Kuminga sign and trade Bulls interest

[MGB8]

There ARE NOT a lot of teams who could offer Kuminga a S&T without messing up their cap. They can only send half the contract. A lot of teams are at or over the cap and aren't adding that amount of money for any reason.

Over the cap doesn't really matter. Tax/aprons do. If Kuminga is such an exciting young prospect, why do none of the cap-flexible rebuilding teams go after him? Because they doubt he'll be worth what you'd need to pay him to have him agree to the S&T.

Even if they could, the Bulls would very likely match any reasonable contract. Warriors too. So what would be the point? Teams need the other team to agree to even do a S&T. Are the Bulls really letting Giddey go if a team made all these moves to clear cap and Giddey gets a $30 mill offer. Or do the Bulls just match, and that team has screwed themselves?

Again, talking about matching misses the point here. There isn't cap space on the market, so a S&T is the only framework in which to look at this.

Don't think Kuminga takes $18 mill either. The argument was that Ayo and Carter are somehow worth more than Kuminga. He said Ayo is worth the MLE. The MLE plus Carters contract would actually exceed $18 mill by a fair margin. I was being charitable, the cost of a re-signed Carter and Ayo probably exceeds $20 mill if Ayo gets MLE. Comparison of what the same asset would be worth under contract this summer.

I don't really see the point of this salary comparison stuff. I don't care about Carter at all, and neither would any team. The question is who you value more between Ayo and Kuminga. I think Ayo is the better basketball player, and I think the Bulls need his skill set more than someone like Kuminga's. Kuminga is purely a "bet." You don't want the version of Kuminga that was on the Warriors last year.

As for your personal feelings about Kuminga, okay. Let's say I accept every negative you say about him. Now Google "Top NBA RFA's 2025". Kuminga was/is near the top of every list.

Google disagrees with your assertion here. You may be confusing it with lists that are updated as signings occur. Kuminga is on the lists, sure, but I don't think he's really "near the top." Obviously a lot depends on where your team is, competitively. A team interested in Harden as an RFA is probably not also interested in Kuminga. But mostly there just weren't a lot of interesting RFAs this offseason, so I'm not sure it's much of an achievement to be on this list.

Everybody sees the same things you do, we watch the same games. Everyody has him listed as a top RFA, knowing who and what he is. Why would that change this summer? If he's considered a top RFA by media and teams , why would his value go down as a UFA.

This is an easy answer. His value will go down if he plays another season like he did last season. Also you're just making stuff up here when you refer to "teams." I'm unaware of any "teams" that have him "listed as a top RFA," and the fact that there has been little market for him seems to back that up.

If he looks as bad as you say he does, and the Warriors may offer be offering him $20 mill right now, how bad would he have to look to get less? It's not like he's coming off a 20/10 season and you guys are expecting him regress. Apparently, you're expecting him to regress from bad.

For him to get less, he'd have to play next season the way he ended last season - out of Kerr's rotation.

Nobody's saying regression is not possible. I'm saying it's the less likely option. What percent of NBA players get worse for the rest of their career at age 22, barring major injury? Go on record with what percent you think this happens.

This "go on record" kind of language is obnoxious, but anyway, Kuminga is currently regressing. This isn't a scenario where he's holding steady or improving and I'm just saying "well, that may not continue."

We gamble every day on odds. When you flip that light switch, you could get electrocuted. Every time you get in a car, you could get in a fatal accident. Not likely, so we do it every day. It's like you want to gameplan based on lower odds, instead of higher odds. Unless you really think more NBA players get worse after year 4 than get better.

I guess we agree, then, that the whole premise of signing Kuminga is a gamble that he'll turn his fortunes around.

That's not a gamble I'm particularly interested in for the dollars he seems to want, given he's an inefficient player, who doesn't shoot threes that well, and does not seem engaged on the defensive end. It also seems like a really bad fit with the current roster, given that Kuminga is going to want the ball in his hands. IMO, he'd be worth more to other teams than he would be worth to the Bulls. If the Bulls could get him cheap and just take another flier on a young player reclamation project kind of thing, I can see the justification, but I'm not really interested in him at 5/125 or whatever. I'd rather focus on the development of Matas, Noa, and Giddey, and have a better defensive presence at the 4 that does not want to be ball-dominant.

Okay. How many teams are not in the tax or over an apron, and would not be pushed into over that by adding Kuminga while sending out half the cap. Are you seriously saying a large part of the league would not pay tax dollars if they take in $30 mill and send out $15? For a lot of teams, it would cost them double or more. That's just money, that's not including the pick/player they're sending. So their total cost would be Kuminga's contract, an extra $10-$15 mill on their cap with the tax implications, PLUS the value of the players they sent out.

Again, I'm not arguing for Kuminga as a long term asset. I HATE expiring contracts. I would ALWAYS prefer to trade them for equivalent or superior trade assets I can use, vs the cap savings.

Noa is 18, and regardless of whether we sign Kuminga is not likely and doesn't need to get a ton of minutes year 1 with his frame. Kuminga would basically push Okoro to the bench. Kuminga could slot in an have a very good statistical season. Even if it's average, I think he has positive trade value. More than just the cap space by letting Ayo and Carter expire. Then move Noa to the starting lineup.

He's young enough, and could be a keeper. I just feel it's highly unlikely he's worth less next year. People want to ignore the current market, but just his RFA tag means he's going to get less than he could. Add in the market, and there's a very good chance he's a relative bargain at the best price he can squeeze out right now. You can buy something on discount and it still be overpriced, but still better than full price.

I've seen many in here blast AK for not taking bad money to add draft picks. Kuminga's 22. Would this be different than taking on $18 mill bad contract to get a 1st, and drafting 22 year old Kuminga at $10 mill rookie salary? Except he would have no NBA experience, and very likely to hit rookie wall year 1.

Have said repeatedly I like Ayo. That said, he's older, expiring, and missed a lot of games last year. Three strikes in any market value comparison. Plus shot poorly from 3 as a guard. I like Ayo more than Kuminga, don't think he has nearly the trade value.

I dont think you can view a Kuminga who is about to get paid as a non-draft pick, and has 4 seasons of developmental track record, the same way as you view a draft pick.

The whole advantage of a draft pick is that (1) you control their rights for a while cheap, and (2) because they don’t have a track record, you have this wide spread and unknown factor in relation to their absolute ceiling, mid-tier outcomes, bottom tier outcomes and probability spread.

With Kuminga, item 1 is already out the window. And due to the track record, on item 2… the absolute ceiling probability is kind of closed at this point. Barring some huge jump, he is not going to be poor man’s LeBron. His shooting hasn’t come along, the handles haven’t progressed, little demonstration of vision. There is no equivalent of young LeBron D.

He isn’t even going to be Scottie Barnes - lacks the handle and creation abilities to get there, and right now doesn’t give you the same defense or stocks or even rebounds. If the defense improves a bit and rebounding, etc., plus a scoring efficiency rebound, you are looking at non-passing Scottie Barnes who is a bit better of a scorer.

That isn’t nothing, but I would need to be guaranteed that to even think about it at 25-30 M AAV…. and there is a good chance that doesn’t happen. You give up that kind of money for a guy whose floor is something like Kyle Kuzma (volume bench scorer, meh from 3 and on D)… not all that appealing a gamble where we have Matas and Noa (and presumably Giddey) at the (defensive) 3 and 4 already.

[MGB8]

Comparing Kuminga to Kuzma - first 4 seasons (yes, Kuzma came in older) - doesn’t really impact anything here - Kuzma improved seasons 5-7, before regressing.

https://stathead.com/basketball/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&seasons_type=perchoice&player_id1=kuzmaky01&p1yrfrom=2018&p1yrto=2021&player_id2=kuminjo01&p2yrfrom=2022&p2yrto=2025

[Infinity2152]

i don't think the fear is that kuminga will get meaningfully worse; it is that he will not meaningfully improve and his value will dramatically decrease because there's no aura of Untapped Potential around him.

I can get not believing in future growth. And maybe people differ here. Let's address the question directly. There's certainly no aura of untapped potential around Ayo or Carter. They're older and both coming off "regressed" bad years.

How fast do you think the "aura" around Kuminga fades? There seems to be this perception that teams only sign or trade for perfect players. they trade for flawed players all the time. Most players have flaws. Any player can regress.

I want somebody to say out loud it's more likely for a 22 year old to regress than it is to improve. We keep arguing a less likely outcome. The numbers are out there. Statistics are our friends, until they're not.

If the argument is keeping Ayo and Carter puts us in a better position this summer than signing Kuminga, the only argument can be that he's going to be a negative trade asset. Because Ayo and Carter will most probably both be UFA's, so not assets at all.

Arguing whether Kuminga is likely to be a negative trade asset with no idea of how he'll perform this season is really just a waste of time. There's no probable reason to believe he'll regress and his value decreases. Probability leans towards his value improving or remaining static at worst. Especially when you factor in he almost HAS to sign a value contract now as RFA in a broke market.

I'd disagree Ayo and Carter have equal market value RIGHT now to Kuminga. This summer, when they're UFA's, it's nothing. Not like we need bird rights to re-sign them if we want.

[MikeDC]

2. Contrary to the above, Kuminga has demonstrated a lot more ability over his time in the NBA than Pat. If you think there's just a "slight" difference between them, I think you are pretty far off the mark. Kuminga is a starting level player at worst, and has some upside. Pat is a bench player with a long-term contract.

Why do you think Kuminga, 53% TS%, poor defense, no play making, bench player on his current team, that got played out of the rotation is "a starting level player at worst". I mean he literally was played out of the rotation in the playoffs and not once in his career did he start over half the games.

1. His TS% last year seems like an obvious outlier.
2. He's was a solid defender last year and over his career. Statistically, he was average to to above average in DFG and contesting. Deflects a fair number of balls. Qualitatively, he's flexible and can defend up and down. He's got good size and defends well.
3. "no play making" seems inaccurate. He's averaged 3 Assists per 36 for the last three years, with a positive A/TO ratio. He's not a guard. He draws a ton of fouls and doesn't turn it over too much. He's a scorer who needs to be set up. We have a setup man who needs a scorer. That's the playmaking concept, such as it is.
4. He's one of the top 150 players in the league. That means he's a starting quality player. He was literally played into the rotation in the playoffs and averaged over 20PPG in a second round playoff series this season.

I'm not even a huge fan his. 33, he's a 6'8" bucket who can defend his position and defend down. He gets to the line. There just aren't many guys like that, and it's reasonable to see why you would want to pair up a player like him along with Giddey.

Do I think he's an all-star? No. I think he's like Giddey, a guy who's going to improve somewhat, but is still flawed in important ways, but pretending some kind of bum seems wildly inaccurate just as it is with Giddey.

[MikeDC]

1. The key issue here is financial and relates to Patrick Williams.
2. Contrary to the above, Kuminga has demonstrated a lot more ability over his time in the NBA than Pat. If you think there's just a "slight" difference between them, I think you are pretty far off the mark. Kuminga is a starting level player at worst, and has some upside. Pat is a bench player with a long-term contract.
3. At the outset of the off-season, there was a lot of reporting that the Bulls wanted trade away Pat and wanted Kuminga. Over time, the talk of both diminished.

Why?

It's really simple. Nobody wants Pat on that contract. And without moving him, it doesn't make sense for the Bulls salary structure to bring in Kuminga.

The only way I saw forward would have been to trade Pat's bad long-term money for even worse short-term money. For example, Pat, Carter, and change for Beale might have worked. You don't get out from under the money, but you turn it into something better. Except that didn't work either, because Phoenix decided it needed to get out from under the money.

The bottom line is, Pat is one of the worst contracts in the league and nobody wants him. Because we're paying him $18M per year, if we could trade him and bringing Kuminga at $25M, that'd make some sense. $7M is worth it to upgrade from Pat to Kuminga. But, since we can't trade Pat, we'd just be paying him $18M to sit on the bench while Kuminga gets +$25M and we pay $43M in total. That ain't gonna work financially.

To add Kuminga, the player you have to send out is Pat.

I disagree, however, that Kuminga is a clear cut starter.

Kuminga hasn’t regressed like Pat. That doesn’t make him a starter. He shoots under 70% from the FT line (67% last year) - a red flag. After 3 seasons of high 50s from to, his 2 pt % went down to 51% - another red flag. He shot 31% from 3. He is a 3/2 guy in terms of assists to TO - meh, though showing slow improvement from starting as a 1:1 guy.

Kuminga gave you per36 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds.

... Kuminga will improve is unfounded. Lots of guys, even young guys, come into the league and basically “are who they are” very quickly.

A guy who gets you 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds per 36 is going to be a starter the overwhelming majority of the time. Again, this is really simple. Is he one of the best 150 players in the league? Yep. Then he's a starting level player. One doesn't need to assume a lot of improvement because he's already there.

FWIW, I don't think he'll improve significantly. Just like Giddey, he'll improve marginally, but I think it's pretty unlikely he breaks into the top 25 to be an all-star level player. But, he doesn't really have to, because he's already worth it.

To put it another way, if we had Kuminga on Pat's salary, it'd be a very reasonable deal. Kuminga is probably worth about the same $18-22M that Giddey is worth. If we could get either or both, that'd be a pretty reasonable deal.

[sco]

Honestly, I'm glad we have a polarizing guy to banter about during the dog days. Still, I don't hear any rumored Bulls interest. I would think we would have at least heard about recent conversations and why they haven't gone forward.

On the Ayo point, he's a tough one to assess. He clearly hasn't been the same guy this past season. It could just be due to his shoulder injury. I still contend that he has slowed down a fair bit (laterally) since his rookie year. He was one of the few guys who could stay in front of the the quicker guards defensively. Maybe he bulked up too much, IDK. I think he won't see many minutes next year due to our guard glut. Now the positive is that his market value next offseason may be low enough to retain him on a value deal, but he may just be fed up with being behind too many guys to stick around. And, then again, Coby may not get resigned and we could offer him a bigger role. Confusing dynamics. That said, his market value is probably better than some think. He has shown enough good to interest teams in a 3-D guard, on a cheap deal, with 1 year to assess him and they get his bird rights. Also, unlike Kuminga, he probably won't be up for a $20M+ deal on his next contract.

[Infinity2152]

I feel we probably over value Ayo, lol. Like I've said before, Illini, alumni, love Ayo. I don't think he's above the level player you could pretty easily get for equal money. The Ayo we saw last year is easily replaceable. Could he rebound, sure. So could any other guys at his current level. I think most of us really want him to rebound, but as far as trade value around the league, think of a ton of bench guards on similar contracts that could replace him. Wouldn't say he was better than Tre Jones right now, and they both are basically backup point guards.

Let's talk about market value. Quick test:
We trade Ayo, carter for Kuminga.

Celtics say "Blow it up!" They offer us Jayson Tatum and Sam Hauser for Kuminga, Matas, Vucevic, Williams and 2027 first. Do you take the deal?

Say Giannis says "I'm outta here!". Does a trade package with Kuminga as a $28 mill piece have a better chance than a package with Ayo and Carter as $14 mill pieces? Hard to say.

[dougthonus]

1. His TS% last year seems like an obvious outlier.
2. He's was a solid defender last year and over his career. Statistically, he was average to to above average in DFG and contesting. Deflects a fair number of balls. Qualitatively, he's flexible and can defend up and down. He's got good size and defends well.
3. "no play making" seems inaccurate. He's averaged 3 Assists per 36 for the last three years, with a positive A/TO ratio. He's not a guard. He draws a ton of fouls and doesn't turn it over too much. He's a scorer who needs to be set up. We have a setup man who needs a scorer. That's the playmaking concept, such as it is.
4. He's one of the top 150 players in the league. That means he's a starting quality player. He was literally played into the rotation in the playoffs and averaged over 20PPG in a second round playoff series this season.

I'm not even a huge fan his. 33, he's a 6'8" bucket who can defend his position and defend down. He gets to the line. There just aren't many guys like that, and it's reasonable to see why you would want to pair up a player like him along with Giddey.

Disagree that we should ignore the last full year of most recent data. His defense has been panned by experts as physically gifted but poorly executed, I'm not Kuminga's biographer, so maybe that reputation is unfair, but it seems to be the feeling when I read people talking about him.

3 assists per 36 is not good. His barely above 1:1 A/TO ratio is not good. He's not a playmaker.

I don't think he's a top 150 player at all.

[Infinity2152]

1. His TS% last year seems like an obvious outlier.
2. He's was a solid defender last year and over his career. Statistically, he was average to to above average in DFG and contesting. Deflects a fair number of balls. Qualitatively, he's flexible and can defend up and down. He's got good size and defends well.
3. "no play making" seems inaccurate. He's averaged 3 Assists per 36 for the last three years, with a positive A/TO ratio. He's not a guard. He draws a ton of fouls and doesn't turn it over too much. He's a scorer who needs to be set up. We have a setup man who needs a scorer. That's the playmaking concept, such as it is.
4. He's one of the top 150 players in the league. That means he's a starting quality player. He was literally played into the rotation in the playoffs and averaged over 20PPG in a second round playoff series this season.

I'm not even a huge fan his. 33, he's a 6'8" bucket who can defend his position and defend down. He gets to the line. There just aren't many guys like that, and it's reasonable to see why you would want to pair up a player like him along with Giddey.

Disagree that we should ignore the last full year of most recent data. His defense has been panned by experts as physically gifted but poorly executed, I'm not Kuminga's biographer, so maybe that reputation is unfair, but it seems to be the feeling when I read people talking about him.

3 assists per 36 is not good. His barely above 1:1 A/TO ratio is not good. He's not a playmaker.

I don't think he's a top 150 player at all.

You actually brought up a point I've been thinking of. I think most of us in here are evaluating Kuminga on stats rather actually having seen him a ton. Giddey looks like a different player on the Bulls, and even better after Zach left. Warriors are a ball movement offense with good to great distributors. Wouldn't think Kuminga would be used much as playmaker there. Same with defense. He played next to Draymond a lot I assume, not a traditional big center. They run a different defensive system. Don't think you need to be a great playmaker at PF anyway.

Stats tell a lot, but when players go to completely different teams, with different systems and responsibilities, You get a different player a lot. Sometimes worse, sometimes better but his fit and usage would be different here.

Just my two cents. Kerr said his problem was system and player fit basically. Not skill.

[League Circles]

RealGM owes Kuminga's agent a lot of ad money

[Infinity2152]

RealGM owes Kuminga's agent a lot of ad money

Yeah, what else do we have to talk about, lmao! I'm good with the Okoro add and Noa draft, plus re-signing Tre Jones. Whatever else happens is gravy.

Much as I love Ayo, the Tre Jones signing puts him in real jeopardy. He's our backup PG for the next few years. That's Ayo's best position, even if he can play others. He needs to be going downhill with the ball in his hands. Don't think you get to see the best Ayo when he's on the court with a PG who's pushing the offense.

[MGB8]

1. The key issue here is financial and relates to Patrick Williams.
2. Contrary to the above, Kuminga has demonstrated a lot more ability over his time in the NBA than Pat. If you think there's just a "slight" difference between them, I think you are pretty far off the mark. Kuminga is a starting level player at worst, and has some upside. Pat is a bench player with a long-term contract.
3. At the outset of the off-season, there was a lot of reporting that the Bulls wanted trade away Pat and wanted Kuminga. Over time, the talk of both diminished.

Why?

It's really simple. Nobody wants Pat on that contract. And without moving him, it doesn't make sense for the Bulls salary structure to bring in Kuminga.

The only way I saw forward would have been to trade Pat's bad long-term money for even worse short-term money. For example, Pat, Carter, and change for Beale might have worked. You don't get out from under the money, but you turn it into something better. Except that didn't work either, because Phoenix decided it needed to get out from under the money.

The bottom line is, Pat is one of the worst contracts in the league and nobody wants him. Because we're paying him $18M per year, if we could trade him and bringing Kuminga at $25M, that'd make some sense. $7M is worth it to upgrade from Pat to Kuminga. But, since we can't trade Pat, we'd just be paying him $18M to sit on the bench while Kuminga gets +$25M and we pay $43M in total. That ain't gonna work financially.

To add Kuminga, the player you have to send out is Pat.

I disagree, however, that Kuminga is a clear cut starter.

Kuminga hasn’t regressed like Pat. That doesn’t make him a starter. He shoots under 70% from the FT line (67% last year) - a red flag. After 3 seasons of high 50s from to, his 2 pt % went down to 51% - another red flag. He shot 31% from 3. He is a 3/2 guy in terms of assists to TO - meh, though showing slow improvement from starting as a 1:1 guy.

Kuminga gave you per36 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds.

... Kuminga will improve is unfounded. Lots of guys, even young guys, come into the league and basically “are who they are” very quickly.

A guy who gets you 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds per 36 is going to be a starter the overwhelming majority of the time. Again, this is really simple. Is he one of the best 150 players in the league? Yep. Then he's a starting level player. One doesn't need to assume a lot of improvement because he's already there.

FWIW, I don't think he'll improve significantly. Just like Giddey, he'll improve marginally, but I think it's pretty unlikely he breaks into the top 25 to be an all-star level player. But, he doesn't really have to, because he's already worth it.

To put it another way, if we had Kuminga on Pat's salary, it'd be a very reasonable deal. Kuminga is probably worth about the same $18-22M that Giddey is worth. If we could get either or both, that'd be a pretty reasonable deal.

I agree on the $. I don’t agree on the starter. Guys who get 22 points + a chunk or rebounds and assists (roughly equal to Kuminga), or more, per36 include Jordan Poole, Cam Thomas, Colin Sexton, Norm Powell, Ty Jerome, Jordan Clarkson, John Collins, Miles Bridges, Mo (not Franz) Wagner. Most of those guys would not start on good teams - half already 6th men types. Go down to 20 pp36, and you add guys like Bobby Portis, Jalen Smith, Malik Beasley, Cam Whitmore, Tre Mann, Vuc, Bol Bol, Malik Monk, Boucher, Grimes … and many more. Meanwhile, lots of starters don’t put up the same total ppg but are very clealry starters. Think that take is overly simplistic.bulk scoring is only part of the game, and “empty calories” is a thing.

[Infinity2152]

Think people are really going to have to get used to the new numbers. The mid level exception in 2020, just 5 years ago, was $9.26 mill. It's $14.1 mill this year. That's like 33% more than $9.26. When we look at $20 mill AAV contracts from just 5 years ago, those are like $30 mill AAV contracts being signed now, relative to the cap.

Cap was $109 mill in 2020. It's $154 mill now, so about 50% larger actually. Guys like Anfernee Simons were signing for rookie max, which would be much higher now for Kuminga or Giddey right now.

[MikeDC]

I disagree, however, that Kuminga is a clear cut starter.

Kuminga hasn’t regressed like Pat. That doesn’t make him a starter. He shoots under 70% from the FT line (67% last year) - a red flag. After 3 seasons of high 50s from to, his 2 pt % went down to 51% - another red flag. He shot 31% from 3. He is a 3/2 guy in terms of assists to TO - meh, though showing slow improvement from starting as a 1:1 guy.

Kuminga gave you per36 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds.

... Kuminga will improve is unfounded. Lots of guys, even young guys, come into the league and basically “are who they are” very quickly.

A guy who gets you 22.5 pts and 7 rebounds per 36 is going to be a starter the overwhelming majority of the time. Again, this is really simple. Is he one of the best 150 players in the league? Yep. Then he's a starting level player. One doesn't need to assume a lot of improvement because he's already there.

FWIW, I don't think he'll improve significantly. Just like Giddey, he'll improve marginally, but I think it's pretty unlikely he breaks into the top 25 to be an all-star level player. But, he doesn't really have to, because he's already worth it.

To put it another way, if we had Kuminga on Pat's salary, it'd be a very reasonable deal. Kuminga is probably worth about the same $18-22M that Giddey is worth. If we could get either or both, that'd be a pretty reasonable deal.

I agree on the $. I don’t agree on the starter. Guys who get 22 points + a chunk or rebounds and assists (roughly equal to Kuminga), or more, per36 include Jordan Poole, Cam Thomas, Colin Sexton, Norm Powell, Ty Jerome, Jordan Clarkson, John Collins, Miles Bridges, Mo (not Franz) Wagner. Most of those guys would not start on good teams - half already 6th men types. Go down to 20 pp36, and you add guys like Bobby Portis, Jalen Smith, Malik Beasley, Cam Whitmore, Tre Mann, Vuc, Bol Bol, Malik Monk, Boucher, Grimes … and many more. Meanwhile, lots of starters don’t put up the same total ppg but are very clealry starters. Think that take is overly simplistic.bulk scoring is only part of the game, and “empty calories” is a thing.

1. Starters are still starters if they're not starting on a good team. There are 30 teams and each has 5 starters.
2. Size and position matter. Kuminga is a 6'7" 225lb guy who can defend, which makes him categorically different to almost all of those guys except Bridges. And Bridges would probably start on most teams for exactly the same reason that Kuminga will.

[Am2626]

The first few years is incredibly subjective. Let's look at two players:

Player 1: Joins the NBA at 18. Is playing the toughest players in the world on one of the best teams in the league. Can barely get minutes, team is a perennial contender. There's a similar build AllStar vet on that team (say Draymond Green). No focus on fundamentals, training, developing young guys, playing young guys, this is a super vet team with guys like Curry, Durant, Kay Thompson, Draymond. Never starts, gets bench minutes.

Player 2: Stays in college at one of the top schools in the nation. Stays there 4 years, learns everything he can while dominating lesser players. Wins a championship at Duke as a starter. Been a starter three years.

Both players are 22 now. Exact same talent at 18. Which player has likely looked much better over the last 4 years? Which player has likely polished his fundamentals skills, had opportunities to play real minutes, be a leader, etc?

Who do people just keep assuming a player should look better if he's in the league earlier? He's up against tougher competition at an earlier age, he should look worse than he would look against college players, aka guys his own age.

He was 21 last year, same age as a lot of draft picks. He would probably have destroyed in college ball last year.

These are all very good points. You can’t definitely close the book on Kuminga because he is only 22 years old, hasn’t had the opportunities he would have had if he were drafted by a bad team, and has great athleticism and positional size. Let’s assume that he went to college and played 4 years. He would have dominated college basketball and be looked at as a consensus top 5 pick. With a team like the Bulls where they are not going to draft high, free agents don’t want to come to, and with a FO that hasn’t shown much I don’t see a better option out there.

[dougthonus]

You actually brought up a point I've been thinking of. I think most of us in here are evaluating Kuminga on stats rather actually having seen him a ton. Giddey looks like a different player on the Bulls, and even better after Zach left. Warriors are a ball movement offense with good to great distributors. Wouldn't think Kuminga would be used much as playmaker there. Same with defense. He played next to Draymond a lot I assume, not a traditional big center. They run a different defensive system. Don't think you need to be a great playmaker at PF anyway.

Stats tell a lot, but when players go to completely different teams, with different systems and responsibilities, You get a different player a lot. Sometimes worse, sometimes better but his fit and usage would be different here.

Just my two cents. Kerr said his problem was system and player fit basically. Not skill.

Certainly the upside scenario is that is true.

The downside scenario is that he's a low efficiency volume scorer that can't shoot, is below average defensively, has a horrible basketball IQ, and won't get better at any of those things merely by switching teams and systems. If he doesn't get better at several of these things (a lot better), then he's absolutely worthless as a basketball player. He might as well be THT at that point, THT was a vet min player.

[Infinity2152]

You actually brought up a point I've been thinking of. I think most of us in here are evaluating Kuminga on stats rather actually having seen him a ton. Giddey looks like a different player on the Bulls, and even better after Zach left. Warriors are a ball movement offense with good to great distributors. Wouldn't think Kuminga would be used much as playmaker there. Same with defense. He played next to Draymond a lot I assume, not a traditional big center. They run a different defensive system. Don't think you need to be a great playmaker at PF anyway.

Stats tell a lot, but when players go to completely different teams, with different systems and responsibilities, You get a different player a lot. Sometimes worse, sometimes better but his fit and usage would be different here.

Just my two cents. Kerr said his problem was system and player fit basically. Not skill.

Certainly the upside scenario is that is true.

The downside scenario is that he's a low efficiency volume scorer that can't shoot, is below average defensively, has a horrible basketball IQ, and won't get better at any of those things merely by switching teams and systems. If he doesn't get better at several of these things (a lot better), then he's absolutely worthless as a basketball player. He might as well be THT at that point, THT was a vet min player.

I mean, objectively speaking, clearly he's shown enough to get a certain amount of money, right? Like he would certainly get $10 mill AAV? Definitely get at least mid-level exception?

I view most of these risk/reward. Understand all the objections to moving Ayo, except I don't think most people would really care if we moved Ayo. At his best he's probably a good backup PG and we just signed one. Objectively, ignoring anything about the player, a player who's a restricted free agent will generally get low balled by their team. Objectively speaking, no teams have the space to make him an offer of even $25 mill or above. So objectively speaking, said player will likely have to sign at a discount. I want us to add underpriced, appreciating trade chips.

Risk/reward, I believe there's a better chance that he improves in one year than regresses in one year. Given our roster, swapping him for Ayo really doesn't block anybody. We actually end up with a pretty deep bench and a lot of young starters with something to prove.

Starting lineup probably: Giddey, White, Matas, Kuminga, Vucevic. Bench: Jones, Huerter, Okoro, Williams, Collins. Reserves: Noa, Terry, Smith, Phillips, Carter.

Any lineup with Vucevic or Collins would look pretty bad, so I'll ignore those positions short term. Not a long term contender of course, but I think Kuminga would have more freedom to play to his strengths and more opportunities. His raw counting stats should increase, which would boost his value.

[jnrjr79]

You actually brought up a point I've been thinking of. I think most of us in here are evaluating Kuminga on stats rather actually having seen him a ton. Giddey looks like a different player on the Bulls, and even better after Zach left. Warriors are a ball movement offense with good to great distributors. Wouldn't think Kuminga would be used much as playmaker there. Same with defense. He played next to Draymond a lot I assume, not a traditional big center. They run a different defensive system. Don't think you need to be a great playmaker at PF anyway.

Stats tell a lot, but when players go to completely different teams, with different systems and responsibilities, You get a different player a lot. Sometimes worse, sometimes better but his fit and usage would be different here.

Just my two cents. Kerr said his problem was system and player fit basically. Not skill.

Certainly the upside scenario is that is true.

The downside scenario is that he's a low efficiency volume scorer that can't shoot, is below average defensively, has a horrible basketball IQ, and won't get better at any of those things merely by switching teams and systems. If he doesn't get better at several of these things (a lot better), then he's absolutely worthless as a basketball player. He might as well be THT at that point, THT was a vet min player.

Yeah, to some extent, I think all the talk of a salary number is a bit of wasted time. To me, the threshold questions are "is this guy a positive contributor on the court, and if not, do you reasonably expect he'll become one?" If the answers are "no" and "no," then there's no point debating what he should get paid. You just don't want him in that scenario.

[Infinity2152]

I keep seeing he may have peaked. At what age do you guys think most NBA players hit their physical peaks? Skips skills for now, purely their physical peaks?

[2weekswithpay]

I keep seeing he may have peaked. At what age do you guys think most NBA players hit their physical peaks? Skips skills for now, purely their physical peaks?

Early to mid 20s. Around 22-26.