Giannis to CLE/KD to Spurs

[One_and_Done]

He’s not nearly as good as Kevin Durant? Rather spend the salary at a position on need.

If the Spurs could just turn Keldon int9 KD at no cost they'd do it. But KD is 37, it doesn't make alot of sense to throw tonnes of future assets out for him when they're not ready yet.

How does this qualify as “tons of future assets” at all? It’s a future pick. Spurs keep all their youth.

You have the Spurs giving up a young starter, bench forward, 2 probable lotto picks, and 2 seconds, for a 37 year old. Unless they're getting Giannis as well then KD will likely be gone/done by the time they're a contender again. If it was just #14 I'd be more open to the idea it was fair.

[SportsInfoBar]

I would NOT do Mobley straight up for Giannis. And I love Giannis (he is a great guy, great player)

Mobley is 23. DPOY who can shoot 3's. You dont trade guys like that for 30 yr old who relies on athleticism over skill.

[JayMKE]

I would NOT do Mobley straight up for Giannis. And I love Giannis (he is a great guy, great player)

Mobley is 23. DPOY who can shoot 3's. You dont trade guys like that for 30 yr old who relies on athleticism over skill.

You do when one is a roleplayer and the other is a perennial MVP candidate. Are people really thinking Mobley is going to turn into KG/Giannis like he was hyped to be in year 5? Do you think the Cavs have some sort of 10 year window? I’m not sure it’s even actually one with that group of players. Mobley is a Bam level player, not a #1 or #2.

[SportsInfoBar]

I think Mobley definitely has a lot more growth coming. The nba is a spacing game. As much as I love Giannis teams dare him to shoot once playoffs roll around these last few years. Perfect pairing is those 2 together.

The Cavs were injured. The team still has internal growth and hope for better health and they are a contender. If they can get Giannis with Allen, Garland (or Mitchell) and picks then that would be great. Other wise they should look at alternatives.

[SportsInfoBar]

And to be clear Giannis and Jokic are my 2 favorite players in the league.

[JayMKE]

I think Mobley definitely has a lot more growth coming. The nba is a spacing game. As much as I love Giannis teams dare him to shoot once playoffs roll around these last few years. Perfect pairing is those 2 together.

The Cavs were injured. The team still has internal growth and hope for better health and they are a contender. If they can get Giannis with Allen, Garland (or Mitchell) and picks then that would be great. Other wise they should look at alternatives.

Mobley doesn’t compare to Giannis offensively, being respectable on catch and shoot 3s doesn’t make it close. He needs #1 and #2 option and shot creators ahead of him. I think he’s pretty much at potential now, he’s just a passive player on offense without the handle or burst to play off the dribble like the other elite talents on that end of the ball & not really the type that rams it inside either.

I wouldn’t trade Giannis to Cleveland out of principle, you don’t trade an MVP and especially don’t within the division. Cleveland doesn’t really have the assets for Giannis not having any good picks and Mobley isn’t going to bridge that gap till then regardless. It wouldn’t be a competitive team and wouldn’t have their own picks.

Cleveland probably should just move Allen for more realistic return and move Mobley to the 5

[DowJones]

I think Mobley definitely has a lot more growth coming. The nba is a spacing game. As much as I love Giannis teams dare him to shoot once playoffs roll around these last few years. Perfect pairing is those 2 together.

The Cavs were injured. The team still has internal growth and hope for better health and they are a contender. If they can get Giannis with Allen, Garland (or Mitchell) and picks then that would be great. Other wise they should look at alternatives.

Mobley doesn’t compare to Giannis offensively, being respectable on catch and shoot 3s doesn’t make it close. He needs #1 and #2 option and shot creators ahead of him. I think he’s pretty much at potential now, he’s just a passive player on offense without the handle or burst of the elite talents on that end of the ball & not really the type that rams it inside either.

I wouldn’t trade Giannis to Cleveland out of principle, you don’t trade an MVP and especially don’t within the division. Cleveland doesn’t really have the assets for Giannis not having any good picks and Mobley isn’t going to bridge that gap till then regardless. It wouldn’t be a competitive team and wouldn’t have their own picks.

To be fair, you're operating under the assumption that Giannis wants to stay in Milwaukee. The rest of the board is assuming that both Milwaukee and Giannis know their time together is coming to an end, and that a breakup makes sense for both sides. You may still dislike a Mobley/Garland-for-Giannis trade, but I doubt Milwaukee gets significantly better value—at least in terms of perception around the NBA—once the inevitable announcement comes that both sides have agreed to part ways.

[JayMKE]

I think Mobley definitely has a lot more growth coming. The nba is a spacing game. As much as I love Giannis teams dare him to shoot once playoffs roll around these last few years. Perfect pairing is those 2 together.

The Cavs were injured. The team still has internal growth and hope for better health and they are a contender. If they can get Giannis with Allen, Garland (or Mitchell) and picks then that would be great. Other wise they should look at alternatives.

Mobley doesn’t compare to Giannis offensively, being respectable on catch and shoot 3s doesn’t make it close. He needs #1 and #2 option and shot creators ahead of him. I think he’s pretty much at potential now, he’s just a passive player on offense without the handle or burst of the elite talents on that end of the ball & not really the type that rams it inside either.

I wouldn’t trade Giannis to Cleveland out of principle, you don’t trade an MVP and especially don’t within the division. Cleveland doesn’t really have the assets for Giannis not having any good picks and Mobley isn’t going to bridge that gap till then regardless. It wouldn’t be a competitive team and wouldn’t have their own picks.

To be fair, you're operating under the assumption that Giannis wants to stay in Milwaukee. The rest of the board is assuming that both Milwaukee and Giannis know their time together is coming to an end, and that a breakup makes sense for both sides. You may still dislike a Mobley/Garland-for-Giannis trade, but I doubt Milwaukee gets significantly better value—at least in terms of perception around the NBA—once the inevitable announcement comes that both sides have agreed to part ways.

I’m going to operate under that assumption until we cross that bridge and there still needs to be value. The Bucks are in the same situation with those players, it’s not a competitive team and lacks ways to improve for years.

I don’t believe Giannis will demand a trade and even if he is unhappy with the current situation there is enough time to make him happy. That’s a risk I’m willing to take when the alternative is just being terrible for the rest of the decade, I think we can win the FA pitch. The situation will be more flexible in a year and the Bucks can offer far more money. Giannis isn’t going to pull a Jimmy.

Straight up I would never trade him within the division and probably the conference, there would have to be even extra premium on top then and then the price is simply too rich to field a better team than the Bucks. Not gonna happen.

[jredsaz]

If the Spurs could just turn Keldon int9 KD at no cost they'd do it. But KD is 37, it doesn't make alot of sense to throw tonnes of future assets out for him when they're not ready yet.

How does this qualify as “tons of future assets” at all? It’s a future pick. Spurs keep all their youth.

You have the Spurs giving up a young starter, bench forward, 2 probable lotto picks, and 2 seconds, for a 37 year old. Unless they're getting Giannis as well then KD will likely be gone/done by the time they're a contender again. If it was just #14 I'd be more open to the idea it was fair.

Giannis too? That would be less than half of the value than what you’d need to give up for Giannis alone. Vassell and Keldon arent positive assets.

[JonHeist]

I really never thought I'd see Giannis become the most underrated/undervalued player in the league

[One_and_Done]

How does this qualify as “tons of future assets” at all? It’s a future pick. Spurs keep all their youth.

You have the Spurs giving up a young starter, bench forward, 2 probable lotto picks, and 2 seconds, for a 37 year old. Unless they're getting Giannis as well then KD will likely be gone/done by the time they're a contender again. If it was just #14 I'd be more open to the idea it was fair.

Giannis too? That would be less than half of the value than what you’d need to give up for Giannis alone. Vassell and Keldon arent positive assets.

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

[bgrep14]

Why are spurs in this. Cavs would just take Durant and Giannis then go for broke. Spurs just stealing value.

[JayMKE]

You have the Spurs giving up a young starter, bench forward, 2 probable lotto picks, and 2 seconds, for a 37 year old. Unless they're getting Giannis as well then KD will likely be gone/done by the time they're a contender again. If it was just #14 I'd be more open to the idea it was fair.

Giannis too? That would be less than half of the value than what you’d need to give up for Giannis alone. Vassell and Keldon arent positive assets.

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

I’ll personally hand deliver Giannis to the Lakers before taking this poo poo platter, if San Antonio wants Giannis then they have to pay. Shrimple as that. Or just build your own team? Do it or don’t. We don’t care. We’re not losing any sleep over the Spurs assets, there is a 0% SA could acquire a player like Giannis thru FA. I was only intrigued by the #1 pick and Flagg, the kids from Rutgers will bust.

[jredsaz]

You have the Spurs giving up a young starter, bench forward, 2 probable lotto picks, and 2 seconds, for a 37 year old. Unless they're getting Giannis as well then KD will likely be gone/done by the time they're a contender again. If it was just #14 I'd be more open to the idea it was fair.

Giannis too? That would be less than half of the value than what you’d need to give up for Giannis alone. Vassell and Keldon arent positive assets.

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

You must be talking about a different iteration of this trade than the OP. If the Spurs were to trade for Giannis one to one, #2 would absolutely have to be included (probably Castle too) plus the OP pieces. And the Spurs would ABSOLUTELY consider making that trade.

That’s one of the arguments in favor of trading for KD. It will cost significantly less (Spurs keep #2, all their youth) and balance win now and win later.

[jredsaz]

Giannis too? That would be less than half of the value than what you’d need to give up for Giannis alone. Vassell and Keldon arent positive assets.

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

I’ll personally hand deliver Giannis to the Lakers before taking this poo poo platter, if San Antonio wants Giannis then they have to pay. Shrimple as that. Or just build your own team? Do it or don’t. We don’t care. We’re not losing any sleep over the Spurs assets, there is a 0% SA could acquire a player like Giannis thru FA. I was only intrigued by the #1 pick and Flagg, the kids from Rutgers will bust.

Damn! Calling your shot on Harper like that? The value of #2 is still super significant.

[One_and_Done]

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

I’ll personally hand deliver Giannis to the Lakers before taking this poo poo platter, if San Antonio wants Giannis then they have to pay. Shrimple as that. Or just build your own team? Do it or don’t. We don’t care. We’re not losing any sleep over the Spurs assets, there is a 0% SA could acquire a player like Giannis thru FA. I was only intrigued by the #1 pick and Flagg, the kids from Rutgers will bust.

Damn! Calling your shot on Harper like that? The value of #2 is still super significant.

The attitude here is odd. This isn't a Miami Heat situation where the Spurs are the bad guys, trying to sabotage the Bucks to get Giannis. A Giannis trade takes place in a reality where Giannis talks to the Bucks frankly about the future, and they agree he's leaving and would like to go to SA. SA hasn't actually done anything wrong here, so not sure why a spite trade to the Lakers for much less serves the Bucks.

[JayMKE]

I feel like you need to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Go back a week. The Spurs didn’t even have the #2 pick, yet the Spurs were still one of the favoured destinations for Giannis. So how could it be feasible to trade Giannis to the Spurs before they had the #2 pick, but now that they have it suddenly it is mandatory that it be included. It’s not a logical way of approaching the issue.

If the Spurs get Giannis I don’t doubt they’ll be throwing in a lot of draft capital. Even with leverage, that’s going to happen. But I can’t see how it would make sense to throw in a #2 pick that looks very likely to yield a future star who might be better than Giannis in 4 years. A young team like the Spurs isn’t going to do something that crazy to get a 30 year old when they aren’t ready to contend yet, and a week ago nobody expected them to. On the plus side, the Spurs have a lot of other very good picks available, the same ones people expected them to include a week ago in any Giannis package. All that’s changed is they no longer have the #8 to throw in, but I’m pretty sure they can bridge that gap with one of their other future picks.

I’ll personally hand deliver Giannis to the Lakers before taking this poo poo platter, if San Antonio wants Giannis then they have to pay. Shrimple as that. Or just build your own team? Do it or don’t. We don’t care. We’re not losing any sleep over the Spurs assets, there is a 0% SA could acquire a player like Giannis thru FA. I was only intrigued by the #1 pick and Flagg, the kids from Rutgers will bust.

Damn! Calling your shot on Harper like that? The value of #2 is still super significant.

I’m not saying it’s not valuable and the Spurs have a ton of options but I’m just not a fan of Harper or Bailey which to me makes paying a premium for #2 in this draft not so enticing. If I had that pick I’d want to trade it.

[JayMKE]

I’ll personally hand deliver Giannis to the Lakers before taking this poo poo platter, if San Antonio wants Giannis then they have to pay. Shrimple as that. Or just build your own team? Do it or don’t. We don’t care. We’re not losing any sleep over the Spurs assets, there is a 0% SA could acquire a player like Giannis thru FA. I was only intrigued by the #1 pick and Flagg, the kids from Rutgers will bust.

Damn! Calling your shot on Harper like that? The value of #2 is still super significant.

The attitude here is odd. This isn't a Miami Heat situation where the Spurs are the bad guys, trying to sabotage the Bucks to get Giannis. A Giannis trade takes place in a reality where Giannis talks to the Bucks frankly about the future, and they agree he's leaving and would like to go to SA. SA hasn't actually done anything wrong here, so not sure why a spite trade to the Lakers for much less serves the Bucks.

Why would we gift San Antonio a dynasty? It’s not just San Antonio, it’s the low ballers in Houston & OKC too. Like I don’t even want their top package so the talk about untouchable this or untouchable that and that lowballing is okay because the Bucks apparently in their minds have no choice but to trade Giannis to them definitely elicits a spiteful response. These are not places that would be a threat to sign Giannis in free agency, I just find it extremely arrogant and their confidence in this picks/young players being extremely foolish. No one has a 10 year window to contend in the NBA, most young player never fulfill the potential people see in them.

The Bucks are going to need a lot to bridge the gap until they control their own picks again. The best gamble for the Bucks going forward is just sticking with Giannis, it sucks Dame got hurt but he’ll be back & the Bucks will have more flexibility to make a big splashy deal to appease Giannis with huge expiring and more movable picks. The Bucks can do that and offer $100M+ more with a supermax.