Fair Giannis to SA Deal?

[TimDunkin]

People need to be a bit clearer on when this hypothetical deal is taking place. Next offseason the receiving team will only get 1 season of team control and that's going to depress offers. Giannis's preferred team won't want to give up too much or they won't be competitive. Non-preferred teams won't want to give up too much as a one year rental. I don't see a massive offer unless it's this season.

[One_and_Done]

People need to be a bit clearer on when this hypothetical deal is taking place. Next offseason the receiving team will only get 1 season of team control and that's going to depress offers. Giannis's preferred team won't want to give up too much or they won't be competitive. Non-preferred teams won't want to give up too much as a one year rental. I don't see a massive offer unless it's this season.

Even this season there's a limit to what teams will pay for 2 years of an unhappy Giannis. For those teams who he wants to go to, the offers will be solid but not amazing.

[wemby]

"John Horst, you can have our answer now, if you like. Our final offer is this: nothing. Not even Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, the 2027 first-rounder you were eyeing, or the janitorial services for your arena. And one more thing: that 'cash considerations' sweetener? We would appreciate it if you would put up personally. Don't contact us again with such proposals, ever. From now on, you deal with... well, no one. You keep Giannis"

[One_and_Done]

"John Horst, you can have our answer now, if you like. Our final offer is this: nothing. Not even Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, the 2027 first-rounder you were eyeing, or the janitorial services for your arena. And one more thing: that 'cash considerations' sweetener? We would appreciate it if you would put up personally. Don't contact us again with such proposals, ever. From now on, you deal with... well, no one. You keep Giannis"

I mean, if the Spurs can get Giannis for a fair price they should take him. I just think it's obvious a fair price doesn't include Harper.

[SlimShady83]

Man If Spurs some how get Giannis pairing with Wemby, that's it I'm putting my winning lotto ticket on them to win the chip, I'm betting it all LOL

[wemby]

"John Horst, you can have our answer now, if you like. Our final offer is this: nothing. Not even Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, the 2027 first-rounder you were eyeing, or the janitorial services for your arena. And one more thing: that 'cash considerations' sweetener? We would appreciate it if you would put up personally. Don't contact us again with such proposals, ever. From now on, you deal with... well, no one. You keep Giannis"

I mean, if the Spurs can get Giannis for a fair price they should take him. I just think it's obvious a fair price doesn't include Harper.

Sure, I was (half) joking. Giannis is great, but unless we're talking a year from now and with specific trade demand in place, I don't see that being the case.

[Laimbeer]

Pretty sure 30 of 30 general managers would take Giannis over Harper or Brown, ages and team direction be damned. You can drive a truck through the value gap.

[One_and_Done]

Pretty sure 30 of 30 general managers would take Giannis over Harper or Brown, ages and team direction be damned. You can drive a truck through the value gap.

Uhuh. Would you say the same about Flagg? Would it have been wise to trade rookie Cade for Giannis?

[mattg]

Pretty sure 30 of 30 general managers would take Giannis over Harper or Brown, ages and team direction be damned. You can drive a truck through the value gap.

Uhuh. Would you say the same about Flagg? Would it have been wise to trade rookie Cade for Giannis?

Yes absolutely it would have been wise to trade rookie Cade for a 28 year old Giannis Cade in all likelihood never inn his career will have a single season as good as Giannis is about to have, let alone any of what he's done the past few years.

Your issue in this thread is that you can't seem to grasp that trading for Giannis currently is not remotely comparable to any of the past "failed trades for stars aged 31" that you keep trying to talk about. NONE of those past stars that got traded were as good as Giannis as a player is RIGHT NOW which is the reason they failed. In this scenario the Spurs would literally be adding the 2nd best player in the entire league at the cost of basically nothing out of their rotation.

Also, in order for any SAS trade with Milwaukee to have any legs whatsoever the Spurs have to absolutely be dominating by the trade deadline, like leading the West type dominating, while Milwaukee absolutely sucks otherwise it makes no sense for Giannis to tarnish his legacy to leave to a situation that isn't even a true contender.

[One_and_Done]

Pretty sure 30 of 30 general managers would take Giannis over Harper or Brown, ages and team direction be damned. You can drive a truck through the value gap.

Uhuh. Would you say the same about Flagg? Would it have been wise to trade rookie Cade for Giannis?

Yes absolutely it would have been wise to trade rookie Cade for a 28 year old Giannis Cade in all likelihood never inn his career will have a single season as good as Giannis is about to have, let alone any of what he's done the past few years.

Your issue in this thread is that you can't seem to grasp that trading for Giannis currently is not remotely comparable to any of the past "failed trades for stars aged 31" that you keep trying to talk about. NONE of those past stars that got traded were as good as Giannis as a player is RIGHT NOW which is the reason they failed. In this scenario the Spurs would literally be adding the 2nd best player in the entire league at the cost of basically nothing out of their rotation.

Also, in order for any SAS trade with Milwaukee to have any legs whatsoever the Spurs have to absolutely be dominating by the trade deadline, like leading the West type dominating, while Milwaukee absolutely sucks otherwise it makes no sense for Giannis to tarnish his legacy to leave to a situation that isn't even a true contender.

Spurs aren't trading for a 28 yr old Giannis. Obviously we're talking about whether it would be smart to move rookie Cade for a 31 year old version.

If the Spurs are dominating without Giannis, why are they trading half their young core for him? Clearly he's not needed.

[bgrep14]

I think Harper and 3 1sts is great value for Milwaulkee, I don't think they're going anywhere with the team as is so mine as well blow it up and build for the future.

[Wolveswin]

I think Harper and 3 1sts is great value for Milwaulkee, I don't think they're going anywhere with the team as is so mine as well blow it up and build for the future.

Problem is, Bucks can’t blow it up. Can you imagine the ugly look of trading your superstar, winning 25 games a season, just to watch another organization who owns your draft capital picking top 5???

[One_and_Done]

I think Harper and 3 1sts is great value for Milwaulkee, I don't think they're going anywhere with the team as is so mine as well blow it up and build for the future.

The problem is the Spurs aren't trading Harper. That would be an insane decision.

They'd have interest in trading for Giannis, but at a fair price (e.g. Castle and some picks as the core of the deal). Harper has too much value.

[pipfan]

Let's try this-SA looks good by Jan, and Milw doesn't and decides to start over.

1. Harper/Sochan/KJohnson/Kelly O to Milw, plus the ATL 2027 1st, Boston/SA 2028 1st, Dallas/Minny/SA 2030 1st/2031 Sac/SA 1st to Milw for Giannis
SA goes for it. Giannis will have less value, only a year and a half left on his deal but it would make SA at worst co-favorites

2. Turner to Chi for Vuc/Bulls' 2026 1st (unprotected) and MAYBE the Port 1st if necessary
Chi would have to be decent at that time too, and want the upgrade

Milw starts over with Harper as their franchise guy, and Sochan to build with. They add A BUNCH of picks to rebuild and would have a lot of future cap space. I know they don't own their own picks but they can still start over and hope for the best

[One_and_Done]

Let's try this-SA looks good by Jan, and Milw doesn't and decides to start over.

1. Harper/Sochan/KJohnson/Kelly O to Milw, plus the ATL 2027 1st, Boston/SA 2028 1st, Dallas/Minny/SA 2030 1st/2031 Sac/SA 1st to Milw for Giannis
SA goes for it. Giannis will have less value, only a year and a half left on his deal but it would make SA at worst co-favorites

2. Turner to Chi for Vuc/Bulls' 2026 1st (unprotected) and MAYBE the Port 1st if necessary
Chi would have to be decent at that time too, and want the upgrade

Milw starts over with Harper as their franchise guy, and Sochan to build with. They add A BUNCH of picks to rebuild and would have a lot of future cap space. I know they don't own their own picks but they can still start over and hope for the best

If Giannis is demanding a trade, which is the only way he gets traded, then he will have a list of teams and reduced trade value, due to exercising his leverage about who he is re-signing with. The Spurs aren't going to overpay, as we just saw with the KD deal. The Spurs offered a fair deal of Vassell, #14, and Keldon/filler, but they weren't willing to go beyond that.

Leaving the Spurs hyperconservative FO aside, it is foolish to trade a 19 year old potential star in the making, who will fit perfectly next to Wemby, for a 31 year old who is less of a perfect fit. Teams shouldn't make foolish trades like this, and always regret it when they do.

It would be especially foolish to do this when Giannis, if he demands a trade, would be acquirable without including Harper. The Spurs have plenty of other capital in their war chest to offer. That deal you've proposed is a huge overpay.

[Djh7475]

I would love to see this new upgraded version of the twin towers in San Antonio. Something around Harper+picks makes sense for both sides. Take advantage of the last 2 cheap years of Wemby.

A Giannis/Wemby pick and roll would be the biggest cheat code, and that length and athleticism is going to close a lot of gaps on the other end. If Giannis was 34 or 35, I could see how trying to hold on to Harper would matter, but he’s still got a lot of prime years in front of him.

It makes sense to take advantage of the last 2 cheap years on Wemby’s contract before he starts making over $60 million per year. Also, the entertainment factor of putting 2 of the most athletic, huge, lanky, and talented point-bigs on the same roster would be difficult to pass up.

[Ron Swanson]

For the last time, "Castle and some picks" is a laughable offer for Giannis. What 37-year old KD went for isn't relevant here either, for obvious reasons. This idea that the Spurs would immediately draw the line at Dylan Harper when trying to pair Giannis with Wemby (who already looks this good) would only make any sense if he was some Zion, Lebron, Wemby or Anthony Davis level prospect, which he obviously isn't.

Hell, this board in general has been so wildly off on trade valuations in recent memory precisely because people keep vastly overrating the value of median-outcome draft picks and comically undervaluing the few, true superstar players. And then every time when even fringe All-Star guys like Mikal Bridges and Bane get moved for 5-6 unprotected picks and swaps, the same people somehow are surprised that they keep being wrong? Our collective, hive-minded RealGM T&T board opinion that they're "overpays" is irrelevant. The league has dictated that's simply market value for good NBA players, and teams are happy to pay it because *gesticulates wildly at all the evidence*...

[One_and_Done]

For the last time, "Castle and some picks" is a laughable offer for Giannis. What 37-year old KD went for isn't relevant here either, for obvious reasons. This idea that the Spurs would immediately draw the line at Dylan Harper when trying to pair Giannis with Wemby (who already looks this good) would only make any sense if he was some Zion, Lebron, Wemby or Anthony Davis level prospect, which he obviously isn't.

Hell, this board in general has been so wildly off on trade valuations in recent memory precisely because people keep vastly overrating the value of median-outcome draft picks and comically undervaluing the few, true superstar players. And then every time when even fringe All-Star guys like Mikal Bridges and Bane get moved for 5-6 unprotected picks and swaps, the same people somehow are surprised that they keep being wrong? Our collective, hive-minded RealGM T&T board opinion that they're "overpays" is irrelevant. The league has dictated that's simply market value for good NBA players, and teams are happy to pay it because *gesticulates wildly at all the evidence*...

I've long been on the 'Giannis is going nowhere' train, so it's not like I'm trying to advocate for the Bucks to trade Giannis. I've also been higher on him than most. I think peak Giannis is arguably better than Jokic, and that Giannis hasn't had a healthy team since his 21 title. That doesn't mean it makes sense for the Spurs to move Harper for him. It's just irresponsible management.

Giannis is 31. If he demands out, it will go the same way other recent star trades tend to go; he'll demand several teams, and lower hos value by refusing to re-sign with the others. The Bridges and Bane trades aren't good comparisons because 1) those guys weren't forcing trades they were moved at value (most might say the acquiring team overpaid), 2) those guys are younger, but much more importantly 3) those packages didn't include premium picks and assets. Nobody is saying the Spurs should offer 5 bad firsts and tell the Bucks to suck it. However, the Spurs have some really nice looking future picks. Castle is also looking really good too. That kind of a package is much better than those Bane/Bridges deals (which were trades made at value, not at a discount).

I don't think a trade happens, and I don't really want it to happen. I'd rather Giannis play out his career in Milwaukee, and the Spurs not blow their future on a premature swing for the fences with a player who isn't an ideal fit. However, if the Spurs pursue Giannis I feel confident Harper is not going to be on the table. We already have good evidence for this, beyond the logic I've cited in this thread, namely the reporting so far which indicated the Bucks were willing to listen to teams to see if they'd blow them away leading into the draft, and the Spurs were reportedly not interested in doing so.