When it comes to the minutiae of the NBA salary cap, there are few better at understanding — and explaining — it than ESPN’s Brian Windhorst.
So it’s not a surprise that on Tuesday, First Take turned to the longtime NBA reporter for his thoughts on Giannis Antetokounmpo’s three-year, $186 million extension with the Milwaukee Bucks. And through his prism as a salary cap expert, Windhorst wasn’t a fan of the move for “Greek Freak.”
“It’s questionable. This is a gift he’s given to the Bucks organization,” Windhorst said. “Yes, it gives him some financial protection. But he could’ve signed the same deal at the end of the season. So now he gets in the position where if they have a down year — I don’t expect that to happen, but I thought they were going to maybe win it all last year — now he’s locked in for four more years.
“So Giannis gave up a marginal amount of leverage to lock in some financial security and set up his contract for the rest of his career. Absolutely not something that needed to happen for the Bucks, so a huge win for them locking him down. And a vote of confidence for this team going into this regular season.”
Always one to embrace debate, Stephen A. Smith took the other side of the argument.
“When they told me they were going to ask me this question, I have to confess to you that I said for the first time I think that Brian Windhorst needs to be drug tested,” Smith said. “The reason why I came to that conclusion, Windy, is because all I could see was three years, $186 million. You divide that by three and it comes up to $62 million a year. What the hell you mean it’s a questionable decision? There’s no questionable decision about $62 million a year.”
“Were you worried he wasn’t going to get paid for the next three years?” Windhorst retorted.
“No, it wasn’t that,” Smith replied. “But you never know — injuries. Anything could happen. Life is life. Tomorrow ain’t guaranteed baby… you don’t sit up there and pass up $62 million.”
.@WindhorstESPN says Giannis' contract extension was a "questionable" move.@stephenasmith disagrees 👀 pic.twitter.com/hb2f5Sk76v
— First Take (@FirstTake) October 24, 2023
While it may not fit the First Take ethos, the reality is that both Windhorst and Smith could be considered right.
As Windhorst pointed out, there was nothing pressing Antetokounmpo to sign this deal when he did. Barring an unlikely career-ending injury, it would have almost assuredly been available to him after the upcoming season, at which point, he would have been able to maintain leverage over Milwaukee in the event he wanted to force a trade.
But as Smith noted, it’s tough to argue with three years and $186 million, especially for a superstar that has shown uncommon loyalty to his franchise in the “Player Empowerment Era.” Did the two-time MVP surrender some leverage? Perhaps. But who’s to say that leverage was more important to him than the financial security of his new deal — or important to him at all?
If forced to pick a winner, I would side with Smith. While I certainly understand Windhorst’s point of view, it says a lot about the state of the NBA that we assume that every superstar needs to maintain some level of leverage against his team.
Nevertheless, this is a good example of what the latest iteration of First Take gets right; Windhorst speaking from his position of expertise and Smith lending voice to the common fan. Who you agree with likely depends on the lens through which you view the NBA.
