Would You Support Rebuilding Around Josh Giddey?

[rosenthall]

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.

[kodo]

The "he's not a #1 on a contender" is such a ridiculous argument (and I understand your arguing against it). Well nobody on the team is a #1 on a championship team including Matas (and he never will be in the future). So just cut everyone and put Benny out there for 3 hours?

99% of the league isn't a #1 on a championship team, let's cut all their contracts and just have Joker & SGA play 1 on 1 for 82 games.

[_txchilibowl_]

The "he's not a #1 on a contender" is such a ridiculous argument (and I understand your arguing against it). Well nobody on the team is a #1 on a championship team including Matas (and he never will be in the future). So just cut everyone and put Benny out there for 3 hours?

99% of the league isn't a #1 on a championship team, let's cut all their contracts and just have Joker & SGA play 1 on 1 for 82 games.

This is exactly what Championship or Bust people will tell you to do. Keep cycling till you get a LeBron or Wemby.

Those people are insane.

[PJSteven22]

Hell no. That would be like rebuilding around a young Vuc. You’re not going past the first round.

[PJSteven22]

The "he's not a #1 on a contender" is such a ridiculous argument (and I understand your arguing against it). Well nobody on the team is a #1 on a championship team including Matas (and he never will be in the future). So just cut everyone and put Benny out there for 3 hours?

99% of the league isn't a #1 on a championship team, let's cut all their contracts and just have Joker & SGA play 1 on 1 for 82 games.

This is exactly what Championship or Bust people will tell you to do. Keep cycling till you get a LeBron or Wemby.

Those people are insane.

It’s a better strategy than building around Giddey.

[DrModesty]

Giddey was able to provide what his strengths offer in year 2 alongside SGA who was averaging 30 points. He doesn't need to be the primary option, he can be the secondary one. But you can't reduce him in to being a lower usage role player if you want to gain the benefits of him. That team went .500 with a bunch of rookies/sophomores and no center play.

Say for example you had a Damien Lillard type number 1 option (I use him as an example because that level of number 1 is more attainable compared to a MVP player). Giddey could play beside a guy like that and still provide most of his utility. He would still get significant ball handling duties on the court. His playmaking and driving would provide a strong outlet if your main guy gets double teamed. He would also be a very strong floor general for any bench units where the 1st option is off the floor. But if you also had CJ McCollum on the team and made CJ your second option, (shuffling Giddey down to third) then Giddey is going to be too marginalized to be effective.

If they are going to build around Giddey, they do need to make a point of being bad the next couple of years so that the team has a strong base of talent to grow with. I don't think Giddey at this age is a guy you bring in veteran free agents to try and win now with. If one of those talents is a better primary option than Giddey, that is great. If several players end up being so, even better. You just trade Giddey if he is usurped by several players and hasn't evolved his game to fit that eventuality.

[2weekswithpay]

No.

I'm fine with keeping Giddey and acquiring more talent. Giddey would need to be surrounded by 3&D wing/forwards but 3&D players are in high demand because they can fit on most teams. These players fit next to Giddey and are good to have even if Giddey wasn't on the roster.

Should the Bulls pass on Dylan Harper because they have Giddey? No. I used Harper as an example but I don't think Giddey should be factored into draft/trade decisions. We shouldn't pass on talented players because they aren't a great fit next to Giddey.

[_txchilibowl_]

Thread title should be "Would you support rebuilding WITH Josh Giddey?". I don't think anybody sees him as a centerpiece. And he doesn't need to be.

[Dan Z]

Giddey was able to provide what his strengths offer in year 2 alongside SGA who was averaging 30 points. He doesn't need to be the primary option, he can be the secondary one. But you can't reduce him in to being a lower usage role player if you want to gain the benefits of him. That team went .500 with a bunch of rookies/sophomores and no center play.

Say for example you had a Damien Lillard type number 1 option (I use him as an example because that level of number 1 is more attainable compared to a MVP player). Giddey could play beside a guy like that and still provide most of his utility. He would still get significant ball handling duties on the court. His playmaking and driving would provide a strong outlet if your main guy gets double teamed. He would also be a very strong floor general for any bench units where the 1st option is off the floor. But if you also had CJ McCollum on the team and made CJ your second option, (shuffling Giddey down to third) then Giddey is going to be too marginalized to be effective.

If they are going to build around Giddey, they do need to make a point of being bad the next couple of years so that the team has a strong base of talent to grow with. I don't think Giddey at this age is a guy you bring in veteran free agents to try and win now with. If one of those talents is a better primary option than Giddey, that is great. If several players end up being so, even better. You just trade Giddey if he is usurped by several players and hasn't evolved his game to fit that eventuality.

I agree with everything you said in your last paragraph. My other concern is his next contract (I know that the OP discussed it). I'd hate for Giddey to sign a big contract and then is difficult to trade down the road (much like Zach was).

Building around Giddey isn't very exciting to me, but whats the alternative? Letting him walk? Do a sign and trade? I think AK should explore all his options.

[Bulliever2020]

to me EVERYTHING depends on the numbers of his next contract. It NEEDS to be tradeable or you just let him walk. 20-25 around 4 years or so I would be comfortable with. Anything beyond that and it will be a huge mistake. Arrested Development shoutout.

[sco]

Doug takes a deep breath....

Please forgive me because I use my "3am at the bar" analogy way too often. But this question is akin to asking "It is 3am and you are talking to the best looking woman (or gender of your choice)...should you marry her?" Of course not. She is just the best looking woman in the bar, but it doesn't mean she is objectively pretty, and you hardly know her and haven't seen her in the light of day.

Fortunately, the question with Giddey is only, "how much can I resign him for and not regret it?" Part of analogous response is, let's see how he finishes out the season (i.e. what doesn she look like in the light of day?).

The second part of my response is that we should do the right thing and let value of the RFA work to our benefit, and see what the market price is, before deciding. I'm not sure what the analogy is here, but something akin to asking her what she does for a living.

I think the "build around Giddey" question isn't something we should ask for at least another season. Reason being that (as my mentor Doug says), pretty much every contending team in the league builds around a guy who they expect to be their primary scorer (and primary ball handler). By building around Giddey, you are going outside of a more proven model and limiting your chances for success.

Now here's where I deviate my POV. I think you can build a contending roster that includes Giddey. I watched him play alongside Coby last game with little problem. Replacing Coby with a better #1 option (my example was to trade for Booker, if such a thing were possible), and perhaps a better C, (and hope Matas becomes much better as he develops) would be my strategy. Now the counter to my argument is that Giddey played alongside Zach, who is a similar such player, and that didn't work out.

[ChettheJet]

I'd say No. He has been putting up unheardof Bulls numbers but he doesn't strike me a the standout leader type that you build around. The way he's been playing I think he's a guy you keep, he's a starter whether he lines up at the 1 or 3 and he plays 36 minutes, you love his offense and hope that his defense improves or he's the fifth best (worst starter) and you're able to cover for him.

[Dez]

Hell no. That would be like rebuilding around a young Vuc. You’re not going past the first round.

That is the worst comparison.

[Dez]

He's a facilitator, he doesn't need to be a number 1 option. A guy like Markkanen would be an ideal fit with someone like Giddey, although I don't want Lauri's horrible contract.

Let's also not forget he's improved every season and there's no reason to think he won't improve further.

I'd be interested in something like.

Giddey/Ayo
Ball/White
Markkanen/Williams
Buzelis
Collins/Smith

Not looking for instant wins but it'd be a fun team for next season.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

Ya, he's a total player with good size and motor, arguably elite feel for the game. What more do you need.

[PJSteven22]

Hell no. That would be like rebuilding around a young Vuc. You’re not going past the first round.

That is the worst comparison.

It’s not he’s raises the floor but he lowers the ceiling.

[rosenthall]

Hell no. That would be like rebuilding around a young Vuc. You’re not going past the first round.

This supports the point I was trying to make.

The current version of the Magic was made possible by the Vuc era Magic, mostly because they were able to trade Vuc into Franz Wagner. And the reason Vuc had the trade value he did is because the Magic did a good job of building their team with him, which improved his perception around the league. They're a good example of a camel shaped rebuild.

[mj234eva]

This has to be a joke

[rosenthall]

Clarification: When I said "rebuild around Josh Giddey", I meant "sign him to a contract, plan on him being primary on-ball facilitator for the next 2-3 years and make marginal roster moves with him in mind until the roster gets to a better inflection point."

I don't think Giddey should influence who we draft, and I certainly don't think the team should go "all-in" on a Giddey centric roster.

[rosenthall]

Thread title should be "Would you support rebuilding WITH Josh Giddey?". I don't think anybody sees him as a centerpiece. And he doesn't need to be.

You're probably right. I used the term around because I think it'd make sense to tentatively plan on him being primary on-ball player for the next couple of years, but that's not the same thing as making him the primary consideration in all the team's roster moves.