pushfloater wrote:NoStatsGuy wrote:ForeverTFC wrote:There's being a homer, and then there is this poll....
whats that supposed to mean?
Its a simple question that people answer. There are multiple valid reasons why you wouldnt want to trade for giannis and give away brunson. There are multiple points already layed out in this thread, that make perfect sense. Yea, giannis is the better player but thats not the question in the poll.
why would i give up the king of new york to have a roster without someone being able to run the point. Just doesnt make sense for either side. And since their contracts are so vastly different, this is fan fiction anyway. no reason to lose sleep over this.
Add in Josh Hart? I should have made in Brunson and Hart.
I mean, i dont see a world where that trades happens, regardless if the money works or not. As i have mentioned Giannis is the better player, theres no argument there.
But the context matters a lot here. The knicks are a top2 team in the east and therefore legit title contenders. There is literally no reason to destroy this team, we can make a run with this team. And trading away multiple starters would definitley destroy the team. Not even talking about that brunson also is one of the top 3 or top 4 point guards in the league right now, in my opinion. i only see SGA and Luka as clearly better, maybe you have curry at the #3, i wouldnt argue against that. And Hali is definitley in that conversation as well. Even though id personally chose brunson over hali. Could be my bias
The impact on the team would be very drastic. I just dont see it happening, especially not any time soon. If this knicks team implodes this year, we have to look at that again. But if the knicks would end up with giannis and no brunson on the knicks i dont think they are better than milwaukee. So whats the point?
In a vacuum without any context at all. Yes, i would be much more willing to trade 1 for 1.
