RealGM

How would my fellow Cavs fans feel about this trade?

Irving and Zeller for Cousins, MacLemore, and removal of the protections from the Sacramento pick?

Why is fart allowed two accounts?

BossHoggin wrote:Why is fart allowed two accounts?

Do you really think the trade is that bad? Fart bad?

I understand that it sounds crazy to even contemplate trading Kyrie. I think Kyrie is always going to be a shoot-first point guard who is going to struggle on defense. No other player is going to bring back "franchise changing" value. If he has a bad year, his trade value will greatly diminished.

Waiters/McLemore/Gee/Thompson/Cousins and a possible top three pick in the 2014 draft?

Go small with Jack/Waiters/McLemore/Thompson/Cousins?

With development, Waiters/McLemore/Karasev/Thompson/Cousins.

I don't think anyone could possibly make a trade that is fart bad.

TheOUTLAW wrote:I don't think anyone could possibly make a trade that is fart bad.

Meh everybody on this board shot down a waiters/thompson/picks package for Love, claiming Cavs give up too much. For that, your opinions in regards to trades are irrelevant to me.

I don't like that trade but I agree with the reshaping idea. The best we have looked recently Third quarter in Chicago (and I have stopped watching every minute because of the lack of offense and I think the plays are starting to not care) is when we had a:
- a 1 at the 1 Jack
- a 2 at the 2 Miles
- a 3 at the 3 Gee
- a 4 at the 4 AV
- and a 5 at the 5 AB

In those few minutes we were decent and could hange with the bulls starters.

We can not play with 3 point guards and two power forwards on the floor at the end of a game no matter what Mike Brown thinks (which is most likely "nothing"; he does not think).

Right now we are strong at two positions the 1 and the 4 but mostly at point guard and in draft picks.

My suggestion is not this one specifically but something like this. Because we suck at talent evaluation for need, we need to trade for need. We have no quality 3 at all and our best 2 is a bench / role player. Therefore

Trade one of our point guard, and a pick for a solid starting two and three.

That maybe something like Kyrie (which most GM's think you can start a franchise with) and a top pick for Golden State's Thompson and Barnes. Since they need a point guard and we need a shooting guard and they think Iggy is a starter over Barnes and we have extra picks.

I seriously think:
Waiters would flurish at the starting point guard spot if he knowes he has to be the man and not second fiddle to Irving.
Clay Thompson is amazing and does not need the ball to get into position to score at shooting guard.
Anything is better than what we have at the three so Barnes is an instant upgrade.
Andy and TT are decent 4's
and AB and Zeller at the 5 for now.

At least Brown would have no excuses then. And Chris Grant can continue to suck at drafting without worry of Mr. Deep Pockets Dan "heart in the right spot" Gilbert can continue to not worry that we have no system for talent evaluation. If we did we would not have drafted no two or three when one was available in the last two seasons. Think what the Cavs woul look like if our starting lineup was:

Irving, Oladipo, Barnes, AV or TT and Bynum. Damn!

fart wrote:

TheOUTLAW wrote:I don't think anyone could possibly make a trade that is fart bad.

Meh everybody on this board shot down a waiters/thompson/picks package for Love, claiming Cavs give up too much. For that, your opinions in regards to trades are irrelevant to me.

In fairness my concern with that trade is love wouldn't resign.

kiwibrindle wrote:I don't like that trade but I agree with the reshaping idea. The best we have looked recently Third quarter in Chicago (and I have stopped watching every minute because of the lack of offense and I think the plays are starting to not care) is when we had a:
- a 1 at the 1 Jack
- a 2 at the 2 Miles
- a 3 at the 3 Gee
- a 4 at the 4 AV
- and a 5 at the 5 AB

In those few minutes we were decent and could hange with the bulls starters.

We can not play with 3 point guards and two power forwards on the floor at the end of a game no matter what Mike Brown thinks (which is most likely "nothing"; he does not think).

Right now we are strong at two positions the 1 and the 4 but mostly at point guard and in draft picks.

My suggestion is not this one specifically but something like this. Because we suck at talent evaluation for need, we need to trade for need. We have no quality 3 at all and our best 2 is a bench / role player. Therefore

Trade one of our point guard, and a pick for a solid starting two and three.

That maybe something like Kyrie (which most GM's think you can start a franchise with) and a top pick for Golden State's Thompson and Barnes. Since they need a point guard and we need a shooting guard and they think Iggy is a starter over Barnes and we have extra picks.

I seriously think:
Waiters would flurish at the starting point guard spot if he knowes he has to be the man and not second fiddle to Irving.
Clay Thompson is amazing and does not need the ball to get into position to score at shooting guard.
Anything is better than what we have at the three so Barnes is an instant upgrade.
Andy and TT are decent 4's
and AB and Zeller at the 5 for now.

At least Brown would have no excuses then. And Chris Grant can continue to suck at drafting without worry of Mr. Deep Pockets Dan "heart in the right spot" Gilbert can continue to not worry that we have no system for talent evaluation. If we did we would not have drafted no two or three when one was available in the last two seasons. Think what the Cavs woul look like if our starting lineup was:

Irving, Oladipo, Barnes, AV or TT and Bynum. Damn!

GS already has Curry so I don't see them trading for Kyrie. Frankly, GS is playing so well right now I don't see them trading at all. Same for Love and Minnesota. That is why I suggested Sacramento - things haven't been coming together for them either. The other team is only going to trade their untouchable players for equal value and if the status quo is unacceptable. Things are perfectly acceptable to GS and Minn right now. Even the Blazers are playing really well.

I think Irving is a great player who just isn't a true point guard. No one else on the roster has his trade value. If you don't like Sacramento, I think you have to hope the Blazers stumble. I would love to get Batum and LMA.

As for Grant, I actually think his drafts up and until this year have been good (and this year the reporting indicates that it was McLemore or Bennett and Brown really liked Bennett). I think the Clark acquisition is on Brown as well. If you look at who else was drafted the year Kyrie and Thompson were drafted, there aren't going to be a lot of all-stars out of that draft. You can make an argument for Valanucious but that is based on ceiling and not present performance. The next year, after Davis and Beal, it was MKG, Waiters, Robinson, Lillard and then Barnes. The only one at that list who you might consider trading for Waiters is Barnes and plenty of other teams had question marks next to him based on where he was picked. Zeller was not a lottery pick.

Trade thread.