RealGM

toooskies wrote:It's a team game. Mitchell's Utah teams lost because they had solvable defenses more than anything.

JujitsuFlip wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:I think there's a rule where a S&T can hard cap you, which if we qualified wouldn't be the end of the world, but it complicates things quite a bit.

Cavs are hard capped right now due to the Strus S&T but they still would be bc they used the BAE on TJ, and they still would be bc they paid Niang over a certain threshold of the MLE.

Being hard capped really isn't super restrictive, unless it's big contracts tied up in a couple guys bc filling out the roster becomes difficult.

Cavs have so many tiny contracts and guys in the pipeline, it's fine.

JonFromVA wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Strus was pretty awful in the finals, could be a connection. I wouldn't want to gamble he's the answer at SG with OG and Garland, at least at this point in time. Not to mention, but Max was supposed to be a backup in Miami.

If we're going to pay our SF max money, I'd much prefer someone who will earn it.

Strus has admittedly had a really awful stretch of games from a shooting standpoint as of late and I’m starting to see what everyone was talking about in regards to him being a streaky shooter (after being near 40% shooting from three, he’s currently back down to 34% due to an awful month of shooting in December).

With that said, I still really like the idea of having him be the starting two guard next to Garland if we ever do move on from Mitchell. He’s still a threat from outside, but he’s got other benefits as well. He’s been a very good defender since coming to Cleveland (didn’t see him enough to Miami to know if he was always this good), and he’s a pretty decent playmaker as well. And he’s shown that there’s more to his offense than just three point shooting. There’s better SG options out there and I totally get that, but for the most part I think he does enough good things to make him a positive player for us. I think he has to stop falling back on that three point shot so much when it’s not falling but I don’t think he’s someone that can shoot you out of a playoff series.

We won’t know what will happen with OG into the end of this season, so all we can do is speculate. But I’m going to make a bold prediction and say that if the cavaliers were to in fact get OG from Mitchell, and the rest of the starting lineup stays the same, Cleveland would be poised for a deep playoff run.

Sure, Max can start and he certainly brings more than shooting, what I was pushing back on was trying to replace what Mitchell brings with OG and Strus.

If Mobley looked ready to jump to #1/#2 option and plsymaking hub it could make sense.

jbk1234 wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:I think there's a rule where a S&T can hard cap you, which if we qualified wouldn't be the end of the world, but it complicates things quite a bit.

Cavs are hard capped right now due to the Strus S&T but they still would be bc they used the BAE on TJ, and they still would be bc they paid Niang over a certain threshold of the MLE.

Being hard capped really isn't super restrictive, unless it's big contracts tied up in a couple guys bc filling out the roster becomes difficult.

Cavs have so many tiny contracts and guys in the pipeline, it's fine.

You're only hard capped if the trade takes you above the apron. The Cavs aren't even in the tax.

JujitsuFlip wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:Cavs are hard capped right now due to the Strus S&T but they still would be bc they used the BAE on TJ, and they still would be bc they paid Niang over a certain threshold of the MLE.

Being hard capped really isn't super restrictive, unless it's big contracts tied up in a couple guys bc filling out the roster becomes difficult.

Cavs have so many tiny contracts and guys in the pipeline, it's fine.

You're only hard capped if the trade takes you above the apron. The Cavs aren't even in the tax.

False.

They're hard capped bc they recieved Strus via S&T... But even if not they're hard capped bc they used their BAE and above x of the MLE. The Cavs cannot spend more than $172,346,000 this season, for any reason.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/07/nba-teams-with-hard-caps-for-2023-24.html

jbk1234 wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
You're only hard capped if the trade takes you above the apron. The Cavs aren't even in the tax.

False.

They're hard capped bc they recieved Strus via S&T... But even if not they're hard capped bc they used their BAE and above x of the MLE. The Cavs cannot spend more than $172,346,000 this season, for any reason.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/07/nba-teams-with-hard-caps-for-2023-24.html

Stop getting information from Hoopsrumors.

And Happy New Year.

JujitsuFlip wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:False.

They're hard capped bc they recieved Strus via S&T... But even if not they're hard capped bc they used their BAE and above x of the MLE. The Cavs cannot spend more than $172,346,000 this season, for any reason.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2023/07/nba-teams-with-hard-caps-for-2023-24.html

Stop getting information from Hoopsrumors.

And Happy New Year.

It's in the CBA jbk lol

But happy new year sir

toooskies wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

toooskies wrote:Did the S&T rules get relaxed in the new CBA or is OG's matching value stuck around his current contract plus 20%?

You're thinking of extensions. I'm pretty sure the only limitation surrounding S&Ts is the 4 year limit and smaller raises.

I was thinking BYC rules: https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2022/06/hoops-rumors-glossary-base-year-compensation-2.html#:~:text=A%20relic%20of%20past%20agreements,facilitate%20salary%2Dmatching%20in%20trades.

For matching purposes OG's cap figure going out would be his 2023-24 salary and not his new contract, making it impossible to do a straight 1-for-1 deal for Mitchell (in terms of salary, of course there would be picks going to the Cavs as well.)

jbk1234 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:
Strus has admittedly had a really awful stretch of games from a shooting standpoint as of late and I’m starting to see what everyone was talking about in regards to him being a streaky shooter (after being near 40% shooting from three, he’s currently back down to 34% due to an awful month of shooting in December).

With that said, I still really like the idea of having him be the starting two guard next to Garland if we ever do move on from Mitchell. He’s still a threat from outside, but he’s got other benefits as well. He’s been a very good defender since coming to Cleveland (didn’t see him enough to Miami to know if he was always this good), and he’s a pretty decent playmaker as well. And he’s shown that there’s more to his offense than just three point shooting. There’s better SG options out there and I totally get that, but for the most part I think he does enough good things to make him a positive player for us. I think he has to stop falling back on that three point shot so much when it’s not falling but I don’t think he’s someone that can shoot you out of a playoff series.

We won’t know what will happen with OG into the end of this season, so all we can do is speculate. But I’m going to make a bold prediction and say that if the cavaliers were to in fact get OG from Mitchell, and the rest of the starting lineup stays the same, Cleveland would be poised for a deep playoff run.

Sure, Max can start and he certainly brings more than shooting, what I was pushing back on was trying to replace what Mitchell brings with OG and Strus.

If Mobley looked ready to jump to #1/#2 option and plsymaking hub it could make sense.

Unless the Celtics want a Mulligan on Brown’s Supermax deal next summer, any realistic trade scenario isn't going to replace what Mitchell brings. As there is no one else on the roster who can replace what Mitchell brings, the result will be different type of team that is hopefully better in certain ways even if they're not as good in others.

I don't want to trade him right now, but if he doesn't extend this summer, that's going to force their hand.

jbk1234 wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Stop getting information from Hoopsrumors.

And Happy New Year.

It's in the CBA jbk lol

But happy new year sir

I understand, but read the rules as they explain them, check their conclusion re the Cavs, ask yourself whether that makes any sense, and then check any other source.

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Sure, Max can start and he certainly brings more than shooting, what I was pushing back on was trying to replace what Mitchell brings with OG and Strus.

If Mobley looked ready to jump to #1/#2 option and plsymaking hub it could make sense.

Unless the Celtics want a Mulligan on Brown’s Supermax deal next summer, any realistic trade scenario isn't going to replace what Mitchell brings. As there is no one else on the roster who can replace what Mitchell brings, the result will be different type of team that is hopefully better in certain ways even if they're not as good in others.

I don't want to trade him right now, but if he doesn't extend this summer, that's going to force their hand.

Someone is going to overpay OG this Summer and I'd just prefer it's not us unless there are other parts to the trade that leaves us with at least a potentially better team based on fit if not talent.

Iwasawitness wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Unless the Celtics want a Mulligan on Brown’s Supermax deal next summer, any realistic trade scenario isn't going to replace what Mitchell brings. As there is no one else on the roster who can replace what Mitchell brings, the result will be different type of team that is hopefully better in certain ways even if they're not as good in others.

I don't want to trade him right now, but if he doesn't extend this summer, that's going to force their hand.

Someone is going to overpay OG this Summer and I'd just prefer it's not us unless there are other parts to the trade that leaves us with at least a potentially better team based on fit if not talent.

You don’t think OG on this team makes us better?

toooskies wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Someone is going to overpay OG this Summer and I'd just prefer it's not us unless there are other parts to the trade that leaves us with at least a potentially better team based on fit if not talent.

You don’t think OG on this team makes us better?

In place of Mitchell? No. You need more than just OG back.

Although perhaps it opens up development reps for Garland and Mobley.

JujitsuFlip wrote:Once OG declines his player option, he'll be an unrestricted free agent, why would he pick CLE to be sign and traded to? I'm confused, he has all the freedom to pick where he signs.

Let's not forget that OG's agent is the son of the Knicks POB.

toooskies wrote:

JujitsuFlip wrote:Once OG declines his player option, he'll be an unrestricted free agent, why would he pick CLE to be sign and traded to? I'm confused, he has all the freedom to pick where he signs.

Let's not forget that OG's agent is the son of the Knicks POB.

We'll see how well OG works out in NY. He absolutely may be re-signed. At the price he wants is another matter.

Basketball-wise, Cleveland minus Mitchell has more offensive touches for him than NY with Brunson and Randle.

Could be both better financially and better for his career.

Iwasawitness wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Unless the Celtics want a Mulligan on Brown’s Supermax deal next summer, any realistic trade scenario isn't going to replace what Mitchell brings. As there is no one else on the roster who can replace what Mitchell brings, the result will be different type of team that is hopefully better in certain ways even if they're not as good in others.

I don't want to trade him right now, but if he doesn't extend this summer, that's going to force their hand.

Someone is going to overpay OG this Summer and I'd just prefer it's not us unless there are other parts to the trade that leaves us with at least a potentially better team based on fit if not talent.

You don’t think OG on this team makes us better?

Iwasawitness wrote:

toooskies wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:You don’t think OG on this team makes us better?

In place of Mitchell? No. You need more than just OG back.

Although perhaps it opens up development reps for Garland and Mobley.

And how do you figure that? Cleveland with OG is almost a guarantee to be the number one defense in the league, even over teams like Minnesota who are far and away the best defense right now.

For the very reason you just stated, offensively this opens up more opportunity for Garland and Mobley. And we have a much more team oriented offense because of it, which I would argue is exactly what Cleveland needs, not the one we run when Mitchell is in town.

JujitsuFlip wrote:

toooskies wrote:It's a team game. Mitchell's Utah teams lost because they had solvable defenses more than anything.