Milwaukee Bucks: 3 biggest ‘what ifs’ during the Bucks’ early 2010s run

Almost trading for Steph Curry

Having the chance to trade for a generational superstar and three-time NBA champion in Stephen Curry and not managing to do so seems like a mistake on the part of the Bucks, right? On its face, absolutely.

The truth is that it’s a little more complicated than that, though.

After suffering a fractured ankle a month into the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season, Bogut was reportedly no longer viewed as the ‘untouchable’ piece the Bucks thought of him once upon a time. Furthermore, Bogut was open to a fresh start as ESPN’s Marc Stein reported ahead of that year’s trade deadline:

"“NBA front-office sources say that the Bucks, who have always swatted away trade inquiries for Bogut in the past, are now listening to pitches for the 7-foot Australian, who is said to be intrigued by the prospect of a fresh start elsewhere after more than two years of injury misfortune and teamwide tension under coach Scott Skiles over the past two disappointing seasons.”"

Trader John, the alter ego of then-Bucks general manager John Hammond, then entered the proceedings. Bogut was later dealt in a blockbuster deal to the Golden State Warriors, along with the disgruntled Stephen Jackson, in exchange for Monta Ellis, Ekpe Udoh and Kwame Brown.

But as the story goes, talks had originally centered around Curry. In the mind of then-Warriors general manager, Larry Riley, Curry’s place in trade discussions was a way to get the ball rolling as NBC Sports Bay Area reported on back in June of 2017:

"“Absolutely. The only way to get the trade started was to let them start talking about Steph Curry. That’s like going fishing, you throw some bait out there. A couple of things happened with that. I wanted to switch the deal over to Monta all along. But in order to get a conversation going, we had to do that.” “Well that was also the year Steph was having some ankle problems, and this is just me speaking, you’ll have to talk to [then-Bucks GM] John Hammond, but they became concerned about Steph’s future in regards to ankle problems that he was having. So in order to get the deal, we have to put Ekpe Udoh in it. And Ekpe looked like a player that could become a solid NBA backup. In all honestly, we had Ekpe for a year and half and I felt ‘Hey, I made a mistake with this one. This guy is not going to make it.” So we had an opporunity to correct a mistake and put him with Monta and get the center back we wanted.” “So there’s some credibility to the way that conversation actually started. But at the end of the day, I would have been kicking and screaming and tied down and everything else before I would have let Steph Curry go,” Riley said.”"

At the time, Curry’s ankle injuries were a source of great debate over his early career as he had suffered multiple sprains and went under the knife on a couple of occasions. Like Sisyphus, Curry’s perpetual ankle sprains reportedly led him to saying this as ESPN’s Pablo Torre recounted in February 2016:

"“Three months later, in July 2012, Curry was rehabbing with his personal trainer, Brandon Payne, when he made a startling confession: “I feel like I’ve been doing nothing but rehabbing for two years,” Curry quietly told him. “I feel like I’m never going to be able to play again.”"

Current Bucks owner Marc Lasry talked about how Curry’s ankle problems ultimately nixed the deal from the Milwaukee’s perspective in an interview with The Athletic’s Frank Isola ($) in January of 2019:

"“I don’t know if they can be light years ahead if they traded Steph Curry to the Bucks for Andrew Bogut,” Lasry says of a proposed trade before he purchased the Bucks, which has been reported as both fact and urban legend. “That was the deal. But the Bucks’ medical staff didn’t think Steph’s ankle would hold up. That killed the deal. So, I don’t know if that’s being light years. It’s luck. And that’s fine.” Lasry then smiled and added, “I think we got rid of that medical staff when we bought the team.”"

In theory, not angling for Curry changes the scope of the Bucks franchise, given the player he developed into and it’s arguably on par with losing out on Julius Erving as we explored last week, despite the differing circumstances and context (i.e. Bucks drafted Erving, Bucks never had Curry).

Yet, in an alternate universe where the Bucks get Curry in that trade package, there’s no guarantee that the most lethal 3-point shooter in NBA history would have delivered the same success in Milwaukee as he has experienced in the Bay Area due to those same ankle issues.

After all, it was Curry’s injuries that necessitated a four-year, $44 million extension, a deal that was considered risky at the time, and spawned how the Warriors were able to do the very things that made them the juggernaut they became as they decade wore on. How would the Bucks have dealt with Curry’s contract extension talks at the time? There’s simply no way of knowing.

Essentially, swapping Bogut for Curry would have been viewed as trading damaged goods for damaged goods. And given the state of the Bucks at the time, it would have been incredibly hard to envision them having the resources and infrastructure in place to help Curry find a solution to his long-standing ankle injuries and sprains.

As for the real centerpiece of the Bucks’ deal with Golden State, let’s just say Monta Ellis doesn’t look back on the trade too fondly and his Bucks stint as a whole.

Luckily, the Bucks have been able to finally step off of that awful treadmill of mediocrity and have went on to form a memorable era of Bucks basketball after many long and painstaking years. Bucks fans will certainly never forget the era that it all came out of, that’s for sure.