Bucks News, Transactions and Trade Ideas - 2025 Off-season

[soxperry]

The main problem is next season the Bucks will have Giannis and a bunch of NBA minimums and exception signings. And Kuzma.

There isn't a coach alive that can turn this roster into one that compete with Cleveland, Boston, Indy, Detroit, or NY.

Our core players going forward are Giannis, KPJ, Green, Trent, Portis, and maybe Rollins and Sims.

On 2018's 60-win team, it was Giannis, Middleton, Bledsoe, Brogdon, Lopez, Connaughton.

As a crude analysis, can KPJ become as good as Bledsoe? I think he's definitely surpassed his playoff form. Is Trent better than PC? Yes. Can Green reach Brogdon? Possibly. Lopez can probably be covered with Portis + Sims (who are probably better playoff players). The void of Middleton will certainly not be easy to fill, and we'll probably never find someone quite as good, but it's not impossible to find a scorer who hasn't reached his potential yet (e.g. Powell got traded for scraps for years).

This is where Horst has to go back to his old style of finding undervalued contributors (e.g. Bogdanovic was a great move Woj robbed us of), rather than chasing washed up names.

Thing is, the game has changed. Teams are just better now and there are more good teams overall.

[BigO]

The best strategy if you trade Giannis is to get a potential superstar. The only one that has that potential that might be available is Flagg. Not interested in any of the others.

I agree with this in theory but also you have to have the team with that potential superstar in a position to deal him for Giannis on top of how long does Giannis stay before that potential guy comes into play. If Flagg isn't on the table are you just sitting on Giannis (and in your mind no avenue to extend the window) while his contract dwindles and control is lessened?

You summarize the dilemma pretty well.

I go after Flagg now. If that isn't doable (I think it is), then I wait until the offer is so great as being hard to refuse.

Here's what I want to avoid: trading Giannis and getting good enough to be mediocre (no high draft choice) for ten years.

If you're going to trade him, I'd be more interested in potential high draft picks than players. The problem is that any team that gets Giannis won't be bad enough to get high draft picks. If you can trade Giannis to a team that has other teams draft picks, that's a possibility.

[BigO]

The main problem is next season the Bucks will have Giannis and a bunch of NBA minimums and exception signings. And Kuzma.

There isn't a coach alive that can turn this roster into one that compete with Cleveland, Boston, Indy, Detroit, or NY.

Our core players going forward are Giannis, KPJ, Green, Trent, Portis, and maybe Rollins and Sims.

On 2018's 60-win team, it was Giannis, Middleton, Bledsoe, Brogdon, Lopez, Connaughton.

As a crude analysis, can KPJ become as good as Bledsoe? I think he's definitely surpassed his playoff form. Is Trent better than PC? Yes. Can Green reach Brogdon? Possibly. Lopez can probably be covered with Portis + Sims (who are probably better playoff players). The void of Middleton will certainly not be easy to fill, and we'll probably never find someone quite as good, but it's not impossible to find a scorer who hasn't reached his potential yet (e.g. Powell got traded for scraps for years).

This is where Horst has to go back to his old style of finding undervalued contributors (e.g. Bogdanovic was a great move Woj robbed us of), rather than chasing washed up names.

The problem in comparing the rosters then and now is that the one player you will never replace is Middleton. He was a high IQ player with elite efficiency and few flaws (in his prime).

You can't just say we'll find a player who hasn't reached his potential. You aren't going to replicate the two biggest moves in Bucks history- drafting Giannis and trading for Middleton.

I agree that there isn't a coach who can take this roster to the next level.

[emunney]

If he requests a trade would you do it?

After doing absolutely everything in my power to avert? Yes.

That's where the Bucks are right now. They've done absolutely every possible thing. They brought in Damian Freaking Lillard and sent out every last asset available that teams might want. It's over.

He's given no indication he wants out.

[Gant]

If Giannis and the Bucks do decide it's time for a deal, the market will be as wide as imaginable, and the treasure trove should be enormous. Many picks, in addition to returning talent. Whether it pays off or not depends on what deal they choose, plus there's a lot of luck involved.

Sometimes trading a veteran star for a rebuild works out really well. Two very successful examples were the OKC trade with the Clippers that netted SGA and picks, or the Boston/Nets trade that ultimately turned into Tatum and Brown. Both of those deals worked out because the haul fell under favorable stars. There are also many examples of such trades not working out, like New Orleans moving AD.

It's a big risk to do the deal, but sometimes it's better to take that chance if a franchise has hit a dead end.

[German Athens]

Thing is, the game has changed. Teams are just better now and there are more good teams overall.

I’m not sure this is even what you’re saying, but that 2019 team would still absolutely be a force in today’s league.

If the modern team building is putting 5 capable dudes out there rather than strictly a big 3, the 2019 squad had Brogdon and Brook as its 4th/5th option. The Cavs have Jarrett Allen and max strus.

[Ron Swanson]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

[chonestown]

The best strategy if you trade Giannis is to get a potential superstar. The only one that has that potential that might be available is Flagg. Not interested in any of the others.

I agree with this in theory but also you have to have the team with that potential superstar in a position to deal him for Giannis on top of how long does Giannis stay before that potential guy comes into play. If Flagg isn't on the table are you just sitting on Giannis (and in your mind no avenue to extend the window) while his contract dwindles and control is lessened?

You summarize the dilemma pretty well.

I go after Flagg now. If that isn't doable (I think it is), then I wait until the offer is so great as being hard to refuse.

Here's what I want to avoid: trading Giannis and getting good enough to be mediocre (no high draft choice) for ten years.

If you're going to trade him, I'd be more interested in potential high draft picks than players. The problem is that any team that gets Giannis won't be bad enough to get high draft picks. If you can trade Giannis to a team that has other teams draft picks, that's a possibility.

No need for me to add anything, BigO encapsulated anything I'd say.

[paulpressey25]

It was a very good post. A counterpoint to that is all of that was done under a CBA that doesn't exist now.

It's also a very different NBA. We're getting our doors blown off by a team of two "silver-tier" stars (maybe PP remembers this analysis/list) and complementary role players who are well coached. This wasn't possible a few years ago when it was more of a superstar league.

Can’t find that article from 20-years ago but yes, and I’d argue that Siakim, Turner and Hali haven’t yet reached silver level yet (but they may by career end)

For those wondering what we’re talking about, a guy did a detailed analysis of players and put them into gold, silver and bronze tiers. He then compared success and titles depending on how many of each guy you had.

As examples, Larry Bird, Jordan, Magic were gold tier, both Moncrief and Marcus Johnson were silver tier. The question is how do you get a gold tier guy. Usually requires tanking and a ton of luck.

[SirChurros]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

This is all fine and dandy, but how are you retooling? What assets do we have to include in deals? What flexibility to be aggressive do we have in free agency?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiment but the idea of getting to that point in the next few years is a massive long shot.

[mlloyd10]

There is no future without Giannis, we don’t own our draft picks and Horst can’t find talent for **** anyways. Nothing we can trade Giannis for is going to make this team a contender in the next 5 years, there is no retooling and this team is going to be so **** awful to watch might seriously start thinking Seattle. There is a better chance of the stars aligning for a 40 year old Giannis than the poo poo platter rebuild powered by John Horst and Jimmy Haslam.

Get a decent coach and just put defense, shooting, athleticism around Giannis and hope for the best. At least hope for a team that isn’t awful to watch

Williams/Holmgren/Heat 2025 1st/Clippers 2025 1st/DEN 20271st/MIL 2028 2nd/OKC 2029 1st.

[DanoMac]

After doing absolutely everything in my power to avert? Yes.

That's where the Bucks are right now. They've done absolutely every possible thing. They brought in Damian Freaking Lillard and sent out every last asset available that teams might want. It's over.

He's given no indication he wants out.

I don't think he wants to leave. I think the quotes from him like "we'll be here for him" about Dame says a lot. The Thanalysis Show's twitter put out a quote from him yesterday too basically alluding to him not asking out.

[BigO]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

Here's the reasons your scenario isn't realistic:

1) Everyone here wants to replace Doc (me included). That isn't going to happen.

2) Horst is here to stay. The same guy that bought into the "we need to get more athletic" hype and actually thought Kuzma was a good addition. As far as we know, he still does.

3) It's hard enough, when you have few assets (draft capital, cap space and roster value) to rebuild a roster. But when you have Doc and Horst, it's an impossibility.

[Ron Swanson]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

This is all fine and dandy, but how are you retooling? What assets do we have to include in deals? What flexibility to be aggressive do we have in free agency?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiment but the idea of getting to that point in the next few years is a massive long shot.

I don't have a concrete answer after the Dame Achilles injury. I'm sure after I take a break from basketball for my own sanity, I'll come back here and put forth my best summary of an ideal offseason scenario for us, but it's also important to point out when you guys say stuff like "it's a massive long shot". I mean......yes?

I'd ask what you think we're doing by trading Giannis for a bunch of prospects and draft picks in the hope that enough of it pans out in the next 5-10 years then, because that's just as much of a long shot. I think we're all just debating which is the bigger long shot (keeping him vs. trading him) even if both arguments have merit.

[BigO]

I agree with this in theory but also you have to have the team with that potential superstar in a position to deal him for Giannis on top of how long does Giannis stay before that potential guy comes into play. If Flagg isn't on the table are you just sitting on Giannis (and in your mind no avenue to extend the window) while his contract dwindles and control is lessened?

You summarize the dilemma pretty well.

I go after Flagg now. If that isn't doable (I think it is), then I wait until the offer is so great as being hard to refuse.

Here's what I want to avoid: trading Giannis and getting good enough to be mediocre (no high draft choice) for ten years.

If you're going to trade him, I'd be more interested in potential high draft picks than players. The problem is that any team that gets Giannis won't be bad enough to get high draft picks. If you can trade Giannis to a team that has other teams draft picks, that's a possibility.

No need for me to add anything, BigO encapsulated anything I'd say.

Aw shucks Chonestown. You're my hero, even though I still don't understand much of what you write. I just know it's good.

[emunney]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

Yes, the idea that having Giannis makes it harder to compete is fully backwards. A harder cap means that getting value out of a big chunk of it gives you wiggle room elsewhere and stability that other teams aren't going to find. You can illustrate this by considering a package of veteran players who'd make the Bucks relatively whole on the court in a Giannis trade -- the salaries of the players coming in are going to be way higher in aggregate. Take GoS's proposal of demanding the two best players from any team who'd be interested -- say you ask Cleveland for Mobley and Garland. Two really good players who are paid like really good players and will now cost you >50% more than Giannis. It's harder to keep a team like the Cavs together, not easier, as everyone will soon understand.

[mlloyd10]

Assuming the Thunder dont get the title this year.

Williams/Holmgren/Heat 2025 1st/Clippers 2025 1st/DEN 2027 1st/MIL 2028 2nd/OKC 2029 1st

Porter/Green/Williams/Kuzma/Holmgren - With Smith and Jackson off the bench

Draft - Jase Richardson and Khaman Maluach

[Ron Swanson]

I have seen a lot of people rationalizing this idea that we're in this age of parity and that there "are more good teams now" and therefore just having Giannis isn't enough. I mean, sure, but I then don't understand how you don't believe the inverse of that to be true. That a team with one mega-star and capable supporting cast can't compete in an age where no one dynasty level team is standing out.

Like does anyone really think that OKC is a GOAT level team? Or are they just a really well put together roster with perfect fitting role-players around a mega-star in SGA, in addition to having a top flight head coach? Obviously that's the extreme side of the ledger, but I just wanna see what a bought in Giannis around a re-tooled roster and an actual non-idiot head coach looks like before I can confidently say how far away we are from contending.

Here's the reasons your scenario isn't realistic:

1) Everyone here wants to replace Doc (me included). That isn't going to happen.

2) Horst is here to stay. The same guy that bought into the "we need to get more athletic" hype and actually thought Kuzma was a good addition. As far as we know, he still does.

3) It's hard enough, when you have few assets (draft capital, cap space and roster value) to rebuild a roster. But when you have Doc and Horst, it's an impossibility.

The 2nd point may be a sobering reality depending on how Horst pivots these next 3-5 months and assuming Giannis is still on board. The bolded is purely blind speculation. Would even doubt that Doc wants to sign up for another season at this point knowing Dame is all but done for the next calendar year, but the front office absolutely has an easily justifiable mandate to fire him after this spectacular failure of a season. If one operates under the "things are incapable of getting better" mantra then obviously you're gonna struggle to see the merits of any alternate scenario.

[bucksfansince88]

If they dont fire Doc, they need to reassign him to a special consultant role. Do anything besides letting him run the locker room and sidelines for this team. that is the first order of business no matter what.

[MickeyDavis]

"It's always difficult to join a team mid season. Once Kyle goes through a full training camp with Doc I'm positive he will flourish next season" - Jon Horst probably after the season ends.