Josh Giddey contract upside / risk matrix

[coldfish]

Post all star break:

19 games
50%fg
46%3p
81%ft
21.2p
10.7r
9.3a
0.8b
1.5s
https://www.espn.com/nba/player/splits/_/id/4871145/josh-giddey

That's getting into max contract territory, regardless of defense. If you think that Giddey is worth like $25m per year or less, you have to be absolutely convinced this was an aberration.

I hated the Pat contract but let's be honest, I have never been a PW fan. I hope the Bulls don't overreact to that bad contract and force Giddey into the QO. Get him on a value contract but for gosh sakes, lock him up.

[dougthonus]

Post all star break:

19 games
50%fg
46%3p
81%ft
21.2p
10.7r
9.3a
0.8b
1.5s
https://www.espn.com/nba/player/splits/_/id/4871145/josh-giddey

That's getting into max contract territory, regardless of defense. If you think that Giddey is worth like $25m per year or less, you have to be absolutely convinced this was an aberration.

I hated the Pat contract but let's be honest, I have never been a PW fan. I hope the Bulls don't overreact to that bad contract and force Giddey into the QO. Get him on a value contract but for gosh sakes, lock him up.

Watching him, in many ways, this absolutely felt like an aberration.

I feel like my opinion in Giddey is a giant pendulum swinging back and forth depending on what mood I am in that day. There are times where I'm like "if he can just fix his shot, he could be Luka, and even if not he does a ton" and there are times where I think "this dude is never going to be a positive player on a good team because the second you take the ball out of his hands and give it to a star, all of his strengths disappear and all of his weaknesses are magnified".

I think it's more likely he's a Vuc or DeRozan, a guy that raises the floor, but kills your ceiling.

[Chicagoat]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

[Red Larrivee]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

Since when? Post ASB is traditionally when teams play their best basketball. There's no urgency in the beginning of the season. Doesn't mean there can't be fluke runs, but there are more teams playing for something than not post ASB.

[coldfish]

Post all star break:

19 games
50%fg
46%3p
81%ft
21.2p
10.7r
9.3a
0.8b
1.5s
https://www.espn.com/nba/player/splits/_/id/4871145/josh-giddey

That's getting into max contract territory, regardless of defense. If you think that Giddey is worth like $25m per year or less, you have to be absolutely convinced this was an aberration.

I hated the Pat contract but let's be honest, I have never been a PW fan. I hope the Bulls don't overreact to that bad contract and force Giddey into the QO. Get him on a value contract but for gosh sakes, lock him up.

Watching him, in many ways, this absolutely felt like an aberration.

I feel like my opinion in Giddey is a giant pendulum swinging back and forth depending on what mood I am in that day. There are times where I'm like "if he can just fix his shot, he could be Luka, and even if not he does a ton" and there are times where I think "this dude is never going to be a positive player on a good team because the second you take the ball out of his hands and give it to a star, all of his strengths disappear and all of his weaknesses are magnified".

I think it's more likely he's a Vuc or DeRozan, a guy that raises the floor, but kills your ceiling.

Good analysis.

Players like this are really hard to handle. IMO, the Bulls are in no position to walk away from assets and I have no faith whatsoever that open capspace would yield players that are truly championship caliber. I think you have to try your ass off to retain Giddey at a value contract and then be open minded to moving him.

Coby is another good example of this. The Bulls should really be looking at moving him. They got him on the value deal. Just convert the asset. Don't let him walk or give him a huge extension.

[dougthonus]

Good analysis.

Players like this are really hard to handle. IMO, the Bulls are in no position to walk away from assets and I have no faith whatsoever that open capspace would yield players that are truly championship caliber. I think you have to try your ass off to retain Giddey at a value contract and then be open minded to moving him.

Coby is another good example of this. The Bulls should really be looking at moving him. They got him on the value deal. Just convert the asset. Don't let him walk or give him a huge extension.

Yeah, I was pushing the trade Coby/Ayo agenda since last summer because it was clear there was a market arbitrage opportunity. To some team in a bad cap situation, both guys are super valuable for two years, for us, while we aren't likely to win anything, we can't take advantage of that cheap contract and instead will be forced to let them walk for nothing or pay them market value in a year we are 100M under the cap and have the flexibility to add any market value guys we want (including these guys if we wanted them back).

Like you could have literally moved both guys for two picks, said "we love you and would welcome you back in two years, but we want you to go to a winning team where you can be utilized and collect assets to have a better team, hopefully with you on it later" and left the door open to have them on the exact same contract except with four extra 1st round picks.

Even if you don't get them back, once they are paid market value, your opportunity cost is simply having different market value players.

This is the type of market arbitrage you really need to recognize as a GM, but we have really poor situational awareness.

[MrSparkle]

I still primarily think Giddey’s biggest risk is the injury risk. His athleticism is way below NBA standards. When a 22yo guy moves like the 40yo at the Y, and he’s supposed to be a primary ballhandler, you have to consider serious anomalies for him to have a long successful career (and sure- they happened with Jokic, Nash, Curry - all “unathletic” guys… with amazing 3P touch and who put incredible work into their conditioning and ankle/knee health).

He has to work 2x harder to get to the rim. Just watch that play in the Olympics where he sprained the ankle. This said, I’ve said since the beginning he’s an anomaly star candidate. His IQ and passing is elite. Lonzo, Kidd, Rubio - BB vision you can’t teach, comes from sleeping with a basketball in your hand in your formative years.

But the risk is as high as the reward. I think short-term security (non-guaranteed 3/4y or team option, incentives, or front-loaded salary) is the ticket.

$120m/4 deal with club option and ASG/All-NBA rewards (maybe up to 140) would be ok with me, especially if front-loaded. That gets the $30M salary mark.

[Chi town]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

Since when? Post ASB is traditionally when teams play their best basketball. There's no urgency in the beginning of the season. Doesn't mean there can't be fluke runs, but there are more teams playing for something than not post ASB.

Yes and no.

Playoff teams are going hard for seeding.

Tank teams are atrocious. Look at the team the Sixers were fielding. Same for Wiz and Hornets.

I’d lean more towards not as good comp.

[Red Larrivee]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

Since when? Post ASB is traditionally when teams play their best basketball. There's no urgency in the beginning of the season. Doesn't mean there can't be fluke runs, but there are more teams playing for something than not post ASB.

Yes and no.

Playoff teams are going hard for seeding.

Tank teams are atrocious. Look at the team the Sixers were fielding. Same for Wiz and Hornets.

I’d lean more towards not as good comp.

Those teams are bad and tanking all year. The Sixers are different because injuries happened gradually throughout the year, but bad teams don't start being bad after the all-star break. But good and average teams do play harder.

[dougthonus]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

Since when? Post ASB is traditionally when teams play their best basketball. There's no urgency in the beginning of the season. Doesn't mean there can't be fluke runs, but there are more teams playing for something than not post ASB.

Here's the game log:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/giddejo01/gamelog/2025

Say his good stretch started at 2/20, where he's pretty consistent after that.

Great teams: (3)
OKC
Houston
Cleveland

Good teams: (6)
New York
Lakers x2
Indy
Orlando
Clippers

At least they were trying but lousy teams (5)
Indy (without Haliburton)
Denver (without Jokic)
Miami x2
Sacramento

Probably not trying (12)
Utah
Brooklyn
Phoenix x2
Philly x2
Portland
Toronto x2
Charlotte
Dallas
Miami (finale, everyone was locked in)

Would say that makes it about 50/50 of those games against teams putting up real effort, and only 7 games against good or better teams.

If you were to go back three games earlier, you have two games where he played against Detroit and one against GS where he was badly in all three, but still in the post LaVine era, so the above set is the most favorable date you could pick for Giddey.

What you make of the above is up to you. I don't think it's unfair to say his run largely went against lousy teams, but he did play well in 6 of the 7 games against good or better teams.

[Red Larrivee]

Jalen Green got paid because it looked like he was finally putting things post all star break. But teams don't put in the same effort post all star break.

I just don't think Giddey is worth 30m a year or even 25m a year. I really don't want another LaVine situation.

Since when? Post ASB is traditionally when teams play their best basketball. There's no urgency in the beginning of the season. Doesn't mean there can't be fluke runs, but there are more teams playing for something than not post ASB.

Here's the game log:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/giddejo01/gamelog/2025

Say his good stretch started at 2/20, where he's pretty consistent after that.

Great teams: (1)
OKC

Good teams: (6)
New York
Lakers x2
Indy
Orlando
Clippers

At least they were trying but lousy teams (3)
Indy (without Haliburton)
Denver (without Jokic)
Miami

Probably not trying (10)
Phoenix x2
Philly
Portland
Toronto x2
Charlotte
Dallas
Miami (finale, everyone was locked in)

Would say that makes it about 50/50 of those games against teams putting up real effort, and only 7 games against good or better teams.

If you were to go back three games earlier, you have two games where he played against Detroit and one against GS where he was badly in all three, but still in the post LaVine era, so the above set is the most favorable date you could pick for Giddey.

What you make of the above is up to you. I don't think it's unfair to say his run largely went against lousy teams, but he did play well in 6 of the 7 games against good or better teams.

It struck me as a typical NBA schedule: Good teams, good teams resting stars, middling teams and tanking teams. Obviously they've played tougher stretches, but the slate never came across as something so clearly favorable to the Bulls that everything happened was expected to happen. After the Bulls traded Zach, they were underdogs in 23 of the remaining 32 games. And in the 25 games they went 17-8, they were underdogs in 15 of them. It just doesn't add up.

On top of it, the Bulls are playing with essentially a new team after dealing their leading scorer for 3 players now in their rotation and injuries to Ayo and Ball. They definitely played more beatable teams, but it was never a stretch I thought they would play at a 56 win pace on.

Whatever the case, I don't think you need to sign him unconditionally. But if there's any chance that he's largely the player we saw after the trade, we need to get him back at a number that works for everyone.

[dougthonus]

It struck me as a typical NBA schedule: Good teams, good teams resting stars, middling teams and tanking teams.

FWIW, I had missed 6 games, updated the post above, but over those 26 games:
3 against great teams
7 against good teams
5 against lousy but trying teams
12 against teams trying to lose

That's not a typical schedule, that's a much easier than normal schedule for that stretch, at the beginning of the season, teams are also rarely actively tanking, so those bad teams are much worse at the end of the season than at the beginning of the season.

Obviously they've played tougher stretches, but the slate never came across as something so clearly favorable to the Bulls that everything happened was expected to happen. After the Bulls traded Zach, they were underdogs in 23 of the remaining 32 games. And in the 25 games they went 17-8, they were underdogs in 15 of them. It just doesn't add up.

Well you add 6 games prior to Giddey breaking out in your sample set, the Bulls were underdogs in all 6 of those game. At that point, the Bulls also looked really terrible and looked like a team that would also be tanking so for awhile oddsmakers had us as losing a lot of those games to other tanking teams.

I don't think this is a meaningful counterpoint to the strength of schedule argument. The schedule WAS much weaker than normal, and teams at the end of season that are bad do actively tank in ways they frequently aren't at the beginning.

On top of it, the Bulls are playing with essentially a new team after dealing their leading scorer for 3 players now in their rotation and injuries to Ayo and Ball. They definitely played more beatable teams, but it was never a stretch I thought they would play at a 56 win pace on.

Certainly valid as a point, but it's unrelated to this argument of whether he played well primarily against bad teams or not.

Whatever the case, I don't think you need to sign him unconditionally. But if there's any chance that he's largely the player we saw after the trade, we need to get him back at a number that works for everyone.

Relative to what our FO is going to do, I agree, getting Giddey back is pretty important. A different FO probably would not have chosen to make him such a center piece, and I probably would prefer that FO, but this is where we are. However long the shot at Giddey becoming a star is, it's probably better than us rebuilding without him given that we refuse to trade for long term / high risk / high reward assets.

[Am2626]

Post all star break:

19 games
50%fg
46%3p
81%ft
21.2p
10.7r
9.3a
0.8b
1.5s
https://www.espn.com/nba/player/splits/_/id/4871145/josh-giddey

That's getting into max contract territory, regardless of defense. If you think that Giddey is worth like $25m per year or less, you have to be absolutely convinced this was an aberration.

I hated the Pat contract but let's be honest, I have never been a PW fan. I hope the Bulls don't overreact to that bad contract and force Giddey into the QO. Get him on a value contract but for gosh sakes, lock him up.

Those numbers were against many teams that were in tank mode and were not competing at the same level the Bulls were. I would like to hope that this is who Giddey now is but until he can show this in the first half of next season we aren’t going to know. The Bulls should absolutely make sure he is on the team next year but they have the leverage due to the market and should be able to get him at a better value.

[Red Larrivee]

It struck me as a typical NBA schedule: Good teams, good teams resting stars, middling teams and tanking teams.

FWIW, I had missed 6 games, updated the post above, but over those 26 games:
3 against great teams
7 against good teams
5 against lousy but trying teams
12 against teams trying to lose

That's not a typical schedule, that's a much easier than normal schedule for that stretch, at the beginning of the season, teams are also rarely actively tanking, so those bad teams are much worse at the end of the season than at the beginning of the season.

Teams may not be tanking as aggressively, but they are still awful at the beginning of the season. Washington started 3-18, Utah started 4-17, Charlotte started 6-16, and New Orleans started 4-18. There are plenty of easy wins available at any point in the season.

I'm just failing to see how a schedule where you play 10 teams who are at least good, 5 teams who are competitive but missing stars, and 12 bad teams is a unique and heavily favorable to a team that's been extremely mediocre otherwise. I don't see it as a meaningful boost to what Giddey did, especially considering he showed up against the best parts of that schedule.

[dougthonus]

I'm just failing to see how a schedule where you play 10 teams who are at least good, 5 teams who are competitive but missing stars, and 12 bad teams is a unique and heavily favorable to a team that's been extremely mediocre otherwise. I don't see it as a meaningful boost to what Giddey did, especially considering he showed up against the best parts of that schedule.

I think there are two separate but related points:
1: Was the schedule much easier than expected - Yes, I think this is true.

2: Did this make a meaningful difference in Giddey's performance - I think if I were to try to equate the effect, to me the best way to think about it is like it shrinks the impact of the sample size a bit, but doesn't remove the achievements.

(ie, I'd view the effective sample size as closer to 22 games than 26 if I wanted to try and think of schedule impact in a practical way).

[jnrjr79]

I'm just failing to see how a schedule where you play 10 teams who are at least good, 5 teams who are competitive but missing stars, and 12 bad teams is a unique and heavily favorable to a team that's been extremely mediocre otherwise. I don't see it as a meaningful boost to what Giddey did, especially considering he showed up against the best parts of that schedule.

Without trying to go into a super deep analysis on it, on the surface level it looks mathematically like by far the easiest stretch of the season, and if you add in the qualitative stuff around effort / roster make up, I'd say it was significantly easier. If you disagree, fair enough, but I think you would be in a minority there.

How big a factor you want to make the schedule is maybe a different conversation, but it was much easier than a typical stretch and was most definitely not within the normal range.

I’m too lazy to do it right now, but I wonder if a useful thing would be to compare his numbers during this stretch by good opponents vs bad opponents. That might be more useful in terms of thinking about whether this stretch was a mirage than just concluding “the schedule was weak, so it doesn’t count.”

[dougthonus]

I’m too lazy to do it right now, but I wonder if a useful thing would be to compare his numbers during this stretch by good opponents vs bad opponents. That might be more useful in terms of thinking about whether this stretch was a mirage than just concluding “the schedule was weak, so it doesn’t count.”

He was mostly universally good against all opponents.

Edited my post, but I think my thought is the schedule doesn't remove his accomplishments, it just maybe shrinks my confidence in the sample size about 10-15%, so adds more variance/risk.

[jnrjr79]

I’m too lazy to do it right now, but I wonder if a useful thing would be to compare his numbers during this stretch by good opponents vs bad opponents. That might be more useful in terms of thinking about whether this stretch was a mirage than just concluding “the schedule was weak, so it doesn’t count.”

He was mostly universally good against all opponents.

It’s obviously a small sample size, but I suppose encouraging he remained productive regardless of opponent strength rather than just bumslaying.

[Ben]

I’m too lazy to do it right now, but I wonder if a useful thing would be to compare his numbers during this stretch by good opponents vs bad opponents. That might be more useful in terms of thinking about whether this stretch was a mirage than just concluding “the schedule was weak, so it doesn’t count.”

He was mostly universally good against all opponents.

Edited my post, but I think my thought is the schedule doesn't remove his accomplishments, it just maybe shrinks my confidence in the sample size about 10-15%, so adds more variance/risk.

The size of the sample is what has to give everyone pause. Post-ASG is like 27% of his season... one season... and that's really the basis on which Giddy and his reps are insisting he be valued.

Any smart team should value him on his entire body of work, especially since it's been compressed into 4 seasons. It's all fairly recent. Career TS% of 53.5% (below average for his positions), PER of 16.4% (above average), overall a better-than-average player (even as a very young guy) but not vastly better than average-- a guy who absolutely has not been an elite 3P shooter (or even an average 3p shooter) for the bulk of his minutes. Not a good defender, not a great off-ball player yet, but good at a lot of other things.

For most of my fandom years, that would not have translated into anything remotely like $30M/year in present-day numbers. Is he good enough to be the 2nd-best or 3rd-best player on a championship team? (Myles Turner just signed for $20.5M/year as the best available FA, albeit at a different position; D'Angelo Russell signed for under $6M/year, and he's supposed to be in his physical prime and has put up numbers not way off from Giddey's over a much longer period of time.) I have strong doubts; maybe some of you differ. If he's not that, then what are the team's plans for him and his contract supposed to be if/when we get a shot at a true max player who can lead the team?

Just trying to lay out the kinds of things that a team should be thinking about, as you (Doug) have been doing with your arbitrage analyses.

[jnrjr79]

I’m too lazy to do it right now, but I wonder if a useful thing would be to compare his numbers during this stretch by good opponents vs bad opponents. That might be more useful in terms of thinking about whether this stretch was a mirage than just concluding “the schedule was weak, so it doesn’t count.”

He was mostly universally good against all opponents.

Edited my post, but I think my thought is the schedule doesn't remove his accomplishments, it just maybe shrinks my confidence in the sample size about 10-15%, so adds more variance/risk.

The size of the sample is what has to give everyone pause. Post-ASG is like 27% of his season... one season... and that's really the basis on which Giddy and his reps are insisting he be valued.

Any smart team should value him on his entire body of work, especially since it's been compressed into 4 seasons. It's all fairly recent. Career TS% of 53.5% (below average for his positions), PER of 16.4% (above average), overall a better-than-average player (even as a very young guy) but not vastly better than average-- a guy who absolutely has not been an elite 3P shooter (or even an average 3p shooter) for the bulk of his minutes. Not a good defender, not a great off-ball player yet, but good at a lot of other things.

For most of my fandom years, that would not have translated into anything remotely like $30M/year in present-day numbers. Is he good enough to be the 2nd-best or 3rd-best player on a championship team? (Myles Turner just signed for $20.5M/year as the best available FA, albeit at a different position; D'Angelo Russell signed for under $6M/year, and he's supposed to be in his physical prime and has put up numbers not way off from Giddey's over a much longer period of time.) I have strong doubts; maybe some of you differ. If he's not that, then what are the team's plans for him and his contract supposed to be if/when we get a shot at a true max player who can lead the team?

Just trying to lay out the kinds of things that a team should be thinking about, as you (Doug) have been doing with your arbitrage analyses.

FWIW, ESPN had Giddey as the #1 free agent, ahead of Turner, to my recollection.