Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Infinity2152]

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!

But how would YOU feel if he took the 5/$110 in light of what you are projecting Giddey's views to be? Would you be happier if the Bulls and he reached at deal at 5/$150M?

Of course if Giddey will accept 5yrs/$110 mill, I'll rejoice. Even if he's angry. If he accepts it, that means he's comfortable accepting it. Which means he wasn't mad enough to take the QO. Or force the Bulls to a shorter term contract. I don't think we get the money and the years. Right now the difference is supposed to be $8-$10 mill AAV. Would be happiest if they just signed a deal right now for 5yrs/$125 mill and both sides walk away feeling like winners. If they're offering $22 mill now, an extra $3 mill/yr is not much of an effect on our cap.

There are still ways for this to blow up in our faces. This is not a bench player or "just" another starter. I've seen from the comments some believe we'll be just fine if he signs the QO or another team steals him. What more could Giddey have done his first year on a new team for guys to say "he's valuable and we can't afford to lose him to save $4-5 mill AAV and get nothing but cap space."?

He just got here and was so important. Without Giddey, how does this team even look right now?

One last thing to say about his defense. In the NBA, how many 6'8" guys are even expected to be able to guard 6'1, 6'2 guys? Most of them get burnt regularly. Steph and Dame cook Tatum and Lebron and they're outstanding athletes. I think Okoro will start and guard the best guard and Giddey is going to be great for us.

[League Circles]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family". I don't know that to be true, but maybe it is. I think the most common situation is one majority owner who leads a group of minority investors. That's what the Bulls have exactly, although Jerry isn't even majority owner, though he is controlling owner. I guess I just didn't understand what was distinct about the Bulls for you to call them "family owned" other than Michael being COO. Is that even that rare for management people to be relatives of owners? Jeanie Buss???

Yeah we get a better deal for Josh if we sign him now. But that's not the angle. The angle is "will we even still want this guy (running our offense) in 3-5 years?" The answer is "probably, but not a given" (if he regresses individually, or, more likely, the team just can't win significantly with him running the show).

To me, there should basically just be a dollar value assigned to every different deal length (including players and I guess team options), and Giddey can decide which one he likes best.

[Infinity2152]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family". I don't know that to be true, but maybe it is. I think the most common situation is one majority owner who leads a group of minority investors. That's what the Bulls have exactly, although Jerry isn't even majority owner, though he is controlling owner. I guess I just didn't understand what was distinct about the Bulls for you to call them "family owned" other than Michael being COO. Is that even that rare for management people to be relatives of owners? Jeanie Buss???

Yeah we get a better deal for Josh if we sign him now. But that's not the angle. The angle is "will we even still want this guy (running our offense) in 3-5 years?" The answer is "probably, but not a given" (if he regresses individually, or, more likely, the team just can't win significantly with him running the show).

To me, there should basically just be a dollar value assigned to every different deal length (including players and I guess team options), and Giddey can decide which one he likes best.

The Lakers were actually basically the last team besides the Bulls, lol. Their sale was part of the reason I mentioned it. I think we're maybe the last left structured like this, where one family openly has so much influence, though I could be wrong. Would be different if we knew that family to be big spenders, lol.

As far as probably, not a given, I'll ask you this. Couldn't every single player in the NBA regress after signing a contract? Older players get 4-5 year contracts every year. What is the primary factor that determines risk of regression? I'd argue age. It's far more likely for a 32-year-old player to regress than a 22-year-old player. He'll be in his prime in 3 years, he's not even there yet.

I agree there should be a dollar value assigned to the different length deals, options, etc WHOLEHEARTEDLY, and opening it for Giddey to choose would at least cause some movement. Think that actually gives some advantage to the Bulls, they should have a better idea of how valuable those option years, performance bonuses, front loaded contracts, etc is worth while Giddey's probably mostly focused on AAV.

[sco]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family". I don't know that to be true, but maybe it is. I think the most common situation is one majority owner who leads a group of minority investors. That's what the Bulls have exactly, although Jerry isn't even majority owner, though he is controlling owner. I guess I just didn't understand what was distinct about the Bulls for you to call them "family owned" other than Michael being COO. Is that even that rare for management people to be relatives of owners? Jeanie Buss???

Yeah we get a better deal for Josh if we sign him now. But that's not the angle. The angle is "will we even still want this guy (running our offense) in 3-5 years?" The answer is "probably, but not a given" (if he regresses individually, or, more likely, the team just can't win significantly with him running the show).

To me, there should basically just be a dollar value assigned to every different deal length (including players and I guess team options), and Giddey can decide which one he likes best.

The Lakers were actually basically the last team besides the Bulls, lol. Their sale was part of the reason I mentioned it. I think we're maybe the last left structured like this, where one family openly has so much influence, though I could be wrong. Would be different if we knew that family to be big spenders, lol.

As far as probably, not a given, I'll ask you this. Couldn't every single player in the NBA regress after signing a contract? Older players get 4-5 year contracts every year. What is the primary factor that determines risk of regression? I'd argue age. It's far more likely for a 32-year-old player to regress than a 22-year-old player. He'll be in his prime in 3 years, he's not even there yet.

I agree there should be a dollar value assigned to the different length deals, options, etc WHOLEHEARTEDLY, and opening it for Giddey to choose would at least cause some movement. Think that actually gives some advantage to the Bulls, they should have a better idea of how valuable those option years, performance bonuses, front loaded contracts, etc is worth while Giddey's probably mostly focused on AAV.

I think the main point is that in the eyes of most here (and at least a few FO's not bidding on him), Giddey is more likely to regress than most NBA players. His play was great but it was for only for about 1/3 of a season and the part most likely to have guys show false progressions because they are often playing against teams who are not playing their best (due to tanking/injuries). Couple that with his pre-ASG level of play that was worth closer to the MLE, what they are offering seems fair.

I do agree about the length options though. I expect the deal will end-up being something like 3/$66M.

[League Circles]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family". I don't know that to be true, but maybe it is. I think the most common situation is one majority owner who leads a group of minority investors. That's what the Bulls have exactly, although Jerry isn't even majority owner, though he is controlling owner. I guess I just didn't understand what was distinct about the Bulls for you to call them "family owned" other than Michael being COO. Is that even that rare for management people to be relatives of owners? Jeanie Buss???

Yeah we get a better deal for Josh if we sign him now. But that's not the angle. The angle is "will we even still want this guy (running our offense) in 3-5 years?" The answer is "probably, but not a given" (if he regresses individually, or, more likely, the team just can't win significantly with him running the show).

To me, there should basically just be a dollar value assigned to every different deal length (including players and I guess team options), and Giddey can decide which one he likes best.

The Lakers were actually basically the last team besides the Bulls, lol. Their sale was part of the reason I mentioned it. I think we're maybe the last left structured like this, where one family openly has so much influence, though I could be wrong. Would be different if we knew that family to be big spenders, lol.

As far as probably, not a given, I'll ask you this. Couldn't every single player in the NBA regress after signing a contract? Older players get 4-5 year contracts every year. What is the primary factor that determines risk of regression? I'd argue age. It's far more likely for a 32-year-old player to regress than a 22-year-old player. He'll be in his prime in 3 years, he's not even there yet.

I agree there should be a dollar value assigned to the different length deals, options, etc WHOLEHEARTEDLY, and opening it for Giddey to choose would at least cause some movement. Think that actually gives some advantage to the Bulls, they should have a better idea of how valuable those option years, performance bonuses, front loaded contracts, etc is worth while Giddey's probably mostly focused on AAV.

I still don't understand what you mean about team structure lol. Every team has one person with executive control over everything, other than the Green Bay Packers in the NFL maybe? That person is almost always, if not always (except Jerry Reinsdorf!), the owner with the largest share, who is probably usually a majority owner. So I still don't get what you think is unique about "one family having so much influence". Every team has one person with total authority, and most if not all of them have "families", and most probably hire family members in management roles. Not like we have a Reinsdorf in basketball operations.

Yes every player can regress, and yes most IMO do so due to age in their 30s. But I'm not talking about underlying ability regression, I'm talking about individual statical regression, which is common, and is unfortunately a primary way that players are valued in their contracts in the league. Giddey could easily regress statistically. But again, that's not my primary concern. My primary concern, and I'd guess that of the Bulls, is that he looks pretty good and puts up good individual numbers, but the team simply isn't good enough, and he's a big part of it, because the numbers may not capture his limitations well. Like Zach before him. Not saying that will be the case, just saying that's the downside concern the Bulls should be considering and remembering in their negotiations.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

I wouldn't be mad at sending him to the Warriors for Kuminga and letting Ayo and Jones run the point, and keep Coby. It kinda makes more sense to keep Coby than Giddey if you have to choose one.

[WindyCityBorn]

I wouldn't be mad at sending him to the Warriors for Kuminga and letting Ayo and Jones run the point, and keep Coby. It kinda makes more sense to keep Coby than Giddey if you have to choose one.

It absolutely does not make more sense to keep Coby. We need our PG. Not a poor shooting chucker like Kuminga. Him and Coby jacking up 40 contested shots a night would be amazing to watch.

[Infinity2152]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Most teams, principal ownerships is not held by one person or family". I don't know that to be true, but maybe it is. I think the most common situation is one majority owner who leads a group of minority investors. That's what the Bulls have exactly, although Jerry isn't even majority owner, though he is controlling owner. I guess I just didn't understand what was distinct about the Bulls for you to call them "family owned" other than Michael being COO. Is that even that rare for management people to be relatives of owners? Jeanie Buss???

Yeah we get a better deal for Josh if we sign him now. But that's not the angle. The angle is "will we even still want this guy (running our offense) in 3-5 years?" The answer is "probably, but not a given" (if he regresses individually, or, more likely, the team just can't win significantly with him running the show).

To me, there should basically just be a dollar value assigned to every different deal length (including players and I guess team options), and Giddey can decide which one he likes best.

The Lakers were actually basically the last team besides the Bulls, lol. Their sale was part of the reason I mentioned it. I think we're maybe the last left structured like this, where one family openly has so much influence, though I could be wrong. Would be different if we knew that family to be big spenders, lol.

As far as probably, not a given, I'll ask you this. Couldn't every single player in the NBA regress after signing a contract? Older players get 4-5 year contracts every year. What is the primary factor that determines risk of regression? I'd argue age. It's far more likely for a 32-year-old player to regress than a 22-year-old player. He'll be in his prime in 3 years, he's not even there yet.

I agree there should be a dollar value assigned to the different length deals, options, etc WHOLEHEARTEDLY, and opening it for Giddey to choose would at least cause some movement. Think that actually gives some advantage to the Bulls, they should have a better idea of how valuable those option years, performance bonuses, front loaded contracts, etc is worth while Giddey's probably mostly focused on AAV.

I still don't understand what you mean about team structure lol. Every team has one person with executive control over everything, other than the Green Bay Packers in the NFL maybe? That person is almost always, if not always (except Jerry Reinsdorf!), the owner with the largest share, who is probably usually a majority owner. So I still don't get what you think is unique about "one family having so much influence". Every team has one person with total authority, and most if not all of them have "families", and most probably hire family members in management roles. Not like we have a Reinsdorf in basketball operations.

Yes every player can regress, and yes most IMO do so due to age in their 30s. But I'm not talking about underlying ability regression, I'm talking about individual statical regression, which is common, and is unfortunately a primary way that players are valued in their contracts in the league. Giddey could easily regress statistically. But again, that's not my primary concern. My primary concern, and I'd guess that of the Bulls, is that he looks pretty good and puts up good individual numbers, but the team simply isn't good enough, and he's a big part of it, because the numbers may not capture his limitations well. Like Zach before him. Not saying that will be the case, just saying that's the downside concern the Bulls should be considering and remembering in their negotiations.

Not going back and forth on family business. You said you don't understand what I mean, I think you do. Maybe you disagree, but you understand what I meant. You can have it, most NBA teams you hear a family name every time you talk about the money. Not really a major point.

Thanks for qualifying regression or what you mean by it. Giddey averaged 15, 8 and 7 last year. He's averaged 8 rebounds every year but 1 (6.4, played 25 mins gm.) Averaged 6+ assists every year except where he played 25 minutes. He's been pretty consistent statistically, while constantly improving. I'm wondering what regression for Giddey looks like.

Are people talking about he might regress from the 20+ pts, 8 rebound, 8 assists, 1.5 block, 1 steal guy shooting 40% from 3 he was after the AllStar break? That's a rookie max player in my opinion, not a sub $30 mill player in today's market. He hasn't asked for close to that.

What exactly are his limitations, in your opinion? The factors making him likely to fail or not be a key part of winning? What does he not look like he's getting better at?

[Dez]

I wouldn't be mad at sending him to the Warriors for Kuminga and letting Ayo and Jones run the point, and keep Coby. It kinda makes more sense to keep Coby than Giddey if you have to choose one.

Everything in this post is bad.

None of it makes the Bulls better now or later.

[Infinity2152]

Can I ask a question? Do the people who don't think Giddey can be successful think the same about Luka? I think he's a worse defender, especially on fast PG's. First four years he shot 33%, 32%, 35%, 35% from 3. Much higher volume of course, but no SGA either. He's only shot above NBA average percentage the last two years from 3. Multiple MVP running, first team All Star, he's not fast or athletic either. Not saying Giddey's on his level, but they're somewhat similar players production wise, Luka's more skilled earlier.

Looking at Basketball reference.com, they have Giddey listed at SF year 1, PF year 2, SG year 3, and PG year 4, lol. Kid's played 4 positions in 4 years.

[nomorezorro]

brother. you have lost the plot if you are comparing josh giddey and luka doncic

[Infinity2152]

brother. you have lost the plot if you are comparing josh giddey and luka doncic

I literally said he's not on the same level, did you miss that part or just trying to be funny? Both big point guards, both defensively weak against point guards, both shot poorly from 3 when they got in and improved, both came in at 19. Both strong rebounders. Both strong playmakers. Both not very athletic. Both put up triple doubles or near triple doubles regularly with starting minutes, Luka's a more prolific scorer and better shooter. But there are a LOT of similarities. Luka was also given the reins while Giddey was PG behind/beside SGA.

Now give a better comp, or do you just default to "There are no comps for Giddey!"? Don't think he's near Luka now, but Luka's a super max player. Th discount version is still pretty good.

4 players averaged at least 14 pts, 7 rebounds, 7 assists last year. Jokic, Lebron, Luka, Giddey. I don't make the news, I just report it. Giddey's in rare company.

[League Circles]

What exactly are his limitations, in your opinion? The factors making him likely to fail or not be a key part of winning? What does he not look like he's getting better at?

I mean he's a bottom tier athlete at the nba level for his size, so I think it's a virtual impossiblilty that he'll ever be what I'd consider a good playoff defender, which is half the game right there, so he'll literally need to be an all-nba caliber offensive player to be a really good overall player. That said, he's not asking to be paid as if he were going to be a really good player, and he can be really damn good at running an offense (and various other intangibles), so I'm not down on him. His shot is also obscenely slow with poor form, though at least he started to make a decent % of his open jumpers last season, which is good. And IMO he's a good opportunistic scorer running to the basket with his slashing, backboard work, etc.

The main thing IMO is that to build a contending team without a superstar, which are virtually impossible to get, and therefore unwise to obsess over IMO, I think you need 4 or 5 really good starters that can complement each other very well. Giddey is good enough to be that caliber of guy IMO, but then the question is, how many "Giddeys" can we afford in a sense, and that basically indirectly should be dictating what we offer him. I don't think he's special enough in this situation where we have leverage to just "pay him what he's worth" (what an average or bad team would pay him) and figure out why that means we're talent deficient later.

I don't even start with or put much stock in individual stats like Giddey puts up. It's just not really on my radar for how I think about players. I'm an extreme eye test/skillset/motor/work ethic guy. I like him because of watching his passing, ball handling, craftiness and savvy etc. Not cause he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook in counting stats.

[League Circles]

Can I ask a question? Do the people who don't think Giddey can be successful think the same about Luka? I think he's a worse defender, especially on fast PG's. First four years he shot 33%, 32%, 35%, 35% from 3. Much higher volume of course, but no SGA either. He's only shot above NBA average percentage the last two years from 3. Multiple MVP running, first team All Star, he's not fast or athletic either. Not saying Giddey's on his level, but they're somewhat similar players production wise, Luka's more skilled earlier.

Looking at Basketball reference.com, they have Giddey listed at SF year 1, PF year 2, SG year 3, and PG year 4, lol. Kid's played 4 positions in 4 years.

I agree Giddey is closer to Luka in ability than most would like to think. And even though I think he's as fun to watch as anyone ever and a great player, I think Luka is super overrated by most people.

There's an enormous difference in the way they're geared to naturally shoot the ball though. Luka really deeply has that ability. Josh just doesn't and never will. But I agree, Josh is probably a better defender and they're probably equal passers.

[League Circles]

Also Luka's shooting numbers being mediocre are obviously due to shot selection. He takes too many shots that he shouldn't. His actual shooting ability is stellar. Basically the opposite of Giddey, who generally has good or even too conservative of shot selection, but who has very poor shooting skill.

Most guys improve shot selection more than skill as they fo through their career.

[Infinity2152]

What exactly are his limitations, in your opinion? The factors making him likely to fail or not be a key part of winning? What does he not look like he's getting better at?

I mean he's a bottom tier athlete at the nba level for his size, so I think it's a virtual impossiblilty that he'll ever be what I'd consider a good playoff defender, which is half the game right there, so he'll literally need to be an all-nba caliber offensive player to be a really good overall player. That said, he's not asking to be paid as if he were going to be a really good player, and he can be really damn good at running an offense (and various other intangibles), so I'm not down on him. His shot is also obscenely slow with poor form, though at least he started to make a decent % of his open jumpers last season, which is good. And IMO he's a good opportunistic scorer running to the basket with his slashing, backboard work, etc.

The main thing IMO is that to build a contending team without a superstar, which are virtually impossible to get, and therefore unwise to obsess over IMO, I think you need 4 or 5 really good starters that can complement each other very well. Giddey is good enough to be that caliber of guy IMO, but then the question is, how many "Giddeys" can we afford in a sense, and that basically indirectly should be dictating what we offer him. I don't think he's special enough in this situation where we have leverage to just "pay him what he's worth" (what an average or bad team would pay him) and figure out why that means we're talent deficient later.

I don't even start with or put much stock in individual stats like Giddey puts up. It's just not really on my radar for how I think about players. I'm an extreme eye test/skillset/motor/work ethic guy. I like him because of watching his passing, ball handling, craftiness and savvy etc. Not cause he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook in counting stats.

Well, as far as him being a bottom tier athlete, he was 18 when he got in. Some guys are NBA ready at 18, most aren't. I don't know that Giddey will ever be a superstar. I don't think we can build a team by only getting perfect fit pieces, at least at this point. We don't really have a foundation or a base to even build around. With the current lineup and roster, looks like we're going to run. Giddey will be great for that. We will add star talent. Hopefully Giddey is that, but at $25 mill he doesn't need to be. The cap will be over $200 mill in the next few years, and that's not even going up to the tax.

Personally I think Giddey has a chance to be great. When I'm looking at a guy, first thing, has the guy been improving? Check? Every player has flaws, is the guy effective? Check. Long term health? Check. Age, young or old? Young, check. Does the guy hustle, maybe the most important thing? Is he a floor leader, willing to take those shots?

We'll have like 6 players on the cap this summer. Giddey's better than most of those pieces undoubtedly. I think anywhere around $25 mill, Giddey is a great value piece over the next few years. We might be taking chances on 8-9 players next summer, including Coby, lmao! A lot will be more risky than Giddey. Y'all are going to have heart attacks next summer!

[2weekswithpay]

Why would anyone think the same about Luka?

Luka and Giddey fall under the same player archetype IMO so they have similarities, but Luka is close to a 99th percentile outcome. I'm not sure what you consider successful here, but building around Luka doesn't have the same drawbacks.

[League Circles]

What exactly are his limitations, in your opinion? The factors making him likely to fail or not be a key part of winning? What does he not look like he's getting better at?

I mean he's a bottom tier athlete at the nba level for his size, so I think it's a virtual impossiblilty that he'll ever be what I'd consider a good playoff defender, which is half the game right there, so he'll literally need to be an all-nba caliber offensive player to be a really good overall player. That said, he's not asking to be paid as if he were going to be a really good player, and he can be really damn good at running an offense (and various other intangibles), so I'm not down on him. His shot is also obscenely slow with poor form, though at least he started to make a decent % of his open jumpers last season, which is good. And IMO he's a good opportunistic scorer running to the basket with his slashing, backboard work, etc.

The main thing IMO is that to build a contending team without a superstar, which are virtually impossible to get, and therefore unwise to obsess over IMO, I think you need 4 or 5 really good starters that can complement each other very well. Giddey is good enough to be that caliber of guy IMO, but then the question is, how many "Giddeys" can we afford in a sense, and that basically indirectly should be dictating what we offer him. I don't think he's special enough in this situation where we have leverage to just "pay him what he's worth" (what an average or bad team would pay him) and figure out why that means we're talent deficient later.

I don't even start with or put much stock in individual stats like Giddey puts up. It's just not really on my radar for how I think about players. I'm an extreme eye test/skillset/motor/work ethic guy. I like him because of watching his passing, ball handling, craftiness and savvy etc. Not cause he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook in counting stats.

Well, as far as him being a bottom tier athlete, he was 18 when he got in. Some guys are NBA ready at 18, most aren't. I don't know that Giddey will ever be a superstar. I don't think we can build a team by only getting perfect fit pieces, at least at this point. We don't really have a foundation or a base to even build around. With the current lineup and roster, looks like we're going to run. Giddey will be great for that. We will add star talent. Hopefully Giddey is that, but at $25 mill he doesn't need to be. The cap will be over $200 mill in the next few years, and that's not even going up to the tax.

Personally I think Giddey has a chance to be great. When I'm looking at a guy, first thing, has the guy been improving? Check? Every player has flaws, is the guy effective? Check. Long term health? Check. Age, young or old? Young, check. Does the guy hustle, maybe the most important thing? Is he a floor leader, willing to take those shots?

We'll have like 6 players on the cap this summer. Giddey's better than most of those pieces undoubtedly. I think anywhere around $25 mill, Giddey is a great value piece over the next few years. We might be taking chances on 8-9 players next summer, including Coby, lmao! A lot will be more risky than Giddey. Y'all are going to have heart attacks next summer!

I think you have me confused with someone. I'm not stressed about Giddey and I think he projects as a good starter on a good deal in the future. I just think we should hold pretty firm because we can. I agree Coby is a bigger risk to be overpaid due to contract status UFA vs RFA.

But Giddey is a very specific kind of guy. He's not a natural self shot creator and it's very rare to have a contending or championship caliber offense led by a guy that isn't. He's also just fundamentally always going to be limited defensively because he doesn't have nba level lateral change of direction quickness even for a 6'-8" guy (let alone a "point guard" lol). I believe with my whole heart that defense is half the game, so that puts a firm ceiling on him IMO. Many people, perhaps including you, treat defense as like one of half a dozen skills that a guy can be good or bad at. For me it's 50% of player impact.

[Infinity2152]

Luka shot 42% from the field year 1 with bad defense, 33% from three. 46% from field year 2, 32% from 3. With bad defense. He was not a perfect player. 35% from 3 the next 2 years. In my opinion, the first time Giddey has ever been able to run an offense full time as primary playmaker is this last half season. Again, not saying they're the same level of player, but their situations were very different. Luka has not been crazy efficient most of his career, but super high volume. Luka's a better shooter earlier, but again, we're talking less than half the salary.

[Infinity2152]

I mean he's a bottom tier athlete at the nba level for his size, so I think it's a virtual impossiblilty that he'll ever be what I'd consider a good playoff defender, which is half the game right there, so he'll literally need to be an all-nba caliber offensive player to be a really good overall player. That said, he's not asking to be paid as if he were going to be a really good player, and he can be really damn good at running an offense (and various other intangibles), so I'm not down on him. His shot is also obscenely slow with poor form, though at least he started to make a decent % of his open jumpers last season, which is good. And IMO he's a good opportunistic scorer running to the basket with his slashing, backboard work, etc.

The main thing IMO is that to build a contending team without a superstar, which are virtually impossible to get, and therefore unwise to obsess over IMO, I think you need 4 or 5 really good starters that can complement each other very well. Giddey is good enough to be that caliber of guy IMO, but then the question is, how many "Giddeys" can we afford in a sense, and that basically indirectly should be dictating what we offer him. I don't think he's special enough in this situation where we have leverage to just "pay him what he's worth" (what an average or bad team would pay him) and figure out why that means we're talent deficient later.

I don't even start with or put much stock in individual stats like Giddey puts up. It's just not really on my radar for how I think about players. I'm an extreme eye test/skillset/motor/work ethic guy. I like him because of watching his passing, ball handling, craftiness and savvy etc. Not cause he's a poor man's Russell Westbrook in counting stats.

Well, as far as him being a bottom tier athlete, he was 18 when he got in. Some guys are NBA ready at 18, most aren't. I don't know that Giddey will ever be a superstar. I don't think we can build a team by only getting perfect fit pieces, at least at this point. We don't really have a foundation or a base to even build around. With the current lineup and roster, looks like we're going to run. Giddey will be great for that. We will add star talent. Hopefully Giddey is that, but at $25 mill he doesn't need to be. The cap will be over $200 mill in the next few years, and that's not even going up to the tax.

Personally I think Giddey has a chance to be great. When I'm looking at a guy, first thing, has the guy been improving? Check? Every player has flaws, is the guy effective? Check. Long term health? Check. Age, young or old? Young, check. Does the guy hustle, maybe the most important thing? Is he a floor leader, willing to take those shots?

We'll have like 6 players on the cap this summer. Giddey's better than most of those pieces undoubtedly. I think anywhere around $25 mill, Giddey is a great value piece over the next few years. We might be taking chances on 8-9 players next summer, including Coby, lmao! A lot will be more risky than Giddey. Y'all are going to have heart attacks next summer!

I think you have me confused with someone. I'm not stressed about Giddey and I think he projects as a good starter on a good deal in the future. I just think we should hold pretty firm because we can. I agree Coby is a bigger risk to be overpaid due to contract status UFA vs RFA.

But Giddey is a very specific kind of guy. He's not a natural self shot creator and it's very rare to have a contending or championship caliber offense led by a guy that isn't. He's also just fundamentally always going to be limited defensively because he doesn't have nba level lateral change of direction quickness even for a 6'-8" guy (let alone a "point guard" lol). I believe with my whole heart that defense is half the game, so that puts a firm ceiling on him IMO. Many people, perhaps including you, treat defense as like one of half a dozen skills that a guy can be good or bad at. For me it's 50% of player impact.

I think defense is important. I think effort is a HUGE part of defense, and a lot of his defensive flaws have been magnified by him having to guard much smaller players. He looked better on defense, he was having a streak where he was getting 2 blocks and 2 steals a game for a minute. Ther's space on team's for defensive specialist's right? I see the hustle Giddey exhibits and I'm more comfortable with him being a constant, consistent irritant to whoever he's guarding than Pat Williams, who's considered a way better defender. The reverse is true too, there are a ton of outstanding athletes who are bad defenders. JR Smith. Ja Morant. I'd say Caruso is probably below average athleticism for NBA point guards. Great lateral quickness, lacks height, length, verticality. Average at best. He's not super long, huge hands, no outstanding physicals.

I mean let's be real. Outside Matas, who are the good two way starters on this team? We getting rid of everybody? We have to take some chances on some of our young guys, we can't just let them all get away for nothing.

Giddey's going to always be better on offense than defense, but that's ok, like players like Gobert and Gafford who are always going to be far better on defense than offense. Just don't max them out.