Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[jmajew]

I haven't posted in a while as I have lost a little interest in the Bulls, however, the fact that the Thunder were willing to trade Giddey for Caruso means very little. Giddey was never going to reach his potential playing with Shai. Shai is the best player in the league. The Thunder's job was to build a team that best fit around Shai. Giddey's skillset does not mesh playing along someone like Shai.

The trade does not mean the Thunder did not believe in Giddey. All it meant was they thought Caruso would help maximize the teams potential.

[waffle]

agreed w. jmajew....

[Peelboy]

I haven't posted in a while as I have lost a little interest in the Bulls, however, the fact that the Thunder were willing to trade Giddey for Caruso means very little. Giddey was never going to reach his potential playing with Shai. Shai is the best player in the league. The Thunder's job was to build a team that best fit around Shai. Giddey's skillset does not mesh playing along someone like Shai.

The trade does not mean the Thunder did not believe in Giddey. All it meant was they thought Caruso would help maximize the teams potential.

This is they key to me. With the addition to make it say "Caruso would help maximize the team's potential given the composition of the rest of the roster and the fact that they had better players in Shai, Chet, JW."

Point being that when you have a team with multiple young stars at different positions, your needs are different. Shai needs the ball, therefore Josh can't be the primary ballhandler. That just means he's not as good as the MVP, not that he's not a good player. (NOTE: this is an example, I am not putting Josh and Shai in the same grouping).

If the Bulls are going to have a team built around a stud/MVP caliber lead guard, then they'd be in the same boat. But they won't/don't. Their best player is someone more like a young Giannis (another illustrative comparison, Matas is not Giannis), someone who can play next to a lead ballhandler rather than initiating.

I happen to think that a team with Josh initiating can be successful. And certainly successful enough that it makes a Josh tradable if you end up with a stud lead G like Shai.

My suspicion/hope is that because there's time, there's little movement even if both parties would be willing to meet at $25M (which seems likely, although you never know with AK whether he just locks into something and refuses to budge ala belief in Pat). And as Doug (I think) said, no one wants to be the first to move and have the other say "ok, meet in the new middle."

[dougthonus]

So I think the better way to phrase it is do you think he can be the starting PG and offensive engine on a good team at this salary? And the answer to that is clearly yes. Anyone saying otherwise has a personal, specific issue with Josh Giddey.

I don't think the answer to that is clearly yes. Though that depends on what you mean by "offensive engine". By offensive engine, I would assume you mean you can run the offense through this player in the half court, which to me means this player also has to be able to consistently win against defensive pressure off the dribble. I do not think that is clear that he can do that at all.

That said, I'm still not concerned with paying him 25M (or at least not overly) because we aren't going to do any of the things I'd rather do anyway.

[HomoSapien]

So I think the better way to phrase it is do you think he can be the starting PG and offensive engine on a good team at this salary? And the answer to that is clearly yes. Anyone saying otherwise has a personal, specific issue with Josh Giddey.

I don't think the answer to that is clearly yes. Though that depends on what you mean by "offensive engine". By offensive engine, I would assume you mean you can run the offense through this player in the half court, which to me means this player also has to be able to consistently win against defensive pressure off the dribble. I do not think that is clear that he can do that at all.

That said, I'm still not concerned with paying him 25M (or at least not overly) because we aren't going to do any of the things I'd rather do anyway.

I’m a little surprised you’re so down on Giddey. If I remember correctly, you thought the Alex Carusou trade was pretty good. Has your opinion of Giddey gone down since the trade?

[dougthonus]

I see your walking back your previous comments about Giddey being just another role player.

25 million for him is an over pay if he’s just another average role player…..

No, I'm not walking back my comments. I think he is a role player, and I would pay him 25M. You didn't actually comprehend my thoughts if you think otherwise but that's a you problem.

[dougthonus]

I’m a little surprised you’re so down on Giddey. If I remember correctly, you thought the Alex Carusou trade was pretty good. Has your opinion of Giddey gone down since the trade?

Down (in this case) is relative to other forum posters here I'm discussing with, and not an absolute view of my opinion.

I think Giddey is a good player, I wouldn't pay him 25M if I didn't think he was a good player. I'm also happy with the Caruso deal still. There is a difference between what I think he can do and others think he can do or perhaps just semantics in what we mean by phrases like "run the offense through" or "lead guard" etc..

[DuckIII]

So I think the better way to phrase it is do you think he can be the starting PG and offensive engine on a good team at this salary? And the answer to that is clearly yes. Anyone saying otherwise has a personal, specific issue with Josh Giddey.

I don't think the answer to that is clearly yes. Though that depends on what you mean by "offensive engine". By offensive engine, I would assume you mean you can run the offense through this player in the half court, which to me means this player also has to be able to consistently win against defensive pressure off the dribble. I do not think that is clear that he can do that at all.

That’s not what I mean. It’s the only interpretation that would emphasize a perceived weakness of Giddey’s to make it seem like he’d be bad at it though.

What I mean is that his play style - huge, fast paced, elite passing PG - is the style around which the offense is built because he’s uniquely capable of playing that way and so we take advantage of that.

Not sure it’s worth discussing. That Caruso argument you just pulled out is the lamest argument about Giddey there is and has been around since Day 1. It’s kind of the canary in the coal mine on Giddey debates for me. I don’t see how a rational thinking person not trying to spin negative for subjective reasons would ever make that argument. Because it’s stupid and illustrates a complete disregard for context. And you certainly aren’t stupid. So that kinda leaves me with the impression that you just don’t like Giddey and that’s that.

[dougthonus]

\
That’s not what I mean. It’s the only interpretation that would emphasize a perceived weakness of Giddey’s to make it seem like he’d be bad at it though.

What I mean is that his play style - huge, fast paced, elite passing PG - is the style around which the offense is built because he’s uniquely capable of playing that way and so we take advantage of that.

FWIW, my argument is more about how much ceiling there to a Giddey led team in this role. I think it tops out in the upper 40s before you'd rather do something like the Thunder did. Upper 40s sounds pretty fantastic to me right now, so I don't mind this path in the short term, but I probably do tend to get caught up in some angst about our lack of building a bigger asset base in the past and unwillingness to do so now.

If I ran the Bulls I would look to bring back Giddey, and I'd probably look to do it exactly how they are doing it, and I would guess when this eventually gets done that I will be happy with the contract we have him on. Most of my comments on Giddey the player stand, but I'm not overly concerned about them in reality because we're incredibly unlikely to have two players better than Giddey or be a contender in the next 3 years no matter what we do.

I also probably just tend to like all sides of an argument to be present so will often just add the sides not being talked about. If everyone here was super down on Giddey, I'd probably be filling in the pro-side, much like when we traded for him and people weren't excited.

Not sure it’s worth discussing. That Caruso argument you just pulled out is the lamest argument about Giddey there is and has been around since Day 1. It’s kind of the canary in the coal mine on Giddey debates for me. I don’t see how a rational thinking person not trying to spin negative for subjective reasons would ever make that argument. Because it’s stupid and illustrates a complete disregard for context. And you certainly aren’t stupid. So that kinda leaves me with the impression that you just don’t like Giddey and that’s that.

The context I brought up the Caruso argument was in response to the incredibly lazy "Giddey is a star due to counting stats" argument and I do so, because it's an obvious example of why counting stats are frequently a very poor way to measure players.

I think we both likely agree the actual situation is quite nuanced and was a win/win for both teams.

FWIW, generally whether I "like" a player or not is based on the contract and role they will play and the makeup of the team they are on. I love Giddey at 20M, I like Giddey at 25M, I dislike Giddey at 30M, I hate Giddey at 35M.

[DuckIII]

\
That’s not what I mean. It’s the only interpretation that would emphasize a perceived weakness of Giddey’s to make it seem like he’d be bad at it though.

What I mean is that his play style - huge, fast paced, elite passing PG - is the style around which the offense is built because he’s uniquely capable of playing that way and so we take advantage of that.

FWIW, my argument is more about how much ceiling there to a Giddey led team in this role. I think it tops out in the upper 40s before you'd rather do something like the Thunder did. Upper 40s sounds pretty fantastic to me right now, so I don't mind this path in the short term, but I probably do tend to get caught up in some angst about our lack of building a bigger asset base in the past and unwillingness to do so now.

If I ran the Bulls I would look to bring back Giddey, and I'd probably look to do it exactly how they are doing it, and I would guess when this eventually gets done that I will be happy with the contract we have him on. Most of my comments on Giddey the player stand, but I'm not overly concerned about them in reality because we're incredibly unlikely to have two players better than Giddey or be a contender in the next 3 years no matter what we do.

I also probably just tend to like all sides of an argument to be present so will often just add the sides not being talked about. If everyone here was super down on Giddey, I'd probably be filling in the pro-side, much like when we traded for him and people weren't excited.

Not sure it’s worth discussing. That Caruso argument you just pulled out is the lamest argument about Giddey there is and has been around since Day 1. It’s kind of the canary in the coal mine on Giddey debates for me. I don’t see how a rational thinking person not trying to spin negative for subjective reasons would ever make that argument. Because it’s stupid and illustrates a complete disregard for context. And you certainly aren’t stupid. So that kinda leaves me with the impression that you just don’t like Giddey and that’s that.

The context I brought up the Caruso argument was in response to the incredibly lazy "Giddey is a star due to counting stats" argument and I do so, because it's an obvious example of why counting stats are frequently a very poor way to measure players.

I think we both likely agree the actual situation is quite nuanced and was a win/win for both teams.

FWIW, generally whether I "like" a player or not is based on the contract and role they will play and the makeup of the team they are on. I love Giddey at 20M, I like Giddey at 25M, I dislike Giddey at 30M, I hate Giddey at 35M.

Your posts on Giddey perplex me. Because you will make an argument that seems clearly, subjectively, negative about Giddey. Like the Caruso argument, or the one about being better off with letting Giddey go and using a PG by committee approach with Ayo and Tre Jones, or posing it as a challenge to identify any two non-ball dominant stars in the NBA that Giddey could contend with. As though that would be a difficult assignment.

I read stuff like that and it sounds stubborn, not objective.

But then you will explain it and it will sound a lot better than the first time. But then a week later a post will sound excessively negative again. I’m all turned around upside down.

[kulaz3000]

I see a bit of panic around this situation being that the negotiations have gone longer than expected, but I fully expect Giddey to be back and for both parties to meet in the middle. 20 million, 30 million, the middle ground is 25, and I think that that number both parties should be happy, as should fans.

Sometimes negotiations drag out, and I much prefer this approach than negotiating against yourselves and overpaying for players. I think the Bulls have a fair argument that the sample size is too small to warrant a 30 million per contract. That's the only argument that they need to put out there. And for Giddey's side, the small sample size, in conjunction with his youth and gradual improvement over his career, warrants a bigger contract, also fair.

There has been little to no news about either side being unhappy, which indicates the both sides have be cordial and they are simply playing a game of chicken right now, to see who moves first - which is perfectly fine, both sides are entitled to wait to the very last minute to make a decision.

[dougthonus]

But then you will explain it and it will sound a lot better than the first time. But then a week later a post will sound excessively negative again. I’m all turned around upside down.

The effort of nuance I put into the reply is probably highly correlated to how much the person I'm replying to is willing to read nuance and make a real effort to understand or discuss points with nuance. Hence the jarring difference

[boozapalooza]

I’m a little surprised you’re so down on Giddey. If I remember correctly, you thought the Alex Carusou trade was pretty good. Has your opinion of Giddey gone down since the trade?

Down (in this case) is relative to other forum posters here I'm discussing with, and not an absolute view of my opinion.

I think Giddey is a good player, I wouldn't pay him 25M if I didn't think he was a good player. I'm also happy with the Caruso deal still. There is a difference between what I think he can do and others think he can do or perhaps just semantics in what we mean by phrases like "run the offense through" or "lead guard" etc..

My only gripe is you seem to talk about Giddey as a finished product, not a 22 year old who should be able to continue improving his game considerably. The post-Zach era, where Giddey was a 21/10/9 player, might be the only stretch of his career where the offense sort of ran through him. Didn’t happen playing next to Shai or Zach. I don’t think he becomes an All-NBA player but I think the upside/potential is there to be a fringe all star player for sure.

Even if he leveled out and never made another step of progress, hes a quality starter on almost any team and worthy of $25M. I could base that just off what he did in year 2 of his career as a 20 year old (16/8/6).

[WindyCityBorn]

\
That’s not what I mean. It’s the only interpretation that would emphasize a perceived weakness of Giddey’s to make it seem like he’d be bad at it though.

What I mean is that his play style - huge, fast paced, elite passing PG - is the style around which the offense is built because he’s uniquely capable of playing that way and so we take advantage of that.

FWIW, my argument is more about how much ceiling there to a Giddey led team in this role. I think it tops out in the upper 40s before you'd rather do something like the Thunder did. Upper 40s sounds pretty fantastic to me right now, so I don't mind this path in the short term, but I probably do tend to get caught up in some angst about our lack of building a bigger asset base in the past and unwillingness to do so now.

If I ran the Bulls I would look to bring back Giddey, and I'd probably look to do it exactly how they are doing it, and I would guess when this eventually gets done that I will be happy with the contract we have him on. Most of my comments on Giddey the player stand, but I'm not overly concerned about them in reality because we're incredibly unlikely to have two players better than Giddey or be a contender in the next 3 years no matter what we do.

I also probably just tend to like all sides of an argument to be present so will often just add the sides not being talked about. If everyone here was super down on Giddey, I'd probably be filling in the pro-side, much like when we traded for him and people weren't excited.

Not sure it’s worth discussing. That Caruso argument you just pulled out is the lamest argument about Giddey there is and has been around since Day 1. It’s kind of the canary in the coal mine on Giddey debates for me. I don’t see how a rational thinking person not trying to spin negative for subjective reasons would ever make that argument. Because it’s stupid and illustrates a complete disregard for context. And you certainly aren’t stupid. So that kinda leaves me with the impression that you just don’t like Giddey and that’s that.

The context I brought up the Caruso argument was in response to the incredibly lazy "Giddey is a star due to counting stats" argument and I do so, because it's an obvious example of why counting stats are frequently a very poor way to measure players.

I think we both likely agree the actual situation is quite nuanced and was a win/win for both teams.

FWIW, generally whether I "like" a player or not is based on the contract and role they will play and the makeup of the team they are on. I love Giddey at 20M, I like Giddey at 25M, I dislike Giddey at 30M, I hate Giddey at 35M.

Why is it all about Giddey? I don’t think anyone is pinning the future of the franchise on him. That is Buzelis right now and maybe Essengue down the road. I currently view Giddey as a 3rd or 4th option on a contender and it looks like he will be paid like that. If he plays an entire season like he did the end of last season then my evaluation of him will change significantly If he is a legit 20/8/8 guy that shoots 38 percent from 3 he will vastly underpaid at $25 million.

[dougthonus]

My only gripe is you seem to talk about Giddey as a finished product, not a 22 year old who should be able to continue improving his game considerably. The post-Zach era, where Giddey was a 21/10/9 player, might be the only stretch of his career where the offense sort of ran through him. Didn’t happen playing next to Shai or Zach. I don’t think he becomes an All-NBA player but I think the upside/potential is there to be a fringe all star player for sure.

Even if he leveled out and never made another step of progress, hes a quality starter on almost any team and worthy of $25M. I could base that just off what he did in year 2 of his career as a 20 year old (16/8/6).

My largest gripe with almost all of the pro-Giddey argument is counting stat based evaluations of his worth. I think he could put up "star level" counting stats and still not be a good player. The things he can do that would increase his value would be:

1: Become dangerous as a shooter

This is not about three point percentage, which I think has become an extraordinarily overrated stat. It is about how the defense reacts to him at the three point line. Coby White didn't have an amazing three point percentage, but Coby White is a dangerous three point shooter. He can shoot step backs, side steps, off the dribble, shoot with a defender locked on him trying to stop him, sometimes shoot over a double team. If Coby White is out at the three point line the defense cares and tries to stop him.

Nikola Vucevic is not a dangerous shooter. When he's at the three point line, no one cares. He shoots an okay percentage, because the defense allows him to shoot and gets more value out of just double teaming other players and is not concerned whether Vuc may bury him. Maybe if he makes three in a row one night they will change their defense, but otherwise, they're fine living with his shot from there.

The difference from these two things is absolutely massive in how it impacts the rest of your offense, spacing and opportunities. Giddey is at the moment a sub Vuc level shooter. He did show good improvement in his shot percentage last year, and that's a very positive sign, but his form is still very, very slow, he will generally only shoot when wide open, the defense is content to leave him completely unguarded from there, and so that creates pressure. He has weird hitches in his shot, his footwork is awful, his upperbody form is awful, and so barring a completely rework of his shot, it's hard for me to see how he steps it up a level where he can ever shoot against even mild defense.

It's probably hard to completely rework his shot at his age, there is so much muscle memory involved, and you never know if you will get the ultimate pay off. I'm not a shot doctor, so I don't know if you can change it piece by piece or if you have to break it all down and get it at once, but last year his improvements came largely with no scalable form, and so I have limited hope to how much headroom there is to improve in this area based on that.

2: Become a dangerous player at the rim

If you can't shoot really well, the other leg of highly efficient offense is to get a lot of shots at the rim. This involves having a combination of speed, athleticism, ball handling, size, strength, and coordination. Giddey's got the size and ball handling, and while he probably won't ever have the speed or burst, I have no problem thinking he could improve in the strength / coordination / craftiness to become a dangerous player at the rim. We did see that start to emerge last year, and unlike the problems with his shooting where I feel it might be hard to scale, I think his is an area he is more likely to continue to grow in.

The greatest concern here for me is whether he'll have enough of a first step to initially get the penetration, but I think ball handling is the more important aspect then raw burst for getting past people on the perimeter, and I think it's quite plausible that he can become a consistent interior scorer.

3: Do more on defense

It's hard to see what this looks like, but I think teams can still trivially target Giddey on defense, and while him becoming a plus defender is probably unlikely, continued improvement here is always plausible. He does have high basketball IQ, and because of that he can make up for some of his athletic deficiencies, and we already saw that a bit last year.

Generally speaking, there are is a lot more to "improvement" than simply being young, you have to look at what areas need improvement and think how likely that improvement is and where it's going to come from. For Giddey, there's no theoretical reason he can't improve his shot, but the specific things he needs to change in it are massive and that makes it hard for me to see it getting to a point where it isn't a weakness. Same with his defense. The interior play is where I have the most hope.

For a variety of reasons, I don't think massive ceiling is in the cards for him, but at the same time at 25M I don't care. He doesn't need a massive ceiling to be worth 25M, he can do a lot of good things now. By going with Giddey, you are complicating many other aspects of your holistic team building strategy, and so for me, getting him on a deal that I feel confident I can pivot from becomes a bigger factor. I feel good about all of it at 25M.

[sco]

\
That’s not what I mean. It’s the only interpretation that would emphasize a perceived weakness of Giddey’s to make it seem like he’d be bad at it though.

What I mean is that his play style - huge, fast paced, elite passing PG - is the style around which the offense is built because he’s uniquely capable of playing that way and so we take advantage of that.

FWIW, my argument is more about how much ceiling there to a Giddey led team in this role. I think it tops out in the upper 40s before you'd rather do something like the Thunder did. Upper 40s sounds pretty fantastic to me right now, so I don't mind this path in the short term, but I probably do tend to get caught up in some angst about our lack of building a bigger asset base in the past and unwillingness to do so now.

If I ran the Bulls I would look to bring back Giddey, and I'd probably look to do it exactly how they are doing it, and I would guess when this eventually gets done that I will be happy with the contract we have him on. Most of my comments on Giddey the player stand, but I'm not overly concerned about them in reality because we're incredibly unlikely to have two players better than Giddey or be a contender in the next 3 years no matter what we do.

I also probably just tend to like all sides of an argument to be present so will often just add the sides not being talked about. If everyone here was super down on Giddey, I'd probably be filling in the pro-side, much like when we traded for him and people weren't excited.

Not sure it’s worth discussing. That Caruso argument you just pulled out is the lamest argument about Giddey there is and has been around since Day 1. It’s kind of the canary in the coal mine on Giddey debates for me. I don’t see how a rational thinking person not trying to spin negative for subjective reasons would ever make that argument. Because it’s stupid and illustrates a complete disregard for context. And you certainly aren’t stupid. So that kinda leaves me with the impression that you just don’t like Giddey and that’s that.

The context I brought up the Caruso argument was in response to the incredibly lazy "Giddey is a star due to counting stats" argument and I do so, because it's an obvious example of why counting stats are frequently a very poor way to measure players.

I think we both likely agree the actual situation is quite nuanced and was a win/win for both teams.

FWIW, generally whether I "like" a player or not is based on the contract and role they will play and the makeup of the team they are on. I love Giddey at 20M, I like Giddey at 25M, I dislike Giddey at 30M, I hate Giddey at 35M.

Why is it all about Giddey? I don’t think anyone is pinning the future of the franchise on him. That is Buzelis right now and maybe Essengue down the road. I currently view Giddey as a 3rd or 4th option on a contender and it looks like he will be paid like that. If he plays an entire season like he did the end of last season then my evaluation of him will change significantly If he is a legit 20/8/8 guy that shoots 38 percent from 3 he will vastly underpaid at $25 million.

I think it is all about Giddey, because he's the only piece unsigned right now. I think the variability of value by posters is about 2 things:

1) Giddey had one of the most inconsistent seasons for a guy who started the whole season that I can remember. He played at around the MLE level until the ASG, then played like a $35M player after. Was it just Zach leaving? Was it inferior opponents? Was it just learning the system? The answer to that could change what one would expect his go-forward production to be...hence the debate.

2) We are fanatics here. And it is very uncomfortable to be in this protracted situation for big Giddey fans. So we want to get this done so we feel better...hence why many want him paid "what he's worth" vs. "what his market price is" (which reflects his restricted status).

[dougthonus]

Why is it all about Giddey?

1: Because this is the Josh Giddey thread, why would I talk about something else here?

2: Because we are making a decision about Josh Giddey right now, and it is the only decision we are making right now. I am happy to discuss holistic building strategies about the Bulls, and I have done so in great depth many times, but the reality is this roster is set and the only meaningful decision we will make the rest of the off-season is what to pay Josh Giddey.

I don’t think anyone is pinning the future of the franchise on him. That is Buzelis right now and maybe Essengue down the road. I currently view Giddey as a 3rd or 4th option on a contender and it looks like he will be paid like that. If he plays an entire season like he did the end of last season then my evaluation of him will change significantly If he is a legit 20/8/8 guy that shoots 38 percent from 3 he will vastly underpaid at $25 million.

If Coby plays an entire season like he did the last 19 games he could be a max player. If Zach LaVine played his career like he did to end the season two years ago, he could be an MVP candidate. Literally every player in the league would be vastly underpaid if you took the best small sample size stretch of their career and projected it as their normal, so while I completely agree that statement is true, I have seen this game play out a lot of times on the Bulls with different players at the end of seasons.

If you want to pay Josh Giddey some different amount of money that's fine. I feel comfortable with my 25M number, as you noted, we aren't pinning the franchise on him, I'm not worried about him leaving for that same reason. I'd be okay with this team winning a lot fewer games next year and having a higher draft pick in what looks like an incredible draft class. I'd be okay, scrapping everyone on this team except Matas and gambling on a full rebuild.

I'm okay with the Giddey led Bulls approach too though. The rebuild approach is more likely to generate a contender, but it's also way more likely to generate a perennial loser that makes my eyes bleed. I'm actually not that emphatic about picking one spot on the risk / reward spectrum as another spot, just that whatever spot we pick, I would aim to execute as well as possible, and I'm not locked into having to do one thing vs the other, so if the Giddey price tag moves past my liking, I'm okay pursuing a totally different path.

Fundamentally, I'm for disciplined decision making.

[Chi town]

But then you will explain it and it will sound a lot better than the first time. But then a week later a post will sound excessively negative again. I’m all turned around upside down.

The effort of nuance I put into the reply is probably highly correlated to how much the person I'm replying to is willing to read nuance and make a real effort to understand or discuss points with nuance. Hence the jarring difference

Certainly a masterclass inside your posting ethos.

It all makes sense now.

Doug plays devil’s advocate based on perceived need to level the playing field while giving his most nuanced responses with the why behind the what to the posts/ers that return and respond with the same.

[boozapalooza]

Read on Twitter

Interesting poll / results

Who would you rather have? I took Lamelo but his injury history is disgusting

[DrModesty]

Read on Twitter

Interesting poll / results

Who would you rather have? I took Lamelo but his injury history is disgusting

Lamelo is a stay away player for me. I think I'd lean that way even if he was healthy, as I don't think his personality works well for running a team.

Including the health I'd rather pay Giddey 38/40/43/46. I might even rather pay Coby that money than Lamelo, and I am not particularly high on Coby.