2021-22 regular season thread

[jbk1234]

Again, by the numbers Allen-Mobley-Markkenen-Okoro-Garland was working very well and there were even numerous variations on that core that also worked including 63 minutes of LeVert instead of Allen.

Of course if we have the opportunity to upgrade in a way that doesn't destroy our cap, we should do so, but I don't think we should make changes based on just perceived fit.

fwiw, I think Stevens gives us some redundancy with Okoro which is very handy given he's on a minimum contract for 2 more years. It's not to the point I'd feel comfortable trading Isaac and moving Stevens in to his role, but that's the kind of situation we want where we can trade from a team strength to shore up a weakness.

Speaking of ...

The LeVert acquisition basically strengthens our hand when we start negotiating with Sexton. They are not strictly redundant, and I can see the Cavs holding on to both if they can't swing a useful trade and Collin doesn't get a big offer. Then when LeVert's contract is up, we will have Sexton as leverage. Which is all fine and good if Altman and Bickerstaff can keep both players happy through all that so we don't have to trade them for peanuts, we can ideally build-up their value, and can eventually pull off a trade that lets us trade from a position of strength to shore up a position of weakness.

It's no simple thing keeping players happy. How good would have Isiah Hartenstein post All-Star break? But we let him walk because we couldn't promise him play-time. But nobody is handing us a perfect SF for us to slot-in to our core just because we need it. If it happens, we will have to wait for the right opportunity and/or take a chance on someone who's not highly valued at the moment, or develop that player in house (and we do have time for that).

I'll say this, when it comes to players who don't really fit, I think teams worry way too much about *losing a player for nothing* or being perceived as having lost a trade. If the value added to your team isn't there due to your roster construction, and you have really good players, then there are far worse outcomes than realizing cap space and middling draft capital.

Obviously, I'm not on the phone talking to agents, but so long as the Cavs are good enough to win, have really good young players, and have the money to pay free agents, it seems to me that it's a mistake to write yourself off as a non-destination. Players prefer warmer clients but they prefer winning and money more.

[JonFromVA]

Again, by the numbers Allen-Mobley-Markkenen-Okoro-Garland was working very well and there were even numerous variations on that core that also worked including 63 minutes of LeVert instead of Allen.

Of course if we have the opportunity to upgrade in a way that doesn't destroy our cap, we should do so, but I don't think we should make changes based on just perceived fit.

fwiw, I think Stevens gives us some redundancy with Okoro which is very handy given he's on a minimum contract for 2 more years. It's not to the point I'd feel comfortable trading Isaac and moving Stevens in to his role, but that's the kind of situation we want where we can trade from a team strength to shore up a weakness.

Speaking of ...

The LeVert acquisition basically strengthens our hand when we start negotiating with Sexton. They are not strictly redundant, and I can see the Cavs holding on to both if they can't swing a useful trade and Collin doesn't get a big offer. Then when LeVert's contract is up, we will have Sexton as leverage. Which is all fine and good if Altman and Bickerstaff can keep both players happy through all that so we don't have to trade them for peanuts, we can ideally build-up their value, and can eventually pull off a trade that lets us trade from a position of strength to shore up a position of weakness.

It's no simple thing keeping players happy. How good would have Isiah Hartenstein post All-Star break? But we let him walk because we couldn't promise him play-time. But nobody is handing us a perfect SF for us to slot-in to our core just because we need it. If it happens, we will have to wait for the right opportunity and/or take a chance on someone who's not highly valued at the moment, or develop that player in house (and we do have time for that).

I'll say this, when it comes to players who don't really fit, I think teams worry way too much about *losing a player for nothing* or being perceived as having lost a trade. If the value added to your team isn't there due to your roster construction, and you have really good players, then there are far worse outcomes than realizing cap space and middling draft capital.

Obviously, I'm not on the phone talking to agents, but so long as the Cavs are good enough to win, have really good young players, and have the money to pay free agents, it seems to me that it's a mistake to write yourself off as a non-destination. Players prefer warmer clients but they prefer winning and money more.

Players are free to signal their interest in the Cavs in various pseudo-legal ways, and if they're good enough (and can't force a trade) we will gladly clear out cap space to sign them even trade picks to get it done; but short of LeBron signalling he might return if we had max cap space ... when has that ever happened?

Our best bet has always been to trade for players, let them see how they fit with our team and the city, and then try to convince them it's not such a bad place to get overpaid ...

... and I think Altman is past the point he's interested in absorbing bad contracts just to secure a future 2nd round pick.

But to re-iterate a previous point, if you'd like to trade Allen, Mobley, or Garland we should be able to get a good player in return. Short of that? We have little choice but to bide our time, keep developing players, and see what opportunities open up.

[jbk1234]

Again, by the numbers Allen-Mobley-Markkenen-Okoro-Garland was working very well and there were even numerous variations on that core that also worked including 63 minutes of LeVert instead of Allen.

Of course if we have the opportunity to upgrade in a way that doesn't destroy our cap, we should do so, but I don't think we should make changes based on just perceived fit.

fwiw, I think Stevens gives us some redundancy with Okoro which is very handy given he's on a minimum contract for 2 more years. It's not to the point I'd feel comfortable trading Isaac and moving Stevens in to his role, but that's the kind of situation we want where we can trade from a team strength to shore up a weakness.

Speaking of ...

The LeVert acquisition basically strengthens our hand when we start negotiating with Sexton. They are not strictly redundant, and I can see the Cavs holding on to both if they can't swing a useful trade and Collin doesn't get a big offer. Then when LeVert's contract is up, we will have Sexton as leverage. Which is all fine and good if Altman and Bickerstaff can keep both players happy through all that so we don't have to trade them for peanuts, we can ideally build-up their value, and can eventually pull off a trade that lets us trade from a position of strength to shore up a position of weakness.

It's no simple thing keeping players happy. How good would have Isiah Hartenstein post All-Star break? But we let him walk because we couldn't promise him play-time. But nobody is handing us a perfect SF for us to slot-in to our core just because we need it. If it happens, we will have to wait for the right opportunity and/or take a chance on someone who's not highly valued at the moment, or develop that player in house (and we do have time for that).

I'll say this, when it comes to players who don't really fit, I think teams worry way too much about *losing a player for nothing* or being perceived as having lost a trade. If the value added to your team isn't there due to your roster construction, and you have really good players, then there are far worse outcomes than realizing cap space and middling draft capital.

Obviously, I'm not on the phone talking to agents, but so long as the Cavs are good enough to win, have really good young players, and have the money to pay free agents, it seems to me that it's a mistake to write yourself off as a non-destination. Players prefer warmer clients but they prefer winning and money more.

Players are free to signal their interest in the Cavs in various pseudo-legal ways, and if they're good enough (and can't force a trade) we will gladly clear out cap space to sign them even trade picks to get it done; but short of LeBron signalling he might return if we had max cap space ... when has that ever happened?

Our best bet has always been to trade for players, let them see how they fit with our team and the city, and then try to convince them it's not such a bad place to get overpaid ...

... and I think Altman is past the point he's interested in absorbing bad contracts just to secure a future 2nd round pick.

But to re-iterate a previous point, if you'd like to trade Allen, Mobley, or Garland we should be able to get a good player in return. Short of that? We have little choice but to bide our time, keep developing players, and see what opportunities open up.

As to the bolded, the league has changed, even from LBJ's first stint here, and the last time the Cavs had a young core as good as the current one, was Daugherty, Price, Harper and Williams. Obviously, the LBJ/Kyrie/Love team was loaded, but lacked cap space. If your sample size has a 30-year gap in it, I'm not sure how reliable it is.

If players still don't want to come to Cleveland, then you have to fill in the missing pieces via trade I guess. But I really hope that's not an assumption, or even a default position, on the part of the front office based solely on prior experience.

[JonFromVA]

I'll say this, when it comes to players who don't really fit, I think teams worry way too much about *losing a player for nothing* or being perceived as having lost a trade. If the value added to your team isn't there due to your roster construction, and you have really good players, then there are far worse outcomes than realizing cap space and middling draft capital.

Obviously, I'm not on the phone talking to agents, but so long as the Cavs are good enough to win, have really good young players, and have the money to pay free agents, it seems to me that it's a mistake to write yourself off as a non-destination. Players prefer warmer clients but they prefer winning and money more.

Players are free to signal their interest in the Cavs in various pseudo-legal ways, and if they're good enough (and can't force a trade) we will gladly clear out cap space to sign them even trade picks to get it done; but short of LeBron signalling he might return if we had max cap space ... when has that ever happened?

Our best bet has always been to trade for players, let them see how they fit with our team and the city, and then try to convince them it's not such a bad place to get overpaid ...

... and I think Altman is past the point he's interested in absorbing bad contracts just to secure a future 2nd round pick.

But to re-iterate a previous point, if you'd like to trade Allen, Mobley, or Garland we should be able to get a good player in return. Short of that? We have little choice but to bide our time, keep developing players, and see what opportunities open up.

As to the bolded, the league has changed, even from LBJ's first stint here, and the last time the Cavs had a young core as good as the current one, was Daugherty, Price, Harper and Williams. Obviously, the LBJ/Kyrie/Love team was loaded, but lacked cap space. If your sample size has a 30-year gap in it, I'm not sure how reliable it is.

If players still don't want to come to Cleveland, then you have to fill in the missing pieces via trade I guess. But I really hope that's not an assumption, or even a default position, on the part of the front office based solely on prior experience.

No, I'm sure it's based on what agents and players are telling them, their feel for the market, and their confidence in continuing to pull off trades using assets and expiring contracts.

And while I'll never say the Cavs have no use for free-agency, let's not pretend there aren't risks. Just because you'd like a shot to sign a player doesn't mean we will have the opportunity to do anything more than hike up his cost to someone else, and that any players we do sign won't be overpaid, come with question marks, and put us back over the cap.

Seems like no matter what we do, 75% of the time they end up watching games in street clothes.

[jbk1234]

Players are free to signal their interest in the Cavs in various pseudo-legal ways, and if they're good enough (and can't force a trade) we will gladly clear out cap space to sign them even trade picks to get it done; but short of LeBron signalling he might return if we had max cap space ... when has that ever happened?

Our best bet has always been to trade for players, let them see how they fit with our team and the city, and then try to convince them it's not such a bad place to get overpaid ...

... and I think Altman is past the point he's interested in absorbing bad contracts just to secure a future 2nd round pick.

But to re-iterate a previous point, if you'd like to trade Allen, Mobley, or Garland we should be able to get a good player in return. Short of that? We have little choice but to bide our time, keep developing players, and see what opportunities open up.

As to the bolded, the league has changed, even from LBJ's first stint here, and the last time the Cavs had a young core as good as the current one, was Daugherty, Price, Harper and Williams. Obviously, the LBJ/Kyrie/Love team was loaded, but lacked cap space. If your sample size has a 30-year gap in it, I'm not sure how reliable it is.

If players still don't want to come to Cleveland, then you have to fill in the missing pieces via trade I guess. But I really hope that's not an assumption, or even a default position, on the part of the front office based solely on prior experience.

No, I'm sure it's based on what agents and players are telling them, their feel for the market, and their confidence in continuing to pull off trades using assets and expiring contracts.

And while I'll never say the Cavs have no use for free-agency, let's not pretend there aren't risks. Just because you'd like a shot to sign a player doesn't mean we will have the opportunity to do anything more than hike up his cost to someone else, and that any players we do sign won't be overpaid, come with question marks, and put us back over the cap.

Seems like no matter what we do, 75% of the time they end up watching games in street clothes.

Injuries are a risk regardless of whether you trade for the player or sign him in F.A. Other than look at the player's injury history, and manage minutes, there's very little you can do on that front.

[JonFromVA]

As to the bolded, the league has changed, even from LBJ's first stint here, and the last time the Cavs had a young core as good as the current one, was Daugherty, Price, Harper and Williams. Obviously, the LBJ/Kyrie/Love team was loaded, but lacked cap space. If your sample size has a 30-year gap in it, I'm not sure how reliable it is.

If players still don't want to come to Cleveland, then you have to fill in the missing pieces via trade I guess. But I really hope that's not an assumption, or even a default position, on the part of the front office based solely on prior experience.

No, I'm sure it's based on what agents and players are telling them, their feel for the market, and their confidence in continuing to pull off trades using assets and expiring contracts.

And while I'll never say the Cavs have no use for free-agency, let's not pretend there aren't risks. Just because you'd like a shot to sign a player doesn't mean we will have the opportunity to do anything more than hike up his cost to someone else, and that any players we do sign won't be overpaid, come with question marks, and put us back over the cap.

Seems like no matter what we do, 75% of the time they end up watching games in street clothes.

Injuries are a risk regardless of whether you trade for the player or sign him in F.A. Other than look at the player's injury history, and manage minutes, there's very little you can do on that front.

There's a lot of reasons players end up on the trade market or the free-agent market and only a few of them are good. Top of the list include things like they're asking for too much money, they're unhappy in their role, they do not help winning, and they're injured all the time.

If you had to come up with a list of how you'd try to mitigate theses risks, it would likely include some of the things the Cavs have done and tried, but for instance the odds of getting a full healthy season out of Lauri or Ricky were not good.

[cavs4872]

I don't know how the hell you people who watch every game put up with these Darius Dimes and Kia commercials lmao.

[JonFromVA]

I don't know how the hell you people who watch every game put up with these Darius Dimes and Kia commercials lmao.

Fast Forward

[jbk1234]

No, I'm sure it's based on what agents and players are telling them, their feel for the market, and their confidence in continuing to pull off trades using assets and expiring contracts.

And while I'll never say the Cavs have no use for free-agency, let's not pretend there aren't risks. Just because you'd like a shot to sign a player doesn't mean we will have the opportunity to do anything more than hike up his cost to someone else, and that any players we do sign won't be overpaid, come with question marks, and put us back over the cap.

Seems like no matter what we do, 75% of the time they end up watching games in street clothes.

Injuries are a risk regardless of whether you trade for the player or sign him in F.A. Other than look at the player's injury history, and manage minutes, there's very little you can do on that front.

There's a lot of reasons players end up on the trade market or the free-agent market and only a few of them are good. Top of the list include things like they're asking for too much money, they're unhappy in their role, they do not help winning, and they're injured all the time.

If you had to come up with a list of how you'd try to mitigate theses risks, it would likely include some of the things the Cavs have done and tried, but for instance the odds of getting a full healthy season out of Lauri or Ricky were not good.

You left out a reason, teams mismanage their cap space and can't afford to retain a player, which is why I'm eyeing Cam Johnson in the summer of 2023. If the Suns sign Ayton, I don't see Sarver matching on a deal that would result in a ruinous repeater bill.

[JonFromVA]

Injuries are a risk regardless of whether you trade for the player or sign him in F.A. Other than look at the player's injury history, and manage minutes, there's very little you can do on that front.

There's a lot of reasons players end up on the trade market or the free-agent market and only a few of them are good. Top of the list include things like they're asking for too much money, they're unhappy in their role, they do not help winning, and they're injured all the time.

If you had to come up with a list of how you'd try to mitigate theses risks, it would likely include some of the things the Cavs have done and tried, but for instance the odds of getting a full healthy season out of Lauri or Ricky were not good.

You left out a reason, teams mismanage their cap space and can't afford to retain a player, which is why I'm eyeing Cam Johnson in the summer of 2023. If the Suns sign Ayton, I don't see Sarver matching on a deal that would result in a ruinous repeater bill.

And if that player cares to signal the Cavs and we think he's actually worth a max ... we will move heaven and earth to either free up the cap space or trade for him ...

... but this only happened that one time in the history of the franchise with a player born in Akron.

[jbk1234]

There's a lot of reasons players end up on the trade market or the free-agent market and only a few of them are good. Top of the list include things like they're asking for too much money, they're unhappy in their role, they do not help winning, and they're injured all the time.

If you had to come up with a list of how you'd try to mitigate theses risks, it would likely include some of the things the Cavs have done and tried, but for instance the odds of getting a full healthy season out of Lauri or Ricky were not good.

You left out a reason, teams mismanage their cap space and can't afford to retain a player, which is why I'm eyeing Cam Johnson in the summer of 2023. If the Suns sign Ayton, I don't see Sarver matching on a deal that would result in a ruinous repeater bill.

And if that player cares to signal the Cavs and we think he's actually worth a max ... we will move heaven and earth to either free up the cap space or trade for him ...

... but this only happened that one time in the history of the franchise with a player born in Akron.

Which gets back to are we limiting ourselves to trades because that's the reality of the situation, or are we limiting ourselves to trades because we're assuming that the past performance dictates future results?

My fear is that we may be losing out on unknown future opportunities by continuing on the sign-everyone-and-trade-later approach. Cam is playing on a team that was in the Finals a year ago and may very well be headed back there. He's probably not of a mindset right now to explore playing elsewhere. But if extension talks don't go well this summer, that could change.

[JonFromVA]

You left out a reason, teams mismanage their cap space and can't afford to retain a player, which is why I'm eyeing Cam Johnson in the summer of 2023. If the Suns sign Ayton, I don't see Sarver matching on a deal that would result in a ruinous repeater bill.

And if that player cares to signal the Cavs and we think he's actually worth a max ... we will move heaven and earth to either free up the cap space or trade for him ...

... but this only happened that one time in the history of the franchise with a player born in Akron.

Which gets back to are we limiting ourselves to trades because that's the reality of the situation, or are we limiting ourselves to trades because we're assuming that the past performance dictates future results?

My fear is that we may be losing out on unknown future opportunities by continuing on the sign-everyone-and-trade-later approach. Cam is playing on a team that was in the Finals a year ago and may very well be headed back there. He's probably not of a mindset right now to explore playing elsewhere. But if extension talks don't go well this summer, that could change.

Sure, the perfect storm can happen with either approach, but using Dan's willingness to spend over the cap and sweeten deals is a proven approach

Cam Johnsons and the Cavs having mutual interest is a possibility, just not sure what makes you think it's likely as well as something we can't pull off via trade if it was like we did with Lauri beating out other teams who like us only had the MLE

[ijspeelman]

Watch on YouTube

Just want to share this gorgeous play from tonight. Everything, but the finish.

[ijspeelman]

Watch on YouTube

Also, some fun LeVert Love two-man game. Look at Kevin mouth "cut" to Levert.

[jbk1234]

Watch on YouTube

Just want to share this gorgeous play from tonight. Everything, but the finish.

Yeah, that was basically the only time he failed to finish. He finished, a lot over, over Embiid. He's the star that stirs the drink.

[ijspeelman]

Watch on YouTube

Lastly, some clips from today showing what LeVert can bring to the Cavs offense. I love when he brings a combination of passing, scoring, and dribble drive game.

[toooskies]

Yeah, LeVert is finally starting to click and be the player we thought we were getting. He looks more confident in his 3-point shot, and it's going in a lot more.

Despite the results not being great of late, we'll have a puncher's chance at full strength if Allen and Mobley can make it back in time for the playoffs.

[JonFromVA]

Team Clunky doing their thing:

Read on Twitter

4 offensive players in the paint .vs. 4 defenders in the paint, and Garland threads the needle to Brown (helps that Mitchell Robinson was not in the game)

[jbk1234]

I guess JB really lit into the officials from last night, which tbc, he should've. That was some really atrocious ref baiting by Embiid and Harden last night and apparently we have yet another point of emphasis that isn't surviving the regular season.

That aside, I really think this team would be better off with a late lottery pick than a best of seven series in the first round. We have a couple of needs that have to be addressed, limited ways of addressing, and the ability to select a more NBA ready player even if his ceiling isn't quite so high.

[ijspeelman]

I guess JB really lit into the officials from last night, which tbc, he should've. That was some really atrocious ref baiting by Embiid and Harden last night and apparently we have yet another point of emphasis that isn't surviving the regular season.

That aside, I really think this team would be better off with a late lottery pick than a best of seven series in the first round. We have a couple of needs that have to be addressed, limited ways of addressing, and the ability to select a more NBA ready player even if his ceiling isn't quite so high.

I think the playoff experience (even if it is 4 out) could be more useful than the mid-round 1st. I like the idea of getting to run our scheme in a playoff environment and see what works and what doesn't work so they can hopefully address it in the off-season.

I think we are pretty well off assets wise. We have all our FR picks (besides this year if we do make the playoffs, then we lose 2023 if we make the playoffs), an expiring Love, two-year Cedi contract, possible sign-and-trade with Sexton (if we don't want to re-sign), expiring LeVert (if we don't want to re-sign), Okoro (if we don't like him for the future and/or are offered a crazy move [I am on team keep Okoro... I think he can hone his skills on his three (volume and efficiency) and be a great 3&D G/W]), multiple second round picks, and Windler/Wade contracts.