Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[League Circles]

I think one of them is going to be Buzelis. If he fulfills his archetype then you have two guys who fit excellently together and then you see what's available to get the third guy. But your challenge is really easy to satisfy. Its not hard to make a contender out of Josh Giddey plus any two star players in the NBA who aren't primary ballhandlers and distributors. I mean, you can just go team by team. I can go through nearly every contending team in the NBA - or probably every contending team - and swap out Giddey for a player making in the neighborhood of $25 million or more and that team would still be a contender.

A maxed out, absolutely best they could be, contender? No. But a contender nonetheless.

The whole idea that a player as good as Giddey, with his play style, warts and all, at $25 million per year (SGA and Book are just signed for 300% of that) is some sort of inherent contention-killer is just nonsensical to me. He'll be making 3rd-4th best player money. There was a time early in his tenure with Chicago when this was a tenable argument. To some extent I even shared the view and started a thread about it. But that time is ancient history. Arguments like this feel like a refusal to let go of an old view by disregarding or minimizing to irrelevance the most recent evidence and the reasons for that change.

FWIW, a lot of the replies to my post have extended it way beyond what I've said.

I didn't comment on Giddey killing you or anything. Just that if you try to position guys it is interesting. I agree generally speaking that one of your players is a Forward or Center superstar that you don't want playing on the perimeter, but I'm not sure where the other guy is. From a practical sense, I agree the Bulls have to really hope Matas / Noa are really big hits. I'm not sure either are star guys, but it's not crazy to see it with Matas, Noa just has no evidence yet one way or the other really.

At 25M, I think you could live with the less than perfect fit, and in our particular state, I don't think it matters, we aren't going to magically get two guys better than Giddey within the length of Giddey's contract anyway, and if we do, we can rejoice then solve whatever problem exists then.

We certainly shouldn't count on anything specific from Noa yet, but for his age he has plausible future star written all over him. Excellent frame, agility, fluidity, ball handling, defensive instincts and already proven ability to play a role in winning basketball. That doesn't mean much cause the majority of guys don't ever even sniff their potential, but in terms of raw ability this guy is a second tier prospect which is great (first tier being guys like Lebron, Duncan, Wemby etc when they come out). It's nearly a certainty IMO for example that Noa becomes a top 20th percentile NBA defender within a few years IMO. That alone will likely make him a pretty good player. If he's average to above average offensively that's a long term quality starter right there, which is 1/5 of the puzzle, which is something.

[sco]

I think one of them is going to be Buzelis. If he fulfills his archetype then you have two guys who fit excellently together and then you see what's available to get the third guy. But your challenge is really easy to satisfy. Its not hard to make a contender out of Josh Giddey plus any two star players in the NBA who aren't primary ballhandlers and distributors. I mean, you can just go team by team. I can go through nearly every contending team in the NBA - or probably every contending team - and swap out Giddey for a player making in the neighborhood of $25 million or more and that team would still be a contender.

A maxed out, absolutely best they could be, contender? No. But a contender nonetheless.

The whole idea that a player as good as Giddey, with his play style, warts and all, at $25 million per year (SGA and Book are just signed for 300% of that) is some sort of inherent contention-killer is just nonsensical to me. He'll be making 3rd-4th best player money. There was a time early in his tenure with Chicago when this was a tenable argument. To some extent I even shared the view and started a thread about it. But that time is ancient history. Arguments like this feel like a refusal to let go of an old view by disregarding or minimizing to irrelevance the most recent evidence and the reasons for that change.

FWIW, a lot of the replies to my post have extended it way beyond what I've said.

I didn't comment on Giddey killing you or anything. Just that if you try to position guys it is interesting. I agree generally speaking that one of your players is a Forward or Center superstar that you don't want playing on the perimeter, but I'm not sure where the other guy is. From a practical sense, I agree the Bulls have to really hope Matas / Noa are really big hits. I'm not sure either are star guys, but it's not crazy to see it with Matas, Noa just has no evidence yet one way or the other really.

At 25M, I think you could live with the less than perfect fit, and in our particular state, I don't think it matters, we aren't going to magically get two guys better than Giddey within the length of Giddey's contract anyway, and if we do, we can rejoice then solve whatever problem exists then.

We certainly shouldn't count on anything specific from Noa yet, but for his age he has plausible future star written all over him. Excellent frame, agility, fluidity, ball handling, defensive instincts and already proven ability to play a role in winning basketball. That doesn't mean much cause the majority of guys don't ever even sniff their potential, but in terms of raw ability this guy is a second tier prospect which is great (first tier being guys like Lebron, Duncan, Wemby etc when they come out). It's nearly a certainty IMO for example that Noa becomes a top 20th percentile NBA defender within a few years IMO. That alone will likely make him a pretty good player. If he's average to above average offensively that's a long term quality starter right there, which is 1/5 of the puzzle, which is something.

Wow, you've watched so many Bulls draft picks fizzle out, and yet you go out on a limb that far on Noa. I like your positivity. That would be awesome if he pans out. But this is the Bulls...look for Pat to punch him in the face and sideline him for his rookie year

[League Circles]

FWIW, a lot of the replies to my post have extended it way beyond what I've said.

I didn't comment on Giddey killing you or anything. Just that if you try to position guys it is interesting. I agree generally speaking that one of your players is a Forward or Center superstar that you don't want playing on the perimeter, but I'm not sure where the other guy is. From a practical sense, I agree the Bulls have to really hope Matas / Noa are really big hits. I'm not sure either are star guys, but it's not crazy to see it with Matas, Noa just has no evidence yet one way or the other really.

At 25M, I think you could live with the less than perfect fit, and in our particular state, I don't think it matters, we aren't going to magically get two guys better than Giddey within the length of Giddey's contract anyway, and if we do, we can rejoice then solve whatever problem exists then.

We certainly shouldn't count on anything specific from Noa yet, but for his age he has plausible future star written all over him. Excellent frame, agility, fluidity, ball handling, defensive instincts and already proven ability to play a role in winning basketball. That doesn't mean much cause the majority of guys don't ever even sniff their potential, but in terms of raw ability this guy is a second tier prospect which is great (first tier being guys like Lebron, Duncan, Wemby etc when they come out). It's nearly a certainty IMO for example that Noa becomes a top 20th percentile NBA defender within a few years IMO. That alone will likely make him a pretty good player. If he's average to above average offensively that's a long term quality starter right there, which is 1/5 of the puzzle, which is something.

Wow, you've watched so many Bulls draft picks fizzle out, and yet you go out on a limb that far on Noa. I like your positivity. That would be awesome if he pans out. But this is the Bulls...look for Pat to punch him in the face and sideline him for his rookie year

I was possibly the first poster on here to be really high on Noa the first time I saw him, before he raised his draft stock to be a lottery talent. I probably would have taken Carter Bryant or, gulp, Rocco Zikarsky over him at 12 due to fit, but I think he's an excellent prospect. Probably THE highest floor prospect the Bulls have had post dynasty. Not joking. Not saying I expect him to reach his ceiling. Few players do and it's unpredictable who does.

But even a guy like Derrick Rose could have been a nobody if he didn't shoot decently, which wasn't a given. Tyrus Thomas never had the handles or shooting stroke that Noa already has. Matas comes across a lot like Essengue to me but probably better offensively for now.

To me, Essengue looks like he'll be better than all of these guys looked like they'd be when drafted:

Chandler
Jay Williams
Deng (slightly)
Tyrus
Noah
Lauri
WCJ
Coby
Patrick

That's most everyone we've drafted high for 25 years.

[sco]

We certainly shouldn't count on anything specific from Noa yet, but for his age he has plausible future star written all over him. Excellent frame, agility, fluidity, ball handling, defensive instincts and already proven ability to play a role in winning basketball. That doesn't mean much cause the majority of guys don't ever even sniff their potential, but in terms of raw ability this guy is a second tier prospect which is great (first tier being guys like Lebron, Duncan, Wemby etc when they come out). It's nearly a certainty IMO for example that Noa becomes a top 20th percentile NBA defender within a few years IMO. That alone will likely make him a pretty good player. If he's average to above average offensively that's a long term quality starter right there, which is 1/5 of the puzzle, which is something.

Wow, you've watched so many Bulls draft picks fizzle out, and yet you go out on a limb that far on Noa. I like your positivity. That would be awesome if he pans out. But this is the Bulls...look for Pat to punch him in the face and sideline him for his rookie year

I was possibly the first poster on here to be really high on Noa the first time I saw him, before he raised his draft stock to be a lottery talent. I probably would have taken Carter Bryant or, gulp, Rocco Zikarsky over him at 12 due to fit, but I think he's an excellent prospect. Probably THE highest floor prospect the Bulls have had post dynasty. Not joking. Not saying I expect him to reach his ceiling. Few players do and it's unpredictable who does.

But even a guy like Derrick Rose could have been a nobody if he didn't shoot decently, which wasn't a given. Tyrus Thomas never had the handles or shooting stroke that Noa already has. Matas comes across a lot like Essengue to me but probably better offensively for now.

To me, Essengue looks like he'll be better than all of these guys looked like they'd be when drafted:

Chandler
Jay Williams
Deng (slightly)
Tyrus
Noah
Lauri
WCJ
Coby
Patrick

That's most everyone we've drafted high for 25 years.

I am a fan of BPA (highest potential) strategy. You will likely have multiple busts, but when you win, you win big. Obviously too soon to tell what Noa will/won't be. He looked ok during SL...not elite, but not unexpected given his age. His shot looked better than I expected (which is probably the most important hurdle for him to clear), but his ball handling and defensive footspeed looked worse.

I also worry that we'll somehow screw up his body by bulking him up too much, but he's got 20 lbs before I worry .

[League Circles]

Wow, you've watched so many Bulls draft picks fizzle out, and yet you go out on a limb that far on Noa. I like your positivity. That would be awesome if he pans out. But this is the Bulls...look for Pat to punch him in the face and sideline him for his rookie year

I was possibly the first poster on here to be really high on Noa the first time I saw him, before he raised his draft stock to be a lottery talent. I probably would have taken Carter Bryant or, gulp, Rocco Zikarsky over him at 12 due to fit, but I think he's an excellent prospect. Probably THE highest floor prospect the Bulls have had post dynasty. Not joking. Not saying I expect him to reach his ceiling. Few players do and it's unpredictable who does.

But even a guy like Derrick Rose could have been a nobody if he didn't shoot decently, which wasn't a given. Tyrus Thomas never had the handles or shooting stroke that Noa already has. Matas comes across a lot like Essengue to me but probably better offensively for now.

To me, Essengue looks like he'll be better than all of these guys looked like they'd be when drafted:

Chandler
Jay Williams
Deng (slightly)
Tyrus
Noah
Lauri
WCJ
Coby
Patrick

That's most everyone we've drafted high for 25 years.

I am a fan of BPA (highest potential) strategy. You will likely have multiple busts, but when you win, you win big. Obviously too soon to tell what Noa will/won't be. He looked ok during SL...not elite, but not unexpected given his age. His shot looked better than I expected (which is probably the most important hurdle for him to clear), but his ball handling and defensive footspeed looked worse.

I also worry that we'll somehow screw up his body by bulking him up too much, but he's got 20 lbs before I worry .

I neve worry about guys bulking up. Seen too many of the absolute greatest players get strong as hell and just become better like Michael, Lebron, Giannis, Karl Malone etc. I suppose there are ways that it could be a detriment to certain guys, but IMO with a knowledgeable trainer added strength is always a plus.

[WindyCityBorn]

This right here. Let's say $25 mill is third, fourth best player money. If we have two players legitimately better than Giddey, and he's able to fit with them and remain primary ballhandler, I'd see that as a pretty strong 3 piece. Two $40-$60 mill players, legit 1 and 2 money? Lots of stars don't need to be on-ball or run an offense. Giddey looks to be a star level facilitator.

Say you could recruit any two players in the NBA, what two players better than Giddey would you bring in that fit with Giddey and allow him to remain the primary ball handler and fit together where Giddey is highly valuable in that #3 role?

Maybe more importantly, how many players in the league would even qualify as a possibility?

I think he would be fine as 2nd creator as he continues to hit his open 3s.

For your question: Booker, Towns, Curry, Durant, Davis, Banchero, Herro, Brown, Siakam. Pretty good list.

[sco]

This right here. Let's say $25 mill is third, fourth best player money. If we have two players legitimately better than Giddey, and he's able to fit with them and remain primary ballhandler, I'd see that as a pretty strong 3 piece. Two $40-$60 mill players, legit 1 and 2 money? Lots of stars don't need to be on-ball or run an offense. Giddey looks to be a star level facilitator.

Say you could recruit any two players in the NBA, what two players better than Giddey would you bring in that fit with Giddey and allow him to remain the primary ball handler and fit together where Giddey is highly valuable in that #3 role?

Maybe more importantly, how many players in the league would even qualify as a possibility?

I think he would be fine as 2nd creator as he continues to hit his open 3s.

For your question: Booker, Towns, Curry, Durant, Davis, Banchero, Herro, Brown, Siakam. Pretty good list.

Good point. Hitting those 3's is really key for him. I have the most skepticism that he'll shoot 3's at 38% or above for the season just given his lack of a smooth shot, but I'd be thrilled if he did.

[MrSparkle]

I was possibly the first poster on here to be really high on Noa the first time I saw him, before he raised his draft stock to be a lottery talent. I probably would have taken Carter Bryant or, gulp, Rocco Zikarsky over him at 12 due to fit, but I think he's an excellent prospect. Probably THE highest floor prospect the Bulls have had post dynasty. Not joking. Not saying I expect him to reach his ceiling. Few players do and it's unpredictable who does.

But even a guy like Derrick Rose could have been a nobody if he didn't shoot decently, which wasn't a given. Tyrus Thomas never had the handles or shooting stroke that Noa already has. Matas comes across a lot like Essengue to me but probably better offensively for now.

To me, Essengue looks like he'll be better than all of these guys looked like they'd be when drafted:

Chandler
Jay Williams
Deng (slightly)
Tyrus
Noah
Lauri
WCJ
Coby
Patrick

That's most everyone we've drafted high for 25 years.

I am a fan of BPA (highest potential) strategy. You will likely have multiple busts, but when you win, you win big. Obviously too soon to tell what Noa will/won't be. He looked ok during SL...not elite, but not unexpected given his age. His shot looked better than I expected (which is probably the most important hurdle for him to clear), but his ball handling and defensive footspeed looked worse.

I also worry that we'll somehow screw up his body by bulking him up too much, but he's got 20 lbs before I worry .

I neve worry about guys bulking up. Seen too many of the absolute greatest players get strong as hell and just become better like Michael, Lebron, Giannis, Karl Malone etc. I suppose there are ways that it could be a detriment to certain guys, but IMO with a knowledgeable trainer added strength is always a plus.

I agree. But whatever the Bulls guys did (Luol, Lauri, Patrick), it seemed to slow them way down and cause injuries.

I can think of 4 Bulls over the 20 years who I’d consider in “elite” shape: Caruso, DeMar (at an old age in his career!), Zach and Jimmy. Everybody else has had questionable mobility, injuries and conditioning. Honorable mention for Javonte. Obviously Thibs had his teams in shape, but they also seemed to all end their careers by early 30s with debilitating injuries.

Perhaps a big underlying problem with the Bulls. They don’t train right. The 4 mentioned guys had their summer routines in LA. They also probably just don’t evaluate athleticism correctly (as it applies to NBA success).

[WindyCityBorn]

Say you could recruit any two players in the NBA, what two players better than Giddey would you bring in that fit with Giddey and allow him to remain the primary ball handler and fit together where Giddey is highly valuable in that #3 role?

Maybe more importantly, how many players in the league would even qualify as a possibility?

I think he would be fine as 2nd creator as he continues to hit his open 3s.

For your question: Booker, Towns, Curry, Durant, Davis, Banchero, Herro, Brown, Siakam. Pretty good list.

Good point. Hitting those 3's is really key for him. I have the most skepticism that he'll shoot 3's at 38% or above for the season just given his lack of a smooth shot, but I'd be thrilled if he did.

If he shoots 36 percent or above(about league average) on good volume I’ll be content. He just can’t be a liability when he doesn’t have the ball.

[sco]

I think he would be fine as 2nd creator as he continues to hit his open 3s.

For your question: Booker, Towns, Curry, Durant, Davis, Banchero, Herro, Brown, Siakam. Pretty good list.

Good point. Hitting those 3's is really key for him. I have the most skepticism that he'll shoot 3's at 38% or above for the season just given his lack of a smooth shot, but I'd be thrilled if he did.

If he shoots 36 percent or above(about league average) on good volume I’ll be content. He just can’t be a liability when he doesn’t have the ball.

That would be fine. I will say that I'm more optimistic about his 3pt shooting than other things continuing at the same level because I don't see teams really pressing him at the 3pt line any more that they did before.

[Stratmaster]

I think he would be fine as 2nd creator as he continues to hit his open 3s.

For your question: Booker, Towns, Curry, Durant, Davis, Banchero, Herro, Brown, Siakam. Pretty good list.

Good point. Hitting those 3's is really key for him. I have the most skepticism that he'll shoot 3's at 38% or above for the season just given his lack of a smooth shot, but I'd be thrilled if he did.

If he shoots 36 percent or above(about league average) on good volume I’ll be content. He just can’t be a liability when he doesn’t have the ball.

Yep. If you shoot 400 3's in a season (roughly 5 a game) the difference between 36% and 38% is 8 more makes (or misses, depending on how you want to look at it) for an entire season. He just can't shoot 32% lol. At that level teams ignore you. But teams are always going to sag off of Giddey because his game is getting the ball to others, and when he can't do that, getting to the basket. He has shown the ability to attack and force coverage and then distribute the ball and that is a huge talent. If he could shoot 38% from 3, along with his other abilities, he is a borderline superstar.

[Dominator83]

I am a fan of BPA (highest potential) strategy. You will likely have multiple busts, but when you win, you win big. Obviously too soon to tell what Noa will/won't be. He looked ok during SL...not elite, but not unexpected given his age. His shot looked better than I expected (which is probably the most important hurdle for him to clear), but his ball handling and defensive footspeed looked worse.

I also worry that we'll somehow screw up his body by bulking him up too much, but he's got 20 lbs before I worry .

I neve worry about guys bulking up. Seen too many of the absolute greatest players get strong as hell and just become better like Michael, Lebron, Giannis, Karl Malone etc. I suppose there are ways that it could be a detriment to certain guys, but IMO with a knowledgeable trainer added strength is always a plus.

I agree. But whatever the Bulls guys did (Luol, Lauri, Patrick), it seemed to slow them way down and cause injuries.

I can think of 4 Bulls over the 20 years who I’d consider in “elite” shape: Caruso, DeMar (at an old age in his career!), Zach and Jimmy. Everybody else has had questionable mobility, injuries and conditioning. Honorable mention for Javonte. Obviously Thibs had his teams in shape, but they also seemed to all end their careers by early 30s with debilitating injuries.

Perhaps a big underlying problem with the Bulls. They don’t train right. The 4 mentioned guys had their summer routines in LA. They also probably just don’t evaluate athleticism correctly (as it applies to NBA success).

Caruso was always in good shape, but he wasn't durable here at all

[Stratmaster]

Say you could recruit any two players in the NBA, what two players better than Giddey would you bring in that fit with Giddey and allow him to remain the primary ball handler and fit together where Giddey is highly valuable in that #3 role?

Maybe more importantly, how many players in the league would even qualify as a possibility?

Evan Mobley. Wemby. JJJ. Ant. Siakam. Anthony Davis. Suggs (assuming health and sustained or improving play on both ends and shooting returns to prior form). Bane. Jalen Williams. Chet Holmgren.

Basically any elite player who can coexist with another ball dominant player (who isn't or doesn't have to be a primary distributor to maximize). Pretty much need to be a 2-way player.

Not sure Ant works super well with Giddey at all. Ant seems like a pretty ball dominant player.

But let's say we have:
Wemby and Ant, an incredibly duo really, the best on that list possible.

Would you rather have Giddey or Coby White as your 3rd guy as an example?

Wemby probably is the prefect guy to play with someone like Giddey (though probably he's pretty perfect to play with anyone, but Giddey as a great passer would really help someone like Wemby a lot that could just lob dunk all over everyone with an elite vision guy at the helm).

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

[League Circles]

Evan Mobley. Wemby. JJJ. Ant. Siakam. Anthony Davis. Suggs (assuming health and sustained or improving play on both ends and shooting returns to prior form). Bane. Jalen Williams. Chet Holmgren.

Basically any elite player who can coexist with another ball dominant player (who isn't or doesn't have to be a primary distributor to maximize). Pretty much need to be a 2-way player.

Not sure Ant works super well with Giddey at all. Ant seems like a pretty ball dominant player.

But let's say we have:
Wemby and Ant, an incredibly duo really, the best on that list possible.

Would you rather have Giddey or Coby White as your 3rd guy as an example?

Wemby probably is the prefect guy to play with someone like Giddey (though probably he's pretty perfect to play with anyone, but Giddey as a great passer would really help someone like Wemby a lot that could just lob dunk all over everyone with an elite vision guy at the helm).

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Joel Embiid for one, because of spacing.

The entire concept of "point guard" is basically 40 years out of date. Most elite players essentially play point, from any of the 5 positions on the court.

The notion of Coby is that he can be a positive in more different possible NBA lineups, because he's a LOT better off ball than Giddey, because of the spacing he provides primarily.

[dougthonus]

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Better positional defense, off ball shooting, spacing, and tertiary creation for himself. Elite scorers almost always have the ball, that's why they are scoring so much.

[Stratmaster]

Not sure Ant works super well with Giddey at all. Ant seems like a pretty ball dominant player.

But let's say we have:
Wemby and Ant, an incredibly duo really, the best on that list possible.

Would you rather have Giddey or Coby White as your 3rd guy as an example?

Wemby probably is the prefect guy to play with someone like Giddey (though probably he's pretty perfect to play with anyone, but Giddey as a great passer would really help someone like Wemby a lot that could just lob dunk all over everyone with an elite vision guy at the helm).

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Joel Embiid for one, because of spacing.

The entire concept of "point guard" is basically 40 years out of date. Most elite players essentially play point, from any of the 5 positions on the court.

The notion of Coby is that he can be a positive in more different possible NBA lineups, because he's a LOT better off ball than Giddey, because of the spacing he provides primarily.

Yes. Pippen played the point. We all get that the "Guard" designation isn't important. To the point (see what I did there?), how does Coby make Joel Embid play better if Coby is running the point?

By your logic we would have to assume that Giddey's skillset is unimportant in the NBA and that you simply need 2 scorers, and spacers around them. Assists don't matter. Rebounding doesn't matter. Interior scorers who need to be set up don't matter and can't qualify as one of the 2 scorers. All that matters is 2 ISO players who can pass out of double-teams to shooters.

[Stratmaster]

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Better positional defense, off ball shooting, spacing, and tertiary creation for himself. Elite scorers almost always have the ball, that's why they are scoring so much.

Wait. You think Coby is better defensively than Giddey...who led the team in combined blocks and steals? OK, you said "positional" defense. If you mean on ball positional defense, they both are bad.

The only thing Coby is better at is shooting. Period. That isn't a little thing. But it isn't the only thing, or, I would argue, the most important thing when playing alongside elite scorers who are not primary ballhandlers.

We were talking about elite scorers who do not initiate the offense from the point. How do they get the ball?

[League Circles]

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Joel Embiid for one, because of spacing.

The entire concept of "point guard" is basically 40 years out of date. Most elite players essentially play point, from any of the 5 positions on the court.

The notion of Coby is that he can be a positive in more different possible NBA lineups, because he's a LOT better off ball than Giddey, because of the spacing he provides primarily.

Yes. Pippen played the point. We all get that the "Guard" designation isn't important. To the point (see what I did there?), how does Coby make Joel Embid play better if Coby is running the point?

By your logic we would have to assume that Giddey's skillset is unimportant in the NBA and that you simply need 2 scorers, and spacers around them. Assists don't matter. Rebounding doesn't matter. Interior scorers who need to be set up don't matter and can't qualify as one of the 2 scorers. All that matters is 2 ISO players who can pass out of double-teams to shooters.

To some extent this is genuinely true and has been proven over and over and over again at the highest level for decades.

Doesn't mean Giddey's absolutely fantastic passing isn't valuable, nor his very good rebounding. They are. They're just not as valuable as a guy who can do those things AND be a threat to score himself. Giddey is a lot better setting up open shooters and slashers than he would be setting up more of a post scorer like Embiid. Coby helps a guy like that more due to the superior spacing he provides.

Coby, being a decent creator himself, is simply a more well rounded offensive player. Not necessarily better overall offensively or as a player (reasonable minds can differ IMO), just certainly more well rounded and versatile. Giddey is of particularly elevated value to us because we don't have much of a point other than him. Coby is a decent point but thrives more as a shooter scorer. Tre Jones is a good point but like Giddey also isn't a big threat to score, and will not play much with Giddey IMO.

Assists genuinely, factually do not matter. They correlate with better passing ability, but all they do is tell a story. They're not counted by the officials and they don't create extra possessions.

There's a reason why when Skiles finally let Ben Gordon run "point" we played really well. Ben couldn't create for others, but Kirk and Duhon really couldn't do much better than him and were far inferior at creating their own scores.

[DuckIII]

I think one of them is going to be Buzelis. If he fulfills his archetype then you have two guys who fit excellently together and then you see what's available to get the third guy. But your hypothetical is obviously really easy to satsify. Its not hard to make a contender out of Josh Giddey plus any two star players in the NBA who aren't primary ballhandlers and distributors. I mean, you can just go team by team. I can go through nearly every contending team in the NBA - or probably literally every contending team - and swap out Giddey for a player making in the neighborhood of $25 million or more and that team would still be a contender.

A maxed out, absolutely best they could be, contender? No. But a contender nonetheless.

The whole idea that a player as good as Giddey, with his play style, warts and all, at $25 million per year (SGA and Book are just signed for 300% of that) is some sort of inherent contention-killer is just nonsensical to me. He'll be making 3rd-4th best player money. There was a time early in his tenure with Chicago when this was a tenable argument. To some extent I even shared the view and started a thread about it. But that time is ancient history. Arguments like this feel like a refusal to let go of an old view by disregarding or minimizing to irrelevance the most recent evidence and the reasons for that change.

You mentioned a great point. If you can go thru almost every contending team and swap Giddey with a $25 mill or more player on that team and they're still contending, the argument a team can't contend with Giddey at $25-$30 mill really falls flat.

Well we should remember that the best and maybe second best players on most true contending teams may be of a caliber that we can't reasonably expect to get. It's not just that Giddey needs to be like the third or 4th best player (and thus theoretically paid as such) on the team, it's that you also then need a couple other guys that are nearly as good as him. I think you need at least 5 guys roughly his caliber on a team in order for them to have a strong chance to win big, and they must complement each other almost perfectly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you just fundamentally saying that Giddey isn't a franchise player and to become contenders we need to get one? Because I think we all agree with that. The question appears to center on the notion that Josh Giddey, in particular, somehow makes it so that we can't get those types of guys? And then this theory attempts to envelop every player who "needs the ball" on the perimeter within it, and declare that they can't play with Giddey? When practically speaking Giddey, just like every other point guard, is simply the team's point guard. Who is likely going to be paid less then 33% of what the highest paid players make.

I am completely flummoxed by this whole theory. And I understand doug's follow up clarification, but he's not the only one who has been beating this drum. I took a few beats on that drum myself. Its just odd to me. He's a flawed player. That's why he's not, nor going to be paid like, a franchise player. I just don't see handwringing like this going on with other teams' 3rd and 4th guys. "Hey this guy has some flaws, we can't possibly hope to contend with any combination of star players, while he's on the roster, no matter who they are." That's stuff you say about 1 and 2 guys who are sniffing around for max deals.

Its kind of an odd dynamic that we talk about him as though he's supposed to be like a franchise player, even though we all agree he is not one, and that the Bulls aren't treating him like one, nor going to pay him like one. I honestly can't recall ever having a discussion quite like this on the board regarding any player. It really is unique. And interesting to talk about.

[League Circles]

I can't imagine two elite players, who do not play PG, who would benefit more playing with Coby White than with Josh Giddey. What am I missing? What does Coby bring to them? The whole conversation seems to be around the context of 2 elite scorers. What does Coby add to that mix?

Better positional defense, off ball shooting, spacing, and tertiary creation for himself. Elite scorers almost always have the ball, that's why they are scoring so much.

Wait. You think Coby is better defensively than Giddey...who led the team in combined blocks and steals? OK, you said "positional" defense. If you mean on ball positional defense, they both are bad.

The only thing Coby is better at is shooting. Period. That isn't a little thing. But it isn't the only thing, or, I would argue, the most important thing when playing alongside elite scorers who are not primary ballhandlers.

We were talking about elite scorers who do not initiate the offense from the point. How do they get the ball?

Do you believe that "stocks" are a good way to rank defenders? If so, than own it and say you think Giddey was the Bulls best defender (after Ball who beat him per 36 but is now gone). If not, don't cite it.

Plenty of people would think Coby is a better defender at the 1 than Giddey is at the 3, which are their most frequent positions.

Coby is better at driving, finishing, dunking, running, shooting from everywhere on the court, and IMO slightly better on defense, at least man to man. Coby is better at drawing fouls, better at not turning the ball over, etc.