Josh Giddey 3.0

[jnrjr79]

From my conversation with another poster:

"If the number you are looking to get the player for is 25 mil, it would be far more effective to offer 24, and when the player says 30 you say "we will give you 25 mil AAV. That's our final offer. Not a penny more. We can negotiate the terms that make sense for both parties at that price but that is our top number"."

As someone who does this for a living (kinda sorta), offering 96% of what you're willing to pay out of the gate and then bumping it 4% and saying "best and final" is a great way to not get a deal done.

As someone who did this for a living for 25 years, including multi-year, multi-million contracts, you have no basis for saying that. The lowball approach invites significant negotiations. You are far better going in with a fair offer slightly below your max and standing firm at your max.

I disagree.

Let me try this a different way. You are employed by my organization. Your contract is up for renewal and this is my pitch:

"you were brought into the industry on our 4 year apprenticeship/prove it plan (NBA rookie contract scales). Last year, we increased your responsibilities significantly from a role player in the organization to a leadership role. Got to admit. You killed it. You performed at a level that no one in that role in this company has performed at in the last decade. We look forward to you continuing in that role. We know that others in the industry in that role make $300k a year or more. But it was only for half a year. Therefore, we think it is fair to pay you $200k a year for the next 3 (or 4, or 5) years."

Well, assuming you are trying to have this talk map on to the Giddey situation, the first thing I would say is you should not say those things because they are not true. Giddey did not, in fact, "kill it." He played like an MLE player or worse for 3/4 of the season. He "killed it" for 1/4 of the season. His total performance was 3/4 not good and 1/4 good. That's not good performance!

So, yes, I think it would be fair to say something indicating that you're really encouraged by the end-of-year performance, but that your offer has to take into account the entire tenure, not just the 1/4 of the time that Giddey was great.

What is your response?

Mine would be one of two things. In Giddey's shoes, my best response to that offer would be "fine, give me the $200k for one year and we will talk again 12 months from now". My worst response would be to laugh and walk out of the room.

Well, I don't think Giddey is going to do what you think you would do in Giddey's shoes.

[drosestruts]

The sports world is exceptionally unique and I always feel attempts to compare/contrast experiences in many of our lives to the sports world miss that point entirely.

[Stratmaster]

As someone who does this for a living (kinda sorta), offering 96% of what you're willing to pay out of the gate and then bumping it 4% and saying "best and final" is a great way to not get a deal done.

As someone who did this for a living for 25 years, including multi-year, multi-million contracts, you have no basis for saying that. The lowball approach invites significant negotiations. You are far better going in with a fair offer slightly below your max and standing firm at your max.

I disagree.

Let me try this a different way. You are employed by my organization. Your contract is up for renewal and this is my pitch:

"you were brought into the industry on our 4 year apprenticeship/prove it plan (NBA rookie contract scales). Last year, we increased your responsibilities significantly from a role player in the organization to a leadership role. Got to admit. You killed it. You performed at a level that no one in that role in this company has performed at in the last decade. We look forward to you continuing in that role. We know that others in the industry in that role make $300k a year or more. But it was only for half a year. Therefore, we think it is fair to pay you $200k a year for the next 3 (or 4, or 5) years."

Well, assuming you are trying to have this talk map on to the Giddey situation, the first thing I would say is you should not say those things because they are not true. Giddey did not, in fact, "kill it." He played like an MLE player or worse for 3/4 of the season. He "killed it" for 1/4 of the season. His total performance was 3/4 not good and 1/4 good. That's not good performance!

So, yes, I think it would be fair to say something indicating that you're really encouraged by the end-of-year performance, but that your offer has to take into account the entire tenure, not just the 1/4 of the time that Giddey was great.

What is your response?

Mine would be one of two things. In Giddey's shoes, my best response to that offer would be "fine, give me the $200k for one year and we will talk again 12 months from now". My worst response would be to laugh and walk out of the room.

Well, I don't think Giddey is going to do what you think you would do in Giddey's shoes.

My point was that Giddey's role was changed, and once it was, he killed it. His responsibilities were expanded and he excelled in his new job. Assuming he is retained he is going to be expected to continue that role; be the catalyst of the offense, a specific type of offense, with a team built around that role. You pay for the role of the employee and their level of skill at that role. You can't put him in that role, watch him excel at a top level, and then expect to pay him at the rate of the lesser role.

As far as taking into account his performance prior to that; that is a reasonable argument. But you can't realistically expect the player to lock themselves into a lesser role and performance level income for 3 or more seasons.

The reason Giddey won't do either of the two things I mentioned are that the Bulls are unlikely to agree to a one year contract, and that Giddey knows they will likely pay 25 mil AAV, which I expect might be a bottom line for him to happily accept a new contract. Especially since they seem to think they should get him at a rock bottom bargain price, and because it is not a common practice. They can get him for one year at 11 or 12 mil. The reason he won't just walk out is because he can't, contractually. If he was an UFA he might do that. But the fact that a prospective employee is temporarily stuck between a rock and a hard place is not a valid reason to insult them with your offer. They might begrudgingly and unhappily accept it. But that will almost never end well if you have any thought of wanting them to be a long term, positive influence on your organization.

[DuckIII]

Sorry. I meant in the abstract, not specific to Giddey. In a random contract negotiation, getting the player I want + a salary that makes sense strike me as bigger concerns than the risk of getting both those things but somehow also simultaneously poisoning the relationship. If the player is willing to sign with you at a certain number, most of the time it's unlikely that the relationship. has been poisoned.

I agree with that.

I do not think Jimmy Butler is a good example of this, either. He wanted Chicago to max him and to make him the centerpiece of the team. He did not resent his deal and want out.

I don't recall him explicitly demanding out, but it was after signing that deal and not getting what he wanted that he started to become a locker room issue and then was ultimately traded to gut the team. And more stories have come out since how he was a malcontent behind the scenes on that contract.

I may have been too young to remember this, but my sense is Pippen is also a bad example. Jerry warned him against signing the deal he did, but Pippen wanted that deal. He only came to resent it later (if we're talking about the same contract here).

That's accurate. But the issue is that he still resented the contract and it poisoned his relationship with the organization. He shouldn't have blamed them but he did. He was still bitching about it well after he retired. Now, unfortunately we know now that Scottie isn't exactly the most rational person in the world, but the point remains. We do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here and, to my eye, that's the only remaining risk I see with Giddey. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by getting too cute.

[Stratmaster]

The sports world is exceptionally unique and I always feel attempts to compare/contrast experiences in many of our lives to the sports world miss that point entirely.

There are all kinds of contract employment situations outside of the sports world. The difference is the magnitude of the numbers and some of the artificial contract limitations. Yes, at some point you take 20 mil versus 30 mil if you have to. Moreso than someone might take 66k instead of 100k. Give me a sports situation that aligns with Giddeys, where the player took 33% less than their agent analysis told them they were worth.

[dougthonus]

IMO, it's not really possible to know whether a negotiation was done "skillfully" when you're not a party to it, at least when the result is good. All we can do is look at the outcome and make an inference as to whether it seems like it was handled well or not. If a result is bad, it might be easier to make the leap to "this wasn't negotiated well," though.

I agree, if we end this on a deal that's awful (paying way too much or the QO are the two potential awful scenarios) then you can say it was awful.

Otherwise, who knows whether it was good or bad, we'll never know the internals. I know that a "good result" has a good chance of looking this way at this point in time. That doesn't mean it will have the "good result", but if you are trying hard to get there the fair chance it won't look smooth during the process.

[dougthonus]

From my conversation with another poster:

"If the number you are looking to get the player for is 25 mil, it would be far more effective to offer 24, and when the player says 30 you say "we will give you 25 mil AAV. That's our final offer. Not a penny more. We can negotiate the terms that make sense for both parties at that price but that is our top number"."

By offering a lowball number, you are basically saying "we are open to significant negotiations on the number but if we can we will pay you as little as possible"

I disagree that's true, but I'm not a professional negotiator. I do negotiate a variety of "multi-million" dollar contracts, but they're all generally commodity driven deals (ie, vendor 1 vs vendor 2 where services are similar) rather than highly bespoke / high wiggle room deals. I have found your ability to vary on a deal highly depends on the vendor. I've cut some initial deals in half by negotiating and others I can't get them to move at all. I'm also supported by 3rd party market data and an internal vendor management team that helps.

FWIW, I think that approach would be more likely to get you to settle at 27M than 25M in this exact situation, but I haven't negotiated something in a context quite like this. Fundamentally, I think another gap here is that you think 30M is reasonable and 20M is unreasonable. I think they're both equally reasonable/unreasonable. The fact that you think one is more reasonable than the other also indicates that 25M is unlikely your sticking point, and thus also probably subconsciously doesn't have you optimize your strategy towards it.

[jnrjr79]

Sorry. I meant in the abstract, not specific to Giddey. In a random contract negotiation, getting the player I want + a salary that makes sense strike me as bigger concerns than the risk of getting both those things but somehow also simultaneously poisoning the relationship. If the player is willing to sign with you at a certain number, most of the time it's unlikely that the relationship. has been poisoned.

I agree with that.

I do not think Jimmy Butler is a good example of this, either. He wanted Chicago to max him and to make him the centerpiece of the team. He did not resent his deal and want out.

I don't recall him explicitly demanding out, but it was after signing that deal and not getting what he wanted that he started to become a locker room issue and then was ultimately traded to gut the team. And more stories have come out since how he was a malcontent behind the scenes on that contract.

I think you may be misremembering. Jimmy Butler was on a max contract and got precisely what he wanted. He had previously turned down a $44 million extension, but he was on a five year-max with a player option in the 5th year when he was traded. Whatever he was mad about (if he was even mad at the Bulls at all, given the reports were he wanted to stay on another max deal rather than be traded), it wasn't his contract.

I may have been too young to remember this, but my sense is Pippen is also a bad example. Jerry warned him against signing the deal he did, but Pippen wanted that deal. He only came to resent it later (if we're talking about the same contract here).

That's accurate. But the issue is that he still resented the contract and it poisoned his relationship with the organization. He shouldn't have blamed them but he did. He was still bitching about it well after he retired. Now, unfortunately we know now that Scottie isn't exactly the most rational person in the world, but the point remains. We do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here and, to my eye, that's the only remaining risk I see with Giddey. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by getting too cute.

I don't think this applies at all. Pippen wasn't mad about the negotiations. He was mad, years later, that his deal turned out to be a bad one. That doesn't really map on to being concerned that Giddey could be mad about the Bulls lowballing him right now. If the argument here is that Giddey may be satisfied, but in 2 years if he's been playing great, resent that he's underpaid, well, I just would not do anything about that concern, to be honest.

[jnrjr79]

The sports world is exceptionally unique and I always feel attempts to compare/contrast experiences in many of our lives to the sports world miss that point entirely.

There are all kinds of contract employment situations outside of the sports world. The difference is the magnitude of the numbers and some of the artificial contract limitations. Yes, at some point you take 20 mil versus 30 mil if you have to. Moreso than someone might take 66k instead of 100k. Give me a sports situation that aligns with Giddeys, where the player took 33% less than their agent analysis told them they were worth.

This again assumes facts we do not know to be true.

Unless Giddey's agent is a moron, he presumably has not told Giddey that his current "worth" is $30 million, because if that were the case, you wouldn't make $30 million your opening number in negotiations.

Part of being an agent is advocating the best you can for your client with the other side of the negotiation, but confidentially managing your client's expectations. If Giddey's agent has made an opening ask of $30M AAV, then assuredly he has told Giddey to expect to actually land on a smaller number.

[drosestruts]

While maximizing contract efficiencies, let's not forget that Josh Giddey is fun to watch. Don't miss the trees for the forest or whatever.

Watch on YouTube

[DrModesty]

So how is Giddey at high 20's going to change the fortunes of the team compared to in the low 20s? Either Giddey is good enough to carry this shoddy roster to wins which means he is a star, or he is actually a bad player and the Bulls tank whether they like it or not, or it is in between and the young guys/front office need to drastically improve the situation around him (And White if he stays) so they can develop in to a winning team over several years.

I hope all the Giddey fans here negotiate my next contract where I ask for 20% more than market value, and everyone says yes because it won't change the fortunes of the company in any meaningful way by doing so.

What does agreeing to Giddey's terms today at a higher than market rate do for the Bulls? How does that help them in any way? How are they positioned better to succeed by doing that?

What is the pressure/reason to do anything today? The only reason seems to be that fans are nervous that a guy who is maybe the 75th best player in the league and has a ton of weird traits that are hard to build around might just get away even though there is no reason to think that except impatience.

But generally speaking, the extra money almost always matters. You never think it will matter at the time, but it does, because you are constrained to a hard cap. 5M extra to Giddey is 5M less somewhere else, and ultimately that will always make some difference. It makes a bigger and bigger difference when that is your negotiating MO, because it's not just 5M extra to Giddey, it was 5M extra to Pat and 10M extra to Vuc, and now we're 15M in the hole already. You can't keep going to this playbook every time you do a new contract.

Literally the best thing about this off-season is that the front office has stated to actually negotiate with guys instead of just giving them whatever they want before free agency even begins.

I look at the Bulls roster and I am very, very unimpressed. I see a guy who is either a future star or a future fake star in Giddey. I see a good 6th man in White. I see a promising B+/A- prospect in Matas (I am thinking an Aaron Gordon/OG level of impact which would be a win tbh). A huge project in Noa. And then a deluge of 8th-11th men + Vooch who is/needs to be on his way out.

Maybe it is because I watch substantially more western conference basketball than east, but my day to day experience of watching teams like the Grizzlies with Ja/JJJ/Bane plus a bunch of interesting young guys, or the Clippers with Kawhi, Harden, Zubac, Powell and lots of depth battle in the middle of the pack makes the Bulls seem so far away. Sure, being a feisty eastern conference 5th seed could be on the cards in a couple years or 3. But championships....

Noa is 18. Matas is 20. They don't have a viable starting center. They don't have legit 3 and D role players. The Bulls are years away from becoming a good team. There is no one on the roster worth big money, but they are asking Giddey to save their franchise and offering him fringe starter money to do so.

Yes the Bulls should try and negotiate a good deal. But this is the last guy they should be hard balling given their situation.

All of this seems to be evidence that we should be collecting assets. The better deal we negotiate with Giddey the better asset he is. If we give in too much, then he's a non-asset like Vuc/Pat.

I tend to feel that given the role Giddey is expected to play, that he will end up looking like an asset at any contract value in the 20's. I think the market is mispricing him going off that article from a few weeks back.

I wouldn't be so cavalier with negotiating with players such as Pat or Vooch. Pat has never proven a thing, got worse year on year and looked like he should be a bench guy before he was signed. Vooch was a baffling keep in the first place as an older player who is actively bad at his most core competency.

But if you look at the market price of the role Giddey is to take (primary ball handler and significant scorer), the Bulls are offering bottom of the barrel salary. FVV is about the floor of this player on the market right now. He is at $25m, but had to be heavily overpaid to be acquired in the first place. He is also a tiny player in his 30s who scored less than Giddey at only 51% true shooting with less playmaking talent and declining performance.

As it is from my pov, the Bulls offer seems like risking self sabotage (encouraging Giddey to take the QO) when most every other eventual outcome between 20-30m is likely positive. I understand that in a cap environment every dollar matters as far as positioning yourself to take advantage of entropic opportunities. But the Bulls have such little salary of consequence and are so far from contending that this particular negotiation, at this particular range of price points, is near immaterial.

If there is ever a player to acquiesce on the extra 5 million, it is the talented young guy asking for substantially less than a max that you run your offense through.

[dougthonus]

I tend to feel that given the role Giddey is expected to play, that he will end up looking like an asset at any contract value in the 20's. I think the market is mispricing him going off that article from a few weeks back.

So you really like Giddey and think he is worth more than all the datapoints we are privy too. Fair enough, but I'm not upset for the Bulls not agreeing with you and making their initial offer in such a way that they hope to land him in the range that other teams seem to price him at.

I wouldn't be so cavalier with negotiating with players such as Pat or Vooch. Pat has never proven a thing, got worse year on year and looked like he should be a bench guy before he was signed. Vooch was a baffling keep in the first place as an older player who is actively bad at his most core competency.

What has Giddey proven? That he was good for 1/3rd of a year playing largely against tanking teams?

But if you look at the market price of the role Giddey is to take (primary ball handler and significant scorer), the Bulls are offering bottom of the barrel salary. FVV is about the floor of this player on the market right now. He is at $25m, but had to be heavily overpaid to be acquired in the first place. He is also a tiny player in his 30s who scored less than Giddey at only 51% true shooting with less playmaking talent and declining performance.

I think paying him at the lowest end of primary ball handlers is appropriate. Maybe a good comparison is that if you inflation adjust it, Lonzo Ball is a similar cost to what we'll likely get Giddey at after negotiations are complete. Lonzo Ball (if healthy, which he was when signed) would be a vastly more desirable player than Giddey to me.

As it is from my pov, the Bulls offer seems like risking self sabotage (encouraging Giddey to take the QO) when most every other eventual outcome between 20-30m is likely positive. I understand that in a cap environment every dollar matters as far as positioning yourself to take advantage of entropic opportunities. But the Bulls have such little salary of consequence and are so far from contending that this particular negotiation, at this particular range of price points, is near immaterial.

If there is ever a player to acquiesce on the extra 5 million, it is the talented young guy asking for substantially less than a max that you run your offense through.

I don't think 30M is a positive outcome for the Bulls. Outside of a lot of Bulls fans on this forum, no one I follow in the NBA seems to think so either, nor do the team's interviewed about his value. I also don't think there is any real reason to fear he will take the QO, but if that happens, we will have definitely screwed up. The QO is the worst case outcome for us.

That said, if you think Giddey is on a good deal I can see why our opinions differ.

[NZB2323]

So how is Giddey at high 20's going to change the fortunes of the team compared to in the low 20s? Either Giddey is good enough to carry this shoddy roster to wins which means he is a star, or he is actually a bad player and the Bulls tank whether they like it or not, or it is in between and the young guys/front office need to drastically improve the situation around him (And White if he stays) so they can develop in to a winning team over several years.

I hope all the Giddey fans here negotiate my next contract where I ask for 20% more than market value, and everyone says yes because it won't change the fortunes of the company in any meaningful way by doing so.

What does agreeing to Giddey's terms today at a higher than market rate do for the Bulls? How does that help them in any way? How are they positioned better to succeed by doing that?

What is the pressure/reason to do anything today? The only reason seems to be that fans are nervous that a guy who is maybe the 75th best player in the league and has a ton of weird traits that are hard to build around might just get away even though there is no reason to think that except impatience.

But generally speaking, the extra money almost always matters. You never think it will matter at the time, but it does, because you are constrained to a hard cap. 5M extra to Giddey is 5M less somewhere else, and ultimately that will always make some difference. It makes a bigger and bigger difference when that is your negotiating MO, because it's not just 5M extra to Giddey, it was 5M extra to Pat and 10M extra to Vuc, and now we're 15M in the hole already. You can't keep going to this playbook every time you do a new contract.

Literally the best thing about this off-season is that the front office has stated to actually negotiate with guys instead of just giving them whatever they want before free agency even begins.

I look at the Bulls roster and I am very, very unimpressed. I see a guy who is either a future star or a future fake star in Giddey. I see a good 6th man in White. I see a promising B+/A- prospect in Matas (I am thinking an Aaron Gordon/OG level of impact which would be a win tbh). A huge project in Noa. And then a deluge of 8th-11th men + Vooch who is/needs to be on his way out.

Maybe it is because I watch substantially more western conference basketball than east, but my day to day experience of watching teams like the Grizzlies with Ja/JJJ/Bane plus a bunch of interesting young guys, or the Clippers with Kawhi, Harden, Zubac, Powell and lots of depth battle in the middle of the pack makes the Bulls seem so far away. Sure, being a feisty eastern conference 5th seed could be on the cards in a couple years or 3. But championships....

Noa is 18. Matas is 20. They don't have a viable starting center. They don't have legit 3 and D role players. The Bulls are years away from becoming a good team. There is no one on the roster worth big money, but they are asking Giddey to save their franchise and offering him fringe starter money to do so.

Yes the Bulls should try and negotiate a good deal. But this is the last guy they should be hard balling given their situation.

All of this seems to be evidence that we should be collecting assets. The better deal we negotiate with Giddey the better asset he is. If we give in too much, then he's a non-asset like Vuc/Pat.

I tend to feel that given the role Giddey is expected to play, that he will end up looking like an asset at any contract value in the 20's. I think the market is mispricing him going off that article from a few weeks back.

I wouldn't be so cavalier with negotiating with players such as Pat or Vooch. Pat has never proven a thing, got worse year on year and looked like he should be a bench guy before he was signed. Vooch was a baffling keep in the first place as an older player who is actively bad at his most core competency.

But if you look at the market price of the role Giddey is to take (primary ball handler and significant scorer), the Bulls are offering bottom of the barrel salary. FVV is about the floor of this player on the market right now. He is at $25m, but had to be heavily overpaid to be acquired in the first place. He is also a tiny player in his 30s who scored less than Giddey at only 51% true shooting with less playmaking talent and declining performance.

As it is from my pov, the Bulls offer seems like risking self sabotage (encouraging Giddey to take the QO) when most every other eventual outcome between 20-30m is likely positive. I understand that in a cap environment every dollar matters as far as positioning yourself to take advantage of entropic opportunities. But the Bulls have such little salary of consequence and are so far from contending that this particular negotiation, at this particular range of price points, is near immaterial.

If there is ever a player to acquiesce on the extra 5 million, it is the talented young guy asking for substantially less than a max that you run your offense through.

With the new CBA we really don’t want to overpay players.

Giddey is a RFA. If he really feels he is worth more than what the Bulls are offering then he can get a bigger contract from another team and see if the Bulls match. If not, he doesn’t have a lot of leverage.

I like Giddey, but he’s never been an all-star, OKC had a hard time playing him in the playoffs, and we have a small sample size of him looking good. $80M is a lot of money and not exactly a slap in the face.

[DrModesty]

I tend to feel that given the role Giddey is expected to play, that he will end up looking like an asset at any contract value in the 20's. I think the market is mispricing him going off that article from a few weeks back.

So you really like Giddey and think he is worth more than all the datapoints we are privy too. Fair enough, but I'm not upset for the Bulls not agreeing with you and making their initial offer in such a way that they hope to land him in the range that other teams seem to price him at.

I wouldn't be so cavalier with negotiating with players such as Pat or Vooch. Pat has never proven a thing, got worse year on year and looked like he should be a bench guy before he was signed. Vooch was a baffling keep in the first place as an older player who is actively bad at his most core competency.

What has Giddey proven? That he was good for 1/3rd of a year playing largely against tanking teams?

But if you look at the market price of the role Giddey is to take (primary ball handler and significant scorer), the Bulls are offering bottom of the barrel salary. FVV is about the floor of this player on the market right now. He is at $25m, but had to be heavily overpaid to be acquired in the first place. He is also a tiny player in his 30s who scored less than Giddey at only 51% true shooting with less playmaking talent and declining performance.

I think paying him at the lowest end of primary ball handlers is appropriate. Maybe a good comparison is that if you inflation adjust it, Lonzo Ball is a similar cost to what we'll likely get Giddey at after negotiations are complete. Lonzo Ball (if healthy, which he was when signed) would be a vastly more desirable player than Giddey to me.

As it is from my pov, the Bulls offer seems like risking self sabotage (encouraging Giddey to take the QO) when most every other eventual outcome between 20-30m is likely positive. I understand that in a cap environment every dollar matters as far as positioning yourself to take advantage of entropic opportunities. But the Bulls have such little salary of consequence and are so far from contending that this particular negotiation, at this particular range of price points, is near immaterial.

If there is ever a player to acquiesce on the extra 5 million, it is the talented young guy asking for substantially less than a max that you run your offense through.

I don't think 30M is a positive outcome for the Bulls. Outside of a lot of Bulls fans on this forum, no one I follow in the NBA seems to think so either, nor do the team's interviewed about his value. I also don't think there is any real reason to fear he will take the QO, but if that happens, we will have definitely screwed up. The QO is the worst case outcome for us.

That said, if you think Giddey is on a good deal I can see why our opinions differ.

I generally don't end up taking issue with things you say because you come at it from a logical, thought out position. I'm not taking issue with things you say now either. But as far as what Giddey has proven. He has proven that he is one of the better passers in the league. He has proven that his rebounding is a positional advantage. He has proven that he can make improvements to his game (He is better than his rookie self in every way). He has proven an ability to stay healthy.

Pat stalled out immediately, and if anything was getting worse and proving more injury prone.

$20m is below the lowest end. FVV is the lowest end at $25m (Unless you want to include clear 1 year stop gaps like D'Angelo Russell), and I think Giddey will be better than Fred over the next few years, and was better last season. If Lonzo hadn't been ravaged by injury, his extension would have been above FVV's too. If he hadn't been ravaged by injury I'd be wanting the Bulls to run a backcourt of Lonzo and Giddey. Lonzo is a nice fit with him, but his health couldn't be trusted.

I have said a few times that $25m is fair given the market conditions. They don't need to pay him $30m if they want to leverage him, though I think he can live up to it. But the $20m is an outlier lowball contract for what he is being asked to do.

[dougthonus]

He has proven that he is one of the better passers in the league. He has proven that his rebounding is a positional advantage. He has proven that he can make improvements to his game (He is better than his rookie self in every way). He has proven an ability to stay healthy.

Fundamentally, I generally agree with these things, but don't think any of them confer a 30M dollar value.

I have said a few times that $25m is fair given the market conditions. They don't need to pay him $30m if they want to leverage him, though I think he can live up to it. But the $20m is an outlier lowball contract for what he is being asked to do.

If fair market is 25M, then 30M is just as far away from it as 20M, which I think is by design. We'll see what happens though.

[DrModesty]

He has proven that he is one of the better passers in the league. He has proven that his rebounding is a positional advantage. He has proven that he can make improvements to his game (He is better than his rookie self in every way). He has proven an ability to stay healthy.

Fundamentally, I generally agree with these things, but don't think any of them confer a 30M dollar value.

I have said a few times that $25m is fair given the market conditions. They don't need to pay him $30m if they want to leverage him, though I think he can live up to it. But the $20m is an outlier lowball contract for what he is being asked to do.

If fair market is 25M, then 30M is just as far away from it as 20M, which I think is by design.

I think that $25m is fair because of the depressive conditions of the current market. I think in most other market conditions we have seen in recent years it would be higher.

I think I also place particularly high value on premier passing skills. I have noticed a commonality of my valuations being higher on those players than consensus. Although not Lamelo or Trae. Exception for every rule I guess.

[Infinity2152]

Just speaking from personal experience, been in a lot of negotiations for homes and I've never seen a buyer come in 25-50% lower than what they're prepared to pay. They offered him $20 mill. If they're prepared to go to $25 mill, that's a 25% increase. Giddey's asking for $30 mill. That's 50% more than the Bulls offered. And I believe they'd match $30 mill if they had to. It's like bidding $300k on a house that's on the market for $450k and saying for months that $300k is your top offer. The only reason that logic sounds remotely reasonable is because the Bulls have the ability to strong-arm Giddey. Unless he refuses to be strong-armed.

Contract negotiations that lasts month rarely go well either. There's literally nothing to gain by either side by waiting. No movement just means the relationship is deteriorating until someone makes a nuclear move. And Giddey won't be practicing much all summer because he's not under contract. He's so concerned about being hurt he can't possibly take the QO, surely he's not risking injury with no contract.

Think getting stuck on a few mill is a problem too. For those who say no more than $25 mill AAV, which is likely better for us, $25/3 yrs either straight or player option year 3, or $27 mill 4yrs/ fourth year team option? The second protects us far more in the likely case that a 22-year-old gets better with experience.

[dougthonus]

I think that $25m is fair because of the depressive conditions of the current market. I think in most other market conditions we have seen in recent years it would be higher.

1: I don't really agree because I think the league values shooting/defense so much, but...

2: If I'm wrong, does it matter? These ARE the conditions right now. It doesn't matter what would happen if conditions were different. They aren't different.

I think I also place particularly high value on premier passing skills. I have noticed a commonality of my valuations being higher on those players than consensus. Although not Lamelo or Trae. Exception for every rule I guess.

I would order skills in the modern NBA in terms of priority as something like:
1: Shooting (everyone needs it)
2: Defense (everyone needs it)
3: Ball handling (more important for a star than supporting player but helpful for everyone)
4: Passing (more important for a star than supporting player but helpful for everyone)
5: Rebounding (mostly think this rarely matters outside the big positions, but a nice bonus)

Obviously you could break down all these categories into sub categories (some broader than others).

[dougthonus]

Just speaking from personal experience, been in a lot of negotiations for homes and I've never seen a buyer come in 25-50% lower than what they're prepared to pay.

In my experience in watching decades of NBA negotiations play out, people often start far apart and come together.

They offered him $20 mill. If they're prepared to go to $25 mill, that's a 25% increase. Giddey's asking for $30 mill. That's 50% more than the Bulls offered. And I believe they'd match $30 mill if they had to. It's like bidding $300k on a house that's on the market for $450k and saying for months that $300k is your top offer. The only reason that logic sounds remotely reasonable is because the Bulls have the ability to strong-arm Giddey. Unless he refuses to be strong-armed.

I mean this is just a narrative that could be trivially reversed to be from the Bulls perspective and Giddey's ridiculous demands and their refusal to be strong armed by someone whom literally has zero bidders outside of them. That's because there is nothing factually relevant here, it's just a narrative and it isn't any more rational to do it this way vs favoring the Bulls.

Contract negotiations that lasts month rarely go well either. There's literally nothing to gain by either side by waiting. No movement just means the relationship is deteriorating until someone makes a nuclear move. And Giddey won't be practicing much all summer because he's not under contract. He's so concerned about being hurt he can't possibly take the QO, surely he's not risking injury with no contract.

Contracts frequently don't get done until one sides has something to lose by not moving. This is quite normal, and it's quite normal in NBA contracts that don't get immediately resolved.

Think getting stuck on a few mill is a problem too. For those who say no more than $25 mill AAV, which is likely better for us, $25/3 yrs either straight or player option year 3, or $27 mill 4yrs/ fourth year team option? The second protects us far more in the likely case that a 22-year-old gets better with experience.

I mean if those are the actual only choices, then maybe I'd do the 27M with the TO, but maybe the actual choices are 3/70 or 4/100 with a TO, who knows. Certainly paying some extra for a TO may make sense, the particulars you can figure out when you get closer.

[Infinity2152]

Just speaking from personal experience, been in a lot of negotiations for homes and I've never seen a buyer come in 25-50% lower than what they're prepared to pay.

In my experience in watching decades of NBA negotiations play out, people often start far apart and come together.

They offered him $20 mill. If they're prepared to go to $25 mill, that's a 25% increase. Giddey's asking for $30 mill. That's 50% more than the Bulls offered. And I believe they'd match $30 mill if they had to. It's like bidding $300k on a house that's on the market for $450k and saying for months that $300k is your top offer. The only reason that logic sounds remotely reasonable is because the Bulls have the ability to strong-arm Giddey. Unless he refuses to be strong-armed.

I mean this is just a narrative that could be trivially reversed to be from the Bulls perspective and Giddey's ridiculous demands and their refusal to be strong armed by someone whom literally has zero bidders outside of them. That's because there is nothing factually relevant here, it's just a narrative and it isn't any more rational to do it this way vs favoring the Bulls.

Contract negotiations that lasts month rarely go well either. There's literally nothing to gain by either side by waiting. No movement just means the relationship is deteriorating until someone makes a nuclear move. And Giddey won't be practicing much all summer because he's not under contract. He's so concerned about being hurt he can't possibly take the QO, surely he's not risking injury with no contract.

Contracts frequently don't get done until one sides has something to lose by not moving. This is quite normal, and it's quite normal in NBA contracts that don't get immediately resolved.

Think getting stuck on a few mill is a problem too. For those who say no more than $25 mill AAV, which is likely better for us, $25/3 yrs either straight or player option year 3, or $27 mill 4yrs/ fourth year team option? The second protects us far more in the likely case that a 22-year-old gets better with experience.

I mean if those are the actual only choices, then maybe I'd do the 27M with the TO, but maybe the actual choices are 3/70 or 4/100 with a TO, who knows. Certainly paying some extra for a TO may make sense, the particulars you can figure out when you get closer.

1. Watch for decades, you'll see a lot of things happen. What usually happens? Are you seriously saying the majority of negotiations in the NBA between two parties last 4 -5 months? Far apart is one thing. Now define far apart. Parties often come in with a 50% difference in valuation and make a deal? 50% is a HUGE gap to bridge without anybody moving till force. Name some contracts where a player actually signed for 33% less than what he was asking for, if it happens often. A player was asking $30 mill and signed for $20 mill. They usually end up with another team. Or sign a short term deal. Thing preventing that is combination of Giddey's RFA tag and no money in the market. He's still the same player.

How far were the Pacers and Myles Turner apart for him to end up on the Bucks badmouthing the Pacers? He only got $26 mil, Pacers offer was reportedly north of $20mill.

2. Reverse it from the Bulls perspective. From the Bulls perspective, how much are they willing to pay Giddey at absolute most? That's where they actually value Giddey. How close to that number are they actually bidding? Forget what Giddey asked for. If Giddey asked for $25 mill, do you think the Bulls would have just given him that? Are they offering 25-50% less than their actual max as a starting point? Are you saying their offer was based on Giddey's asking price?

3. You keep saying things are quite normal. For every single contract that goes like this, I can show you 5-10 that didn't. This is not usual contract negotiations. 3 other relatively big named restricted free agents are going through the same thing. Did that happen last year? Year before? Year before that? 4 of the top RFA's either took the QO or didn't sign until just before the season?

4. I agree. I have no idea what the other parameters in the contract would or could be, which is why I'm suggesting focusing so much on the AAV is bad business. It does seem logical that the higher the AAV, the more the team could negotiate for team friendly terms, like last year option year. Maybe even last year option year AND back-load the contract, so the most money would come in a team option year with a larger cap.

This is the type of negotiation I'd love to hear they were doing. If two sides are trying to make a deal, there needs to be some give and take, usually. Maybe they are, and that's behind the scenes and we don't know it. I think if we heard they were at least talking and TRYING to get something dne, that would help.

Like if the Bulls are at 4yrs/$80 mill now. Why can't they send them an offer right now and say we'll give you 4 years/$23 mill but the last year will be a team option? Get the ball rolling. Maybe Giddey counters, same contract $27 mill AAV. Lot more leeway and time for both sides to move back and forth now than if they wait until the deadline.