You'd have thought we might not have to worry about speculative stories like this in the first year of a 4 year contract.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nb...b6e2bwp12z6qjyr9sv36
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
A couple deep playoff runs changes the narrative.
"Milwaukee's going to go through this with the Greek Freak. That day's coming, right? Where he's going to look and say, 'Where is this organization? What are they doing here?' Like, you don't think Giannis has been watching what went on there for the last several months? Of what they allowed to go on with the front office? He's watching it. And the clock has started. Everybody in the league is trying to figure out how they are going to get him out of there. That has started."
If Giannis has been watching what went on recently, he'll certainly notice the next 2-3 years.
I agree Hungry. Thon Maker may have as much to do with changing perceptions as anyone. He's a guy with a huge ceiling. He has more potential to be a superstar than anyone in this most recent draft. A 20 year 7 footer who shoots 38% from the 3 point line? Maker may go top 3 if they redrafted a year later. Brogdon would probably be top 10.
Giannis, Maker, Middleton, Brogdon, and Parker are as good a group of young talent as there is in the league. Giannis is going to be a 10 time all-star. Parker may still be if he can overcome the injuries. Brogdon and Middleton are very solid guys. Maker is the wild card.
None of them is older than 25 (neither is Snell). The Bucks have received almost no mention as a potential top team in the East, but the pieces are all there to make a leap. Boston is being pushed as the Cavs top competition?
Would you rather have Gordon Hayward or Giannis? Giannis and I don't think it's even close.
Brogdon versus Thomas? Probably Thomas, but I don't he could guard most of us on the defensive end. Brogdon is an excellent defender.
Jaylen Brown versus Middleton - Probably Brown in the long run, but not that much of a difference.
The big one is Al Horford versus Maker. Right now, that's the biggest difference. Horford is a 4 time all-star. Can Maker get there?
I wouldn't trade Boston's roster with Milwaukee's roster - with or without Hayward.
Giannis took a major step this past year and still has room to improve. As it is, he's a top 10 player easily in the league. He could well become the best player in the league.
Parker was playing at an All Star level prior to the injury. Who knows if he can recover (again) but he's a really good #2 option given his ability to score.
Middleton is one of the most underrated players in the league. A guy that will score 15-20 per night, hit outside shots, and play tough D.
Then you have Brogdon, Maker, and Snell. If they all continue to develop and take another step forward I think the Bucks are good enough this year to compete in the East because they are such a matchup problem given their size and athleticism and they still have a pretty good bench as well.
Bet you'd trade Jason Kidd for Brad Stevens.
The national narrative is that superstars don't belong in Milwaukee
**** Boston and **** Brad Stevens
Ainge is an egomaniac and the wonder boy did so well they got boat raced by the Cavs 4-1
Bucks much more competitive against C Town even with Kidd
I guess this is why I'm still a bit jaded towards the NBA. Agents and the league like the Super Teams now.
So, here the Bucks have come back from the ashes with a good young team - drafted and developed - now the talk is: How soon before the superstars leave the small village of Milwaukee? I don't get it.
I'll worry in a few years. They dont know what a loyal person Giannis is. As someone will soon post, its in his DNA.
They have him under control for 4 seasons. That's almost an eternity in the NBA as most players are opting for 2 or 3 year deals.
Assuming the Bucks don't do something completely stupid I think they (and Giannis) will be just fine. Much like the Brewers they are building something for the future but it could end up happening sooner rather than later.
SanDiegoPackFan posted:I guess this is why I'm still a bit jaded towards the NBA. Agents and the league like the Super Teams now.
So, here the Bucks have come back from the ashes with a good young team - drafted and developed - now the talk is: How soon before the superstars leave the small village of Milwaukee? I don't get it.
The best part about the Bucks is that unlike many of the teams that build a good young team, they've only "tanked" one year - the 15-67 year that ended up with them getting Parker. And they didn't really try to tank that badly, the season disintegrated when Larry Sanders injury/mental health problems first started to surface.
Well, then there's hope I guess. I don't want to see happen to the Bucks again what usually happens to the Brewers:
They suck for so many years....draft/develop...pick up a few free agents and then start playing well...maybe even make the playoffs a year or two....then...everyone leaves for the "big" city lights.....and it's back to sucking for a while....Groundhog's Day scenario.
That's what I hate about baseball. I know they have some sort of "salary cap" but putting in Transition AND Franchise Tags would also help.
Thanks for lifting my spirtis a bit guys! Milwaukee can easily be made into a "second tier" destination place for players IF owners are wiling to compete.....similar to the Packers maybe.
SanDiegoPackFan posted:
That's what I hate about baseball. I know they have some sort of "salary cap" but putting in Transition AND Franchise Tags would also help.
Thanks for lifting my spirtis a bit guys! Milwaukee can easily be made into a "second tier" destination place for players IF owners are wiling to compete.....similar to the Packers maybe.
I think the players union is way too strong in basketball to ever agree to the transition and franchise tags. They essentially have a weaker version of this in place in the NBA as it is with things like "Larry Bird rights" and letting players make more money if they stay put. It may be that NBA mega-star players make so much money from endorsements that their actual salary is less important than in football.
LeBron makes 50 million a year off endorsements. Durant gets 300 million from Nike over the next 10 years. They look at the team they play for (and winning rings) as a way to maximize their endorsement income. Durant is giving up 10-12 million a year to play for Golden State to win rings, but he'll probably make that up 10 fold in his next shoe contract after winning a ring.
The sport that needs to take notice is the NFL
Athletes have options and many good players choose - or could have chosen one sport over the other.
The guaranteed salaries in MLB and the NBA as well as player safety issues may have a long term impact on NFL prospects. Guys like Randy Moss or Tony Gonzales may have chosen basketball today as their primary sport. Allen Iverson did choose basketball over football.
? Wow. I did not know Iverson played football.
Maybe the reason he chose basketball had more to do with "practice". Football means more practices. 
Iverson was a phenomenal high school QB a lot in the style of Mike Vick and comparisons are logical given their locale (Virginia Beach area)
6' 160 lbs. He never (ever) had a shot at making money playing football
Iverson could have easily played college and he very well may have been fine in the pros. Probably not as a QB but CB? Absolutely.
Think LeBron James couldn't play TE or WR in the NFL? Don't know many guys 6'8" 260 that can run a 4.3 40.
Don't think for a second some NFL guys aren't looking at the guaranteed contracts and long term health of the NBA and wondered if they chose the best sport for them.
Iverson was considered a better football prospect at one point than a basketball player. Here's a summary of one of his high school seasons.
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/s...-speech-stats-090916
As a quarterback he passed for 1,423 yards and 14 touchdowns, rushed for 781 yards and 15 touchdowns, had eight interceptions on defense, and returned five kickoffs and four punts for touchdowns.
I agree he wasn't likely to be a HOF-level QB, but a Darren Sproles type on offense or a slot CB on defense. He probably makes about 8 million in his career doing that back then.
The best comparison for Iverson was probably Charlie Ward. Similar size, both good basketball and football players. Charlie Ward decided to play in the NBA and was a serviceable PG/3rd guard off the bench for 12 years. He make 34 million doing that. If he'd have gone to the NFL even as a Heisman trophy winner, he'd have been lucky to make 1/3rd of that. Couple in the risk of injury for a running QB like Ward and you'd think guys would be stupid to play in the NFL if they could even make minimum salary for 5-6 years in the NBA. And that doesn't even count the fact that it's the NFL, CFL, or nothing. Even guys who can't play in the NBA can go play in many countries overseas and a make a decent living. That's not so for football.
Then there are endorsements as well. Shoe deals. Sports drinks. Seems much more prevalent in the NBA than NFL because in the NFL the sponsors deal directly with the league and teams except for a few top tier players.
Matt Delladova is going to make nearly as much guaranteed money in his current deal as some of the top paid stars in the NFL. And he can probably get a second deal for a good chunk of change.
The NFL may have to change their business model or risk losing some of the better players to other sports.
I could see LeBron as a TE, he is certainly that kind of athlete.
Iverson was never going to chose football, his decision was easy.
LeBron played HS football as well. He certainly made the right choice.
AI was going to head to Notre Dame (football) but ran into off the field issues which ****canned that idea.
He made the right choice as well although his thug tendencies probably fit better with the NFL
That article was pure tripe when it was written. Giannis has put no one on notice. That was pure "big market" wishful thinking".
The construct of this team is in place. The biggest questions that remain are:
1) Can Parker still be an All Star?
2) Is Kidd a good enough coach?
3) Will the young players still have room to grow?
As weak as the east is becoming, the Bucks can start to make some noise, even as young as they are now.
Giannis clarifies:
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/...-kevin-durants-move/
Hes leaving an out, of course- which I suppose at this stage I don't care. And if the Bucks stick with loser players while watching Giannis waste the best years of his career, is be on board with him doing what's good for him
But right now, he and his teammates are a bunch of 22-25 year olds figuring things out. He's a long ways from being ready to play GM like Bronbron did. And we all know how successfully the Cavs f*cked themselves with the highest payroll in the NBA when Griffin had Lebron playing hand puppets the last 4 years...
I would love to see a Monroe/Henson for Bledsoe/Chandler trade. Both those guys have 2 years left, and I think Phoenix wants to make a push for one of the big stars like PG13, and they need to clear salary to pull it off. You could even throw in Hawes if they want another salary to clear space. Henson's time in Milwaukee needs to end.
Monroe will have a lot of appeal due to the 18MM expiring contract. If you could package him with a guy like Henson who has long term liability that would be ideal.
Sounds like Snell may also be trade bait but not sure for whom or what at this point. He was a solid player for the Bucks last year on both ends of the court.
Snell isn't trade bait. He's a locker room guy, 3 and D guy, and a perfect compliment with defensive ability. And he just signed his deal.
The clock is ticking- TC right around the corner. They need to donut now or wait until FEB.
"I might be MVP this year..."
- Giannis
You do that, kid...