What's new
By:

GIANNIS

I would go for it as long as I could keep Lauri and not give up the farm. I at least hope we are part of the discussion going on given the assets we have. Seems like this is the whole point of having assets.
 
HermanG said:
I literally said we need to provide him Ws. You circled back to my original argument.
Click to expand...
Actually, you said in reply to me, "Oh please. Giannis has spent 12.5 years in Milwaukee," emphasizing loyalty, not winning.

I'd add that Durant was winning plenty at OKC, and he still bolted. So, your original argument is only good as far as it goes.

However, now that you've clarified, I agree that IF Giannis turns the Jazz into a perennial contender (assuming that betting the farm on an aging and increasingly injury-prone star pays off and doesn't result in the franchise being held hostage to a talented but fragile and perpetually unavailable star), then there's a reasonable chance he could be induced to remain.

However, it's a huge risk to trade for him without any up-front guarantee that he'd resign. If we don't get that guarantee, then don't do it. It's that simple.

While I'd like to win a title, I don't want to do so the Toronto way, i.e., winning a title only to slide into perpetual irrelevance immediately afterward once the star attraction bolts. As I've said, from my perspective, I expect an ROI on our investment in losing to exceed a few years of relevance only to revert back to where we started; I want an extended run of competitive basketball and playoff success. That's the ONLY acceptable ROI for the crap we've endured over the last four years (and possibly longer).

With all that said, we ain't getting Giannis. All this talk about Giannis as a Jazzman is a fanciful delusion. Just like we deluded ourselves for so long that we'd Capture the Flagg.
 
Last edited:
Schrödinger's Gerbil said:
Actually, you said in reply to me, "Oh please. Giannis has spent 12.5 years in Milwaukee," emphasizing loyalty, not winning.

I'd add that Durant was winning plenty at OKC, and he still bolted. So, your original argument is only good as far as it goes.

However, now that you've clarified, I agree that IF Giannis turns the Jazz into a perennial contender (assuming that betting the farm on an aging and increasingly injury-prone star pays off and doesn't result in the franchise being held hostage to a talented but fragile and perpetually unavailable star), then there's a reasonable chance he could be induced to remain.

However, it's a huge risk to trade for him without any up-front guarantee that he'd resign. If we don't get that guarantee, then don't do it. It's that simple.

While I'd like to win a title, I don't want to do so the Toronto way, i.e., winning a title only to slide into perpetual irrelevance immediately afterward once the star attraction bolts. As I've said, from my perspective, I expect an ROI on our investment in losing to exceed a few years of relevance only to revert back to where we started; I want an extended run of competitive basketball and playoff success. That's the ONLY acceptable ROI for the crap we've endured over the last four years (and possibly longer).

With all that said, we ain't getting Giannis. All this talk about Giannis as a Jazzman is a fanciful delusion. Just like we deluded ourselves for so long that we'd Capture the Flagg.
Click to expand...
Using more words doesnt make things true. Durant comp is nonsense. Kawhi/Toronto comp is nonsense. Both are outliers examples (diva and rental).

I do agree that its unlikely we get him, or even chase him seriously. But its not impossible. We have legit pieces to form a core around him and enough assets to make it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top