Moderators: HomoSapien, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man
HomoSapien wrote:?s=46&t=xOB22xGd85UcfRRu6zUm4w
Stratmaster wrote:Where did I say anything about paying every player on the roster 20% more than he is worth. That is a complete strawman. We are talking about 1 player. You have players in different phases of their contracts. Coby White is making about 8 mil less than he is worth this coming season. Many would say it is more like 13 million. But not because they took advantage of him.
There is little doubt in my mind Giddey could command 30 mil based on his performance last season if there were teams with the money to pay it. The question is do you take advantage of the market situation to underpay him.
There is only 1 overpaid player on the Bulls payroll right now. Patrick Williams.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Where did I say anything about paying every player on the roster 20% more than he is worth. That is a complete strawman. We are talking about 1 player. You have players in different phases of their contracts. Coby White is making about 8 mil less than he is worth this coming season. Many would say it is more like 13 million. But not because they took advantage of him.
If you think Giddey is worth 25M, then paying him 25M is not taking advantage of him. If you are willing to pay a guy 20% more than you think he is worth because if he becomes a bad contract it won't matter (literally the argument you made) then why would that argument apply only to Giddey?
Sure paying one guy 20% more than you think he's worth only matters a little bit, and if you are in extenuating circumstances like you have to match an offer sheet or they're going to leave, you can debate the merits. That's literally the exact opposite of the case here. If you're willing to pay a guy 20% more when you literally hold all the cards, what are you going to do when you hold no cards?There is little doubt in my mind Giddey could command 30 mil based on his performance last season if there were teams with the money to pay it. The question is do you take advantage of the market situation to underpay him.
That's different than what you said or what I replied to. I even said in my statement, if you think he's worth 30M that is different than saying I think hes' worth 25M but I'll pay him 30M anyway because 5M won't matter.There is only 1 overpaid player on the Bulls payroll right now. Patrick Williams.
Well for sure there is also Vuc. Both overpaid for the same reason you just suggested, lazy negotiation.
Stratmaster wrote:Just stop. Now it seems like you are purposely playing dumb. You might decide to pay Giddey a few mil more to keep him because it could end up being a home run, and the downside of an extra 5 million is negligible. Low risk, high reward. You don't pay Julian Phillips, Dalen Terry or Coby more... or pretty much anyone else on the roster, because there is no home run ceiling there. It may be low impact with the current state of the team but there is no reward.
Vuc is not overpaid.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Just stop. Now it seems like you are purposely playing dumb. You might decide to pay Giddey a few mil more to keep him because it could end up being a home run, and the downside of an extra 5 million is negligible. Low risk, high reward. You don't pay Julian Phillips, Dalen Terry or Coby more... or pretty much anyone else on the roster, because there is no home run ceiling there. It may be low impact with the current state of the team but there is no reward.
You just described a different way of saying you think Giddey is really worth more and you're paying him what he is worth. I think that's fine. Your value of his worth should include whatever math you want to do that accounts for both his upside and downside.
For the Bulls the money always matters. In a short period of time, this team will be up against the luxury tax after having gone "all in" on whatever its plan is. If you were lazy in negotiations and just threw around an extra 5M even when you didn't need to and did so above what your calculations of a players value was (so beyond what you think is fair for the player), then you will just have less money to use on other players.
And you are going to have infinitely less leverage with Coby next year, given he will be a UFA, so with him, you actually have a reason to pay him $5M more because you are forced to proactively outbid the dumbest guy in an open market. If you were scared of losing someone, you better save that money for Coby. Unless of course you just don't want Coby (in which case you'd better trade him this year).Vuc is not overpaid.
I think you are in a small group of people that believe that.
Stratmaster wrote:Coby is a 6 year veteran who you know exactly what you are going to get from him. Totally different situation. Giddey you are making a bet on what you believe he can do for your franchise going forward.
The talk right now is that the 2 sides are at a stalemate and talks are "less than amicable". I don't know how accurate that is. It's just self appointed podsters and internet "reporters" saying it. But if that is true they are pissing off the one guy on the team that they believe has value to the future (not counting rookie contracts). Giddey started at 5 years 30 mil AAV. You would expect he will take a couple million less so the whole discussion may be moot. If he insists on 30 mil I guess you could force him to take the QO. My bet is if you do that you end up paying him more next season. There is no other apparent option for playing the point and running the system the org (stupidly) is focused on running. After turning the team over to him on court for a season he would have to be a pretty big flop to not be in a position where you have to pay him 30 mil or more the following season to keep him. Or you just wasted a full season of the retool/reorg or whatever you want to call it.
Stratmaster wrote:dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Just stop. Now it seems like you are purposely playing dumb. You might decide to pay Giddey a few mil more to keep him because it could end up being a home run, and the downside of an extra 5 million is negligible. Low risk, high reward. You don't pay Julian Phillips, Dalen Terry or Coby more... or pretty much anyone else on the roster, because there is no home run ceiling there. It may be low impact with the current state of the team but there is no reward.
You just described a different way of saying you think Giddey is really worth more and you're paying him what he is worth. I think that's fine. Your value of his worth should include whatever math you want to do that accounts for both his upside and downside.
For the Bulls the money always matters. In a short period of time, this team will be up against the luxury tax after having gone "all in" on whatever its plan is. If you were lazy in negotiations and just threw around an extra 5M even when you didn't need to and did so above what your calculations of a players value was (so beyond what you think is fair for the player), then you will just have less money to use on other players.
And you are going to have infinitely less leverage with Coby next year, given he will be a UFA, so with him, you actually have a reason to pay him $5M more because you are forced to proactively outbid the dumbest guy in an open market. If you were scared of losing someone, you better save that money for Coby. Unless of course you just don't want Coby (in which case you'd better trade him this year).Vuc is not overpaid.
I think you are in a small group of people that believe that.
Coby is a 6 year veteran who you know exactly what you are going to get from him. Totally different situation. Giddey you are making a bet on what you believe he can do for your franchise going forward.
The talk right now is that the 2 sides are at a stalemate and talks are "less than amicable". I don't know how accurate that is. It's just self appointed podsters and internet "reporters" saying it. But if that is true they are pissing off the one guy on the team that they believe has value to the future (not counting rookie contracts). Giddey started at 5 years 30 mil AAV. You would expect he will take a couple million less so the whole discussion may be moot. If he insists on 30 mil I guess you could force him to take the QO. My bet is if you do that you end up paying him more next season. There is no other apparent option for playing the point and running the system the org (stupidly) is focused on running. After turning the team over to him on court for a season he would have to be a pretty big flop to not be in a position where you have to pay him 30 mil or more the following season to keep him. Or you just wasted a full season of the retool/reorg or whatever you want to call it.
Infinity2152 wrote:Honestly, the danger of having to pay him more next year is understated, imo. Has anyone who played on the QO actually returned to the same team that wouldn't pay them? Not speaking for him, but personally I'd probably tax that team more than anybody else for my services after they made me risk everything to get here. If not just leave that team entirely. Denzel Valentine took it for 4 mill in 2020, then signed a 2yr contract for cheap with Cavs the next year. Bulls might have matched that 2yr/$4 mill contract if given the chance.
Quentin Grimes is reportedly considering playing on the QO right now. Most of the top RFA's not only haven't been re-signed, but haven't received offers. The ones that have re-signed signed with their own teams, and they paid them. Naz Reid got 5yrs/$125 mill to come off the bench. People are saying he was defensively played off the court in the Conference Finals. Pacers lost Myles Turner over a 2-3 mill/yr difference, I think. Pacers president said they would absolutely have continued to negotiate, it was taken out of their hands as a UFA.
dougthonus wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:Honestly, the danger of having to pay him more next year is understated, imo. Has anyone who played on the QO actually returned to the same team that wouldn't pay them? Not speaking for him, but personally I'd probably tax that team more than anybody else for my services after they made me risk everything to get here. If not just leave that team entirely. Denzel Valentine took it for 4 mill in 2020, then signed a 2yr contract for cheap with Cavs the next year. Bulls might have matched that 2yr/$4 mill contract if given the chance.
Almost no one takes the QO, but of the guys that do, almost no one returns to their team. Some guys win on it, some guys lose, the most anyone has ever gained on the QO route was Miles Bridges (24M) (who also returned to his team). The most anyone has lost is Nerlons Noel (80M+).
Ignoring our disagreement on Giddey's value, I'd assume if he takes the QO that he won't be back. You can't hardball him into a point where he feels forced to take it and then expect to negotiate next year in an open market when he's a UFA and mad at you for putting him through that.
If you want him back, I think you have to treat him within reason. I think a deal gets done at 27-28M AAV in the end.Quentin Grimes is reportedly considering playing on the QO right now. Most of the top RFA's not only haven't been re-signed, but haven't received offers. The ones that have re-signed signed with their own teams, and they paid them. Naz Reid got 5yrs/$125 mill to come off the bench. People are saying he was defensively played off the court in the Conference Finals. Pacers lost Myles Turner over a 2-3 mill/yr difference, I think. Pacers president said they would absolutely have continued to negotiate, it was taken out of their hands as a UFA.
I'm not that familiar with Grimes negotiation (like what Philly is offering vs what he thinks he's worth), but the three RFAs that haven't signed that I'm aware of are:
Giddey - Both sides want a reunion but disagree on price, and Giddey is a difficult to price player. There really hasn't been any numbers (at least that I've seen) about where both sides are. We assume Giddey is at 30M based on loose reports. We've heard there is a large gulf between them, so I think we infer the Bulls are in low 20s. I'm not sure how accurate those reports are.
Kuminga - Doesn't seem like either side really wants a reunion but neither side is really sure what to do about it, and the hang up seems way more to be on Kuminga's end on price, because GS seems willing to S&T him if he can find a suiter, but really hasn't been much noise around any teams wanting him.
Grimes - No idea really what's going on there, presume both sides want a reunion and disagree on price but don't know the particulars to either side.
Infinity2152 wrote:Think we're coming to an agreement in some places. They have to treat him within reason is probably the main goal. Don't think there's any doubt they want him as a long-term piece.
Those are three of the big names, Cam Thomas is another. Lot of lower level RFA's not getting offers either. Players don't often take the QO, but there aren't often seasons where no teams can make offers, either. And the next season a top of available cap space is projected to be available. Don't think we should apply "usual" to an unusual situation. The risk/reward is not the same when weighing markets.
dougthonus wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:Think we're coming to an agreement in some places. They have to treat him within reason is probably the main goal. Don't think there's any doubt they want him as a long-term piece.
Those are three of the big names, Cam Thomas is another. Lot of lower level RFA's not getting offers either. Players don't often take the QO, but there aren't often seasons where no teams can make offers, either. And the next season a top of available cap space is projected to be available. Don't think we should apply "usual" to an unusual situation. The risk/reward is not the same when weighing markets.
I agree it is an unusual market.
I would guess that Kuminga has a high chance to take the QO. He seems headstrong on his value, and the Warriors seem willing to move him, and no one seems to want to meet it. He is not a guy the Warriors like, so his odds of getting a chance to really prove himself on the QO when the Warriors aren't committed feels low.
I'd imagine that Grimes and Thomas either reach agreements or get S&T'd. The Nets either like Thomas and will find a way to keep him, or they'll move him now and look to continue to accumulate assets, same with the 76ers and Grimes.
Bulls and Giddey will get this done. Both sides want this done, both sides want each other, they're going to figure it out, but not until the pressure of a deadline looms.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Coby is a 6 year veteran who you know exactly what you are going to get from him. Totally different situation. Giddey you are making a bet on what you believe he can do for your franchise going forward.
The talk right now is that the 2 sides are at a stalemate and talks are "less than amicable". I don't know how accurate that is. It's just self appointed podsters and internet "reporters" saying it. But if that is true they are pissing off the one guy on the team that they believe has value to the future (not counting rookie contracts). Giddey started at 5 years 30 mil AAV. You would expect he will take a couple million less so the whole discussion may be moot. If he insists on 30 mil I guess you could force him to take the QO. My bet is if you do that you end up paying him more next season. There is no other apparent option for playing the point and running the system the org (stupidly) is focused on running. After turning the team over to him on court for a season he would have to be a pretty big flop to not be in a position where you have to pay him 30 mil or more the following season to keep him. Or you just wasted a full season of the retool/reorg or whatever you want to call it.
I'd be shocked under any scenario a deal isn't ultimately done. I think it will come at around 27-28M, in my chart, I view this as around the max pain point for both sides.
Maybe a way to bridge the gap between what we are saying here is that there are probably some semantic differences:
Total value = Current on court value + projected potential + value of lack of alternatives + (maybe a few other categories i didn't explicitly mention here)
You might define total value in a number of ways, and I'm not trying to be a stickler about what has to go in there or define exactly what that number is, but if you do settle on a number, you should then remain disciplined to it that is all.
The Bulls have tremendous guard depth between Coby, Ayo, Huerter, and Jones already. They have a number of ways they could pivot, and while we may be focused on the "Giddey way" right now, none of the decisions we've made enforce that we continue down that path. Noa and Matas can fit next to anyone. If Matas is going to become a star, he'll need more on ball reps too. I don't see any reason to feel boxed in. The team as constructed doesn't have particularly high upside and could be rebuilt into a very different team with similar upside next summer or the summer afterwards anyway.
Infinity2152 wrote:I agree, as long as the negotiations don't become too contentious, he'll be back. Pacers thought Turner was coming back too. Ben Gordon left for a few more bucks to a far worse team because he felt disrespected, reportedly. Ignoring player's egos and how they feel is dangerous. What seems to make sense can go out of the window. Could point out a ton of contracts signed and trades demanded by player's whose egos were bruised.
dougthonus wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:I agree, as long as the negotiations don't become too contentious, he'll be back. Pacers thought Turner was coming back too. Ben Gordon left for a few more bucks to a far worse team because he felt disrespected, reportedly. Ignoring player's egos and how they feel is dangerous. What seems to make sense can go out of the window. Could point out a ton of contracts signed and trades demanded by player's whose egos were bruised.
I don't think there is much of a worry about it getting too contentious that he won't come to the negotiating table. It may get to a point where we simply can't agree on a price, and he takes the QO, then we will have lost him.
However, I don't think it will get to a spot where he won't negotiate with us this year.
I don't think either of those scenarios you mentioned are really relevant here. The Bulls simply didn't want Gordon back. They didn't even place a call to him after he was a UFA even though he was insane in the playoffs that year. I actually talked to Gar Forman about it the summer before he took the QO, and Forman more or less told me directly that he didn't want Gordon back, saying he didn't fit next to Derrick Rose.
The Pacers were in a weird spot with Turner, they're a tax avoidant team, and their next season is DOA. This move put them in the tax and they have other guys they're going to need to extent, and they probably don't really believe their own chances of success to be honest. I didn't follow it closely, but I thought I read the Pacers had the chance to get Turner after the Milwaukee convo but declined, but that scenario isn't really relevant to us, as Giddey is an RFA not a UFA.
This isn't to say we can't piss Giddey off enough that he will just take the QO, but I don't think we will piss him off so much that he wouldn't come back to the negotiating table.
Infinity2152 wrote:All I'm saying is, there's no real way to know right now how Giddey is taking this. At least for me, I don't have access that info. The examples were to point out how players make emotional decisions, not how much the team wanted them back. I believe the Bulls offered Gordon a pretty big contract, not much less than what he accepted from Detroit.When he was introduced as the team's GM on May 21, Forman spoke about Gordon.
"We like Ben," Forman said at the time. "He's our kind of guy. He's got great makeup and character, a great work ethic. Our goal is to re-sign Ben Gordon. In the conversations we've had, I think Ben wants to stay here in Chicago." Hear what you're saying, but that was definitely not his public stance that they didn't want to re-sign him. Losing Gordon didn't hurt us nearly as much as losing Giddey would, however.
Gordon reportedly rejected $50 million offers from the Bulls the last two summers.
dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Coby is a 6 year veteran who you know exactly what you are going to get from him. Totally different situation. Giddey you are making a bet on what you believe he can do for your franchise going forward.
The talk right now is that the 2 sides are at a stalemate and talks are "less than amicable". I don't know how accurate that is. It's just self appointed podsters and internet "reporters" saying it. But if that is true they are pissing off the one guy on the team that they believe has value to the future (not counting rookie contracts). Giddey started at 5 years 30 mil AAV. You would expect he will take a couple million less so the whole discussion may be moot. If he insists on 30 mil I guess you could force him to take the QO. My bet is if you do that you end up paying him more next season. There is no other apparent option for playing the point and running the system the org (stupidly) is focused on running. After turning the team over to him on court for a season he would have to be a pretty big flop to not be in a position where you have to pay him 30 mil or more the following season to keep him. Or you just wasted a full season of the retool/reorg or whatever you want to call it.
I'd be shocked under any scenario a deal isn't ultimately done. I think it will come at around 27-28M, in my chart, I view this as around the max pain point for both sides.
Maybe a way to bridge the gap between what we are saying here is that there are probably some semantic differences:
Total value = Current on court value + projected potential + value of lack of alternatives + (maybe a few other categories i didn't explicitly mention here)
You might define total value in a number of ways, and I'm not trying to be a stickler about what has to go in there or define exactly what that number is, but if you do settle on a number, you should then remain disciplined to it that is all.
The Bulls have tremendous guard depth between Coby, Ayo, Huerter, and Jones already. They have a number of ways they could pivot, and while we may be focused on the "Giddey way" right now, none of the decisions we've made enforce that we continue down that path. Noa and Matas can fit next to anyone. If Matas is going to become a star, he'll need more on ball reps too. I don't see any reason to feel boxed in. The team as constructed doesn't have particularly high upside and could be rebuilt into a very different team with similar upside next summer or the summer afterwards anyway.
dougthonus wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:All I'm saying is, there's no real way to know right now how Giddey is taking this. At least for me, I don't have access that info. The examples were to point out how players make emotional decisions, not how much the team wanted them back. I believe the Bulls offered Gordon a pretty big contract, not much less than what he accepted from Detroit.When he was introduced as the team's GM on May 21, Forman spoke about Gordon.
"We like Ben," Forman said at the time. "He's our kind of guy. He's got great makeup and character, a great work ethic. Our goal is to re-sign Ben Gordon. In the conversations we've had, I think Ben wants to stay here in Chicago." Hear what you're saying, but that was definitely not his public stance that they didn't want to re-sign him. Losing Gordon didn't hurt us nearly as much as losing Giddey would, however.
Gordon reportedly rejected $50 million offers from the Bulls the last two summers.
Sure, we have no way to know what Giddey is thinking. That said, I don't know of any circumstance where an RFA refused to negotiate prior to taking the QO. I just that specific risk is very, very low. Giddey may get pissed off enough and take the QO, but if we're 10 minutes before the deadline to sign a new contract or take the QO, and the Bulls call up and say ok, 30M AAV it is, then I can't imagine any scenario where Giddey says "nah, screw you".
FWIW on Gordon, when extension eligible, we offered him $50M and he rejected it (Derrick Rose was not on the team yet). When he was initially a RFA we also offered him $50M but later rescinded our offers (was reported by KC). If we came back to the negotiating table with a deal Gordon liked the day before he took the QO, I think he'd have still taken it though. We never made him an offer as a UFA or even placed a phone call.
I don't think the Gordon thing really matters, but if you are just particularly interested historically, I could dive into a lot of reasons as to why we didn't want him, though the fact that we rescinded that offer and then never called him UFA makes that pretty clear.
Stratmaster wrote:Not one of those guards you mention can execute the style of play Billy Bob and AKME say they want. Acting like Coby or Ayo can is just fantasy. Yes they have depth. Meaning they have several guards who can fill in if you don't have a real starter.
What do you mean by "on ball" reps for Matas? You want him in iso?
Infinity2152 wrote:Been reported Bulls want to see Matas as a secondary playmaker, so there's benefit to that. Don't know that they would want him as primary ballhandler/playmaker. Having the ball in his hands takes away the PF setting screens, back door cuts, rim running, open shots, etc. Lot of our guys can ball handle, throw alley oops, etc. Matas is one of the few who could finish those alley oops, or set screens and roll, etc.