Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[nomorezorro]

can we not post chatgpt analysis of an instagram story

[sco]

can we not post chatgpt analysis of an instagram story

I know it offends some, but it made me feel better

[Dominator83]

I think there's a balance between not bidding against yourself and still taking care of your players. What Indiana just (reportedly) did with Turner is the opposite of that and what teams should avoid if they're serious about retaining key talent.

I think 20M is a lowball deal, but if Giddey signs for that then great. I still think 25M is fair for both sides and in line with what the market has shown.

Agreed. Though hopefully even in that case, they're able to give him a little more this year , and a little less next year (when we potentially have MAX cap space). AKME needs to make sure they're in position to have 1 max slot available

[meekrab]

Gottlieb is saying he wouldn’t go over 5/100 because we have all the leverage. He got really quiet when they mentioned the QO.
...

He doesn't have to accept the QO he can take a MLE. Dennis freaking Schroder got $15M, Giddey can get a full MLE for $14M. There are 23 non-tax paying teams, non tax payers get a $14M MLE. I would just take the 1 year and hit the next FA as fully unrestricted and with a 10% higher cap and sign for $30M+ long term anywhere outside of Chicago. You make back far more than the $6M difference in just 1 season. Jordan Poole and Jerami Grant made $30M in a much lower salary cap. $30M next offseason in a cap of $165M, these guys were signed for $30M when the cap was $120M.

$20M is too close to $14M you can get anywhere for Giddey to accept. Duncan Robinson got the MLE immediately.

Other teams cannot make a RFA offer sheet that's less than two years, I'm not sure why Josh would take the risk of playing for two years on the MLE if $100M was on the table in Chicago.

[sco]

I'll be optimistic that they're saying. Hey, we need to stay below the tax, but if we can dump Vuc, we'll have a few more $ to offer this season.

[GoBlue72391]

can we not post chatgpt analysis of an instagram story

How about ChatGPT analysis of a ChatGPT analysis of an Instagram story?

[dougthonus]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

[sco]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

Sure, but IMO Josh showed me that he's not a terrible defender and say what you want about his 3pt form, it seems to be working for him. I'll add, that one could also say that the early part of the season numbers were deflated because it takes a few months for guys to get comfortable with a new team.

[Red Larrivee]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

If you're talking about bringing in better players, I'm not sure why that would be considered likely in a more competitive market and Chicago not being a remotely appealing situation. Maybe we'll get a player as good as Giddey or even Coby for that matter.

I don't think the Bulls are in a situation where they have to retain Giddey unconditionally. I just don't think the difference between 20 and 25 million is worth a hard-line at the former figure to lose a player that even has a chance of being 85-90% of the valuable player he was to end the season. If he's looking for much, much more, then that's a completely different story.

[Peelboy]

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

Strategically, I disagree. If Giddey walks, there's not really a similar quality replacement (IMO Kuminga is lower quality than Giddey). So in that circumstance, you're looking at a near-teardown (trade Coby/Ayo along with Vuc/Pat/Collins/Huerter - wouldn't make sense to extend either at higher salaries). Now you have a team with 2 useful hopefully core players - Matas/Noa, and a couple of useful reserves (Tre, Phillips). Basically it's a tank so you're hoping to luck into a high pick, which will again be a pretty young player in the best case. Heading into next offseason it's Matas/Noa/Dybantsa (best case). Is there really a good use for cap space to get upper tier players? Can't trade for them with few assets you'd part with. No one's forcing their way here. You're waiting for one of those 3 to develop, so that's another year or 2.

That's not an argument to overpay Giddey, just that the opening up of $30M in cap room by losing your best player (even if he's not a core star) doesn't make cap room all that usable. Best case is if you can absorb bad deals for picks in a longer-term rebuild (but I didn't interpret "immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere" as meaning that). I'd rather take Giddey at $30M at age 23 and hope you can move him later if needed (when he's more like 25 which would be different than resigning Vuc at 32). The risk is you have a PW situation, but that's substantially mental IMO and Giddey doesn't seem to have that problem.

If you had a solid team around Josh and were freeing up that space, maybe. Then you can try and convince Giannis to push his way to your $30M slot and play with the other guys. But the Bulls are thin enough that absent Giddey that would be playing with Coby/Ayo/Matas and the dream of Noa.

It's a consequence IMO of a failed strategy and failure to adjust on time, meaning they minimized the current draft capital and young talent such that unless they agree to pay market or slightly above (best case IMO), they dig themselves into a worse hole. A worse hole might be the best way out, but IMO there isn't a better option for $30M in this offseason than Giddey, and likely next offseason as well. Which is why a long overpay is bad, a shorter overpay is tenable if not preferred.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

30m is still great value.

I really don't think it is, unless that end of the season run he had is real, and there's no way to know for sure. It's a big risk.

I would classify $30M more as "tolerable" than great value.

It's great value if he gets even better than he was post all star break

[ShouldaPaidBG]

Giddey's defense will always be at least average due to 1. Height and 2. His rebounding. I don't feel like he's a liability.

[waffle]

I think Giddey is better, a more valuable player, than many on this site. I DO think he could be a top 2 player on a good team. HOWEVER, the BULLS, as currently configured, are not a very good team.

He does alot of things very very well. He is young as heck. His shooting is now ok, when before it was pretty bad. His D will ALWAYS be suspect, but he's hardly alone in that

Pay the man. Try to get him a competent big who can catch the ball and make 2' shots. Tre I think is a GREAT fit with him. Find at least 2 wings who can drain it from outside the arc. Hope that Matas progresses and learns to feed on Giddey's creativity.

We need a 5. We need a MONEY wing from 3. Huerter is at least acceptable there. The rest I can live with.....

EDIT - for now

and we suddenly have lots of tradeable contracts.

[dougthonus]

Sure, but IMO Josh showed me that he's not a terrible defender and say what you want about his 3pt form, it seems to be working for him. I'll add, that one could also say that the early part of the season numbers were deflated because it takes a few months for guys to get comfortable with a new team.

FWIW, I completely get why a lot of people want to believe in scenario #1 or scenario #2. I'm just saying on an absolute scale, I don't feel confident enough in either scenario to say one is definitively true.

[greenwing]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

Giddey's defense was average with the Bulls. His defense was reportedly poor with the Thunder but when you are starting for an elite defensive team and your defense is average it's not suprising if your defense looks bad. But for the record, Josh Giddey was 20th in the entire NBA in defensive rebounding last season. And shockingly, Giddey's defensive rating this past season was exactly the same defensive rating (113) as Alex Caruso in his last season as a Chicago Bull. Now no one is going to argue that Giddey is as good defensively as Caruso (he's not), but Giddey is not going to hurt you defensively.

I think the opportunity cost of $30 mil or whatever else you spend it on isn't great if you remove Giddey from the equation because then your next best player is Coby White or Vucevic and then you're banking on Buzelis eventually becoming a star player. Just because you have the cap space doesn't mean you get to use it on what you want. Given the mega deals being handed out to some players right now, even Giddey at $30 mil, while steep, is not an overpay for a 22-year-old who is improving every year and on the verge of averaging a triple-double and plays an important position of need. That type of player is hard to find. At least Giddey is putting up numbers. You could also gamble on a player who hasn't put up numbers (Patrick Williams) and then overpay him in the hopes that he becomes a value deal. But if the player doesn't pan out you've got a whole lot of wasted cap space. But at least in Giddey's situation, if he turns out to be the first 50 game type guy (he won't because he was sharing touches with Zach who had a 26.6% USG) then at least you're gifting a guy a contract who has still produced in the hopes that his production improves as opposed to reward potential only. And unless you have exciting young players on the roster, you're not likely to convince a star to come here for that $30 mil anyway unless you get very lucky in a given offseason. Even then you're not likely to get top talent.

[DuckIII]

The way I see it, the FO has to predict - as Doug divides it - whether the first 50 or last 30 is the most reliable and to what degree. That’s really the question for both Giddey and the FO.

While I recognize some significant factors in the last 20 games of that 30 as some teams were selling their seasons while we clawed for the play in, it’s pretty hard to weigh that anywhere near equal with the massive roster changes, change in style of play, and change in role that all came together at that time.

The unfortunate element of the Caruso trade is this exact quandary. To me, when I weigh the evidence and likelihoods, you have to bet pretty hard towards the last 30 games version.

[samwana]

Whatever contract he gets should be front loaded as much as possible.

[boozapalooza]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

But hasnt Josh already proven that his floor is somewhere in the middle? As a 20 year old 2nd year player he put up 17/8/6 over 76 games. That was while shooting 32% from 3. OKC wouldve hung up the phone if we offered Caruso for him straight up after year 2. His personal life imploded year 3 and his game was affected, and we were able to buy low.

Hes 22 years old and has shown what he can do in this offense when he has the keys. 21/10/9 post all star break. Hes so young and still improving. I think his upside is immense from a stats perspective. I really love what Giddey is capable of doing for us over the next 4-5 years as he continues to improve as a player.

[TheJordanRule]

If playing hardball to that degree causes him to take the QO and become unrestricted a year from now when more teams will have cap space, it's a lot more problematic. Especially given the way that we know AK is trying to build this team.

It's problematic if Josh Giddey's final 30 games are truly representative of what he will do in the future.

If Josh Giddey's first 50 games are representative of what he will do in the future then letting him walk is preferable.

Certainly lots of debate about which of those scenarios is more accurate, and "the truth is in the middle" scenario probably leads me to closer to irrelevant if he walks than problematic depending where in the middle he lands.

Losing one-way players that have significant flaws that are likely to be highly exposed in the playoffs should never be viewed as all that meaningful of a risk. Especially when doing so just opens up 30M in cap room for you, and you will also be under the cap and can immediately reallocate those dollars elsewhere.

If he's the dude he was during the early part of the year, Idk how you say we'd need to just straight up let him walk, brother. Josh could still defend other SFs, and still demonstrate incredible court vision, Doug. TBH I tend to view those scoring bonanzas in the last 30 as outliers. I think we use the first 50 as a bargaining chip and get him at discount. 20 - 25 mil per year would be a deal that's likely to favor us as his game blossoms. He's still very much a young kid headed to his prime.

[dougthonus]

Giddey's defense was average with the Bulls. His defense was reportedly poor with the Thunder but when you are starting for an elite defensive team and your defense is average it's not suprising if your defense looks bad. But for the record, Josh Giddey was 20th in the entire NBA in defensive rebounding last season. And shockingly, Giddey's defensive rating this past season was exactly the same defensive rating (113) as Alex Caruso in his last season as a Chicago Bull. Now no one is going to argue that Giddey is as good defensively as Caruso (he's not), but Giddey is not going to hurt you defensively.

I think the opportunity cost of $30 mil or whatever else you spend it on isn't great if you remove Giddey from the equation because then your next best player is Coby White or Vucevic and then you're banking on Buzelis eventually becoming a star player. Just because you have the cap space doesn't mean you get to use it on what you want. Given the mega deals being handed out to some players right now, even Giddey at $30 mil, while steep, is not an overpay for a 22-year-old who is improving every year and on the verge of averaging a triple-double and plays an important position of need. That type of player is hard to find. At least Giddey is putting up numbers. You could also gamble on a player who hasn't put up numbers (Patrick Williams) and then overpay him in the hopes that he becomes a value deal. But if the player doesn't pan out you've got a whole lot of wasted cap space. But at least in Giddey's situation, if he turns out to be the first 50 game type guy (he won't because he was sharing touches with Zach who had a 26.6% USG) then at least you're gifting a guy a contract who has still produced in the hopes that his production improves as opposed to reward potential only. And unless you have exciting young players on the roster, you're not likely to convince a star to come here for that $30 mil anyway unless you get very lucky in a given offseason. Even then you're not likely to get top talent.

If Giddey is lousy, and I think there is a much higher chance of that than most people, then you are gifted the chance of not pissing away the next four years building around a lousy player that has specific weaknesses that make it a massive pain in the ass to build your roster around.

FWIW, I would view someone like Vuc lousy his whole career. He made all-star games and was still lousy. The problem is because he has a crap ton of empty stats and his team never won, people just always looked at it as "he just didn't have enough talent around him" but the reality is that he is also not a winning player, because more talent around him devalues the things he's actually doing "well" and then exacerbates his weaknesses more. Ie, more scorers around Vuc doesn't make him score more efficiently, it just means he should shoot and touch the ball less, and then the fact that your center is a god awful defender and his low efficiency volume scoring (which was his plus trait you thought would get better) is less valuable rather than more valuable.

I think Giddey is more likely than not built in this mold. The swing skill is whether he can consistently generate high efficiency offense as the focal point while teams are gunning for him with good defenders or whether he can become a valuable off the ball player, so that if we have a high efficiency focal point in some other player that Giddey reduces the pressure on them instead of having his weaknesses exacerbated by being a guy everyone ignores without the ball in his hand.

There were problems with last year's team, but with Zach, he became the guy whose weaknesses were exacerbated, and if we get a better, superstar version of Zach that takes the ball all the time, I'm not sure how that isn't the case with that guy too without Giddey making very meaningful improvements that I find unlikely watching him.

Granted, he could fix the shooting problems, and some might look at his percentages and say he already has, but I don't believe it yet. I'm not stating this as a fact though, time will tell. I'm willing to gamble on him, but I think the gamble is bigger than most other posters.