A Reflection on Giannis Antetokounmpo

Getty Images

In the final four years of Dirk Nowitzki’s career with the Dallas Mavericks, the franchise posted win totals of 42, 33, 24, and 33 games. Despite these underwhelming performances, there was little public discourse criticizing the Mavericks for “wasting” the twilight of Nowitzki’s career. His loyalty to Dallas, culminating in a single championship in 2011, was celebrated rather than dissected. In stark contrast, the Milwaukee Bucks and Giannis Antetokounmpo are under heightened scrutiny, especially following the team’s early 2025 playoff exit and co-star Damian Lillard’s torn Achilles tendon. The juxtaposition of these two narratives raises pressing questions about how legacy is constructed and valued in the NBA. While Nowitzki aged into retirement in a stable, if unspectacular, setting, Antetokounmpo—still one of the league’s top players at age 30—is surrounded by speculation about his future. As Hollinger (2025) notes, Lillard’s injury has significantly diminished Milwaukee’s trade flexibility, leading some to argue that trading Antetokounmpo may be the only viable path to rebuild.

Unlike Nowitzki, whose trade value was negligible past age 33, Antetokounmpo remains capable of commanding a historic return in assets. This distinction is both a blessing and a curse. While he can single-handedly keep the Bucks competitive, the ceiling may be limited to mediocrity. The new NBA collective bargaining agreement, with its restrictive salary cap mechanics and punitive luxury tax tiers, further complicates efforts to remain both competitive and financially agile. The cultural climate of the NBA has also evolved. With player salaries climbing toward $400 million over five seasons and franchises selling for upwards of $6 billion, the league is increasingly perceived as a business-first environment. Loyalty, once considered a virtue, is now often viewed as a liability—unless accompanied by continuous success. As a result, players who remain with one franchise are compared to outliers like Stephen Curry, who combine loyalty with multiple championships and sustained excellence.

Still, there is value in narrative continuity. The argument for Antetokounmpo remaining in Milwaukee is not strictly about winning more titles. It is about legacy-building through shared struggle and resilience. Lillard’s own late-career arc in Portland—while marked by disappointment—was also filled with memorable personal achievements and a deepening connection with fans. These intangible benefits are rarely considered in an age dominated by title counts and trade machine scenarios. Ultimately, the Bucks and Antetokounmpo have reached a crossroads. If both sides choose to move forward together, accepting that future seasons may prioritize culture and identity over championships, they will be engaging in a radical act of patience and belief. In doing so, they may help restore a sense of romance to a league increasingly governed by urgency and transactional logic.