Isn’t it kinda an unwritten rule that when trading for a star it’s for other pieces and not your star?
Why? Because Giannis has won a chip?
In addition to the above post, better defense, more likable, easier to root for.
But giannis cant shoot and you can employ hack a shaq on him as we saw in the playoffs this year. I would love love to get either dude but they both a few minor warts and are both generational superstar talents and mvp caliber players. I would probably prefer Giannis but not by much.
Idk. Probably not. But im an admitted jazz fan homer so I value our own guys more than most GM's probably do. I think Lauri is too good. I definitely throw kessler into a luka trade if the other pieces are right though.
Ya i think that the bucks dont go all that far without giannis tbh. Or the nuggets without Jokic. Or the warriors without steph. Or the jazz without Lauri for that matter.
I think Giannis and AD are superstars whether or not they have the ball in their hands or not. I think that is the difference. Tying yourself to Luka, Harden, and some of those types of dominant stars means the ball is in their hands way more and everything needs to suit that style and account for their weaknesses. So I think it’s a little different.
That’s not exactly what I mean. What I mean is that as you add pieces around Luka, it doesn’t raise your ceiling as much as adding pieces around Giannis. Your team goes as far as Luka goes because adding more to the equation isn’t going to give you as much traction. Your dollar doesn’t go as far. We’re sitting on a couple good, young pieces (or at least Lauri) and a bunch of draft picks. That additional talent gives you more bang for your buck around Giannis. Giannis would occupy different lanes than other talent, whereas Luka kinda takes up the whole freeway.
I get that. Beggars can’t be choosers and if we’re fortunate enough to land him, I’d be happy. Just saying that it doesn’t entirely come with pure peace of mind for me.
