The report from ESPN’s Shams Charania that revealed the New York Knicks were the only team over the offseason that Giannis Antetokounmpo wanted to leave the Milwaukee Bucks for has sparked a litany of reactions. In the rush to declare going all-in for the two-time MVP a no-brainer or implausible, though, the other end of the spectrum has fallen by the wayside: Giannis wants the Knicks, but should the Knicks want Giannis?
Yours truly will even admit that’s a farcical question. They absolutely should want Giannis. The issue arises when going into the “at all costs” part of the equation. New York is woefully thin on draft on assets, and will only land Giannis if he truly forces the issue. That lends itself to the front office giving up whatever it takes, short of Jalen Brunson.
Except, it’s not that simple, as The Ringer’s Zach Lowe points out on the latest episode of The Zach Lowe Show.
“It’s a version of—not the same—when the Celtics were rumored, when there was the Jaylen Brown-for-[Kevin] Durant [rumblings], and the Celtics would have had to add a bunch of stuff to send to Brooklyn for Durant,” Lowe says around the 16:36 mark . “And part of the reason I didn’t like that idea for Boston was ‘I think you’re already the favorites to win the title.’ Yes, you could make yourself a potentially even stronger favorite to win the title…but is that really worth the future cost?”
Any Giannis trade can’t shorten the Knicks’ window
The Giannis situation now is not a perfect analog to Durant’s exit from Brooklyn. KD was in his age-34 season at the time. Giannis is entering his age-31 campaign.
Then again, Giannis’ game is more predicated on having athletic advantages, and he doesn’t use his size to effortlessly get off jumpers over anyone he pleases. His aging curve may not be nearly as graceful as it is for some other stars.
The Knicks have to factor that into offers they put on the table. Any Giannis package is going to cost at least two of their core rotation players, if not more, and potentially even more than that.
It’s one thing if we fast forward to the 2026 offseason, and you can get Giannis for Mikal Bridges, Josh Hart, smaller salaries, and picks. It’s another if you’re surrendering both OG Anunoby and Karl-Anthony Towns as part of a larger, more complicated trade.
Think about what New York is left with in the latter scenario: Brunson, Giannis, Hart, Bridges, Deuce McBride, and maybe Mitchell Robinson. If this is happening over the offseason, the Knicks are out both their 2026 and 2032 first-round picks as well. They could work it to also land Myles Turner as part of an OG-plus-Towns construction, but this presumes the Bucks don’t think they can ship out Turner for additional value.
New York must remain in on Giannis—to a point
Many would make the trade anyway. That’s a legitimate stance. But it requires critical thought before doing so.
Mindlessly giving up whatever only makes sense if Giannis is the difference between your championship window opening and closing, or not existing. The Knicks aren’t in that boat. They could come out of the East as constructed.
Which isn’t to say they’re better off without Giannis. Rather, this dream scenario, insofar as it’s even feasible, requires more nuance. The Knicks should absolutely be interested in Giannis, both now and later, but only at a price that won’t leave them susceptible to a shorter, if potentially less viable, title window.