This team’s 9 man rotation is a contender right now…if they can shoot.The most interesting thing about a potential Giannis to SA deal is it would give the Spurs 48 minutes of having one of the league's most unstoppable forces on the court, and that has value. And that's before you get to the minutes where they would overlap.
It would be interesting to see... but I'd rather see us keep refining the winning formula we've developed rather than experiment on one that may not work.
Hard pass.
salary wise it makes it easier. butI'd rather give up Fox and two firsts than either Harper or Castle.
Giannis is very unselfish and would just want to fit in. He plays great D and is a great rebounder. I am sure he would take his foot off the gas as needed with his O. But this is NOT a move the Spurs make. It would be such a huge splash. They like their core clearly and will play the long game which is fine..I see the Giannis to the Spurs very much like the "Trae to the Spurs" rumors from a couple years ago - very one-sided in that there's a star wanting out of their team and looking for a landing place, and the Spurs would be one of many good places to crash into.
But the fit is not good with our core. I don't see it for the Rockettes either... My bet is he'll be traded to an unexpected team and stay on the East.
Who the fuck would have ever said that?Everyone said that Klay. KD and Curry wouldn’t fit.
I'm not sure if it was ever said they won't, but I do think it was mentioned by some that there's only one ball and it won't work.Who the fuck would have ever said that?![]()
Only one ball with Curry and Klay being two of the best ever off the ball players.I'm not sure if it was ever said they won't, but I do think it was mentioned by some that there's only one ball and it won't work.
I'm a little torn on adding Giannis and can see arguments on both sides, but he isn't anything like the phoenix Shaq. If we must use a Shaq analogy it's more like his move to Miami, but even that doesn't do this move justice.Giannis on the spurs reminded me so much of the Shaq to Suns disaster in 2008. It creates more problems than it solves and would essentially end a franchise’s chance of any future flexibility in an all in move.
People often use rings to evaluate the greatness of a player but for me it’s how easy it is to build around a player that’s more important. The Jordan 6 rings thing being an example, he required a very specific type of team to win, low usage shooting all around (PG, C), a rugged defensive rebounding PF, and Scottie Pippen, who I can’t think of anyone who can replace him on the history of the league, basically the best wing defender in nba history (at least top 3) who can run the offense, rebound, defend the post, and score. Essentially a t-Mac who can or is willing to defend, or a Paul George who can defend better.
Giannis is in the same boat. You would require shooting all around (a rim protecting c who can shoot don’t grow on trees), a top defensive PG or G and a wing who can create and shoot (these roles could be reversed) and even then it depends on matchups as their half court offense often bogs down.
Giannis on the spurs would be tough to win. Wemby can be that three shooting rim protector but do you actually want that? Then there isn’t enough shooting at all and not enough defensive wings/guards. I just don’t see it.
I didn't say it. I wasn't one of the people that didn't think it'd work.Only one ball with Curry and Klay being two of the best ever off the ball players.
Giannis is still arguably the best player in the league after Jokic.I'm a little torn on adding Giannis and can see arguments on both sides, but he isn't anything luke the phoenix Shaq. If we must use a Shaq quite it's more like his move to Miami, but even that doesn't do this move justice.
Thats the billion dollar question. It's definitely a 2-3 year play and it definitely depletes some long term assets. Is that worth it though? Maybe it is... I'd be more in favor of giving up Castle than Harper, but I wouldn't do both. I'd also hope the draft capital could be kept to a reasonable number because of Giannis pushing for SA. We'd still need another shooter and I dont see where we get one.Giannis is still arguably the best player in the league after Jokic.
He kept shitting on our defense with ease until we pulled away.
Scoring 29ppg on 65% FG(!!!) this season while being the entire focus of opposing defenses.
The question is what's our goal? To win one or two while we can and then have Wemby hit his prime with no assets or relevant role players to continue competing after Giannis falls off?
The issue isn't even that it would cost one of Castle/Harper, if not both, but also almost all of our picks and then we'd be fucked. Seen it too many times already.
Maybe worth doing if we knew Wemby can stay healthy, but definitely not with his current injury issues.
Giannis just turned 31, I think he'll be on MVP level for at least 4 more playoffs...if healthy.I think you also need to consider that Giannis will probably extend his career a little bit not having to carry a huge load like he is now. That could extend the window to more than 2-3 years. Might extend it to 3-5 , or who knows, more if all goes well health wise and they stay healthy.
If he's MVP level for 4 seasons you make the trade. I'm sticking with 2-3 just based on the fact that he isn't a shooter and his game is built on athleticism.Giannis just turned 31, I think he'll be on MVP level for at least 4 more playoffs...if healthy.
Age 31-32-33-34 seems reasonable.
And after that he'll still probably be a solid all-star.
Injuries excluded, MVP level wings and bigs don't decline that much until their mid-late 30s.

Supposedly, post game, Wemby said something to the effect of “nah, we’re good here,bro”. Doesn’t seem like a recruiting pitch to me.[Windhorst] There are finished deals on hold and trade progressions on hold because several teams are waiting to see if Giannis Antetokounmpo ultimately asks out of Milwaukee.
He's been pretty outspoken about not requesting a trade, but maybe Wemby "the Whisperer" got to him...?![]()
With Giannis I think of the 35% max contract on a depreciating talent on the wrong side of 30 who gets hurt a lot. I think of having to say goodbye to not only Harper in trade but also Castle when he's up for extension in two years since now you're paying a 35% deal to Giannis, a 30% deal to Fox, and a 30% deal to Wemby. I think of two alphas who are going to get in each others' way offensively. I think damn I miss this team's former depth and I think how much a failure trading for Durant was for Phoenix.So, with Giannis, I think about the defense, and that excites me quite a bit. So that makes me very interested. I do think about having one of Victor or Giannis on the court at all times, but other than going further than that, I don't think too much about the offensive side of the ball when thinking about this pairing. I just don't know. If he were two or three years younger, I'd seriously consider doing it.
It's just age right now and mortgaging the future that makes it a tough call to make. In theory, it makes the window shorter, but there's no guarantee that it'd be a better window to not do it. Tougher call than a lot of people think it is IMO.
I'm even borderline right now just thinking about it.