WT: Giannis Antetokounmpo's Future With Bucks 'The Elephant In The Room' In NBA

[mihaic]

That is not Knicks level IMO, Knicks have a multitude of good defensive players, we would have 2 or 3.


It also ignores that the bucks are almost certainly going to try and staple Kuzma to any Giannis trade, so that 54m is now 80m.

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

[Purple+Black]

Do not see this working unless Giannis can attract another star. Masai will try his best no doubt.

BI is perfect

Does Giannis agree?

Does he disagree?

You really think that the supporting cast built around him in Milwaukee was entirely steered by Giannis? He would have loved to keep playing with Middleton, but their FO traded him. I’m sure he understands that tram building is with the FO for a reason, it comes down to whether he trusts Masai’s ability to build the appropriate supporting cast around him. Masai made the moves required to solidify a complementary cast around Kawhi on quick turnaround so he’s done it in the past and the league took notice.

[JB7]

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

[dohboy_24]

[Scase]

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

The bucks arent exactly a destination, and never have been, I doubt that it will factor in much. I can believe they would care due to their relationship with him over the years, but for a team with zero future assets, they cant afford to placate him.

You can't be serious right lol?

[AkelaLoneWolf]

That is not Knicks level IMO, Knicks have a multitude of good defensive players, we would have 2 or 3.


It also ignores that the bucks are almost certainly going to try and staple Kuzma to any Giannis trade, so that 54m is now 80m.

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

With 2nd apron that will disqualify most teams and limit the return that bucks get for Giannis. I’d be very surprised if Kuzma is added on to the trade

[AkelaLoneWolf]

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

Ask Lillard and Butler and see if they agree lol
Giannis leverage is lower because he has 2 more years. If he was expiring he would have more leverage to call his shots

[AkelaLoneWolf]

Do not see this working unless Giannis can attract another star. Masai will try his best no doubt.

BI is perfect

Does Giannis agree?

We have the contracts and the picks and the supporting cast to start contending seriously
The point is to be in the conversation. Which we are.

[Scase]

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

With 2nd apron that will disqualify most teams and limit the return that bucks get for Giannis. I’d be very surprised if Kuzma is added on to the trade

Stranger things have happened, Luka trade being the most recent example. This is one of those situations with a perennial MVP/DPOY level player with years on his contract, smack dab in the middle of his prime, teams will find a way to move heaven and earth to make it happen. Definitely muddies it a bit though.

[Raps in 4]

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

The bucks arent exactly a destination, and never have been, I doubt that it will factor in much. I can believe they would care due to their relationship with him over the years, but for a team with zero future assets, they cant afford to placate him.

You can't be serious right lol?

If the 2025 pick lands in the top-4, that becomes a pretty strong offer. We'd still need to add a few extra FRPs though.

But it's also a trade that makes no sense for us as we'd be bringing Giannis into the same situation he was in on the Bucks.

[JB7]

He probably meant that they will trade him if he asks out, but you are right, Giannis cannot dictate his destination, he'll have to play next 2 years wherever he is traded.

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

Ask Lillard and Butler and see if they agree lol
Giannis leverage is lower because he has 2 more years. If he was expiring he would have more leverage to call his shots

Giannis is a top 5 player. Much different than Lillard and Butler, who never achieved those heights, and also are at the back end of their careers.

Luka got traded, but that deal was seen as a complete mess, primarily because it was rushed. Had he known he was on the block, he would have had more control in the situation. But in the end, he was still gifted to the Lakers.

[PushDaRock]

That is not Knicks level IMO, Knicks have a multitude of good defensive players, we would have 2 or 3.


It also ignores that the bucks are almost certainly going to try and staple Kuzma to any Giannis trade, so that 54m is now 80m.

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

They're not going to send him somewhere he doesn't want to go. He's going to want to go somewhere that can compete for a championship. How many rosters can afford to take on Kuzma's dead weight and still compete for one?

[Pointgod]

Bucks have zero leverage, they most likely won't be dictating things like that.

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

They're not going to send him somewhere he doesn't want to go. He's going to want to go somewhere that can compete for a championship. How many rosters can afford to take on Kuzma's dead weight and still compete for one?

Gianni’s has 2 years left on his contract and due to his stature with the Bucks he’s earned the ability to influence where he wants to go but at the same time the Bucks won’t make a bad deal just to please Giannis. And 30 GMs out of 30 would take Giannis on a 2 year deal because even if things go tits up they can still trade him to recoup some value.

[JB7]

There has been talk of Boston trying to unload salary this offseason, because of the financial constraints coming. I wonder if they would jump into the Giannis sweepstakes, and offer Brown and White?

[dohboy_24]

If the 2025 pick lands in the top-4, that becomes a pretty strong offer. We'd still need to add a few extra FRPs though.

But it's also a trade that makes no sense for us as we'd be bringing Giannis into the same situation he was in on the Bucks.

How so?

Ingram + RJ + Quickley is a much better supporting cast for Giannis than Dame + Kuz + Portis.

Raptors roster after proposed trade:
PG - Quickley - Shead
SG - RJ - Ja'Kobe
SF - BI3 - Battle
PF - Giannis - Mogbo
C - Poeltl - Chomche

VS

2024/25 Bucks:
PG - Lillard - AJJ - Kevin Porter Jr
SG - AJ Green - Kevin Porter Jr - GTJ
SF - Kuzma - Taurean Prince
PF - Giannis - Bobby Portis
C - Bobby Portis - Brook Lopez

PG - Bucks: Lillard + AJJ > Quickley + Shead
SG - Raptors: RJ + Ja'Kobe > AJ Green + KPJ + GTJ
SF - Raptors: Ingram > Kuzma
PF - Bucks: Giannis + Portis > Giannis + Mogbo
C - Raptors: Poeltl > Portis + Lopez

[YogurtProducer]

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

The bucks arent exactly a destination, and never have been, I doubt that it will factor in much. I can believe they would care due to their relationship with him over the years, but for a team with zero future assets, they cant afford to placate him.

You can't be serious right lol?

If the 2025 pick lands in the top-4, that becomes a pretty strong offer. We'd still need to add a few extra FRPs though.

But it's also a trade that makes no sense for us as we'd be bringing Giannis into the same situation he was in on the Bucks.

I disagree with that.

Bucks without Giannis would be worse than us without Scottie me thinks. Like who was MIL's 3rd/4th/5th best guys this year? Based off playoff minutes it was GTJ / Portis / Porter Jr. That is absolutely disgusting. In a theoretical Barnes trade he would be around IQ / Ingram / Barrett / Poeltl who would all be the 3rd best player on MIL, and IMO Ingram could give Lillard a run for his money at this stage of his career.

[Pointgod]

There has been talk of Boston trying to unload salary this offseason, because of the financial constraints coming. I wonder if they would jump into the Giannis sweepstakes, and offer Brown and White?

I think they want to keep White, but I could see them wanting to unload Brown or Porzingis. Interesting thing is that Boston also has all of their draft picks available except a their 2029 pick owed to the Blazers or Washington. But I think Milwaukee will loathe to trade him within the conference

[PushDaRock]

Zero leverage? They have Giannis on a contract with 2 + a PO, that is plenty of leverage, they aren't the raptors with multiple players on expirings, they have leverage.

They're not going to send him somewhere he doesn't want to go. He's going to want to go somewhere that can compete for a championship. How many rosters can afford to take on Kuzma's dead weight and still compete for one?

Gianni’s has 2 years left on his contract and due to his stature with the Bucks he’s earned the ability to influence where he wants to go but at the same time the Bucks won’t make a bad deal just to please Giannis. And 30 GMs out of 30 would take Giannis on a 2 year deal because even if things go tits up they can still trade him to recoup some value.

Who's saying they need to take a bad deal? There's going to be contending teams that put out good offers where Giannis will be fine with going to.

[Scase]

I disagree. Players of Giannis' magnitude get to pretty much pick their destination. If the Bucks screw him over by sending him somewhere he doesn't want to go, they can forget about retaining future superstars.

The bucks arent exactly a destination, and never have been, I doubt that it will factor in much. I can believe they would care due to their relationship with him over the years, but for a team with zero future assets, they cant afford to placate him.

You can't be serious right lol?

If the 2025 pick lands in the top-4, that becomes a pretty strong offer. We'd still need to add a few extra FRPs though.

But it's also a trade that makes no sense for us as we'd be bringing Giannis into the same situation he was in on the Bucks.

Yep, I mentioned earlier, this is basically the KD trade 2.0, you have to gut the team to get the player, so much so to the point that the team left behind isn't good enough to accomplish much to make it worth it.

That's why you have to spend time accumulating assets so that when these trades surface, you can actually be a player. Kawhi for instance, good team that needed a step to be great, not a 30 win team with a bunch of question marks going into next season. Kawhi was added to that team, Giannis would be a major replacement, and his 2nd option is a guy who barely plays 60 games a year and would be his first season here.

2 years of Giannis who could potentially opt out and go elsewhere, and all it costs is a whole slew of FRPs, a very good player in Scottie, and 2 solid players on dirt cheap contracts. Sometimes the risk is worth it, others it isn't, IMO this is the latter.

[positivetension]

If the raptors can build a contender around Giannis, it's worth it but I think the price will be too high. He'll also be a UFA at 32, could be a bad contract in a few years.