Meh, the Bulls are at the very least doing what they're supposed to be doing with Giddey. My guess is that they'll settle at 3 years at $23/$24 million per year.
Once you conclude that nothing good can or will happen, except on the margins or in the lottery and solely through dumb luck, until Jerry dies, the entire nature of fandom is to pray they don’t do anything so stupid that will handicap them when that day inevitably arrives.
In this situation, the risk has been averted, Giddey is not getting huge money for 5 years. What happens next is basically irrelevant, only changing the relative probabilities of the dumb luck.
It would be preferable if they would squirrel away draft capital, even second rounders, to better empower that new day. But since they are, as noted on this blog, allergic to second rounders and dismissive of draft pick value in general, the best action is actually inaction, chasing nothing and be bad at that, keeping players on 2 year deals and perpetually able to make moves once a new directive from ownership and new management ever arrived.
I think it's a little weird people are focusing on his shooting, and not on the fact that he started drawing fouls and getting to the rim more. Which is, in my opinion, far more important, and makes me much more interested in Giddey than I was before, and far more interested than I would be if he only shot well in the second half of the season.
And I just wrapped up watching the last 20 games of the season, and I would say one takeaway is that I object to saying most of the opponents were checked out over that time frame. I haven't watched a post AS break Bulls game since 2016. I did not realize that they became a pretty fun team to watch after Zach left. Especially when Vuc was out of the lineup. That game in Indiana for example about gave me a fuckin heart attack it was so frenzied. A lot of these 20 games I watched were pretty good and fun!
I'll also note that I think Coby's end to the season is being absurdly ignored. This guy who's only 25 played like the best versions of Jamal Murray and Tyrese Maxey and people are just like "whatever". I don't get it. Not saying any of this shit is proof of anything. But one good way of assessing whether someone can do something is if they've already done it. Not sure why there isn't more intrigue about this, apart from the fact that their employers are the fuckin worst.
Coby has had two stretches of both being healthy and w/o LaVine:
11/30/23 - 2/14/24: 36 games, 57% efg, 23 ppg.
2/4/25 - EOS: 31 games, 56% efg, 23 ppg.
Those are both cherry picked somewhat, but talking about Coby without talking about LaVine is tough. LaVine sank teammates and teams with his static low IQ play, and Coby most of all.
We get to see a whole season of Coby White w/o LaVine and hopefully he stays healthy so we can see if he can actually do it for an entire season.
Yes I do legit think we need to account for the LaVine loserdom vortex. He shot great to start the season and that won't be around next year, but also his loser gravity will also not be around.
It's also his contract. He's practically un-extendable so nothing he could meaningfully do versus it really is a prove-it season coming up heading into unrestricted free agency. If he can sustain what he did in March, then he'll get attention. ThatsWhatTheMoneyIsFor.gif
The context is what makes that last stretch of the season feel underwhelming. Like that game in Indiana you’re referencing - the Bulls lost that game by 15 points. You’re going to have a tough time selling excitement to fans if your pitch is “I know we’ve won 1 playoff game in the half decade this guy has been in charge, but look at how fast paced some of our losses are!”
And look at the teams they beat in that 15-5 stretch. Orlando, Miami, Indiana, Brooklyn, Utah, Sacramento, Lakers, Nuggets, Lakers, Raptors, Trailblazers, Hornets, Heat, Wizards, 76ers.
I’d say 5 of those 15 wins were against a team that was objectively good (Orlando, Indiana, Lakers, Nuggets, and Lakers). However, Haliburton didn’t play in that Indiana game and Jokic didn’t play in that Nuggets game. So that means 3 of the 15 wins were objectively impressive.
That would be useful context if I were talking about the team. But it's just two guys. I mean, they were genuinely counting on guys like Terry, Colins, Smith, etc to help get those wins. That's a big part of the context you refer to and it just doesn't matter.
I hear you. But it's hard for me to separate these two guys from the team in some artful exercise of what's possible for them specifically.
Like, I can't imagine a scenario where we'd excuse a basketball player who is supposed to be imperative to overall team success for going 5-20 with 7 TOs in their team's most important game of the year.
To be fair, that's one game I'm citing, but how the Bulls lost it was pretty spectacular, hard to forget. I guess we're talking about two different things now, between the end of the season sample and the play-in, and that's my bad. But, it's difficult for me to contextualize most of these individual efforts as meaningful in what amounts to years upon years of unserious basketball settings.
I would be more intrigued if I thought Coby and Giddey could contribute to a team serious about routinely winning in the playoffs. Giddey had that chance once and was phased out. Coby might get that chance, but I doubt it's with this team.
I think you can separate those 2 guys in that it really highlights the predicament the Bulls are in. Both Giddey and White are probably like the 4th best player on a good team. Best case scenario, maybe they can become like the 3rd best player on a good team. If they're asked to be more than that (or paid more than that) than the team is going to be not too good.
The Bulls best players are only 4th best type players, but they are getting much bigger roles than that. The Bulls are not good. They need to get guys who can be #1s or #2s, not overpay lesser players to masquerade as such.
The Bulls have no plan or even idea how to get better players.
Let's look more at context. I compared Coby to Maxey and Murray. Do those guys drive winning? Catch any Philly games last year? How'd that go? You've watched Denver, obviously. How do they look when Jokic is out? Or even just on the bench? Think about Devin Booker's career. Does he drive winning or not? Want to bet on whether or not Jaylen Brown looks like a winning player this year?
These are all really awesome players. Do they drive winning? The answer is: "It depends". There are like 4-7 guys in the whole league for whom that is not the answer (and I guess a bunch on the lower end of the talent pool).
Different way to look at it. Before last season I pised a question: Let's say we just drop Jayson Tatum on this team. What's the ceiling this year? Over the next 3 years? Last year I believed that even with Tatum, the Bulls would really struggle to crack exactly 50 wins at any point in the near term.
Revisiting that question this year. If Coby and Giddey's final third proves durable, then I do not think this team would need luck at all to breach the 50 win mark with a guy like Tatum in the fold. That's pretty meaningful, imo.
You don’t think it’s valuable to apply context to try to understand that 15-5 run at a deeper level? Why doesn’t it matter that 2 of those 7 wins were against teams missing their best player (Haliburton and Jokic)? And why doesn’t it matter that another two of those games were against the extremely weak 8 seed team that beat them by almost 20 in the play in game?
AK has not earned the benefit of the doubt from me. We should be looking critically at what he’s trying to sell to us. And what he’s trying to sell us right now is that 15-5 stretch. I’m not interested in buying narratives of team success from him until they start actually improving from an overall win-loss perspective.
Of course those things matter to some extent, but I don't think you are trying to get to a deeper understanding. I'd say you are just looking for a reason to discount the results. For 2 of the Bulls opponents to be missing their top player doesn't seem to me to be that surprising, top players miss games a lot. Did you look to see how many of the Bulls losses that we were missing our top player?
If you want to just look at games against playoff teams with an above .500 record, where both teams started their top player, then sure that would be a small sample of the games, but the Bulls would still have a winning record in those games, which not many teams could say. And then if you want to say that's not enough games for you to decide how good they are, then okay, I get that.
Even if I removed the full context and just looked at that 15-5 stretch at a high level, it didn’t lead to anything. They were blown out in the play-in tournament.
You’re arguing in defense of the Titanic after it already hit the iceberg.
In the Bulls' last 10 games against playoff teams, only one team (the Thunder) played a starting five that also consistently started in the first round of the playoffs. Every other team was resting at least one of their first-round playoff starters.
Also in those final 10 games against playoff teams, the average minutes played by a starter in the game against the Bulls was 26 minutes per game. In the first round of the playoffs, the same players who started against the Bulls and started a first-round playoff game averaged 33 minutes per game.
I am pretty sure they were trying. Teams do play their starters more minutes in the playoffs and they shorten their rotations. They also tend to go small, so the starters may change. None of this means they are not trying though in the regular season.
I couldn't match your numbers. I show that for those 10 games the Bulls played their starters 31 minutes and their opponents 30 minutes.
I showed that the Bulls were at full strength for 4 of those games, while their opponents were full strength in 5. (Burks missed a game for Miami otherwise it would have been 6.) The Bulls loss against Cleveland was definitely a give away game, we sat Vuc, Giddey and White. Pacers also gave us a win, sitting Haliburton and giving their bench a lot of run.
The other 8 games all looked to me to be fully competitive. Lakers played all their starters in both games. Magic were at full strength. Nuggets sat Jokic, put played their other starters for up to 40 minutes.
I think the Bulls record down the stretch was legitimate.
We can all argue back and forth about the legitimacy of those 20 games...but the end result is that since 2017, we have had one winning season and have made the playoffs once. that is almost a decade of mediocrity to flat out futility.
And I'm supposed to believe that Giddey is the key to a Bulls resurgence. I don't think he sucks, he is a good but flawed player. Same goes for Coby White who i like a lot.
Fact is both of those guys are #4,, at best #3 on high level playoff squads and we need to concentrate on getting #1-#2 guys either thru draft or trade..instead of worry about paying #3-4 level dudes.
I seriously appreciate you checking my numbers, I tried to compare numbers at an individual level as much as possible. My apologies in advance if this is boring and/or formats terribly.
Orlando Magic starters on March 6th: Franz Wagner, Banchero, KCP, Wendell Carter Jr and Cole Anthony. In every first-round playoff game Cory Joseph started in place of Anthony. On March 6th Wagner, Banchero, KCP and WCJ averaged 33.5 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Wagner, Banchero, KCP and WCJ as starters averaged 35.8 minutes per game.
Miami Heat starters on March 8th: Bam, Herro, Davion Mitchell, Wiggins, Ware. Mitchell didn't start the game on April 9th or the first playoff game. On March 8th Bam, Herro, Mitchell, Wiggins and Ware averaged 31.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Bam, Herro, Mitchell, Wiggins and Ware as starters averaged 31.5 minutes per game.
Indiana Pacers starters on March 10th: Siakam, Nesmith, Turner, Mathurin, Nembhard. In every first-round playoff game Haliburton started in place of Mathurin. On March 10th Siakam, Nesmith, Turner and Nembhard averaged 23.3 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Siakam, Nesmith, Turner and Nembhard as starters averaged 32 minutes per game.
Houston Rockets starters on March 15th: Green, Sengun, FVV, Brooks, Jabari Smith Jr. In every first-round playoff game Amen Thompson started in place of Smith. On March 15th Green, Sengun, FVV and Brooks averaged 35.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Green, Sengun, FVV and Brooks as starters averaged 34.3 minutes per game. (I have to admit the Rockets were trying hard to win this one.)
LA Lakers starters on March 22nd: Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Jaxson Hayes and Dorian Finney-Smith. Hayes only started 4 first-round playoff games (averaging only 7.5 minutes a game!) and Finney-Smith only started one. The extra starter in every first-round playoff game was Rui Hachimura. On March 22nd Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Hayes and Finney-Smith averaged 28.6 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, and Hayes as starters averaged 33.6 minutes per game (even with Hayes's super-low minutes!) In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron and Finney-Smith as starters averaged 39.8 minutes per game.
Denver Nuggets starters on March 24th: Braun, Peyton Watson, MPJ, Jamal Murray, DeAndre Jordan. In every first-round playoff game Aaron Gordon and Jokic started in place of Watson and Jordan. On March 24th Braun, MPJ and Murray averaged 35.3 minutes played. In their first round playoff games Braun, MPJ and Murray as starters averaged 37.9 minutes per game.
LA Lakers starters on March 27th: Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Jaxson Hayes and Dorian Finney-Smith. Hayes only started 4 first-round playoff games (averaging only 7.5 minutes a game!) and Finney-Smith only started one. The other starter in every first-round playoff game was Rui Hachimura. On March 27th Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Hayes and Finney-Smith averaged 35.2 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, and Hayes as starters averaged 33.6 minutes per game (even with Hayes's super-low minutes!) In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron and Finney-Smith as starters averaged 39.8 minutes per game.
OKC Thunder starters on March 31st: SGA, Dort, Holmgren, Hart, Jalen Williams. OKC had the same starters through the first round of the playoffs. On March 31st this starting five averaged 25.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games these same starters averaged 30.1 minutes per game.
Cleveland Cavs starters on April 8th: Garland, Allen, Mobley, Strus and Okoro. Okoro did not start a single first-round playoff game, and Garland only played two before he was injured. The other first-round playoff starters were Donovan Mitchell (for Okoro) and Merrill once Garland went down. On April 8th Garland, Allen, Mobley and Strus averaged 28 minutes played. In their first-round playoff series, Garland, Allen, Mobley and Strus as starters averaged 28.3 minutes per game played.
Miami Heat starters on April 9th: Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware. Burks only started one first-round playoff game. On April 9th Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware averaged 23.2 minutes played. In their first-round playoff series Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware as starters averaged 29.8 minutes per game played.
The context of Fischer's reporting, and questions of how Giddey actually would fit with the Warriors, does make me wonder if this 'interest' is actually instead wish-casting from Kuminga's camp
Who knows, but I'm guessing it was leaked by the Warriors front office to make people think they're trying to do something. I think the only way GS could get Karnisovas interested in dealing Giddey is if they include Podzemski in the deal, and I don't see that happening.
I'd be in favor of a Kuminga and Moody for Giddey and Phillips swap (money works with Giddey at $24m and Kuminga at $20m). Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I really don't see the fit with Giddey in GS.
Oh I see. Now we should also not count 2nd games of back-to-backs, or games where the opponent's 2nd best player is just coming back from injury. This will make everything a lot easier, we won't have many games that are meaningful.
I just updated the results. The Bulls record for the last 20 games is really 0-0.
I'm relatively confused about why non of these guys, but obviously Giddey have signed yet. If several teams have shared what they'd pay/trade for Giddey, the market is pretty set.
The longer it drags out, the worse everyone feels about it.
Bulls shot themselves in the foot touting 15-5! 15-5! to where now Giddey even believes he's proven to be a future core piece
he can get tips on how to manage from Isaac Okoro, who didn't sign his deal until Mid-September last year and it was quickly deemed regrettable by the Cavs
Kuminga is kind of in a similar situation to Giddey where the team has pumped him up (in Kuminga's case more from ownership than coaching staff) to where he thinks he's due more money than what a team would reasonably offer.
Grimes and Cam Thomas...I think they are just in a role that is looking replaceable in today's NBA. Coby White may want to take notes.
Agree on Coby. I wouldn't pay him more either. All the guys of that mold who get high salaries are on bad deals. Like, Coby is probably better than Malik Monk, but I don't think it's a major difference and nobody wants him (or DLo or Tyler Herro at his price or Simons or... etc etc).
I was surprised to read that the Suns (4/$90 ~ $22.5M) and Kings (3/$64 $21.3M) really aren't offering much to Kuminga either. The Warriors reportedly offered 2/$45M, though the second year was a TO.
The problem there seems to be that the Warriors don't actually want him, but they don't want anything another team could offer for him.
Anyway, what's interesting to me is that the Warriors are at least competitive on salary. They're just waiting for the right deal.
The Bulls have supposedly offered Giddey 4/$80. If he's got other teams wiling to offer him ~4/$90 or 3/$68, you can see why he's 1) not take the Bulls deal and 2) feel somewhat screwed by them.
I don't know why the Warriors don't take Malik Monk from the Kings. He's good! I don't know why the Kings are so willing to include him (because they signed...Dennis Shroeder?) #Kangz
reportedly they're holding out on pick protections. Seems greedy but maybe they figure no point not being greedy for a while as there's no actual deadline approaching yet and it's already an acrimonious situation
I don't think Monk's anything special. He's not actually a good shooter, his contract is not expiring and relatively high, and I don't see how he fits with the Warriors in particular.
In short, I wouldn't want Monk if I were the Warriors either.
I think I'm pretty much where you are. I do think the Warriors could you more ball handling and a scoring innings eater. But Monk, while athletic, only exacerbates their size/athleticism issues while being on a slightly underwater deal. You know who would help their size/athleticism issues? Jonathan Kuminga! I don't even love his player type, but it's amazing how bad they've fucked this up.
I think they've just run out of resources to make trades in the more difficult trade environment. And to cover up the fact that they missed badly on all their big draft picks
Also, they really are out of resources because my understanding is a S&T activates the hard cap. Currently they have $25M but they only have 9 guys under contract and they seem to have promised Horford like $8M. So if they take back much money they'll be right up against it.
The Grimes/Thomas/Monk/White type of player in particular seems to be a precarious proposition. These guys are good but not excellent offensively and they're garbage on defense. Not the kind of guy you want to sink a bunch of cash into, but you can see how teams can dream on these guys getting a little better on both ends and being really valuable. The kinds of personnel decisions that are a great litmus test for front offices.
Perhaps another strategic leak by Giddey's camp, Jake Fischer followed up on his reporting to rumor that the Bulls offered 4yr/ $80M to Giddey at the start of free agency.
I say strategic because I *think* that is meant to suggest the Bulls are being unreasonably low with their offer. But this is still > $20M over 4 years more than the non-taxpayer MLE, which no other team with that exception at their disposal has offered, let alone above that with cap space or via a sign-and-trade.
I remember 4 years 80 million being the normal extension for a young star player. Now it’s an “unreasonable,” extension for an atrociously shooting point guard who got traded from the team with the MVP bc he couldn’t co-exist with him. What a world we live in
I get it in terms of getting your fair share percentage of the cap for the value you provide (or Giddey's agent's sense of the value he provides), but in terms of real world value 80 mil goes soooo farrrr. It's unreal to me that those too measures have drifted so far apart. What's Giddey's sense of what 120 mil can do vs 80 mil? Can you even feel the difference? How does his agent communicate that to him... it's like a villa in Sydney, Melbourne _and_ Perth. You want that villa in Perth right? You deserve it!
The Bulls schedule was released and they have only three nationally televised games. The networks think the Bulls will suck next year and I tend to agree with them. Three games is also comically low given how many more nationally televised games are this season between ABC/ESPN, Amazon and Peacock/NBC.
From a prestige perspective I get it, the Bulls are not interesting to a national audience, and the schedule reflects that. But, I'm out of market and the nba league pass stadium feed no commercials is absolutely the best way to watch basketball games, and I love Amin and King. A low prestige winning season is the sweet spot for me.
This will be my first season in a while that I haven't paid for League Pass. A friend and I usually split the cost, so it's a pretty solid deal. But there are enough nationally televised games of teams that are actually trying to be good that I can't justify spending money to watch the Bulls be mediocre and directionless for the umpteenth season in a row.
I stopped paying for League Pass during the Hoiberg/Boylen era and intend to stop paying for it until the AK era is over as well, unless they luck out and either get a top draft pick or some star decides they want to take up Jordan's mantle and drag the Bulls back to relevance. I don't expect either of those to happen anytime soon.
Let's talk about your NBA career now. You were at the center of rumors at the beginning of the summer. What's your situation with the Bulls?
A week ago (the interview was conducted on August 4th), the Bulls GM (Marc Eversley), who contacted me after all the rumors about me, confirmed that none of it was true and that everything we said after the season was still relevant. I knew that, but it's always nice when your GM contacts you to tell you.
So you expect to start the season in Chicago ?
Yes, I have almost no doubt about it. That's the mindset I'm preparing with. Afterwards, we'll see, I don't know what's going to happen.
How did you deal with the various rumors about you?
There are always rumors. Most of them are false. It's a bit of nonsense. For example, the buyout rumor was misinterpreted in Europe: the journalist wrote that if there was no trade during the season, there might be a buyout option before the deadline.
A buyout before the trade deadline doesn’t make much sense for the Bulls. They would pay most of his contract and get nothing in return. Maybe a buyout after the deadline if the Bulls are going nowhere and they can shed a million dollars or so.
This should be followed up on by Bulls reporters, shouldn’t it?
There’s all this chatter at the trade deadline about how they’re laying some ridiculous foundation for a Vuc trade in the offseason. And now the GM is reaching out to Vuc and saying none of the rumors about him are true?
So were they lying at the trade deadline or are they lying now? Shouldn’t someone ask this???
It’s unbelievable. Instead of just simply doing their jobs, the Bulls front office is putting a bunch of energy into creating specific lies to tell the media.
Here’s a wild idea. Instead of wasting time creating a fake trade plan around Vuc, you just use that time to actually trade Vuc.
always hilarious to see Vuc get the superstar treatment. Marc Eversley wanted this to be a superstar-friendly organization but they haven't been able to follow through on legit superstars
Reading the whole thing gives me the impression that the Bulls are more into Vuc than he is into them.
1. He didn't dismiss the possibility of a buyout, just mostly said he was starting the season with the Bulls. Sounds like he'd welcome a trade or buyout.
2. Why?
Q- À quoi aspirez-vous pour votre fin de carrière ?
R- J'aimerais essayer de jouer pour une équipe qui a les ambitions de gagner le titre NBA. En Europe, c’est plus facile de rejoindre une grosse équipe, mais en NBA, c’est compliqué à cause des règles et des « trades ».
Question - How do you want to finish you're career?
Answer- I would like to play for a team that has the ambition to win the NBA title. In Europe, it's easier to join a great team, but in the NBA it's complicated because of rules and trades
Q- Pensez-vous que ça pourrait être avec Chicago ?
R- Peut-être pas cette saison, car on sera une équipe jeune. Mais on ne sait jamais, les ambitions des équipes changent vite d’années en années, selon les blessures et les transferts.
Question - Do you think that will be with Chicago?
R- Maybe not this season, since we're a young team. But you never know, team ambitions change quickly from year to year based on injuries and player movement.
Basically, I think he'd be happy to leave and has made it know to the Bulls
Unfortunately it doesn't look like there is anywhere for Vuc to go right now.
Vuc for Kuminga could work, but GS would want a pick too, and I doubt we could reach common ground there.
Vuc for Simons would save Boston lots of dollars in salary and luxury taxes. We'd need to get a pick back on that swap though, and Boston doesn't seem ready to do that.
The only other trade I see that might work is something like Vuc and Ayo for Rozier and Jovic. Miami has been trying to unload Rozier's contract, and they might actually be able to use Vuc. Jovic is only 22 and has some upside.
Other than that, I think Vuc is going to be stuck with us until the trade deadline, at least. I guess we could offer to buy him out then, we'll have to wait and see.
Thinking through Vuc for Simons is kind of interesting.
Boston should be very motivated to do it. Vuc would actually kind of help them while they seem very uninterested in Simons. And more importantly, it saves them a ton of money (~$6M in salary + $18M in LT = $24M). So yeah, theoretically they'd be willing to give up a pick for that.
On the other hand, if I were Brad Stevens, and the Bulls called me up and offered Vuc for Simons and a pick, I'd say, "Hey man, I'm not giving you a pick. Simons is 26 and averaged close to 20PPG or more for the last three seasons. Vuc is a guy whose contract you are going to eat when you inevitably buy him out at the deadline. So don't get greedy and expect a pick. Just take the win and take the 26 year old for the washed up 35 year old you're giving us.
If I were the Bulls, I'd reply that, well, I don't actually think Simons is any good, and he's gonna cause a bigger logjam since he's like a worse version of Coby that makes more money. In theory he works, but in practice, he's just kind of a headache. Especially because I'm AKME and I don't like being creative.
If I were, like, Sam Presti and I were running the Bulls, I'd say, "I don't actually think Simons is any good. If you could have trade him, you would have by now. So, give me the pick, it doesn't even have to be this year's, and let's get this done.
Then, I'd turn around and flip Coby for the best pick I could get, because even though I like Simons less than Coby, Coby doesn't seem willing to sign for $20M/yr max.
I'd say that's exactly how the conversations have gone between Karnisovas and Stevens. And since there's no deal yet, it's probably because Stevens is still hoping he can find a GM who is willing to take Simons for free. I have my fingers crossed that he doesn't find one.
I go back and forth on Coby. I agree he is sure not signing for $20M per year, he already turned down a 4/$90 extension. But the more I watch Coby play, the better I feel about him. He is small by NBA standards and will never be a good defender, but he keeps working on his game and getting better. I really expect him to make another jump this year, as he settles in as our #1 option.
Still, I don't think he will be an All-Star, and if we could trade him for good picks, I would not be against that.
I'm not super confident about this, but my reasoning is that Gobert seemed to fall off a lot last year, that he's 34, and that given the long-term of his contract ($35M this year, $36.5M next season, and $38M in 27-28), the Wolves probably need to move him if they can.
Right now, NBA teams aren't taking big money contracts like that. The Bulls would consider this because they'd be offsetting the financial blow by sending back Pat Williams, who makes a lot less, but for a year longer.
The Wolves just drafted Beringer, and they just re-signed Naz Reid, so I think in theory they could do this. In practical terms though, even if he's fading, I do think losing Gobert hurts them. On the other hand, I think getting Coby helps them. For a team that thinks of themselves as contenders, maybe they decide not to do this because while it makes them younger and helps their finances, it might marginally hurt their chances this year. And maybe they decide to just go for it and worry about making a deal like this next year, once they've seen how Beringer comes along?
yea the Wolves are all in, they've been right at the door making the Finals last two years so they're not going to want to take a step back. Gobert is still key for their defense so moving him before Beringer is ready isn't going to work. They'll definitely look into it next year though
I thought it was cool Beringer would get another French center for a vet, and maybe that was part of the thinking from a Wolves perspective, so yeah, seeing how Beringer soaks it all up for a year seems more like their plan.
I like the idea of trading for Kuzma. He is a terrible player, and would be an empty rosterr space for us, so Bucks should be happy to send us a first to replace him with a useful player like Ayo.
As far as the Wolves trade, I don't see Wolves going for that. Williams is bad, and I think if we just look in isolation at what we would need to do to trade him, it would require at least for us to add a first round pick.
However, Phoenix is trying to get younger, they may be open to taking a chance on Pat. They have been trying to dump Grayson Allen, so Williams and our Bucks first for Allen might work. And Allen, because he is big and can shoot, could be tradable by the deadline.
The net result would be to trade out a bad player that we have on our books for 4 years, with one that we only have to pay for 2. And all it costs us is Ayo, which I think we can live with. (And good for him, that he gets to go to the Bucks.)
The other thing this does is free up a couple roster spots, which we could use potentially to add Tillman to the Vuc/Simons trade as a sweetener (Boston has been trying to dump him), and/or to absorb a player using our MLE.
I wouldn't trade away any pick just to get rid of Pat. We need to be collecting them.
For that matter, while I'd take a useful vet like Gobert on a longer deal, I think if the choice is Allen, I just stick with Pat. Or, if the deal is Allen for Pat, I'd want a pick or young player to take back Allen. Just don't see why he does for us, and the savings isn't enough to really matter.
It's fine that you would rather keep Pat than giving up a pick. That's the same question that AK needs to decide too. The point is, there isn't another team in the NBA willing to make a $72 million investment in Pat's development without getting something from the Bulls to offset the cost. He is a big negative asset right now.
But other teams have negative assets of their own, and they aren't all negative in the same ways. The Bulls can afford to take on money now that many other teams can't.
Yes, and to me that would be a good strategy, to use your room under the cap to do deals that bring in young players and picks. But we have had chances to do that this summer and so far have passed. The only deal we have done is a 1-for-1 trade at even salary
Most owners give their GMs latitude to spend up to the cap, but my working theory is that Karnisovas has a pay plan that rewards him for improving cash flow. So he is motivated to not increase salaries. It explains why he would sell a 2nd round pick to trade down. It would also explain why we don't tank.
Giddey: I think there are probably a few teams that would offer him more than $20M/yr if he were a UFA, simply because of his age and productivity up to this point. If he signs the QO, he'll make bank next year.
Implication. The Bulls should increase their offer. Even if they managed to cram him down to a below-market deal, it'd poison the well with him. We're talking about maybe $2M/yr not $10M a year.
Coby: I look around the league and see that nobody wants Simons at @ $27M or Monk at $20M. Colin Sexton was trade flotsam at $19M. DLo got just under $6M! Nobody at all is eager for Tyler Herro at over $30M, even though he's probably better than Coby.
Implication: the 4/$89M the Bulls can extend him at is on the high end of fair already. A Bulls exec has been quoted as saying they feel like that's an underpay, and that's a very stupid quote. Why talk the guy up.
Agree on Giddey. If he only needs to give up $9 million (the difference between the Bulls $20 mil offer and his QO of $11 mil) he can make that up quickly as a UFA. And I think if he does take the QO his cap hold next year would be $22 million anyway, so it wouldn't create any additional cap space. There could be some strategic reason for Giddey to take the QO so we could sign more players this summer and still stay out of the tax, but I don't really believe that's what our FO is thinking.
As for Coby, it does seem that scorers who can't guard are falling out of favor. Even Trae is having a hard time getting a new contract. Still, Coby is still young and getting better, so I think you need to factor that in too.
The funniest thing about this never ending Giddey stalemate is how inconsequential it actually is.
What do we know about him as a player?
He’s started 280 games (not a small sample size). He’s a bad defender. He can stuff a stat sheet due to his size and passing abilities. He’s never been a key player in a meaningful game. His prior team won a championship after trading him away.
This is not the resume of a guy who needs to be viewed as an important piece for a franchise. This is the resume of a guy who’ll be in the league for quite a while, play for several teams, and leave the kind of impact that mostly results in a shrug.
It’s the LaVine/Vuc tier. There’s been a million guys in this tier and there will be a million more. STOP WASTING SO MUCH TIME ON THESE PLAYERS, AK!
this is my take. He is not a bad player, but i don't see him as being a top3 player on a high level playoff team/contender. He will put up good counting stats but never truly impact long term sustained winning. I know he's "only 22" and i'm sure he will still get better but his playstyle just doesn't translate to me as anything that is going to be really useful for high level basketball.
It is crazy that we expend so much energy and resources on the Vucs, LaVine and Giddeys of the league. Sometimes you need to examine what a player does to impact winning and make that be the most important thing instead of counting stats and potential
There’s a chance that AK just forgot he hasn’t signed Giddey yet.
Meh, the Bulls are at the very least doing what they're supposed to be doing with Giddey. My guess is that they'll settle at 3 years at $23/$24 million per year.
Once you conclude that nothing good can or will happen, except on the margins or in the lottery and solely through dumb luck, until Jerry dies, the entire nature of fandom is to pray they don’t do anything so stupid that will handicap them when that day inevitably arrives.
In this situation, the risk has been averted, Giddey is not getting huge money for 5 years. What happens next is basically irrelevant, only changing the relative probabilities of the dumb luck.
It would be preferable if they would squirrel away draft capital, even second rounders, to better empower that new day. But since they are, as noted on this blog, allergic to second rounders and dismissive of draft pick value in general, the best action is actually inaction, chasing nothing and be bad at that, keeping players on 2 year deals and perpetually able to make moves once a new directive from ownership and new management ever arrived.
But pinstripes tho
I think it's a little weird people are focusing on his shooting, and not on the fact that he started drawing fouls and getting to the rim more. Which is, in my opinion, far more important, and makes me much more interested in Giddey than I was before, and far more interested than I would be if he only shot well in the second half of the season.
And I just wrapped up watching the last 20 games of the season, and I would say one takeaway is that I object to saying most of the opponents were checked out over that time frame. I haven't watched a post AS break Bulls game since 2016. I did not realize that they became a pretty fun team to watch after Zach left. Especially when Vuc was out of the lineup. That game in Indiana for example about gave me a fuckin heart attack it was so frenzied. A lot of these 20 games I watched were pretty good and fun!
I'll also note that I think Coby's end to the season is being absurdly ignored. This guy who's only 25 played like the best versions of Jamal Murray and Tyrese Maxey and people are just like "whatever". I don't get it. Not saying any of this shit is proof of anything. But one good way of assessing whether someone can do something is if they've already done it. Not sure why there isn't more intrigue about this, apart from the fact that their employers are the fuckin worst.
I like Coby but consistency is still an issue.....
Still think he's a 6th man on a contender but he has definitely improved
Coby has had two stretches of both being healthy and w/o LaVine:
11/30/23 - 2/14/24: 36 games, 57% efg, 23 ppg.
2/4/25 - EOS: 31 games, 56% efg, 23 ppg.
Those are both cherry picked somewhat, but talking about Coby without talking about LaVine is tough. LaVine sank teammates and teams with his static low IQ play, and Coby most of all.
We get to see a whole season of Coby White w/o LaVine and hopefully he stays healthy so we can see if he can actually do it for an entire season.
Yes I do legit think we need to account for the LaVine loserdom vortex. He shot great to start the season and that won't be around next year, but also his loser gravity will also not be around.
We'll see!
It's also his contract. He's practically un-extendable so nothing he could meaningfully do versus it really is a prove-it season coming up heading into unrestricted free agency. If he can sustain what he did in March, then he'll get attention. ThatsWhatTheMoneyIsFor.gif
We've been here before with March Nikola.....
So someone needs to punch Vooch in the face and he'll decide to go play basketball in Europe?
The context is what makes that last stretch of the season feel underwhelming. Like that game in Indiana you’re referencing - the Bulls lost that game by 15 points. You’re going to have a tough time selling excitement to fans if your pitch is “I know we’ve won 1 playoff game in the half decade this guy has been in charge, but look at how fast paced some of our losses are!”
And look at the teams they beat in that 15-5 stretch. Orlando, Miami, Indiana, Brooklyn, Utah, Sacramento, Lakers, Nuggets, Lakers, Raptors, Trailblazers, Hornets, Heat, Wizards, 76ers.
I’d say 5 of those 15 wins were against a team that was objectively good (Orlando, Indiana, Lakers, Nuggets, and Lakers). However, Haliburton didn’t play in that Indiana game and Jokic didn’t play in that Nuggets game. So that means 3 of the 15 wins were objectively impressive.
That would be useful context if I were talking about the team. But it's just two guys. I mean, they were genuinely counting on guys like Terry, Colins, Smith, etc to help get those wins. That's a big part of the context you refer to and it just doesn't matter.
I hear you. But it's hard for me to separate these two guys from the team in some artful exercise of what's possible for them specifically.
Like, I can't imagine a scenario where we'd excuse a basketball player who is supposed to be imperative to overall team success for going 5-20 with 7 TOs in their team's most important game of the year.
To be fair, that's one game I'm citing, but how the Bulls lost it was pretty spectacular, hard to forget. I guess we're talking about two different things now, between the end of the season sample and the play-in, and that's my bad. But, it's difficult for me to contextualize most of these individual efforts as meaningful in what amounts to years upon years of unserious basketball settings.
I would be more intrigued if I thought Coby and Giddey could contribute to a team serious about routinely winning in the playoffs. Giddey had that chance once and was phased out. Coby might get that chance, but I doubt it's with this team.
I think you can separate those 2 guys in that it really highlights the predicament the Bulls are in. Both Giddey and White are probably like the 4th best player on a good team. Best case scenario, maybe they can become like the 3rd best player on a good team. If they're asked to be more than that (or paid more than that) than the team is going to be not too good.
The Bulls best players are only 4th best type players, but they are getting much bigger roles than that. The Bulls are not good. They need to get guys who can be #1s or #2s, not overpay lesser players to masquerade as such.
The Bulls have no plan or even idea how to get better players.
Let's look more at context. I compared Coby to Maxey and Murray. Do those guys drive winning? Catch any Philly games last year? How'd that go? You've watched Denver, obviously. How do they look when Jokic is out? Or even just on the bench? Think about Devin Booker's career. Does he drive winning or not? Want to bet on whether or not Jaylen Brown looks like a winning player this year?
These are all really awesome players. Do they drive winning? The answer is: "It depends". There are like 4-7 guys in the whole league for whom that is not the answer (and I guess a bunch on the lower end of the talent pool).
Different way to look at it. Before last season I pised a question: Let's say we just drop Jayson Tatum on this team. What's the ceiling this year? Over the next 3 years? Last year I believed that even with Tatum, the Bulls would really struggle to crack exactly 50 wins at any point in the near term.
Revisiting that question this year. If Coby and Giddey's final third proves durable, then I do not think this team would need luck at all to breach the 50 win mark with a guy like Tatum in the fold. That's pretty meaningful, imo.
Terry, Collins and Smith are all still on the team though. They're all going to get minutes next season.
You can spin like crazy, but 10 of the Bulls last 20 games were against playoff teams, and we were 7-3 in those games.
Why is it a spin?
You don’t think it’s valuable to apply context to try to understand that 15-5 run at a deeper level? Why doesn’t it matter that 2 of those 7 wins were against teams missing their best player (Haliburton and Jokic)? And why doesn’t it matter that another two of those games were against the extremely weak 8 seed team that beat them by almost 20 in the play in game?
AK has not earned the benefit of the doubt from me. We should be looking critically at what he’s trying to sell to us. And what he’s trying to sell us right now is that 15-5 stretch. I’m not interested in buying narratives of team success from him until they start actually improving from an overall win-loss perspective.
Of course those things matter to some extent, but I don't think you are trying to get to a deeper understanding. I'd say you are just looking for a reason to discount the results. For 2 of the Bulls opponents to be missing their top player doesn't seem to me to be that surprising, top players miss games a lot. Did you look to see how many of the Bulls losses that we were missing our top player?
If you want to just look at games against playoff teams with an above .500 record, where both teams started their top player, then sure that would be a small sample of the games, but the Bulls would still have a winning record in those games, which not many teams could say. And then if you want to say that's not enough games for you to decide how good they are, then okay, I get that.
But who is our top player?
"They are all our top player" - Arturas Karnisovas, probably.
You do know how this past season ended, right?
Even if I removed the full context and just looked at that 15-5 stretch at a high level, it didn’t lead to anything. They were blown out in the play-in tournament.
You’re arguing in defense of the Titanic after it already hit the iceberg.
Yeah, that was disappointing.
In the Bulls' last 10 games against playoff teams, only one team (the Thunder) played a starting five that also consistently started in the first round of the playoffs. Every other team was resting at least one of their first-round playoff starters.
Also in those final 10 games against playoff teams, the average minutes played by a starter in the game against the Bulls was 26 minutes per game. In the first round of the playoffs, the same players who started against the Bulls and started a first-round playoff game averaged 33 minutes per game.
They weren't trying their hardest.
I am pretty sure they were trying. Teams do play their starters more minutes in the playoffs and they shorten their rotations. They also tend to go small, so the starters may change. None of this means they are not trying though in the regular season.
I couldn't match your numbers. I show that for those 10 games the Bulls played their starters 31 minutes and their opponents 30 minutes.
I showed that the Bulls were at full strength for 4 of those games, while their opponents were full strength in 5. (Burks missed a game for Miami otherwise it would have been 6.) The Bulls loss against Cleveland was definitely a give away game, we sat Vuc, Giddey and White. Pacers also gave us a win, sitting Haliburton and giving their bench a lot of run.
The other 8 games all looked to me to be fully competitive. Lakers played all their starters in both games. Magic were at full strength. Nuggets sat Jokic, put played their other starters for up to 40 minutes.
I think the Bulls record down the stretch was legitimate.
the end result was not making the playoffs again.
We can all argue back and forth about the legitimacy of those 20 games...but the end result is that since 2017, we have had one winning season and have made the playoffs once. that is almost a decade of mediocrity to flat out futility.
And I'm supposed to believe that Giddey is the key to a Bulls resurgence. I don't think he sucks, he is a good but flawed player. Same goes for Coby White who i like a lot.
Fact is both of those guys are #4,, at best #3 on high level playoff squads and we need to concentrate on getting #1-#2 guys either thru draft or trade..instead of worry about paying #3-4 level dudes.
Can we at least agree on that?
I seriously appreciate you checking my numbers, I tried to compare numbers at an individual level as much as possible. My apologies in advance if this is boring and/or formats terribly.
Orlando Magic starters on March 6th: Franz Wagner, Banchero, KCP, Wendell Carter Jr and Cole Anthony. In every first-round playoff game Cory Joseph started in place of Anthony. On March 6th Wagner, Banchero, KCP and WCJ averaged 33.5 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Wagner, Banchero, KCP and WCJ as starters averaged 35.8 minutes per game.
Miami Heat starters on March 8th: Bam, Herro, Davion Mitchell, Wiggins, Ware. Mitchell didn't start the game on April 9th or the first playoff game. On March 8th Bam, Herro, Mitchell, Wiggins and Ware averaged 31.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Bam, Herro, Mitchell, Wiggins and Ware as starters averaged 31.5 minutes per game.
Indiana Pacers starters on March 10th: Siakam, Nesmith, Turner, Mathurin, Nembhard. In every first-round playoff game Haliburton started in place of Mathurin. On March 10th Siakam, Nesmith, Turner and Nembhard averaged 23.3 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Siakam, Nesmith, Turner and Nembhard as starters averaged 32 minutes per game.
Houston Rockets starters on March 15th: Green, Sengun, FVV, Brooks, Jabari Smith Jr. In every first-round playoff game Amen Thompson started in place of Smith. On March 15th Green, Sengun, FVV and Brooks averaged 35.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Green, Sengun, FVV and Brooks as starters averaged 34.3 minutes per game. (I have to admit the Rockets were trying hard to win this one.)
LA Lakers starters on March 22nd: Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Jaxson Hayes and Dorian Finney-Smith. Hayes only started 4 first-round playoff games (averaging only 7.5 minutes a game!) and Finney-Smith only started one. The extra starter in every first-round playoff game was Rui Hachimura. On March 22nd Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Hayes and Finney-Smith averaged 28.6 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, and Hayes as starters averaged 33.6 minutes per game (even with Hayes's super-low minutes!) In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron and Finney-Smith as starters averaged 39.8 minutes per game.
Denver Nuggets starters on March 24th: Braun, Peyton Watson, MPJ, Jamal Murray, DeAndre Jordan. In every first-round playoff game Aaron Gordon and Jokic started in place of Watson and Jordan. On March 24th Braun, MPJ and Murray averaged 35.3 minutes played. In their first round playoff games Braun, MPJ and Murray as starters averaged 37.9 minutes per game.
LA Lakers starters on March 27th: Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Jaxson Hayes and Dorian Finney-Smith. Hayes only started 4 first-round playoff games (averaging only 7.5 minutes a game!) and Finney-Smith only started one. The other starter in every first-round playoff game was Rui Hachimura. On March 27th Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, Hayes and Finney-Smith averaged 35.2 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron, and Hayes as starters averaged 33.6 minutes per game (even with Hayes's super-low minutes!) In their first-round playoff games Reaves, Doncic, LeBron and Finney-Smith as starters averaged 39.8 minutes per game.
OKC Thunder starters on March 31st: SGA, Dort, Holmgren, Hart, Jalen Williams. OKC had the same starters through the first round of the playoffs. On March 31st this starting five averaged 25.8 minutes played. In their first-round playoff games these same starters averaged 30.1 minutes per game.
Cleveland Cavs starters on April 8th: Garland, Allen, Mobley, Strus and Okoro. Okoro did not start a single first-round playoff game, and Garland only played two before he was injured. The other first-round playoff starters were Donovan Mitchell (for Okoro) and Merrill once Garland went down. On April 8th Garland, Allen, Mobley and Strus averaged 28 minutes played. In their first-round playoff series, Garland, Allen, Mobley and Strus as starters averaged 28.3 minutes per game played.
Miami Heat starters on April 9th: Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware. Burks only started one first-round playoff game. On April 9th Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware averaged 23.2 minutes played. In their first-round playoff series Bam, Herro, Wiggins, Burks and Ware as starters averaged 29.8 minutes per game played.
This thread is some next-level sicko stuff, and I commend all the participants.
The context of Fischer's reporting, and questions of how Giddey actually would fit with the Warriors, does make me wonder if this 'interest' is actually instead wish-casting from Kuminga's camp
Who knows, but I'm guessing it was leaked by the Warriors front office to make people think they're trying to do something. I think the only way GS could get Karnisovas interested in dealing Giddey is if they include Podzemski in the deal, and I don't see that happening.
I'd be in favor of a Kuminga and Moody for Giddey and Phillips swap (money works with Giddey at $24m and Kuminga at $20m). Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I really don't see the fit with Giddey in GS.
Except Kuminga won't take 20.
You can spin like crazy, but 10 of the Bulls last 20 games were against playoff teams, and we were 7-3 in those games.
So you're saying you can spin like crazy too
Actually you're saying I can spin like crazy but you can spin very lazily.
I should have linked in the post, I didn't know this was in dispute
https://www.blogabull.com/p/what-meaning-is-there-in-this-meaningful
Oh I see. Now we should also not count 2nd games of back-to-backs, or games where the opponent's 2nd best player is just coming back from injury. This will make everything a lot easier, we won't have many games that are meaningful.
I just updated the results. The Bulls record for the last 20 games is really 0-0.
I mean, yes, essentially that's what I'm saying
Technically 0-1 because the play-in game
Maybe don't suck ass for the first half of the season and then you can get more meaningful games later to analyze
Naw, that game doesn't count either, because Lonzo didn't play.
I'm relatively confused about why non of these guys, but obviously Giddey have signed yet. If several teams have shared what they'd pay/trade for Giddey, the market is pretty set.
The longer it drags out, the worse everyone feels about it.
Bulls shot themselves in the foot touting 15-5! 15-5! to where now Giddey even believes he's proven to be a future core piece
he can get tips on how to manage from Isaac Okoro, who didn't sign his deal until Mid-September last year and it was quickly deemed regrettable by the Cavs
Kuminga is kind of in a similar situation to Giddey where the team has pumped him up (in Kuminga's case more from ownership than coaching staff) to where he thinks he's due more money than what a team would reasonably offer.
Grimes and Cam Thomas...I think they are just in a role that is looking replaceable in today's NBA. Coby White may want to take notes.
Agree on Coby. I wouldn't pay him more either. All the guys of that mold who get high salaries are on bad deals. Like, Coby is probably better than Malik Monk, but I don't think it's a major difference and nobody wants him (or DLo or Tyler Herro at his price or Simons or... etc etc).
I was surprised to read that the Suns (4/$90 ~ $22.5M) and Kings (3/$64 $21.3M) really aren't offering much to Kuminga either. The Warriors reportedly offered 2/$45M, though the second year was a TO.
The problem there seems to be that the Warriors don't actually want him, but they don't want anything another team could offer for him.
Anyway, what's interesting to me is that the Warriors are at least competitive on salary. They're just waiting for the right deal.
The Bulls have supposedly offered Giddey 4/$80. If he's got other teams wiling to offer him ~4/$90 or 3/$68, you can see why he's 1) not take the Bulls deal and 2) feel somewhat screwed by them.
I don't know why the Warriors don't take Malik Monk from the Kings. He's good! I don't know why the Kings are so willing to include him (because they signed...Dennis Shroeder?) #Kangz
reportedly they're holding out on pick protections. Seems greedy but maybe they figure no point not being greedy for a while as there's no actual deadline approaching yet and it's already an acrimonious situation
I don't think Monk's anything special. He's not actually a good shooter, his contract is not expiring and relatively high, and I don't see how he fits with the Warriors in particular.
In short, I wouldn't want Monk if I were the Warriors either.
I think I'm pretty much where you are. I do think the Warriors could you more ball handling and a scoring innings eater. But Monk, while athletic, only exacerbates their size/athleticism issues while being on a slightly underwater deal. You know who would help their size/athleticism issues? Jonathan Kuminga! I don't even love his player type, but it's amazing how bad they've fucked this up.
I think they've just run out of resources to make trades in the more difficult trade environment. And to cover up the fact that they missed badly on all their big draft picks
Also, they really are out of resources because my understanding is a S&T activates the hard cap. Currently they have $25M but they only have 9 guys under contract and they seem to have promised Horford like $8M. So if they take back much money they'll be right up against it.
The Grimes/Thomas/Monk/White type of player in particular seems to be a precarious proposition. These guys are good but not excellent offensively and they're garbage on defense. Not the kind of guy you want to sink a bunch of cash into, but you can see how teams can dream on these guys getting a little better on both ends and being really valuable. The kinds of personnel decisions that are a great litmus test for front offices.
Grimes came in the league as a supposed 3 and D. I'm not sure if he's actually any good on defense though
Perhaps another strategic leak by Giddey's camp, Jake Fischer followed up on his reporting to rumor that the Bulls offered 4yr/ $80M to Giddey at the start of free agency.
I say strategic because I *think* that is meant to suggest the Bulls are being unreasonably low with their offer. But this is still > $20M over 4 years more than the non-taxpayer MLE, which no other team with that exception at their disposal has offered, let alone above that with cap space or via a sign-and-trade.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2025/08/bulls-offered-giddey-80mm-deal-at-start-of-free-agency.html
I can't see Giddey holding out, or taking any measures that doesn't net him at least the 66mil. I applaud his agent for their best.
I remember 4 years 80 million being the normal extension for a young star player. Now it’s an “unreasonable,” extension for an atrociously shooting point guard who got traded from the team with the MVP bc he couldn’t co-exist with him. What a world we live in
I get it in terms of getting your fair share percentage of the cap for the value you provide (or Giddey's agent's sense of the value he provides), but in terms of real world value 80 mil goes soooo farrrr. It's unreal to me that those too measures have drifted so far apart. What's Giddey's sense of what 120 mil can do vs 80 mil? Can you even feel the difference? How does his agent communicate that to him... it's like a villa in Sydney, Melbourne _and_ Perth. You want that villa in Perth right? You deserve it!
The Bulls schedule was released and they have only three nationally televised games. The networks think the Bulls will suck next year and I tend to agree with them. Three games is also comically low given how many more nationally televised games are this season between ABC/ESPN, Amazon and Peacock/NBC.
From a prestige perspective I get it, the Bulls are not interesting to a national audience, and the schedule reflects that. But, I'm out of market and the nba league pass stadium feed no commercials is absolutely the best way to watch basketball games, and I love Amin and King. A low prestige winning season is the sweet spot for me.
This will be my first season in a while that I haven't paid for League Pass. A friend and I usually split the cost, so it's a pretty solid deal. But there are enough nationally televised games of teams that are actually trying to be good that I can't justify spending money to watch the Bulls be mediocre and directionless for the umpteenth season in a row.
I stopped paying for League Pass during the Hoiberg/Boylen era and intend to stop paying for it until the AK era is over as well, unless they luck out and either get a top draft pick or some star decides they want to take up Jordan's mantle and drag the Bulls back to relevance. I don't expect either of those to happen anytime soon.
Was browsing around PBP stats and looked at how OKC did with Giddey on the court and SGA off:
SGA Only (3 seasons in OKC) 2431 Minutes, +6.54 Net Rating
Giddey Only (3 seasons in OKC) 1486 Minutes, -3.28 Net Rating
SGA+JWill (2 seasons) 1068 Minutes + 4.3
Giddey+JWill (2 seasons) 980 Minutes + -1.37
Giddey just isn’t a winning player, any way you slice it.
Honestly, AK should get a ring from OKC for taking Giddey off their hands and giving them an elite role player in return.
Here (https://www.basketusa.com/news/765774/interview-nikola-vucevic-jouer-pour-un-titre-nba-avant-la-fin-de-ma-carriere/ in french), Vucecic says that ME told him all the rumors about him at the season's end were false, and he adds that he expects to start the season with the Bulls... Not that surprising....
Let's talk about your NBA career now. You were at the center of rumors at the beginning of the summer. What's your situation with the Bulls?
A week ago (the interview was conducted on August 4th), the Bulls GM (Marc Eversley), who contacted me after all the rumors about me, confirmed that none of it was true and that everything we said after the season was still relevant. I knew that, but it's always nice when your GM contacts you to tell you.
So you expect to start the season in Chicago ?
Yes, I have almost no doubt about it. That's the mindset I'm preparing with. Afterwards, we'll see, I don't know what's going to happen.
How did you deal with the various rumors about you?
There are always rumors. Most of them are false. It's a bit of nonsense. For example, the buyout rumor was misinterpreted in Europe: the journalist wrote that if there was no trade during the season, there might be a buyout option before the deadline.
A buyout before the trade deadline doesn’t make much sense for the Bulls. They would pay most of his contract and get nothing in return. Maybe a buyout after the deadline if the Bulls are going nowhere and they can shed a million dollars or so.
"Maybe a buyout after the deadline if the Bulls are going nowhere and they can shed a million dollars or so."
The Bulls are better with Vuc off the floor. It would be worth every penny to simply waive him, if they can't trade him.
Thks for translation ;)
This should be followed up on by Bulls reporters, shouldn’t it?
There’s all this chatter at the trade deadline about how they’re laying some ridiculous foundation for a Vuc trade in the offseason. And now the GM is reaching out to Vuc and saying none of the rumors about him are true?
So were they lying at the trade deadline or are they lying now? Shouldn’t someone ask this???
They were lying at the deadline, and these reporters bought it. Even dogged truth teller Joe Cowley
It’s unbelievable. Instead of just simply doing their jobs, the Bulls front office is putting a bunch of energy into creating specific lies to tell the media.
Here’s a wild idea. Instead of wasting time creating a fake trade plan around Vuc, you just use that time to actually trade Vuc.
They don't want to trade Vuc. Their job is be competitive, and Vuc plays every game (whether fans want him to or not)
good find!
always hilarious to see Vuc get the superstar treatment. Marc Eversley wanted this to be a superstar-friendly organization but they haven't been able to follow through on legit superstars
Reading the whole thing gives me the impression that the Bulls are more into Vuc than he is into them.
1. He didn't dismiss the possibility of a buyout, just mostly said he was starting the season with the Bulls. Sounds like he'd welcome a trade or buyout.
2. Why?
Q- À quoi aspirez-vous pour votre fin de carrière ?
R- J'aimerais essayer de jouer pour une équipe qui a les ambitions de gagner le titre NBA. En Europe, c’est plus facile de rejoindre une grosse équipe, mais en NBA, c’est compliqué à cause des règles et des « trades ».
Question - How do you want to finish you're career?
Answer- I would like to play for a team that has the ambition to win the NBA title. In Europe, it's easier to join a great team, but in the NBA it's complicated because of rules and trades
Q- Pensez-vous que ça pourrait être avec Chicago ?
R- Peut-être pas cette saison, car on sera une équipe jeune. Mais on ne sait jamais, les ambitions des équipes changent vite d’années en années, selon les blessures et les transferts.
Question - Do you think that will be with Chicago?
R- Maybe not this season, since we're a young team. But you never know, team ambitions change quickly from year to year based on injuries and player movement.
Basically, I think he'd be happy to leave and has made it know to the Bulls
"I would like to play for a team that has the ambition to win the NBA title."
lol.
I'd like to root for a team like that!
Unfortunately it doesn't look like there is anywhere for Vuc to go right now.
Vuc for Kuminga could work, but GS would want a pick too, and I doubt we could reach common ground there.
Vuc for Simons would save Boston lots of dollars in salary and luxury taxes. We'd need to get a pick back on that swap though, and Boston doesn't seem ready to do that.
The only other trade I see that might work is something like Vuc and Ayo for Rozier and Jovic. Miami has been trying to unload Rozier's contract, and they might actually be able to use Vuc. Jovic is only 22 and has some upside.
Other than that, I think Vuc is going to be stuck with us until the trade deadline, at least. I guess we could offer to buy him out then, we'll have to wait and see.
Thinking through Vuc for Simons is kind of interesting.
Boston should be very motivated to do it. Vuc would actually kind of help them while they seem very uninterested in Simons. And more importantly, it saves them a ton of money (~$6M in salary + $18M in LT = $24M). So yeah, theoretically they'd be willing to give up a pick for that.
On the other hand, if I were Brad Stevens, and the Bulls called me up and offered Vuc for Simons and a pick, I'd say, "Hey man, I'm not giving you a pick. Simons is 26 and averaged close to 20PPG or more for the last three seasons. Vuc is a guy whose contract you are going to eat when you inevitably buy him out at the deadline. So don't get greedy and expect a pick. Just take the win and take the 26 year old for the washed up 35 year old you're giving us.
If I were the Bulls, I'd reply that, well, I don't actually think Simons is any good, and he's gonna cause a bigger logjam since he's like a worse version of Coby that makes more money. In theory he works, but in practice, he's just kind of a headache. Especially because I'm AKME and I don't like being creative.
If I were, like, Sam Presti and I were running the Bulls, I'd say, "I don't actually think Simons is any good. If you could have trade him, you would have by now. So, give me the pick, it doesn't even have to be this year's, and let's get this done.
Then, I'd turn around and flip Coby for the best pick I could get, because even though I like Simons less than Coby, Coby doesn't seem willing to sign for $20M/yr max.
I'd say that's exactly how the conversations have gone between Karnisovas and Stevens. And since there's no deal yet, it's probably because Stevens is still hoping he can find a GM who is willing to take Simons for free. I have my fingers crossed that he doesn't find one.
I go back and forth on Coby. I agree he is sure not signing for $20M per year, he already turned down a 4/$90 extension. But the more I watch Coby play, the better I feel about him. He is small by NBA standards and will never be a good defender, but he keeps working on his game and getting better. I really expect him to make another jump this year, as he settles in as our #1 option.
Still, I don't think he will be an All-Star, and if we could trade him for good picks, I would not be against that.
Kind of random trade ideas to reposition the Bulls better for the future:
1. Bulls trade Vuc for Simons + '27 Celtics pick
2. Bulls trade Coby + Pat for Rudy Gay and '26 pick from TWolves (least favorable of TWolves/Spurs/Jazz if I understand correctly)
3. Bulls trade Ayo, Phillips, Carter and get Kuzma and '26 pick from Bucks (least favorable of Bucks, Pelicans, Hawks if I understand right)
Ending Bulls roster:
C- Gobert, Collins, Smith
(Versatile)F- Matas, Kuzma, Noa
(Point)G/F- Giddey, Jones
(POA Defending)G- Okoro, Terry
(Scoring)G- Simons, Heurter
+ 3 extra first round picks.
This is a weird looking and not great roster, but I like the picks and I think there's a lot of flexibility and redundancy.
that's way too moves for AKME to manuever....trades all make sense tho so they would never be done
Probably also because I'm French, but I wonder why the wolves would part with Gobert ?
I'm not super confident about this, but my reasoning is that Gobert seemed to fall off a lot last year, that he's 34, and that given the long-term of his contract ($35M this year, $36.5M next season, and $38M in 27-28), the Wolves probably need to move him if they can.
Right now, NBA teams aren't taking big money contracts like that. The Bulls would consider this because they'd be offsetting the financial blow by sending back Pat Williams, who makes a lot less, but for a year longer.
The Wolves just drafted Beringer, and they just re-signed Naz Reid, so I think in theory they could do this. In practical terms though, even if he's fading, I do think losing Gobert hurts them. On the other hand, I think getting Coby helps them. For a team that thinks of themselves as contenders, maybe they decide not to do this because while it makes them younger and helps their finances, it might marginally hurt their chances this year. And maybe they decide to just go for it and worry about making a deal like this next year, once they've seen how Beringer comes along?
yea the Wolves are all in, they've been right at the door making the Finals last two years so they're not going to want to take a step back. Gobert is still key for their defense so moving him before Beringer is ready isn't going to work. They'll definitely look into it next year though
I thought it was cool Beringer would get another French center for a vet, and maybe that was part of the thinking from a Wolves perspective, so yeah, seeing how Beringer soaks it all up for a year seems more like their plan.
I like the idea of trading for Kuzma. He is a terrible player, and would be an empty rosterr space for us, so Bucks should be happy to send us a first to replace him with a useful player like Ayo.
As far as the Wolves trade, I don't see Wolves going for that. Williams is bad, and I think if we just look in isolation at what we would need to do to trade him, it would require at least for us to add a first round pick.
However, Phoenix is trying to get younger, they may be open to taking a chance on Pat. They have been trying to dump Grayson Allen, so Williams and our Bucks first for Allen might work. And Allen, because he is big and can shoot, could be tradable by the deadline.
The net result would be to trade out a bad player that we have on our books for 4 years, with one that we only have to pay for 2. And all it costs us is Ayo, which I think we can live with. (And good for him, that he gets to go to the Bucks.)
The other thing this does is free up a couple roster spots, which we could use potentially to add Tillman to the Vuc/Simons trade as a sweetener (Boston has been trying to dump him), and/or to absorb a player using our MLE.
. . . Like Beasley, maybe?
I wouldn't trade away any pick just to get rid of Pat. We need to be collecting them.
For that matter, while I'd take a useful vet like Gobert on a longer deal, I think if the choice is Allen, I just stick with Pat. Or, if the deal is Allen for Pat, I'd want a pick or young player to take back Allen. Just don't see why he does for us, and the savings isn't enough to really matter.
It's fine that you would rather keep Pat than giving up a pick. That's the same question that AK needs to decide too. The point is, there isn't another team in the NBA willing to make a $72 million investment in Pat's development without getting something from the Bulls to offset the cost. He is a big negative asset right now.
That he is.
But other teams have negative assets of their own, and they aren't all negative in the same ways. The Bulls can afford to take on money now that many other teams can't.
they can afford to but they won't
NO BULLS FAULT
Yes, and to me that would be a good strategy, to use your room under the cap to do deals that bring in young players and picks. But we have had chances to do that this summer and so far have passed. The only deal we have done is a 1-for-1 trade at even salary
Most owners give their GMs latitude to spend up to the cap, but my working theory is that Karnisovas has a pay plan that rewards him for improving cash flow. So he is motivated to not increase salaries. It explains why he would sell a 2nd round pick to trade down. It would also explain why we don't tank.
*I meant latitude to spend under the tax line, not under the cap
eww Grayson Allen
Haha, he's married anyway.
LOL. Way too young for me. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Giddey: I think there are probably a few teams that would offer him more than $20M/yr if he were a UFA, simply because of his age and productivity up to this point. If he signs the QO, he'll make bank next year.
Implication. The Bulls should increase their offer. Even if they managed to cram him down to a below-market deal, it'd poison the well with him. We're talking about maybe $2M/yr not $10M a year.
Coby: I look around the league and see that nobody wants Simons at @ $27M or Monk at $20M. Colin Sexton was trade flotsam at $19M. DLo got just under $6M! Nobody at all is eager for Tyler Herro at over $30M, even though he's probably better than Coby.
Implication: the 4/$89M the Bulls can extend him at is on the high end of fair already. A Bulls exec has been quoted as saying they feel like that's an underpay, and that's a very stupid quote. Why talk the guy up.
Agree on Giddey. If he only needs to give up $9 million (the difference between the Bulls $20 mil offer and his QO of $11 mil) he can make that up quickly as a UFA. And I think if he does take the QO his cap hold next year would be $22 million anyway, so it wouldn't create any additional cap space. There could be some strategic reason for Giddey to take the QO so we could sign more players this summer and still stay out of the tax, but I don't really believe that's what our FO is thinking.
As for Coby, it does seem that scorers who can't guard are falling out of favor. Even Trae is having a hard time getting a new contract. Still, Coby is still young and getting better, so I think you need to factor that in too.
The funniest thing about this never ending Giddey stalemate is how inconsequential it actually is.
What do we know about him as a player?
He’s started 280 games (not a small sample size). He’s a bad defender. He can stuff a stat sheet due to his size and passing abilities. He’s never been a key player in a meaningful game. His prior team won a championship after trading him away.
This is not the resume of a guy who needs to be viewed as an important piece for a franchise. This is the resume of a guy who’ll be in the league for quite a while, play for several teams, and leave the kind of impact that mostly results in a shrug.
It’s the LaVine/Vuc tier. There’s been a million guys in this tier and there will be a million more. STOP WASTING SO MUCH TIME ON THESE PLAYERS, AK!
this is my take. He is not a bad player, but i don't see him as being a top3 player on a high level playoff team/contender. He will put up good counting stats but never truly impact long term sustained winning. I know he's "only 22" and i'm sure he will still get better but his playstyle just doesn't translate to me as anything that is going to be really useful for high level basketball.
It is crazy that we expend so much energy and resources on the Vucs, LaVine and Giddeys of the league. Sometimes you need to examine what a player does to impact winning and make that be the most important thing instead of counting stats and potential
Breaking news! Taylor Horton-Tucker is going to Europe.
https://www.eurohoops.net/en/euroleague/1862912/talen-horton-tucker-between-fenerbahce-and-the-nba/