"Asset Brain"

[CFAN38]

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?

Lebron with the Cavs twice and the Heat

Hayward with Utah

[jambr380]

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.

There are lots of example of teams moving on from (super)stars, but not really ones that were in a serious position to contend. The Pacers didn't want to lose George for nothing so they traded him for Sabonis/Oladipo - that proved to be a great move and they had nothing to lose by making that move.

I would liken the Bucks holding on to Giannis to the Cs holding on to Kyrie. Unfortunately, all of the worst case scenarios came true (Cs were only okay in the regular season and there were serious rumblings about Kyrie wanting BKN). At the beginning of the season, though, Kyrie had basically committed to Boston and the Cs had him and Hayward returning to an ECF team.

Giannis isn't nearly as mercurial as Kyrie, so they should be top of the conference good, and the Bucks can offer a supermax (something the Cs could not do with Kyrie). He is also a homegrown star and has a history in the city. There is a very good chance the Bucks go to at least the ECF. Is that enough to keep him around.

In short, I think what Pho is saying is that it can often make sense for non-elite team to trade their expiring star; but for a team with real title chances, you should probably go for it, since that opportunity might not come along for a long long time.

[Jvalin]

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?

Off the top of my head:

LeBron changed teams 3 times via free agency. All 3 times his previous team got significantly worse. The Cavs went from title contenders to a lottery team.

KD moved from OKC to GS. The Thunder weren't legit contenders after that.

Shaq left the Magic for the Lakers in 1996. The Magic weren't legit contenders till the emergence of Howard (whom they eventually lost to the Lakers via trade).

The way I see it, Giannis ain't as good as LeBron/Shaq/KD (not yet anyway), but he's definitely an all-time great.

[SHAQATTACK]

I follow the Raptors GM plan .   My number one goal , is a championship every year.  You do what must be done to win and put the best team on the court .   

To have no Giannis is dumb dumb dumb ....you still have a shot for atitle with him,   none if he leaves ,  which might happen anyway .  So , let it play out ...stop sending every star to the Lakers every year once they have finished their rookie deals.

All the good players are eventually going to LA    so.....you need to trade and kept a star like Giannis , AD, or Harden as much as possible or your just treading water watching Lakers rack up titles without any effort or brains required. 

[td450]

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.

True. In the 80's, they had teams normally good enough to win a title. Unfortunately, some of the greatest players and teams ever were peaking at the same time.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

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.

90% of NBA fans get excited over whatever 20ppg scorer that dunks sometimes. 10% of the fanbase would not be as excited about the team because they know they aren't really contenders. It's a business. Smart business people might look at projections and think, "If we got a player locked up for 5 more years that is young, exciting, and relates well to fans, we would make more money than we would if Giannis left after this season over the next 5 years."

If it was a rec league and all that mattered was whether or not you could win the championship, then I absolutely agree. The NBA might present itself as a league where 30 franchises are trying to compete for a championship, but the reality is that every single owner is focused on money. Championships can obviously give a ton of money, but winning the championship is rare. Owners are normally successful if they stay competitive, keep mind share, and pander to their fan base over an extended period of time.

I also think the Seattle thing matters. Normally, franchises will only move in an ownership sale. I think the ownership would have sold several years ago if Giannis hadn't ascended the way he did.

Also, after the way the Bucks have fallen apart in the playoffs multiple 4 years in a row, I wonder if the fan base is starting to doubt whether they have a real contender or not.

[18isGREATERthan72]

Would you rather have a 2% chance to win the Championship in ten different years, or would you rather have a 20% chance to win the Championship in one year, and then a 1% chance the remaining nine years?

If you're a small market team, it's really hard to build a team that can contend for an extended period of time.  When you get those chances to go all in and win for a single season or two, I feel like you have to take them.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Would you rather have a 2% chance to win the Championship in ten different years, or would you rather have a 20% chance to win the Championship in one year, and then a 1% chance the remaining nine years?

If you're a small market team, it's really hard to build a team that can contend for an extended period of time.  When you get those chances to go all in and win for a single season or two, I feel like you have to take them.

Again, it's not always about championships, but about profits. That may feel like a prostitution of the game, but the NBA has always been a business first--it's just that competition and championships are one of the primary products the NBA sells.

If the Bucks felt like their franchise would make more money and be worth more over the next 5-8 years, they might do it. It depends on the risk tolerance of the owner. Maybe by winning a championship, his franchise would double in value. But maybe by losing in the playoffs and losing Giannis in free agency, it would halve in value. But maybe also by trading him for the right player, the franchise would only drop to 75% of its value.

From a fan's perspective, it might stink to look at it this way. It's easy to talk about billions of dollars when its not my money.

[PhoSita]

Also, after the way the Bucks have fallen apart in the playoffs multiple 4 years in a row, I wonder if the fan base is starting to doubt whether they have a real contender or not.

I can't argue with you regarding the ownership stuff.  You're probably right about that.  If your franchise is on the edge of being sold and moving because it's difficult to turn a profit, the idea of even just one season of being really bad could be the difference.


As for the idea that the Bucks aren't truly a contender, I have two suggestions

(1) If the Bucks thought that, I don't have any idea why they traded for Jrue Holiday

(2) We've seen plenty of teams that struggle in the playoffs year after year and then one year they get a good slate of opponents in the playoffs, they have luck with injuries, and the main guy has a post-season for the ages. 

We know that a team with Giannis is going to win a lot of regular season games and have home court advantage through much or all of the playoffs (though what that's worth in COVID-times, I don't know).  If you have a decent supporting cast and an MVP caliber player, your chance at a title is always significantly higher than 0, in my opinion.

[PhoSita]

In short, I think what Pho is saying is that it can often make sense for non-elite team to trade their expiring star; but for a team with real title chances, you should probably go for it, since that opportunity might not come along for a long long time.

Exactly.  People are talking about the Bucks like they're in the same position the Pelicans were with Anthony Davis. 

The Bucks were the best team in the league, by far, over the course of the regular season last year.  They weren't as good in the bubble.  Combine that with how they lost to the Raptors last year, and there's reason to doubt their bona fides as a contender.

But even if the Bucks are not as historically great as their efficiency stats and record the last couple of regular seasons would suggest, they are still one of the best 5 teams in the league.

I'll concede that if your goal as a franchise is not to win titles, or even to achieve memorable moments (e.g. making a run to the Finals), but rather to remain decent enough to stay above water financially, maybe you have a different calculus.  But from a fan perspective I don't see the rationale for punting on a single season as a top 5 team in order to flatten out your team building process for the next 3-4 years.

[michigan adam]

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.

Is kind of like the patriot scenario.  Do you trade an expensive vet now when they are "over paid and trending down" for cap relief/assets that help you more in the future of go all in for this year, where the vet gives you a better chance this year.  The pats always errored on the future value, and created a dynasty where they were near the top if not the top for 19+ years.  Basketball is harder as the small roster size magnifies the value of the one player.  Giannis is also an MVP player, not an overpaid and declining vet.  Kind of like trading TB a year before he left to get something rather than nothing.  Very tough call.  If you can get 2-3 players and half a dozen picks/swaps you almost have to do it and hope to be really good for much longer than the one year...

[DefenseWinsChamps]

In short, I think what Pho is saying is that it can often make sense for non-elite team to trade their expiring star; but for a team with real title chances, you should probably go for it, since that opportunity might not come along for a long long time.

Exactly.  People are talking about the Bucks like they're in the same position the Pelicans were with Anthony Davis. 

The Bucks were the best team in the league, by far, over the course of the regular season last year.  They weren't as good in the bubble.  Combine that with how they lost to the Raptors last year, and there's reason to doubt their bona fides as a contender.

But even if the Bucks are not as historically great as their efficiency stats and record the last couple of regular seasons would suggest, they are still one of the best 5 teams in the league.

I'll concede that if your goal as a franchise is not to win titles, or even to achieve memorable moments (e.g. making a run to the Finals), but rather to remain decent enough to stay above water financially, maybe you have a different calculus.  But from a fan perspective I don't see the rationale for punting on a single season as a top 5 team in order to flatten out your team building process for the next 3-4 years.

There was always  significant questions about the Bucks last year. It may not have been a mainstream narrative, but many basketball people noticed some issues.

1. They actually lost 4 of 5 before the season shut down for Covid.
2. They always had a very slow-footed team outside of Giannis and Bledsoe. They may have been the slowest-footed team in the NBA last year and were definitely one of the oldest (bad oldest, as in many of their players were over-the-hill for what they were being asked to do).
3. There were/are real questions about whether Bud's coaching scheme can win in the playoffs. They played at one of the fastest paces ever during the regular season, opening a ton of threes for the slow-footed vets. But as soon as the playoffs rolled around and the pace slowed, those vets were unable to get those threes, meaning they had to try to beat their man off the dribble, which was ineffective.
4. I'm still unconvinced that their defensive scheme with Lopez at center is as good as the stats indicated. I think coaches just need more tape to figure out how work against their system.

I think they are better this year with Holiday for sure if Bud adjusts their system. I don't see a way they can try to run the same system as effectively with their new players. Holiday is not a push-the-tempo point guard, even though he can do that in stints. Losing any one of Matthews, Hill, Korver, and Illyasova might not have hurt the team much, but losing all of them is sure to lower their overall effectiveness from three (although I really like the Augustin signing).

[PhoSita]

I was skeptical of them last year, too.  Bud's system gets you regular season wins but doesn't translate as well to the playoffs.

But even if they're 75-80% as good as their regular season efficiency stats suggest, that's still a very good team with a shot at making a deep run.

They have the pieces to play big and to go small with Giannis at the 5.  I trust Holiday more in the playoffs than Bledsoe.  They will be in the mix and I could see this being the year they make the Finals. 

[bdm860]

One thing to consider is if your franchise player plans to leave, is he still going to be that franchise player if you hold on to him for that final season?

I like to think Giannis would still give it his all.  I thought KD gave it his all his final year in both OKC and GS.  Hayward gave it his all in his final year in Utah and Boston.  Jimmy Butler gave it his all on his way out of Philly, etc.

But then you have the flip side, the Vince-Carter-loafing-his-way-out-of-Toronto side, or when players go into business for themselves (either milking/faking an injury or playing just for their own stats).  We saw it with Kyrie in the Bucks series.  We saw it with AD in New Orleans.  And if Harden stays in Houston I would 100% bet we'll be seeing it there.  Now not only are you going to lose the asset for nothing, but you're also not getting a championship.  You have a franchise player in name only.
 
But there's also a middle, where it could go either way.  LeBron was definitely checked out of Cleveland before he left the first time for the Heat, but I think he was still giving it his all when he left the Cavs for the 2nd time (some think he quit before leaving the Heat too).

Would you have gotten championship level Kawhi if he played out the last year of his contract in San Antonio?   I have my doubts, but Toronto definitely got it from him.

So you definitely can't assume you'll be getting 100% from your star if you hold onto them, that changes the math significantly.

If 100%-focused-and-will-play-through-anything Giannis gives the Bucks 20% chance at a championship, I say roll the dice, hold onto him, and go for it.

But if you'll actually end up with 75%-focused-and-will-sit-out-with-any-minor-injury-and-will-fold-at-the-first-sign-of-adversity Giannis, then you're fooling yourself if you think you have a shot at it all.

[RPGenerate]

One thing to consider is if your franchise player plans to leave, is he still going to be that franchise player if you hold on to him for that final season?

I like to think Giannis would still give it his all.  I thought KD gave it his all his final year in both OKC and GS.  Hayward gave it his all in his final year in Utah and Boston.  Jimmy Butler gave it his all on his way out of Philly, etc.

But then you have the flip side, the Vince-Carter-loafing-his-way-out-of-Toronto side, or when players go into business for themselves (either milking/faking an injury or playing just for their own stats).  We saw it with Kyrie in the Bucks series.  We saw it with AD in New Orleans.  And if Harden stays in Houston I would 100% bet we'll be seeing it there.  Now not only are you going to lose the asset for nothing, but you're also not getting a championship.  You have a franchise player in name only.
 
But there's also a middle, where it could go either way.  LeBron was definitely checked out of Cleveland before he left the first time for the Heat, but I think he was still giving it his all when he left the Cavs for the 2nd time (some think he quit before leaving the Heat too).

Would you have gotten championship level Kawhi if he played out the last year of his contract in San Antonio?   I have my doubts, by Toronto definitely got it from him.

So you definitely can't assume you'll be getting 100% from your star if you hold onto them, that changes the math significantly.

If 100%-focused-and-will-play-through-anything Giannis gives the Bucks 20% chance at a championship, I say roll the dice, hold onto him, and go for it.

But if you'll actually end up with 75%-focused-and-will-sit-out-with-any-minor-injury-and-will-fold-at-the-first-sign-of-adversity Giannis, then you're fooling yourself if you think you have a shot at it all.

I think this is a great point, but sadly it seems impossible to tell who would do what. We don't really know the character of these players until this type of situation actually happens. I don't think many people expected Kawhi to jerk San Antonio around for a year, lowering his trade value significantly.