RealGM

I think most people see Culver as a better fit for Cleveland and Garland as a better fit for the Wolves. I'm a Wolves fan just trying to get the consensus of what you Cavs fans think?

Uh oh, do you realize what you just started? It's the Tristan Thompson vs Jonas Valanciunas debate all over again. I predict this thread will last for years.

I still prefer Tristan over Jonas after all these years. If the Cavs wanted Culver they would've just drafted him. When they said they think Garland + Sexton could be another version of Lilliard/McCollum as a pairing of lethal shooting/driving/passing guards is really what they want. It just means they need elite defense at 5 to help when/if they get beat. I really think Sexton will improve defensively as it seemed like he was improving as the year went on and hopefully an actual system will help him.

Garland has the higher ceiling. The Cavs aren't at a point where they can worry about fit. I'm not saying there's no way to make a deal, but I don't think Culver is a top-5 talent. He's too limited offensively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

jbk1234 wrote:Garland has the higher ceiling. The Cavs aren't at a point where they can worry about fit. I'm not saying there's no way to make a deal, but I don't think Culver is a top-5 talent. He's too limited offensively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Culver scored 18.5 PPG on a team that slowed games down to a crawl. I don't think he's limited. Garland is exciting based on reports from HS. He only played 5 games in college and is recovering from injury. Wolves need a PG of the future no doubt. We didn't like White enough to draft him so we went with the consensus #4 player in this years draft. It will be interesting. I actually thought a trade was a 50/50 chance when we took Culver. Now I'm thinking 10% at best. Good luck with Garland. I hope he lives up to his potential. I feel good about Culver for my team, but admit it sure would have been intriguing to get Garland.

Revenged25 wrote:I still prefer Tristan over Jonas after all these years. If the Cavs wanted Culver they would've just drafted him. When they said they think Garland + Sexton could be another version of Lilliard/McCollum as a pairing of lethal shooting/driving/passing guards is really what they want. It just means they need elite defense at 5 to help when/if they get beat. I really think Sexton will improve defensively as it seemed like he was improving as the year went on and hopefully an actual system will help him.

Aren't Lillard and McCollum both bigger than Garland and Sexton. You might end up trading Sexton away if Garland lives up to the hype.

KGdaBom wrote:

Revenged25 wrote:I still prefer Tristan over Jonas after all these years. If the Cavs wanted Culver they would've just drafted him. When they said they think Garland + Sexton could be another version of Lilliard/McCollum as a pairing of lethal shooting/driving/passing guards is really what they want. It just means they need elite defense at 5 to help when/if they get beat. I really think Sexton will improve defensively as it seemed like he was improving as the year went on and hopefully an actual system will help him.

Aren't Lillard and McCollum both bigger than Garland and Sexton. You might end up trading Sexton away if Garland lives up to the hype.

they're both 6'3 so only 1 inch bigger, so not a huge difference as both Sexton and Garladn have good wingspans for 6'2 guards.

Revenged25 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:

Revenged25 wrote:I still prefer Tristan over Jonas after all these years. If the Cavs wanted Culver they would've just drafted him. When they said they think Garland + Sexton could be another version of Lilliard/McCollum as a pairing of lethal shooting/driving/passing guards is really what they want. It just means they need elite defense at 5 to help when/if they get beat. I really think Sexton will improve defensively as it seemed like he was improving as the year went on and hopefully an actual system will help him.

Aren't Lillard and McCollum both bigger than Garland and Sexton. You might end up trading Sexton away if Garland lives up to the hype.

they're both 6'3 so only 1 inch bigger, so not a huge difference as both Sexton and Garladn have good wingspans for 6'2 guards.

Good luck with that. You would be playing the smallest backcourt in the NBA though right?

KGdaBom wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:Garland has the higher ceiling. The Cavs aren't at a point where they can worry about fit. I'm not saying there's no way to make a deal, but I don't think Culver is a top-5 talent. He's too limited offensively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Culver scored 18.5 PPG on a team that slowed games down to a crawl. I don't think he's limited. Garland is exciting based on reports from HS. He only played 5 games in college and is recovering from injury. Wolves need a PG of the future no doubt. We didn't like White enough to draft him so we went with the consensus #4 player in this years draft. It will be interesting. I actually thought a trade was a 50/50 chance when we took Culver. Now I'm thinking 10% at best. Good luck with Garland. I hope he lives up to his potential. I feel good about Culver for my team, but admit it sure would have been intriguing to get Garland.

Seems pretty clear that Hunter was the consensus No. 4 guy. It's who the Cavs wanted at No. 5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

KGdaBom wrote:

Revenged25 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:Aren't Lillard and McCollum both bigger than Garland and Sexton. You might end up trading Sexton away if Garland lives up to the hype.

they're both 6'3 so only 1 inch bigger, so not a huge difference as both Sexton and Garladn have good wingspans for 6'2 guards.

Good luck with that. You would be playing the smallest backcourt in the NBA though right?

Maybe? Just barely behind Portland if so. Not sure how small of a back-court Charlotte had. I know Kemba is small.

jbk1234 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:Garland has the higher ceiling. The Cavs aren't at a point where they can worry about fit. I'm not saying there's no way to make a deal, but I don't think Culver is a top-5 talent. He's too limited offensively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Culver scored 18.5 PPG on a team that slowed games down to a crawl. I don't think he's limited. Garland is exciting based on reports from HS. He only played 5 games in college and is recovering from injury. Wolves need a PG of the future no doubt. We didn't like White enough to draft him so we went with the consensus #4 player in this years draft. It will be interesting. I actually thought a trade was a 50/50 chance when we took Culver. Now I'm thinking 10% at best. Good luck with Garland. I hope he lives up to his potential. I feel good about Culver for my team, but admit it sure would have been intriguing to get Garland.

Seems pretty clear that Hunter was the consensus No. 4 guy. It's who the Cavs wanted at No. 5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

In checking Mocks I saw Culver picked 4th easily more than any other player. Hunter was 5th so it was really close. Would the Cavs have taken Hunter over Garland?

Revenged25 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:

Revenged25 wrote:
they're both 6'3 so only 1 inch bigger, so not a huge difference as both Sexton and Garladn have good wingspans for 6'2 guards.

Good luck with that. You would be playing the smallest backcourt in the NBA though right?

Maybe? Just barely behind Portland if so. Not sure how small of a back-court Charlotte had. I know Kemba is small.

Isaiah Thomas and Avery Bradley played pretty well together at 5’9” and 6’2” respectively.

Worry about it when it becomes a problem


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

KuruptedCav wrote:

Revenged25 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:Good luck with that. You would be playing the smallest backcourt in the NBA though right?

Maybe? Just barely behind Portland if so. Not sure how small of a back-court Charlotte had. I know Kemba is small.

Isaiah Thomas and Avery Bradley played pretty well together at 5’9” and 6’2” respectively.

Worry about it when it becomes a problem


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Love Isaiah Thomas and Avery Bradley.

I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.

KGdaBom wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

KGdaBom wrote:Culver scored 18.5 PPG on a team that slowed games down to a crawl. I don't think he's limited. Garland is exciting based on reports from HS. He only played 5 games in college and is recovering from injury. Wolves need a PG of the future no doubt. We didn't like White enough to draft him so we went with the consensus #4 player in this years draft. It will be interesting. I actually thought a trade was a 50/50 chance when we took Culver. Now I'm thinking 10% at best. Good luck with Garland. I hope he lives up to his potential. I feel good about Culver for my team, but admit it sure would have been intriguing to get Garland.

Seems pretty clear that Hunter was the consensus No. 4 guy. It's who the Cavs wanted at No. 5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

In checking Mocks I saw Culver picked 4th easily more than any other player. Hunter was 5th so it was really close. Would the Cavs have taken Hunter over Garland?

Yes, which is why the Hawks jumped us.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.

I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

jbk1234 wrote:

NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.

I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Culver shot 53% on 2s but only 30% on threes this season. The year before he shot 38% on 3s. Scouting reports I have read believe he will get that up to a reasonable level. I doubt if he will ever be a sharpshooter from 3, but he should be adequate.

As for blowing it by not trading for 4 The Pelicans had ridiculous demands. They were asking for Covington, 11 and the Wolves taking on Solomon Hills contract. No way in hell that was ever going to happen. Most analysts rated Culver a better draft prospect than Garland and White. The Wolves I'm pretty sure would have preferred Garland for his fit with our team, but obviously they weren't that interested in Garland or they would have caved in to the Pelicans or Cleveland's demands.

Culver reminds me of a bigger slightly better Shumpert

Interesting debate, but Garland is the better shooter/ scorer and that was the Cavs MO in this offseason.

Would be nice if we could get a glimpse of these guys in SL ...