Will they resign sexton?

[toooskies]

I'd roll the dice on Sexton first, at half the salary, and we all know how I feel about that.

I want no part of LaVine on a max deal. His defense is awful, he has no interest in improving it, and he hasn't shown he can play within an offense where he's not the focal point.

He's, at least, one tier below a true max player. This isn't a rookie max either. It's a vet max. This is Tobias Harris territory and that might be optimistic.

Maybe, but LaVine is the optimistic case for Sexton (playmaking and volume shooting); so paying a premium to lock that in with Allen, Mobley, Garland seems reasonable.

I don’t buy the Harris comparison. 0x all-star Harris on a 5 year 30% max with 8.5% raises coming off a career year is always going to be worse than 2x all-star LaVine on a 4 year 30% max with 5% raises. And that’s before the positional premium.

Honestly don’t see the luxury tax as an impediment given Gilbert’s wealth & health.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

I'd roll the dice on Sexton first, at half the salary, and we all know how I feel about that.

I want no part of LaVine on a max deal. His defense is awful, he has no interest in improving it, and he hasn't shown he can play within an offense where he's not the focal point.

He's, at least, one tier below a true max player. This isn't a rookie max either. It's a vet max. This is Tobias Harris territory and that might be optimistic.

Maybe, but LaVine is the optimistic case for Sexton (playmaking and volume shooting); so paying a premium to lock that in with Allen, Mobley, Garland seems reasonable.

I don’t buy the Harris comparison. 0x all-star Harris on a 5 year 30% max with 8.5% raises coming off a career year is always going to be worse than 2x all-star LaVine on a 4 year 30% max with 5% raises. And that’s before the positional premium.

Honestly don’t see the luxury tax as an impediment given Gilbert’s wealth & health.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

Since when is a max contract for an all star in his prime a bad deal?

LaVine's volume last year was a half a shot a game more than Garland's. Less than Ingram's or Brown's. His volume isn't a problem unless you literally don't want an offensive upgrade on the wing.

[jbk1234]

Maybe, but LaVine is the optimistic case for Sexton (playmaking and volume shooting); so paying a premium to lock that in with Allen, Mobley, Garland seems reasonable.

I don’t buy the Harris comparison. 0x all-star Harris on a 5 year 30% max with 8.5% raises coming off a career year is always going to be worse than 2x all-star LaVine on a 4 year 30% max with 5% raises. And that’s before the positional premium.

Honestly don’t see the luxury tax as an impediment given Gilbert’s wealth & health.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

Maybe, but LaVine is the optimistic case for Sexton (playmaking and volume shooting); so paying a premium to lock that in with Allen, Mobley, Garland seems reasonable.

I don’t buy the Harris comparison. 0x all-star Harris on a 5 year 30% max with 8.5% raises coming off a career year is always going to be worse than 2x all-star LaVine on a 4 year 30% max with 5% raises. And that’s before the positional premium.

Honestly don’t see the luxury tax as an impediment given Gilbert’s wealth & health.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

Since when is a max contract for an all star in his prime a bad deal?

LaVine's volume last year was a half a shot a game more than Garland's. Less than Ingram's or Brown's. His volume isn't a problem unless you literally don't want an offensive upgrade on the wing.

I've explained the issue. He's a truly awful defender who doesn't do anything except score on high usage.

LaVine's 12 extra shots over Okoro have to come from somewhere. Even if you give him 4 from Garland and Lauri, he still needs 8 more and those are going to come from Allen and Mobley. Now, if he was a two-way player who could have the same positive impact on 14 attempts, then it would be a different story. It would be worth to ask both Allen and Mobley to take 2 less shots, each, a game.

Players who aren't max players make the all star game on annual basis. It's a very bad criteria to use when determining whether a guy is worth max money, let alone max money to your team. Love was an all star the season before he signed his current non-max extension.

People should ask themselves why the Bulls didn't give a max extension to LaVine before letting him test free agency. Bulls fans are pretty much in agreement that while they don't want to loose him for nothing, it might be better than bringing him back on a max deal.

[KuruptedCav]

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

The impediment would be he'd be on a really bad contract that would prove difficult to trade if issues arose with Allen, Mobley, and Garland due to his *volume shooting.*

We were a very unselfish team for the first time in three years last year. Everyone ate. People were happy. Also, no one cares about Dan Gilbert's money. It's the opportunity cost that comes with overpaying players in a league that has a salary cap and luxury tax line.

Since when is a max contract for an all star in his prime a bad deal?

LaVine's volume last year was a half a shot a game more than Garland's. Less than Ingram's or Brown's. His volume isn't a problem unless you literally don't want an offensive upgrade on the wing.

I've explained the issue. He's a truly awful defender who doesn't do anything except score on high usage.

LaVine's 12 extra shots over Okoro have to come from somewhere. Even if you give him 4 from Garland and Lauri, he still needs 8 more and those are going to come from Allen and Mobley. Now, if he was a two-way player who could have the same positive impact on 14 attempts, then it would be a different story. It would be worth to ask both Allen and Mobley to take 2 less shots, each, a game.

Players who aren't max players make the all star game on annual basis. It's a very bad criteria to use when determining whether a guy is worth max money, let alone max money to your team. Love was an all star the season before he signed his current non-max extension.

People should ask themselves why the Bulls didn't give a max extension to LaVine before letting him test free agency. Bulls fans are pretty much in agreement that while they don't want to loose him for nothing, it might be better than bringing him back on a max deal.

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jbk1234]

Since when is a max contract for an all star in his prime a bad deal?

LaVine's volume last year was a half a shot a game more than Garland's. Less than Ingram's or Brown's. His volume isn't a problem unless you literally don't want an offensive upgrade on the wing.

I've explained the issue. He's a truly awful defender who doesn't do anything except score on high usage.

LaVine's 12 extra shots over Okoro have to come from somewhere. Even if you give him 4 from Garland and Lauri, he still needs 8 more and those are going to come from Allen and Mobley. Now, if he was a two-way player who could have the same positive impact on 14 attempts, then it would be a different story. It would be worth to ask both Allen and Mobley to take 2 less shots, each, a game.

Players who aren't max players make the all star game on annual basis. It's a very bad criteria to use when determining whether a guy is worth max money, let alone max money to your team. Love was an all star the season before he signed his current non-max extension.

People should ask themselves why the Bulls didn't give a max extension to LaVine before letting him test free agency. Bulls fans are pretty much in agreement that while they don't want to loose him for nothing, it might be better than bringing him back on a max deal.

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

[toooskies]

I've explained the issue. He's a truly awful defender who doesn't do anything except score on high usage.

LaVine's 12 extra shots over Okoro have to come from somewhere. Even if you give him 4 from Garland and Lauri, he still needs 8 more and those are going to come from Allen and Mobley. Now, if he was a two-way player who could have the same positive impact on 14 attempts, then it would be a different story. It would be worth to ask both Allen and Mobley to take 2 less shots, each, a game.

Players who aren't max players make the all star game on annual basis. It's a very bad criteria to use when determining whether a guy is worth max money, let alone max money to your team. Love was an all star the season before he signed his current non-max extension.

People should ask themselves why the Bulls didn't give a max extension to LaVine before letting him test free agency. Bulls fans are pretty much in agreement that while they don't want to loose him for nothing, it might be better than bringing him back on a max deal.

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

LaVine's offensive efficiency is better than anyone on the team except Jarrett Allen. He should be taking shots from the other guys on the team.

[KuruptedCav]

I've explained the issue. He's a truly awful defender who doesn't do anything except score on high usage.

LaVine's 12 extra shots over Okoro have to come from somewhere. Even if you give him 4 from Garland and Lauri, he still needs 8 more and those are going to come from Allen and Mobley. Now, if he was a two-way player who could have the same positive impact on 14 attempts, then it would be a different story. It would be worth to ask both Allen and Mobley to take 2 less shots, each, a game.

Players who aren't max players make the all star game on annual basis. It's a very bad criteria to use when determining whether a guy is worth max money, let alone max money to your team. Love was an all star the season before he signed his current non-max extension.

People should ask themselves why the Bulls didn't give a max extension to LaVine before letting him test free agency. Bulls fans are pretty much in agreement that while they don't want to loose him for nothing, it might be better than bringing him back on a max deal.

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

Sure Bertans was. 5 years $80 million for a guy, ETO, for a guy shooting 42% on high volume whose on/off splits were +9; there’s a reason he was the Wizards #1 priority and half the league kicked the tires.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nba/2020/11/21/davis-bertans-wizards-five-year-contract-grade

If you weren’t a fan of the Bertans contract, Lauri Markkanen’s must be really tough to swallow.

The Cavs need spacing and playmaking. It can come in a number of shapes and sizes. LaVine is one, LeVert was another, Sexton is another, Rubio is another. All different, all the same objective.

If the worry was Mobley/Allen’s touches, they wouldn’t have brought in LeVert and the 16 shots per game he took ahead of the trade. Your thoughts and the Cavs may not be aligned here.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

There is a fair chance Sexton surpasses where LaVine is right now ... Zach's extra height isn't giving him the edge.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

LaVine's offensive efficiency is better than anyone on the team except Jarrett Allen. He should be taking shots from the other guys on the team.

fwiw ...

This was supposed to be the year the Bulls built a team around LaVine that would turn him in to a winner, and it was looking like it was going to work for a while; but for the record books ... they finished slightly worse with him on the floor than off. Which technically is progress for his career, but you'd typically do a lot better with a pure shooter that spaces the floor for others and scores with high efficiency when he has the chance.

There is a fair chance Sexton will provide what LaVine has been doing and it's not like Zach's height has made him a good defender. And we do need defense next to DG which we'd be giving up if we sent out Isaac.

[jbk1234]

1) The Bulls don’t have Mobley & Garland. The Cavs are in the market to pay a premium for a complimentary player to their core because their two stars are coming into their first extensions. Teams value players based on circumstances, like Houston shipping Allen to Cleveland for a middling 1st round pick. Philly bent over backward for Harris while escorting Butler out of town.

2) We’re talking ~3 shots per 36 minutes over Rubio last year. When compared to Okoro, every single player is going to take more shots, that is the fundamental problem with Isaac. The Cavs were 24th in scoring and 29th in possessions per game. There are shots to be created.

3) High value contracts are a risk. No risk, no reward. I see just as much risk in splitting the money between the next Dinwiddle and Bertans on “value” deals….


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

Sure Bertans was. 5 years $80 million for a guy, ETO, for a guy shooting 42% on high volume whose on/off splits were +9; there’s a reason he was the Wizards #1 priority and half the league kicked the tires.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nba/2020/11/21/davis-bertans-wizards-five-year-contract-grade

If you weren’t a fan of the Bertans contract, Lauri Markkanen’s must be really tough to swallow.

The Cavs need spacing and playmaking. It can come in a number of shapes and sizes. LaVine is one, LeVert was another, Sexton is another, Rubio is another. All different, all the same objective.

If the worry was Mobley/Allen’s touches, they wouldn’t have brought in LeVert and the 16 shots per game he took ahead of the trade. Your thoughts and the Cavs may not be aligned here.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, half the league kick the tires and then walked away once they realized the offer the Wizards were prepared to make.
Lauri is the more diverse offensive player (he actually has a post game and the ability to score off of back door rotations), he's a much better defender than Bertans, better rebounder and averages more assists. Also, Lauri is 24 while Bertans is 30. So yeah, I'd much, much prefer Lauri on his deal than Bertans. I value guys who can't get played off the floor when their shot isn't falling.

As far as the LeVert trade, I'm suggesting that was dumb and we not overpay to acquire a guy who isn't going to substantially raise the team's ceiling, again. The Cavs paid more than market to acquire a player who can't shoot outside of 15 feet, and who, quite frankly, doesn't have the type of floor vision I was lead to believe he had. On the plus side, he was a much better defender than Nets fans suggested.

But like Sexton, there are legitimate concerns about how much players like LaVine actually raise your ceiling. I don't want to give what is likely to be our only max salary slot to a player like that. I want to reserve it for a two-way player. There are rumors, from an admittedly questionable source, that the Cavs are interested in GTJ. I'd much, much rather have him than LeVert.

[toooskies]

1) It's precisely because we have Allen, Mobley, and Garland that I don't want LaVine coming in and hijacking the offense, or cutting LaVine's attempts way back and realizing, only after you've committed a max salary to the guy, you've made a mistake.

2) Rubio only played 28 minutes a game, mostly off the bench. Despite that, he averaged more than 6 assists pg. LaVine averaged just over 4 assists despite playing more minutes than Rubio with the Bulls starters.

The Cavs need to improve their spacing and once they do that, their offense will improve, but they don't need LaVine on a max deal to do that. As far as the Cavs possessions, they're never going to be top 5 as they play at a slower pace and were quite successful being a defense first team.

3) I'm not against taking a risk, even a big risk, but handing guys as bad as LaVine are defensively a max deal almost never works out, and I firmly believe it could really, really bad given our core.

Also, no one thought Bertrans contract was a value deal.

Sure Bertans was. 5 years $80 million for a guy, ETO, for a guy shooting 42% on high volume whose on/off splits were +9; there’s a reason he was the Wizards #1 priority and half the league kicked the tires.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nba/2020/11/21/davis-bertans-wizards-five-year-contract-grade

If you weren’t a fan of the Bertans contract, Lauri Markkanen’s must be really tough to swallow.

The Cavs need spacing and playmaking. It can come in a number of shapes and sizes. LaVine is one, LeVert was another, Sexton is another, Rubio is another. All different, all the same objective.

If the worry was Mobley/Allen’s touches, they wouldn’t have brought in LeVert and the 16 shots per game he took ahead of the trade. Your thoughts and the Cavs may not be aligned here.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, half the league kick the tires and then walked away once they realized the offer the Wizards were prepared to make.
Lauri is the more diverse offensive player (he actually has a post game and the ability to score off of back door rotations), he's a much better defender than Bertans, better rebounder and averages more assists. Also, Lauri is 24 while Bertans is 30. So yeah, I'd much, much prefer Lauri on his deal than Bertans. I value guys who can't get played off the floor when their shot isn't falling.

As far as the LeVert trade, I'm suggesting that was dumb and we not overpay to acquire a guy who isn't going to substantially raise the team's ceiling, again. The Cavs paid more than market to acquire a player who can't shoot outside of 15 feet, and who, quite frankly, doesn't have the type of floor vision I was lead to believe he had. On the plus side, he was a much better defender than Nets fans suggested.

But like Sexton, there are legitimate concerns about how much players like LaVine actually raise your ceiling. I don't want to give what is likely to be our only max salary slot to a player like that. I want to reserve it for a two-way player. There are rumors, from an admittedly questionable source, that the Cavs are interested in GTJ. I'd much, much rather have him than LeVert.

I'd definitely look at GTJ if he's available and might prefer him on his contract, although he's a flight risk when his contract is up.

But I think we are a lot more than just a 3-and-D guy away from an elite offense.

[jbk1234]

Sure Bertans was. 5 years $80 million for a guy, ETO, for a guy shooting 42% on high volume whose on/off splits were +9; there’s a reason he was the Wizards #1 priority and half the league kicked the tires.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nba/2020/11/21/davis-bertans-wizards-five-year-contract-grade

If you weren’t a fan of the Bertans contract, Lauri Markkanen’s must be really tough to swallow.

The Cavs need spacing and playmaking. It can come in a number of shapes and sizes. LaVine is one, LeVert was another, Sexton is another, Rubio is another. All different, all the same objective.

If the worry was Mobley/Allen’s touches, they wouldn’t have brought in LeVert and the 16 shots per game he took ahead of the trade. Your thoughts and the Cavs may not be aligned here.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, half the league kick the tires and then walked away once they realized the offer the Wizards were prepared to make.
Lauri is the more diverse offensive player (he actually has a post game and the ability to score off of back door rotations), he's a much better defender than Bertans, better rebounder and averages more assists. Also, Lauri is 24 while Bertans is 30. So yeah, I'd much, much prefer Lauri on his deal than Bertans. I value guys who can't get played off the floor when their shot isn't falling.

As far as the LeVert trade, I'm suggesting that was dumb and we not overpay to acquire a guy who isn't going to substantially raise the team's ceiling, again. The Cavs paid more than market to acquire a player who can't shoot outside of 15 feet, and who, quite frankly, doesn't have the type of floor vision I was lead to believe he had. On the plus side, he was a much better defender than Nets fans suggested.

But like Sexton, there are legitimate concerns about how much players like LaVine actually raise your ceiling. I don't want to give what is likely to be our only max salary slot to a player like that. I want to reserve it for a two-way player. There are rumors, from an admittedly questionable source, that the Cavs are interested in GTJ. I'd much, much rather have him than LeVert.

I'd definitely look at GTJ if he's available and might prefer him on his contract, although he's a flight risk when his contract is up.

But I think we are a lot more than just a 3-and-D guy away from an elite offense.

If we still have the space available when all of LeVert, Love, and Cedi fall off the books, we can be the team he flies to.

[toooskies]

Yeah, half the league kick the tires and then walked away once they realized the offer the Wizards were prepared to make.
Lauri is the more diverse offensive player (he actually has a post game and the ability to score off of back door rotations), he's a much better defender than Bertans, better rebounder and averages more assists. Also, Lauri is 24 while Bertans is 30. So yeah, I'd much, much prefer Lauri on his deal than Bertans. I value guys who can't get played off the floor when their shot isn't falling.

As far as the LeVert trade, I'm suggesting that was dumb and we not overpay to acquire a guy who isn't going to substantially raise the team's ceiling, again. The Cavs paid more than market to acquire a player who can't shoot outside of 15 feet, and who, quite frankly, doesn't have the type of floor vision I was lead to believe he had. On the plus side, he was a much better defender than Nets fans suggested.

But like Sexton, there are legitimate concerns about how much players like LaVine actually raise your ceiling. I don't want to give what is likely to be our only max salary slot to a player like that. I want to reserve it for a two-way player. There are rumors, from an admittedly questionable source, that the Cavs are interested in GTJ. I'd much, much rather have him than LeVert.

I'd definitely look at GTJ if he's available and might prefer him on his contract, although he's a flight risk when his contract is up.

But I think we are a lot more than just a 3-and-D guy away from an elite offense.

If we still have the space available when all of LeVert, Love, and Cedi fall off the books, we can be the team he flies to.

Good luck with that 7 man rotation of mostly injury prone players!

[RCM88x]

It might be hard to stomach but perhaps the first part of the year should be a wait and see period to determine which direction you want to go in with regards to Sexton. Maybe I'm being optimistic but having him play on the qualifying offer and then trade him at the deadline would be ideal. Unless he comes back a more willing off-ball player and defender then I don't think he's worth keeping for any realistic value.

Atleast with Levert he's theoretically capable of playing the 2 next to Garland and does provide some decent individual defense with his length and size. His foul drawing ability can be useful also (something Sexton absolutely doesn't have).

I'd much rather have LeVert playout his deal than Sexton for like 4/80 or 3/65 is what I'm saying.

[toooskies]

It might be hard to stomach but perhaps the first part of the year should be a wait and see period to determine which direction you want to go in with regards to Sexton. Maybe I'm being optimistic but having him play on the qualifying offer and then trade him at the deadline would be ideal. Unless he comes back a more willing off-ball player and defender then I don't think he's worth keeping for any realistic value.

Atleast with Levert he's theoretically capable of playing the 2 next to Garland and does provide some decent individual defense with his length and size. His foul drawing ability can be useful also (something Sexton absolutely doesn't have).

I'd much rather have LeVert playout his deal than Sexton for like 4/80 or 3/65 is what I'm saying.

Can't trade him when he's on the QO without his consent and discarding his Bird rights, so that's not a realistic plan. In the situation we want to keep trades on the table, offering a 2-year, $40m deal with a TO on the second year might be the deal.

[jbk1234]

It might be hard to stomach but perhaps the first part of the year should be a wait and see period to determine which direction you want to go in with regards to Sexton. Maybe I'm being optimistic but having him play on the qualifying offer and then trade him at the deadline would be ideal. Unless he comes back a more willing off-ball player and defender then I don't think he's worth keeping for any realistic value.

Atleast with Levert he's theoretically capable of playing the 2 next to Garland and does provide some decent individual defense with his length and size. His foul drawing ability can be useful also (something Sexton absolutely doesn't have).

I'd much rather have LeVert playout his deal than Sexton for like 4/80 or 3/65 is what I'm saying.

I agree with you re paying Sexton that much, but he's not playing on the Q.O.

[mg]

Agreed the right answer is to probably extend him on a tradeable 2-3 year deal.

If they are forced to sign and trade him now the return is going to be underwhelming. I read a Knicks article where they were talking about sending over Rose/Burks/Noel type players in a potential s&t. Hard pass on that. Apparently the Hawks might have some interest to bring Collin home to play a 6th man role for them and they want to dump Bogdanovic whose knee injury might be degenerative at this point (not to mention he has been a bit of a malcontent in the lockerroom due to not getting enough shots).

[jbk1234]

Agreed the right answer is to probably extend him on a tradeable 2-3 year deal.

If they are forced to sign and trade him now the return is going to be underwhelming. I read a Knicks article where they were talking about sending over Rose/Burks/Noel type players in a potential s&t. Hard pass on that. Apparently the Hawks might have some interest to bring Collin home to play a 6th man role for them and they want to dump Bogdanovic whose knee injury might be degenerative at this point (not to mention he has been a bit of a malcontent in the lockerroom due to not getting enough shots).

The Knicks trade isn't even legal due to BYC so you know it's completely made up. But yeah, they either put one of IQ or Reddish on the table, or have fun clearing the necessary cap to sign Sexton.

As far as the Bogs trade, again it's not legal to due to BYC unless the Hawks are giving Sexton $24M per to be a backup, which they're not doing. In any event, Bogs has a P.O. next summer, and the way things are going, he won't opt out.

[mg]

Agreed the right answer is to probably extend him on a tradeable 2-3 year deal.

If they are forced to sign and trade him now the return is going to be underwhelming. I read a Knicks article where they were talking about sending over Rose/Burks/Noel type players in a potential s&t. Hard pass on that. Apparently the Hawks might have some interest to bring Collin home to play a 6th man role for them and they want to dump Bogdanovic whose knee injury might be degenerative at this point (not to mention he has been a bit of a malcontent in the lockerroom due to not getting enough shots).

The Knicks trade isn't even legal due to BYC so you know it's completely made up. But yeah, they either put one of IQ or Reddish on the table, or have fun clearing the necessary cap to sign Sexton.

As far as the Bogs trade, again it's not legal to due to BYC unless the Hawks are giving Sexton $24M per to be a backup, which they're not doing. In any event, Bogs has a P.O. next summer, and the way things are going, he won't opt out.

Knicks aren't moving Quickley. If anything they would like to play Quickley and Sexton together in the backcourt with RJ and that's assuming they don't go after Brunson in a s&t.
Teams could likely try to steal Sexton for junk similar to what the Pels got for Ball last summer. Maybe some team gets desperate at the end of FA and will give up some sort of protected FRP similar to what the Bulls got for Markkanen. It's tough to say.
IOW the Cavs best move to preserve the asset is to try and sign him to a tradeable 2-3 year deal. Actually doing that before other teams make any offer might be the answer but the ball is in Sexton/Klutch's court.

[jbk1234]

Agreed the right answer is to probably extend him on a tradeable 2-3 year deal.

If they are forced to sign and trade him now the return is going to be underwhelming. I read a Knicks article where they were talking about sending over Rose/Burks/Noel type players in a potential s&t. Hard pass on that. Apparently the Hawks might have some interest to bring Collin home to play a 6th man role for them and they want to dump Bogdanovic whose knee injury might be degenerative at this point (not to mention he has been a bit of a malcontent in the lockerroom due to not getting enough shots).

The Knicks trade isn't even legal due to BYC so you know it's completely made up. But yeah, they either put one of IQ or Reddish on the table, or have fun clearing the necessary cap to sign Sexton.

As far as the Bogs trade, again it's not legal to due to BYC unless the Hawks are giving Sexton $24M per to be a backup, which they're not doing. In any event, Bogs has a P.O. next summer, and the way things are going, he won't opt out.

Knicks aren't moving Quickley. If anything they would like to play Quickley and Sexton together in the backcourt with RJ and that's assuming they don't go after Brunson in a s&t.
Teams could likely try to steal Sexton for junk similar to what the Pels got for Ball last summer. Maybe some team gets desperate at the end of FA and will give up some sort of protected FRP similar to what the Bulls got for Markkanen. It's tough to say.
IOW the Cavs best move to preserve the asset is to try and sign him to a tradeable 2-3 year deal. Actually doing that before other teams make any offer might be the answer but the ball is in Sexton/Klutch's court.

First off, good luck with the bolded.

Second off, it's a very simple calculus for the Cavs, is what is being offered for Sexton in a S&T worth more than who they can get with the full MLE. Because even if they just take back the maximum amount of salary they can due to BYC (for simplicity's sake we'll say $12M), then they're probably going to either lose the full MLE, or go into the tax a year before they want to if they use it (although the latter is at least theoretically avoidable downstream).

But the Cavs cannot take back $20M in salary in if Sexton signs for $20M per. They can take back $12M. They don't have the cap space like the Bulls did last summer when they made the Ball trade. So the Knicks will have to find a third team to take one of Rose, Kemba, or Noel into cap space just make the trade legal under the CBA. The question will then be whether the Cavs want whoever the Knicks are offering to fill the other $12M slot enough to make the trade, or whether they tell the Knicks to forget it and just clear all the cap themselves.

[toooskies]

Teams that could absorb Sexton's salary in a trade exception, or someone else's salary: Boston ($17m), Portland ($21m)

Teams that could absorb a salary into a TPE to make a Sexton S&T work: Boston ($6.9m, $5.8m), Brooklyn ($11m, $6m), Chicago ($5m), Dallas ($11m), Indiana ($10.5m, $7m), Clippers ($8m, $9m), Pelicans ($6m), Portland ($6.5m), Toronto ($5.25m), Utah ($9.7m), Wizards ($5.2m)

Teams that can have cap space to absorb salary without an exception: Detroit, Orlando, Indiana, San Antonio, Portland

All you'd need is one of Boston, Brooklyn, Dallas, Indiana, LAC, San Antonio, Detroit, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland or Utah to take Cedi Osman for a year to resolve most BYC issues assuming Sexton gets a ~$20m contract. Maybe toss in Windler somewhere else for the rest if someone really wants to pay him more than that. While Osman or Windler might not be worth taking for nothing, you can send some cash to make it worthwhile for any of the non-tax teams.

So for me, BYC is just sending Osman, Windler and/or $3m in cash to a willing taker. Not a huge limiting factor.

(A team could also offload somebody into OKC's cap space before the end of the league year to get a TPE to take back Sexton. We could even do it with Osman or Windler or even LeVert to give ourselves options in the S&T.)

[jbk1234]

Teams that could absorb Sexton's salary in a trade exception, or someone else's salary: Boston ($17m), Portland ($21m)

Teams that could absorb a salary into a TPE to make a Sexton S&T work: Boston ($6.9m, $5.8m), Brooklyn ($11m, $6m), Chicago ($5m), Dallas ($11m), Indiana ($10.5m, $7m), Clippers ($8m, $9m), Pelicans ($6m), Portland ($6.5m), Toronto ($5.25m), Utah ($9.7m), Wizards ($5.2m)

Teams that can have cap space to absorb salary without an exception: Detroit, Orlando, Indiana, San Antonio, Portland

All you'd need is one of Boston, Brooklyn, Dallas, Indiana, LAC, San Antonio, Detroit, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland or Utah to take Cedi Osman for a year to resolve most BYC issues assuming Sexton gets a ~$20m contract. Maybe toss in Windler somewhere else for the rest if someone really wants to pay him more than that. While Osman or Windler might not be worth taking for nothing, you can send some cash to make it worthwhile for any of the non-tax teams.

So for me, BYC is just sending Osman, Windler and/or $3m in cash to a willing taker. Not a huge limiting factor.

(A team could also offload somebody into OKC's cap space before the end of the league year to get a TPE to take back Sexton. We could even do it with Osman or Windler or even LeVert to give ourselves options in the S&T.)

I think the Cavs match Sexton at $17M rather than watch him walk to Boston for free. Also, Boston will be a tax team next year before signing Sexton with $155M in committed salary. While I haven't crunched the numbers, and don't know whether they could even sign Sexton legally under those circumstances, would they want to at the actual cost in terms of dollars? Brown is only under contract for two more seasons.

As far as Portland, they have Simons as RFA, and Nurkic as an UFA, and many, many needs to fill outside of guard, which is still, after trading for Hart, one of their deepest positions. Imagine a Sexton/Lillard starting backcourt.

In terms of BYC, my understanding is that the Cavs cannot circumvent the restriction by sending out other players to match salary. The receiving team can send out salary to a third team, or split its outgoing salary, but the Cavs have to make the numbers work independently, or have the cap space to absorb the difference. The rule is set up that way so that teams without cap space cannot continuously manufacture space over the cap by trading guys coming off of rookie deals.

All of the Pistons, Magic, Pacers, Spurs, and Portland have top 10 picks. Those cap holds will apply before F.A. begins. The Thunder still have Kemba's $27M on the books and SGA's extension kicking in this summer. Once you allot for the cap hold for the No. 2 overall pick, they actually have very little space. So yeah, they could take a pretty big contract into that slot before the new league year, but I imagine Presti would want at least a first for doing so, and a decent first, assuming the owners even let him.

I'm not saying that a team couldn't clear the space to sign Sexton outright, but it would be neither easy nor cheap. If the Knicks want Sexton, and are unwilling to send back anything we want, that's exactly what they're going to have to do.