jbk1234 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:jbk1234 wrote:
I'm fine not trading them early for a poor return, particularly TT, as he adds value to a young team in a multitude of ways. However, as the deadline approaches, I think the Cavs need to ask themselves whether they're interested in bringing these guys back, and if so, at what price tag and for how long. Cavs will have just over $30M in cap space this summer. Cap flexibility is one of the most important assets a rebuilding team can maintain. If these guys are willing to take a hair cut and do two-year deals with a team option in that second year, then it makes some sense.
But I'm skeptical either TT or Clarkson are looking for short-term and team-friendly deals (I'm skeptical Clarkson would return with Beilein as the head coach anyway). Klutch already got us twice. They got the Bucks with that Bledsoe extension last year and that KCP contract could prove really problematic for the Lakers. You lock yourself into a mediocre roster by paying high-end role players and you'll have a much harder time achieving escape velocity from your rebuild.
The only long-term contracts the Cavs should enter into are ones where that player will always be a trade asset because of how team-friendly the contract is. Nance will always be worth his contract. Cedi will always be worth his. There will always be a market for good role players who make less than 10% of the cap.
In sum, if a team offers expiring contracts and a couple quality seconds for either of these guys at the deadline, and that's all we can get, I'm probably taking it.
I guess it depends what you mean by quality 2's because a couple of picks expected to fall in the 31-36 range is basically equivalent to a late first; but easier said then done when you're dealing with playoff teams.
Anyway, this is all out of our control. We have some players with talent if anyone desperately needs that talent. We have expiring contracts that we can deal for future salary. And if we do nothing, we have cap space.
But I don't believe our only goal with cap space is to try to absorb bad contracts and turn it in to more picks. With a player development coach, we should be searching high and low for players we think will fit what Beilein wants and can grow with the team and if we find the right player - the length of commitment simply doesn't matter.
We can technically do all the above, but it all comes down to the opportunities we can discover or create.
I'm probably asking too much from Koby Altman even with Beilein's help, but we can hope ...
See when it comes to replacement level starters, or good role players, I think the length of the commitment matters more than anything else. It's not just because you can trade away cap space for picks, although that's important, it's because your trade opportunities are heavily dependent upon whether the contracts you have on your books are deemed to be good or bad around the league. You're ability to steal a RFA is dependent upon your available cap space. With it, you have options, and without it, you don't.
I think the biggest mistake teams make is locking their rosters up, for years, when their ceilings are meh or questionable. The Hornets tried desperately to remake that roster around Kemba his last couple of years but no one wanted what they were offering. The Bucks are ride or die with that roster until Giannis is a F.A. and I don't like their chances. Same with Houston and Harden. The Pistons are very limited in what they can add to Blake. Minny fans spend 2/3 of their time on the T&T board trying desperately to convince everyone else that Wiggins and Deing aren't *that bad* because they know they're on the clock with Towns.
I'm really uninterested in a championship or bust approach. So, we're going to continue to disagree on some really fundamental points.
If a player can help us win and he's signed at a price that commiserate with that value (to us), I don't have a problem. Plus the whole idea of player development of young free-agents is to turn a player another team thinks is just a role player in to an important piece for our team. If they develop positive trade value to other team's that's certainly a bonus, but not a necessity, IMO.
So, for instance, while the idea of pumping up the value of some of our players so we can get more in return for them in trade would be nice, I'd treat it as a secondary concern to making sure our primary players are getting the minutes they need to develop and that our team is pointed in the right direction. Any player that's impeding that goal should be dropped sooner rather than later with little concern for the sunk costs. If we identify we've drafted another "Dion Waiters" that's simply never going to do what we want or grow as a team player ... we should just move on ASAP.
As for the Hornets, since drafting Kemba at 9, they've had plenty of draft picks over the years including a #2, a #4, two more #9's, two #11's, and a #12.
Isn't that enough?
Their problem is that other than Kemba, they haven't drafted very well, nor have they raised the value of any of the players they did draft; and then stubbornly sat on their hands and watched Kemba walk rather than re-sign him or get something for him.
They've done a crappy job - something we're not immune from, but hopefully we're getting better.