Moderator: ijspeelman
JujitsuFlip wrote:Can we get a Joe Harris reunion? I think he would be a fine get for the vet min.
I just don't see anyway CPJ would sign for $1 million or $2 million this season. I could be wrong, if so, he's a steal. If he does take that low of money, i doubt he allows himself to be locked up for any long term amount of years.JonFromVA wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Can we get a Joe Harris reunion? I think he would be a fine get for the vet min.
If that means we couldn't sign CPJ, I'd probably pass given how redundant he'd seem to be with Strus and Merrill and who knows if Ty Jerome will ever be able to play.
JujitsuFlip wrote:I just don't see anyway CPJ would sign for $1 million or $2 million this season. I could be wrong, if so, he's a steal. If he does take that low of money, i doubt he allows himself to be locked up for any long term amount of years.JonFromVA wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Can we get a Joe Harris reunion? I think he would be a fine get for the vet min.
If that means we couldn't sign CPJ, I'd probably pass given how redundant he'd seem to be with Strus and Merrill and who knows if Ty Jerome will ever be able to play.
xxSnEaKyPxx wrote:NBA: Stop kicking, punching, choking, and stomping on people.
Draymond: This is too much, I quit!
I don't believe Fedor about why LeVert only played 13 minutes last night. I think they were in trade discussions, for who idk but whatever it was, obviously never materialized.Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
jbk1234 wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
DFS was the only guy I would've moved Okoro/Wade for, and I wouldn't have felt great about doing it. I obviously would've moved LeVert and all our seconds for him, but I suspect that the Nets would've wanted at least a 1st.
jbk1234 wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
DFS was the only guy I would've moved Okoro/Wade for, and I wouldn't have felt great about doing it. I obviously would've moved LeVert and all our seconds for him, but I suspect that the Nets would've wanted at least a 1st.
They still wanted 2 first rounders for DFS.jbk1234 wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
DFS was the only guy I would've moved Okoro/Wade for, and I wouldn't have felt great about doing it. I obviously would've moved LeVert and all our seconds for him, but I suspect that the Nets would've wanted at least a 1st.
ijspeelman wrote:jbk1234 wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:I’m a little disappointed we didn’t make any moves. Granted, we’re playing incredible basketball right now but I still think we should have at least tried. Maybe we did and just couldn’t get any buyers but regardless… bit of a letdown.
DFS was the only guy I would've moved Okoro/Wade for, and I wouldn't have felt great about doing it. I obviously would've moved LeVert and all our seconds for him, but I suspect that the Nets would've wanted at least a 1st.
I like keeping LeVert, but will admit he was probably the likeliest out (unless we made a small deal around Damian Jones or Ty Jerome).
Losing him for DFS would improve our spacing, but we'd then be lacking in playmakers / secondary playmakers. Teams still respect his shot despite only shooting 34% on the season (38% on C&S FWIW whereas DFS is at 38.6%) and he's a solid point-of-attack and team defender. In the last two seasons, both have had very similar TS+ (both around 8% worse than league-average). Plus he seems great for the chemistry.
Basically with all these guys, I'm down to trade'm if it improves our chances at championship contention this season or the next few lol
jbk1234 wrote:ijspeelman wrote:jbk1234 wrote:
DFS was the only guy I would've moved Okoro/Wade for, and I wouldn't have felt great about doing it. I obviously would've moved LeVert and all our seconds for him, but I suspect that the Nets would've wanted at least a 1st.
I like keeping LeVert, but will admit he was probably the likeliest out (unless we made a small deal around Damian Jones or Ty Jerome).
Losing him for DFS would improve our spacing, but we'd then be lacking in playmakers / secondary playmakers. Teams still respect his shot despite only shooting 34% on the season (38% on C&S FWIW whereas DFS is at 38.6%) and he's a solid point-of-attack and team defender. In the last two seasons, both have had very similar TS+ (both around 8% worse than league-average). Plus he seems great for the chemistry.
Basically with all these guys, I'm down to trade'm if it improves our chances at championship contention this season or the next few lol
My issue with LeVert is that since Garland has gotten back, he's not deferring nearly enough. LeVert should almost always be the second option when one of Garland or Mitchell are on the floor, and the third option when the both are.
Now if the Hawks are trying to hide Trae on LeVert, or the Sixers are doing the same with Maxey, okay he can be more aggressive. That's not what I'm witnessing though.
Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.JonFromVA wrote:jbk1234 wrote:ijspeelman wrote:
I like keeping LeVert, but will admit he was probably the likeliest out (unless we made a small deal around Damian Jones or Ty Jerome).
Losing him for DFS would improve our spacing, but we'd then be lacking in playmakers / secondary playmakers. Teams still respect his shot despite only shooting 34% on the season (38% on C&S FWIW whereas DFS is at 38.6%) and he's a solid point-of-attack and team defender. In the last two seasons, both have had very similar TS+ (both around 8% worse than league-average). Plus he seems great for the chemistry.
Basically with all these guys, I'm down to trade'm if it improves our chances at championship contention this season or the next few lol
My issue with LeVert is that since Garland has gotten back, he's not deferring nearly enough. LeVert should almost always be the second option when one of Garland or Mitchell are on the floor, and the third option when the both are.
Now if the Hawks are trying to hide Trae on LeVert, or the Sixers are doing the same with Maxey, okay he can be more aggressive. That's not what I'm witnessing though.
I think part of the secret to our success has been our ability to keep everyone (in the rotation) engaged and trying to do everything they can do rather than the bare minimum to "cause no harm". In other words, sometimes we'll see the harm, but in exchange we see 5 men playing on a string on both ends of the floor and finding other ways to contribute even when their shot isn't going in.
Garland is still playing his way back in to form and the good news has been that even when his unit falters and gives up a lead, they've been able to counter-punch and build it back.
Regardless, Don has been the ultimate safety blanket of late and that let's us get away with almost anything. It's that kind of consistent excellence which we desperately missed from Mitchell and Garland in the playoffs.
JujitsuFlip wrote:Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.JonFromVA wrote:jbk1234 wrote:
My issue with LeVert is that since Garland has gotten back, he's not deferring nearly enough. LeVert should almost always be the second option when one of Garland or Mitchell are on the floor, and the third option when the both are.
Now if the Hawks are trying to hide Trae on LeVert, or the Sixers are doing the same with Maxey, okay he can be more aggressive. That's not what I'm witnessing though.
I think part of the secret to our success has been our ability to keep everyone (in the rotation) engaged and trying to do everything they can do rather than the bare minimum to "cause no harm". In other words, sometimes we'll see the harm, but in exchange we see 5 men playing on a string on both ends of the floor and finding other ways to contribute even when their shot isn't going in.
Garland is still playing his way back in to form and the good news has been that even when his unit falters and gives up a lead, they've been able to counter-punch and build it back.
Regardless, Don has been the ultimate safety blanket of late and that let's us get away with almost anything. It's that kind of consistent excellence which we desperately missed from Mitchell and Garland in the playoffs.
I don't watch games so hard for me to speak to it BUT i know LeVert's game well enough to know what you're describing. I agree, i would much rather have the ball in Garland's hands than LeVert going iso throwing up contested shots.jbk1234 wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.JonFromVA wrote:
I think part of the secret to our success has been our ability to keep everyone (in the rotation) engaged and trying to do everything they can do rather than the bare minimum to "cause no harm". In other words, sometimes we'll see the harm, but in exchange we see 5 men playing on a string on both ends of the floor and finding other ways to contribute even when their shot isn't going in.
Garland is still playing his way back in to form and the good news has been that even when his unit falters and gives up a lead, they've been able to counter-punch and build it back.
Regardless, Don has been the ultimate safety blanket of late and that let's us get away with almost anything. It's that kind of consistent excellence which we desperately missed from Mitchell and Garland in the playoffs.
I want to be clear about what I'm critiquing, I don't believe LeVert over dribbling, driving into a crowded paint, and taking questionable shots every other possession, is better than Garland running the offense. He's still playing as though he should be the primary ball handler when Mitchell sits. He shouldn't be.
This isn't about a ball and player movement offense versus Garland finding the weak spots in the defense (the Cavs would be very foolish to just jettison the latter). LeVert isn't keeping the ball moving.
jbk1234 wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.JonFromVA wrote:
I think part of the secret to our success has been our ability to keep everyone (in the rotation) engaged and trying to do everything they can do rather than the bare minimum to "cause no harm". In other words, sometimes we'll see the harm, but in exchange we see 5 men playing on a string on both ends of the floor and finding other ways to contribute even when their shot isn't going in.
Garland is still playing his way back in to form and the good news has been that even when his unit falters and gives up a lead, they've been able to counter-punch and build it back.
Regardless, Don has been the ultimate safety blanket of late and that let's us get away with almost anything. It's that kind of consistent excellence which we desperately missed from Mitchell and Garland in the playoffs.
I want to be clear about what I'm critiquing, I don't believe LeVert over dribbling, driving into a crowded paint, and taking questionable shots every other possession, is better than Garland running the offense. He's still playing as though he should be the primary ball handler when Mitchell sits. He shouldn't be.
This isn't about a ball and player movement offense versus Garland finding the weak spots in the defense (the Cavs would be very foolish to just jettison the latter). LeVert isn't keeping the ball moving.
JonFromVA wrote:jbk1234 wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.
I want to be clear about what I'm critiquing, I don't believe LeVert over dribbling, driving into a crowded paint, and taking questionable shots every other possession, is better than Garland running the offense. He's still playing as though he should be the primary ball handler when Mitchell sits. He shouldn't be.
This isn't about a ball and player movement offense versus Garland finding the weak spots in the defense (the Cavs would be very foolish to just jettison the latter). LeVert isn't keeping the ball moving.
Yet it is. The ball moves, it gets to LeVert, LeVert knows his job is to attack/create/shoot open shots, so when he sees a chance to do so, he takes it. He feels enabled so he's playing his game.
His game as we know all too well can become inefficient, but my point here is that this isn't anywhere near the same kind of problem as when a player who's only asked to do one thing well fails to deliver.
For instance, Max Strus is currently shooting 33.8% on his 3pters which is right on par with other guys we brought in to shoot but were considered disappointments like Donyell Marshall and Antawn Jamison. But while Max is busy missing more 3's than those guys even attempted, you don't hear the gasps of disgust every time he misses one because that's not the only way he contributes.
Seems like after all the injuries, JBB has stopped trying to fit everyone on his roster in to pre-defined roles. So, if we do run in to a playoff team that manages to frustrate both Mitchell and Garland with their wing defenders/scheme ... Caris is going to be next man up and he should be ready.
I'd like to have CPJ ready to go too, and maybe we will if we end up signing him to a contract. He is right up against the number of games he can be active for the season.
Finally, keeping Garland healthy and on the floor has got to be an imperative. So, just think every time LeVert (or anyone else) drives in to the thick of the defense trying to create a shot that's one less opportunity for DG to get smacked in the eye, jaw, or who knows what's next.
JujitsuFlip wrote:I don't watch games so hard for me to speak to it BUT i know LeVert's game well enough to know what you're describing. I agree, i would much rather have the ball in Garland's hands than LeVert going iso throwing up contested shots.jbk1234 wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:Garland sacrificing stats for the greater good of the team has been huge and was a must because when Jb plays 10 deep, it can't just be the core 4 show.
I want to be clear about what I'm critiquing, I don't believe LeVert over dribbling, driving into a crowded paint, and taking questionable shots every other possession, is better than Garland running the offense. He's still playing as though he should be the primary ball handler when Mitchell sits. He shouldn't be.
This isn't about a ball and player movement offense versus Garland finding the weak spots in the defense (the Cavs would be very foolish to just jettison the latter). LeVert isn't keeping the ball moving.
That is one downfall of Jb allowing everyone to just play their game, LeVert's game is naturally that. On the 2022 Cavs it's why they acquired him, on the 2023 Cavs it was tolerated bc the Cavs had no one else to play off the bench. With the 2024 Cavs and Jb finally discovering 10 guys he trusts, it is not a trait that is needed any longer and as you alluded to it could actually be to the detriment of the team.
JonFromVA wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:I don't watch games so hard for me to speak to it BUT i know LeVert's game well enough to know what you're describing. I agree, i would much rather have the ball in Garland's hands than LeVert going iso throwing up contested shots.jbk1234 wrote:
I want to be clear about what I'm critiquing, I don't believe LeVert over dribbling, driving into a crowded paint, and taking questionable shots every other possession, is better than Garland running the offense. He's still playing as though he should be the primary ball handler when Mitchell sits. He shouldn't be.
This isn't about a ball and player movement offense versus Garland finding the weak spots in the defense (the Cavs would be very foolish to just jettison the latter). LeVert isn't keeping the ball moving.
That is one downfall of Jb allowing everyone to just play their game, LeVert's game is naturally that. On the 2022 Cavs it's why they acquired him, on the 2023 Cavs it was tolerated bc the Cavs had no one else to play off the bench. With the 2024 Cavs and Jb finally discovering 10 guys he trusts, it is not a trait that is needed any longer and as you alluded to it could actually be to the detriment of the team.
Diversity in attack is good, it makes things much harder on the opposing coach. The last thing we want to do is go back to the days we passed the ball around the perimeter until DG or Don tried to create something. We've finally unlocked the team and it's for the best.
A big game is going to come down to something the other coach wants, like Okoro having to make a big shot, or LeVert finishing a drive. We need to prepare them and then trust them in the moment.
