RealGM

Spurs get: Giannis
Spurs give: Castle/Johnson/Barnes/#2/#14/ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1t

Bucks get: PG/Barnes / #2 /#3 / #14 / ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1st
Bucks give: Giannis/Kuzma/Jackson

76ers get: Castle/Johnson/Kuzma
76ers give: PG/#3

Why Spurs: Get Giannis

Why Bucks: Get #2 and #3 this year plus movable contract in Barnes if needed - Get more value for taking on PG

Why 76ers: Get out of PG contract, get ROY who pairs very well with Maxey

mlloyd10 wrote:Spurs get: Giannis
Spurs give: Castle/Johnson/Barnes/#2/#14/ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1t

Bucks get: PG/Barnes / #2 /#3 / #14 / ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1st
Bucks give: Giannis/Kuzma/Jackson

76ers get: Castle/Johnson/Kuzma
76ers give: PG/#3

Why Spurs: Get Giannis

Why Bucks: Get #2 and #3 this year plus movable contract in Barnes if needed - Get more value for taking on PG

Why 76ers: Get out of PG contract, get ROY who pairs very well with Maxey

No thanks, Philly passes. This feels a lot like adding value so SAS can get Giannis.

If Castle is that valuable, he can go straight to MIL.

Also bears repeating PG salary dumps are not attractive to Philly at this time. Morey does not currently consider PG negative, regardless of the narrative on this board

Follow up for Bucks could be to trade Barnes and Pat C to Pelicans for Murray / control of 2026 1st back.

The 76ers easily say no and hang up the phone. Even tho I consider Stephen Castle to be a quality prospect, he's not the answer the 76ers the need in a already crowed backcourt. Keldon Johnson is basically filler in a trade, so he's not adding anything to justify moving the 3rd pick. Basically it's PG/3 pick for Stephen Castle. This feels the main reason why the 3rd pick is getting moved is much more about moving PG salary as opposed getting actual value for 3rd pick. The 76ers are not devaluing a high quality asset like this just to get PG off of their books.

I like Castle. Don't think I'd give up #3 for him straight up, but it's certainly debatable in this draft class. He feels like he'd be firmly in with that #3-#7 group this year. I just think the Sixers need to take a swing.

I wouldn't do PG for Kuzma/Johnson. PG's deal stinks, but he's still a very helpful, well fitting player when he's on the floor with his shooting, defense and secondary creation. I hate Kuzma. That dude stinks.

Need a much better return to get #3 from Philly. Your probably better off cutting the Sixers out.

mlloyd10 wrote:Follow up for Bucks could be to trade Barnes and Pat C to Pelicans for Murray / control of 2026 1st back.

And Pelicans reject. Barnes and Pat C are not going to have any effect on their season outcome. NOP much rather keep the pick and Murray here.

Regarding OP....I don't see Morey as the type of GM that is going to go the safe route and pay to dump PG. Sixers best chance of doing anything is hoping for a PG bounce back and/or a home run with the 3rd pick.

psman2 wrote:

mlloyd10 wrote:Follow up for Bucks could be to trade Barnes and Pat C to Pelicans for Murray / control of 2026 1st back.

And Pelicans reject. Barnes and Pat C are not going to have any effect on their season outcome. NOP much rather keep the pick and Murray here.

Regarding OP....I don't see Morey as the type of GM that is going to go the safe route and pay to dump PG. Sixers best chance of doing anything is hoping for a PG bounce back and/or a home run with the 3rd pick.

PG is not the problem in Philadelphia.

I definitely get the OP from the Bucks POV along with his near ideal follow up. Its fun to dream up best case scenarios to a worst case scenario(Giannis wants out). But It requires both Philly and New Orleans to make deals that don't really make sense for them in order to make it happen.

I think if the idea is he wants the Spurs and they want him. Both of which feel super plausible, I'd just build a deal around that. Spurs have so much apron space you don't really need a 3rd team even.

i think one of those ATL 1sts going to Philly balances things out

mlloyd10 wrote:Spurs get: Giannis
Spurs give: Castle/Johnson/Barnes/#2/#14/ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1t

Bucks get: PG/Barnes / #2 /#3 / #14 / ATL 20271st / ATL 2029 1st
Bucks give: Giannis/Kuzma/Jackson

76ers get: Castle/Johnson/Kuzma
76ers give: PG/#3

Why Spurs: Get Giannis

Why Bucks: Get #2 and #3 this year plus movable contract in Barnes if needed - Get more value for taking on PG

Why 76ers: Get out of PG contract, get ROY who pairs very well with Maxey

Spurs aren't paying anything like this much for Giannis. Take out the #2 to start with.

Then you don't get Giannis. This idea that you add the 3rd best player in the world for next to nothing is cute, but not realistic. And no Castle and a couple of meh picks isn't Giannis value.

Texas Chuck wrote:Then you don't get Giannis. This idea that you add the 3rd best player in the world for next to nothing is cute, but not realistic. And no Castle and a couple of meh picks isn't Giannis value.

If Giannis is traded (unlikely), it's because he's forcing a trade. Obviously, he will have a big say in where he goes. So that lowers his value right off the bat. He's also 30.

In that context, something built around Castle and 5-7 picks that are not the #2 pick, seems very fair. As I've noted before, the Spurs were front runners if Giannis was traded before they even had the #2 pick, so it doesn't make any logical sense to treat that as the deal breaker asset. The Spurs have other good picks too.

It makes little sense from an asset point of view to move this #2 for Giannis. Would it make sense to move pre-draft Ja or Chet or Mobley for a 30 yr Giannis? Not really. Rookie Ja/Chet/Mobley are just more valuable.

One_and_Done wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Then you don't get Giannis. This idea that you add the 3rd best player in the world for next to nothing is cute, but not realistic. And no Castle and a couple of meh picks isn't Giannis value.

If Giannis is traded (unlikely), it's because he's forcing a trade. Obviously, he will have a big say in where he goes. So that lowers his value right off the bat. He's also 30.

In that context, something built around Castle and 5-7 picks that are not the #2 pick, seems very fair. As I've noted before, the Spurs were front runners if Giannis was traded before they even had the #2 pick, so it doesn't make any logical sense to treat that as the deal breaker asset. The Spurs have other good picks too.

It makes little sense from an asset point of view to move this #2 for Giannis. Would it make sense to move pre-draft Ja or Chet or Mobley for a 30 yr Giannis? Not really. Rookie Ja/Chet/Mobley are just more valuable.

Oh if the Spurs add more picks, sure they can make the deal without 2. But your post that I responded to simply said take out 2 to start with implying you were going to take even more value out, not add more back in.

But yes I agree they can make the deal without including 2 if Giannis wants to come there, but its more than Castle/14 and 2 future 1sts

One_and_Done wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Then you don't get Giannis. This idea that you add the 3rd best player in the world for next to nothing is cute, but not realistic. And no Castle and a couple of meh picks isn't Giannis value.

If Giannis is traded (unlikely), it's because he's forcing a trade. Obviously, he will have a big say in where he goes. So that lowers his value right off the bat. He's also 30.

In that context, something built around Castle and 5-7 picks that are not the #2 pick, seems very fair. As I've noted before, the Spurs were front runners if Giannis was traded before they even had the #2 pick, so it doesn't make any logical sense to treat that as the deal breaker asset. The Spurs have other good picks too.

It makes little sense from an asset point of view to move this #2 for Giannis. Would it make sense to move pre-draft Ja or Chet or Mobley for a 30 yr Giannis? Not really. Rookie Ja/Chet/Mobley are just more valuable.

its a mute point now but his value doesn't lower if he's "forcing a trade" Look at the AD trade to the Lakers.

mlloyd10 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Then you don't get Giannis. This idea that you add the 3rd best player in the world for next to nothing is cute, but not realistic. And no Castle and a couple of meh picks isn't Giannis value.

If Giannis is traded (unlikely), it's because he's forcing a trade. Obviously, he will have a big say in where he goes. So that lowers his value right off the bat. He's also 30.

In that context, something built around Castle and 5-7 picks that are not the #2 pick, seems very fair. As I've noted before, the Spurs were front runners if Giannis was traded before they even had the #2 pick, so it doesn't make any logical sense to treat that as the deal breaker asset. The Spurs have other good picks too.

It makes little sense from an asset point of view to move this #2 for Giannis. Would it make sense to move pre-draft Ja or Chet or Mobley for a 30 yr Giannis? Not really. Rookie Ja/Chet/Mobley are just more valuable.

its a mute point now but his value doesn't lower if he's "forcing a trade" Look at the AD trade to the Lakers.

Aside from the fact that the circumstances were somewhat different, the Lakers didn't give up anything as valuable as this #2 pick. I suggested a deal involving Castle, filler, and 5-7 other picks. That's similar to what the Pelicans got, and the Lakers were considerably more desperate than the young Spurs are. Even without the #2, the quality of picks the Spurs can send is much better than what the Lakers did.

One_and_Done wrote:

mlloyd10 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:If Giannis is traded (unlikely), it's because he's forcing a trade. Obviously, he will have a big say in where he goes. So that lowers his value right off the bat. He's also 30.

In that context, something built around Castle and 5-7 picks that are not the #2 pick, seems very fair. As I've noted before, the Spurs were front runners if Giannis was traded before they even had the #2 pick, so it doesn't make any logical sense to treat that as the deal breaker asset. The Spurs have other good picks too.

It makes little sense from an asset point of view to move this #2 for Giannis. Would it make sense to move pre-draft Ja or Chet or Mobley for a 30 yr Giannis? Not really. Rookie Ja/Chet/Mobley are just more valuable.

its a mute point now but his value doesn't lower if he's "forcing a trade" Look at the AD trade to the Lakers.

Aside from the fact that the circumstances were somewhat different, the Lakers didn't give up anything as valuable as this #2 pick. I suggested a deal involving Castle, filler, and 5-7 other picks. That's similar to what the Pelicans got, and the Lakers were considerably more desperate than the young Spurs are. Even without the #2, the quality of picks the Spurs can send is much better than what the Lakers did.

This is my whole point about how KD will return better value than ppl here suggest either:

A. Giannis wants out and there is bidding war to end all bidding wars because he won't screw the Bucks and force them to take a crap offer (and yes, Castle winning ROY in a meh class plus a couple low picks is a crap offer)

or

B. KD is the main plpayer available and all interested teams will deal with PHX if they wanna get better.


Back to the point, Chuck is right that there's no way you get Giannis without giving up more than what you suggested. I think it's Castle + 2....at a minimum. Harper doesn't have that value, Castle assurardly doesn't. Only Flagg does and even then MIL would ask for stuff on top of him.

Well I've explained why I think you're wrong, and I'm not persuaded by a reply that intentionally mischaracterises my suggested deal as 'Castle and a couple of low picks'