"Asset Brain"

[PhoSita]

"Asset Brain" - this is the term that comes to mind for me with a phenomenon that has become rampant in online discussions of the NBA lately.

People get so caught up in the concept of protecting assets and not "losing guys for nothing" that they completely lose sight of the basketball part.


Major example right now -- I am seeing people talking about how the Bucks HAVE to consider trading Giannis in light of the fact that he seems unlikely to sign an extension, and he could leave next summer.

Wait a second ... the Bucks have a good roster.  With Giannis on the team, they will win a lot of games and be in the title hunt.  He just won back to back MVPs and also won DPOY.  He's one of the top 5 players in the world! 

Any team in the league should view having a guy like Giannis, in his prime, as the apex of what team building is for.  If you have a chance to have a player like that on your team for even a single season, you should be thrilled.  Sure, if the rest of your team is so bad that you won't contend anyway, that's a different story. But if you know you'll at least be in the mix for a title, that's better than any potential collection of "assets."


Yet the Discourse (tm) suggests that Bucks would be foolish not to consider trading him now for assets.  Because the worst thing that can happen is you lose a guy for "nothing."  Somehow, the idea of getting to watch a very good team led by a historically great player in his prime is holds less power than the idea that the Bucks could be forced to rebuild next season without the assets they could get for Giannis in a trade.


This just seems nuts to me.  Some franchises have built for decades and still not had as good of a chance to contend as the Bucks do this season with Giannis on the roster. 

If the Bucks lose Giannis, they are not going to contend any time soon.  It doesn't matter if they get something for him via trade rather than losing him in free agency.  They won't be good and whatever they get in a trade probably won't be enough for them to contend.



Am I alone here?  Have other people noticed this?  I feel like this was an issue with the Discourse (tm) around Gordon Hayward leaving too.  People forgot that Hayward barely contributed to any meaningful Celtics wins over the last three years.  But it's all about "assets."  People spend more time fantasizing about being a GM than they do enjoying watching the team that's actually playing basketball.  I blame Dunc'd On.

[Csfan1984]

It's kind of a short-sited approach for a franchise to say it won't trade a guy even if he isn't committed to staying. Much in the same way it would be short sided to trade Tatum for AD when AD was going to LAL in a year. Or DeRozan for one year of Leonard. Or trading a high pick and fan favorite player for a disgruntled diva star.

Basically any approach/belief has a plus and a negative the only thing that matters is the end result really.

[PhoSita]

It's kind of a short-sited approach for a franchise to say it won't trade a guy even if he isn't committed to staying. Much in the same way it would be short sided to trade Tatum for AD when AD was going to LAL in a year. Or DeRozan for one year of Leonard. Or trading a high pick and fan favorite player for a disgruntled diva star.

Basically any approach/belief has a plus and a negative the only thing that matters is the end result really.

My point is that if you have the league MVP on your roster and you have a good enough supporting cast to think you're going to win a lot of games, that is the definition of a scenario in which you should be short sighted.

The premise of "you don't want to lose a guy for nothing" is that it will harm your long term team building efforts for an "asset" to become a "nothing" on your team building sheet. 

The thing is, what are those team building efforts for, if not to put you in a position where you have a good enough team to compete for a title?


The goal of running an NBA team is not to perpetually maintain a huge pile of assets.

The goal of running an NBA team is to create a roster that can compete for a title.


UNLESS you're a small market and all you actually care about is fielding a playoff caliber team every year so you can get home playoff ticket sales.  Then, I guess, it would make sense to sell off a chance to contend for one year if it meant bolstering your ability to remain at least mediocre for the near future. 

[Csfan1984]

It's kind of a short-sited approach for a franchise to say it won't trade a guy even if he isn't committed to staying. Much in the same way it would be short sided to trade Tatum for AD when AD was going to LAL in a year. Or DeRozan for one year of Leonard. Or trading a high pick and fan favorite player for a disgruntled diva star.

Basically any approach/belief has a plus and a negative the only thing that matters is the end result really.

My point is that if you have the league MVP on your roster and you have a good enough supporting cast to think you're going to win a lot of games, that is the definition of a scenario in which you should be short sighted.

The premise of "you don't want to lose a guy for nothing" is that it will harm your long term team building efforts for an "asset" to become a "nothing" on your team building sheet. 

The thing is, what are those team building efforts for, if not to put you in a position where you have a good enough team to compete for a title?


The goal of running an NBA team is not to perpetually maintain a huge pile of assets.

The goal of running an NBA team is to create a roster that can compete for a title.


UNLESS you're a small market and all you actually care about is fielding a playoff caliber team every year so you can get home playoff ticket sales.  Then, I guess, it would make sense to sell off a chance to contend for one year if it meant bolstering your ability to remain at least mediocre for the near future.

The thing is people don't see the Bucks as the best team. And their MVP can go cold so it's not exactly a sure thing to keep things together.

As for moving on the C's moved from KG and PP early to rebuild and fans enjoyed the teams still. They owe two of their three current best players to the move.

Pelicans moved from AD early to rebuild and look like they may have two all Stars already.

If the deal is right the right move can be to get assets.

So again it's all about the results.

[PhoSita]

The thing is people don't see the Bucks as the best team. And their MVP can go cold so it's not exactly a sure thing to keep things together.

They were on pace to win like 70 games last year and had a bad series against Miami in the bubble.


For sure, they aren't heading into the season as the title favorite.  So what?  They should once again be among the top 5 regular season teams with a very good chance to have home court throughout the Eastern Conference playoffs, if not the Finals.

Giannis hasn't quite lived up to his MVP pedigree in the playoffs, but we've seen that with great players before.  This could be the year he figures some things out, the Bucks get a lucky slate of opponents in the playoffs, and they find their way into the Finals or even all the way to a title.


Giving that up in order to make sure the Bucks are able to get back to 40-45 wins within 3 years instead of 6, which is how I interpret the argument, just seems insane to me.



This is now veering into another topic that mystifies me, which is the idea that if a team isn't a favorite to win the title and yet it appears to have reached it's ceiling, it's not worth keeping that team together. 

[Csfan1984]

The thing is people don't see the Bucks as the best team. And their MVP can go cold so it's not exactly a sure thing to keep things together.

They were on pace to win like 70 games last year and had a bad series against Miami in the bubble.


For sure, they aren't heading into the season as the title favorite.  So what?  They should once again be among the top 5 regular season teams with a very good chance to have home court throughout the Eastern Conference playoffs, if not the Finals.

Giannis hasn't quite lived up to his MVP pedigree in the playoffs, but we've seen that with great players before.  This could be the year he figures some things out, the Bucks get a lucky slate of opponents in the playoffs, and they find their way into the Finals or even all the way to a title.


Giving that up in order to make sure the Bucks are able to get back to 40-45 wins within 3 years instead of 6, which is how I interpret the argument, just seems insane to me.

But based on all the other evidence I posted it's clearly not insane to move on. It's just do you believe in your GM to get you back there or him to put you in an even better position? A franchise has to believe in itself.

You also have to take into account that other teams are improving and the Bucks may have peaked when you predict this year's potential. They may not be as good.

Then there is also worst case scenario to consider. One of getting bounced early and Giannis walks leaving the team with just a TPE. Bucks then have to have a fire sale to bottom out or pick outside the top 10 for three to seven years. If the latter happens they could be going on a decade before another ECF appearance.

So I'm not going to get on the people who say they should trade Giannis or any player so long as it's a good return. If it's trade a guy for scraps that's when I call it insane.

[PhoSita]

If the bucks were to trade Giannis before this season, irrespective of what they get back, I would bet it's another decade at least before they're in a position to have just one season as good as the one they're likely to have if they keep him.


When was the last really good Bucks team before Giannis?

They were almost good one year with Jennings and Bogut. Before that it was, what, Ray Allen? We're talking early 2000s.


Wow! I looked it up.

They won 52 with Ray in 2002.

The last time the Bucks won 55+ before Giannis was 1986!

Sidney Moncrief, Paul Pressey, Terry Cummings.


Point is, big winning seasons are a once in a long while thing for the Bucks.

[Boris Badenov]

The irony is, it seems like GMs have become cynical and willing to flip players for fear of losing them, just to avoid having them walk.

But it's really the players who've changed--in the old days, top 10 players would stick with a franchise and be more patient for something to be built around them. Now it's more of an instant gratification thing. See Durant, Harden, Lebron, etc. etc....so if players are looking to move, teams need to anticipate that.

Not saying I blame the players, but I think it's worse for the league and fans. We don't have those stable decade-long rivalries like in the 80s/90s.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

This really, really depends on the franchise and its goals. Some small market teams just want to stay relevant to keep revenue coming in. Other small market teams want to try to work toward championships.

In the case of the Bucks, there's a really good chance that both Giannis and Holliday are gone next year, leaving them an aging Kris Middleton on a ridiculous contract and a limited amount of draft picks. That is the recipe to becoming one of the worst teams in the NBA quickly. The fan base may struggle to get excited about that team, and given the fact that Milwaukee was linked several years ago to being the franchise that might move to Seattle, the team might be done. I know that franchises are still selling for all-time highs in the NBA, but a crappy team with meh "franchise faces" and limited future picks would not sell as well as a team with a few exciting young players.

The NBA is still a business. Yeah, they might make a championship run this year, but the odds are stacked against them. The ownership might feel like they can make more money long-term if they traded Giannis. They also may be more risk-adverse financially.

If the Bucks thought they could get a young player that might generate some interest while staying competitive enough to be a playoff team and they knew Giannis was leaving, it would be a smart business and financial move to trade him.

[PhoSita]

If, as a bucks fan, you see the team trade away a year of contending with a top MVP candidate in order to secure a base for extended mediocrity, do you think that would make you *more* interested in following the team / paying for tickets when that's a thing again?


It is true that some teams just don't exist to try to win titles. And generally I'm in favor of seeing merit in trying to be good even if you aren't likely to win. But the idea that a team should throw away a season of contention in order to maintain their base of "assets," ie avoid having to truly bottom out when they inevitably rebuild, just seems fundamentally wrong to me.

[Jvalin]

Yep, Giannis is the best Buck since Kareem. Trade him and the Bucks return to mediocrity for years to come. This is what happened when they traded Kareem.

Only way I'd consider trading him is if he explicitly told me that he plans to leave (like Kareem did). Even then, I'd possibly still keep him hoping that the Bucks win the championship and/or he changes his mind.

Personally speaking, I believe Giannis will re-sign with the Bucks. At the very least, I believe they got a legit chance to keep him.

[Somebody]

Yep, Giannis is the best Buck since Kareem. Trade him and the Bucks return to mediocrity for years to come. This is what happened when they traded Kareem.

Only way I'd consider trading him is if he explicitly told me that he plans to leave (like Kareem did). Even then, I'd possibly still keep him hoping that the Bucks win the championship and/or he changes his mind.

Personally speaking, I believe Giannis will re-sign with the Bucks. At the very least, I believe they got a legit chance to keep him.

To be fair Kareem netted them an incredible package that got them to the fringe of title contention throughout most of the 80s (they had a run from '80 to '87 where they made the conference finals 3 times and never lost in the 1st round with mostly 50+ win teams in the RS). They were never title favourites, but they were a constant potential dark horse team who were incredibly tough to beat in the playoffs.

[Jvalin]

Yep, Giannis is the best Buck since Kareem. Trade him and the Bucks return to mediocrity for years to come. This is what happened when they traded Kareem.

Only way I'd consider trading him is if he explicitly told me that he plans to leave (like Kareem did). Even then, I'd possibly still keep him hoping that the Bucks win the championship and/or he changes his mind.

Personally speaking, I believe Giannis will re-sign with the Bucks. At the very least, I believe they got a legit chance to keep him.

To be fair Kareem netted them an incredible package that got them to the fringe of title contention throughout most of the 80s (they had a run from '80 to '87 where they made the conference finals 3 times and never lost in the 1st round with mostly 50+ win teams in the RS). They were never title favourites, but they were a constant potential dark horse team who were incredibly tough to beat in the playoffs.

Fair enough. They weren't mediocre, but they weren't legit contenders either (till the emergence of Giannis). Still, I'd much rather take my chances are risk losing Giannis for nothing.

[Scottiej23]

In regards to the whole "we don't want to lose a player for nothing" theory. Off the top of my head I can't immediately think of a club this has happened to and, if it has, did it actually have a serious impact?

Can anyone think of any example?

[CFAN38]

"Asset Brain" is a buy product of free agency and the over empowered player movement.

Teams and fan bases are constantly in fear of two things.

1. Roster purgatory, where teams just make or just miss the playoffs with middle aged low upside rosters and no chance of acquiring a star.

2. Having their Star stolen by another team, (typically via player to player scheming / recruiting)


The league and its players have created this for better and for worse by embracing the reality television like approach to main stream and social media.