Giannis Thread - 2 Time MVP - The Contract discussions

[LuessiT]

We can't trade our 21 because we stupidly traded our 20 instead of picking for New Orleans.

Cleveland has our 22 unprotected, once again because our front office is **** stupid.

This is just wrong. The CBA doesn't care what happened in 2020. The stepien rule applies to future pivjs only.

If we had picked whoever New Orleans picked and then traded that guy, our '21 pick would've almost certainly conveyed, thus allowing us to have '22.

I assume we couldn't pick that guy and trade him because the salaries wouldn't have worked in the Holiday trade? If so, then you're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're interpreting the Stepien rule incorrectly. If we had picked for New Orleans, we would have used a 2020 pick (whether it's Indiana's or not is completely irrelevant for whoever said that). Therefore our 2021 pick would've conveyed (assuming we didn't finish with a top 7 pick).

Therefore we wouldn't have had to pay Cleveland a future 2nd for the honor of making our 2022 pick unprotected.

Therefore our front office is **** stupid. Again.

I posted the rules stated in the CBA (well I posted the explanations in the CBA FAQ but it serves the same purpose). I think you're misunderstanding both the rules and our circumstances. My interpretation is correct. But I'll try again:

We've traded a protected pick to the Suns that was protected through 2020 (and hit the protected range every year up until 2020) and only unprotected in 2021. We've traded a protected pick to the Cavs starting in 2022 but would have been pushed back to 2023 if the pick to the Suns wouldn't have conveyed this year. So all our picks from 2020 to 2024 were potentially tied up. We also recieved a pick via IND lottery protected from 2020 through 2026.

The pick towards the Suns (which ended up being #30) conveyed the moment the season ended and thus the obligation was extinguished. It was protected 1-7. Same goes for the IND pick (which ended up being #24). That means the Cavs pick could convey as soon as 2022, meaning that you can't trade a pick in 2021 because you potentially don't have a pick in 2022. Due to the picks we were sending to the Cavs being potentially tied up till 2024 and not being able to trade consecutive picks we were not allowed to trade future picks up until and including 2025. Thus an amendment was needed to be able to go through with a Holiday trade.

The bolded part just makes no sense. There was no protection on any outgoing pick in 2021. It was potentially owed to BOS via PHX but since it conveyed this year the obligation was extinguished. I think you're mixing up some protections of our pick we've sent out in the Bledsoe trade.

[AussieBuck]

Seems waiting on the extension has turned this joint feral.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

we still have 4 picks we can use to draft or even deal on draft nights. to gain a 5 year championship window you mortgage everything would be my plan. if we get a chip or two then we get the giannis twilight years the way the mavs did with dirk. out of contention but who cares giannis retires a buck

I agree about going for it all and I'm not at all opposed to trading all those future picks. What I'm opposed to is getting poor value for them. Jrue is about to get a max contract at age 31 on the open market. Players like him always do. He's not even a repeat all-star, let alone an all-NBA player. It's a little unsettling to give a guy like that a max deal at the start of his prime, let alone at age 31. Think of Mike Conley Jr's deal and now imagine this past season was just the first year of that deal. Yikes. That's hard to stomach even when you didn't give up much of anything for him in a deal, let alone when you gave up 4 distant future unprotected picks/pick swaps.

I know I said "let alone" three times there and I don't even care. It's no time for elegant prose. It's piss and vinegar time. And again, nothing against trading the picks, but you have to get much better value for them than a borderline star at age 30 on an expiring deal. I firmly believe this made them much LESS likely to win a title because they could have probably traded Bledsoe, Wilson, and #24 for Bogdan and then they still have Hill + all those future picks to use in an opportunistic trade during the season - plus oh by the way, Bogdan is the guy Giannis wanted. Opportunities come up all the time if you're willing to sell that much future draft capital. The Bucks got played here. It's probably one of the dumbest moves I've ever seen one of my teams make, right up there with drafting Tony Mandarich, keeping Ryan Braun in 2016, and trading Ray Allen for Gary Payton. I sincerely hope you're right about those being late first-rounders.

What convinces Giannis Milwaukee is the place to be 4 years from now?

look... i hear you but he was also the biggest name to move teams the entire offseason. im sure thats come up in the discussions with giannis. we got the best available guy is a pretty good start to a convo trying to get him to sign.

and to me.... jrue/ddv vs bledsoe/bogdanovich i know which route im taking.

what sucks is bledsoes performance anxiety combined with giannis version of the same disease. hell maybe middleton even has it. jrue you get the sense isnt going to be that type. we needed the old guy with the good defense just steady..... maybe the lockerroom leadership instead of whatever the **** is going on in that lockerroom preplayoff game the last two years. its like they were taking dope to get the shakes or something. i think jrue just won an award or something for that stuff.

sure we want the allnba guy but for what was attainable with a bunch of 20 something picks over the next 5 years i think we did ok

also im not worried about his health or age. lowry, paul, dragic, rondo..... all these mfers seem like they are just the same playoffs killers and christ maybe even better on that stage the older they get. i pray we got a guy like that. if he bonks year one then we can have this discussion

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

Seems waiting on the extension has turned this joint feral.

yeah i know like whats the big deal right?

its only giannis on the one hand or a rebuild without our picks on the other

[giannis and 1]

I'm not from Milwaukee and have never been there. The only connection I have to Milwaukee is that I'm a Bucks fan and I have some far relatives there that I've met twice in my life.

But some of the things that people like that Ashley Nicole idiot are saying about Milwaukee and the disrespect they are putting on the city makes my blood boil.

[Pachinko_]

Seems waiting on the extension has turned this joint feral.

yeah i know like whats the big deal right?

its only giannis on the one hand or a rebuild without our picks on the other

TBH as much as I want Giannis to re-sign, I'm also kinda curious what would happen if we dangled him in the market a little bit

[DanoMac]

Seems waiting on the extension has turned this joint feral.

I come here looking for the latest tweet or update like 10x a day and each time I leave feeling a little more sick and depressed than the last

[Drygon]

For those who are interested ,someone on Milwaukee Bucks' Reddit section translated Giannis full interview with Greece media.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MkeBucks/comments/k4szk6/translation_from_giannis_interview_that_aired/

[buckboy]

This is just wrong. The CBA doesn't care what happened in 2020. The stepien rule applies to future pivjs only.

If we had picked whoever New Orleans picked and then traded that guy, our '21 pick would've almost certainly conveyed, thus allowing us to have '22.

I assume we couldn't pick that guy and trade him because the salaries wouldn't have worked in the Holiday trade? If so, then you're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're interpreting the Stepien rule incorrectly. If we had picked for New Orleans, we would have used a 2020 pick (whether it's Indiana's or not is completely irrelevant for whoever said that). Therefore our 2021 pick would've conveyed (assuming we didn't finish with a top 7 pick).

Therefore we wouldn't have had to pay Cleveland a future 2nd for the honor of making our 2022 pick unprotected.

Therefore our front office is **** stupid. Again.

I posted the rules stated in the CBA (well I posted the explanations in the CBA FAQ but it serves the same purpose). I think you're misunderstanding both the rules and our circumstances. My interpretation is correct. But I'll try again:

We've traded a protected pick to the Suns that was protected through 2020 (and hit the protected range every year up until 2020) and only unprotected in 2021. We've traded a protected pick to the Cavs starting in 2022 but would have been pushed back to 2023 if the pick to the Suns wouldn't have conveyed this year. So all our picks from 2020 to 2024 were potentially tied up. We also recieved a pick via IND lottery protected from 2020 through 2026.

The pick towards the Suns (which ended up being #30) conveyed the moment the season ended and thus the obligation was extinguished. It was protected 1-7. Same goes for the IND pick (which ended up being #24). That means the Cavs pick could convey as soon as 2022, meaning that you can't trade a pick in 2021 because you potentially don't have a pick in 2022. Due to the picks we were sending to the Cavs being potentially tied up till 2024 and not being able to trade consecutive picks we were not allowed to trade future picks up until and including 2025. Thus an amendment was needed to be able to go through with a Holiday trade.

The bolded part just makes no sense. There was no protection on any outgoing pick in 2021. It was potentially owed to BOS via PHX but since it conveyed this year the obligation was extinguished. I think you're mixing up some protections of our pick we've sent out in the Bledsoe trade.

The bold makes perfect sense and is done all the time.

It's possible that I am mixing up protections, but I really don't think it matters.

In any case I'm done discussing it. I'm going to send an email to someone and ask if I'm out of my mind here ( which i admit is poaaible).

Who would you trust the most? Or who is most likely to answer? Among NBA writers.

[LuessiT]

If we had picked whoever New Orleans picked and then traded that guy, our '21 pick would've almost certainly conveyed, thus allowing us to have '22.

I assume we couldn't pick that guy and trade him because the salaries wouldn't have worked in the Holiday trade? If so, then you're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're interpreting the Stepien rule incorrectly. If we had picked for New Orleans, we would have used a 2020 pick (whether it's Indiana's or not is completely irrelevant for whoever said that). Therefore our 2021 pick would've conveyed (assuming we didn't finish with a top 7 pick).

Therefore we wouldn't have had to pay Cleveland a future 2nd for the honor of making our 2022 pick unprotected.

Therefore our front office is **** stupid. Again.

I posted the rules stated in the CBA (well I posted the explanations in the CBA FAQ but it serves the same purpose). I think you're misunderstanding both the rules and our circumstances. My interpretation is correct. But I'll try again:

We've traded a protected pick to the Suns that was protected through 2020 (and hit the protected range every year up until 2020) and only unprotected in 2021. We've traded a protected pick to the Cavs starting in 2022 but would have been pushed back to 2023 if the pick to the Suns wouldn't have conveyed this year. So all our picks from 2020 to 2024 were potentially tied up. We also recieved a pick via IND lottery protected from 2020 through 2026.

The pick towards the Suns (which ended up being #30) conveyed the moment the season ended and thus the obligation was extinguished. It was protected 1-7. Same goes for the IND pick (which ended up being #24). That means the Cavs pick could convey as soon as 2022, meaning that you can't trade a pick in 2021 because you potentially don't have a pick in 2022. Due to the picks we were sending to the Cavs being potentially tied up till 2024 and not being able to trade consecutive picks we were not allowed to trade future picks up until and including 2025. Thus an amendment was needed to be able to go through with a Holiday trade.

The bolded part just makes no sense. There was no protection on any outgoing pick in 2021. It was potentially owed to BOS via PHX but since it conveyed this year the obligation was extinguished. I think you're mixing up some protections of our pick we've sent out in the Bledsoe trade.

The bold makes perfect sense and is done all the time.

It's possible that I am mixing up protections, but I really don't think it matters.

In any case I'm done discussing it. I'm going to send an email to someone and ask if I'm out of my mind here ( which i admit is poaaible).

Who would you trust the most? Or who is most likely to answer? Among NBA writers.

In this case I'm 100% correct on the interpretation of the rule, though I'm still not sure what you're misunderstanding. Or we're talking past each other. Either way, the FO didn't make any technical mistake regarding the Stepien rule here.

Now you're correct that we could have signed the rookie at #24 and traded him in a way to match salaries in the Holiday trade the trade could have only been executed after 30 days of him signing the contract. As for the Stepien rule it doesn't matter what happened in the 2020 draft - wether we made a pick or we traded our pick every year - it only applies to future draft picks.

[stillgotgame]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[raferfenix]

For those who are interested ,someone on Milwaukee Bucks' Reddit section translated Giannis full interview with Greece media.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MkeBucks/comments/k4szk6/translation_from_giannis_interview_that_aired/

Thanks for relaying.

About taking a more active role in the roster contstruction:

"Im not the captain of the national team right now, not yet, but i cant advise others what to do, my job is to do basketball, not further than that." Skountis at this point corrects Giannis and tells him, at the level you are now, you should have a more active role in taking decisions BOTH for the national team and the Bucks, the same way players like Lebron have that power when u said u admire Lebron, when he tries to make their team better and maybe he even has a big say in who comes and goes, then he asks Giannis "didnt the Bucks ask you what to do?". Giannis replies: "The Bucks did ask me for my opinion but i wont tell him who to keep and who to trade, this changes the lives of people, i wont take this responsibility on me, its not who i am, im here to play basketball, i can give my advice to my coaches on a certain play but thats it." And here he jokes: "When Lebron tells his team who to kick out, do u think he admits it? Why should i then?" he is laughing here, "No im joking, im cant do that kind of thing"

About being the face and the best in Milwaukee:

On the question about Giannis wanting to become the face of Milwaukee, to be the undisputed best player, not because he's selfish but because he's proud to be the best in Milwaukee and because he wants to complete what he started, Giannis says: " For sure im proud about what we have accomplished with Milwaukee, that we managed to go from 50 wins to 60 and it would have been 65 to 70 this year but no, i dont care if im the best or 6th best in my team, i would be ok with it, and now im going to say something i have never said before, if Lebron, KD and AD came to the Bucks, it would be good, i would feel nice, i would be ok because i want to win. Back when i was a kid i didnt know how to win but now that im 25 years old i want to win, because when i retire people will only remember how much i won, who i was as long as i was playing, so if KD or AD or Lebron came with me to Milwaukee i wouldnt care to all, i dont care to be considered the first or best"

[coolhandluke121]

If we had picked whoever New Orleans picked and then traded that guy, our '21 pick would've almost certainly conveyed, thus allowing us to have '22.

I assume we couldn't pick that guy and trade him because the salaries wouldn't have worked in the Holiday trade? If so, then you're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're interpreting the Stepien rule incorrectly. If we had picked for New Orleans, we would have used a 2020 pick (whether it's Indiana's or not is completely irrelevant for whoever said that). Therefore our 2021 pick would've conveyed (assuming we didn't finish with a top 7 pick).

Therefore we wouldn't have had to pay Cleveland a future 2nd for the honor of making our 2022 pick unprotected.

Therefore our front office is **** stupid. Again.

I posted the rules stated in the CBA (well I posted the explanations in the CBA FAQ but it serves the same purpose). I think you're misunderstanding both the rules and our circumstances. My interpretation is correct. But I'll try again:

We've traded a protected pick to the Suns that was protected through 2020 (and hit the protected range every year up until 2020) and only unprotected in 2021. We've traded a protected pick to the Cavs starting in 2022 but would have been pushed back to 2023 if the pick to the Suns wouldn't have conveyed this year. So all our picks from 2020 to 2024 were potentially tied up. We also recieved a pick via IND lottery protected from 2020 through 2026.

The pick towards the Suns (which ended up being #30) conveyed the moment the season ended and thus the obligation was extinguished. It was protected 1-7. Same goes for the IND pick (which ended up being #24). That means the Cavs pick could convey as soon as 2022, meaning that you can't trade a pick in 2021 because you potentially don't have a pick in 2022. Due to the picks we were sending to the Cavs being potentially tied up till 2024 and not being able to trade consecutive picks we were not allowed to trade future picks up until and including 2025. Thus an amendment was needed to be able to go through with a Holiday trade.

The bolded part just makes no sense. There was no protection on any outgoing pick in 2021. It was potentially owed to BOS via PHX but since it conveyed this year the obligation was extinguished. I think you're mixing up some protections of our pick we've sent out in the Bledsoe trade.

I struggled with the same thing buckboy is saying at first. When the Bucks acquired #24, I thought the Bucks could still potentially send #21 to the Cavs. However, I now understand (or at least, I'm pretty sure I do!) that once it was determined that the Bucks were not sending their 2019 pick to the Suns, sending the '21 pick to the Cavs was no longer possible. The fact that the Bucks acquired someone else's 2020 first-round pick shortly thereafter does not mean they could be back on the hook for sending the '21 pick to the Cavs. That possibility was immediately and permanently cancelled as soon as the 2019 pick did not convey to the Suns. The Cavs trade was contingent on which pick went to the Suns. There's no contingency for acquiring someone else's pick, like Indy's, after the fact.

[LuessiT]

If we had picked whoever New Orleans picked and then traded that guy, our '21 pick would've almost certainly conveyed, thus allowing us to have '22.

I assume we couldn't pick that guy and trade him because the salaries wouldn't have worked in the Holiday trade? If so, then you're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're interpreting the Stepien rule incorrectly. If we had picked for New Orleans, we would have used a 2020 pick (whether it's Indiana's or not is completely irrelevant for whoever said that). Therefore our 2021 pick would've conveyed (assuming we didn't finish with a top 7 pick).

Therefore we wouldn't have had to pay Cleveland a future 2nd for the honor of making our 2022 pick unprotected.

Therefore our front office is **** stupid. Again.

I posted the rules stated in the CBA (well I posted the explanations in the CBA FAQ but it serves the same purpose). I think you're misunderstanding both the rules and our circumstances. My interpretation is correct. But I'll try again:

We've traded a protected pick to the Suns that was protected through 2020 (and hit the protected range every year up until 2020) and only unprotected in 2021. We've traded a protected pick to the Cavs starting in 2022 but would have been pushed back to 2023 if the pick to the Suns wouldn't have conveyed this year. So all our picks from 2020 to 2024 were potentially tied up. We also recieved a pick via IND lottery protected from 2020 through 2026.

The pick towards the Suns (which ended up being #30) conveyed the moment the season ended and thus the obligation was extinguished. It was protected 1-7. Same goes for the IND pick (which ended up being #24). That means the Cavs pick could convey as soon as 2022, meaning that you can't trade a pick in 2021 because you potentially don't have a pick in 2022. Due to the picks we were sending to the Cavs being potentially tied up till 2024 and not being able to trade consecutive picks we were not allowed to trade future picks up until and including 2025. Thus an amendment was needed to be able to go through with a Holiday trade.

The bolded part just makes no sense. There was no protection on any outgoing pick in 2021. It was potentially owed to BOS via PHX but since it conveyed this year the obligation was extinguished. I think you're mixing up some protections of our pick we've sent out in the Bledsoe trade.

I struggled with the same thing buckboy is saying at first. When the Bucks acquired #24, I thought the Bucks could still potentially send #21 to the Cavs. However, I now understand (or at least, I'm pretty sure I do!) that once it was determined that the Bucks were not sending their 2019 pick to the Suns, sending the '21 pick to the Cavs was no longer possible. The fact that the Bucks acquired someone else's 2020 first-round pick shortly thereafter does not mean they could be back on the hook for sending the '21 pick to the Cavs. That possibility was immediately and permanently cancelled as soon as the 2019 pick did not convey to the Suns. The Cavs trade was contingent on which pick went to the Suns. There's no contingency for acquiring someone else's pick, like Indy's, after the fact.

Oh now I understand you both. What you're saying is pretty much correct. The moment we didn't convey the 2019 pick to the Suns the 2021 obligation was extinguished and rolled a year over. Just want to emphasize for further understanding that Indiana didn't technically send us a pick in 2020 but one in a year between 2020 and 2026, thus even if that trade happened before the pick rolling over, it would still roll over because we're not guaranteed to have a pick in 2020. It doesn't matter in this specific case but the Stepien rule states that you need to have A FRP in every second year but not necessarily YOUR FRP. A team can trade their own FRP in consecutive years as long they're guaranteed to have another pick. I'm pretty sure this will come up for teams like OKC or New Orleans.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

Yet all the while, Milwaukee remained in aggressive pursuit of Holiday. And by all accounts, New Orleans management successfully engineered a bidding war for Holiday's services. The Boston Celtics offered Gordon Hayward plus their three first-round picks in last week's draft, it is said. Atlanta is known to have discussed the No. 6 pick, Dewayne Dedmon and sharpshooting youngster Kevin Huerter. Denver and Dallas were also rumored as significant suitors.

this was quoted in the other thread. is there any other confirmation on these packages anybody seen?

[zimpy27]

Anyone know when the signing is expected?

Does it happen tomorrow?

[emunney]

Seems waiting on the extension has turned this joint feral.

yeah i know like whats the big deal right?

its only giannis on the one hand or a rebuild without our picks on the other

TBH as much as I want Giannis to re-sign, I'm also kinda curious what would happen if we dangled him in the market a little bit

Now you understand what it is to know the mind of RealGM

[emunney]

<crumples brain up into a ball>

Jordan!

[Garbs_7]

Hi, why hasn't Giannis signed yet? I'm struggling to sleep at night and every twitter notification is giving me PTSD. I'll hang up and listen to the answer.

[Strong-ERA]

Another interview filled with contradictions from Giannis.

Sure, you can look at the interview and gain confidence from where he states that he has a lot of time to work towards a championship, and would not mind other superstars joining him in Milwaukee. It definitely sounds like he's here for the long haul. But you can also see that quote where he says he wouldn't mind being the 3rd option behind a combination of Lebron, AD, or KD and think, "woah there, that dispels a lot of myths about Giannis." It calls into question people who claimed he was a different breed of a superstar since he didn't work out with other players during the off-season (even though he did work out with VO in Greece this off-season). Why? Because here he is embracing the idea of forming superteams (in Milwaukee). It also casts doubt on those who argued that he was too competitive to be the #2 behind a younger and better player like Luka. Because here he is stating again that all he cares about is winning a championship, saying that he would vote for Luka as MVP if he could and that he would ultimately be fine not being the #1 option on a championship roster.

The strongest piece of evidence (Bam's extension, not rumors from the Bucks camp) tells us that Giannis will re-sign. But that doesn't mean he will be here for the long haul. Do we truly see Giannis sticking around if, in two or three years, he is still ringless and has an aging core of Jrue, Middleton, Brook around him with little in the way of flexibility and/or draft picks to improve the roster? For all the "Giannis is not KD!!!" talk, that interview literally suggests that mentally, he isn't that far away from pulling a KD.