Update PG 4: Patrick Williams OUT For Season

[DuckIII]

If we resign him, it better be at a seriously steep discount value.

In the big picture this is good news for the Bulls. It kills Pat’s feee agency and is highly likely to result in the QO to give another year to firm up an opinion on his game and value, or a sweetheart deal because Pat opts to take a few years of lower guaranteed money.

The only bad news in the long view is that to the extent there was an opportunity to include him to sweeten a larger deal this summer, that is now pretty much off the table.

It's also bad news in that this injury might affect his development moving forward.

Absolutely. But at much less risk to determine on the QO or a small deal. Pat was already a huge question mark going into this offseason. Now the Bulls have the leverage and Pat has the options of taking a very friendly deal or the QO.

[DuckIII]

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

I think that misses the point. His odds of becoming good are also less.

If they weren't less, then he wouldn't be available for less money. Thus having a player who now has a lesser chance of becoming good at a cheaper price is not a positive in and of itself.

I think I get where he's coming from, though, at least at a psychological level. If I could buy two lottery tickets, both with the same potential payout but one costing $10 and better odds of winning, and one costing $2 with worse odds of winning-- winning being unlikely in either case-- I'd probably feel more at ease shelling out 2 bucks and still being able mentally to enjoy the prospect of a jackpot.

Yes, that is fundamentally correct though not the analogy I would use due to invoking the lottery, which is virtually a complete unkonwn crapshoot. But I don't really understand why we even need analogies here. The poorer the player's leverage, the greater the team's leverage, the better for the team. In all situations. This is one of them.

I guess I'm a little surprised my post even got a response at all. Am I not saying something that is patently obvious and taken as a given in all threads in which we discuss player's contracts and the organization?

Maybe I'm just missing a point here. In my mind I'm saying water is wet to a group of swimmers.

[dougthonus]

Your post is a multi-paragraph way of saying the player, even if signed on a perceived value deal, must at minimum live up to the deal signed in order for it to actually be a value. Which is inherently true of every contract of every type and therefore doesn't actually mean anything.

Its objectively better to have circumstances force a player to take a lesser deal when: (a) you want to sign that player (which the Bulls do); and (b) especially when his value is very much an open question. Then, of course, as you note in order for it to actually be a full success the player has to play in such a way as to earn the contract. But the lesser cost is an automatic good.

From the Bulls perspective, this Pat situation we are dealing with now is a benefit contractually.

Effectively you are only considering one side of the equation. Cost. You are not considering the other side of the equation. Value.

Your theory only works if expected value is the same. I think depending how you view the situation, I could see why you might think expected value is the same, but if so, then I doubt the cost will be different either.

[dougthonus]

I guess I'm a little surprised my post even got a response at all. Am I not saying something that is patently obvious and taken as a given in all threads in which we discuss player's contracts and the organization?

Maybe I'm just missing a point here. In my mind I'm saying water is wet to a group of swimmers.

In my mind you are saying if you go buy a car and pay $1,000 dollars it is objectively better than paying $30,000 without considering what type of car you are getting.

I only pointed out, there is a 2nd side of the equation. The first side isn't dropping for no reason, it is dropping due to the other side dropping.

[MikeDC]

I think that misses the point. His odds of becoming good are also less.

If they weren't less, then he wouldn't be available for less money. Thus having a player who now has a lesser chance of becoming good at a cheaper price is not a positive in and of itself.

I think I get where he's coming from, though, at least at a psychological level. If I could buy two lottery tickets, both with the same potential payout but one costing $10 and better odds of winning, and one costing $2 with worse odds of winning-- winning being unlikely in either case-- I'd probably feel more at ease shelling out 2 bucks and still being able mentally to enjoy the prospect of a jackpot.

Yes, that is fundamentally correct though not the analogy I would use due to invoking the lottery, which is virtually a complete unkonwn crapshoot. But I don't really understand why we even need analogies here. The poorer the player's leverage, the greater the team's leverage, the better for the team. In all situations. This is one of them.

I guess I'm a little surprised my post even got a response at all. Am I not saying something that is patently obvious and taken as a given in all threads in which we discuss player's contracts and the organization?

Maybe I'm just missing a point here. In my mind I'm saying water is wet to a group of swimmers.

You're focused on the "team vs. player leverage dynamic" when you should be focused on the "everyone's risk just went up exponentially" dynamic.

[DuckIII]

I guess I'm a little surprised my post even got a response at all. Am I not saying something that is patently obvious and taken as a given in all threads in which we discuss player's contracts and the organization?

Maybe I'm just missing a point here. In my mind I'm saying water is wet to a group of swimmers.

In my mind you are saying if you go buy a car and pay $1,000 dollars it is objectively better than paying $30,000 without considering what type of car you are getting.

It’s hard to believe you actually think I’m stupid enough to believe that or argue that.

[DuckIII]

Your post is a multi-paragraph way of saying the player, even if signed on a perceived value deal, must at minimum live up to the deal signed in order for it to actually be a value. Which is inherently true of every contract of every type and therefore doesn't actually mean anything.

Its objectively better to have circumstances force a player to take a lesser deal when: (a) you want to sign that player (which the Bulls do); and (b) especially when his value is very much an open question. Then, of course, as you note in order for it to actually be a full success the player has to play in such a way as to earn the contract. But the lesser cost is an automatic good.

From the Bulls perspective, this Pat situation we are dealing with now is a benefit contractually.

Effectively you are only considering one side of the equation. Cost. You are not considering the other side of the equation. Value.

That not what I’m doing. Cost and value are inextricably linked. Pat was heading into an offseason in which he was going to have at least some degree of leverage heading into a very unpredictable negotiation and market. Now he has absolutely none.

The Bulls are now in a position to leverage his deal very heavily towards risk mitigation or to just let him take the QO which carries virtually no risk at all. That is how cost, value and cost coincide, and the circumstances heavily favor the FO if they aren’t stupid. Which unfortunately they almost always are.

[Dan Z]

Your post is a multi-paragraph way of saying the player, even if signed on a perceived value deal, must at minimum live up to the deal signed in order for it to actually be a value. Which is inherently true of every contract of every type and therefore doesn't actually mean anything.

Its objectively better to have circumstances force a player to take a lesser deal when: (a) you want to sign that player (which the Bulls do); and (b) especially when his value is very much an open question. Then, of course, as you note in order for it to actually be a full success the player has to play in such a way as to earn the contract. But the lesser cost is an automatic good.

From the Bulls perspective, this Pat situation we are dealing with now is a benefit contractually.

Effectively you are only considering one side of the equation. Cost. You are not considering the other side of the equation. Value.

That not what I’m doing. Cost and value are inextricably linked. Pat was heading into an offseason in which he was going to have at least some degree of leverage heading into a very unpredictable negotiation and market. Now he has absolutely none.

The Bulls are now in a position to leverage his deal very heavily towards risk mitigation or to just let him take the QO which carries virtually no risk at all. That is how cost, value and cost coincide, and the circumstances heavily favor the FO if they aren’t stupid. Which unfortunately they almost always are.

He'll have leverage if another team steps in and offers him a decent deal. If not, then I agree with you.

[League Circles]

I think I get where he's coming from, though, at least at a psychological level. If I could buy two lottery tickets, both with the same potential payout but one costing $10 and better odds of winning, and one costing $2 with worse odds of winning-- winning being unlikely in either case-- I'd probably feel more at ease shelling out 2 bucks and still being able mentally to enjoy the prospect of a jackpot.

Yes, that is fundamentally correct though not the analogy I would use due to invoking the lottery, which is virtually a complete unkonwn crapshoot. But I don't really understand why we even need analogies here. The poorer the player's leverage, the greater the team's leverage, the better for the team. In all situations. This is one of them.

I guess I'm a little surprised my post even got a response at all. Am I not saying something that is patently obvious and taken as a given in all threads in which we discuss player's contracts and the organization?

Maybe I'm just missing a point here. In my mind I'm saying water is wet to a group of swimmers.

You're focused on the "team vs. player leverage dynamic" when you should be focused on the "everyone's risk just went up exponentially" dynamic.

I think maybe Duck and anyone else perceiving it like this which maybe includes me just assumes that the injury will be fully healed and a non issue by next season, like his wrist injury or whatever it was a few years ago. Isolated stress fracture, bone heals maybe even stronger than ever, etc. I'm guessing that will be the case but haven't read enough to know. IF that's the sense in which we think of this, this is only good for the team, cause Patrick may have come back and played well down the stretch and in the playoffs. Hell he could pretty easily become a 25 mil/year man if he played well the rest of the year. Now? Other teams are simply not going to target him like that. RFAs don't get targeted a lot to begin with cause most teams know that most offer sheets will be matched. If he had a big playoff series teams wouldn't be able to overlook him. Now teams will think "which one is Patrick Williams"?

[DuckIII]

Effectively you are only considering one side of the equation. Cost. You are not considering the other side of the equation. Value.

That not what I’m doing. Cost and value are inextricably linked. Pat was heading into an offseason in which he was going to have at least some degree of leverage heading into a very unpredictable negotiation and market. Now he has absolutely none.

The Bulls are now in a position to leverage his deal very heavily towards risk mitigation or to just let him take the QO which carries virtually no risk at all. That is how cost, value and cost coincide, and the circumstances heavily favor the FO if they aren’t stupid. Which unfortunately they almost always are.

He'll have leverage if another team steps in and offers him a decent deal. If not, then I agree with you.

No doubt about it. But all we can do today is make predictions. That scenario is now far less likely.

And despite that, Pat was already in a position in which he still needed to build on the strong stretch of games he had post-Lavine in order for us to reasonably fear that scenario. And rather than building on it, he got injuries to both feet separately, his play clearly declined, and now he's undergoing season ending surgery.

[League Circles]

Patrick was about to play the 25 games that would for sure weigh most heavily in the minds of the 30 guys that decide how much he gets paid for the next few years of any 25 games he's ever played. Hell, his performance in those 25 games might mean more in their minds than the other 3.5+ years he's played. That's what it means to be a 22 year old with ability playing for a team on the verge of the playoffs. It was very plausible that he would play pretty well in those 25 games, elevate himself in the minds of those 30 guys based on his play, and earn a lot more.

Now he has no such chance, and whatever meh play he's put in for his first 4 years will get packaged with the fact that he'll be fresh off of foot surgery without playing will be all he gets offered based on. I think the best offer he gets will be the 4 year full MLE. Teams truly wanting to use cap space wont bother wasting their time and they won't offer the 20 mil it would take us to not match. Execs just can't justify big money to their fan bases for Patrick **** Williams. No teams or fans of other teams would covet him. He's the kind of guy you criticize other teams for having, even though everyone knows he has ability. He should be good. Has all the tools. But isn't good for some reason. He became OK this year because at least his defense is now consistent. It's just that 30 teams can sign a guy for the vet min who can defend as well as him and who offer 80% of the offensive impact that he does.

Maybe a spark will light underneath him. I like him as a player but he's not a big money guy now and may never be. He simply doesn't have a great feel for the game and isn't that competitive. But his huge hands and great build/frame tease you into thinking he could be a core player.

[sco]

Patrick was about to play the 25 games that would for sure weigh most heavily in the minds of the 30 guys that decide how much he gets paid for the next few years of any 25 games he's ever played. Hell, his performance in those 25 games might mean more in their minds than the other 3.5+ years he's played. That's what it means to be a 22 year old with ability playing for a team on the verge of the playoffs. It was very plausible that he would play pretty well in those 25 games, elevate himself in the minds of those 30 guys based on his play, and earn a lot more.

Now he has no such chance, and whatever meh play he's put in for his first 4 years will get packaged with the fact that he'll be fresh off of foot surgery without playing will be all he gets offered based on. I think the best offer he gets will be the 4 year full MLE. Teams truly wanting to use cap space wont bother wasting their time and they won't offer the 20 mil it would take us to not match. Execs just can't justify big money to their fan bases for Patrick **** Williams. No teams or fans of other teams would covet him. He's the kind of guy you criticize other teams for having, even though everyone knows he has ability. He should be good. Has all the tools. But isn't good for some reason. He became OK this year because at least his defense is now consistent. It's just that 30 teams can sign a guy for the vet min who can defend as well as him and who offer 80% of the offensive impact that he does.

Maybe a spark will light underneath him. I like him as a player but he's not a big money guy now and may never be. He simply doesn't have a great feel for the game and isn't that competitive. But his huge hands and great build/frame tease you into thinking he could be a core player.

Yeah, I agree. I think a deal just over the MLE will be enough. That said, if he comes back here, I'd REALLY want him to work on his handles in the offseason. IMO it's a huge problem for him, but fixable with work.

[dougthonus]

That not what I’m doing. Cost and value are inextricably linked. Pat was heading into an offseason in which he was going to have at least some degree of leverage heading into a very unpredictable negotiation and market. Now he has absolutely none.

Let me rephrase it this way:

I'd break it down into these general scenarios:

1: Other teams irrationally have too much fear about his condition/upside now and stay away irrationally. The Bulls are the smarter FO and use this irrational fear as leverage to gain a better contract. In this scenario, I agree, we would end up with a better risk/reward proposition.

2: Other teams have rational fears about his condition/upside and the Bulls get him at market value, which is now less, because his value is less. This is near neutral but likely slightly negative (we'd rather probably have a better player and pay them more, but if it's at natural market value it's mostly neutral either way).

3: Other teams have rational fears about his condition/upside and the Bulls overpay him anyway. In this scenario, we pay the less or the same as if he was not hurt, but the drop in value of the asset is larger than the drop in value of the contract and the overall risk/reward proposition is worse.

4: No teams have fears about his condition/upside at all, and in fact his contract is not available at a discount, and market value does not dip at all, and we have to pay what we have to pay or let him walk. This is likely a negative situation, because there sure seems like there _should_ be an adjustment on his value, and if there isn't, we're likely just paying the same for a lower probability of a good outcome.

Of these scenarios, history would tell me that scenario 3 or 4 are the two most likely scenarios based on how the league tends to operate (most optimistic team sets the market) and how the Bulls have operated under AKME (folding in negotiations to anyone they like really quickly and generally using the overpay as their lever to close deals).

I sure hope we end up in bucket #1, and we have a better feel for the actuality than everyone else, and the rest of the league just doesn't look closely at the situation and summarily dismisses it and then we also use this leverage to extract a better deal, but there are a lot of underlying assumptions there that just don't feel like they're backed up to me.

1: That there isn't significant increased risk
2: That our FO is smarter than other FOs
3: That our FO is willing to negotiate hard even if the above two things are true and take advantage

I don't think I would bet on a single one of those three assumptions being true, but I think all three need to be true for this to be a positive contractual situation for us while using a Monte Carlo like approach to guess the range of outcomes.

To be clear, it doesn't mean we can't land in boats 2-4 and have a good outcome, we could. We could do what feels like an overpay, and Pat could become the next LeBron James out of nowhere and validate any contract, but if you start looking at 'likely' outcomes, only bucket #1 delivers you the likely outcome that this works out for our long term benefit, bucket #2 is likely to be neutral, and buckets 3 and 4 are more likely to be negative.

[jc23]

Thats just sucks all around.

[dougthonus]

Pretty good quick summary of Pat's injury and some others who had it:
https://instreetclothes.com/2024/02/24/understanding-patrick-williams-navicular-injury/

[Dan Z]

Pretty good quick summary of Pat's injury and some others who had it:
https://instreetclothes.com/2024/02/24/understanding-patrick-williams-navicular-injury/

Unfortunately it sounds like it could end up being something he'll have to deal with beyond this season.

While most NBA players to undergo navicular surgery were ready to play by the start of the following season, there are multiple cases that did not go smoothly. Big men like Embiid, Yao Ming, and Zydrunas Ilgauskas underwent multiple surgeries following their initial injury and TJ Warren missed nearly two years recovering from surgery for a stress fracture in his left navicular. A study from 2006 revealed some individuals report pain at the injury site for up to two years. Additionally, analysis shows athletes often display an increased loading pattern on their knees following surgery. This results in an increased chance at injuries like tendinosis and even meniscus injuries.

[Dan Z]

That not what I’m doing. Cost and value are inextricably linked. Pat was heading into an offseason in which he was going to have at least some degree of leverage heading into a very unpredictable negotiation and market. Now he has absolutely none.

The Bulls are now in a position to leverage his deal very heavily towards risk mitigation or to just let him take the QO which carries virtually no risk at all. That is how cost, value and cost coincide, and the circumstances heavily favor the FO if they aren’t stupid. Which unfortunately they almost always are.

He'll have leverage if another team steps in and offers him a decent deal. If not, then I agree with you.

No doubt about it. But all we can do today is make predictions. That scenario is now far less likely.

And despite that, Pat was already in a position in which he still needed to build on the strong stretch of games he had post-Lavine in order for us to reasonably fear that scenario. And rather than building on it, he got injuries to both feet separately, his play clearly declined, and now he's undergoing season ending surgery.

Another thing to keep in mind regarding leverage is that the Bulls don't have many options at power forward if he leaves. Who would start next year? Torrey Craig (if he opts in to his contract)?

I don't know the cap well enough, but if PW leaves, and they re-sign DDR, does that mean they might have enough money to re-sign Drummond? Or no? If not, that means they need a PF and a backup C. They could draft one, but I'd rather they go BPA rather than worry about positional needs.

Having said all this...they shouldn't sign PW to a bad contract simply because they have no better options.

[Ice Man]

It's not clear to me that the Bulls will have more leverage, because NBA GMs will be thinking like Duck is: "Hmmm, we can get that guy for less money now." True, he is less valuable because of the injury but also cheaper, which will give more teams the chance to take a flier. So I don't see why hurt Pat will attract fewer offers than healthy Pat.

But it will cost the Bulls less to match those offers, that is true.

[Repeat 3-peat]

I'm expecting a contract similar to Coby's. Pat is flawed and his injury is worrisome but a soon to be 23 year old wing that is a damn good defender that can also shoot 40% from three is valuable. Also, this team is not in any position to be giving up on young players(even if it's a slight overpay), Coby and Ayo are proving why you don't this season.

[League Circles]

It's not clear to me that the Bulls will have more leverage, because NBA GMs will be thinking like Duck is: "Hmmm, we can get that guy for less money now." True, he is less valuable because of the injury but also cheaper, which will give more teams the chance to take a flier. So I don't see why hurt Pat will attract fewer offers than healthy Pat.

But it will cost the Bulls less to match those offers, that is true.

I think even healthy Patrick, if he hadn't improved in the last 25 games he'll now miss, wasn't going to attract much interest. Nobody wants to prioritize a guy that doesn't produce much, doesn't improve and doesn't seem like he has "it". Now it's just sooooo easy for them to ignore him. He's simply not good enough yet to justify multi year starter money on a guaranteed deal.