‘Prove it' challenge for Giddey on contract demand as NBA rivals reveal how they'd value Aussie
Watch live coverage of NBL 2025-26 season with ESPN on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
While it was widely expected at first that Giddey and the Bulls would come to an agreement, and there haven't been any indications that still won't eventually happen, the two sides remain far apart on price.
The Chicago Sun Times reported on Tuesday morning that figure is 'somewhere between $8 million and $10 million per year', having previously claimed that Giddey is after 'Jalen Suggs-like extension that would pay him $30 million a season'.
The Times went on to report that the Bulls 'took the prove-it stance' and for now, Giddey and his camp has done just that.
In fairness, both sides are incentivised to be patient but the Bulls in particular are in a position of power given there isn't a market for Giddey.
That is because there aren't really any teams with the necessary cap space to sign him for close to that $30 million a season figure, and even if there are they don't have a genuine need at the point guard position.
But if rival teams did have the money to sign him? Well, it sounds like for the most part Giddey would still be looking at closer to that lower range of $20 million based on reporting from The Athletic.
The publication recently polled 16 people working in NBA front offices, including no one from the Bulls, to see what they thought a 'fair' contract would be for Giddey.
This, however, was as much about what they thought Giddey deserved to be paid as how many years he should be signed, because as the article noted long-term contracts are growing increasingly rare with teams wanting more roster flexibility.
Giddey's mean average yearly value in the poll was $22.3 million a year, with the overwhelming majority (14 of 16) responding with an average annual salary between $20 million and $25 million.
The lowest valuation of Giddey came from one front-office staffer who admitted to not being a fan of the Australian's game, putting forward $50 million over four years, which comes out to just $12.5 million a year.
The largest hypothetical contract offer from one respondent was five years and $125 million, although that still comes out lower than the $30 million per year Giddey is reportedly after.
That $25 million mark, however, was the most common response with seven participants suggesting it.
Four- and five-year contracts are becoming increasingly rare. But can Josh Giddey buck the trend?
I polled 16 people from NBA front offices, asking them what they would deem a fair contract for Giddey. Results in here.
Story with @JoelXLorenzi: https://t.co/HMZHpJOsGY pic.twitter.com/0XufFqMfZT
— Fred Katz (@FredKatz) July 28, 2025
As for the number of years, seven responded with four while three suggested five-year contracts.
'If you're offering a four-year contract, you have to be correct,' one executive told The Athletic.
'But Giddey, you could offer a four-year deal,' the executive added, calling Giddey the 'anomaly' to the NBA trend of shorter contracts 'because he might be good enough to be a four-year player'.
Giddey is coming off a promising first year with the Bulls where he averaged 14.6 points, 8.1 rebounds and 7.2 assists, although those numbers were significantly improved across the board after the All-Star break (21.2 points, 10.7 rebounds and 9.3 assists).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
16 hours ago
- News.com.au
Lionel Messi embarrassed as he and wife Antonela are shown on Coldplay kiss cam
Lionel Messi was caught in a rare moment of awkwardness with his stunning wife Antonela Roccuzzo at a Coldplay concert. The loved-up couple were enjoying the British rock-band's final US show in Miami when the dreaded kiss cam landed squarely on them, The Sun reports. Watch the biggest Aussie sports & the best from overseas LIVE on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1. It comes days after the kiss scam scandal involving married and now former Astronomer chief executive Andy Byron and HR head Kristin Cabot. Their ducking reaction to being filmed at Boston's gig caught the world's attention – with millions now talking about an alleged affair. And while many might seize the opportunity for a public smooch, Messi seemed to go bright red given the circumstances (see below). Footage circulating on social media showed the Inter Miami star smiling sheepishly, while Antonela, ever graceful, beamed beside him. With everyone in the crowd cheering 'Messi', the couple waved to fans before Coldplay's lead singer Chris Martin serenaded them. Martin, who had jokingly called out Byron and Cabot's potential 'affair' during his performance last week, thanked Messi for coming and called him 'the No. 1 sports person of all-time'. And it didn't take long for fans online to see the funny side. One wrote: 'They should have tried to hide for a second. That would be hilarious.' While another said: 'They were just singing and not dodging any Cam scandals.' A third said: 'Jumbotron with Lionel Messi! (He didn't hide, though).' A fourth joked: 'At least someone went with their own wife. Good.' Although not spotted in the viral clip, Antonela later posted snaps of the couple's three sons enjoying the show at the Hard Rock Stadium. Thiago, 12, was pictured wearing a Coldplay cap, while Mateo, nine, wore a snazzy pair of 3D glasses as Ciro, six, cuddled into his dad. Meanwhile, Messi was serving a one-match suspension for Inter Miami's game against FC Cincinnati on Saturday. The eight-time Ballon d'Or winner and fellow Barcelona legend Jordi Alba were punished for skipping Major League Soccer's All-Star game earlier this week. Both players missed Wednesday's match in Austin, Texas where the MLS squad posted a 3-1 win against Mexico's Liga MX All-Stars. Elsewhere, humiliated Byron and Cabot quit their jobs at the tech company as a result of the scandal. And Martin's ex-wife Gwyneth Paltrow was hired by Astronomer for a tongue-in-cheek video, in what fans are describing as a genius PR move.
ABC News
16 hours ago
- ABC News
Concern in Australia as Trump flags increased tariffs
The federal government is bracing for another round of tariffs on Australian exports entering the United States. US President Donald Trump has unexpectedly floated the possibility of doubling the baseline tariff imposed on all imports to his country.
SBS Australia
17 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?
"Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef. Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know what I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing.' When United States President Donald Trump singled out Australia's ban on US beef imports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would never compromise on protecting farmers or biosecurity. "We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity. We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination. Indeed, we've made it a priority to strengthen biosecurity, because one of the things that makes Australian food and fibre the best in the world is a people everywhere, know that it stands for quality. It also stands for safety." Now, ahead of the tariff deadline on August 1, Australia's restrictions on US beef imports have been dropped. But the government says the timing of the decision is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Minister for Agriculture, Julie Collins, says a review into the US beef ban began in 2015 under the Coalition Government. "This decision has been purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department. Biosecurity risk assessment process is very robust and I have faith in the officials in my department to do this appropriately. These are experts in the field. Australia's biosecurity system is world-renowned for a reason and this assessment has now been completed." In 2019, Australia changed restrictions to allow beef imports from cattle traceably born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. In practice, however, the ongoing biosecurity rules meant that only a small amount of beef, largely shelf-stable products, were imported from the US. "We are assured that the supply chain and traceability and the safety of any food coming into Australia is safe. The US, of course, has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. Our farmers, are of course, are exporting already to the United States. We're exporting over four billion dollars' worth of beef to the United States presently and our farmers are a net beneficiary of our two-way trading system." So, why was the ban imposed in the first place? And should Australians be concerned about eating beef imported from the US? In 2003, Australia placed restrictions on the import of US beef in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Humans cannot contract mad cow disease, though in rare cases they can develop a variant which leads to dementia and premature death. However, the Australian food regulator deems US beef is low-risk. Trade Minister Don Farrell says the government would not compromise standards for trade. "We have not made any compromise and we certainly have not compromised Australia's strict biosecurity laws. This has been a process that's been underway for the last 10 years. It's now come to a completion and it's appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry. But at no stage do we risk our terrific biosecurity standards for any trade arrangement." One key concern remaining after 2019 was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. However, the government says the review has found that the US Department of Agriculture protocols for beef imported from Canada and Mexico now address Australia's biosecurity concerns. Mark Thomas, the Chair of the Western Beef Association, says it's unclear how effective the US tracking system is. "Well, we implement an NIL system, as they call it, so any animal that's born on your property has a electronic tag, and that same tag is scanned and transferred whenever that animal leaves your property, all the way through to sort of slaughter. So an animal that's been slaughtered, they can go back and work out where that animal has been over its lifetime. I am unsure how quickly America can get up to speed. However, it's taken many, many years for Australia to implement that system and make sure that it works efficiently." Despite government assurances, National Party leader David Littleproud is among critics calling for an independent examination into the matter. "The government has not provided or released the protocols on which the beef from the U.S could be imported into this country. Those are the legal requirements that an importer would have to meet to bring beef from the United States into Australia, that was from Mexico or Canada. The fact they haven't done that raises serious concerns to me around how this decision has been made and the timing of it. If it was well planned, the department would be able to provide me with those details. They have not. I think the prudent way forward is to have an independent scientific panel review the department's decision and the protocols when they came out." Along with concerns about the spread of disease, there are also concerns about differing US regulations around the use of hormones and antibiotics on cattle. While some cattle in the US are given approved natural or synthetic hormones to help them grow, the US Food and Drug Administration regulates these, and experts say they are in extremely low levels. US beef, according to both Australian and US officials, is safe to eat, but is it better than Australian beef? Evangeline Mantzioris is the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia. She says the diet of an animal impacts the nutritional value of the meat. "What it comes down to is the type of feed that the animals are given. So in the US they tend to be grain-fed whilst here in Australia, they tend to be grass-fed, and that produces differences in the way that the body of the cow handles it and in the way that they make and lay down fat in their body. The other thing that might make a slight difference is also the genetics of the cows. So assuming it's the same breed of cow, we expect grain-fed to lead to more fat in the meat compared to grass-fed." Studies show that grass-fed beef can be 30 to 75 per cent lower in fat than grain-fed. Grass-fed is also reported to have higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 fats, up to five times more antioxidants, and slightly higher protein, with some studies also indicating lower cholesterol. So, for consumers, choosing between local and imported beef will mostly come down to personal preference rather than health concerns. Dr Mantzioris says while the differences aren't major, grass-fed beef is the best option. "So if we combine all of those different components of the beef that we've looked at, overall grass fed beef, which is what we have in Australia, is the healthier option." But what about Australian farmers? When Australia lifted the ban, Donald Trump wrote on social media that the US was now going to sell 'so much beef' to Australia. Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world. And while Australians are some of the highest per capita consumers of beef products, our relatively small population means we have a lot left to export. Mark Thomas says he isn't too worried about competing with U-S products. "Well, I suppose, from a from a cattle perspective's point of view, our only concern would be if we thought that US beef was going to compete with our own product here in Australia, and I don't believe that that is going to do so based on the price of cattle in the US over a longer period of time and considering their cattle numbers compared to what we have here in Australia." In fact, US cattle stocks have been in decline for two decades. The United States is the second largest importer of beef globally and cattle stocks in the country are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. The US Department of Agriculture says beef prices have increased by 8 per cent since the start of 2025, with one kilogram of beef costing around AU$30.. Mark Thomas says with beef shortages in the United States, it's unlikely the Australian market is going to be flooded with imported US beef. "Well, currently, there's a lot of Australian beef going into the US market, purely because they need it. At the moment, cattle prices in the US are just quoting a heavy steer close to $5 whereas that same animal in Australia is only going for $2.50 so how can they purchase an animal for $5 a kilo? Process it, send it to the other side of the world and expect to compete with the product that we have here?" While beef prices have been increasing in the United States, Australian beef exports broke an all-time monthly record in June. And the biggest buyer was, that's right, the United States. In New York, Stew Leonard Junior is the CEO of a grocery chain. He says he gets grass-fed beef from Australia and plans on splitting the tariff cost with his supplier. "We are a huge meat purchaser, and it's mainly the US. So you know, there could be some, that's one of our trains going by up there, okay, for the kids right there, they love that. But one of the things we don't get a lot from Australia, the only thing we do get is our grass-fed beef. They sell beautiful grass- fed beef in Australia. That's being tariffed a little bit. We're splitting that tariff with our supplier. We don't really buy beef from Canada or Mexico or Argentina."
