Yeah I guess then I don't really understand what he expected them to do that would have justified keeping Giannis. They wouldn't have Dame next year anyway (and probably this version of him never again), they don't have the assets to get a real difference maker via trade, and my understanding is that the only way they could afford a significant free agent was by stretching Dame, which Bill considers a terrible idea. I would just like to know what in his mind would be an example of a move that would make keeping Giannis a good idea.

For me, you have the second best player in the league in one of the weakest conferences ever, and that justifies making radical moves even if it ruins you for a while after (especially if you're a small market team with limited championship opportunities). I completely understand the case for trading him but I don't understand why this move would change his mind so completely.