2weekswithpay wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:2weekswithpay wrote:
Elite numbers and generating elite offense aren't the same. Giddey and Coby had career best stretches post-ASB, yet the Bulls were only an average offense during that time.
Giddey costing half as much is whatever IMO. Paying double is worth it for elite 1st or 2nd options.
Statistical production no, but Curry's on-court impact surpasses both Giddey and Bridges combined IMO. Hence, I'm taking Curry over Giddey and Bridges.
Giddey might be a better contract than Murray, but I wouldn't consider him a better player. Murray isn't elite, but he can play off Jokic in ways that Giddey can't largely due to the difference in shooting ability. The Lakers don't need a PG. Lebron and now Luka initiate the offense, so the Lakers don't need a starting level PG.
If Giddey is the 3rd or 4th best player, you're probably looking to trade him like OKC did. Giddey's game isn't built to be the 3rd or 4th best player on a contender.
OKC? The team that just paid Caruso $20 mill to come off the bench? Did they ask him to be the third or fourth best player on a contender for $20 mill? Somehow they can survive paying Caruso $20 mill and win a championship, but anything over $22 mill for Giddey dooms the Bulls to failure. Giddey's game isn't built to run with another primary point guard, how about that being a bigger factor? He' a PG, SGA is a PG. They don't need two starting PG's who need the ball. Caruso comes off the bench and is effective without scoring or assists. OKC didn't need that. We do.
So you're going to build your team with all elite options? Explain how you'd afford that. 5 $50-$60 mill players better than Giddey? $250 mill in the starting lineup. Murray doesn't pass like Giddey, never came close to the assist ratio. I look for passing from my point guards more than scoring, so I give the edge to Giddey, especially at the same age. Giddey also far out rebounds Murray, which helps the team and has to count. Better shooter, works better with Jokic than Giddey would sure, would not be better if he needed to lead the team in assists and run the offense, imo. Jokic makes him viable as a starter on a contender. He averages less than 5 assists per game, didn't have a season with even 5 his first 5 years.
I said Curry was legendary. So is Doncic and probably SGA. Now let's talk about the other 12 guys in the top 15 that are not going to outproduce Giddey and Bridges on a contender. Lillard. Kyrie. Haliburton. You're severely underrating Giddey's and Bridges impact playing a combined 70 minutes a game vs Lillard playing 35 minutes and a $3 mill vet min player playing 35 minutes in Bridges place. If we're going to focus on how much salary matters, it matters all around. You don't get to be $40 mill over the cap and compare value of players. If we're paying what the Warriors were paying in luxury tax, we could add $180 mill to $25 mill Giddey, lmao! He could be the fifth highest paid player.
I don't even think Caruso's contract is good, but they don't have any issue giving it to him because SGA, Jalen Williams, and Chet are outplaying their contracts. Same reason for them paying Hartenstein almost 30M. Giddey's game isn't built to run next to most good offensive players, regardless of their position. Most star players need the ball as well as good court spacing. Giddey isn't suited for that role, and you aren't taking the ball out of Tatum's hands so Giddey can run the offense.
I never said I'd build a team of elite options, and I don't know how you got to that conclusion.
Star players generally need scoring/shooting next to them. They draw so much attention from defense and need teammates who are capable of taking advantage of that attention. Giddey doesn't excel in this role while Murray does. I don't care about leading the team in assists. Neither Giddey nor Murray is running an elite offense.
Haliburton and Kyrie were worth their contracts pre-injury at least, and both are only getting paid 40-45M. I'd rather have Kyrie/Haliburton and the extra money over those Giddey and Bridges. Dame sure those two are worth more than him, but his days as an All-NBA level talent are done.
Also, I don't think the Pacers would make the finals if you swapped Haliburton with Giddey and Bridges. Same with the Kyrie and the Mavs last season.
I don't think I'm underrating Giddey and Bridges. I don't think those two at 63M is a steal, I'd rather have Curry at 60M or Haliburton at 45M.
The discussion gets to the concept of team building. Traditionally, most teams are built around a #1 option who is good enough to get his scoring with a very high degree of efficiency against double-teams...those guys like Curry, Luka and SGA are worth $60M because they do so much for the rest of the team in terms of efficiency and are so potent offensively, you can have 1 guy on the floor who is a more defensively oriented guy without out much negative impact on offense. Then you start adding complementary pieces around that guy. The problem with our strategy, unless we totally luck out with Matas becoming a guy like that, is that we are being to pay complementary guys like Giddey and Coby without a sense of the player that we are building around or what are the right sort of skills that are needed.
A different perspective is needed with guys like Caruso. When teams thing they are 1 player away from a contending team, that player becomes worth more than his market value to that team in terms of trade compensation to get him and what to pay him.
