Josh Giddey 3.0

[jnrjr79]

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

Random thoughts:

1: Giddey has generational wealth already from marketing deals. He's got a ton of stuff due to being Australia's biggest star. So the risk of not being generationally wealthy probably doesn't exist. Of course everyone wants the most money they can get though. He wouldn't want to get hosed by settling too low on this deal or hosed from taking the QO and not having it work out.

2: Giddey's marketing potential is probably greatest in Chicago due to the dynasty / Longley / Australia connection and the fact that his marketing impact is highest in Australia vs globally or in the U.S.

3: Because of the above, the dollars from this deal not being fully maximized may not matter much either. Like say he ends his career with 400M in earnings instead of 440M in earnings, does that really matter to him? So a lot of this posturing is likely his agent just doing his job.

4: The Bulls have the same thing in reverse. Over the next few years, it probably doesn't really matter if they pay Giddey an extra 5M a year vs some other number. Based on all of their previous decisions, they really need to get this done and gamble on Giddey. You can argue whether that was a good boat to get into, but you'd be arguing after they climbed in and sailed it out to the middle of the Atlantic.

5: I can't see any way both sides don't get this done based on all of the above. They both want each other, need each other, and benefit from each other. They're far apart in theory, but they are equidistantly far apart from the number I peg as reasonable (as well as the Athletic) which feels like an asymmetrical game of the Bulls making their offer specifically to be equidistant from where they wanted to settle vs Giddey's demands.

I'd be interested to see some of our Australian posters comment on how big a media presence Giddey has there. There were news reports that he lost a $40 million sponsorship when the whole underage girl rumors were swirling, but I know he's just inked a deal with Puma. I suspect he is less well-paid/famous in Australia than some other athletes - Ash Barty, Ian Thorpe, Lleyton Hewitt, Alex De Minaur, and a bunch of random cricketers and Australian rules football players that we've never heard of but would be famous in Australia due to the popularity of those sports.

But yeah, he's probably the biggest name in basketball and doing well for himself.

This reminds me of Naomi Osaka and Kei Nishikori - Osaka used to be great, but hasn't won in years and Nishokori was never all that good, but both are super loaded b/c of how big of stars they are in Japan.

[dougthonus]

I think both of those apply to NBA players at some level. Granted, there are all kinds of awards and stats for NBA players. But, if you aren't at the franchise level/elite player level of the top 2 or 3% of players you have no clear claim to any status level because it is a team sport. For uber-competitive individuals in a highly competitive environment, I do believe salary is a status measurement.

100% think that is true.

You hear all the time about players going where they are "respected", and "respected" 100% of the time translates into "they paid me more" when you really get down to it. There will always be a bunch of other fluff, but they absolutely measure the status/respect based on dollars and little else.

[sco]

I will add that I think the percentage is way below 5% a year, especially with constantly advancing medical techniques. 50 years ago, if you blew a knee out it likely ended your career. Now we have players who have multiple procedures on their knee and come back and perform at levels similar to their pre-injury level.

The best estimate I can find is that 15% of NBA players will have their season end due to an injury. Of course, that could be an injury in game 1 or in game 71, and it could be major (most likely earlier in the season) or minor (a possibility later in the season).

Any "career ending" estimate would also have to be adjusted by age. Someone who blows a knee out at 34 may technically be able to return from it. But their skills and value may have already been waning and they decide retirement is the better choice. At age 22, I think it would be a big outlier for an injury to occur that ends their career or diminishes their future capabilities to a point of ruining their career. I would guess there is more chance that an off-the-court event (Accident, violent crime, etc...) could result in them not being able to play basketball. So I guess there is that consideration.

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

Regarding #2, you may be right, but say it's for 3 season, the good news is that by the end of the 1st year, they'll know what they have in him and will have a chance to "make it right" with a generous extension. There's probably an equal chance that he isn't worth renewing at any price.

[MGB8]

I will add that I think the percentage is way below 5% a year, especially with constantly advancing medical techniques. 50 years ago, if you blew a knee out it likely ended your career. Now we have players who have multiple procedures on their knee and come back and perform at levels similar to their pre-injury level.

The best estimate I can find is that 15% of NBA players will have their season end due to an injury. Of course, that could be an injury in game 1 or in game 71, and it could be major (most likely earlier in the season) or minor (a possibility later in the season).

Any "career ending" estimate would also have to be adjusted by age. Someone who blows a knee out at 34 may technically be able to return from it. But their skills and value may have already been waning and they decide retirement is the better choice. At age 22, I think it would be a big outlier for an injury to occur that ends their career or diminishes their future capabilities to a point of ruining their career. I would guess there is more chance that an off-the-court event (Accident, violent crime, etc...) could result in them not being able to play basketball. So I guess there is that consideration.

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

I think his fair value at this point, given uncertainty, is a touch lower ... But agree that below 20 M AAV may be the dividing line.

Giddey is in a weird spot in that this year will have huge impact on his value. Big injury or big regression and he may be in a short or midterm no contract spot. If he stays the same as overall play last year (balancing out season), chances are that he is a sub-20M player, maybe even MLE level ish or a bit above but not much. Regression to where he was at beginning of year gets him into the Tre Jones ball park - role player reserve type.

If, OTOH, he improves a bit, but not a ton (still serious deficiencies) he is in that mid 20s range we are talking about now. A significant jump - playing like he did end of season all year (maybe not quite the percentages) he is at/over 30. If his defense improves on top of that to consistent non-liability or better, and his shot is quicker / more decisive (bigger off ball risk).. we start talking Max.

3/60 vs 1/11 and then huge variance, where 20M likely median-ish outcome - maybe 21-22 due to cap rise and more teams with space... 3/60 vs 11+20+20 (or up to 22+22)... Loss of anywhere between 9 and 5 M on average if take QO. Still better logically to take the certainty.

But if it was a 17-18 M AAV offer, now average result from taking QO = or > than taking the offer.

But then add in Pat factor (despite not logical).. almost offensive to ask to take something not at least 10% more than he got (even if was a clear mistake). Not rationale but would be hard to get past that, ego wise.

And athletes always believe they will do better than median probability result.

I'm not too concerned about #2 though. Might make down the line negotiations tougher if he gains lots of leverage through play, but look at LaVine. Attachment to team is about more than the contract and management, it is about coach, city, teammates etc

[TheJordanRule]

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

I think his fair value at this point, given uncertainty, is a touch lower ... But agree that below 20 M AAV may be the dividing line.

Giddey is in a weird spot in that this year will have huge impact on his value. Big injury or big regression and he may be in a short or midterm no contract spot. If he stays the same as overall play last year (balancing out season), chances are that he is a sub-20M player, maybe even MLE level ish or a bit above but not much. Regression to where he was at beginning of year gets him into the Tre Jones ball park - role player reserve type.

If, OTOH, he improves a bit, but not a ton (still serious deficiencies) he is in that mid 20s range we are talking about now. A significant jump - playing like he did end of season all year (maybe not quite the percentages) he is at/over 30. If his defense improves on top of that to consistent non-liability or better, and his shot is quicker / more decisive (bigger off ball risk).. we start talking Max.

3/60 vs 1/11 and then huge variance, where 20M likely median-ish outcome - maybe 21-22 due to cap rise and more teams with space... 3/60 vs 11+20+20 (or up to 22+22)... Loss of anywhere between 9 and 5 M on average if take QO. Still better logically to take the certainty.

But if it was a 17-18 M AAV offer, now average result from taking QO = or > than taking the offer.

But then add in Pat factor (despite not logical).. almost offensive to ask to take something not at least 10% more than he got (even if was a clear mistake). Not rationale but would be hard to get past that, ego wise.

And athletes always believe they will do better than median probability result.

I'm not too concerned about #2 though. Might make down the line negotiations tougher if he gains lots of leverage through play, but look at LaVine. Attachment to team is about more than the contract and management, it is about coach, city, teammates etc

We should be able to make 25 mil per year palatable by overpaying up front and making it a declining contract. Sitting at 20 mil per year, with our thumbs up our butts, is not a good idea. Giddey is a major young talent, he's likely to get better over time as a shooter, and distributor at minimum. I don't think housing him at $25 mil per year is going to be that much of an impediment to the construction of a championship caliber team, especially not if we put him on a declining deal. Let's imagine we decide to give Josh a deal for 5 years for $125 million total. After "eating it" at $29.76905 million in year 1, and then again at $27.380952 in year 2, Years three, four and five are at 25 million, 22 million and 20 million, respectively. Those are value deals for those years, even if the cap doesn't continue to explode, even if Josh stays largely the guy he is-- but we have good reasons to expect that the cap will explode, and Josh will improve. Move Coby for picks and to make room for a "full boat" free agent next off season-- Mikal Bridges?, KD?, LeBron?-- and we might challenge for a chip much sooner than any of us even imagine.

[Stratmaster]

Career ending would be very rare, I'd guess probably less than 1% these days for meaningful players (ie if you are the 300th best player in the league, an ACL might end your career because you were fringe, but not if you're Josh Giddey). Season ending probably has an absolutely massive impact on his next contract given his present market value is ~25M. That probably pushes his next deal below the MLE given his other challenges if the recovery would push into the future season at all.

It also injury isn't the only risk one would take by being on a new deal. You've seen guys like Schroder or Noel just have their values massively drop. Giddey's on court value playing on the QO (depending on the Bulls thoughts around it) may carry its own risk if they decide he's not in the long term plans then they may no longer commit to playing Giddey ball because guys on the QO generally never come back.

Based on the research I attempted on the QO, if you look at guys who rejected a long term deal to take it, most come out ahead, but none came out ahead by a huge margin and Noel was the only one who lost really big. That said each situation is obviously an experiment of 1. Different players take different risks based on very individual factors.

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

Regarding #2, you may be right, but say it's for 3 season, the good news is that by the end of the 1st year, they'll know what they have in him and will have a chance to "make it right" with a generous extension. There's probably an equal chance that he isn't worth renewing at any price.

I don't necessarily agree with your last sentence. But other than that... very true on the possibility of extending early to keep him.

[waffle]

I think an offer would have to be exceptionally low to make a quality, non-emotional, decision to take the QO. An interesting discussion we haven't had is what would be such a low offer that, emotions aside, it makes sense to take the 1 year agreement.

The future security argument could justify almost any offer. 5/50 is enough to guarantee a 22 year old all the future financial security he needs. "But, that's less than the QO". Sure. But the QO is for 1 year and only guarantees him 11 mil. In this extreme example he certainly takes the QO. But what is the bottom line? If the offer were 5/100?

I have said I think Giddey is "worth" 27-28 mil AAV in a vacuum. I acknowledge there is risk in paying him that much. I would want a team option in year 4 and/or 5 if I am signing up for that. But I would sign up for it. His 2nd half season performance last year is not guaranteed to ever happen again. But if I were paying him based on that 2nd half performance because I was sure it could be repeated I would go up to 35 mil. He almost single-handedly elevated the play of the team. He positively and significantly affected the win percentage. He averaged a triple double. That's a >30 mil level player in today's NBA salary structures.

Right now there are almost no teams left with any money. The Bulls won't have to meet that 27-28 mil number. But how much you take advantage of the situation can make a difference in the future of the entire team. It will affect the level of loyalty a player feels toward the organization. It could even affect you negatively financially if he is backed into agreeing to, lets say, a 3/60 agreement. If it turns out he is the guy from last season in year 4 you're going to be shelling out a new 50 mil AAV, not 27-28. If he just plays at a 25 mil level he is going to likely get a 5 year 35 mil AAV 4 seasons from now.

Now, add in human emotion. If you play real hardball you could set up the worst possible scenario. He balls out while you are still trying to build a team that can contend, and could have been your PG for the next decade, but he is gone after 3 seasons.

I think Giddey and his agent are smart enough to know that they asked for 30, probably should get 27-28. But market conditions mean he might have to take 24-25 mil. So all that TLDR to ask the questions:

1. What is a contract too low to accept? At what point, in Giddey's shoes, do you say screw it and take the QO?
2. What is a contract you would have to swallow hard but would accept it; but, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You remember it with a chip on your shoulder and it makes you look forward to moving on to another team once the contract (which I assume only locks you in for 3 seasons) is up?

My answer to #1 is anything below 20 mil. That doesn't seem to be an issue because the Bulls are rumored to already be at 20 mil. My answer to #2 is anything below 25 mil. What would yours be?

I think his fair value at this point, given uncertainty, is a touch lower ... But agree that below 20 M AAV may be the dividing line.

Giddey is in a weird spot in that this year will have huge impact on his value. Big injury or big regression and he may be in a short or midterm no contract spot. If he stays the same as overall play last year (balancing out season), chances are that he is a sub-20M player, maybe even MLE level ish or a bit above but not much. Regression to where he was at beginning of year gets him into the Tre Jones ball park - role player reserve type.

If, OTOH, he improves a bit, but not a ton (still serious deficiencies) he is in that mid 20s range we are talking about now. A significant jump - playing like he did end of season all year (maybe not quite the percentages) he is at/over 30. If his defense improves on top of that to consistent non-liability or better, and his shot is quicker / more decisive (bigger off ball risk).. we start talking Max.

3/60 vs 1/11 and then huge variance, where 20M likely median-ish outcome - maybe 21-22 due to cap rise and more teams with space... 3/60 vs 11+20+20 (or up to 22+22)... Loss of anywhere between 9 and 5 M on average if take QO. Still better logically to take the certainty.

But if it was a 17-18 M AAV offer, now average result from taking QO = or > than taking the offer.

But then add in Pat factor (despite not logical).. almost offensive to ask to take something not at least 10% more than he got (even if was a clear mistake). Not rationale but would be hard to get past that, ego wise.

And athletes always believe they will do better than median probability result.

I'm not too concerned about #2 though. Might make down the line negotiations tougher if he gains lots of leverage through play, but look at LaVine. Attachment to team is about more than the contract and management, it is about coach, city, teammates etc

We should be able to make 25 mil per year palatable by overpaying up front and making it a declining contract. Sitting at 20 mil per year, with our thumbs up our butts, is not a good idea. Giddey is a major young talent, he's likely to get better over time as a shooter, and distributor at minimum. I don't think housing him at $25 mil per year is going to be that much of an impediment to the construction of a championship caliber team, especially not if we put him on a declining deal. Let's imagine we decide to give Josh a deal for 5 years for $125 million total. After "eating it" at $29.76905 million in year 1, and then again at $27.380952 in year 2, Years three, four and five are at 25 million, 22 million and 20 million, respectively. Those are value deals for those years, even if the cap doesn't continue to explode, even if Josh stays largely the guy he is-- but we have good reasons to expect that the cap will explode, and Josh will improve. Move Coby for picks and to make room for a "full boat" free agent next off season-- Mikal Bridges?, KD?, LeBron?-- and we might challenge for a chip much sooner than any of us even imagine.

Pretty much what I have been saying, but better spelled out.

To me that's a no lose contract for both sides

[DrModesty]

I think his fair value at this point, given uncertainty, is a touch lower ... But agree that below 20 M AAV may be the dividing line.

Giddey is in a weird spot in that this year will have huge impact on his value. Big injury or big regression and he may be in a short or midterm no contract spot. If he stays the same as overall play last year (balancing out season), chances are that he is a sub-20M player, maybe even MLE level ish or a bit above but not much. Regression to where he was at beginning of year gets him into the Tre Jones ball park - role player reserve type.

If, OTOH, he improves a bit, but not a ton (still serious deficiencies) he is in that mid 20s range we are talking about now. A significant jump - playing like he did end of season all year (maybe not quite the percentages) he is at/over 30. If his defense improves on top of that to consistent non-liability or better, and his shot is quicker / more decisive (bigger off ball risk).. we start talking Max.

3/60 vs 1/11 and then huge variance, where 20M likely median-ish outcome - maybe 21-22 due to cap rise and more teams with space... 3/60 vs 11+20+20 (or up to 22+22)... Loss of anywhere between 9 and 5 M on average if take QO. Still better logically to take the certainty.

But if it was a 17-18 M AAV offer, now average result from taking QO = or > than taking the offer.

But then add in Pat factor (despite not logical).. almost offensive to ask to take something not at least 10% more than he got (even if was a clear mistake). Not rationale but would be hard to get past that, ego wise.

And athletes always believe they will do better than median probability result.

I'm not too concerned about #2 though. Might make down the line negotiations tougher if he gains lots of leverage through play, but look at LaVine. Attachment to team is about more than the contract and management, it is about coach, city, teammates etc

We should be able to make 25 mil per year palatable by overpaying up front and making it a declining contract. Sitting at 20 mil per year, with our thumbs up our butts, is not a good idea. Giddey is a major young talent, he's likely to get better over time as a shooter, and distributor at minimum. I don't think housing him at $25 mil per year is going to be that much of an impediment to the construction of a championship caliber team, especially not if we put him on a declining deal. Let's imagine we decide to give Josh a deal for 5 years for $125 million total. After "eating it" at $29.76905 million in year 1, and then again at $27.380952 in year 2, Years three, four and five are at 25 million, 22 million and 20 million, respectively. Those are value deals for those years, even if the cap doesn't continue to explode, even if Josh stays largely the guy he is-- but we have good reasons to expect that the cap will explode, and Josh will improve. Move Coby for picks and to make room for a "full boat" free agent next off season-- Mikal Bridges?, KD?, LeBron?-- and we might challenge for a chip much sooner than any of us even imagine.

Pretty much what I have been saying, but better spelled out.

To me that's a no lose contract for both sides

Typically players don't want to sign declining contracts because the value of the last year gets used as a bit of a signpost as to where future contracts are negotiated from. It normally requires some external factors to encourage them to agree to a deal like that. For example, if they are getting paid more if they sign a declining contract. Or if it has tax implications that you can pay hardball with. Or if you are a fringe rotation player who needs to secure their one significant contract. Or if the team has several other players on that type of deal where it has been normalized in that culture.

Being at $20m in 5 years time will have him heavily underpaid if he is even at the mid point of production for the two halves of the season. But if he isn't a nailed on max, it is something that could cost him significantly down the line.

A similar phenomenon is when a veteran player signs a vet minimum. It becomes very hard to get out of that perception from a value proposition.

If you think that the $25m is an overpay which necessitates the declining contract then fair enough. But if Giddey views that as being underpaid (which we do from various reports) then I doubt he would want to commit long term like that.

[dougthonus]

I'd be interested to see some of our Australian posters comment on how big a media presence Giddey has there. There were news reports that he lost a $40 million sponsorship when the whole underage girl rumors were swirling, but I know he's just inked a deal with Puma. I suspect he is less well-paid/famous in Australia than some other athletes - Ash Barty, Ian Thorpe, Lleyton Hewitt, Alex De Minaur, and a bunch of random cricketers and Australian rules football players that we've never heard of but would be famous in Australia due to the popularity of those sports.

But yeah, he's probably the biggest name in basketball and doing well for himself.

This reminds me of Naomi Osaka and Kei Nishikori - Osaka used to be great, but hasn't won in years and Nishokori was never all that good, but both are super loaded b/c of how big of stars they are in Japan.

FWIW, ran a chatGPT research on Giddey sponsorship, and it came up with only one publicized deal (40M for Weetbix which was the one he may theoretically lose, but it doesn't look like he would have actually lost any money, they pulled him off the product in year 3 of a 4 year the deal, but given he faced no criminal or civil charges, they almost certainly had to pay him out and likely just didn't renew).

He had 6 other deals:
Nike (initial shoe deal)
Puma (new shoe deal)
Cotton-on (1 year deal)
JBL
Gatorade
NBA2K24

Kuzma got 20M from Puma in 2019, I'd imagine Giddey's deal is bigger than that. Who knows how much Nike would have paid him, and not sure what he's doing on those other deals, but I'd wager he's probably got earnings over 100M from endorsements already.

[dougthonus]

Typically players don't want to sign declining contracts because the value of the last year gets used as a bit of a signpost as to where future contracts are negotiated from. It normally requires some external factors to encourage them to agree to a deal like that. For example, if they are getting paid more if they sign a declining contract. Or if it has tax implications that you can pay hardball with. Or if you are a fringe rotation player who needs to secure their one significant contract. Or if the team has several other players on that type of deal where it has been normalized in that culture.

Being at $20m in 5 years time will have him heavily underpaid if he is even at the mid point of production for the two halves of the season. But if he isn't a nailed on max, it is something that could cost him significantly down the line.

A similar phenomenon is when a veteran player signs a vet minimum. It becomes very hard to get out of that perception from a value proposition.

If you think that the $25m is an overpay which necessitates the declining contract then fair enough. But if Giddey views that as being underpaid (which we do from various reports) then I doubt he would want to commit long term like that.

I agree with the vet min example, but I think for above MLE players that I'm not sure this is true. It's about performance and market. Typically the guys who have big contracts and end up back on the vet min are also washed and not improving.

[Dan Z]

I'd be interested to see some of our Australian posters comment on how big a media presence Giddey has there. There were news reports that he lost a $40 million sponsorship when the whole underage girl rumors were swirling, but I know he's just inked a deal with Puma. I suspect he is less well-paid/famous in Australia than some other athletes - Ash Barty, Ian Thorpe, Lleyton Hewitt, Alex De Minaur, and a bunch of random cricketers and Australian rules football players that we've never heard of but would be famous in Australia due to the popularity of those sports.

But yeah, he's probably the biggest name in basketball and doing well for himself.

This reminds me of Naomi Osaka and Kei Nishikori - Osaka used to be great, but hasn't won in years and Nishokori was never all that good, but both are super loaded b/c of how big of stars they are in Japan.

FWIW, ran a chatGPT research on Giddey sponsorship, and it came up with only one publicized deal (40M for Weetbix which was the one he may theoretically lose, but it doesn't look like he would have actually lost any money, they pulled him off the product in year 3 of a 4 year the deal, but given he faced no criminal or civil charges, they almost certainly had to pay him out and likely just didn't renew).

He had 6 other deals:
Nike (initial shoe deal)
Puma (new shoe deal)
Cotton-on (1 year deal)
JBL
Gatorade
NBA2K24

Kuzma got 20M from Puma in 2019, I'd imagine Giddey's deal is bigger than that. Who knows how much Nike would have paid him, and not sure what he's doing on those other deals, but I'd wager he's probably got earnings over 100M from endorsements already.

It's crazy how much endorsement money there is for NBA players.

[Dez]

I'd be interested to see some of our Australian posters comment on how big a media presence Giddey has there. There were news reports that he lost a $40 million sponsorship when the whole underage girl rumors were swirling, but I know he's just inked a deal with Puma. I suspect he is less well-paid/famous in Australia than some other athletes - Ash Barty, Ian Thorpe, Lleyton Hewitt, Alex De Minaur, and a bunch of random cricketers and Australian rules football players that we've never heard of but would be famous in Australia due to the popularity of those sports.

But yeah, he's probably the biggest name in basketball and doing well for himself.

This reminds me of Naomi Osaka and Kei Nishikori - Osaka used to be great, but hasn't won in years and Nishokori was never all that good, but both are super loaded b/c of how big of stars they are in Japan.

FWIW, ran a chatGPT research on Giddey sponsorship, and it came up with only one publicized deal (40M for Weetbix which was the one he may theoretically lose, but it doesn't look like he would have actually lost any money, they pulled him off the product in year 3 of a 4 year the deal, but given he faced no criminal or civil charges, they almost certainly had to pay him out and likely just didn't renew).

He had 6 other deals:
Nike (initial shoe deal)
Puma (new shoe deal)
Cotton-on (1 year deal)
JBL
Gatorade
NBA2K24

Kuzma got 20M from Puma in 2019, I'd imagine Giddey's deal is bigger than that. Who knows how much Nike would have paid him, and not sure what he's doing on those other deals, but I'd wager he's probably got earnings over 100M from endorsements already.

It's crazy how much endorsement money there is for NBA players.

It's a little different for international players though, the companies of the players birth country try latch on to any player that gets anything resembling name recognition. When there's a small percentage of Australians in the NBA they're going to try lock in the best ones because of the NBA association and scream patriotism at the rest of the country.

[MGB8]

WT has Giddey (via agent, reading tea leaves) threatening to take the QO

Bargaining hard, but if Bulls aren't sold on him, they should be looking at sign and trades. Of course, that presumes that there are teams our there who would pay Giddey what he wants - which there well may not be. And even then, would they pay and send a meaningful asset back? You would think that Giddey should at least get a LaVine or DeRozan level return, but I'm not so sure that there is even that level of market for him.

What teams would trade a decent package for Giddey at 30 or 28 (noting 1 for 1 is hard with the BYC rules) What would a package from such a team look like?

[Stratmaster]

WT has Giddey (via agent, reading tea leaves) threatening to take the QO

Bargaining hard, but if Bulls aren't sold on him, they should be looking at sign and trades. Of course, that presumes that there are teams our there who would pay Giddey what he wants - which there well may not be. And even then, would they pay and send a meaningful asset back? You would think that Giddey should at least get a LaVine or DeRozan level return, but I'm not so sure that there is even that level of market for him.

What teams would trade a decent package for Giddey at 30 or 28 (noting 1 for 1 is hard with the BYC rules) What would a package from such a team look like?

The reports I have seen recently were that the Bulls had rejected any sign and trade discussions out of hand. If that is true, it is what makes their position so egregious from Giddey's perspective. Basically that is a "we aren't going to pay you what you think (right or wrong) you are worth AND we also are not going to let anyone else pay you more than our offer". Basically, paraphrased, "we are holding you hostage until we decide how badly we really want you".

Again. That is just a possible view from Giddey's perspective. But it is why I think the way the Bulls are approaching it is dangerous if they really think they may want him long term. Then again, as others have said, if they give him 25m a season I think all will be forgotten quickly. If they stick him at 20-22m....not so sure of that.

[Stratmaster]

WT has Giddey (via agent, reading tea leaves) threatening to take the QO

Bargaining hard, but if Bulls aren't sold on him, they should be looking at sign and trades. Of course, that presumes that there are teams our there who would pay Giddey what he wants - which there well may not be. And even then, would they pay and send a meaningful asset back? You would think that Giddey should at least get a LaVine or DeRozan level return, but I'm not so sure that there is even that level of market for him.

What teams would trade a decent package for Giddey at 30 or 28 (noting 1 for 1 is hard with the BYC rules) What would a package from such a team look like?

Here is what I have seen. Again, this all seems to come from Jake Fischer:

"The Chicago Bulls have been engaged in a drawn-out negotiation with their guard Josh Giddey this offseason. As a restricted free agent, Giddey's prospects have been limited, but he has garnered a lot of interest from teams around the league.

On this note, Bleacher Report's Jake Fischer revealed that the Bulls have been quite keen on retaining him, despite the ongoing challenges with signing a deal. While speaking on "NBA Insider Notebook", Fischer said:

"Chicago doesn’t want to lose Josh Giddey at all. They’ve been telling other teams, they’ve been telling agents since the combine, that they are not interested in having any discussion whatsoever with Josh Giddey. They value Josh Giddey." .....

....."But they are not going to engage in any sign-and-trade scenario, and they’re not really going to move off their offer. So this is a holding pattern”.

I mean, if THAT is really what is going on, and I am Josh, I take the QO, flip a middle finger and take my chances next off-season.

One thing notable... r4ecent reports have stated that several teams have inquired about sign and trades. Those teams know the Bulls are at 20 mil. So if this report is true then several teams have expressed an interest in paying more than 20 mil per season for Giddey.

[jnrjr79]

WT has Giddey (via agent, reading tea leaves) threatening to take the QO

Bargaining hard, but if Bulls aren't sold on him, they should be looking at sign and trades. Of course, that presumes that there are teams our there who would pay Giddey what he wants - which there well may not be. And even then, would they pay and send a meaningful asset back? You would think that Giddey should at least get a LaVine or DeRozan level return, but I'm not so sure that there is even that level of market for him.

What teams would trade a decent package for Giddey at 30 or 28 (noting 1 for 1 is hard with the BYC rules) What would a package from such a team look like?

The reports I have seen recently were that the Bulls had rejected any sign and trade discussions out of hand. If that is true, it is what makes their position so egregious from Giddey's perspective. Basically that is a "we aren't going to pay you what you think (right or wrong) you are worth AND we also are not going to let anyone else pay you more than our offer". Basically, paraphrased, "we are holding you hostage until we decide how badly we really want you".

Again. That is just a possible view from Giddey's perspective. But it is why I think the way the Bulls are approaching it is dangerous if they really think they may want him long term. Then again, as others have said, if they give him 25m a season I think all will be forgotten quickly. If they stick him at 20-22m....not so sure of that.

If the Bulls and Giddey truly reach an impasse (which I doubt, but possible), there's nothing that stops the Bulls from entertaining S&T offers now, even if they were rejecting them before.

[nomorezorro]

one reason i continue to not see the QO as a serious threat is the difference between how his situation is being covered as compared to kuminga's

kuminga's agent went to shams and said "we are not taking the warriors offer, here are the exact terms they've offered us, here's an example of what we'd be willing to take, here are other teams that have not only expressed interest in me but made explicit contract proposals as part of a potential sign and trade." likewise, the warriors went to shams and said "we don't like the trade packages we've been offered, and we're about to cut off trade talks entirely; kuminga's going to be on our team no matter what, so either he takes our offer or he takes the QO."

that is the kind of brinksmanship you see when a situation is genuinely deteriorating — both sides taking their negotiations public, basically explicitly threatening the nuclear option. by contrast, we have basically no substantive written reports about giddey, especially from the best national sources or the plugged-in local guys. all we have is a b-tier scoopster on a livestream saying "the QO could always be an option"

the stuff about the bulls not entertaining an s&t is kind of interesting because it's the first little bit of smoke indicative of giddey's camp actually starting to make a stink, but it's still barely anything relative to what's going on with kuminga and cam thomas. (i also think "the only reason nobody is expressing interest in me is because the bulls aren't actively courting trade offers" is really weak posturing, but i recognize others might differ there.)

[DuckIII]

I know a lot of posters want to "play hardball" but these are human beings and there is a balance here. We all want the organization to be frugal and not overpay so that we have more flexibility later. But teams are comprised of human beings and going full bore to beat down a player and "win" every negotiation isn't sustainable. This is the kind of BS the Cowboys do all the time and in a league with incredible parity and despite being one of the most famous sports brands on Earth, they have sucked for over 30 years.

Find the balance, get the deal done in a way that makes sense for the Bulls and for Giddey. I still think that is going to be the outcome, but I don't like this report that basically we are being GS-midwest: "We will not trade you. We love and value you. But we're going to take full advantage of these market conditions, which will only last 1 year, to bugger you in a way that lasts 4 years."

This organization is on the cusp of finally showing positive signs of moving in a logical, sustainable direction. I'd hate to see it all get **** up in a fool's errand to deny as much money to Giddey as possible to "win" the negotiation. Giddey's going to lose the negotiation no matter what. He doesn't have anything approaching equal leverage. But he is not without leverage. Giddey on the QO is a nightmare unless we go full tank and let him walk.

But you know that isn't what AK will do. If he FUBARs the Giddey situation, he'll look to make up for it by bringing in "win now" veterans faster than you can blink. In which case we will be doubly screwed.

[dougthonus]

I know a lot of posters want to "play hardball" but these are human beings and there is a balance here. We all want the organization to be frugal and not overpay so that we have more flexibility later. But teams are comprised of human beings and going full bore to beat down a player and "win" every negotiation isn't sustainable. This is the kind of BS the Cowboys do all the time and in a league with incredible parity and despite being one of the most famous sports brands on Earth, they have sucked for over 30 years.

FWIW, I think it's worth noting that the Bulls are so far away from "winning every negotiation" that it is laughable. This is the first time they've even really negotiated hard with anyone in the AK era. They landed on good contracts for Coby / Ayo, but I don't get the impression they put either guy through the ringer, those guys just played better after being signed. They were insanely generous to Vuc, Pat, and Zach with no negotiation at all.

The last thing anyone should be worried about is AK playing hard ball so often it is unsustainable, this is literally the first time he's tried it in five years of negotiations. The pendulum was way, way, way on the the other side of this one.

Find the balance, get the deal done in a way that makes sense for the Bulls and for Giddey. I still think that is going to be the outcome, but I don't like this report that basically we are being GS-midwest: "We will not trade you. We love and value you. But we're going to take full advantage of these market conditions, which will only last 1 year, to bugger you in a way that lasts 4 years."

This organization is on the cusp of finally showing positive signs of moving in a logical, sustainable direction. I'd hate to see it all get **** up in a fool's errand to deny as much money to Giddey as possible to "win" the negotiation. Giddey's going to lose the negotiation no matter what. He doesn't have anything approaching equal leverage. But he is not without leverage. Giddey on the QO is a nightmare unless we go full tank and let him walk.

But you know that isn't what AK will do. If he FUBARs the Giddey situation, he'll look to make up for it by bringing in "win now" veterans faster than you can blink. In which case we will be doubly screwed.

We will see how it turns out, I think the ultimate concern (and not to speak for you, but I somewhat share it) is that AK's done a lot of lousy stuff in the past, he's never successfully negotiated a contentious situation in the past, and the fear that he won't do it this time well because he overplays his hand is causing some anxiety.

I also hope we get this done with Josh and think that will be the outcome. I think a lot of negotiations feel this way up until they get done, then afterwards its all smiles. Joakim Noah's negotiation was this way up until it got done then afterwards he was all heart and soul on his contract and no one thought of it ever again.

I think the waiting is never comfortable, but of course Josh will threaten to take the QO, he has no other leverage whatsoever. If Josh had real S&T money in hand offers from other teams (and his agent is sure as hell looking for them from an argument perspective, and the teams have no disincentive from saying "we'd pay you 30M" because they would rather have the Bulls get capped out because why not) then that would likely be reported.

I'd say all this stuff based on the hearsay nature of it is a bunch of BS and tactics.

[jnrjr79]

I know a lot of posters want to "play hardball" but these are human beings and there is a balance here. We all want the organization to be frugal and not overpay so that we have more flexibility later. But teams are comprised of human beings and going full bore to beat down a player and "win" every negotiation isn't sustainable. This is the kind of BS the Cowboys do all the time and in a league with incredible parity and despite being one of the most famous sports brands on Earth, they have sucked for over 30 years.

Find the balance, get the deal done in a way that makes sense for the Bulls and for Giddey. I still think that is going to be the outcome, but I don't like this report that basically we are being GS-midwest: "We will not trade you. We love and value you. But we're going to take full advantage of these market conditions, which will only last 1 year, to bugger you in a way that lasts 4 years."

This organization is on the cusp of finally showing positive signs of moving in a logical, sustainable direction. I'd hate to see it all get **** up in a fool's errand to deny as much money to Giddey as possible to "win" the negotiation. Giddey's going to lose the negotiation no matter what. He doesn't have anything approaching equal leverage. But he is not without leverage. Giddey on the QO is a nightmare unless we go full tank and let him walk.

But you know that isn't what AK will do. If he FUBARs the Giddey situation, he'll look to make up for it by bringing in "win now" veterans faster than you can blink. In which case we will be doubly screwed.

I just don't think it's really going to end up being all that contentious. It seems much more likely to me that they either arrive at a number of the Bulls say "feel free to explore a sign-and-trade if you can find a team that'll give you your number." As was noted earlier in the thread, if it's indeed true that teams are interested but not pursuing it because the Bulls aren't entertaining it, that suggests teams exist in the league who are willing to go north of $20M. That's a better option, most likely, than simply letting him walk, unless you're just getting undesirable long-term contracts in exchange, which I kinda doubt.

I still think this thing ends up landing somewhere in the $23-27M/year range, if I had to guess.

I also don't know why all the focus is on the Bulls not coming up from $20M. All the reports are Giddey has also not come down from $30M. It seems like both sides are equally responsible for a deal not being done. Would you go to $30M?