't do any work on it this year. There are some shooters that become really good even with very bad mechanics, so maybe he'll fall in that group with enough work, but nothing I've seen to date makes me think that will be true.

I don't want to bother addressing your view of statistic and age, because I disagree pretty strongly with your methodology and any response I give you is going to sound like an insult which I don't really intend. I think your point is simply to say "Giddey is young and can get better", I agree, but based on the way the defense defends him, I think he's a lot further away than 3% indicates, and you are underestimating how much better he needs to get.

I do really hope it works for him, because I can't envision any scenario we don't keep him.

Appreciate your feedback. I'll leave it at this. The Bulls have had a ton of decent to good three point shooters the last few years. But we've been near the bottom of the league in attempts. Teams need more than just shooters. It's not coincidence that Giddey leads the team in assists when he's on the floor and is often second in rebounds. He's averaging around 7 assists per game this year. Those guys don't just grow on trees.

To me. it's common sense that most NBA players will become better shooters. It's hard to put up thousands of shots in practice over years and not get better. The younger the player, the more chance to improve. If Giddey were 30, you'd hear none of these arguments from me. But I think most, if not all, NBA guards will be better shooters at 26 than they were at 21. Even if that improvement doesn't show up as much statistically. I think it would be more likely Giddey's shooting improves vs Coby or Ayo's playmaking, for instance. You can work on shooting pretty much alone, and consistently. A lot depends on how much work you put in.

I don't think he's ever going to be a great shooter. But everybody said that about Lonzo his rookie year, with that broken shot. He just needs to get to average with his other contributions. I don't think that's an impossible hill to climb.

And again, we're not talking about signing him to a Scotte Barnes contract. I think a $16-18 mill contract reflects his age and he has areas he needs to improve on, but other areas he excels in. If you want to discount players value when they're older, expect to pay a premium when they're younger. At least in my opinion.

[League Circles]

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

That's exactly what he was at the end of his OKC time. He got benched in the playoffs and only averaged 25 mpg during the season as a started. Then they traded him for a guy that they just re-signed for 4 years to play 19 mpg off the bench.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

Ben Simmons is a regular triple double threat too. That counting-stat anomaly isn't as impactful as you think.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I don't think Josh Giddey projects to be a top 10 player at whatever position anyone wants to say that he is, and I'm not sure why anyone would think that would. He's outright bad at half the game and pretty flawed at big parts of the other half of the game.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

He's not a special overall talent and keeping him will take dollars and opportunities from potentially better players, including future Bulls and other current Bulls like Ball, Ayo and Coby. It's not that I think they're way better than him, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. But he's the one that we can still choose to not overcommit to. If he was already signed and one of them wasn't I'd be saying the same thing about them.

[pipfan]

I know he'll never be a good defender-that's fine. He's a BIT better now, and his rebounding helps on D
He'll never be a great scorer, but I think he can be passable-enough of a threat to warrant covering

But, he's VERY loose with the ball, both dribbling and passing. I don't like careless players

[dougthonus]

Appreciate your feedback. I'll leave it at this. The Bulls have had a ton of decent to good three point shooters the last few years. But we've been near the bottom of the league in attempts. Teams need more than just shooters. It's not coincidence that Giddey leads the team in assists when he's on the floor and is often second in rebounds. He's averaging around 7 assists per game this year. Those guys don't just grow on trees.

To me. it's common sense that most NBA players will become better shooters. It's hard to put up thousands of shots in practice over years and not get better. The younger the player, the more chance to improve. If Giddey were 30, you'd hear none of these arguments from me. But I think most, if not all, NBA guards will be better shooters at 26 than they were at 21. Even if that improvement doesn't show up as much statistically. I think it would be more likely Giddey's shooting improves vs Coby or Ayo's playmaking, for instance. You can work on shooting pretty much alone, and consistently. A lot depends on how much work you put in.

I don't think he's ever going to be a great shooter. But everybody said that about Lonzo his rookie year, with that broken shot. He just needs to get to average with his other contributions. I don't think that's an impossible hill to climb.

FWIW, this is more or less the exact same argument and way I thought last summer at the time the trade was made. I feel a bit worse about him now and think his shot is further than I anticipated by looking merely at percentage.

I kind of agree with the play making thing, it's just that on a good team, the ball is not going to be in his hands enough for that to be a big advantage, that's sort of the problem. He isn't good enough to be your main on ball guy (or even close), and presently, he hurts you off ball. He needs to get to the point where his threat as a shooter and dominance as a passer makes him a big threat off ball for things to fundamentally change.

And again, we're not talking about signing him to a Scotte Barnes contract. I think a $16-18 mill contract reflects his age and he has areas he needs to improve on, but other areas he excels in. If you want to discount players value when they're older, expect to pay a premium when they're younger. At least in my opinion.

I'm closer to 14-15M on him only because I don't think he can get another deal above the MLE, so no reason for us to proactively bid over that amount, but if we landed him at 16-18M I wouldn't hate it as a gamble or anything. I just wouldn't proactively offer it vs letting the market reject him first.

[Infinity2152]

I'll say this about the Ball signing. In my opinion, it reduced Giddey's leverage significantly. The lack of any real playmaker has haunted us for years. The Bulls are not likely to seriously overpay him, especially after Pat. That doesn't eliminate the risk of another team throwing a contract the Bulls won't want to match. I think this room's view of Giddey vs the NBA in general's view is far apart. All I hear about is his weaknesses, never that he's young, an exceptional passer and rebounder. Some teams will judge a player by their strengths rather than weaknesses. That's why Vuc will have a job until he decides to retire. Don't think anybody's advocating for him to get $30 mill. But if you think Giddey's worth around $16 mill, as a team you might get pushed to $18 mill if you offer him an extension before FA or early. That's better than losing him for nothing to another team who decides to bid $20 mill.

Bulls have reportedly decided to invest in Giddey over White, so a Giddey signing also probably causes a Coby trade, where we get a 1st back hopefully. Coby trade not nearly as likely if we lose Giddey.

So which helps the Bulls more:
1. Lose Giddey for nothing, keep Coby on an expiring contract, probably re-sign him
2. Pay Giddey, trade Coby, lose his $12 mill and get a first, maybe more

Unless you think they lose Giddey and still trade Coby, leaving injury prone Ball as the only thing resembling a starting guard on this team.

[dougthonus]

I'll say this about the Ball signing. In my opinion, it reduced Giddey's leverage significantly. The lack of any real playmaker has haunted us for years. The Bulls are not likely to seriously overpay him, especially after Pat. That doesn't eliminate the risk of another team throwing a contract the Bulls won't want to match. I think this room's view of Giddey vs the NBA in general's view is far apart. All I hear about is his weaknesses, never that he's young, an exceptional passer and rebounder. Some teams will judge a player by their strengths rather than weaknesses. That's why Vuc will have a job until he decides to retire. Don't think anybody's advocating for him to get $30 mill. But if you think Giddey's worth around $16 mill, as a team you might get pushed to $18 mill if you offer him an extension before FA or early. That's better than losing him for nothing to another team who decides to bid $20 mill.

Bulls have reportedly decided to invest in Giddey over White, so a Giddey signing also probably causes a Coby trade, where we get a 1st back hopefully. Coby trade not nearly as likely if we lose Giddey.

So which helps the Bulls more:
1. Lose Giddey for nothing, keep Coby on an expiring contract, probably re-sign him
2. Pay Giddey, trade Coby, lose his $12 mill and get a first, maybe more

Unless you think they lose Giddey and still trade Coby, leaving injury prone Ball as the only thing resembling a starting guard on this team.

FWIW, I don't know that many people are overly concerned about Giddey at 18M. I think it's the 25M+ that scares people.

I think you also have more alternatives than #1 and #2.

Ie:
3. Hard cap Giddey's deal at 14M per year (or some other number), if you lose him you lose him. Trade Coby White anyway. Don't worry about next year, you're going to be bad no matter what and probably by design.

If I ran the team, I'd have probably already moved Coby/Ayo at last deadline (as well as Vuc if I could get off his money even if there was no other compensation coming back), then I'd do exactly what I said with Giddey (hard cap his total at 14M), and if i keep him, I keep him.

I'm probably in position to get high picks this year and next, and I don't really think anyone on this roster except possibly Matas (and not super likely him either TBH) is going to be a top 4 player the next time this team wins a playoff series, so no reason to prioritize any of them.

[jnrjr79]

I'll say this about the Ball signing. In my opinion, it reduced Giddey's leverage significantly. The lack of any real playmaker has haunted us for years. The Bulls are not likely to seriously overpay him, especially after Pat. That doesn't eliminate the risk of another team throwing a contract the Bulls won't want to match. I think this room's view of Giddey vs the NBA in general's view is far apart. All I hear about is his weaknesses, never that he's young, an exceptional passer and rebounder. Some teams will judge a player by their strengths rather than weaknesses. That's why Vuc will have a job until he decides to retire. Don't think anybody's advocating for him to get $30 mill. But if you think Giddey's worth around $16 mill, as a team you might get pushed to $18 mill if you offer him an extension before FA or early. That's better than losing him for nothing to another team who decides to bid $20 mill.

Bulls have reportedly decided to invest in Giddey over White, so a Giddey signing also probably causes a Coby trade, where we get a 1st back hopefully. Coby trade not nearly as likely if we lose Giddey.

So which helps the Bulls more:
1. Lose Giddey for nothing, keep Coby on an expiring contract, probably re-sign him
2. Pay Giddey, trade Coby, lose his $12 mill and get a first, maybe more

Unless you think they lose Giddey and still trade Coby, leaving injury prone Ball as the only thing resembling a starting guard on this team.

I think they'll extend Giddey and trade Coby, but I'd be fine getting rid of both, depending on Giddey's price. I don't really care how good the roster is next season, with everything lining up so far for this to be a 2-year tank job. They can sign some vet off the street to back up ball, and we'll see what they do in the draft. I don't really view Coby as a PG in the first place. I'd also expect them to try to keep Ayo.

[Infinity2152]

Oh, I agree getting rid of both is an option. I don't think it's likely. Sun Times already reported they've decided to invest in Giddey over White. Billy just went on the record saying we have too many guards. Both are young and fit our timeline, so I think it will be one or the other who gets paid. I don't think the same management that re-signed Pat and Vuc will lose both Giddey and White at the same time. They just moved Lavine and are probably moving Vuc. Most of the rest of the team will already be on the block this summer, as well.

[Dez]

People need to stop calling Coby White a PG, he's a 2 with below average playmaking.

[jnrjr79]

Oh, I agree getting rid of both is an option. I don't think it's likely. Sun Times already reported they've decided to invest in Giddey over White. Billy just went on the record saying we have too many guards. Both are young and fit our timeline, so I think it will be one or the other who gets paid. I don't think the same management that re-signed Pat and Vuc will lose both Giddey and White at the same time. They just moved Lavine and are probably moving Vuc. Most of the rest of the team will already be on the block this summer, as well.

Yep, I agree with this. I'd be fine letting both go, but I'd bet on AK signing Giddey to a new deal and trying to trade Coby this offseason.

[PJSteven22]

The argument is about paying him more than $15 mill. He doesn't have to be a top tier point guard for that. That's the point. In 2019 Joe Ingles got a $14 mill extension. That's probably close to $18 mill/now. So if he is Joe Ingles, he's worth more than $15 mill.

Those players you posted, some are making $50 mill and pretty much all are max players. So, getting paid two-three times what we're proposing for Giddey. He doesn't have to become a top tier star to be a solid starter. Average pay for a solid starter is around $20 mill. For $18 mill, when you're paying a 22 year old, he clearly has flaws. No perfectly skilled scoring, facilitating, rebounding, defensive 22 year old is getting $18 mill nowadays. They're getting Scottie Barnes contract, who just signed a five year rookie extension worth $270 mill.

Don't care that you think you have a crystal ball and predict that Giddey will be the only player in NBA history that doesn't get better after 22. There's a reason Jokic went in the second round. Because even professionals who do this for a living can't predict who's going to improve. They look at things like athleticism and cap a players potential. Every NBA team had a chance to grab Joker.

Maybe Joe Ingles should have never been given that deal?

IMO, you have to look at what guys would / should be worth on a great team to figure out how they should be paid. If Giddey was on a great team he'd most likely be a 15-20 mpg bench player and make no more than the MLE.

I would say, generally speaking, if you're rebuilding a bad team which is what we're doing, you shouldn't sign ANY players to multi year deals unless one of two things is true:

1. They project as a clear above average starter - which means clear top 10-15 at their position long term.

2. You're getting someone who COULD start, if needed, and do a pretty good job, but at backup money, so as to free up huge money for high level player(s) at other positions. Ball's new deal, Jalen Smith and Ayo are probably examples of this.

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

[Infinity2152]

Maybe Joe Ingles should have never been given that deal?

IMO, you have to look at what guys would / should be worth on a great team to figure out how they should be paid. If Giddey was on a great team he'd most likely be a 15-20 mpg bench player and make no more than the MLE.

I would say, generally speaking, if you're rebuilding a bad team which is what we're doing, you shouldn't sign ANY players to multi year deals unless one of two things is true:

1. They project as a clear above average starter - which means clear top 10-15 at their position long term.

2. You're getting someone who COULD start, if needed, and do a pretty good job, but at backup money, so as to free up huge money for high level player(s) at other positions. Ball's new deal, Jalen Smith and Ayo are probably examples of this.

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

Caruso's not starting either, how much did they just pay him to come off the bench? 4yrs/ $81 mill. Since 15-20 min bench players are only worth MLE. Skip the fact that it's a 7 year older bench player.

[sco]

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

I recall Giddey noted that he felt that he didn't play as well last season when they took him off ball, which is clearly not his game.

I don't know what to take away from how OKC felt about him. We have had ample time to see that he's missing the prototypical primary ball handler's scoring dimension. The question is will he fit with our ultimate #1 option leading our next iteration. Unless Matas goes supernova, that guy currently isn't on the team. I can definitely see him being very successful with some #1's and not with others. I still lean toward signing him because I think in the right situation he could thrive.

[Infinity2152]

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

I recall Giddey noted that he felt that he didn't play as well last season when they took him off ball, which is clearly not his game.

I don't know what to take away from how OKC felt about him. We have had ample time to see that he's missing the prototypical primary ball handler's scoring dimension. The question is will he fit with our ultimate #1 option leading our next iteration. Unless Matas goes supernova, that guy currently isn't on the team. I can definitely see him being very successful with some #1's and not with others. I still lean toward signing him because I think in the right situation he could thrive.

Agree. It's impossible to know how he'll fit with the team next year, we have no idea who will even be here. Think he's been playing with SGA his whole career, this is really his first season as primary ballhandler. Think of that, Giddey, with his skillset and weaknesses, has been off ball much of his career.

For me, it's not even about Giddey the player as much as Giddey the asset. I don't like losing assets for nothing, it's really bad for a team. With the way this team is up in the air, I'd take the chance on Giddey improving, and wait and see. As long as the contracts not ridiculous, it's probably tradeable. If it results in Coby being traded and we get another first, so much the better. Not like we're trying to win next year, we can afford to have some patience. Not like he's in anybody's way at PG.

I know, Pat's contract. But last year, Lavine's contract looked untradeable, and general consensus was there's no way we get a first. We got a probable lottery pick. Vuc's contract, which was looked at as an overpay, could have probably gotten us expirings and seconds, and still might.

[PJSteven22]

Giddey was on a great team. OKC is a great team. He started every game. People opinion's that he should be a bench player doesn't match with the opinion of two different NBA coaches. He was not a 15-20 minute bench player on a good team.

Giddey's a regular triple double threat. He projects as a starter, despite his weaknesses. Most NBA starters have weaknesses. Ball's new deal is only because of his injury history. Giddey projects higher than Smith or Ayo.

You're talking about paying a guy who projects at top 10 at his position $15 mill. Not happening.

I would say if you're rebuilding, what you CAN'T do is lose your young talent. Not to market rate or a small overpay. If it's a huge overpay, you have to take the hit and let them go.

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

Caruso's not starting either, how much did they just pay him to come off the bench? 4yrs/ $81 mill. Since 15-20 min bench players are only worth MLE. Skip the fact that it's a 7 year older bench player.

They made the playoffs in spite of Giddey. The team performed better when he was off the floor. It’s like Doug stated people don’t play attention to him when he doesn’t have the ball. Presti realized that and fleeced us in a trade.

I don’t think you realize how crippling his weaknesses are to a team. It makes him unplayable at times. He’s literally a liability.

[Dan Z]

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

I recall Giddey noted that he felt that he didn't play as well last season when they took him off ball, which is clearly not his game.

I don't know what to take away from how OKC felt about him. We have had ample time to see that he's missing the prototypical primary ball handler's scoring dimension. The question is will he fit with our ultimate #1 option leading our next iteration. Unless Matas goes supernova, that guy currently isn't on the team. I can definitely see him being very successful with some #1's and not with others. I still lean toward signing him because I think in the right situation he could thrive.

Agree. It's impossible to know how he'll fit with the team next year, we have no idea who will even be here. Think he's been playing with SGA his whole career, this is really his first season as primary ballhandler. Think of that, Giddey, with his skillset and weaknesses, has been off ball much of his career.

For me, it's not even about Giddey the player as much as Giddey the asset. I don't like losing assets for nothing, it's really bad for a team. With the way this team is up in the air, I'd take the chance on Giddey improving, and wait and see. As long as the contracts not ridiculous, it's probably tradeable. If it results in Coby being traded and we get another first, so much the better. Not like we're trying to win next year, we can afford to have some patience. Not like he's in anybody's way at PG.

I know, Pat's contract. But last year, Lavine's contract looked untradeable, and general consensus was there's no way we get a first. We got a probable lottery pick. Vuc's contract, which was looked at as an overpay, could have probably gotten us expirings and seconds, and still might.

Based on what AK has said I bet they will be trying to win next year.

[sco]

And he got benched in the playoffs because he couldn’t score or defend. Daigneault and Presti approached him about coming off the bench and he didn’t want to and demanded a trade. It’s funny that you conveniently left those points out. OKC is a better organization than the Bulls so if he failed there, it’s a huge red flag. He also would get benched for Ayo or Ball to me that says he’s a liability.

16-18 is digestible but I’d much rather get a lead ball handler from the draft. I also said top 15 because you mentioned he can be a top tier PG. Considering that there are only 30 teams in the NBA, 15 is about Average. It illustrates how far he actually is from being a core player moving forward.

The issue with your statement about letting Giddey walk is that he’s not that talented. He has a loose handle, weak jumper, poor athleticism, bad defense, and is turnover prone. That’s not a guy who you want to build with. Also who’s projecting him to be a starter? You and AK? I’d take Sam Presti’s side on this because he’s actually an accomplished GMs. Whereas AK couldn’t evaluate talent and got completely lucky with Jokic.

The same Sam Presti who's the GM of the team where he started for 3 years, including the entire season except for TWO playoff games they benched him, which they lost. Don't know how a decision that failed is looked like it was genius on the Thunder's part. They made the playoffs with Giddey starting. They were .500 in that series with Giddey starting, they lost two in a row with him coming off the bench. I wish people would stop acting like that was a smart move. Benching him did not result in more wins, it resulted in a worse winning percentage against the exact same team.

And I'll say clearly that the money we're talking about is not close to star money. It's average starter money. So if he needs to be a star to be a good NBA player, we should be talking about an entirely different pay scale.

If you believe in Presti, he drafted him and started him for 3 years. Is he an idiot now? Are you all better basketball minds than Presti, Mark Daigneault, AK and Billy Donovan? He certainly didn't "fail" in OKC, or they would have benched him WAY before his last two games in the playoffs. Flip your statement about OKC being better than us, he started on a better team, but he's a bench player here?

If you take Presti's side, Presti could have traded him at any point over 3 years. He traded him to get one of the best defenders in the league for a win now team.

Want to talk about leaving points out, how about pointing out he was benched for 2 out of over 200 games he played for the Thunder. That seems a pretty significant point you conveniently left out when talking about his benching. The fact that he's been benched less than 1% of his games. That's statistically insignificant. It does not show a trend or pattern. Coming off the bench for them is not the same anyway, they have SGA at point guard. Argument carries no water, they have an MVP candidate at Giddey's position.

Caruso's not starting either, how much did they just pay him to come off the bench? 4yrs/ $81 mill. Since 15-20 min bench players are only worth MLE. Skip the fact that it's a 7 year older bench player.

They made the playoffs in spite of Giddey. The team performed better when he was off the floor. It’s like Doug stated people don’t play attention to him when he doesn’t have the ball. Presti realized that and fleeced us in a trade.

I don’t think you realize how crippling his weaknesses are to a team. It makes him unplayable at times. He’s literally a liability.

I'll be the first guy to admit, some of you guys see stuff I miss. I freely admit I missed the PWill being an absolute non-starting level player for years. I just don't see Giddey as a liability...and of late, on either end. That said, he's no star.

The other learning I had with PWill is that it is a mistake to sign guys to retain their asset value. It doesn't work more than it does. The truth is that this team needs a #1 option to start to rebuild, and until then, as painful as it sounds, the right move may be to just keep letting good players go (for whatever value we can extract for them) until we have a great player. It doesn't necessarily mean tanking, but it does mean to pump and dump until we found that foundational piece.