Raps in 4 wrote:G R E Y wrote:earthtone wrote:What's the most you'd be willing to deal for Giannis? I think it makes too much sense for both sides to not end up getting a deal done.
Well #2 has been rumoured to be on the table for Giannis only, but not Castle. It would almost certainly have to include Vassell as a starting point for salary matching purposes. Probably Sochan and a plethora of picks.
I've read it would also almost certainly involve at least a third team, possibly Pels since they have Bucks picks.
Harper Vassell is a solid back court. Harper is a blue chip prospect. Is he Giannis level? Well it doesn't appear so right now. But Giannis wasn't Giannis level if you know what I mean. It's almost always the case that the best player in a deal isn't made up for in quality so quantity has to be the wide net cast. Exceptions happen, like the PG deal that landed OKC Shai.
So Harper, Vassell, Sochan, whoever from Pels plus tons of picks.
We would have to be extremely careful about the second apron far sooner. Counting the cost all over the place, cap, court play, exchange of assets.
Surely Giannis is the first domino to fall. But until then, teams are figuring out if/then permutations and then the subsequent cold war assembling of firepower commences.
Castle is redundant after the Fox trade. So is the #2 pick in a way (since Harper seems to be the consensus pick at that position). Both would absolutely need to be included in a Giannis trade.
The Fox trade already pushed the Spurs timeline forward, given Fox's age. A core of Giannis-Wemby-Fox easily wins a title (or more). It would leave the team barren once Giannis starts declining in a few years, but it would all but guarantee a title(s) in the short term.
We're not in any position to not be picking BPA and figuring things out from there. At the end of Fox's expected extension comes Castle's extension give or take a year. Harper comes with an even higher projection. These are who you keep for the future - player(s) who can learn from a very good PG and expand their worth, be it for us or from an asset standpoint.
The barren part is something to prepare for *now* else we end up where the Bucks are now (no offense; 2nd apron is a new tougher landscape that teams are learning from those going through it first). So you work backwards from that time and solidify along the way. It's how/why we flipped 8 for two future firsts, only one of which is top 1 protected, for example.
There are no absolutes. We don't have to make this trade and we won't mortgage *Wemby's* long term sustained success for it should it prove too costly. I think there is a framework within which we do the deal, but not at any cost
We can improve in a variety of ways and arguably have better depth and balance with cap flexibility and better picks stocked if we don't do this specific deal.
And if GA happens to want SA, it may provide some leverage. I question the Bucks' GM strategy of bending any potential trade partner over the barrel so much that Bucks are the better less barren alternative so as to get him to agree to stay and punt this season. It's sort of a fools gold cage bit we'll see.
If he wants another team, which wouldn't surprise me as he doesn't seem ready to not be the guy who is built around and gets most of the say, that's fine, too. He has the game to make such a call and it's his right as a player who has proven it and given his all for Milwaukee.
For now, we ride with Fox, Castle, Harper, and they learn to overlap and cause problems for teams, wave after penetrating and dishing wave. It's a nice glut problem to have.
Masai’s Rebuilt Raptors 
