Miami-New Orleans-Cleveland

[brackdan70]

If the Cavs need to move off Mitchell they can do better I think. For starters keep Allen.
I think if you can keep him out of the trade it’s closer.

I see how NO would have little interest if that’s the case though.

[brackdan70]

I think Miami needs to give more to both teams. I would think if NO and Cleveland wanted to play they could find better assets from a different 3rd team.

[BBallFreak]

I think Miami needs to give more to both teams. I would think if NO and Cleveland wanted to play they could find better assets from a different 3rd team.

Be our guest. I don't think this is what Miami should be doing. We have more pressing needs than another guard.

[DowJones]

If I'm the Cavs I cut NOP out. I feel like the Cavs are losing a ton of value on the Allen part of the trade. I'd take Herro with team control over Ingram who's as much of a flight risk as Mitchell.

(Or is Nance supposed to end up in CLE in the OP?)

Yeah, folding JA into the deal killed it for me. I realise he may need to be moved to unlock Mobley's full potential, but I don't think this deal is getting JA's full value back, or even particularly close to it...

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

With or without Mitchell, are we really going to see a 4th straight year of a Mobley-Allen frontcourt? At what point do we look to sell high on Allen?

[toooskies]

If I'm the Cavs I cut NOP out. I feel like the Cavs are losing a ton of value on the Allen part of the trade. I'd take Herro with team control over Ingram who's as much of a flight risk as Mitchell.

(Or is Nance supposed to end up in CLE in the OP?)

Yeah, folding JA into the deal killed it for me. I realise he may need to be moved to unlock Mobley's full potential, but I don't think this deal is getting JA's full value back, or even particularly close to it...

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

[VaDe255]

Yeah, folding JA into the deal killed it for me. I realise he may need to be moved to unlock Mobley's full potential, but I don't think this deal is getting JA's full value back, or even particularly close to it...

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

[toooskies]

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

Is Miami sure he'll stay? Was Indiana sure Siakam will stay?

If you're trading for a guarantee of 4+ years of Mitchell you offer more than this Miami package.

[DowJones]

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

And the deal presented does reflect that. There is no world where Herro/JJJ/first round picks gets you Mitchell if Mitchell wants to stay in Cleveland.

[tidho]

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

The entire front office should be terminated immediately if Mitchell isn't moved this offseason (unless he signs an extension, the odds of which haven't changed at all).

[jbk1234]

agree with both

the CLE:MIA portion of the OP deal is perfectly fine. seemingly pretty reasonable value. Would like the idea of redirecting Herro, but not at the expense of Allen.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

He'll have good rental value to at least a dozen teams, the Heat will be hard pressed to clear the space in 2025, and given the fact that the Cavs zero incentive to help lengthen the Heat's window, you're dramatically overestimating any leverage Mitchell might have.

The last player to present a one-team list was Dame. Given the history between the Cavs and the Heat, I'd expect a similar outcome.

[VaDe255]

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the MIA side is fine. Just that it was clearly way off in value in the NOP portion, significantly addressed by Nance coming back.

If the Cavs are trading Mitchell they're taking the highest bid and I don't think this is the best that'll be out there, although it's probably as much as Miami would offer.

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

He'll have good rental value to at least a dozen teams, the Heat will be hard pressed to clear the space in 2025, and given the fact that the Cavs zero incentive to help lengthen the Heat's window, you're dramatically overestimating any leverage Mitchell might have.

The last player to present a one-team list was Dame. Given the history between the Cavs and the Heat, I'd expect a similar outcome.

Yes an expiring player is the same as a guy who is under contract for 4 years ^^
I never said anything about the Heat, just that Mitchell has a lot of leverage in this situation and can dictate a lot to where he lands.

The Siakam price is a very good reference to what teams might pay (probably a bit more), because it is exactly the same situation.

[toooskies]

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

The entire front office should be terminated immediately if Mitchell isn't moved this offseason (unless he signs an extension, the odds of which haven't changed at all).

We get it, you've hated the Mitchell trade since day 1.

The reporting from Chris Fedor is that Mitchell is much more interested in NBA success than he is in moving home, moving to the beach, or making money. So every win gets us closer to retaining him. The Cavs are roughly 7-1 favorites (according to Vegas odds) in this Orlando series, which is the minimum level of success to have Mitchell consider extending. (I didn't check the odds before the series, but they must've been close to 50/50.) Some wins against Boston may have us firmly into extension talks, and a series win might guarantee us an extension.

It's also an assumption but not a guarantee that the Cavs only keep Mitchell if he extends this summer. A team that's a postseason away from trading a guy will at least listen to offers six months before. All the reporting (from Woj, if you don't trust the local media) is that Cleveland wouldn't even pick up the phone.

It's possible we hold him until the trade deadline, as Mitchell could extend any time in the last year of his contract. As Siakam showed, even at that point a free agent retains value.

Even if Mitchell becomes a FA, the team with his Bird rights can pay him a lot more money. More than a typical FA, because they can sign him to a 2-year deal to get to his 10-year veteran supermax eligibility. Every other team needs to sign him to a 3-year deal to establish Bird rights, pushing that supermax out to year 11+.

[Xman]

Miami does not have the assets to get Mitchell (and keep Butler/Bam).

CLE - gets Ingram, DDaniels, Tate (if wanted)
HOU - gets Mitchell, Nance (if needed)
NO - gets Vleet, Landale (if wanted), #9, 2026 NETs 1st

CLE adds guard pieces to replace Mitchell and Ingram takes over the sf hole. Seems like plenty of value if they need to move him.
NO lets Murphy take over at sf (with more minutes for Herb). Vleet and CJ are veterans that will provide a tone of scoring.
HOU gets Mitchell without losing any of the developing pieces - although might need to send Whitmore to NO if NO portion seems light.

[louc1970]

I don't like this for Miami, personally. Not feeling a Mitchell-Rozier backcourt.

If you can get Mitchell, you get Mitchell and figure out the Rozier part of the equation later. You don't pass on stars because they don't fit with your role players, you move your role players to fit with your stars.

Knowing the way the Heat approach things, Tyler Herro plus 3 first rd picks (2024, 2029, 2031) will be on the table for Donnovan Mitchell.

I am seeing Herro/Robinson for Mitchell/Niang(or Okoro). Might have a pick or 2 from Miami.
Miami moves Mitchell to the PG spot.

[JJ_PR]

Miami isn't getting Mitchell for scraps, that's for sure. That is, assuming Cleveland entertains the idea of trading him. Mitchell will be offered the max.

[jbk1234]

Except he is expiring and can go where he wants (opt out of his last year).
Mitchell has a lot of leverage here and the Cavs just won't get offers from teams where he isn't signing.

This is not a sell him to the highest bidder situation, but a sell him to a bidder he wants to go and resign with.

He'll have good rental value to at least a dozen teams, the Heat will be hard pressed to clear the space in 2025, and given the fact that the Cavs zero incentive to help lengthen the Heat's window, you're dramatically overestimating any leverage Mitchell might have.

The last player to present a one-team list was Dame. Given the history between the Cavs and the Heat, I'd expect a similar outcome.

Yes an expiring player is the same as a guy who is under contract for 4 years ^^
I never said anything about the Heat, just that Mitchell has a lot of leverage in this situation and can dictate a lot to where he lands.

The Siakam price is a very good reference to what teams might pay (probably a bit more), because it is exactly the same situation.

I think the offers on a full-season of Mitchell will be better than what Siakam, who couldn't even be extended at the deadline, returned. If you don't, you don't, but the Cavs will take the best offer period.

[tidho]

I think the odds of the Cavs entertaining offers for Mitchell in the first place have gone down significantly.

The entire front office should be terminated immediately if Mitchell isn't moved this offseason (unless he signs an extension, the odds of which haven't changed at all).

We get it, you've hated the Mitchell trade since day 1.

The reporting from Chris Fedor is that Mitchell is much more interested in NBA success than he is in moving home, moving to the beach, or making money. So every win gets us closer to retaining him. The Cavs are roughly 7-1 favorites (according to Vegas odds) in this Orlando series, which is the minimum level of success to have Mitchell consider extending. (I didn't check the odds before the series, but they must've been close to 50/50.) Some wins against Boston may have us firmly into extension talks, and a series win might guarantee us an extension.

It's also an assumption but not a guarantee that the Cavs only keep Mitchell if he extends this summer. A team that's a postseason away from trading a guy will at least listen to offers six months before. All the reporting (from Woj, if you don't trust the local media) is that Cleveland wouldn't even pick up the phone.

It's possible we hold him until the trade deadline, as Mitchell could extend any time in the last year of his contract. As Siakam showed, even at that point a free agent retains value.

Even if Mitchell becomes a FA, the team with his Bird rights can pay him a lot more money. More than a typical FA, because they can sign him to a 2-year deal to get to his 10-year veteran supermax eligibility. Every other team needs to sign him to a 3-year deal to establish Bird rights, pushing that supermax out to year 11+.

Correction: I've hated the Mitchell trade since day 1 ...because it was horrendous.

What i wrote isn't about loving/hating Mitchell or loving/hating the original trade. Its simply a practical statement that you can't put yourself in a position where your most valuable asset can simply walk out the door. Either he commits (no idea if he will or not, and Fedor doesn't know either) or he doesn't. You have a lot more flexibility to move him during the offseason than you do at the deadline, and you'll get a better price. If he doesn't commit by about July 1 he should be on the block.

The fact that i hope he doesn't commit, so we can move on to better fitting pieces has nothing to do with any of that. If he commits you keep him, if he doesn't you move him. Feelings aren't relevant.

[toooskies]

The entire front office should be terminated immediately if Mitchell isn't moved this offseason (unless he signs an extension, the odds of which haven't changed at all).

We get it, you've hated the Mitchell trade since day 1.

The reporting from Chris Fedor is that Mitchell is much more interested in NBA success than he is in moving home, moving to the beach, or making money. So every win gets us closer to retaining him. The Cavs are roughly 7-1 favorites (according to Vegas odds) in this Orlando series, which is the minimum level of success to have Mitchell consider extending. (I didn't check the odds before the series, but they must've been close to 50/50.) Some wins against Boston may have us firmly into extension talks, and a series win might guarantee us an extension.

It's also an assumption but not a guarantee that the Cavs only keep Mitchell if he extends this summer. A team that's a postseason away from trading a guy will at least listen to offers six months before. All the reporting (from Woj, if you don't trust the local media) is that Cleveland wouldn't even pick up the phone.

It's possible we hold him until the trade deadline, as Mitchell could extend any time in the last year of his contract. As Siakam showed, even at that point a free agent retains value.

Even if Mitchell becomes a FA, the team with his Bird rights can pay him a lot more money. More than a typical FA, because they can sign him to a 2-year deal to get to his 10-year veteran supermax eligibility. Every other team needs to sign him to a 3-year deal to establish Bird rights, pushing that supermax out to year 11+.

Correction: I've hated the Mitchell trade since day 1 ...because it was horrendous.

What i wrote isn't about loving/hating Mitchell or loving/hating the original trade. Its simply a practical statement that you can't put yourself in a position where your most valuable asset can simply walk out the door. Either he commits (no idea if he will or not, and Fedor doesn't know either) or he doesn't. You have a lot more flexibility to move him during the offseason than you do at the deadline, and you'll get a better price. If he doesn't commit by about July 1 he should be on the block.

The fact that i hope he doesn't commit, so we can move on to better fitting pieces has nothing to do with any of that. If he commits you keep him, if he doesn't you move him. Feelings aren't relevant.

I mean, you clearly don't value Mitchell the way other people do. Which probably means you underestimate the value we'd get back in a trade this offseason or at the deadline if Mitchell's ready to move on.

[tidho]

I mean, you clearly don't value Mitchell the way other people do. Which probably means you underestimate the value we'd get back in a trade this offseason or at the deadline if Mitchell's ready to move on.

Perhaps. There is a decent chance that i'm happier with the outcome of a deal (if that happens) than others will be. That's irrelevant to whether or not we should make a deal. If he doesn't commit, he needs to be moved.

[toooskies]

I mean, you clearly don't value Mitchell the way other people do. Which probably means you underestimate the value we'd get back in a trade this offseason or at the deadline if Mitchell's ready to move on.

Perhaps. There is a decent chance that i'm happier with the outcome of a deal (if that happens) than others will be. That's irrelevant to whether or not we should make a deal. If he doesn't commit, he needs to be moved.

If he doesn't commit by... July 1? If we change coaches or even the whole front office, then when Mitchell adjusts to the new regime? End of summer? Trade deadline?

And again, we still have significant leverage over him even if it gets to free agency. We can offer more lucrative options than just slightly higher raises, unlike most free agent options. The team with Mitchell's Bird rights is the only team that can get him to a supermax in year 10. Sign-and-trades or free agent departures both require him to sign at least one year over the 10-year career number.

And BTW, I greatly enjoy Mitchell getting on team planes wearing a Brownie the Elf hat. For a guy everyone thinks will leave, he sure does try to make you think he likes where he is.