RealGM

Do y’all think they gonna resign sexton and for how much I’m thinking 4 year 60 million

yes, 3/60 or 5/110

If Collin would take 4/60, I think it gets done quickly, but presumably he didn't sign on with Rich Paul to just accept that kind of offer; so I expect Rich will be out trying to arrange a S&T that will get Collin paid in the $25M+/yr range.

LeVert is still on a 3/52 deal and will presumably want a raise.

Of course, the free-agent market will be important too. There's always a chance there's a team that's willing to overpay him and if that's happens then the Cavs will need to decide whether they'd prefer to overpay Sexton or LeVert, or as jbk would prefer - pass on both.

There's a fair chance Collin will take the qualifying offer, but his recent injury and the failure of recent players to cash in using that strategy makes it more of a last resort. I just won't completely dismiss it because of how Collin is wired. I feel he'd rather prove he's worth what he thinks he's worth than accept less. He could also just hold out like Paul had Tristan and JR do.

In reality, his QO is $8.9M and we can't trade him if he takes it. A shorter term deal could split the difference and still let him prove what he's worth, but can we go shorter than 3 years?

A 4/60 deal would be the dream for the Cavaliers franchise. But there's no way Collin takes that deal. I think the more important question that needs to be asked however is what role Collin accepts going forward. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Garland is the superior player and that starting them both simply will not work. If we are to keep Sexton (and I am not against it as much as I was before), then what we need to do is consider having him be our sixth man to run the second unit and provide us with key bench scoring. If he's not willing to do that, then I think we need to cut our losses and move on from him.

TheLand13 wrote:A 4/60 deal would be the dream for the Cavaliers franchise. But there's no way Collin takes that deal. I think the more important question that needs to be asked however is what role Collin accepts going forward. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Garland is the superior player and that starting them both simply will not work. If we are to keep Sexton (and I am not against it as much as I was before), then what we need to do is consider having him be our sixth man to run the second unit and provide us with key bench scoring. If he's not willing to do that, then I think we need to cut our losses and move on from him.

Maybe this would had been the season that convinced me, but I still haven't dismissed the thought of them starting together.

Here's hoping if we do keep Collin that he learned something watching Rubio, Rondo, and Garland from the bench.

JonFromVA wrote:

TheLand13 wrote:A 4/60 deal would be the dream for the Cavaliers franchise. But there's no way Collin takes that deal. I think the more important question that needs to be asked however is what role Collin accepts going forward. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Garland is the superior player and that starting them both simply will not work. If we are to keep Sexton (and I am not against it as much as I was before), then what we need to do is consider having him be our sixth man to run the second unit and provide us with key bench scoring. If he's not willing to do that, then I think we need to cut our losses and move on from him.

Maybe this would had been the season that convinced me, but I still haven't dismissed the thought of them starting together.

Here's hoping if we do keep Collin that he learned something watching Rubio, Rondo, and Garland from the bench.

The season prior didn’t convince you that they can’t start together? I understand this was a different roster entirely but still, I just don’t see how having two 6’1 guards in the starting lineup can work.

One quibble, we can trade Sexton if plays on the Q.O., he just has to agree, and because players lose their Bird Rights in that scenario, they usually don't agree. But if he's traded to a team with space, the Bird Rights become less important. I actually think the chances of Sexton playing on the Q.O. are close to nil.

TheLand13 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

TheLand13 wrote:A 4/60 deal would be the dream for the Cavaliers franchise. But there's no way Collin takes that deal. I think the more important question that needs to be asked however is what role Collin accepts going forward. I think it's pretty clear at this point that Garland is the superior player and that starting them both simply will not work. If we are to keep Sexton (and I am not against it as much as I was before), then what we need to do is consider having him be our sixth man to run the second unit and provide us with key bench scoring. If he's not willing to do that, then I think we need to cut our losses and move on from him.

Maybe this would had been the season that convinced me, but I still haven't dismissed the thought of them starting together.

Here's hoping if we do keep Collin that he learned something watching Rubio, Rondo, and Garland from the bench.

The season prior didn’t convince you that they can’t start together? I understand this was a different roster entirely but still, I just don’t see how having two 6’1 guards in the starting lineup can work.

Nope, and if Sexland has any chance of working it's with the kind of front line protection that Allen-Mobley-Markkannen offer.

Garland off-the-ball is something we need to weaponize, and while Collin isn't Rubio; he does put a lot of pressure on defense and doesn't have to do a whole lot more than get his shooting stabilized so he can help make D's pay for packing the paint. He also needs to take strides to become a + defender and stop falling asleep off the ball.

More consistency and better D is not a big ask from a 23 year old.

Albeit I'm assuming he hasn't lost a step post-surgery.

As long as they find a way to bring back Rubio, I'd be content.

flow wrote:As long as they find a way to bring back Rubio, I'd be content.

I'd just caution we were spoiled for a good spell there when Ricky knocking down his J's. He had started falling off, and his TS% ended up a pretty pathetic 48.8%.

Love him as a mentor, a coach on the floor, and as a playmaker that can raise the value of our bench players.

A thought occurred to me yesterday. The Cavs could offer Sexton a three year deal at $20M per, BUT only the first year would be guaranteed. That gets Sexton paid this season, but if things don't work out, and he's not perceived as having trade value on that deal around the NBA, the Cavs have an out. If Klutch and Sexton balk at that, then this really isn't about being fair, or goodwill, it's about obligating the Cavs to pay as much money as possible and that can inform your decision going forward.

I’d do 2 years 45 million with a 3rd year as a player option. Something like 23.5/21.5/20. Otherwise he can go out and try to find a deal and we get a chance to match it.

Harper4Ferry? wrote:I’d do 2 years 45 million with a 3rd year as a player option. Something like 23.5/21.5/20. Otherwise he can go out and try to find a deal and we get a chance to match it.

That's a bad contract for the Cavs from the moment it's signed. I don't know if it's a defenses mechanism or what, but people aren't allowing for just how badly it could go for the Cavs and Sexton if it doesn't work out.

jbk1234 wrote:

Harper4Ferry? wrote:I’d do 2 years 45 million with a 3rd year as a player option. Something like 23.5/21.5/20. Otherwise he can go out and try to find a deal and we get a chance to match it.

That's a bad contract for the Cavs from the moment it's signed. I don't know if it's a defenses mechanism or what, but people aren't allowing for just how badly it could go for the Cavs and Sexton if it doesn't work out.

The Cavs need to figure out whether they will have a use for cap space in 2023, and if they don't odds are they will yet again prefer to spend to add/keep talent rather than lose it even if it means (once again) paying slightly over market value.

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Harper4Ferry? wrote:I’d do 2 years 45 million with a 3rd year as a player option. Something like 23.5/21.5/20. Otherwise he can go out and try to find a deal and we get a chance to match it.

That's a bad contract for the Cavs from the moment it's signed. I don't know if it's a defenses mechanism or what, but people aren't allowing for just how badly it could go for the Cavs and Sexton if it doesn't work out.

The Cavs need to figure out whether they will have a use for cap space in 2023, and if they don't odds are they will yet again prefer to spend to add/keep talent rather than lose it even if it means (once again) paying slightly over market value.

Even if I grant the premise, the Cavs have two all stars and a top 3 ROY candidate in the starting unit. So before they pay for (I'd argue marginal) talent, they really need to be asking themselves whether that talent compliments who they already have on the floor.

The fourth best player on the roster last year was acquired for Prince, ON AN EXPIRING CONTRACT, and a 2nd. The fifth best player on the roster was acquired for Nance, WHO WAS ON A VALUE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS TRADED. You pay these guys more than they're worth, and there's no guarantee you're going to be able to trade them.

Regardless of how the Cavs view their available cap space, the league clearly values it. The last four trades they made (Drummond/Allen/Rubio/LeVert) were the result of them having available cap space to eat excess salary, team-friendly contracts to offer, and/or expiring contracts to offer. The phone never rang on Love once in 4 years.

jbk1234 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
That's a bad contract for the Cavs from the moment it's signed. I don't know if it's a defenses mechanism or what, but people aren't allowing for just how badly it could go for the Cavs and Sexton if it doesn't work out.

The Cavs need to figure out whether they will have a use for cap space in 2023, and if they don't odds are they will yet again prefer to spend to add/keep talent rather than lose it even if it means (once again) paying slightly over market value.

Even if I grant the premise, the Cavs have two all stars and a top 3 ROY candidate in the starting unit. So before they pay for (I'd argue marginal) talent, they really need to be asking themselves whether that talent compliments who they already have on the floor.

The fourth best player on the roster last year was acquired for Prince, ON AN EXPIRING CONTRACT, and a 2nd. The fifth best player on the roster was acquired for Nance, WHO WAS ON A VALUE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS TRADED. You pay these guys more than they're worth, and there's no guarantee you're going to be able to trade them.

Regardless of how the Cavs view their available cap space, the league clearly values it. The last four trades they made (Drummond/Allen/Rubio/LeVert) were the result of them having available cap space to eat excess salary, team-friendly contracts to offer, and/or expiring contracts to offer. The phone never rang on Love once in 4 years.

Not true, we had some deals in place for Love ... but injuries happened; and it wouldn't surprise me if we turned down some deals for him this year.

It's not that hard to flip players, we even once made Larry Hughes' contract go away. Yes, we took on bad contracts in return, but those bad contracts fit a whole lot better with our team.

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
The Cavs need to figure out whether they will have a use for cap space in 2023, and if they don't odds are they will yet again prefer to spend to add/keep talent rather than lose it even if it means (once again) paying slightly over market value.

Even if I grant the premise, the Cavs have two all stars and a top 3 ROY candidate in the starting unit. So before they pay for (I'd argue marginal) talent, they really need to be asking themselves whether that talent compliments who they already have on the floor.

The fourth best player on the roster last year was acquired for Prince, ON AN EXPIRING CONTRACT, and a 2nd. The fifth best player on the roster was acquired for Nance, WHO WAS ON A VALUE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS TRADED. You pay these guys more than they're worth, and there's no guarantee you're going to be able to trade them.

Regardless of how the Cavs view their available cap space, the league clearly values it. The last four trades they made (Drummond/Allen/Rubio/LeVert) were the result of them having available cap space to eat excess salary, team-friendly contracts to offer, and/or expiring contracts to offer. The phone never rang on Love once in 4 years.

Not true, we had some deals in place for Love ... but injuries happened; and it wouldn't surprise me if we turned down some deals for him this year.

It's not that hard to flip players, we even once made Larry Hughes' contract go away. Yes, we took on bad contracts in return, but those bad contracts fit a whole lot better with our team.

Yeah, until the wheels fall off Ben Wallace just when you need him the most against the Magic. Maybe it's just me, but we can always trade bad contracts for other bad contracts seems like a bad option when compared with just not signing guys to bad contracts in the first place.

jbk1234 wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Even if I grant the premise, the Cavs have two all stars and a top 3 ROY candidate in the starting unit. So before they pay for (I'd argue marginal) talent, they really need to be asking themselves whether that talent compliments who they already have on the floor.

The fourth best player on the roster last year was acquired for Prince, ON AN EXPIRING CONTRACT, and a 2nd. The fifth best player on the roster was acquired for Nance, WHO WAS ON A VALUE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS TRADED. You pay these guys more than they're worth, and there's no guarantee you're going to be able to trade them.

Regardless of how the Cavs view their available cap space, the league clearly values it. The last four trades they made (Drummond/Allen/Rubio/LeVert) were the result of them having available cap space to eat excess salary, team-friendly contracts to offer, and/or expiring contracts to offer. The phone never rang on Love once in 4 years.

Not true, we had some deals in place for Love ... but injuries happened; and it wouldn't surprise me if we turned down some deals for him this year.

It's not that hard to flip players, we even once made Larry Hughes' contract go away. Yes, we took on bad contracts in return, but those bad contracts fit a whole lot better with our team.

Yeah, until the wheels fall off Ben Wallace just when you need him the most against the Magic. Maybe it's just me, but we can always trade bad contracts for other bad contracts seems like a bad option when compared with just not signing guys to bad contracts in the first place.

Ben was playing on a broken leg ... Z's back had degraded and he simply couldn't hold his ground .vs. Dwight like he'd always been able to do in the past. The next season Shaq broke his thumb, and LeBron hurt his elbow.

Admittedly when you build a house of cards, the odds of the whole thing getting blown over are pretty darn high.

jbk1234 wrote:One quibble, we can trade Sexton if plays on the Q.O., he just has to agree, and because players lose their Bird Rights in that scenario, they usually don't agree. But if he's traded to a team with space, the Bird Rights become less important. I actually think the chances of Sexton playing on the Q.O. are close to nil.

No. It would be like giving him a no trade clause for the season and the Cavs also lose his bird rights. That might be the worst case scenario since the Cavs hold the leverage here and shouldn't be handing out a huge contract. The best case is usually to extend the asset on a reasonable, tradeable contract. Koby has worked with Klutch in the past and Sexton hired them before the season after CAA couldn't get a deal done for him. I believe Collin is worth something between Gary Trent Jr and Lonzo Ball type money. Lonzo and GTJ were also Klutch clients. The other option is s&t but the return has been pretty bad for guards/wings such as Lonzo and Derozan for the trading team in the s&t market. Add in Sexton's injury last season and I would think the Cavs would be trading him at his absolute lowest market at this point.

From what I heard CAA isn't giving any discounts at this point on a LeVert extension despite his spotty play and injury after
he got traded to the Cavs. One thing to keep in mind is that one of Koby's main jobs, in addition to adding to the core, is to extend the timeline of his assets.

mg wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:One quibble, we can trade Sexton if plays on the Q.O., he just has to agree, and because players lose their Bird Rights in that scenario, they usually don't agree. But if he's traded to a team with space, the Bird Rights become less important. I actually think the chances of Sexton playing on the Q.O. are close to nil.

No. It would be like giving him a no trade clause for the season and the Cavs also lose his bird rights. That might be the worst case scenario since the Cavs hold the leverage here and shouldn't be handing out a huge contract. The best case is usually to extend the asset on a reasonable, tradeable contract. Koby has worked with Klutch in the past and Sexton hired them before the season after CAA couldn't get a deal done for him. I believe Collin is worth something between Gary Trent Jr and Lonzo Ball type money. Lonzo and GTJ were also Klutch clients. The other option is s&t but the return has been pretty bad for guards/wings such as Lonzo and Derozan for the trading team in the s&t market. Add in Sexton's injury last season and I would think the Cavs would be trading him at his absolute lowest market at this point.

From what I heard CAA isn't giving any discounts at this point on a LeVert extension despite his spotty play and injury after
he got traded to the Cavs. One thing to keep in mind is that one of Koby's main jobs, in addition to adding to the core, is to extend the timeline of his assets.

They're only *assets* if the rest of the league views them as such on those extensions. The fact that fans are using two-way players as comps for Sexton, when he clearly is not one, doesn't inspire me with confidence that the faithful have a good idea as to what his market is. Sexton is a RFA. The Cavs can match any offer. They need not guess nor bid against themselves here.

If a bottom-3 team like the Pistons, that desperately needs scoring and that has a guy like Cade on the roster to run the offense, doesn't view him as a $20M starter, then he's not one and that's not his market value.

As far as LeVert, the Cavs can extend him at any point next season. Again, if there's a way to make him work as a starter on the Cavs roster, then they'll find out. If there's not, then they'll find that out as well. But LeVert may prove to have far more trade value on an expiring contract at the deadline than an extension if the rest of the NBA also views him as a sixth man.

The reality is that neither Sexton nor LeVert are good fits as starters on a team whose core is Allen, Mobley, and Garland, yet they're both publicly insisting they want to stay. One read of that dynamic is there's a pretty significant delta between their market values league wide and their current contract expectations. If they're not extended, then that delta is their problem. If they are extended, then that delta becomes the Cavs problem.