MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:Ron Swanson wrote:The Embiid article was written months after his now current teammate (Harden) demanded a trade with 3-years still left on his max contract. Is it a different world since *checks notes* two months ago?
https://deadspin.com/giannis-antetokounmpo-nba-milwaukee-bucks-saudi-arabia-1850775693Giannis Antetokounmpo sounds more excited to play in Saudi Arabia than Milwaukee
https://deadspin.com/los-angeles-lakers-anthony-davis-extension-nba-1850710636This is what the Lakers do though. They take care of their stars, with the knowledge that if it doesn’t pan out, big names will still want to come there no matter how abysmal the situation. Like the many beautiful inhabitants who make up LA, the Lakers always manage to land on their feet.
Do I think there is an Anti-Milwaukee Bias? Absolutely. Do I think there is some truth to those articles? Yes. A contract means less than it did 2 years ago. Harden and AD where chastised for being too demanding whereas KD and Dame was more "meh" and new way of doing business/player empowerment. It can be both. Like if it was anyone but Giannis, I would agree the contract means very little besides a little extra leverage in trade negotiations.
Ok, worst case scenario, that's still huge. A few days ago we thought there was a chance Giannis walks for nothing.
Now, worst case scenario we get a 29 (talking next year) year old Giannis who demands a trade and we get back the largest haul ever for one player. I mean if he forced a trade to OKC, they would pretty much have to give up every pick they have in their large haul of draft picks. Again, that's worst case scenario for the chicken littles/small market haters and I doubt it happens.
