Why for Bucks? Because this allows you to get younger, to get a variety of future draft assets, and still stay relevant in the playoffs for your fan base.
I think you may want to reevaluate this part.
Reevaluate what part? I'm pretty sure that Bucks team could beat the Magic out for the 8 seed.
Reevaluate the part where the Bucks trade Giannis for garbage.
I appreciate that you differ in your opinion on this, but I don't think comments like that on this forum follow the spirit of what a forum is. Seems like a really unhelpful comment.
As I've argued before, a package like that would be in a similar value range (or better) as the package that OKC got for George, or the Pacers got for George, or the Spurs got for Leonard or the Wolves got for Butler, or the Bulls got for Butler. The Pelicans got more for AD, but part of that was because they had the leverage. The Bucks won't have the leverage if it seems like Giannis wants to leave after next year.
Turner, for all his disappointments, is one of the best rim protectors in the NBA. TJ Warren is a legit 3-4 20 ppg scorer. On top of that, they'd get several good young prospects and a bunch of draft picks.
Plus, Giannis has a kind of veto power where he can say he won't resign with a team if they trade for him. There may be some teams that could offer more, but very few of them would still have a championship-quality team.
First, saying that Milwaukee won’t trade Giannis for garbage isn’t a violation of anything.
Second, every contending team in the NBA would make an offer. Giannis isn’t getting traded for a young scorer, a “disappointment”, and sub-prime draft picks.
And, if T. J. Warren is essentially enough to land Giannis, why are the Pacers flipping him for Hayward? Why not pair Giannis and Oladipo / Sabonis?
Giannis is a two-time MVP and is DPOY. The Bucks might not get fair value, but they’re not taking 15 cents on the dollar.
First, it may not be a violation of the forum rules. I didn't say it was, but it also doesn't seem to be a comment promotes an enjoyable forum experience for posters.
Second, every contender may make an offer. That's possible. I've gone through the lists and I don't think many would be able/willing to make a better offer than that. "Contenders" that can't make a better offer: Lakers, Clippers, Rockets, Pacers (more on this in a minute). "Contenders" that probably won't make a better offer: Mavs (Porzingis), Jazz (Gobert), Sixers (Embiid/Simmons). That leaves a few teams: Blazers, Phoenix, Thunder, Denver, and Miami.
Of those teams, we could argue trade packages all day, but my opinion is that a deal based around McCullom is not a better deal than one around Warren (McCullom is one of the most overrated players in the league-no defense, little passing, meh efficiency). A deal based around Ayton is not a better deal than one based around Turner/Warren. A deal based around Shai/Gallinari might be interesting, but with one year left on Giannis' deal, how is he going to compete with a core of Paul, Schroeder, and Adams?
That leaves two other teams that have a legit offers. Denver could offer a deal around a big contract (Barton), Porter Jr., and Bol. That's definitely an interesting option depending on how you value Porter and Bol and what their medical prognosis going forward is. A year ago I heard reports that Porter's career would not be long because of his back issues. Bol has similar concerns with his feet. That's why both fell in the draft. Still, this is an interesting option.
The only other team is Miami, who could offer a package around Iggy's contract, Herro, Nunn, and Robinson (they won't trade Bam). The problem is that they can only offer first round picks starting in 2025 because of the trading draft picks rule. The Bucks would have to really, really like those three young guys. Based on value, that is not a better deal.
That brings me to Golden State. The only other team that can make a better offer than the Cs. Wiggins and 2 are sitting there, but there are complications with that trade that I think make it impossible to complete. Just Thompson, Curry, and Giannis would be a 120 million in salaries after next season. Especially with revenue down, the Warriors would run into the hard cap by the seventh player on their roster. They simply can't.
That brings me to your third point. That if "essentially Warren" is all that is needed to land Giannis, why don't the Pacers just trade for him. Well, the trade I offered was not only including Warren -- it included rotation players, picks, and solid prospects, which is the normal package for stars. The Pacers don't have the other young prospects and picks that the Celtics do.
I think the main problem I have is your tone. My suggestion was not out of the question--it was well in line with the other trade packages teams received for their superstars. The trade package was not 15 cents on the dollar. Your tone is condescending and rude. Feel free to disagree with the trade packages. I'm not scarred of people disagreeing with me. But if the goal of the forum is fun conversation with others about basketball, whether or not you broke the rules of the forum, the negativity and condescension did not encourage fun conversation.
Forums are about discussion. Telling somebody that there trade idea is unrealistic is part of that discussion. Not all of us see “fun” in posting ideas that greatly improve the Celtics while doing nothing to benefit our trading partners.
We’re family friendly here, but we’re not a “safe space” where any idea can be proposed without logical challenge.
Roy H. You've continually misrepresented me here. I'm not looking for a safe space--Insinuating that is again an insult toward me, as if I was a soft person who couldn't take disagreements. I'm not looking for a place without logical challenge--insinuating that is again an insult that my reasoning is illogical. I clearly stated in my last paragraph that I'm not afraid of disagreements. I'm not afraid to be in the minority of a viewpoint.
In fact, the truth is that you've made no logical challenge to my idea. You simply stated that the trade package for Giannis was "garbage" and 15 cents on the dollar. You didn't make a logical argument for why. You simply made a back-handed, condescending comments.
You haven't engaged with my logical arguments at all. You've misrepresented my view, or taken one or two statements about Turner being a disappointment out of context in order to argue your view point.
In the end, it matters very little to me what you think of my trade idea, but I'm not just gonna let anyone off the hook in a debate with simple passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks.
Pacers trading George: Got Oladipo (a big disappointment until that point in his career) and Sabonis (an unproven prospect that struggled greatly in his rookie season).
Spurs trading Leonard: Got DeRozan (widely recognized as a chief good stats but doesn't help his team win game, and then proved that in San Antonio) and Poetl (a young unproven prospect)
Bulls trading Butler: Got Lavine (a young disappointing player who was struggling to contribute to winning), Dunn (a disappointment in his rookie year), and the 7th pick.
Wolves trading Butler: Got Covington (a starting caliber wing), Saric (a disappointing prospect, but a rotation player), Bayless (salary filler) and a 2nd round pick
Thunder trading George: Shai (a promising and productive young player), Gallinari (veteran starting-caliber player), five first round picks that will likely be in the late 20s, and two first round pick swaps.
Pelicans trading Davis: Ball (a dissappointing young prospect), Ingram (a productive young prospect that struggled to contribute to winning), Hart (a rotation prospect), and three firsts, one of which was the 4th overall pick (which was then traded for the 8th, 17th, and 35th picks) and two that will likely be in the late 20s.
My suggested offer for Giannis would include: Turner (disappointing, but still one of the best defensive anchors in the NBA), Warren (veteran starting-caliber player), Williams (a young, relatively unproven prospect), Langford (a young, unproven prospect), five firsts, one of which will be 14 and the other four will be in the late 20s. It's also worth pointing out that both Warren and Turner have great, long-term contracts that are perfect for small-market teams--most of these other teams that received players like this back did not have those long-term quality contracts.
This is not 15 cents on the dollar. This is not a garbage offer. This is likely very similar to what the Bucks would receive for Giannis entering the final year of his deal. This is the market value for superstars.
Topic: Mandatory Gordon Hayward trade (your ideas) (Read 25230 times)