Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Stratmaster]

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

It's effectively a market survey data from the people who will make the market.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

Temperature doesn't shift based on the opinion of how hot or cold people think it is. Giddey's contract is exactly based on those opinions. It's a nonsensical comparison to take ask people a factual question and compare answers to asking people how much would you pay for a product when trying to determine the products price.

In such a question, you don't necessarily use the average (or even care about the average). That's why I noted in my response to the article, that based on it, Giddey's market value was 25M (peak value), not the average value, and made no point about the average value at all.

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

No, from an integrity standpoint, it is much better to include the number and note it as an outlier than to note include the number. As I said, the article did not emphasize the average, and emphasized in much greater amounts of words the commonality of 4 years and 25M per year.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

In the world where someone doesn't like the fit of the player on their team which I would infer is due to a lot of the reasons that have been brought up in this thread, and yes, there are organizations that have a core set of beliefs and will only take something that violates those beliefs with extreme incentives to do so.

Once again, you are justifying the answer based on a different question. How a question is asked heavily influences the answers. The question was a fair contact value. There is no way Giddey's next contract will be anywhere near 4/50 unless it is because there is no agreement and it is the QO. You know it. I know it. Twist it around any way you would like and it is still the actual reality.

[dougthonus]

Twist and shout all you want. There is no way that number is anywhere near reasonable. You know it. Doug knows it. I know it. The reporters knew it. But they included it anyway. Hey. I just polled 16 women I know who think Giddey is good. Oh... and they all think Giddey is cute. They all said pay him the max.

It's called bias.

By the way, the correct answer based on the staffers opinion was "I wouldn't pay him anything because he is not a piece I want on my team"

To be quite clear, I do not think I could possibly disagree with you any more on this topic. I do not just think you are wrong, I think your opinion and analysis is outrageously wrong. I do not think the answer the staffer gave is a reasonable contract for Giddey, but I think it's totally reasonable that a single individual would price Giddey at that amount.

I think the fictional answer you had the staffer give would also be appropriate, but in a casual conversation, I think the answer given was fine. I'd love for you to be a reporter then browbeat someone at a team for giving you a low number instead of answering the way you just said.

[jnrjr79]

i don't think a paywalled article about a 16-person survey that includes one person saying "i would give josh giddey a 4 year, $50 million contract, but i know i'm way lower on him than most people" qualifies as clickbait. probably could have gotten someone to say something a lot more incendiary if the goal of the exercise was baiting people into clicking

Clickbait might not be the right term but its designed for engagement not learning anything meaningful.

I'm sure they care about their readership numbers, but given the paywall, and given it's in the middle of the article and not the headline or subhead, it's fairly obvious this isn't for engagement.

I find it pretty funny that a journalist bothering to survey 16 people that actually work in NBA front offices is "not learning anything meaningful" relative to whatever other sources of information you might envision.

[Stratmaster]

If you were only looking at the average you could do that, but they noted the most common number was 25M (which was also the peak number). The article wasn't written in such a way that emphasized the average, in such a way that this really mattered.

12.5M definitely is not "idiocy" for someone who would look at Giddey and say the weaknesses he has do not fit into our team under almost any circumstances, and we'd only take them at a severe discount. Lots of successful companies will have core values that they will not deviate from unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. It is mildly interesting to know that there is at least some subset of people that think that way.

If you don't find that interesting, fair enough. I find that interesting and am glad that fact was included within the data and I got to read it. The overall picture of the data was presented in a rational way, and this fact did not have a meaningful impact on the results or analysis (which is as it should be).

You just added a ton of context that wasn't included in the question. Which was one of the major problems. The question was what they think fair value is. Fair market value and how much I will pay in my specific position are, to use your term, wildly different.

12.5 million is an absurd number based on the question that was asked. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.

I don't think there's anything for me to "acknowledge" here and I find that sort of a mindset to be weird in this context. There was one guy who admitted he had a much dimmer view of Giddey than others, and therefore his view of a fair contract was outside the consensus. I have zero idea why anyone would be even a teency weency bit mad about that.

I don't agree with the guy - I'd pay Giddey $25M were I an NBA front office person, so I'm not saying he's right, I just don't get why people are taking offense to someone saying "I wouldn't pay the market rate because I don't like him as much as others do." That's a perfectly normal sentiment!

I wasn't answering you. And I find your constant use of weird to describe posts that are anything but that very weird. And again, he was asked to give an opinion on FMV. If his answer is "I won't pay FMV, then you don't include the answer.

[jnrjr79]

You just added a ton of context that wasn't included in the question. Which was one of the major problems. The question was what they think fair value is. Fair market value and how much I will pay in my specific position are, to use your term, wildly different.

12.5 million is an absurd number based on the question that was asked. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.

I don't think there's anything for me to "acknowledge" here and I find that sort of a mindset to be weird in this context. There was one guy who admitted he had a much dimmer view of Giddey than others, and therefore his view of a fair contract was outside the consensus. I have zero idea why anyone would be even a teency weency bit mad about that.

I don't agree with the guy - I'd pay Giddey $25M were I an NBA front office person, so I'm not saying he's right, I just don't get why people are taking offense to someone saying "I wouldn't pay the market rate because I don't like him as much as others do." That's a perfectly normal sentiment!

I wasn't answering you. And I find your constant use of weird to describe posts that are anything but that very weird.

My bad! I misread the post.

[nomorezorro]

The question was a fair contact value. There is no way Giddey's next contract will be anywhere near 4/50 unless it is because there is no agreement and it is the QO. You know it. I know it. Twist it around any way you would like and it is still the actual reality.

a reasonable way to interpret "fair contract" is "how much do you think this player is worth, in a vacuum, irrespective of what he might actually command on the open market"

you can be critical of the question for not being specific enough, but nothing about the question itself demands a response that is in line with what giddey will ultimately be paid

[Infinity2152]

The whole point is that a mean value is meaningless in the first place because players aren't paid based on mean values. The top of the market wins!

Heck, that sort of a data point would potentially be more relevant than any other, because if a team had $35M of space and valued Giddey at $35M, then Giddey would be getting a $35M contract, because he's not being paid the mean of what front offices think he's worth.

Great point. Like I said, I appreciate Doug posting the data. At least it's something. Wouldn't trust it to be extremely accurate. I'm sure all those GM's have an idea of what offer is on the table, probably better than we do. None of them can actually bid, so they can say anything. If they know the current offer is $20-$22 mill, what benefit would it be to them to say they would pay Giddey $30 mill? Or $35 mill? Not putting any pressure on the Bulls, since they can't actually do it.

Actually benefits them to say they'd pay Giddey less, especially if any of those teams are the Nets, Warriors, Philly, or every team that will be dealing with this same issue next year. Like a GM is ever really going to state their top offer up front. I don't think "Everybody else is saying $18-$20 mill, I'd pay $30 mill for him!" makes a GM look particularly clever or shrewd.

If I ask a bunch of broke guys what they would pay for a Benz and they know the current market offer is $60k, how many are likely to say they'd pay 80K?

Since they're anonymously sourced, I doubt they care too terribly much about the perception of what they say, but I agree as a general matter front office people might be inclined to give somewhat lower numbers than what actual value is since they want to be able to sign players on the cheap themselves when they have cap space.

That's all I'm saying. I'd expect GM's to understate the maximum they would pay for a FA, especially if they have no chance at that FA anyway.

[dougthonus]

I think the complaint here is even including that opinion at all as a legitimate data point in discussing Giddey's contract value. If 20 of us are having a debate about the reasonable cost of a restaurant quality burger, and 18 people say between $11-14 dollars and two people say they don't like burgers and so wouldn't pay more than a dollar, two of those opinions aren't relevant and would be rejected in trying to reach any meaningful consensus.

Basically, the opinion of the guy who openly says he doesn't want Giddey on his team so throws out an insulting number to express his distaste doesn't mean any more than Giddey's mom's opinion.

Did the article or staffer include it as a legitimate data point in assessing Giddey's value?

There is no part of the article that suggests Giddey is worth that much based on the opinion of this person. No reading of the article would make you think Giddey's value is worth that much based on the inclusion of this comment.

A reasonable read of the article would come to the conclusion he's worth 25M a year for 4-5 years.

Depending on context, there is a reason that min, max, median, average, variance, standard deviation etc all exist and provide different things.

[jnrjr79]

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

It's effectively a market survey data from the people who will make the market.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

Temperature doesn't shift based on the opinion of how hot or cold people think it is. Giddey's contract is exactly based on those opinions. It's a nonsensical comparison to take ask people a factual question and compare answers to asking people how much would you pay for a product when trying to determine the products price.

In such a question, you don't necessarily use the average (or even care about the average). That's why I noted in my response to the article, that based on it, Giddey's market value was 25M (peak value), not the average value, and made no point about the average value at all.

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

No, from an integrity standpoint, it is much better to include the number and note it as an outlier than to note include the number. As I said, the article did not emphasize the average, and emphasized in much greater amounts of words the commonality of 4 years and 25M per year.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

In the world where someone doesn't like the fit of the player on their team which I would infer is due to a lot of the reasons that have been brought up in this thread, and yes, there are organizations that have a core set of beliefs and will only take something that violates those beliefs with extreme incentives to do so.

Once again, you are justifying the answer based on a different question. How a question is asked heavily influences the answers. The question was a fair contact value. There is no way Giddey's next contract will be anywhere near 4/50 unless it is because there is no agreement and it is the QO. You know it. I know it. Twist it around any way you would like and it is still the actual reality.

You seem to believe that asking someone what they subjedtively believe "fair contract" would be for a given player is asking them to predict what they think the player will actually get. That misunderstanding seems to be why you're angry at the article. This particular outlier staffer is not predicting what Giddey will get, he's saying he values him less than the market, which is tacitly admitting Giddey will be paid more than this guy would pay him. So, it doesn't make sense to be arguing things like the bolded above. Neither the person quoted nor the article itself suggest that Giddey would ever sign for 4/50.

[Stratmaster]

Twist and shout all you want. There is no way that number is anywhere near reasonable. You know it. Doug knows it. I know it. The reporters knew it. But they included it anyway. Hey. I just polled 16 women I know who think Giddey is good. Oh... and they all think Giddey is cute. They all said pay him the max.

It's called bias.

By the way, the correct answer based on the staffers opinion was "I wouldn't pay him anything because he is not a piece I want on my team"

To be quite clear, I do not think I could possibly disagree with you any more on this topic. I do not just think you are wrong, I think your opinion and analysis is outrageously wrong. I do not think the answer the staffer gave is a reasonable contract for Giddey, but I think it's totally reasonable that a single individual would price Giddey at that amount.

I think the fictional answer you had the staffer give would also be appropriate, but in a casual conversation, I think the answer given was fine. I'd love for you to be a reporter then browbeat someone at a team for giving you a low number instead of answering the way you just said.

Strawman? I didn't say anything about browbeating anyone. If you asked me what Giddey's FMV was and I said 12.5m you would tell me that is an idiotic answer. If you were asked what Giddey's FMV was and you said 12.5m I would tell you that is an idiotic answer. But you wouldn't answer that way. Because you know better. So disagree as much as you like. You're just being stubborn. Or trying to prove some odd point that has nothing to do with what was asked, what was answered, and what I said.

[jnrjr79]

Great point. Like I said, I appreciate Doug posting the data. At least it's something. Wouldn't trust it to be extremely accurate. I'm sure all those GM's have an idea of what offer is on the table, probably better than we do. None of them can actually bid, so they can say anything. If they know the current offer is $20-$22 mill, what benefit would it be to them to say they would pay Giddey $30 mill? Or $35 mill? Not putting any pressure on the Bulls, since they can't actually do it.

Actually benefits them to say they'd pay Giddey less, especially if any of those teams are the Nets, Warriors, Philly, or every team that will be dealing with this same issue next year. Like a GM is ever really going to state their top offer up front. I don't think "Everybody else is saying $18-$20 mill, I'd pay $30 mill for him!" makes a GM look particularly clever or shrewd.

If I ask a bunch of broke guys what they would pay for a Benz and they know the current market offer is $60k, how many are likely to say they'd pay 80K?

Since they're anonymously sourced, I doubt they care too terribly much about the perception of what they say, but I agree as a general matter front office people might be inclined to give somewhat lower numbers than what actual value is since they want to be able to sign players on the cheap themselves when they have cap space.

That's all I'm saying. I'd expect GM's to understate the maximum they would pay for a FA, especially if they have no chance at that FA anyway.

Yep. And if you polled 16 agents, I bet the numbers would be substantially higher!

[nomorezorro]

Strawman? I didn't say anything about browbeating anyone. If you asked me what Giddey's FMV was and I said 12.5m you would tell me that is an idiotic answer. If you were asked what Giddey's FMV was and you said 12.5m I would tell you that is an idiotic answer. But you wouldn't answer that way. Because you know better. So disagree as much as you like. You're just being stubborn. Or trying to prove some odd point that has nothing to do with what was asked, what was answered, and what I said.

you appear to be conflating the term "fair market value," which has a generally understood definition that reflects the price an asset could command under current market conditions, with what was used in this survey, which was just the term "fair contract."

again, nothing about the exercise demands a response that is a "realistic" contract figure for giddey to actually sign at.

[Jcool0]

i don't think a paywalled article about a 16-person survey that includes one person saying "i would give josh giddey a 4 year, $50 million contract, but i know i'm way lower on him than most people" qualifies as clickbait. probably could have gotten someone to say something a lot more incendiary if the goal of the exercise was baiting people into clicking

Clickbait might not be the right term but its designed for engagement not learning anything meaningful.

I'm sure they care about their readership numbers, but given the paywall, and given it's in the middle of the article and not the headline or subhead, it's fairly obvious this isn't for engagement.

I find it pretty funny that a journalist bothering to survey 16 people that actually work in NBA front offices is "not learning anything meaningful" relative to whatever other sources of information you might envision.

The Bulls have not signed Giddey. The rumor is want him around 20M a year. Clearly Giddey is holding out for more. Most of the anonymous people say they would pay between $20 million and $25 million. What did you learn from this story you didn't know? That one "front office staffer" would pay him 12.5M per?

[nomorezorro]

i learned that a moderately sized sampling of nba front office personnel basically all pegged josh giddey's value at $20-25m, and none of them went any higher than $25m. many people would consider that to be decently insightful information.

[dougthonus]

Twist and shout all you want. There is no way that number is anywhere near reasonable. You know it. Doug knows it. I know it. The reporters knew it. But they included it anyway. Hey. I just polled 16 women I know who think Giddey is good. Oh... and they all think Giddey is cute. They all said pay him the max.

It's called bias.

By the way, the correct answer based on the staffers opinion was "I wouldn't pay him anything because he is not a piece I want on my team"

To be quite clear, I do not think I could possibly disagree with you any more on this topic. I do not just think you are wrong, I think your opinion and analysis is outrageously wrong. I do not think the answer the staffer gave is a reasonable contract for Giddey, but I think it's totally reasonable that a single individual would price Giddey at that amount.

I think the fictional answer you had the staffer give would also be appropriate, but in a casual conversation, I think the answer

Strawman? I didn't say anything about browbeating anyone. If you asked me what Giddey's FMV was and I said 12.5m you would tell me that is an idiotic answer. If you were asked what Giddey's FMV was and you said 12.5m I would tell you that is an idiotic answer. But you wouldn't answer that way. Because you know better. So disagree as much as you like. You're just being stubborn. Or trying to prove some odd point that has nothing to do with what was asked, what was answered, and what I said.

If I was surveying people, I would not tell them they were idiots because I disagree with their answer, nor would I remove survey data from my reporting because I disagree with it, not would I expect people to question my integrity for reporting factual responses in a balanced way.

You would seem to think all three of these things are appropriate while I think none of them are.

[jnrjr79]

Clickbait might not be the right term but its designed for engagement not learning anything meaningful.

I'm sure they care about their readership numbers, but given the paywall, and given it's in the middle of the article and not the headline or subhead, it's fairly obvious this isn't for engagement.

I find it pretty funny that a journalist bothering to survey 16 people that actually work in NBA front offices is "not learning anything meaningful" relative to whatever other sources of information you might envision.

The Bulls have not signed Giddey. The rumor is want him around 20M a year. Clearly Giddey is holding out for more. Most of the anonymous people say they would pay between $20 million and $25 million. What did you learn from this story you didn't know? That one "front office staffer" would pay him 12.5M per?

I learned that a good number of NBA front office people believe the Bulls are offering Giddey something close to, but less than, many of them would be willing to pay.

I also learned that one NBA front office employee doesn't think much of Giddey and would not pay him what the others would.

[jnrjr79]

i learned that a moderately sized sampling of nba front office personnel basically all pegged josh giddey's value at $20-25m, and none of them went any higher than $25m. many people would consider that to be decently insightful information.

Yeah, I actually find it fairly interesting that $25M was the most common number, but also the absolute highest any of the respondents would go. That might suggest that the risk of a team clearing up cap space to make a big offer to Giddey that the Bulls won't match is pretty minimal.

[dougthonus]

Clickbait might not be the right term but its designed for engagement not learning anything meaningful.

I'm sure they care about their readership numbers, but given the paywall, and given it's in the middle of the article and not the headline or subhead, it's fairly obvious this isn't for engagement.

I find it pretty funny that a journalist bothering to survey 16 people that actually work in NBA front offices is "not learning anything meaningful" relative to whatever other sources of information you might envision.

The Bulls have not signed Giddey. The rumor is want him around 20M a year. Clearly Giddey is holding out for more. Most of the anonymous people say they would pay between $20 million and $25 million. What did you learn from this story you didn't know? That one "front office staffer" would pay him 12.5M per?

The fact that no one surveyed thinks he is worth more than 25 and most teams want to go 4 years are both somewhat interesting. If you put it on a relative scale of how interesting is this commentary on Giddeys FA, I would rate it as the most interesting thing since the initial reported values of the Bulls being at 20 and Giddey being at 30.

Granted that isn't a particularly high bar but there have probably been a 1000 less interesting articles regurgitating the same things with no new info. At least there is something here.

[Jcool0]

I'm sure they care about their readership numbers, but given the paywall, and given it's in the middle of the article and not the headline or subhead, it's fairly obvious this isn't for engagement.

I find it pretty funny that a journalist bothering to survey 16 people that actually work in NBA front offices is "not learning anything meaningful" relative to whatever other sources of information you might envision.

The Bulls have not signed Giddey. The rumor is want him around 20M a year. Clearly Giddey is holding out for more. Most of the anonymous people say they would pay between $20 million and $25 million. What did you learn from this story you didn't know? That one "front office staffer" would pay him 12.5M per?

The fact that no one surveyed thinks he is worth more than 25 and most teams want to go 4 years are both somewhat interesting. If you put it on a relative scale of how interesting is this commentary on Giddeys FA, I would rate it as the most interesting thing since the initial reported values of the Bulls being at 20 and Giddey being at 30.

1. we have no idea who was surveyed and if they have any authority to sign a player.

2. We knew no one was looking to go more then 25M for awhile now.

3. Just because you are interested in something does not make it interesting.

[dougthonus]

The Bulls have not signed Giddey. The rumor is want him around 20M a year. Clearly Giddey is holding out for more. Most of the anonymous people say they would pay between $20 million and $25 million. What did you learn from this story you didn't know? That one "front office staffer" would pay him 12.5M per?

The fact that no one surveyed thinks he is worth more than 25 and most teams want to go 4 years are both somewhat interesting. If you put it on a relative scale of how interesting is this commentary on Giddeys FA, I would rate it as the most interesting thing since the initial reported values of the Bulls being at 20 and Giddey being at 30.

1. we have no idea who was surveyed and if they have any authority to sign a player.

2. We knew no one was looking to go more then 25M for awhile now.

3. Just because you are interested in something does not make it interesting.

1: Agreed.
2: That is news to me, when did we find this out?
3: Given interesting is an opinion and has no absolute truth, the fact that it is interesting to me is all that matters to me, but I will rephrase a bit to say it is one of very few pieces of journalism to add something new to this discussion.