Poll: Would you trade Giannis for Parker or Wiggins?

[europa]

Since there is no net gain for the Bucks I don't see the point in doing it.

There's about a 0% chance the Bucks would even have the opportunity to consider it.

I'm willing to bet that if you polled GM's and scouts around the league 40% + would say Giannis is greater than or equal to Parker/Wiggins as a prospect.

Anything is possible but that number would absolutely shock me if it happened. I just don't see that being realistic. Sorry.

[bizarro]

Vote is now 80-77 in favor of no trade.

The reason this thread and poll is interesting is that the consensus on this board regarding an issue is usually correct, and I'm trying to see where things shake out. We usually don't have polls this tight.

Really good debate in here. I usually don't like the YouTube videos, but will admit the one that Ayt posted was ridiculously compelling. Haven't changed my vote yet but might.

PP, I don't think the 80-77 count is accurate. This assumes people who voted for Parker, say, would also trade for Wiggins. Conversely, people who voted for Wiggins, would also accept Parker. This is an assumption, but the way the poll is constructed doesn't give this as a fact. There needs to be another category. Whereas, there are definitively 85 people who simply wouldn't trade Giannis for either one. Or at least this is how I see it. Am I off-base?

[europa]

It didn't give me the option to vote yes to the first two choices. I had to pick one so I picked the Wiggins one. But my Yes vote would count toward each of the first two options.

[msiris]

There's about a 0% chance the Bucks would even have the opportunity to consider it.

I agree with you since most of the teams do not view Giannis like we do.

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

So you think that Wiggins and Parker are way better prospects than Giannis? I do not think you can lump me in with the you guys group, since I do not know how good any of these guys will be. For me they are pretty much equal for now.

[bizarro]

It didn't give me the option to vote yes to the first two choices. I had to pick one so I picked the Wiggins one. But my Yes vote would count toward each of the first two options.

This is the option we are missing to have a completely supported count. I imagine there are others like you, Europa. But, it's simply not accurate to assume so. So, until that happens, in my little world of Giannis-crush I'm going to assume the closest count I see is the Giannis vs. Wiggins count

[europa]

I agree with you since most of the teams do not view Giannis like we do.

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

So you think that Wiggins and Parker are way better prospects than Giannis?

Yup. I think both of them have legitimate star potential. I think Wiggins could be a superstar.

[msiris]

There's about a 0% chance the Bucks would even have the opportunity to consider it.

I'm willing to bet that if you polled GM's and scouts around the league 40% + would say Giannis is greater than or equal to Parker/Wiggins as a prospect.

Anything is possible but that number would absolutely shock me if it happened. I just don't see that being realistic. Sorry.

Greater? No. 40%? If so why wouldn't other teams make some offers with some picks? I would say no than.

[Ruben Quevedo]

Greater? No. 40%? If so why wouldn't other teams make some offers with some picks? I would say no than.

Not necessarily. I think this is one of those scenarios where both teams say no. If Phily offers the 3 for Giannis we say "no", if we offer Giannis for the 3 they say "no". If that makes any sense at all....

[M-C-G]

This is probably worth a re-look...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efEUKljmdrY[/youtube]

[msiris]

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

So you think that Wiggins and Parker are way better prospects than Giannis?

Yup. I think both of them have legitimate star potential. I think Wiggins could be a superstar.

I guess that"s where we differ. I just see too many holes in his game and his desire is a little lacking. He has all the tools for it.
If we pick him I hope you are right.

[Newz]

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

I didn't post on this forum or read it much during the year... so I think I avoided getting caught up on the hype train. I admit that I only watched 5-10 games last year and from what I saw I really liked Giannis. I think he is a very exciting defensive player who makes some unbelievable plays due to his length and athletic ability. I think he has a pretty good handle for a guy his size, he has a good attitude and plays within himself and the team. I like that he's aggressive and finishes around the hoop with authority. He's a very good prospect.

But when I walked away from games I was hoping he could become a bigger Batum or a guy like Lamar Odom without the goofy attitude problems. I wasn't thinking "Man, this guy is going to be a superstar and a top 5 player in the league!".

I get that fan bases fall in love with their own players and I can certainly understand it. I did it with Brandon Jennings very early in his career because those first ten to fifteen games got me super excited for him. But I just don't see the superstar that a lot of other people on this board do. I see an elite role player and maybe a guy who could become a second tier star.

I also think it's absurd people are calling him a "once in a generation" type of talent. That's just completely untrue. Even if Giannis hits his absolute upside and excels in every area... I can assure you that guys like Garnett and Durant are equally skilled or more in just about every avenue as he is. He's not LeBron, he's not Shaq, he's not Barkley... he isn't some one of a kind specimen that you won't see again for years to come.

I think it speaks to how crazy some of the people get on this forum when you read things like "Scottie Pippen is his floor." Really... his floor is being a top 50 player in the history of the game? I think it's good people are excited and maybe I'm wrong... but I just don't see him as this transcendant talent that's totally untouchable. There are at least a handful of other young players in the NBA I'd trade him for... and I'd trade him for the top 3 in this draft.

[europa]

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

I didn't post on this forum or read it much during the year... so I think I avoided getting caught up on the hype train. I admit that I only watched 5-10 games last year and from what I saw I really liked Giannis. I think he is a very exciting defensive player who makes some unbelievable plays due to his length and athletic ability.

I had the opposite reaction. Like you, I watched few Bucks games and almost never posted here during the season. I was aware of the Giannis hype, though, but when I watched him I always came away disappointed. I could see the skill set and it was intriguing but what I saw him actually do on the court failed to wow me. As I posted in another thread, when I saw Tobes as a rookie I was immediately blown away by what I saw. I never had that feeling with Giannis. That doesn't mean Giannis sucks or I think he sucks or anything of that nature. It just means in my extremely limited viewings he didn't do anything on the court that wowed me.

But again, he clearly has an intriguing skill set. Combine that with his youth and the hope he'll work at his game to improve and there's a lot to like about him going forward. I didn't vote yes in this poll because I dislike Giannis. I voted yes because I think Wiggins (especially) and Parker are both high-level types of prospects, the types of players teams tank for to try and get in the draft. Now if the Bucks get Wiggins or Parker and Giannis also develops into that type of player, this team's future is going to get a whole lot better and more exciting in a hurry. I think we'd all love to see that.

But like you, I think he's being overrated in this forum. LeBron is a once-in-a-generational type of talent. I'm sorry but Giannis isn't. He's not another LeBron. He's not another Durant. He needs to prove he can be an effective starter in this league first before we start talking about him as a possible All-Star, much less putting his name alongside some of the greatest players to ever play the game.

[msiris]

I don't think there's a GM in the league who would offer Wiggins or Parker for Giannis. I'm not trying to be the voice of doom about Giannis and I'm not ignoring the skill set he possesses. But you guys really seem to be overrating him. I hope he becomes half as good as some of you seem to think he is. That would make him an excellent pick and a core piece for the future.

I didn't post on this forum or read it much during the year... so I think I avoided getting caught up on the hype train. I admit that I only watched 5-10 games last year and from what I saw I really liked Giannis. I think he is a very exciting defensive player who makes some unbelievable plays due to his length and athletic ability.

I had the opposite reaction. Like you, I watched few Bucks games and almost never posted here during the season. I was aware of the Giannis hype, though, but when I watched him I always came away disappointed. I could see the skill set and it was intriguing but what I saw him actually do on the court failed to wow me. As I posted in another thread, when I saw Tobes as a rookie I was immediately blown away by what I saw. I never had that feeling with Giannis. That doesn't mean Giannis sucks or I think he sucks or anything of that nature. It just means in my extremely limited viewings he didn't do anything on the court that wowed me.

But again, he clearly has an intriguing skill set. Combine that with his youth and the hope he'll work at his game to improve and there's a lot to like about him going forward. I didn't vote yes in this poll because I dislike Giannis. I voted yes because I think Wiggins (especially) and Parker are both high-level types of prospects, the types of players teams tank for to try and get in the draft. Now if the Bucks get Wiggins or Parker and Giannis also develops into that type of player, this team's future is going to get a whole lot better and more exciting in a hurry. I think we'd all love to see that.

But like you, I think he's being overrated in this forum. LeBron is a once-in-a-generational type of talent. I'm sorry but Giannis isn't. He's not another LeBron. He's not another Durant. He needs to prove he can be an effective starter in this league first before we start talking about him as a possible All-Star, much less putting his name alongside some of the greatest players to ever play the game.

I pretty much liked what he was doing except for his shooting. Very disappointing. If that does not improve it will not help the Bucks in the long run. Right now he is just a prospect.

[paulpressey25]

PP, I don't think the 80-77 count is accurate.

We are too far into this to re-do the entire poll, but I understand it is confusing. This was a hard question to phrase because I wanted to force out who views adding rookie X along with rookie Y (#2 pick) as worth trading Giannis for.

The easiest way to look at it is if you prefer Giannis/#2 pick to the Parker/Wiggins duo, then vote "no trade".

If on the other hand, you'd prefer Parker/Wiggins to Giannis/#2 then vote for which guy (Parker or Wiggins) is worth it to you to select with pick #3, that you'd get Giannis for.

[LUKE23]

I think if you throw Giannis now into any of the following drafts moving forward, he's a top 5 pick. We have a top 2 pick this year. So we're building off two top 5 pick quality players + an elite defensive player in Sanders, if he can remove head from ass. I think we are in a lot better shape than people realize, assuming we hit on this pick and Sanders can bounce back. But unless we get Embiid for him, I'm keeping Giannis.

[Newz]

I think if you throw Giannis now into any of the following drafts moving forward, he's a top 5 pick. We have a top 2 pick this year. So we're building off two top 5 pick quality players + an elite defensive player in Sanders, if he can remove head from ass. I think we are in a lot better shape than people realize, assuming we hit on this pick and Sanders can bounce back. But unless we get Embiid for him, I'm keeping Giannis.

So if you really think this... can anyone explain why they want to get rid of Hammond? Using picks in the late teens he has apparently added an elite defender, a superstar prospect and now he has us in position to land another top tier prospect.

Should we not be contending for a title within the next 2-5 years?

[ReasonablySober]

I think if you throw Giannis now into any of the following drafts moving forward, he's a top 5 pick. We have a top 2 pick this year. So we're building off two top 5 pick quality players + an elite defensive player in Sanders, if he can remove head from ass. I think we are in a lot better shape than people realize, assuming we hit on this pick and Sanders can bounce back. But unless we get Embiid for him, I'm keeping Giannis.

So if you really think this... can anyone explain why they want to get rid of Hammond? Using picks in the late teens he has apparently added an elite defender, a superstar prospect and now he has us in position to land another top tier prospect.

Should we not be contending for a title within the next 2-5 years?

Because he's supplemented good picks with terrible coaches, bad trades and worse free agent moves.

I don't know that it's possible, but if they kept the staff responsible for the draft I'd be fine with them sticking around. Just don't let them make stupid FA signings.

[LUKE23]

Correct.

[Newz]

So let me get this straight... are we blaming those things on Hammond or on Kohl? I'm confused.

It seems like everyone here wants to rip Kohl for being an idiot, but then also apply all of the same blame to the GMs. Which one is it?

[Aaron It Out]

Kohl gives the terrible mandate, Hammond makes the terrible moves. Not that hard to figure out.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using RealGM Forums mobile app