Bucks Owners State They Will Trade Giannis If He Doesn’t Extend

Friday morning, ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne published a piece including an interview she conducted with Bucks co-owners Wes Edens and Jimmy Haslam. There’s a fair bit in it that I’ll summarize, but it includes the most notable comment from the team—in this case, spoken by Edens—about Giannis’ pending extension decision this summer:

“Giannis is going into the last year [of his contract], so one of two things will happen: Either he will be extended or he’ll be traded. The likelihood you’ll let him just kind of play out the last year, we can’t afford that. It’s not consistent with what’s good for the organization. That’s not a Giannis issue. That’s any player that’s in their last year.”

Quick aside: I wonder if the NBA will opt to penalize them for tampering again here. In 2019, they were fined $50k when Horst said they planned to offer Giannis an extension, which was plain stupid. This is even more purposeful, so I expect it to happen.

Anyway, Edens is correct: this is not a unique situation with any player throughout all sports. If you’re a team and you want to keep a player, you offer him an extension if you can afford it (the Bucks can, unlike the other pro team in Milwaukee). If the player says no, I won’t extend now, and their contract is expiring soon, it’s simply business to trade them. Nothing new here, and by reporting this, we aren’t hearing anything spicy. I guarantee you every other franchise would operate the same way when it comes to their stars, and in many cases, they have made those trades.

So the mission here remains the same, and it’s simple enough. Giannis has repeatedly stated he wants to remain in Milwaukee for his entire career, while giving himself the room to change his mind. That sounds like a player looking for reasons to stay, not to leave. No matter which ways his words are twisted, and how much fans treat the opinions of those who weren’t even present when he said those words as gospel, what Giannis himself says is the most reliable source.

As ever, it’s incumbent on the Bucks to give him those reasons, just like they did when he became extension eligible in the 2020 and 2023 offseasons. In both cases, the Bucks made drastic roster-reshaping moves that convinced him to stay in Milwaukee for another go-around. For that reason alone, the 2020 and 2023 offseasons were successful, including trades of five first-round picks for Jrue Holiday and three for Damian Lillard. The number one goal in those offseasons was to extend Giannis, and he did. This offseason, that remains the case, even as the Bucks also must reshape the roster in order to contend again as soon as possible.

Early indications are that this ownership statement is being misconstrued as some sort of ultimatum to Giannis and/or some sort of declaration that the Bucks will trade him. It is neither. They are saying they will extend him or trade him if he declines. An ultimatum would be telling him “sign this, or we trade you,” which is not something they can do at this time, nor early in the offseason, necessarily. For one, the CBA states the extension cannot be offered until three years after the last one was signed, on the first day of the month that occurred. So the contract cannot be presented until October 1.

Yes, the Bucks could ask him once the Finals end if he intends to sign the extension, or sooner. Depending on the answer he gives, that would inform their decision. Whenever that happens, they can proceed accordingly. But if that conversation has already happened, it is clear that he hasn’t refused, even if he hasn’t indicated he’d accept. If he had refused already, Edens wouldn’t be presenting this binary of extension or trade.

Again, this is simply business, and not surprising. There appears to be every intention that the Bucks will offer him that extension, when he becomes eligible to sign it. Everything that happens prior is going to influence Giannis’ decision. Milwaukee hasn’t deviated from its previously stated path at this time; the only addition here is that if he declines, they intend to move him.

You can read the rest, but I want to emphasize that Shelburne only elected to include a few comments from a “90-minute interview,” and nearly everything else in the article is speculation by her or comments from non-Bucks sources. So you have to take a lot of what follows with grains of salt.

She mentions the Bucks’ unique ownership structure, where governorship (and perhaps the final say on everything) rotates every five years. Haslam will assume that role in 2029 from Edens, and he continues to gain influence in the organization, as evidenced by his pick for team president in January. In fact, an opposing GM said they dealt directly with Haslam when they asked about acquiring Giannis this year.

While no other team operates this way, with a three-way ownership structure that also includes co-owner Jamie Dinan, it’s something the Bucks have done since 2014. Other teams say this confuses them, they don’t know who’s in charge, it hampers the Bucks’ ability to make major decisions, etc. That’s immaterial: in that time span, they won a ring during an era where there’s been just one repeat champion. So who’s to say it doesn’t work, or that it will impact this particular decision? It worked out just fine moving forward from the last time there was actual discord at the top.

Shelburne mentions former co-owner Marc Lasry selling his share off to Haslam in 2023, citing how the relationship deteriorated between Edens and Lasry beginning in 2017. That’s when they disagreed about the franchise’s next GM: Lasry wanted then-assistant GM and current Jazz exec Justin Zanik, but Edens did not. At this time, Lasry was the governor, ostensibly with ultimate decision-making power. Ultimately, they agreed on promoting Jon Horst from within, which paid off with a championship four seasons later. However, Lasry did not partake in the Horst introductory press conference, and a team source says the two didn’t appear to be on speaking terms after Lasry made the sale.

This is not some revelation about dysfunction within the franchise. After that disagreement, Lasry stuck around for five-plus years, and while some speculated he wanted out because he saw the franchise’s fortunes turning, he ultimately made that call during a 58-win season, not even a year-and-a-half post-title. More likely, he saw the franchise’s mounting luxury tax payments, which have since been reset, and thought he could make a huge return on his original investment by selling (he did). Once more: a business decision.

In any case, the relationship between Edens and Haslam appears to be strong at present. And if they are aligned that priority numero uno is to convince Giannis to sign that extension later this year, then there is no actual drama here (sorry, ESPN). Owners mainly need to let Horst build the case for Giannis to do so, and give him full autonomy in terms of the roster, and most critically, the coaching staff.

If they don’t give Horst that latitude and/or Giannis is unconvinced, they will choose to trade him, the franchise will return to its 90s through late 2010s irrelevance, and their revenue will dry up. These are business decisions. Giannis’ preferences are aligned with many fans: they want the Bucks to be back in true contention. Giannis wants the Bucks to contend with him on the team, and the majority of fans do too.

It’s up to the ownership and front office to make that happen. With the draft assets and expiring salary Milwaukee possesses this summer, they can make Holiday/Lillard-style moves, and you don’t need to squint to see Giannis plus a new coaching staff return them among the East’s best next year. Installing the correct personnel on the floor and bench, just like they did in 2018 and 2020 (in 2023, they at least got the roster moves right, if not the staff), could secure contending basketball for the entirety of Giannis’ next extension, possibly the rest of his career too.

Should they opt not to do that, there’s much less guarantee Giannis will sign on the dotted line. Should that come to pass, he’ll apparently be traded, then they can kiss fan interest and their revenue stream goodbye for the foreseeable future. That’s a business decision too, but you don’t need an MBA to see why it’s the lesser of Edens’ two options.