Giannis Antetokounmpo Sounds Like LeBron or Aaron Rodgers With Better PR

While the NBA's grasp on public consciousness ramps up after Christmas, things still move gradually. The early part of each calendar year sees something of a slow burn as the NFL works through its postseason. On Tuesday, however, basketball briefly jumped to the front of the line.

The Milwaukee Bucks, despite a 30-13 record that was good for second place in the Eastern Conference, suddenly fired head coach Adrian Griffin. Then, before long, speculation started swirling that Doc Rivers would be returning to the sidelines and taking over the post.

Along the way, insider Mark Stein weighed in with some reporting suggesting that Giannis Antetokounmpo played a major role in the decision to hire Griffin.

The post in question is headlined "Inside the Bucks' sudden dismissal of Adrian Griffin: This one, mostly, is on Giannis." The sub-headline teases a similar sentiment, saying, "The Bucks hired Griffin as their coach because that's who their superstar wanted. But there's even more to it as explained here."

The rest of the text is behind a paywall, but some of it has been aggregated across the internet. Bleacher Report, for example, quoted Stein as writing that Antetokounmpo "chose to champion Griffin" during the offseason coaching search. It should be noted, however, that Stein also wrote that "the desire to play for Griffin is better described as a determination to play for someone other than Nick Nurse."

Newsweek reached out to the Bucks via email to request comment on Stein's report and Antetokounmpo's potential role in the personnel decisions.

It's also safe to assume that the Greek Freak also played at least some role in Griffin's dismissal. Beyond the fact that it would be foolish to make a coaching change without consulting your star player, Giannis has cut a frustrated figure this season, imploring everyone to be better. He even went viral for drawing up a play himself. And, from an outside perspective, an organization isn't going to fire a coach 1) that quickly and 2) with a winning record, unless something is rotten behind the scenes.

It's also worth noting that the Greek Freak probably played some role (again, actively or indirectly) in bringing Damian Lillard to Milwaukee. And, to no one's surprise, swapping Dame for Jrue Holiday affected things on defense. Weakness at that end of the floor has been something Giannis publicly spoke about recently. Those comments sound a bit different after Griffin's dismissal.

That all combines to place the collective decisions of both Antetokounmpo and the Bucks brass at the center of this coaching change. You could blame the player for sticking his hands too far into the personnel side of things. You could also accuse the front office of placing too much stock in their star player's preferences and making a foolish decision. Either way, though, Griffin was hired and fired within less than a season.

But if you're a big-time sports fan, this situation will sound similar. LeBron James has, over the years, been criticized for playing "LeGM" and trying to assemble a team to his liking. And, if we cross over to a more recent NFL storyline, the New York Jets found themselves in a less than ideal situation by surrounding Aaron Rodgers with some of his former teammates (and former coach Nathaniel Hackett.)

Antetokounmpo, however, has avoided much of the same heat, at least in the immediate aftermath of Griffin's departure. Maybe you get your first bad personnel involvement free? Or maybe his years of positive PR (think talking Oreos during press conferences) have simply built up a bit more goodwill?

But before you start firing off angry tweets, that's not to suggest the Bucks or their star player did anything egregiously wrong. Was hiring Griffin wrong in hindsight? Yes, but the process wasn't completely awful.

It's important to remember that, during the offseason, Giannis had yet to sign his new contract. The Bucks announced Griffin's hiring in early June, and the Greek Freak agreed to an extension toward the end of October.

In that context, can you really blame the Bucks for taking his coaching preferences into consideration? We can spout clichés about no one being bigger than the team until we're blue in the face, but the modern NBA is about star players. You could have Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Mike Krzyzewski and the ghost of John Wooden working together on the bench and that wouldn't turn a group of replacement-level players into a contender. That might rub some fans the wrong way, but you need some generational talent on the floor to take a legitimate shot at the title.

And, from the player's perspective, can you really blame someone for voicing a preference about whom he works with? Given that a star athlete (whether we're talking Antetokounmpo, James or anyone else) will be the one who will largely carry the legacy-based repercussions of a failed season on his shoulders, it's reasonable that he'd want some say.

That leaves us with a situation that isn't ideal but is understandable. It's easy to say that front offices shouldn't make decisions based on the whims of a star player, but the front office will be pilloried if the star player gets angry and leaves town. By that same token, the athlete will be criticized for getting too involved in personnel matters while still being branded a failure if he fails to deliver a championship.

So how do we view these sorts of decisions?

Ultimately, there's little more we can do than recognize the reality. Given how much the presence of an elite player (whether we're talking about an NBA star or an NFL quarterback) can sway the results, it's understandable that front offices will give him a voice in personnel decisions. And by that same token, it's understandable that players take that seat at the table. Like it or not, that's just where we're at right now.

That said, perhaps it's better to judge the moves based on the results rather than the process. When push comes to shove, forget how the move got made. Was it good or bad? That's what gets applied to someone's legacy.

Was it a great moral failing for Antetokounmpo to advocate for Griffin's hiring? No. Was it the pinnacle of mismanagement for the Bucks to consider that preference? No.

Was it ultimately a bad decision and something that both parties will have to deal with moving forward? Ultimately, yes.

And we can judge the Bucks and Giannis on that.