ImageImageImage

GT #56, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET

Moderator: ijspeelman

JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#21 » by JonFromVA » Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:34 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
hype_2004 wrote:
SaiCLE wrote:Didn’t you just compare Mobley to Theo ratliff?
Yeah you can go back to your board :lol:


I said Theo Ratliff with offense, have you seen Theo Ratliff play defense? That's Mobley with more offense, prove me wrong. I also compare with with young OKC Ibaka, that's Evan Mobley on this Cavs team.


Before the Cavs traded for LeVert, Mobley had games where he'd disappear on offense. He's light years ahead of where I thought he'd be, but he's still a 20-year old rookie who's showing signs of hitting the rookie wall. His ceiling is way above where you're projecting though


If LeVert becomes a problem, the Cavs will address it. He didn't shoot that much when Garland was playing. I'm not even sure he'll start when Lauri and Garland are healthy. But the Cavs separately needed someone who could create once Rubio got hurt and LeVert was available.


I'll take that as you coming around on LeVert. :lol:
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#22 » by jbk1234 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:37 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
hype_2004 wrote:
I said Theo Ratliff with offense, have you seen Theo Ratliff play defense? That's Mobley with more offense, prove me wrong. I also compare with with young OKC Ibaka, that's Evan Mobley on this Cavs team.


Before the Cavs traded for LeVert, Mobley had games where he'd disappear on offense. He's light years ahead of where I thought he'd be, but he's still a 20-year old rookie who's showing signs of hitting the rookie wall. His ceiling is way above where you're projecting though


If LeVert becomes a problem, the Cavs will address it. He didn't shoot that much when Garland was playing. I'm not even sure he'll start when Lauri and Garland are healthy. But the Cavs separately needed someone who could create once Rubio got hurt and LeVert was available.


I'll take that as you coming around on LeVert. :lol:


I'm not. It's just that Mobley being a rookie, and having rookie like issues, predated LeVert. Don't get me wrong, he's two or even three years ahead of where I thought he'd be when we drafted him. But he's a 20-year old young man and absent some sci-fi maturation machine, the situation is what it is.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#23 » by JonFromVA » Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:54 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Before the Cavs traded for LeVert, Mobley had games where he'd disappear on offense. He's light years ahead of where I thought he'd be, but he's still a 20-year old rookie who's showing signs of hitting the rookie wall. His ceiling is way above where you're projecting though


If LeVert becomes a problem, the Cavs will address it. He didn't shoot that much when Garland was playing. I'm not even sure he'll start when Lauri and Garland are healthy. But the Cavs separately needed someone who could create once Rubio got hurt and LeVert was available.


I'll take that as you coming around on LeVert. :lol:


I'm not. It's just that Mobley being a rookie, and having rookie like issues, predated LeVert. Don't get me wrong, he's two or even three years ahead of where I thought he'd be when we drafted him. But he's a 20-year old young man and absent some sci-fi maturation machine, the situation is what it is.


Agreed, I'm only hoping for miracles where Mobley is concerned, not expecting them ... but I was more referring to your final point where you at least admit that LeVert might fill a hole.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#24 » by jbk1234 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:59 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
I'll take that as you coming around on LeVert. :lol:


I'm not. It's just that Mobley being a rookie, and having rookie like issues, predated LeVert. Don't get me wrong, he's two or even three years ahead of where I thought he'd be when we drafted him. But he's a 20-year old young man and absent some sci-fi maturation machine, the situation is what it is.


Agreed, I'm only hoping for miracles where Mobley is concerned, not expecting them ... but I was more referring to your final point where you at least admit that LeVert might fill a hole.


It's more one of those if you tilt-your-head-sideways-and-squint-you-can-see-what-they-were-thinking acknowledgements, and very much NOT an-I-agree-with-the-calculus admissions. I find solace in the fact that the Cavs are not wedded to the decision long-term. There's no uncle with a shotgun in the barn forcing them to make it permanent.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#25 » by JonFromVA » Sun Feb 13, 2022 6:57 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
I'm not. It's just that Mobley being a rookie, and having rookie like issues, predated LeVert. Don't get me wrong, he's two or even three years ahead of where I thought he'd be when we drafted him. But he's a 20-year old young man and absent some sci-fi maturation machine, the situation is what it is.


Agreed, I'm only hoping for miracles where Mobley is concerned, not expecting them ... but I was more referring to your final point where you at least admit that LeVert might fill a hole.


It's more one of those if you tilt-your-head-sideways-and-squint-you-can-see-what-they-were-thinking acknowledgements, and very much NOT an-I-agree-with-the-calculus admissions. I find solace in the fact that the Cavs are not wedded to the decision long-term. There's no uncle with a shotgun in the barn forcing them to make it permanent.


I just don't think this was an experiment or a trial run. If both sides can agree on a number, we will lock Caris up.

What I haven't seen from Koby has been a move made out of desperation.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#26 » by jbk1234 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 7:32 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Agreed, I'm only hoping for miracles where Mobley is concerned, not expecting them ... but I was more referring to your final point where you at least admit that LeVert might fill a hole.


It's more one of those if you tilt-your-head-sideways-and-squint-you-can-see-what-they-were-thinking acknowledgements, and very much NOT an-I-agree-with-the-calculus admissions. I find solace in the fact that the Cavs are not wedded to the decision long-term. There's no uncle with a shotgun in the barn forcing them to make it permanent.


I just don't think this was an experiment or a trial run. If both sides can agree on a number, we will lock Caris up.

What I haven't seen from Koby has been a move made out of desperation.


Whatever the intent when they traded for him, it would be entirely irrational to extend him until you've seen it work on the court, and I refuse to ascribe that level of incompetence to the Cavs F.O.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#27 » by JonFromVA » Sun Feb 13, 2022 7:38 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
It's more one of those if you tilt-your-head-sideways-and-squint-you-can-see-what-they-were-thinking acknowledgements, and very much NOT an-I-agree-with-the-calculus admissions. I find solace in the fact that the Cavs are not wedded to the decision long-term. There's no uncle with a shotgun in the barn forcing them to make it permanent.


I just don't think this was an experiment or a trial run. If both sides can agree on a number, we will lock Caris up.

What I haven't seen from Koby has been a move made out of desperation.


Whatever the intent when they traded for him, it would be entirely irrational to extend him until you've seen it work on the court, and I refuse to ascribe that level of incompetence to the Cavs F.O.


Please, that's exactly what they did when they S&T'd for Lauri.

That they can see Caris firsthand is a bonus, making the wrong decision in the first place would demonstrate incompetence.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#28 » by jbk1234 » Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:03 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
I just don't think this was an experiment or a trial run. If both sides can agree on a number, we will lock Caris up.

What I haven't seen from Koby has been a move made out of desperation.


Whatever the intent when they traded for him, it would be entirely irrational to extend him until you've seen it work on the court, and I refuse to ascribe that level of incompetence to the Cavs F.O.


Please, that's exactly what they did when they S&T'd for Lauri.

That they can see Caris firsthand is a bonus, making the wrong decision in the first place would demonstrate incompetence.


It's not exactly what they did with Lauri. It's almost completely the opposite of what they did with Lauri. If they didn't offer Lauri that contract, Lauri wasn't going to be a member of the Cavs. Caris is already a member of the Cavs and, unless he's traded, will continue to be a member of the Cavs until the summer of 2023.

Every F.O. makes minor mistakes as it's the cost of trying out different players. Trading for KPJ was a minor mistake. Letting him go was the solution. Trading for Drummond was a minor mistake. Extending him at $20M per because that's a *value* deal would've been a franchise-altering mistake. Luckily they dodged a bullet when Drummond turned it down. They dodged another bullet when CAA turned down the $100M extension on Sexton. That's twice they've been very fortunate. Stepping back into the line of fire a third time, an entire year before they have to make such a decision, would be incompetent. Poorly run teams extend non-core, or journeyman players years before they have to, and more often than not, it turns around to bite them.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#29 » by JonFromVA » Mon Feb 14, 2022 2:16 am

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Whatever the intent when they traded for him, it would be entirely irrational to extend him until you've seen it work on the court, and I refuse to ascribe that level of incompetence to the Cavs F.O.


Please, that's exactly what they did when they S&T'd for Lauri.

That they can see Caris firsthand is a bonus, making the wrong decision in the first place would demonstrate incompetence.


It's not exactly what they did with Lauri. It's almost completely the opposite of what they did with Lauri. If they didn't offer Lauri that contract, Lauri wasn't going to be a member of the Cavs. Caris is already a member of the Cavs and, unless he's traded, will continue to be a member of the Cavs until the summer of 2023.

Every F.O. makes minor mistakes as it's the cost of trying out different players. Trading for KPJ was a minor mistake. Letting him go was the solution. Trading for Drummond was a minor mistake. Extending him at $20M per because that's a *value* deal would've been a franchise-altering mistake. Luckily they dodged a bullet when Drummond turned it down. They dodged another bullet when CAA turned down the $100M extension on Sexton. That's twice they've been very fortunate. Stepping back into the line of fire a third time, an entire year before they have to make such a decision, would be incompetent. Poorly run teams extend non-core, or journeyman players years before they have to, and more often than not, it turns around to bite them.


Its the GM's job to know when to commit to a player and that's exactly what Altman did with Lauri.

Sexton is still up in the air, and I dont think a Drummond offer was publicized, but we were winning with him until he turned down our offer and we pivoted to Allen.

And then we committed to Allen inspite of not showing evidence it would work.

You're just assuming the LeVert signing was an experiment, but we paid too much for a trial run.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#30 » by jbk1234 » Mon Feb 14, 2022 2:17 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Please, that's exactly what they did when they S&T'd for Lauri.

That they can see Caris firsthand is a bonus, making the wrong decision in the first place would demonstrate incompetence.


It's not exactly what they did with Lauri. It's almost completely the opposite of what they did with Lauri. If they didn't offer Lauri that contract, Lauri wasn't going to be a member of the Cavs. Caris is already a member of the Cavs and, unless he's traded, will continue to be a member of the Cavs until the summer of 2023.

Every F.O. makes minor mistakes as it's the cost of trying out different players. Trading for KPJ was a minor mistake. Letting him go was the solution. Trading for Drummond was a minor mistake. Extending him at $20M per because that's a *value* deal would've been a franchise-altering mistake. Luckily they dodged a bullet when Drummond turned it down. They dodged another bullet when CAA turned down the $100M extension on Sexton. That's twice they've been very fortunate. Stepping back into the line of fire a third time, an entire year before they have to make such a decision, would be incompetent. Poorly run teams extend non-core, or journeyman players years before they have to, and more often than not, it turns around to bite them.


Its the GM's job to know when to commit to a player and that's exactly what Altman did with Lauri.

Sexton is still up in the air, and I dont think a Drummond offer was publicized, but we were winning with him until he turned down our offer and we pivoted to Allen.

And then we committed to Allen inspite of not showing evidence it would work.

You're just assuming the LeVert signing was an experiment, but we paid too much for a trial run.


I'm assuming they won't surrender to the sunken cost fallacy if things don't go well between now and the summer. Yes, I assume the front office is rational versus irrational.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#31 » by JonFromVA » Mon Feb 14, 2022 3:51 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
It's not exactly what they did with Lauri. It's almost completely the opposite of what they did with Lauri. If they didn't offer Lauri that contract, Lauri wasn't going to be a member of the Cavs. Caris is already a member of the Cavs and, unless he's traded, will continue to be a member of the Cavs until the summer of 2023.

Every F.O. makes minor mistakes as it's the cost of trying out different players. Trading for KPJ was a minor mistake. Letting him go was the solution. Trading for Drummond was a minor mistake. Extending him at $20M per because that's a *value* deal would've been a franchise-altering mistake. Luckily they dodged a bullet when Drummond turned it down. They dodged another bullet when CAA turned down the $100M extension on Sexton. That's twice they've been very fortunate. Stepping back into the line of fire a third time, an entire year before they have to make such a decision, would be incompetent. Poorly run teams extend non-core, or journeyman players years before they have to, and more often than not, it turns around to bite them.


Its the GM's job to know when to commit to a player and that's exactly what Altman did with Lauri.

Sexton is still up in the air, and I dont think a Drummond offer was publicized, but we were winning with him until he turned down our offer and we pivoted to Allen.

And then we committed to Allen inspite of not showing evidence it would work.

You're just assuming the LeVert signing was an experiment, but we paid too much for a trial run.


I'm assuming they won't surrender to the sunken cost fallacy if things don't go well between now and the summer. Yes, I assume the front office is rational versus irrational.


What we paid for Caris has nothing to do with the "sunken cost fallacy" and everything to do with Altman's projection for him with the team. Poorly run teams make bad decisions because they're bad at making decisions.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#32 » by jbk1234 » Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:06 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Its the GM's job to know when to commit to a player and that's exactly what Altman did with Lauri.

Sexton is still up in the air, and I dont think a Drummond offer was publicized, but we were winning with him until he turned down our offer and we pivoted to Allen.

And then we committed to Allen inspite of not showing evidence it would work.

You're just assuming the LeVert signing was an experiment, but we paid too much for a trial run.


I'm assuming they won't surrender to the sunken cost fallacy if things don't go well between now and the summer. Yes, I assume the front office is rational versus irrational.


What we paid for Caris has nothing to do with the "sunken cost fallacy" and everything to do with Altman's projection for him with the team. Poorly run teams make bad decisions because they're bad at making decisions.


I really don't understand why you'd encourage the Cavs not to take the time to evaluate whether Altman's projections will bear fruit when it's afforded to them by LeVert's present contractual status. There's just nothing rational about it. What's the downside in processing the information that becomes available between now and the summer (he's not extension eligible until then anyway). If what they see with LeVert on the court with Allen, Mobley, and Garland doesn't work, why wouldn't they change course or at least punt into a second season before tying up the cap space?

If the answer is LeVert will be upset, then that's not a good enough answer. If LeVert isn't fitting in as well as hoped, he should want to move on to a team where two bigs aren't operating in the same space he wants to operate. The only reason he'd want the extension at that point is the financial commitment, and only if he believes he might not get the same money in the summer of 2023. Extending a player on a contract that's above his market value, or even just at his perceived market value for a guy who isn't working out, in order to gain favor with the player or his agent, is poor management. There's no two ways about it.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#33 » by JonFromVA » Mon Feb 14, 2022 5:25 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
I'm assuming they won't surrender to the sunken cost fallacy if things don't go well between now and the summer. Yes, I assume the front office is rational versus irrational.


What we paid for Caris has nothing to do with the "sunken cost fallacy" and everything to do with Altman's projection for him with the team. Poorly run teams make bad decisions because they're bad at making decisions.


I really don't understand why you'd encourage the Cavs not to take the time to evaluate whether Altman's projections will bear fruit when it's afforded to them by LeVert's present contractual status. There's just nothing rational about it. What's the downside in processing the information that becomes available between now and the summer (he's not extension eligible until then anyway). If what they see with LeVert on the court with Allen, Mobley, and Garland doesn't work, why wouldn't they change course or at least punt into a second season before tying up the cap space?

If the answer is LeVert will be upset, then that's not a good enough answer. If LeVert isn't fitting in as well as hoped, he should want to move on to a team where two bigs aren't operating in the same space he wants to operate. The only reason he'd want the extension at that point is the financial commitment, and only if he believes he might not get the same money in the summer of 2023. Extending a player on a contract that's above his market value, or even just at his perceived market value for a guy who isn't working out, in order to gain favor with the player or his agent, is poor management. There's no two ways about it.


Whether you like it or not, gaining favor with players and agents is a part of the job and showing confidence in a player in-spite of some rough going helps build a long-term relationship.

If this was a case of pure business management, you'd look at the likely outcomes based on the different paths; and the results still may not favor letting things playout until the last possible moment ... but it's nothing so complex.

The LeVert signing isn't an experiment, it's not a trial, it's not a hot fix. The Cavs added a player they've been following for a while and will lock him up as long as everything is moving forward within whatever bounds they decide are acceptable.
jbk1234
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,263
And1: 31,982
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
 

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#34 » by jbk1234 » Mon Feb 14, 2022 5:34 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
What we paid for Caris has nothing to do with the "sunken cost fallacy" and everything to do with Altman's projection for him with the team. Poorly run teams make bad decisions because they're bad at making decisions.


I really don't understand why you'd encourage the Cavs not to take the time to evaluate whether Altman's projections will bear fruit when it's afforded to them by LeVert's present contractual status. There's just nothing rational about it. What's the downside in processing the information that becomes available between now and the summer (he's not extension eligible until then anyway). If what they see with LeVert on the court with Allen, Mobley, and Garland doesn't work, why wouldn't they change course or at least punt into a second season before tying up the cap space?

If the answer is LeVert will be upset, then that's not a good enough answer. If LeVert isn't fitting in as well as hoped, he should want to move on to a team where two bigs aren't operating in the same space he wants to operate. The only reason he'd want the extension at that point is the financial commitment, and only if he believes he might not get the same money in the summer of 2023. Extending a player on a contract that's above his market value, or even just at his perceived market value for a guy who isn't working out, in order to gain favor with the player or his agent, is poor management. There's no two ways about it.


Whether you like it or not, gaining favor with players and agents is a part of the job and showing confidence in a player in-spite of some rough going helps build a long-term relationship.

If this was a case of pure business management, you'd look at the likely outcomes based on the different paths; and the results still may not favor letting things playout until the last possible moment ... but it's nothing so complex.

The LeVert signing isn't an experiment, it's not a trial, it's not a hot fix. The Cavs added a player they've been following for a while and will lock him up as long as everything is moving forward within whatever bounds they decide are acceptable.


Again, it wasn't a signing, it was a trade. The signing, should it occur, hasn't and can't happen until this summer at the very earliest. The rest is gobbledy gook tautology that can best be summarized as the Cavs are going to do what they're going to do. Yes, that's obvious. But, should they extend him, there's an opportunity cost associated with them spending 2023 cap space that gets added to the acquisition cost already surrendered. If things really don't work out after an extension, you could add whatever the cost of trading LeVert might be to the equation. The sunken cost fallacy is very much in play here. A well run organization would be mindful of that and not overly dismissive as to whether it looks like it's working over the rest of the season and postseason.
cbosh4mvp wrote:
Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
JonFromVA
RealGM
Posts: 13,513
And1: 4,351
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: GT #57, Cavaliers @ Pacers, 11 February 2022, 7:00 PM ET 

Post#35 » by JonFromVA » Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:10 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
I really don't understand why you'd encourage the Cavs not to take the time to evaluate whether Altman's projections will bear fruit when it's afforded to them by LeVert's present contractual status. There's just nothing rational about it. What's the downside in processing the information that becomes available between now and the summer (he's not extension eligible until then anyway). If what they see with LeVert on the court with Allen, Mobley, and Garland doesn't work, why wouldn't they change course or at least punt into a second season before tying up the cap space?

If the answer is LeVert will be upset, then that's not a good enough answer. If LeVert isn't fitting in as well as hoped, he should want to move on to a team where two bigs aren't operating in the same space he wants to operate. The only reason he'd want the extension at that point is the financial commitment, and only if he believes he might not get the same money in the summer of 2023. Extending a player on a contract that's above his market value, or even just at his perceived market value for a guy who isn't working out, in order to gain favor with the player or his agent, is poor management. There's no two ways about it.


Whether you like it or not, gaining favor with players and agents is a part of the job and showing confidence in a player in-spite of some rough going helps build a long-term relationship.

If this was a case of pure business management, you'd look at the likely outcomes based on the different paths; and the results still may not favor letting things playout until the last possible moment ... but it's nothing so complex.

The LeVert signing isn't an experiment, it's not a trial, it's not a hot fix. The Cavs added a player they've been following for a while and will lock him up as long as everything is moving forward within whatever bounds they decide are acceptable.


Again, it wasn't a signing, it was a trade. The signing, should it occur, hasn't and can't happen until this summer at the very earliest. The rest is gobbledy gook tautology that can best be summarized as the Cavs are going to do what they're going to do. Yes, that's obvious. But, should they extend him, there's an opportunity cost associated with them spending 2023 cap space that gets added to the acquisition cost already surrendered. If things really don't work out after an extension, you could add whatever the cost of trading LeVert might be to the equation. The sunken cost fallacy is very much in play here. A well run organization would be mindful of that and not overly dismissive as to whether it looks like it's working over the rest of the season and postseason.


"goobledy gook tautology" ?

lol, clearly neither of us pushing this discussion anywhere productive.

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers