ImageImageImage

Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM

Moderator: jbk1234

JonFromVA
General Manager
Posts: 7,522
And1: 2,253
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#21 » by JonFromVA » Mon May 10, 2021 6:55 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
I think there are a number of teams who need guys who can create their own shot off the dribble and will be enticed by Sexton's PPG and overall efficiency. It won't be hard to talk themselves into the idea that they're buying low and the Cavs are a poorly run organization. But if I'm wrong, then there's absolutely no reason to extend him. If you can't get decent value for him on a rookie contract, then that should inform you as to what his market would be as a RFA.


I'm just not interesting in selling low on any of our young players. I'd rather see what they can become with a better constructed team, some continuity, and some more experience.


I'm not talking about trading him for a late first here. But, if the Cavs decide to hold onto him, then they better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable when they don't extend him early because his number is a ways off from theirs. They better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable if they conclude the team is better off with him coming off the bench. Collin has played three full years in the NBA, missed very few games and started in almost every game he's played. Along with a whole bunch of losing, in games that haven't been particularly close, he's been the constant. At some point, Sexton as a starter needs to become a variable.


Nope, I don't want him uncomfortable, I don't want to drastically overpay him, and I don't want to trade him for peanuts ... so if it comes down to it, I'd be willing to let him walk for nothing.

Which frankly is negotiating 101. If you're not willing to walk away from a bad deal ... you're doing something wrong.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#22 » by jbk1234 » Mon May 10, 2021 7:01 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
I'm just not interesting in selling low on any of our young players. I'd rather see what they can become with a better constructed team, some continuity, and some more experience.


I'm not talking about trading him for a late first here. But, if the Cavs decide to hold onto him, then they better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable when they don't extend him early because his number is a ways off from theirs. They better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable if they conclude the team is better off with him coming off the bench. Collin has played three full years in the NBA, missed very few games and started in almost every game he's played. Along with a whole bunch of losing, in games that haven't been particularly close, he's been the constant. At some point, Sexton as a starter needs to become a variable.


Nope, I don't want him uncomfortable, I don't want to drastically overpay him, and I don't want to trade him for peanuts ... so if it comes down to it, I'd be willing to let him walk for nothing.

Which frankly is negotiating 101. If you're not willing to walk away from a bad deal ... you're doing something wrong.


My best comp for him is Bogdonavich, who is more of a pure outside shooter and who I'd probably trade Sexton for at this point. The Bucks offered a late first in a S&T, the Hawks offered $18M per, and the Kings declined to match. If all you can get is a late first this summer, then you probably don't want to offer more than the upper limit of sixth man money.

But you've been big on the Cavs being proactive rather than reactive in terms of how they manage the team. You're not willing to do so here.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
JonFromVA
General Manager
Posts: 7,522
And1: 2,253
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#23 » by JonFromVA » Mon May 10, 2021 7:16 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
I'm not talking about trading him for a late first here. But, if the Cavs decide to hold onto him, then they better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable when they don't extend him early because his number is a ways off from theirs. They better be prepared for it to get uncomfortable if they conclude the team is better off with him coming off the bench. Collin has played three full years in the NBA, missed very few games and started in almost every game he's played. Along with a whole bunch of losing, in games that haven't been particularly close, he's been the constant. At some point, Sexton as a starter needs to become a variable.


Nope, I don't want him uncomfortable, I don't want to drastically overpay him, and I don't want to trade him for peanuts ... so if it comes down to it, I'd be willing to let him walk for nothing.

Which frankly is negotiating 101. If you're not willing to walk away from a bad deal ... you're doing something wrong.


My best comp for him is Bogdonavich, who is more of a pure outside shooter and who I'd probably trade Sexton for at this point. The Bucks offered a late first in a S&T, the Hawks offered $18M per, and the Kings declined to match. If all you can get is a late first this summer, then you probably don't want to offer more than the upper limit of sixth man money.

But you've been big on the Cavs being proactive rather than reactive in terms of how they manage the team. You're not willing to do so here.


Proactive in this case would mean getting Collin signed to an extension on a deal friendly to both parties. In that case we can either continue to let him grow and increase his value, or if the right deal came along that would reset the rotation such that it actually made sense, we could move on that.

What we can't afford to do is to end up just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#24 » by jbk1234 » Mon May 10, 2021 7:21 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Nope, I don't want him uncomfortable, I don't want to drastically overpay him, and I don't want to trade him for peanuts ... so if it comes down to it, I'd be willing to let him walk for nothing.

Which frankly is negotiating 101. If you're not willing to walk away from a bad deal ... you're doing something wrong.


My best comp for him is Bogdonavich, who is more of a pure outside shooter and who I'd probably trade Sexton for at this point. The Bucks offered a late first in a S&T, the Hawks offered $18M per, and the Kings declined to match. If all you can get is a late first this summer, then you probably don't want to offer more than the upper limit of sixth man money.

But you've been big on the Cavs being proactive rather than reactive in terms of how they manage the team. You're not willing to do so here.


Proactive in this case would mean getting Collin signed to an extension on a deal friendly to both parties. In that case we can either continue to let him grow and increase his value, or if the right deal came along that would reset the rotation such that it actually made sense, we could move on that.

What we can't afford to do is to end up just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.


I remember after the crash of 08 when they were talking about a capital injection that was fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. Finally, some financial pundit stated the obvious: There wasn't a number that would be both fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. That's how I feel about an extension for Sexton. He'll buck at anything that makes sense for the Cavs. I'd be a little nervous about even having the conversation because you can end up in a John Collins situation where the number he turned down starts to leak and it kills his trade value.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
JonFromVA
General Manager
Posts: 7,522
And1: 2,253
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#25 » by JonFromVA » Mon May 10, 2021 7:46 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
My best comp for him is Bogdonavich, who is more of a pure outside shooter and who I'd probably trade Sexton for at this point. The Bucks offered a late first in a S&T, the Hawks offered $18M per, and the Kings declined to match. If all you can get is a late first this summer, then you probably don't want to offer more than the upper limit of sixth man money.

But you've been big on the Cavs being proactive rather than reactive in terms of how they manage the team. You're not willing to do so here.


Proactive in this case would mean getting Collin signed to an extension on a deal friendly to both parties. In that case we can either continue to let him grow and increase his value, or if the right deal came along that would reset the rotation such that it actually made sense, we could move on that.

What we can't afford to do is to end up just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.


I remember after the crash of 08 when they were talking about a capital injection that was fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. Finally, some financial pundit stated the obvious: There wasn't a number that would be both fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. That's how I feel about an extension for Sexton. He'll buck at anything that makes sense for the Cavs. I'd be a little nervous about even having the conversation because you can end up in a John Collins situation where the number he turned down starts to leak and it kills his trade value.


The Cavs will find out soon enough when they start to negotiate an extension, but unless another GM blind calls us asking for Collin, the gig is up the moment we start shopping him. Other team's will know sure they we are distressed sellers and look to get him on the cheap.

I will admit that sometimes what seems cheap to us can turn out to be a much better deal than it seems, but the Cavs were the organization that turned down Middleton and Brogdan for Irving, not the team that recognized the upside in those two.

IMO the most highly motivated trade partner would be a team like the Lakers that would love to add a 3rd star, will pay to keep James happy, and could easily convince themselves that Sexton would fit next to James like Irving once did. Putting the irony of Sexton finally ending up playing with James aside, though, what in the world could they send us?

According to tankathon they might actually keep their pick if it falls outside the top 8, so that might be the 20th pick, but then what? You want THT, a pick, and filler?

Meh...
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#26 » by jbk1234 » Mon May 10, 2021 7:58 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Proactive in this case would mean getting Collin signed to an extension on a deal friendly to both parties. In that case we can either continue to let him grow and increase his value, or if the right deal came along that would reset the rotation such that it actually made sense, we could move on that.

What we can't afford to do is to end up just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.


I remember after the crash of 08 when they were talking about a capital injection that was fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. Finally, some financial pundit stated the obvious: There wasn't a number that would be both fair to the government and would keep the banks solvent. That's how I feel about an extension for Sexton. He'll buck at anything that makes sense for the Cavs. I'd be a little nervous about even having the conversation because you can end up in a John Collins situation where the number he turned down starts to leak and it kills his trade value.


The Cavs will find out soon enough when they start to negotiate an extension, but unless another GM blind calls us asking for Collin, the gig is up the moment we start shopping him. Other team's will know sure they we are distressed sellers and look to get him on the cheap.

I will admit that sometimes what seems cheap to us can turn out to be a much better deal than it seems, but the Cavs were the organization that turned down Middleton and Brogdan for Irving, not the team that recognized the upside in those two.

IMO the most highly motivated trade partner would be a team like the Lakers that would love to add a 3rd star, will pay to keep James happy, and could easily convince themselves that Sexton would fit next to James like Irving once did. Putting the irony of Sexton finally ending up playing with James aside, though, what in the world could they send us?

According to tankathon they might actually keep their pick if it falls outside the top 8, so that might be the 20th pick, but then what? You want THT, a pick, and filler?

Meh...


I think if Morey or Griffin are smart they'll see the value added in a player like Sexton because they already have Simmons and Ball on the roster. They don't need to go out and get a tall PG who can defend. He's on the roster already. There's a guy on the T&T board who floated Hart and No. 10 for Sexton. That got my attention. A Philly fan offered to swap Harris and two firsts for Love and Sexton. I think Sexton will have a limited market but to the right team could have a lot of value. The Lakers have nothing I want. At that point, I'd be prepared for things to get uncomfortable. The Cavs took calls on Kyrie the year they drafted Wiggins but didn't end up moving him.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
toooskies
Sophomore
Posts: 101
And1: 42
Joined: Jul 18, 2013

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#27 » by toooskies » Mon May 10, 2021 8:18 pm

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#28 » by jbk1234 » Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pm

toooskies wrote:Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.


Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
RealGM
Posts: 15,029
And1: 3,579
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#29 » by Stillwater » Mon May 10, 2021 9:30 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.


Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.

why do you keep acting as if when they pay him what he deserves to be paid anywhere else he plays so that he stays in the 216 that they are building "around" him. they are just rebuilding and it is fkn obvious they are not building around anyone when they draft smallish guards the following draft as bpas or long term project swingmen in the next one. these are not players drafted to fit with Sexton or DG nor do I think the next pick will be one that is taken to FIT with any one plyer as much as it is to be sought after as a potential useful player in any system
SUNDOWN BRINGS A WELCOME CHANGE TO EVERYTHING THAT'S HIDING

Fischella wrote "There are easily 40-50 dudes with higher ceilings than Juzang in this class"
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#30 » by jbk1234 » Mon May 10, 2021 9:42 pm

Stillwater wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.


Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.

why do you keep acting as if when they pay him what he deserves to be paid anywhere else he plays so that he stays in the 216 that they are building "around" him. they are just rebuilding and it is fkn obvious they are not building around anyone when they draft smallish guards the following draft as bpas or long term project swingmen in the next one. these are not players drafted to fit with Sexton or DG nor do I think the next pick will be one that is taken to FIT with any one plyer as much as it is to be sought after as a potential useful player in any system


Because at a certain point, hopefully before you pay them, you have to start thinking about what the future will look like with a young player as a main piece. If you're not sure before you have to pay them, don't pay them. It doesn't really matter what you think he deserves, or what I think he deserves, or even what Sexton thinks he deserves. What matter is how the other 29 teams will view the contract you give him. Bogdonovich has positive trade value. Buddy Heild does not. The Kings got stuck with the one they extended early and overpaid. They had to let the player they valued more walk even though he made less.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
JonFromVA
General Manager
Posts: 7,522
And1: 2,253
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#31 » by JonFromVA » Mon May 10, 2021 11:12 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.

why do you keep acting as if when they pay him what he deserves to be paid anywhere else he plays so that he stays in the 216 that they are building "around" him. they are just rebuilding and it is fkn obvious they are not building around anyone when they draft smallish guards the following draft as bpas or long term project swingmen in the next one. these are not players drafted to fit with Sexton or DG nor do I think the next pick will be one that is taken to FIT with any one plyer as much as it is to be sought after as a potential useful player in any system


Because at a certain point, hopefully before you pay them, you have to start thinking about what the future will look like with a young player as a main piece. If you're not sure before you have to pay them, don't pay them. It doesn't really matter what you think he deserves, or what I think he deserves, or even what Sexton thinks he deserves. What matter is how the other 29 teams will view the contract you give him. Bogdonovich has positive trade value. Buddy Heild does not. The Kings got stuck with the one they extended early and overpaid. They had to let the player they valued more walk even though he made less.


As long as Dan is willing to cut the checks, that shouldn't be a problem for us. What is problem is trying to accurately project what a player will be when he's no longer 21 or 22, but closing in on his prime in the 24 to 26 range.

The cheap owner in Sacramento may have messed up by going all in on Buddy Hield, but that one hardly compares to the cheap owner in OKC that decided to hold the line and not pay James Harden because he felt he needed to reserve space to re-sign Ibaka.

But I can tell you what both of them have in common. :)
toooskies
Sophomore
Posts: 101
And1: 42
Joined: Jul 18, 2013

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#32 » by toooskies » Tue May 11, 2021 4:11 am

jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.


Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.


Signing an aging borderline all-star on the decline with a bad back to the worst contract in the league the day it was signed is different from signing your young leading scorer to a deal that he may or may not grow into earning.

Building any team around any player(s) is hard, and I’d rather start with as many useful, improving pieces as possible and swap for fit once we get close to our ceiling. Maybe that’s second-contract Sexton! But if we let our few talented pieces walk for nothing, we’ll have nothing to build with if we ever land a true superstar.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#33 » by jbk1234 » Tue May 11, 2021 4:54 am

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote:why do you keep acting as if when they pay him what he deserves to be paid anywhere else he plays so that he stays in the 216 that they are building "around" him. they are just rebuilding and it is fkn obvious they are not building around anyone when they draft smallish guards the following draft as bpas or long term project swingmen in the next one. these are not players drafted to fit with Sexton or DG nor do I think the next pick will be one that is taken to FIT with any one plyer as much as it is to be sought after as a potential useful player in any system


Because at a certain point, hopefully before you pay them, you have to start thinking about what the future will look like with a young player as a main piece. If you're not sure before you have to pay them, don't pay them. It doesn't really matter what you think he deserves, or what I think he deserves, or even what Sexton thinks he deserves. What matter is how the other 29 teams will view the contract you give him. Bogdonovich has positive trade value. Buddy Heild does not. The Kings got stuck with the one they extended early and overpaid. They had to let the player they valued more walk even though he made less.


As long as Dan is willing to cut the checks, that shouldn't be a problem for us. What is problem is trying to accurately project what a player will be when he's no longer 21 or 22, but closing in on his prime in the 24 to 26 range.

The cheap owner in Sacramento may have messed up by going all in on Buddy Hield, but that one hardly compares to the cheap owner in OKC that decided to hold the line and not pay James Harden because he felt he needed to reserve space to re-sign Ibaka.

But I can tell you what both of them have in common. :)
Cap space to acquire other players, how does it work? Non-Bird rights, how do they work?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#34 » by jbk1234 » Tue May 11, 2021 5:01 am

toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:Hard to say the problem is Sexton when the bench would struggle to win games in the G League.

Hard to say the problem is Sexton when $60 million worth of salary in Love and Drummond barely added anything to the roster this year.

I'm not worried about Sexton and Allen filling up cap room when we're not good enough to attract FAs, anyway. Better them than overpaid veterans past their peak like Love and Drummond.


Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.


Signing an aging borderline all-star on the decline with a bad back to the worst contract in the league the day it was signed is different from signing your young leading scorer to a deal that he may or may not grow into earning.

Building any team around any player(s) is hard, and I’d rather start with as many useful, improving pieces as possible and swap for fit once we get close to our ceiling. Maybe that’s second-contract Sexton! But if we let our few talented pieces walk for nothing, we’ll have nothing to build with if we ever land a true superstar.
I want to be clear about something, I don't hate Sexton. I think the opportunity to build a winning team around him sailed once Ball became a RFA. I think the opportunity to sign Hayward passed when the Cavs extended Love and traded for Drummond. I think the opportunity to make a run at Huerter, who the Cavs could desperately use, was gone once they traded for Allen and Prince.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't keep paying guys more than market and expect to dig out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
toooskies
Sophomore
Posts: 101
And1: 42
Joined: Jul 18, 2013

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#35 » by toooskies » Tue May 11, 2021 12:37 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Of course, we told ourselves it was okay to overpay Love on a long-term deal because no one was signing here and now we're stuck with him. I'm very concerned that Sexton's trade value will be closely tied to his next contract and if he wants more than sixth man money, that's going to cause the Cavs problems in the future. I don't think Sexton is the problem in the sense that he's the Cavs only problem. In isolation, he may not even be their main problem. But the fact that he's going to need a very specific and difficult-to-build roster around him in order for the team to be successful, is a real problem. I think it unlikely that you'll find three legitimate three and D guys to start alongside Sexton and Allen. You could spend the next half decade trying and still not get there.


Signing an aging borderline all-star on the decline with a bad back to the worst contract in the league the day it was signed is different from signing your young leading scorer to a deal that he may or may not grow into earning.

Building any team around any player(s) is hard, and I’d rather start with as many useful, improving pieces as possible and swap for fit once we get close to our ceiling. Maybe that’s second-contract Sexton! But if we let our few talented pieces walk for nothing, we’ll have nothing to build with if we ever land a true superstar.
I want to be clear about something, I don't hate Sexton. I think the opportunity to build a winning team around him sailed once Ball became a RFA. I think the opportunity to sign Hayward passed when the Cavs extended Love and traded for Drummond. I think the opportunity to make a run at Huerter, who the Cavs could desperately use, was gone once they traded for Allen and Prince.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't keep paying guys more than market and expect to dig out.

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

Ball never would’ve agreed to play in CLE for market rate. Hayward got an above-market deal from Charlotte, he wouldn’t have taken less to move to CLE.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#36 » by jbk1234 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:00 pm

toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:
Signing an aging borderline all-star on the decline with a bad back to the worst contract in the league the day it was signed is different from signing your young leading scorer to a deal that he may or may not grow into earning.

Building any team around any player(s) is hard, and I’d rather start with as many useful, improving pieces as possible and swap for fit once we get close to our ceiling. Maybe that’s second-contract Sexton! But if we let our few talented pieces walk for nothing, we’ll have nothing to build with if we ever land a true superstar.
I want to be clear about something, I don't hate Sexton. I think the opportunity to build a winning team around him sailed once Ball became a RFA. I think the opportunity to sign Hayward passed when the Cavs extended Love and traded for Drummond. I think the opportunity to make a run at Huerter, who the Cavs could desperately use, was gone once they traded for Allen and Prince.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't keep paying guys more than market and expect to dig out.

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

Ball never would’ve agreed to play in CLE for market rate. Hayward got an above-market deal from Charlotte, he wouldn’t have taken less to move to CLE.


If Ball was already on the roster when he became a RFA, we could've matched. I think running Garland and Sexton back in the same backcourt next season is a disservice to both of them.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
toooskies
Sophomore
Posts: 101
And1: 42
Joined: Jul 18, 2013

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#37 » by toooskies » Tue May 11, 2021 2:13 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I want to be clear about something, I don't hate Sexton. I think the opportunity to build a winning team around him sailed once Ball became a RFA. I think the opportunity to sign Hayward passed when the Cavs extended Love and traded for Drummond. I think the opportunity to make a run at Huerter, who the Cavs could desperately use, was gone once they traded for Allen and Prince.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't keep paying guys more than market and expect to dig out.

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

Ball never would’ve agreed to play in CLE for market rate. Hayward got an above-market deal from Charlotte, he wouldn’t have taken less to move to CLE.


If Ball was already on the roster when he became a RFA, we could've matched. I think running Garland and Sexton back in the same backcourt next season is a disservice to both of them.


He also may be the most likely player in the league to force his way out of a situation he doesn't like. His agent might go out and with the knowledge the Cavs intend to match and ask for a 1-year contract with player options.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#38 » by jbk1234 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:27 pm

toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:Ball never would’ve agreed to play in CLE for market rate. Hayward got an above-market deal from Charlotte, he wouldn’t have taken less to move to CLE.


If Ball was already on the roster when he became a RFA, we could've matched. I think running Garland and Sexton back in the same backcourt next season is a disservice to both of them.


He also may be the most likely player in the league to force his way out of a situation he doesn't like. His agent might go out and with the knowledge the Cavs intend to match and ask for a 1-year contract with player options.


RFA contracts can't have a P.O. until the third year and if the team that owns the rights makes a maximum QO, then the offer sheet has to be even larger.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
toooskies
Sophomore
Posts: 101
And1: 42
Joined: Jul 18, 2013

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#39 » by toooskies » Tue May 11, 2021 5:29 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
If Ball was already on the roster when he became a RFA, we could've matched. I think running Garland and Sexton back in the same backcourt next season is a disservice to both of them.


He also may be the most likely player in the league to force his way out of a situation he doesn't like. His agent might go out and with the knowledge the Cavs intend to match and ask for a 1-year contract with player options.


RFA contracts can't have a P.O. until the third year and if the team that owns the rights makes a maximum QO, then the offer sheet has to be even larger.


Fine-- you get three years of Ball if you trade for him this offseason, one year on his current contract and then two on the QO. Are the Cavs going to win a title in the next three years? Not even close, there's barely a pathway to getting eight total playoff rotation players on the roster by then, but maybe we're a playoff team for a year or two. Then Ball's out the door for a bigger market. That's probably the best case, then the problem is right back to square one and we've lost whatever assets we gave up to get Ball for three years.

You don't trade for a guy who's going to be looking for the best way out the entire time, even if you could technically lock him into contracts for however many years. That's not a piece you can build around. We've seen time and time again what that looks like and how that ends.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 42,200
And1: 24,242
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Game 68: Dallas Mavericks (39-28) @ Cleveland Cavaliers (21-46) - 7.30PM 

Post#40 » by jbk1234 » Tue May 11, 2021 6:52 pm

toooskies wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
toooskies wrote:
He also may be the most likely player in the league to force his way out of a situation he doesn't like. His agent might go out and with the knowledge the Cavs intend to match and ask for a 1-year contract with player options.


RFA contracts can't have a P.O. until the third year and if the team that owns the rights makes a maximum QO, then the offer sheet has to be even larger.


Fine-- you get three years of Ball if you trade for him this offseason, one year on his current contract and then two on the QO. Are the Cavs going to win a title in the next three years? Not even close, there's barely a pathway to getting eight total playoff rotation players on the roster by then, but maybe we're a playoff team for a year or two. Then Ball's out the door for a bigger market. That's probably the best case, then the problem is right back to square one and we've lost whatever assets we gave up to get Ball for three years.

You don't trade for a guy who's going to be looking for the best way out the entire time, even if you could technically lock him into contracts for however many years. That's not a piece you can build around. We've seen time and time again what that looks like and how that ends.


I mean if it had worked, if the Cavs had been good enough to make the playoffs, then who knows how Ball would've felt heading into this summer or two years from now. If it didn't work starting Sexton next to Ball, then your answer is it probably wasn't going to work with him as a starter on a good team. But I don't understand the thought process behind extending Sexton at starter money before you've determined whether he can start on a good team. All I'm certain of now is that Sexton cannot start next to an average sized PG who isn't a good enough defender to allow you to hide Sexton on defense.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers