CLE-BKN-NOP

[HadAnEffectHere]

Cavs get: Mikal Bridges, Brandon Ingram
Pelicans get: Jarrett Allen, Dorian Finney-Smith, 2025 unprotected Suns pick, 2029 unprotected Suns pick,
Nets get: Donovan Mitchell

So this trades assumes that Donovan Mitchell will not extend with the Cavs (because he wants to play in New York), but Brandon Ingram agrees to extend in Cleveland because he's location indifferent.

Why for Cleveland: Break up the two guard, two big lineup that has a lot of issues and get two wings that should be able to help them a lot.

Why for the Pelicans: Ingram and Zion isn't a great pairing and the Pelicans could use a more mobile center. Allen is a great center and they add even more assets for a potential star trade later.

Why for the Nets: Get a top 15 player in the NBA and have the assets to go get more guys later.

[louc1970]

Not a fan of it. Nets giving up Bridges for Mitchell who will be gone in a year. I cannot see Mitchell resigning with a team of him and Claxton.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Not a fan of it. Nets giving up Bridges for Mitchell who will be gone in a year. I cannot see Mitchell resigning with a team of him and Claxton.

They have six other firsts to get more guys.

[Texas Chuck]

I only get this for Cleveland who removes all their risk, improves both of their major fit issues and gets two in their prime starting forwards who complement Garland/Mobley perfectly.

Nets absorb a ton of risk. Pels have to downgrade in talent and take on questionable fit to what get some picks? Seems all wrong directionally.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t see NOP trading their secondary star for roleplayers and picks just to have to go find a new secondary star. Leaving my opinion of Ingram out of it.

And Brooklyn is trading what they believe is a secondary star for star who will be on a roster by himself. Sure, Brooklyn has some trade assets for a star, but if it were that easy - they wouldn’t need to use Bridges here.

Feels like the wrong three teams/pieces to me.

[toooskies]

I disagree with anything in the premise that says Mitchell isn't going to extend. With his knee injury he'll probably want to lock up as much money as possible this summer. He also objectively likes Cleveland and the vibe is entirely that he wants to stay there-- Niang discussed this on a recent Russillo podcast.

But even if Mitchell doesn't extend and the Cavs move him...

Cavs cut the Pelicans out. I'd much rather have DFS/Allen/two Suns picks than Ingram.

First, there's no way for Ingram to agree to an extension within 6 months of this trade occurring. It's prohibited in the CBA. Regardless of what is said at trade time, he could simply change his mind. There's no way to cut out that risk.

Second, this deal leaves a huge hole for the Cavs at the 4. Dean Wade and Georges Niang are not enough there. And that's if you move Mobley to the full-time 5, a position which he hasn't proven he can play full-time.

Third, my opinion on Ingram is that he's mostly only valuable as a mediocre team's best player. He's neither leading your team to a title nor would be very good as a second banana, with his national team play exposing how mediocre he is when the game isn't running through him. That Cavs team might be fun in the regular season, but it isn't winning anything, and if you're counting on Mobley's development, Ingram is just going to slow that down.

Whereas if you simply keep Allen and add Bridges/DFS, you suddenly have a suffocating defensive team with Bridges, Allen, Mobley, DFS, Okoro, Wade all being plus defenders. LeVert not being bad either. That team's going to ask more of everyone offensively which will be really good for Mobley's development.

[jbk1234]

I only get this for Cleveland who removes all their risk, improves both of their major fit issues and gets two in their prime starting forwards who complement Garland/Mobley perfectly.

Nets absorb a ton of risk. Pels have to downgrade in talent and take on questionable fit to what get some picks? Seems all wrong directionally.

The implicit assumption here is Mitchell extends with the Nets, which seems more plausible to me than the O.P.'s explict assumption that Ingram won't extend with N.O., but is somehow *location indifferent* so he'll extend with the Cavs. If Ingram is location indifferent, he likely wants to keep all his options open for free agency.

Allen and Bridges have the same number of years remaining on their team-friendly deals.

[HadAnEffectHere]

I only get this for Cleveland who removes all their risk, improves both of their major fit issues and gets two in their prime starting forwards who complement Garland/Mobley perfectly.

Nets absorb a ton of risk. Pels have to downgrade in talent and take on questionable fit to what get some picks? Seems all wrong directionally.

The implicit assumption here is Mitchell extends with the Nets, which seems more plausible to me than the O.P.'s explict assumption that Ingram won't extend with N.O., but is somehow *location indifferent* so he'll extend with the Cavs. If Ingram is location indifferent, he likely wants to keep all his options open for free agency.

Allen and Bridges have the same number of years remaining on their team-friendly deals.

To be clear, I think Ingram would take a max extension anywhere, here the Pelicans are just trading him because they don't want to give him a max extension as he's a bad fit with Zion.

[Mrakar]

I will not argue with the value here for the Pelicans, but Pelicans cant bring non-shoting center. Zion is having enough problems with Jonas and Nance who at least hit something from outside, with Allen it would be impossible for him to be effective. Just go back to Steven Adams days.
Pelicans defense can be good enough without rim-protector, they showed that and it is all because of the lenght on all positions.

[lordjeff05]

I will not argue with the value here for the Pelicans, but Pelicans cant bring non-shoting center. Zion is having enough problems with Jonas and Nance who at least hit something from outside, with Allen it would be impossible for him to be effective. Just go back to Steven Adams days.
Pelicans defense can be good enough without rim-protector, they showed that and it is all because of the lenght on all positions.

Yeah, don’t get me wrong Jarret Allen is an upgrade at the 5 but we’ve been playing great defense all year even with JV getting major minutes. Things get different in the playoffs but still I don’t know if we need to trade our second best player to fix a hole that we barely have of defense while potentially making our defense worse.

I’ve been fixating on these point Zion lineups which ideally would have a switchable, 3 point shooting big. If Z is playing the 1 you can get away with having the 5 at the dunker spot but ideally you’d have a shooter in that role.

[MKWB]

I will not argue with the value here for the Pelicans, but Pelicans cant bring non-shoting center. Zion is having enough problems with Jonas and Nance who at least hit something from outside, with Allen it would be impossible for him to be effective. Just go back to Steven Adams days.
Pelicans defense can be good enough without rim-protector, they showed that and it is all because of the lenght on all positions.

Let's think of how many "stretch 5's" there really are in the league:

(unavailable)
-Jokic
-Embiid
-Chet
-Wemby
-KAT (too expensive)
-Porzingis
-Turner
-WCJ
-B. Lopez
-Lauri
-JJJ
-Isaac

(not better than JV/Nance)
-Vucevic
-Muscala
-Stewart

(draft, unproven shooters)
-Sarr
-Filipowski
-K. Ware
-D. Holmes II

So it may not be realistic to chase this idea of the "3 and block" type of Center, unless they make an overpay trade for an slight upgrade. Jarrett Allen would definitely make the Pels a lot better. Think you're underrating the "vertical spacing" factor with him. Instead of Zion meeting "the wall" in the playoffs, with only 2 choices-- layup or kick out to a shooter... he would then have a 3rd option: drive and throw it up for a lob-dunk. C's like Allen don't have to be right under the basket. In the far dunker spot that still keeps the defender making the choice of leave Allen to help on Zion's layup, which leaves Allen open for the lob. Or stay home on Allen and let Zion get a layup 1-on-1. Also, pick-n-roll with Allen at the top of the key would be elite unstoppable.

Also, yea the Pels' defense is currently great right now. But adding Allen could have them firmly in the top-3 of elite defense. That makes a big difference.

So the fit definitely makes a lot of sense with Allen, even though he's not a 3-pt. shooting big. Pels might have issues with secondary creation with that swap, but they would add in other areas. Add in DFS and 2 future unprotected 1sts-- that's pretty fair or even slight overpay for Ingram at the cusp of signing the huge next contract. Think this is the kind of offer that would make D-Griffin have to at least listen and discuss. But he would probably still keep Ingram due to emotional and team chemistry ties to him.

Allen/ Nance
Zion/ DFS
Murphy/ Naji
Herb/ Dyson/ Hawkins
CJ / Jose/ Kolek

That's a fun squad with a much cleaner fit. But we can expect a "run it back" approach this offseason, maybe with a new MLE Center.

[MKWB]

I’ve been fixating on these point Zion lineups which ideally would have a switchable,

This is a key point. Pels ideal closing/crunch time lineups are going "small-ball" with Zion/Murphy/Ingram/Herb in the frontcourt. So if they're keeping Ingram, it makes sense to invest in those kind of switchable big wing players and just go cheap at Center with some minute-eater types, like @GriffinPresser talks about.

[jbk1234]

It's just really difficult to evaluate any of these trades until the Cavs get healthy and perform in the playoffs.

I will say that I think that the conventional wisdom as far as what Mitchell is thinking is wrong. I think he played many years being the primary, and arguably, sole offensive threat with the Jazz. Garland being able to exploit the opposing team when they tilt towards Mitchell in the playoffs and assign their best defender to him has real appeal. I think he wants it to work in Cleveland.