League Circles wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:5yrs/$110? Ok. Why would Giddey sign that? Unless he thinks he can't get at least 4yrs/$100 next summer, that's the break even price. Plus he could go to a legit contender or California or Florida or wherever he chooses from multiple offers rather than dealing with the cheap ass Bulls. All of a sudden, now the Bulls aren't a cheap organization, even though they're maybe the last family owned team in the league and have been known to be one of the cheapest for a while.
In other news, Warrior upped their offer to 2 yrs/$45 mill if Kuminga waives the implicit no trade clause and Kuminga has expressed his willingness to take the QO at that amount. The lower the AAV, the lower the likely contract length. Meaning we could be looking for a PG again in two or three years, or re-sign Giddey at a much higher level.
This is a big part of the problem. Focusing on AAV only so much while ignoring the benefits of having a young player locked up longer on a contract not tied as a percentage of cap. By year 3 of Giddy's contract what will average PG salary be? By year 5? We should sign him to a 2-3 year contract to save some money up front now? When we don't really need it?
Getting a fourth year locked in and a team option for the fifth should be worth a lot. And again, I'm not saying go straight to 5yrs/$150.
Think we should focus on the middle ground, prioritize getting the contract length and terms we want, and work with the money. He's 22, I'd take that Scottie Pippen length contract at the right price, lmao!
What does "family owned" mean?
The Bulls are owned by an investment group, of which Jerry Reinsdorf is the controlling partner. IIRC he owns less than 50% of the team. Yes his son happens to be the COO or whatever, but I don't think he owns any of the team, could be wrong.
IMO, the risk with Giddey isn't that he might not be worth X amount, it's that he might not be an above average long term starter, so they're trying to price his deal such that it won't absolutely murder their payroll if he ends up being a 6th man like Patrick.
It's not obvious to me that the AAV of a shorter deal "should" be more or less than a longer deal. A shorter deal gives both sides flexibility, a longer deal gives both sides security. I suppose the longer the deal, the less AAV the Bulls should want relative to a shorter deal, and the more AAV Josh should want obviously. The purpose of a shorter deal is to really to give the Bulls more flexibility and Josh higher earning potential.
Bulls don't usually do team options, and like to offer player options as a carrot for players to sign. So my best guess is a 3 year deal with a player option for year 4, at an AAV more in line with what the Bulls are offering for 5 years, whatever that is.
When you Google "Who owns the Chicago Bulls" the answer that comes up is Jerry Reinsdorf. I'm not trying to be more accurate than Google, so that's close enough for me. He's the principal owner. Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family. Think he owns 40% and his son is the President AND CEO. If that's not family run, what is?
When I'm talking about the AAV would be less on a shorter contract, I'm speaking more of this specific contract situation than in general.
First, Giddey's max right now is capped by his years of service. It's also capped by the fact that he is a restricted free agent in a market with no money. If he remains EXACTLY the same the next 5-6 years, the cap is rising every year. Very unlikely we see a more favorable situation negotiating in 3 years. Logistically this is the best time for the Bulls to lock down a long-term favorable deal. Many players take shorter contracts to get to FA early. As a Bulls fan who believes in Giddey as a long-term piece, we undoubtedly get a better deal now than 3 years.
Second, Giddey hasn't reached his prime. Assuming that's somewhere around 24-26, we get more prime Giddey on the same contract with a longer deal.
Third, you're gambling either way. Bulls take a shorter term contract, that's hedging against the downside. Take a longer term contract, betting on the upside. Both are viable. If you're focusing on the downside risks of 22-year-old players that have improved year over year, how do you ever build a team. All 3 year or shorter contracts?
