(Shams) Giddey re-signs with Chicago (4/100)

jscott · Post #1 » by **jscott** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 7:53 pm

According to Shams.

https://bsky.app/profile/shamsbot.bsky.social/post/3lyggeokvco2j

Post #2 » by **gswhoops** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 8:12 pm

Seems like a reasonable outcome for both sides.

parsnips33 · Post #3 » by **parsnips33** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 8:19 pm

gswhoops wrote:Seems like a reasonable outcome for both sides.

Our long nightmare may be over soon

Post #4 » by **gswhoops** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 8:49 pm

parsnips33 wrote:
gswhoops wrote:Seems like a reasonable outcome for both sides.

Our long nightmare may be over soon

What makes you think either Kuminga or the Warriors are governed by reason here

Post #5 » by **MoneyTalks41890** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:03 pm

Straight 4 or is there an option/partial guarantee?

I’ve been saying 3/75, so I had the AAV right.

I like this for both sides. Bulls should retain his upside, this deal is tradeable, Josh gets life changing money no QO risk.

meekrab · Post #6 » by **meekrab** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:11 pm

Sounds like a fully guaranteed 4 years, which is a win for the Bulls, no option year risk.

the_process · Post #7 » by **the_process** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:21 pm

Nailed this. It was the obvious compromise number.

Good deal for both, I think.

LightTheBeam · Post #8 » by **LightTheBeam** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:49 pm

Ya this one felt a lot more obvious, both sides were motivated to stay together and just needed to find the right number.
Giddey - Matas - Essengue. Good size and 3 guys to build with the next few years.

jayjaysee · Post #9 » by **jayjaysee** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:50 pm

Would have guessed he could have gotten a player option at this number.

Without a player option, looks a lot better for Chicago if they front load it since they have 40 mil in tax space.. I’d rather have Giddey cheaper on the backend than use the extra TPE this season..

But good for Giddey not taking QO imo and good for Chicago not backing down. Seems like a win/win.

Post #10 » by **Domejandro** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:58 pm

Chicago took my advice from a few days ago.

Domejandro wrote:Being honest, I'm kind of surprised that Chicago isn't getting it done at something like $100/4.

Post #11 » by **Domejandro** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 9:59 pm

I think that this is a solid deal for Josh Giddey and excellent for Chicago. Even if he doesn't improve significantly, that is a good price point for someone who can single-handedly be the engine for a solid offense.

Post #12 » by **Mavrelous** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 10:19 pm

The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

meekrab · Post #13 » by **meekrab** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 10:21 pm

Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

We'll see, lots more teams actually have cap space next year since they were planning to bid for Luka etc. This summer was a perfect storm of questionable skill RFAs and nobody having any room.

Godaddycurse · Post #14 » by **Godaddycurse** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 10:39 pm

meekrab wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

We'll see, lots more teams actually have cap space next year since they were planning to bid for Luka etc. This summer was a perfect storm of questionable skill RFAs and nobody having any room.

Yea i think this year is the exception, not the rule. Guys like LeVert and Robinson did well in UFA. Coby and Reaves will be fine next year

giberish · Post #15 » by **giberish** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 10:42 pm

4/$100M is what I've been saying all along. If his post deadline play from last year is real he'll overperform the contract. If he reverts to previous form then he'll underperform. That's really the mark fo a fair contract - one that could plausibly be over or under performed.

I also agree that the deal should be front-loaded as the Bulls have plenty of financial flexibility now. I can't think of a good reason not to do this (all I can come up with is a lazy FO that just doesn't' think of it or a cheap owner).

giberish · Post #16 » by **giberish** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 10:48 pm

Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

Reaves and White are a bid different than Giddey. More years of effective offensive play - though weaker defense (Giddey's size makes shim more average than bad on D).

I don't' think they'll get crazy money ($40M/yr or more). But still solid money $25-$30M/yr or so.

Post #17 » by **Mavrelous** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 11:04 pm

giberish wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

Reaves and White are a bid different than Giddey. More years of effective offensive play - though weaker defense (Giddey's size makes shim more average than bad on D).

I don't' think they'll get crazy money ($40M/yr or more). But still solid money $25-$30M/yr or so.

Reaves can get 22/yr now, if he's aiming for 25 he'll sign the extention, Coby will be competing with CamT, Sexton and Simons, we'll see what he fetches.

giberish · Post #18 » by **giberish** » Yesterday 12:13 am

Mavrelous wrote:
giberish wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

Reaves and White are a bid different than Giddey. More years of effective offensive play - though weaker defense (Giddey's size makes shim more average than bad on D).

I don't' think they'll get crazy money ($40M/yr or more). But still solid money $25-$30M/yr or so.

Reaves can get 22/yr now, if he's aiming for 25 he'll sign the extention, Coby will be competing with CamT, Sexton and Simons, we'll see what he fetches.

I'm sure he's aiming for $30M+/yr (really applies to both). The market may make him settle for $25-$30M/yr though. Would still be worth not signing the extension.

Post #19 » by **MoneyTalks41890** » Yesterday 12:21 am

giberish wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:
giberish wrote:
Reaves and White are a bid different than Giddey. More years of effective offensive play - though weaker defense (Giddey's size makes shim more average than bad on D).

I don't' think they'll get crazy money ($40M/yr or more). But still solid money $25-$30M/yr or so.

Reaves can get 22/yr now, if he's aiming for 25 he'll sign the extention, Coby will be competing with CamT, Sexton and Simons, we'll see what he fetches.

I'm sure he's aiming for $30M+/yr (really applies to both). The market may make him settle for $25-$30M/yr though. Would still be worth not signing the extension.

Can he sign a 2+1 PO? Still don’t think he does it, but would probably need to be able to get something like that.

Or if it came with a nice endorsement.

Crazy-Canuck · Post #20 » by **Crazy-Canuck** » Yesterday 1:55 am

Mavrelous wrote:
giberish wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:The market is resetting to newer values, Reaves a d Coby White will go for less than we think.

Reaves and White are a bid different than Giddey. More years of effective offensive play - though weaker defense (Giddey's size makes shim more average than bad on D).

I don't' think they'll get crazy money ($40M/yr or more). But still solid money $25-$30M/yr or so.

Reaves can get 22/yr now, if he's aiming for 25 he'll sign the extention, Coby will be competing with CamT, Sexton and Simons, we'll see what he fetches.

Reeves will be looking at the hero extension closely.