Giannis signs supermax

[kekgeek]

Big for the small markets!! Even though he'll probably ask for a trade in a year

[AbeVigodaLive]

Yes. It's nice to see this right now. Good for Giannis and Milwaukee fans. BUT...

Will it actually negate any potential and necessary changes that small market teams could have demanded in the next CBA? Because we might still see the next 10 "stars" demand trades to better perceived markets...

... the only difference now is that "But Giannis stayed" will be used every single time to refute that there's still a problem/disparity that exists.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I don't understand why this is a big deal. Players have made contracts virtually useless with their ability to weasel their way off teams they don't want to be on anyway.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I don't understand why this is a big deal. Players have made contracts virtually useless with their ability to weasel their way off teams they don't want to be on anyway.

True. This is great for Giannis. He gets the max money.

And I guess it buys Milwaukee slightly more time? At least wards off the dogs a little as they try to get over the hump this season?

[Coolbreeze44]

Giannis is different, and he proved that today. I understand what Abe is saying, but I think this is fantastic for small market teams. The Bucks have committed to surrounding Giannis with the talent necessary to win a title, including going over the luxury tax threshold. As long as they continue to try to be as competitive as possible, Giannis will be happy. The only thing I would question is why they didn't sack up and keep Brogdon. That looks like a big mistake in retrospect. But Giannis is good enough to be a draw for future free agents, even in that market.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Giannis is different, and he proved that today. I understand what Abe is saying, but I think this is fantastic for small market teams. The Bucks have committed to surrounding Giannis with the talent necessary to win a title, including going over the luxury tax threshold. As long as they continue to try to be as competitive as possible, Giannis will be happy. The only thing I would question is why they didn't sack up and keep Brogdon. That looks like a big mistake in retrospect. But Giannis is good enough to be a draw for future free agents, even in that market.

They could also get off to a slow start, not win a title this year and all of a sudden he decides he wants out. This contract means very little in terms of his long-term future in Milwaukee. That's just the reality of the player empowerment era. These guys can flip overnight and the teams just have to deal with it by dealing them or else they have a Jimmy situation on their hands.

[WildWolf2813]

Yes. It's nice to see this right now. Good for Giannis and Milwaukee fans. BUT...

Will it actually negate any potential and necessary changes that small market teams could have demanded in the next CBA? Because we might still see the next 10 "stars" demand trades to better perceived markets...

... the only difference now is that "But Giannis stayed" will be used every single time to refute that there's still a problem/disparity that exists.

What were those changes you wanted?

The league isn't built for teams like the Wolves to succeed but I don't think it's something that is legislated. Players are gonna do what they do, and they don't see the glory of winning here. Now, the Bucks have done everything they can. Their biggest move other than drafting Giannis was selling the team. They went from treadmill team with crappy arena and nondescript personality to having this brand new lease on life. They know what they're doing. There's no rule that can circumvent crap ownership.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Yes. It's nice to see this right now. Good for Giannis and Milwaukee fans. BUT...

Will it actually negate any potential and necessary changes that small market teams could have demanded in the next CBA? Because we might still see the next 10 "stars" demand trades to better perceived markets...

... the only difference now is that "But Giannis stayed" will be used every single time to refute that there's still a problem/disparity that exists.

What were those changes you wanted?

The league isn't built for teams like the Wolves to succeed but I don't think it's something that is legislated. Players are gonna do what they do, and they don't see the glory of winning here. Now, the Bucks have done everything they can. Their biggest move other than drafting Giannis was selling the team. They went from treadmill team with crappy arena and nondescript personality to having this brand new lease on life. They know what they're doing. There's no rule that can circumvent crap ownership.

It's beyond my pay grade... but I'd give teams/players more incentives for staying. The financial implications used to work when (1) players had to choose between $90M and $120M... not $200+M and $250M (2) fewer players were demanding out after signing long-term deals.

I called more player movement right after the last CBA was signed. Ostensibly, those contracts (and other changes) were supposed to help the smaller market teams. They had the opposite impact. I think Giannis is a different sort of cat, which is great, but nothing would stop him from demanding a trade tomorrow.

We can live in a world where we run with the "But you get to move between jobs, why can't they?" angle... and completely ignore foundation of sports is built on the thin guise of loyalty between fans, teams and even players.

I fully understand more Player Entitlement is GOOD for the league. And nothing will change until it costs owners money. As a fan, I'd rather not root for a second-rate team that is always working at a disadvantage.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Money is not the answer to get hundred millionaires to stay put. In fact I don't think the solution is to try to hamstring franchises with all these incentives for max guys to stay because it doesn't make a difference and in a lot of cases hinders the teams when those deals don't work out. We lost a first round pick to ditch Wiggins. Same for Washington and Wall. Small markets are paying steep prices for trying to hang onto guys by giving them the max to stay when frequently that player isn't actually worth the max. These guys want to play with better players and in some cases their friends. There's no incentives you can build in that can deal with that reality.

At the end of the day the league needs to figure out proper draft compensation for when a max guy leaves their team either via FA or trade. The NBA doesn't have as many rounds to match the NFL's comp pick system but maybe you make it compensatory ping pong balls so that you can still try to win and build a winning culture AND have good lottery odds rather than having to lose to bottom out and get the best odds at a top pick. Lose a Karl Towns. Get a guaranteed top 5 lottery ball percentage chance and then you can try to win games and still have good lottery odds. Overpaying players out of necessity to keep them and tanking creating losing cultures is killing small markets and bad teams so they need to actually provide less pay incentives and provide more rebuilding tools where losing an elite player doesn't have to be a decade long death sentence because you can try to rebuild right away without needing to purposefully lose to do it. Get tanking under control and you'll see a lot more small to mid-market teams start to build better cultures and be able to not only build better teams around stars to give them a chance to keep them but they'll also be able to rebuild quickly as well if things go south. Players are going to work where they want in this new era so give the organizations that draft and develop that talent better tools to deal with the fallout from someone just not wanting to work there anymore.

[thedoper]

Good for Bucks fans