Official ‘24-25 Off-season Thread

[Netaman]

im a big fan of the Bruce Brown reunion.

in terms of what we would all get hyped by, i think the offseason is kind of mitchell or bust. on one hand it seems like a long shot, on the other if he wont extend i think cleveland has to trade him and we're the most likely partner.

maybe there's an argument that murray for dfs/schroder/phi pick or something like that is a step in the right direction. idk. i kind of doubt it given the way nobody seemed to want him.

[Papi_swav]

I don't expect much this off season and neither should you. We're not in a good position roster wise or cap wise and I don't see many moves for us to make. Marks is going to have to get super creative here and it's not an easy task .

But for starters please get rid of Cam Johnson for the love of god, dude is trash !! we should of signed and traded him last off season when his value was high but get rid of him now before he becomes an overpaid bad contract which he probably is at this point. Claxton we should re sign but no team should be dumb enough to throw 30M at him, if they do then I guess we gotta let him go. Unless we can do a sign and trade but Claxton we should def keep, he fits in to the future.

For the love of god, do not go after D Mitchell !!! He will not move the needle, idk why you guys just don't understand this. Ya just want to throw away the future for any overrated player with a name, it doesn't work !! Mitchell is just not that guy, he's very good and exciting to watch but he's not the guy to lead us deep into the playoffs even with another star player here, I just don't see it. If we're going to trade for a Cavs player it should be Garland .

Hmm let's see what else.... idk blahhh our roster and team in just dull. We should of just gave up Bridges for that Houston trade so we can do our future the right way.

[vincecarter4pres]

im a big fan of the Bruce Brown reunion.

in terms of what we would all get hyped by, i think the offseason is kind of mitchell or bust. on one hand it seems like a long shot, on the other if he wont extend i think cleveland has to trade him and we're the most likely partner.

maybe there's an argument that murray for dfs/schroder/phi pick or something like that is a step in the right direction. idk. i kind of doubt it given the way nobody seemed to want him.

I think Murray would cost more than that.

[vincecarter4pres]

I don't expect much this off season and neither should you. We're not in a good position roster wise or cap wise and I don't see many moves for us to make. Marks is going to have to get super creative here and it's not an easy task .

But for starters please get rid of Cam Johnson for the love of god, dude is trash !! we should of signed and traded him last off season when his value was high but get rid of him now before he becomes an overpaid bad contract which he probably is at this point. Claxton we should re sign but no team should be dumb enough to throw 30M at him, if they do then I guess we gotta let him go. Unless we can do a sign and trade but Claxton we should def keep, he fits in to the future.

For the love of god, do not go after D Mitchell !!! He will not move the needle, idk why you guys just don't understand this. Ya just want to throw away the future for any overrated player with a name, it doesn't work !! Mitchell is just not that guy, he's very good and exciting to watch but he's not the guy to lead us deep into the playoffs even with another star player here, I just don't see it. If we're going to trade for a Cavs player it should be Garland .

Hmm let's see what else.... idk blahhh our roster and team in just dull. We should of just gave up Bridges for that Houston trade so we can do our future the right way.

Mitchell is wildly better than Garland.

[Papi_swav]

I don't expect much this off season and neither should you. We're not in a good position roster wise or cap wise and I don't see many moves for us to make. Marks is going to have to get super creative here and it's not an easy task .

But for starters please get rid of Cam Johnson for the love of god, dude is trash !! we should of signed and traded him last off season when his value was high but get rid of him now before he becomes an overpaid bad contract which he probably is at this point. Claxton we should re sign but no team should be dumb enough to throw 30M at him, if they do then I guess we gotta let him go. Unless we can do a sign and trade but Claxton we should def keep, he fits in to the future.

For the love of god, do not go after D Mitchell !!! He will not move the needle, idk why you guys just don't understand this. Ya just want to throw away the future for any overrated player with a name, it doesn't work !! Mitchell is just not that guy, he's very good and exciting to watch but he's not the guy to lead us deep into the playoffs even with another star player here, I just don't see it. If we're going to trade for a Cavs player it should be Garland .

Hmm let's see what else.... idk blahhh our roster and team in just dull. We should of just gave up Bridges for that Houston trade so we can do our future the right way.

Mitchell is wildly better than Garland.

its not always about who's better, it's about fit and team wise. Garland is a legit point guard , Mitchell is an undersized chucker at shooting guard who can shoot you out of games and needs the ball in his hands at all times . Garland reminds me of Chauncey Billups, remember Allen iverson is a better player than Chauncey but what happened when Billups went to Denver in trade with A.I? Denver became a legit contender and almost beat the Lakers to get to the finals while with A.I they couldn't even get out of the first round.

Garland has good size for a point, can pass very well, can score well and is clutch. He's a guy that makes the team better. Mitchell is a me first type of player and we've seen how far that's gotten him. Yes he's a talented player but he's not the guy that will elevate a team into a serious contender. Not to mention we'll have to throw away ALL of our picks to get him. Garland will be cheaper and can fit into a team much better. It's not always about who's better, remember that.

[vincecarter4pres]

I don't expect much this off season and neither should you. We're not in a good position roster wise or cap wise and I don't see many moves for us to make. Marks is going to have to get super creative here and it's not an easy task .

But for starters please get rid of Cam Johnson for the love of god, dude is trash !! we should of signed and traded him last off season when his value was high but get rid of him now before he becomes an overpaid bad contract which he probably is at this point. Claxton we should re sign but no team should be dumb enough to throw 30M at him, if they do then I guess we gotta let him go. Unless we can do a sign and trade but Claxton we should def keep, he fits in to the future.

For the love of god, do not go after D Mitchell !!! He will not move the needle, idk why you guys just don't understand this. Ya just want to throw away the future for any overrated player with a name, it doesn't work !! Mitchell is just not that guy, he's very good and exciting to watch but he's not the guy to lead us deep into the playoffs even with another star player here, I just don't see it. If we're going to trade for a Cavs player it should be Garland .

Hmm let's see what else.... idk blahhh our roster and team in just dull. We should of just gave up Bridges for that Houston trade so we can do our future the right way.

Mitchell is wildly better than Garland.

its not always about who's better, it's about fit and team wise. Garland is a legit point guard , Mitchell is an undersized chucker at shooting guard who can shoot you out of games and needs the ball in his hands at all times . Garland reminds me of Chauncey Billups, remember Allen iverson is a better player than Chauncey but what happened when Billups went to Denver in trade with A.I? Denver became a legit contender and almost beat the Lakers to get to the finals while with A.I they couldn't even get out of the first round.

Garland has good size for a point, can pass very well, can score well and is clutch. He's a guy that makes the team better. Mitchell is a me first type of player and we've seen how far that's gotten him. Yes he's a talented player but he's not the guy that will elevate a team into a serious contender. Not to mention we'll have to throw away ALL of our picks to get him. Garland will be cheaper and can fit into a team much better. It's not always about who's better, remember that.

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

[Decipher]

Cam has similar stats at the same age as Mitchell

He’s not perfect but is wildly underrated and when you look at his performance this season, he really should have been very close to being a MIP finalist

If the roster was ready to win then sure, pay Mitchell a fortune (not my money so IDGAF) but we’re not even close without massive changes

[Eatgreenz]

Cam has similar stats at the same age as Mitchell

He’s not perfect but is wildly underrated and when you look at his performance this season, he really should have been very close to being a MIP finalist

If the roster was ready to win then sure, pay Mitchell a fortune (not my money so IDGAF) but we’re not even close without massive changes

Cam was in his 3rd yr while Mitchell was in his 2nd at the same age. Mitchell passed CamT in almost every stat his 3rd yr.

[Keith Van Horn]

Do we think a guy like Mitchell is going to cost us CamT?
Is there any way we keep both?

[Papi_swav]

Mitchell is wildly better than Garland.

its not always about who's better, it's about fit and team wise. Garland is a legit point guard , Mitchell is an undersized chucker at shooting guard who can shoot you out of games and needs the ball in his hands at all times . Garland reminds me of Chauncey Billups, remember Allen iverson is a better player than Chauncey but what happened when Billups went to Denver in trade with A.I? Denver became a legit contender and almost beat the Lakers to get to the finals while with A.I they couldn't even get out of the first round.

Garland has good size for a point, can pass very well, can score well and is clutch. He's a guy that makes the team better. Mitchell is a me first type of player and we've seen how far that's gotten him. Yes he's a talented player but he's not the guy that will elevate a team into a serious contender. Not to mention we'll have to throw away ALL of our picks to get him. Garland will be cheaper and can fit into a team much better. It's not always about who's better, remember that.

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

[vincecarter4pres]

Do we think a guy like Mitchell is going to cost us CamT?
Is there any way we keep both?

Can they play together, or even play off each other?

[Papi_swav]

Do we think a guy like Mitchell is going to cost us CamT?
Is there any way we keep both?

there's no reason to keep both, they're basically the same type of player so it'll be redundant to have both. Both guys need the ball in their hands and don't do well off ball and both are undersized shooting guards

[Eatgreenz]

its not always about who's better, it's about fit and team wise. Garland is a legit point guard , Mitchell is an undersized chucker at shooting guard who can shoot you out of games and needs the ball in his hands at all times . Garland reminds me of Chauncey Billups, remember Allen iverson is a better player than Chauncey but what happened when Billups went to Denver in trade with A.I? Denver became a legit contender and almost beat the Lakers to get to the finals while with A.I they couldn't even get out of the first round.

Garland has good size for a point, can pass very well, can score well and is clutch. He's a guy that makes the team better. Mitchell is a me first type of player and we've seen how far that's gotten him. Yes he's a talented player but he's not the guy that will elevate a team into a serious contender. Not to mention we'll have to throw away ALL of our picks to get him. Garland will be cheaper and can fit into a team much better. It's not always about who's better, remember that.

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

But didn't Mitchell have the cavs rolling when garland was out and he was the lead guard?

[Papi_swav]

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

But didn't Mitchell have the cavs rolling when garland was out and he was the lead guard?

for what 5 games ? Garland actually played more games this year and last year than Mitchell did.

[Eatgreenz]

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

But didn't Mitchell have the cavs rolling when garland was out and he was the lead guard?

for what 5 games ? Garland actually played more games this year and last year than Mitchell did.

just checked mitchell played 19 games without garland.

[vincecarter4pres]

its not always about who's better, it's about fit and team wise. Garland is a legit point guard , Mitchell is an undersized chucker at shooting guard who can shoot you out of games and needs the ball in his hands at all times . Garland reminds me of Chauncey Billups, remember Allen iverson is a better player than Chauncey but what happened when Billups went to Denver in trade with A.I? Denver became a legit contender and almost beat the Lakers to get to the finals while with A.I they couldn't even get out of the first round.

Garland has good size for a point, can pass very well, can score well and is clutch. He's a guy that makes the team better. Mitchell is a me first type of player and we've seen how far that's gotten him. Yes he's a talented player but he's not the guy that will elevate a team into a serious contender. Not to mention we'll have to throw away ALL of our picks to get him. Garland will be cheaper and can fit into a team much better. It's not always about who's better, remember that.

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

Unsure why you seem to give Mitchell this bad teammate, ball dominating chucker, playoff failure moniker?

I’m also unsure why Garland is being touted as some awesome off ball player and great defender?

Also, you think Garland’s asset cost would be lower?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Garland a lot, and would welcome him here with open arms, but I’m just not sure I agree with your evaluations of the two, and comparison between them.

[Papi_swav]

I think you’re way off base here on Mitchell, plus he’s best as the point guard and main ball handler.

Don’t know how Garland has good size for a point guard either, he’s like 6’1 at best, skinny and injury prone, and at best an average one position defender.

You make it sound like Garland has gone anywhere on his own, or even made it out of the first round. Mitchell has more playoff success, both period and at comparable experience.

Also if Mitchell is dealt, highly doubt it’s all the picks.

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

Unsure why you seem to give Mitchell this bad teammate, ball dominating chucker, playoff failure moniker?

I’m also unsure why Garland is being touted as some awesome off ball player and great defender?

Also, you think Garland’s asset cost would be lower?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Garland a lot, and would welcome him here with open arms, but I’m just not sure I agree with your evaluations of the two, and comparison between them.

I'm not trying to crap on Mitchell, I just don't think he's the type of guy we can win with, and I don't like the idea of giving up 3 plus picks and assets just to obtain him so we can give him a super max, I don't think he's worth that and I don't see us going that far with him. So we'll have to give up 3-5 1st round picks plus Cam Thomas, CamJ (i dont mind) and maybe a guy like Clowney. Well come to think of it that's not a bad package lol but still, we'll have to give him a boat load of cash.

I also just think Garland is a better fit, we need a point guard and I feel like Garland has more potential but it's stunted with Mitchell being there. TBH I rather someone else than either of these guys but if we're looking at Cleveland as potential trade partners, I think we should go after Garland. It's just my opinion so yea I can be wrong. And ofcourse I know Mitchell is the better player, I just think Garland makes more sense for us imo. But I'm sure Nets are looking at Mitchell, we've heard all the rumors already

[NetsWorld]

I guess everyone missed the boat here; the boat on wiretap that says Young is more likely than Murray to be traded. That's big news; also, for those saying don't expect much, that is going to be the mindset year in and year out as a Nets fan if no changes are made to this damn roster. Schroeder is a solid PG but a backup. Nets will need another legit starting PG followed by a star shooting guard. If the Nets start going on this trend of missing the PO year after year, no one will want to be here and we will be back to the 2011 days.

[NetsWorld]

Mitchell is definitely not a point, never was and never will be and never should be. He plays better with a legit point next to him, he doesn't know how to distribute the ball well enough to be the point. As an under sized shooting guard, he doesn't do enough off the ball, he needs the ball in his hands to contribute and that's not always a good recipe for winning. It's a reason it didn't work in Utah and it hasn't been working out so far in Cleveland and the Cavs have a really solid team. He might be the common denominator don't you think?

You're missing the point. It's not that Garland is better than Mitchell, he's a better teammate and better FIT for any team. Garland and Mitchell are 2 different type of players. Mitchell has been the lead guard his whole career and hasn't lead any team past the 2nd round and got knocked out in the 1st round most of the time. Garland is a guy you plug in that can actually play the point and do things off ball. The Cavs will most def want all of our picks for Mitchell, if not most of them. It definitely won't be less than 3 picks that's for sure

Unsure why you seem to give Mitchell this bad teammate, ball dominating chucker, playoff failure moniker?

I’m also unsure why Garland is being touted as some awesome off ball player and great defender?

Also, you think Garland’s asset cost would be lower?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Garland a lot, and would welcome him here with open arms, but I’m just not sure I agree with your evaluations of the two, and comparison between them.

I'm not trying to crap on Mitchell, I just don't think he's the type of guy we can win with, and I don't like the idea of giving up 3 plus picks and assets just to obtain him so we can give him a super max, I don't think he's worth that and I don't see us going that far with him. So we'll have to give up 3-5 1st round picks plus Cam Thomas, CamJ (i dont mind) and maybe a guy like Clowney. Well come to think of it that's not a bad package lol but still, we'll have to give him a boat load of cash.

I also just think Garland is a better fit, we need a point guard and I feel like Garland has more potential but it's stunted with Mitchell being there. TBH I rather someone else than either of these guys but if we're looking at Cleveland as potential trade partners, I think we should go after Garland. It's just my opinion so yea I can be wrong. And ofcourse I know Mitchell is the better player, I just think Garland makes more sense for us imo. But I'm sure Nets are looking at Mitchell, we've heard all the rumors already

Call me crazy but I can see Milwaukee potentially trading Giannis if they cannot seal the deal with Lillard and him. Maybe not next year but perhaps the year after. Anything is possible.

[Papi_swav]

Unsure why you seem to give Mitchell this bad teammate, ball dominating chucker, playoff failure moniker?

I’m also unsure why Garland is being touted as some awesome off ball player and great defender?

Also, you think Garland’s asset cost would be lower?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Garland a lot, and would welcome him here with open arms, but I’m just not sure I agree with your evaluations of the two, and comparison between them.

I'm not trying to crap on Mitchell, I just don't think he's the type of guy we can win with, and I don't like the idea of giving up 3 plus picks and assets just to obtain him so we can give him a super max, I don't think he's worth that and I don't see us going that far with him. So we'll have to give up 3-5 1st round picks plus Cam Thomas, CamJ (i dont mind) and maybe a guy like Clowney. Well come to think of it that's not a bad package lol but still, we'll have to give him a boat load of cash.

I also just think Garland is a better fit, we need a point guard and I feel like Garland has more potential but it's stunted with Mitchell being there. TBH I rather someone else than either of these guys but if we're looking at Cleveland as potential trade partners, I think we should go after Garland. It's just my opinion so yea I can be wrong. And ofcourse I know Mitchell is the better player, I just think Garland makes more sense for us imo. But I'm sure Nets are looking at Mitchell, we've heard all the rumors already

Call me crazy but I can see Milwaukee potentially trading Giannis if they cannot seal the deal with Lillard and him. Maybe not next year but perhaps the year after. Anything is possible.

now thats a name we should be looking forward to