Image ImageImage Image

Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas

Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23

meekrab
RealGM
Posts: 13,797
And1: 10,473
Joined: Dec 15, 2014

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#101 » by meekrab » Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:33 pm

sco wrote:
waffle wrote:YUP.

That is part of my thinking with Ayo. I could see him getting moved, not because the bulls don't want him, but because I could see him having value around the league. And we have too many guards

I could see a trade where it is Vuch, this years pick, and 1 or 2 other players, at least 1 of which has to have some value, for a DECENT big.

The deal would need to open up a roster spot, and ideally some cap space to keep Jones.

Jones has Bird rights, we acquired him in a trade.

We have 11 contracts signed for next year, Jevon Carter obviously picks up his option because nobody else is going to pay him above a minimum, then Tre Jones and Giddey makes 14, draft pick is 15.

So basically unless there's a trade we're bringing back the same team plus a rookie.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,093
And1: 9,058
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#102 » by sco » Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:48 pm

meekrab wrote:
sco wrote:
waffle wrote:YUP.

That is part of my thinking with Ayo. I could see him getting moved, not because the bulls don't want him, but because I could see him having value around the league. And we have too many guards

I could see a trade where it is Vuch, this years pick, and 1 or 2 other players, at least 1 of which has to have some value, for a DECENT big.

The deal would need to open up a roster spot, and ideally some cap space to keep Jones.

Jones has Bird rights, we acquired him in a trade.

We have 11 contracts signed for next year, Jevon Carter obviously picks up his option because nobody else is going to pay him above a minimum, then Tre Jones and Giddey makes 14, draft pick is 15.

So basically unless there's a trade we're bringing back the same team plus a rookie.

You're right on all counts. It's a tax issue, not a cap issue. And we don't have a roster count issue. Thanks!

I miss the Capulator because I can't do the math on where we stand vs. the tax, but given where we were this year, I imagine we're gonna be challenged to stay below it after paying Giddey and Jones. The only way to cut salary IMO will be to trade one or two of Ayo, Ball, or Huerter for a pick. I don't think it will be possible to trade Vuc or Collins for space.
:clap:
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,284
And1: 11,147
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#103 » by MrSparkle » Sun Mar 30, 2025 12:01 am

DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:The idea that made sense to me was trying to keep Giddey’s salary affordable (100/4 or 70/2 team option in 2026 and/or 27). That may really not work if Brooklyn prepares a 4Y max offer.



If Brooklyn does that they can have him. Just tank and rebuild.


Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?
rosenthall
Pro Prospect
Posts: 822
And1: 526
Joined: May 26, 2001

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#104 » by rosenthall » Sun Mar 30, 2025 1:25 am

MrSparkle wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:The idea that made sense to me was trying to keep Giddey’s salary affordable (100/4 or 70/2 team option in 2026 and/or 27). That may really not work if Brooklyn prepares a 4Y max offer.



If Brooklyn does that they can have him. Just tank and rebuild.


Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Normally I support teams making non-max RFA's find an offer. It sure worked with Zach. I'm pissed we didn't do it with Pat. But Giddey is different. I can easily see Brooklyn deciding to roll the dice with a max offer to see what we'll do. They have the cap space, positional need, and the market size to absorb an oversized contract. Right now if I'm Chicago I offer him 5/150, on a flat-rate contract and see if he says yes.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,284
And1: 11,147
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#105 » by MrSparkle » Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:12 am

rosenthall wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
If Brooklyn does that they can have him. Just tank and rebuild.


Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Normally I support teams making non-max RFA's find an offer. It sure worked with Zach. I'm pissed we didn't do it with Pat. But Giddey is different. I can easily see Brooklyn deciding to roll the dice with a max offer to see what we can do. They have the cap space, positional need, and the market size to absorb an oversized contract. Right now if I'm Chicago I offer him 5/150, on a flat-rate contract and see if he says yes.


I like him a lot, but I'm still kinda hesitant with the mega deal. 5/150 is quite a commitment.

Honestly, I'm more OK with 105/3 (3rd year Club Option... so like 35m per) and letting him really "earn" his max. Very tough deciding to pay long money to a guy who's really had a 1 MONTH hot streak. I've been supportive of him even early - I like his IQ and passing a lot. But I can't go by such a short span of ultra hot shooting (for a non shooter) to allocate serious money for a guy who could easily become untradeable right after he signs a big deal, if his percentages plummet back to averages (if not lower). It's only happened a bunch of times recently... What's another bad extension?

The best extensions were the cheapest extensions (Coby & Ayo).
rosenthall
Pro Prospect
Posts: 822
And1: 526
Joined: May 26, 2001

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#106 » by rosenthall » Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:41 am

MrSparkle wrote:
rosenthall wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Normally I support teams making non-max RFA's find an offer. It sure worked with Zach. I'm pissed we didn't do it with Pat. But Giddey is different. I can easily see Brooklyn deciding to roll the dice with a max offer to see what we can do. They have the cap space, positional need, and the market size to absorb an oversized contract. Right now if I'm Chicago I offer him 5/150, on a flat-rate contract and see if he says yes.


I like him a lot, but I'm still kinda hesitant with the mega deal. 5/150 is quite a commitment.

Honestly, I'm more OK with 105/3 (3rd year Club Option... so like 35m per) and letting him really "earn" his max. Very tough deciding to pay long money to a guy who's really had a 1 MONTH hot streak. I've been supportive of him even early - I like his IQ and passing a lot. But I can't go by such a short span of ultra hot shooting (for a non shooter) to allocate serious money for a guy who could easily become untradeable right after he signs a big deal, if his percentages plummet back to averages (if not lower). It's only happened a bunch of times recently... What's another bad extension?

The best extensions were the cheapest extensions (Coby & Ayo).


I mentioned a flat-rate contract, but what I would really push for is a declining one. If I were the FO I might make it a pre-condition for getting the AAV he wants. If you declined the contract to the maximum amount possible he'd be paid ~24 million in his final year. If you assume 10% cap raises until then he'd be making about ~10% of the cap his fifth year.

In today's dollars that's Obi Toppin money. If we could do that it allows us to protect ourselves from the two great dangers of Giddey's next contract:

- That Brooklyn will call our bluff and offer him a 4Y max, leaving us with nothing
- That the team outgrows Giddey-ball during his tenure here, and we find ourselves with a really expensive Kyle Anderson clone that we don't know what to do with

I think there's a real chance the latter happens, but if he's only taking up 10-14% of the cap on his last two years I think even a contending team with a ball-dominant scorer that makes him redundant would have interest in him.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 35,370
And1: 9,967
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#107 » by League Circles » Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:45 am

sco wrote:
meekrab wrote:
sco wrote:The deal would need to open up a roster spot, and ideally some cap space to keep Jones.

Jones has Bird rights, we acquired him in a trade.

We have 11 contracts signed for next year, Jevon Carter obviously picks up his option because nobody else is going to pay him above a minimum, then Tre Jones and Giddey makes 14, draft pick is 15.

So basically unless there's a trade we're bringing back the same team plus a rookie.

You're right on all counts. It's a tax issue, not a cap issue. And we don't have a roster count issue. Thanks!

I miss the Capulator because I can't do the math on where we stand vs. the tax, but given where we were this year, I imagine we're gonna be challenged to stay below it after paying Giddey and Jones. The only way to cut salary IMO will be to trade one or two of Ayo, Ball, or Huerter for a pick. I don't think it will be possible to trade Vuc or Collins for space.

The capulator is alive and well. Used it a few days ago.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
wolffy
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,294
And1: 661
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Location: Pa.
       

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#108 » by wolffy » Sun Mar 30, 2025 7:03 pm

This is probably copium...

It's pretty clear that you need an ELITE talent to win a championship but my question is this. Is there any world where your accumulated talent gels and makes one of the guys better to the point they're perceived as elite?

Would we even recognize that it's happening? An example is maybe Tatum in Boston. Sometimes I'm not completely sure he's on that level but they've won
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,472
And1: 36,820
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#109 » by DuckIII » Sun Mar 30, 2025 8:31 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:The idea that made sense to me was trying to keep Giddey’s salary affordable (100/4 or 70/2 team option in 2026 and/or 27). That may really not work if Brooklyn prepares a 4Y max offer.



If Brooklyn does that they can have him. Just tank and rebuild.


Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Yes.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,284
And1: 11,147
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#110 » by MrSparkle » Sun Mar 30, 2025 8:49 pm

[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
If Brooklyn does that they can have him. Just tank and rebuild.


Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.
User avatar
Jcool0
RealGM
Posts: 15,260
And1: 9,269
Joined: Jul 12, 2014
Location: Illinois
         

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#111 » by Jcool0 » Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:07 pm

MrSparkle wrote:[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.


FWIW we gave up this Lauri: 14.8 ppg and 5.7 rebounds om 44/36/87. Cleveland gave up him up almost as a throw in for Donovan Mitchell. He then put up 25.6 and 8.6 rebounds on 49/39/88. Odds are he never does this in Chicago or Cleveland.
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 22,126
And1: 11,811
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#112 » by WindyCityBorn » Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:09 pm

I rescind my comment Buzelis might not be ready to be a top 3 option next season. If he puts in the work this offseason(he will) he definitely can be.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,472
And1: 36,820
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#113 » by DuckIII » Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:14 pm

eierluke wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
coldfish wrote:I really don’t look at Giddey-Coby-Matas as a core of anything special. The Bulls basically might have the complementary pieces needed for a good team but you still need the core piece.

Basically if you add Jokic or a healthy Embiid to this group you might be talking about something.

I have no idea how you get an elite 4 or 5 but that’s what you have to do. Maybe trade up in the draft and hope to hit the jackpot?


I don’t think (hardly) anyone really disagrees that this “core” lacks the much needed franchise star. But it’s rhetorical core we are pretty clearly going to start with.

And given the last couple of months it’s hard to say it’s the wrong thing to do as a first step forward. Just don’t rush it.

That said, trading Coby while his value is super high is very much on the table for me.



I don't understand those who want to trade White? No logic, as if we could get anyone in return, who has a higher probability to become our franchise player?


I didn’t say I “want” to trade him. But I consider it very much an option given the wild swings in production over the course of his career. If a team offered a “young star” package for him I could imagine plenty of scenarios in which I would prefer that to White.

But don’t interpret that to mean I’m hoping to trade him and think we need to move on from him.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 27,093
And1: 9,058
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#114 » by sco » Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:53 pm

WindyCityBorn wrote:I rescind my comment Buzelis might not be ready to be a top 3 option next season. If he puts in the work this offseason(he will) he definitely can be.

It's possible, but I think like many successful rookies, teams will have a gameplans for him and he'll need to adjust his game to take a step forward. I think we're looking at 2 more seasons for him to get to that level, and that would be fine. I will say that, with several seasons of work on his game, he has 1st option potential down the road.
:clap:
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,284
And1: 11,147
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#115 » by MrSparkle » Mon Mar 31, 2025 12:24 am

Jcool0 wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.


FWIW we gave up this Lauri: 14.8 ppg and 5.7 rebounds om 44/36/87. Cleveland gave up him up almost as a throw in for Donovan Mitchell. He then put up 25.6 and 8.6 rebounds on 49/39/88. Odds are he never does this in Chicago or Cleveland.


He would’ve done it anywhere in y6. Was ready to go. And it still made the trade a mistake. Sold low on what turned out to be a huge asset (until the franchise max, anyhow). His numbers are way down, but I blame Ainge for very intentionally losing this year.
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 29,066
And1: 8,941
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#116 » by Chi town » Mon Mar 31, 2025 12:29 am

Jcool0 wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.


FWIW we gave up this Lauri: 14.8 ppg and 5.7 rebounds om 44/36/87. Cleveland gave up him up almost as a throw in for Donovan Mitchell. He then put up 25.6 and 8.6 rebounds on 49/39/88. Odds are he never does this in Chicago or Cleveland.


Or again in Utah. He showed out in his contract year and magically did not miss games due to injury. Now this season he’s dropped again.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,472
And1: 36,820
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#117 » by DuckIII » Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:11 pm

MrSparkle wrote:[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
Well- what if triple-double/clutch Giddey is the real deal? You okay with the guy walking, pulling a Utah-Lauri while we continue fishing?


Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.


To be clear, if I knew for certain - or was very confident in my own subjective opinion - that the Giddey of the last two months is 90% sustainable, of course I would match a max. And of course if I had refused, and he turned out that good, I’d regret it.

But to me being a GM in real time is all about playing the odds. As impressed as I am with Giddey, and as an immediate supporter of him as a return for Caruso, I still think the odds are very much against the Bulls being happy down the road they maxed Giddey. I do not support it.

I would tank and focus on building with Matas and see what Coby can do next year to further evaluate him as core, while likely landing a very high pick in next year’s draft to use or trade.

No one on this roster should be maxed.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 35,370
And1: 9,967
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#118 » by League Circles » Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:19 pm

DuckIII wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:[gfycat][/gfycat]
DuckIII wrote:
Yes.


Interesting!

I think letting go of 22yo future all-stars for nothing/pennies (before they’re all-stars) is a sure-fire method of losing a decade. There’s an argument to be made that losing Lauri for weak return hurt us more than the Vuc trade.

Even a great career superstar draft pick (Wemby, Durant, Lebron) requires a solid and patient 3+ years of building on a losing record, or if they get injured (Wemby TBD, Lonzo, Zion, Simmons, Wall, Rose) that whole plan goes out the window.

There’s a middle-ground of not overpaying/maxing questionable guys (Zach), and I think that involves exploring the S&T market or reducing years on the contract.

It’s looking like Bulls might again be in a worst-case scenario with Giddey and Brooklyn, but we’ll see. Otherwise, it’s supposed to be a horrible summer for FAs.


To be clear, if I knew for certain - or was very confident in my own subjective opinion - that the Giddey of the last two months is 90% sustainable, of course I would match a max. And of course if I had refused, and he turned out that good, I’d regret it.

But to me being a GM in real time is all about playing the odds. As impressed as I am with Giddey, and as an immediate supporter of him as a return for Caruso, I still think the odds are very much against the Bulls being happy down the road they maxed Giddey. I do not support it.

I would tank and focus on building with Matas and see what Coby can do next year to further evaluate him as core, while likely landing a very high pick in next year’s draft to use or trade.

No one on this roster should be maxed.

IMO, it would be pretty difficult to land a very high pick in the 2026 draft just by letting Giddey walk. I'm with you that Giddey (or Coby for that matter) shouldn't be maxed, but worth remembering 25% "max" is rather different from 30 or 35%, especially if we could make it a flat deal.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
waffle
RealGM
Posts: 11,338
And1: 1,757
Joined: Jun 07, 2002
Location: Don't question the finger and do respect the black box. That is all.....

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#119 » by waffle » Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:23 pm

agreed Duck

And you are in line with what I said in regards to whom I think will be here and who might not

I still find it curious to consider how we are going to turn over this roster without a couple of trades where a player or 2 is moved.

As I said I think the logical thing is to let Giddey test the market, at which point I think someone will overpay. Logical? Yes, AK defies logic frequently. REALISTICALLY I think he will sign him outright

As for Coby, I LOVE HIM, but you can't escape the logic of trading him, probably next year. Is he a max or near max player? I dunnooooo

We aren't going to find that productive big in the draft I don't think so a trade is required.
MGB8
RealGM
Posts: 18,921
And1: 3,597
Joined: Jul 20, 2001
Location: Philly

Re: Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas 

Post#120 » by MGB8 » Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:49 pm

Agree with Duck, but do want to add one positive caveat.

I don’t think there is any reason to believe that his season long efficiency improvement is not sustainable. In his 2nd season, Giddey put up nearly 17/8/6 per game (19/9/7 per 36). This season he is at 14/8/7 overall but over 17/9/8 per 36. Despite the reduction in scoring, what you have seen is a TS increase from season 2 (.53) to a solid .57 this year, w/ a .55 last year (showing a steady trend).

The split for the last 2 months is higher in counting stats, and also higher in TS, over .62 TS (but just last month down to .61 even though higher overall counting stats).

The point is, I think it is reasonable to expect Giddey to average something like 20/9/8 per 36 on a TS of somewhere from .58 to .61 going forward. That is top 50 ish, and that holds even when accounting that he’d be more 2nd option than first option.

Meaning, while I wouldn’t Max Giddey, I wouldn’t blink at paying him 30 per year. Or even 35.

Return to Chicago Bulls