Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Infinity2152]

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.

Matas as a player is far more valuable as a Mo Wagner / Jayson Tatum type than a Aaron Hordon rim running and setting screens. And he clearly wants to do more. Definitely think Bulls should encourage those parts of his game that emphasize initiation.

I was actually thinking of Tatum as a good comp for how Matas might be. He's not nearly the primary ballhandler, he plays off the ball a LOT. Are you kidding? On a team with Jrue Holiday, Derrick White, and Jaylen Brown, Tatum might be the third or fourth playmaker, lol. Matas being taller and longer than Tatum does add to his potential for rim running though. And taller players usually set screens more. Any lineup with Tatum, Porzingas and Horford or one of those other centers they play, Tatum is absolved of big man responsibilities, and playing like a wing anyway. He's recruiting Lillard right now, which would take the ball out of his hands when they both come back.

Last year Tatum had a career high in assists with 6. His career average is 3.8. He's a secondary playmaker at best. Not talking about how he scores. Playing like a wing with the ball in his hands instead of a big takes away a lot of the whole reason to have a big on the floor in the first place. Who's going to set screens? Just the center? Who IS going to do the Aaron Gordon things, if not Matas? Giddey? White? The guys who will usually be handling the ball can't do those things. Nobody's worried about Coby White screening them off if Matas is driving around him, lmao!

Or do you think rim running and setting screens aren't really that important? Lot of plays are made off effective screens and rim running, back door cuts. Giddey or Tre Jones probably not cutting back door to catch the alley oop when Matas is the primary ballhandler. No pick and roll or pick and pop opportunities when you're the ballhandler.

[Chi town]

Tatum is exactly who I’d like to see Buz model his game after.

[Infinity2152]

Tatum is exactly who I’d like to see Buz model his game after.

Same, pretty much. With his longer frame, would like to see him rim running a little more when off ball, much larger catch radius. He's taller than Tatum, would like to see him use that height to his advantage. Fine with him initiating SOME offense, but with Coby and Giddey, he should and will be off ball a lot. Giddey's going to feed him a lot, hopefully.

Actually, scratch that. With his height, a post up game would be way more useful to him as well. Maybe more Melo than Tatum offensively would be my preference. Or Durant.

[Stratmaster]

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.

I mean sure, that isn't related to the point of being disciplined to your value number. It's just another way to say you think his value number should be high. What if Giddey wants the max, should you pay him that because all these things are still true?

At some point, you just have a number, and you should remain disciplined to it.

What do you mean by "on ball" reps for Matas? You want him in iso?

I mean I want him to initiate offense, that doesn't necessarily mean iso reps, it can mean pick and roll ball handler, generally getting the ball more in the triple threat position and then deciding what to do.

It was related to your comment about their depth at Guard, when in fact they have no depth as far as offense initiators and distributors. But sure that affects what the number I am going to be disciplined to is.

If you are saying you pick a number and stick to it there is certainly a ceiling number you do not go past. That isn't where you generally start negotiations from. The number I would like to get Giddey for is 25 mil. But my ceiling is 30 mil. I'm not going to lose him for anywhere in-between. Anything less would be a blatant "F U we don't have to pay you because no one else has money". That generally doesn't work well long term.

Interesting take on the Matas front. I couldn't bear to watch the gym teams, trying to lose, running up and down the court at the end of last season so I haven't seen enough of him. I didn't realize that is a role he is expected to play. I took him to be more of a cutter, rim runner and post against certain players guy. I look forward to watching some of that this season.

[dougthonus]

If you are saying you pick a number and stick to it there is certainly a ceiling number you do not go past. That isn't where you generally start negotiations from. The number I would like to get Giddey for is 25 mil. But my ceiling is 30 mil. I'm not going to lose him for anywhere in-between. Anything less would be a blatant "F U we don't have to pay you because no one else has money". That generally doesn't work well long term.

I don't think that's unreasonable, and it's probably quite reasonable for the Bulls given their strategic plans and lack of interest in doing any type of deep rebuild. It's hard for me to sit in the same boat, because I'd just make different decisions overall and wouldn't be tied to their strategic plan. Even that said, my ceiling is at least 25M. I'd probably push come to shove be willing to go up to 26-27M vs letting him walk away, but I'd go descending contract as part of that (which theoretically shouldn't be a problem because Giddey gets more money earlier which is better for him financially).

My range is probably like start at 23M and ceiling it at 27M, but I'd have no problem negotiating hard up until the deadline for a deal.

Interesting take on the Matas front. I couldn't bear to watch the gym teams, trying to lose, running up and down the court at the end of last season so I haven't seen enough of him. I didn't realize that is a role he is expected to play. I took him to be more of a cutter, rim runner and post against certain players guy. I look forward to watching some of that this season.

I don't know that it is a role that he is expected to play, but if you believe in Matas as a high upside player, it's a role he will need to play eventually. He has the ball handling to develop in that role, though I don't think it's a strength now, it's not hard to see how it might become one. Like compared to Pat Williams at the same point in his career, he's a radically better ball handler and is much faster with the ball in his hands with a quicker first step and change of direction. We spent a lot of thought thinking we should get Pat on ball reps despite being a dreadful ball handler, should be trying it with Matas whom is a good ball handler.

[Chi town]

Strat, that’s exactly where I am with Giddey too. Those exact numbers.

As for Buz… kid has a bag. Barely went 1v1 last season but when he did it was electric most of the time. Embarrassing folks ala Luka. He has more game than anyone on the team and Coby has lot of offensive moves.

[Indomitable]

People there is 3 months. He will be signed by August.

[dougthonus]

Random thought we won't do, and I'm not sure of the downsides, but today is the last day we can revoke the QO on Giddey.

If you wanted to take a weird gamble (I'm sure we don't), you could revoke the QO and make him a UFA. No one can bid for him anyway because there is no money. You can still resign him with bird rights, it just gives up matching rights. You then offer him 3/70 or 5/125 and the safety of a high money 1 year deal is now gone.

This creates a greater leverage point as he either has to take a different one year deal (vs negotiating with the Bulls) nearly immediately or there probably won't even be a 10M+ 1 year deal on the table (increasing the amount he needs to make if he walks away from a multi year offer).

No team would have incentive to sign him to a one year deal, because they couldn't use bird rights the next season and he'd get a no trade clause and any team trading for him as an asset wouldn't inherit bird rights if Giddey agreed to a trade (thus really no long term value, only on court value for a team doing this for a single year).

It adds about 1M in leverage to your offer and removes the worst case scenario for me which is Giddey being here for one more year on the QO. I'd rather have him leave this year than be on the QO.

[MrSparkle]

If you want to be a superstar like Tatum (or whoever), you need to be automatic from midrange. Guaranteed 2pts (and- 1) if caught iso… as dated as it sounds. I can certainly see Matas being that guy, but if (big if) it happens, he needs to make a huge jump in that 2P FG% and FTAs.

Really, it could happen to anybody, right? Easy. Truth is Tatum was a much more polished shooter, off the dribble. Also felt like he was perennially underrated as a young NBA prospect, in a nonsensical way- he was clearly trending towards top-10 before he even turned 22, but people made it seem like he’s riding Horford’s coat tails or something (and he had a stacked team, but it’s not normal for a rookie contract to contend deep playoffs every year as a #1 option.)

So we just need to set the bar much lower for Matas. But imo he has the handles, IQ, physical tools to be that star. That lanky frame is excellent, and he moves well. Doesn’t mean jack$ until his shot develops.

I think post-game comes last (later, towards prime). He just needs to be able to find his shot easy at 10-15ft. Like Demar. Even Vuc was pretty automatic in his peak seasons.

But with a decade+ less experience. Interesting to see where he goes, but I’m skeptical with Bulls development. I hope Matas can became that guy.

[burlydee]

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.

Matas as a player is far more valuable as a Mo Wagner / Jayson Tatum type than a Aaron Hordon rim running and setting screens. And he clearly wants to do more. Definitely think Bulls should encourage those parts of his game that emphasize initiation.

I was actually thinking of Tatum as a good comp for how Matas might be. He's not nearly the primary ballhandler, he plays off the ball a LOT. Are you kidding? On a team with Jrue Holiday, Derrick White, and Jaylen Brown, Tatum might be the third or fourth playmaker, lol. Matas being taller and longer than Tatum does add to his potential for rim running though. And taller players usually set screens more. Any lineup with Tatum, Porzingas and Horford or one of those other centers they play, Tatum is absolved of big man responsibilities, and playing like a wing anyway. He's recruiting Lillard right now, which would take the ball out of his hands when they both come back.

Last year Tatum had a career high in assists with 6. His career average is 3.8. He's a secondary playmaker at best. Not talking about how he scores. Playing like a wing with the ball in his hands instead of a big takes away a lot of the whole reason to have a big on the floor in the first place. Who's going to set screens? Just the center? Who IS going to do the Aaron Gordon things, if not Matas? Giddey? White? The guys who will usually be handling the ball can't do those things. Nobody's worried about Coby White screening them off if Matas is driving around him, lmao!

Or do you think rim running and setting screens aren't really that important? Lot of plays are made off effective screens and rim running, back door cuts. Giddey or Tre Jones probably not cutting back door to catch the alley oop when Matas is the primary ballhandler. No pick and roll or pick and pop opportunities when you're the ballhandler.

Tatum plays like a wing. He may set some screens but he is initiating the vast majority of offense. Not saying Matas should never set a screen but if Tatum is the goal, on ball opportunities are a must.

Nowhere did i say rim running wasn't important. But jlust bc the current team doesn't have a great rim running threat or screen setter doesn't mean you should pigeon hole Matas in that category. We are building long term with him and long term its much better if he's a guy capable of initiating offense. If he never gets there, fine, but early in his career the team should be feeding him those opportunities.

The Bulls have Vuc, Collins, Smith, PWill, Essengue. They can and should run sets with Okoro, Huerter, Coby as the screener. The goal is to give Matas as many opportunities as possible with the ball in his hands.

[Bulliever2020]

Random thought we won't do, and I'm not sure of the downsides, but today is the last day we can revoke the QO on Giddey.

If you wanted to take a weird gamble (I'm sure we don't), you could revoke the QO and make him a UFA. No one can bid for him anyway because there is no money. You can still resign him with bird rights, it just gives up matching rights. You then offer him 3/70 or 5/125 and the safety of a high money 1 year deal is now gone.

This creates a greater leverage point as he either has to take a different one year deal (vs negotiating with the Bulls) nearly immediately or there probably won't even be a 10M+ 1 year deal on the table (increasing the amount he needs to make if he walks away from a multi year offer).

No team would have incentive to sign him to a one year deal, because they couldn't use bird rights the next season and he'd get a no trade clause and any team trading for him as an asset wouldn't inherit bird rights if Giddey agreed to a trade (thus really no long term value, only on court value for a team doing this for a single year).

It adds about 1M in leverage to your offer and removes the worst case scenario for me which is Giddey being here for one more year on the QO. I'd rather have him leave this year than be on the QO.

Damn Doug, this would be a gangsta move right here

[BigJimFinn]

People there is 3 months. He will be signed by August.

Just a friendly reminder from outside: in any negotiation, when neither side has any time pressure or feasible current alternative options, you shouldn't expect a quick progress and resolution. The expectation is that the situation will linger and look like a stalemate, until something changes in the background or time restraints become active. So yes, you can relax for the summer and expect him to be signed before training camp.

[dougthonus]

People there is 3 months. He will be signed by August.

Just a friendly reminder from outside: in any negotiation, when neither side has any time pressure or feasible current alternative options, you shouldn't expect a quick progress and resolution. The expectation is that the situation will linger and look like a stalemate, until something changes in the background or time restraints become active. So yes, you can relax for the summer and expect him to be signed before training camp.

Yeah, anything could happen, but it is super unlikely anything will happen until the deadline. You are actually disincentivised from negotiating earlier as you look weaker.

[CROBulls]

Random thought we won't do, and I'm not sure of the downsides, but today is the last day we can revoke the QO on Giddey.

If you wanted to take a weird gamble (I'm sure we don't), you could revoke the QO and make him a UFA. No one can bid for him anyway because there is no money. You can still resign him with bird rights, it just gives up matching rights. You then offer him 3/70 or 5/125 and the safety of a high money 1 year deal is now gone.

This creates a greater leverage point as he either has to take a different one year deal (vs negotiating with the Bulls) nearly immediately or there probably won't even be a 10M+ 1 year deal on the table (increasing the amount he needs to make if he walks away from a multi year offer).

No team would have incentive to sign him to a one year deal, because they couldn't use bird rights the next season and he'd get a no trade clause and any team trading for him as an asset wouldn't inherit bird rights if Giddey agreed to a trade (thus really no long term value, only on court value for a team doing this for a single year).

It adds about 1M in leverage to your offer and removes the worst case scenario for me which is Giddey being here for one more year on the QO. I'd rather have him leave this year than be on the QO.

You do this. You basically create Gordon Hayward Utah Jazz part II. That guy is leaving 110% when he is UFA next time. There is no chance he resigns if he is productive and healthy coming up on next contract. You can do this when you are not clown franchise and can leverage success, but Bulls are not this. If you start screwing your "core players" with moves like this, but in same time giving willy nilly guaranteed contracts to scrubs like Pat, and you have terrible report of being good GM around league, you are screwed. Because in same time you refuse build through draft with draft picks.

[dougthonus]

You do this. You basically create Gordon Hayward Utah Jazz part II. That guy is leaving 110% when he is UFA next time. There is no chance he resigns if he is productive and healthy coming up on next contract.

The only case this would be a problem with me is if Giddey becomes a max type guy, and if so, we'd just offer him more money than everyone else next time, and he'd probably take it.

Look at Zach LaVine as the use case. We made him go get an offer sheet and he was super annoyed, he played really well, and we just gave him 5 year max with a PO at more money than anyone else could and he stayed. If we hadn't made him go get an offer sheet and proactively paid him 25M a year or whatever his ask was and more than Sacramento did, you know what his next contract would have been instead? The exact same thing.

You can do this when you are not clown franchise and can leverage success, but Bulls are not this. If you start screwing your "core players" with moves like this, but in same time giving willy nilly guaranteed contracts to scrubs like Pat, and you have terrible report of being good GM around league, you are screwed. Because in same time you refuse build through draft with draft picks.

This is really saying AK sucks, sure, I agree. However, that's not a reason to do or not do a potentially interesting idea for me.

I think the only real risk for me is if Giddey would simply be so pissed off that he'd take a far worse deal just to spite us, but I think that's a really low risk. I didn't think there is any chance we'd do this (and we didn't), but I just thought conceptually it's an interesting idea.

Giddey's big problem if this happens isn't so much money he'd lose. He'd get a one year somewhere else, maybe at 3-4M less, but that he'd need to prove himself on a one year deal on a team that likely isn't just slotting him into a counting stat accumulation role. I think when he analyzed those alternatives carefully, it would also highlight just how much he needs Chicago and how unique his opportunity is here. That said, he could easily sign somewhere to compete for a title too. The one real interesting spot would be to go to Dallas for a year with Kyrie out and play next to Flagg and AD if he absolutely hates our deal. In the end, I think he would take our deal, but if he didn't that scenario wouldn't be meaningfully worse for him IMO.

The greater impact would have been for me, that the worst case scenario for Chicago is Giddey on the QO where he also won't come back next year, and you are going to feature him for a year anyway and not develop other players plus worsen our draft odds before you end up in a complete rebuild. This would have removed what I would view as our greatest risk in negotiations.

[drosestruts]

Random thought we won't do, and I'm not sure of the downsides, but today is the last day we can revoke the QO on Giddey.

If you wanted to take a weird gamble (I'm sure we don't), you could revoke the QO and make him a UFA. No one can bid for him anyway because there is no money. You can still resign him with bird rights, it just gives up matching rights. You then offer him 3/70 or 5/125 and the safety of a high money 1 year deal is now gone.

This creates a greater leverage point as he either has to take a different one year deal (vs negotiating with the Bulls) nearly immediately or there probably won't even be a 10M+ 1 year deal on the table (increasing the amount he needs to make if he walks away from a multi year offer).

No team would have incentive to sign him to a one year deal, because they couldn't use bird rights the next season and he'd get a no trade clause and any team trading for him as an asset wouldn't inherit bird rights if Giddey agreed to a trade (thus really no long term value, only on court value for a team doing this for a single year).

It adds about 1M in leverage to your offer and removes the worst case scenario for me which is Giddey being here for one more year on the QO. I'd rather have him leave this year than be on the QO.

Very shrewed and ignores the human element in all of thise.

I'd imagine this would negativley impact our relationship with Giddey

and impact our perception across the league

Yes - you can argue at the end of the day money matters most, so our perception doesn't matter too much

if all things are equal (money) - i'd like to be an organization people want to play for.

[DASMACKDOWN]

The greater impact would have been for me, that the worst case scenario for Chicago is Giddey on the QO where he also won't come back next year, and you are going to feature him for a year anyway and not develop other players plus worsen our draft odds before you end up in a complete rebuild. This would have removed what I would view as our greatest risk in negotiations.

To that is the crux of the problem.

The root issue is that we want to limit money spent. That is realistically the #1 priority over any player.

Lets just say we are hell bent only 25 mil and Giddey goes no lower than 30. If he plays on the QO and then he has an allstar season, now that price goes from 5/150 probably to like a 5/200. ie Desmond Bane contract.

We would have effectively screwed ourselves.

Because at that point, we would be making decisions on both Coby and Giddey. Which could be disastrous one way or another. Either you now have to now overpay to keep your talent or lose them both. If AK didnt like using the term Rebuild before, he wont have a choice.

[Dan Z]

You do this. You basically create Gordon Hayward Utah Jazz part II. That guy is leaving 110% when he is UFA next time. There is no chance he resigns if he is productive and healthy coming up on next contract.

The only case this would be a problem with me is if Giddey becomes a max type guy, and if so, we'd just offer him more money than everyone else next time, and he'd probably take it.

Look at Zach LaVine as the use case. We made him go get an offer sheet and he was super annoyed, he played really well, and we just gave him 5 year max with a PO at more money than anyone else could and he stayed. If we hadn't made him go get an offer sheet and proactively paid him 25M a year or whatever his ask was and more than Sacramento did, you know what his next contract would have been instead? The exact same thing.

You can do this when you are not clown franchise and can leverage success, but Bulls are not this. If you start screwing your "core players" with moves like this, but in same time giving willy nilly guaranteed contracts to scrubs like Pat, and you have terrible report of being good GM around league, you are screwed. Because in same time you refuse build through draft with draft picks.

This is really saying AK sucks, sure, I agree. However, that's not a reason to do or not do a potentially interesting idea for me.

I think the only real risk for me is if Giddey would simply be so pissed off that he'd take a far worse deal just to spite us, but I think that's a really low risk. I didn't think there is any chance we'd do this (and we didn't), but I just thought conceptually it's an interesting idea.

Giddey's big problem if this happens isn't so much money he'd lose. He'd get a one year somewhere else, maybe at 3-4M less, but that he'd need to prove himself on a one year deal on a team that likely isn't just slotting him into a counting stat accumulation role. I think when he analyzed those alternatives carefully, it would also highlight just how much he needs Chicago and how unique his opportunity is here. That said, he could easily sign somewhere to compete for a title too. The one real interesting spot would be to go to Dallas for a year with Kyrie out and play next to Flagg and AD if he absolutely hates our deal. In the end, I think he would take our deal, but if he didn't that scenario wouldn't be meaningfully worse for him IMO.

The greater impact would have been for me, that the worst case scenario for Chicago is Giddey on the QO where he also won't come back next year, and you are going to feature him for a year anyway and not develop other players plus worsen our draft odds before you end up in a complete rebuild. This would have removed what I would view as our greatest risk in negotiations.

I don't think Giddey will actually leave, but hypothetically let's say that he does. Where does that leave the team?

[dougthonus]

I don't think Giddey will actually leave, but hypothetically let's say that he does. Where does that leave the team?

Probably pivoting to a full rebuild which is what I'd rather have them do anyway

[kodo]

Random thought we won't do, and I'm not sure of the downsides, but today is the last day we can revoke the QO on Giddey.

If you wanted to take a weird gamble (I'm sure we don't), you could revoke the QO and make him a UFA. No one can bid for him anyway because there is no money. You can still resign him with bird rights, it just gives up matching rights. You then offer him 3/70 or 5/125 and the safety of a high money 1 year deal is now gone.

This creates a greater leverage point as he either has to take a different one year deal (vs negotiating with the Bulls) nearly immediately or there probably won't even be a 10M+ 1 year deal on the table (increasing the amount he needs to make if he walks away from a multi year offer).

No team would have incentive to sign him to a one year deal, because they couldn't use bird rights the next season and he'd get a no trade clause and any team trading for him as an asset wouldn't inherit bird rights if Giddey agreed to a trade (thus really no long term value, only on court value for a team doing this for a single year).

It adds about 1M in leverage to your offer and removes the worst case scenario for me which is Giddey being here for one more year on the QO. I'd rather have him leave this year than be on the QO.

He would just sign for the non taxpayer MLE, around $14M. There were 23 non-tax paying teams to start FA a few of them used it but there are still plenty left. If the Bulls push hard for a long term contract slightly above this say $20M, I'd easily take the MLE and hit UFA next season.

This is why there are a ton of suitors for Beal even though there is no cap space, still a lot of MLE's out there.