CLE/BKN - Garland/Bridges, who says no?

[vincecarter4pres]

It's just weird as hell that people keep insisting the Cavs need to make an offense for defense trade.

Let’s not pretend that Bridges wouldn’t almost certainly look excellent in his proper role as a strong number two, or ridiculous number 3 on offense.

He’s not supposed to be a number 1, or even 1b, he’s a 2a/2b guy who also then can play league leading perimeter defense.

[Hoppy1]

O'Neale is there to help keep Mitchell happy. Not that $40MM should be enough, but they are great friends.

I like the fact that Ingram can be a small ball 4 much better than Bridges. If the goal is to have Mobley eventually become the 5, then Ingram can easily move to the 4.

I was saying that you're requiring the Nets to add in a solid asset so that needs balance. The whole premise here is that Bridges and Garland are better fits on different teams, and Bridges also makes like 50% less than him or Ingram. Not sure about the Nets needing to add a significant asset to make that deal happen.

Also how would Cavs fans feel about Ingram and Mobley as the defensive front court?

Jtbc, it's the premise of Nets fans that Garland and Bridges have equal trade value. I don't have them close at all. Garland is younger, locked up for longer, and far, far more skilled. Bridges should be a last resort option if the Cavs find themselves in a position where they've concluded they have to trade one of Garland or Mitchell. The first call should absolutely be to the Pelicans on Murphy.

You could flip Garland/Okoro for Ingram/Murphy/Daniels.
Get the SFs Cavs need, a backup PG.
NO gets a PG to run with Garland, McCollum, Williamson, Jones, Val

[bgrep14]

I was saying that you're requiring the Nets to add in a solid asset so that needs balance. The whole premise here is that Bridges and Garland are better fits on different teams, and Bridges also makes like 50% less than him or Ingram. Not sure about the Nets needing to add a significant asset to make that deal happen.

Also how would Cavs fans feel about Ingram and Mobley as the defensive front court?

Jtbc, it's the premise of Nets fans that Garland and Bridges have equal trade value. I don't have them close at all. Garland is younger, locked up for longer, and far, far more skilled. Bridges should be a last resort option if the Cavs find themselves in a position where they've concluded they have to trade one of Garland or Mitchell. The first call should absolutely be to the Pelicans on Murphy.

You could flip Garland/Okoro for Ingram/Murphy/Daniels.
Get the SFs Cavs need, a backup PG.
NO gets a PG to run with Garland, McCollum, Williamson, Jones, Val

I would do this as a Cavs fan but I'm as low on Garland as anyone in Cleveland

[toooskies]

I was saying that you're requiring the Nets to add in a solid asset so that needs balance. The whole premise here is that Bridges and Garland are better fits on different teams, and Bridges also makes like 50% less than him or Ingram. Not sure about the Nets needing to add a significant asset to make that deal happen.

Also how would Cavs fans feel about Ingram and Mobley as the defensive front court?

Jtbc, it's the premise of Nets fans that Garland and Bridges have equal trade value. I don't have them close at all. Garland is younger, locked up for longer, and far, far more skilled. Bridges should be a last resort option if the Cavs find themselves in a position where they've concluded they have to trade one of Garland or Mitchell. The first call should absolutely be to the Pelicans on Murphy.

You could flip Garland/Okoro for Ingram/Murphy/Daniels.
Get the SFs Cavs need, a backup PG.
NO gets a PG to run with Garland, McCollum, Williamson, Jones, Val

Pretty easy no from NO. Might be McCollum/Murphy/Daniels, or they might be super-high on Murphy.

[Kalamazoo317]

Interesting trade. I can see the point for both teams. The one trade I like slightly better is Jimmy Butler for Garland - who says no to that?

[axeman23]

Interesting trade. I can see the point for both teams. The one trade I like slightly better is Jimmy Butler for Garland - who says no to that?

Not sure about Miami, but Cavs say no before you finish the sentence. Absolutely NO NEED for the Cavs to rush things! Hell, there wasn't a need to empty the clip for Mitchell either, but here we are... I'd probably stop watching basketball for the next 5 years if the Cavs made that trade...

[JeffFosters]

It's just weird as hell that people keep insisting the Cavs need to make an offense for defense trade.

Let’s not pretend that Bridges wouldn’t almost certainly look excellent in his proper role as a strong number two, or ridiculous number 3 on offense.

He’s not supposed to be a number 1, or even 1b, he’s a 2a/2b guy who also then can play league leading perimeter defense.

I agree, Bridges would thrive on the cavs. The fact he was in the DPoY conversation only 18 months ago is very overlooked. I’m a fan of a central division team so I hope the cavs don’t do this, but boy they’d be good.

[JeffFosters]

Interesting trade. I can see the point for both teams. The one trade I like slightly better is Jimmy Butler for Garland - who says no to that?

Interesting trade value-wise, my sense is Miami would say no only because Butler has been so central to their culture and success. I also think Miami see themselves as being legit contenders in the east so they probably wouldn’t make a trade this big.

[mcfly1204]

Interesting trade. I can see the point for both teams. The one trade I like slightly better is Jimmy Butler for Garland - who says no to that?

Interesting trade value-wise, my sense is Miami would say no only because Butler has been so central to their culture and success. I also think Miami see themselves as being legit contenders in the east so they probably wouldn’t make a trade this big.

Both teams say no. If Cleveland is cashing in a premium asset, I'm not sure they target a 34 year old wing who is a low volume shooter from behind the arc.

[JeffFosters]

Interesting trade. I can see the point for both teams. The one trade I like slightly better is Jimmy Butler for Garland - who says no to that?

Interesting trade value-wise, my sense is Miami would say no only because Butler has been so central to their culture and success. I also think Miami see themselves as being legit contenders in the east so they probably wouldn’t make a trade this big.

Both teams say no. If Cleveland is cashing in a premium asset, I'm not sure they target a 34 year old wing who is a low volume shooter from behind the arc.

My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3). What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

[jbk1234]

Interesting trade value-wise, my sense is Miami would say no only because Butler has been so central to their culture and success. I also think Miami see themselves as being legit contenders in the east so they probably wouldn’t make a trade this big.

Both teams say no. If Cleveland is cashing in a premium asset, I'm not sure they target a 34 year old wing who is a low volume shooter from behind the arc.

My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3). What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

If a team values a player at a price higher than what other teams will pay, it just means there's no trade. I understand why Miami would value Jimmy highly the same way I understood why the Raptors valued OG and Siakam highly, but it doesn't follow that if you just hold out, you'll get the value you want.

[JeffFosters]

Both teams say no. If Cleveland is cashing in a premium asset, I'm not sure they target a 34 year old wing who is a low volume shooter from behind the arc.

My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3). What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

If a team values a player at a price higher than what other teams will pay, it just means there's no trade. I understand why Miami would value Jimmy highly the same way I understood why the Raptors valued OG and Siakam highly, but it doesn't follow that if you just hold out, you'll get the value you want.

I agree with you but that wasn’t my point

[axeman23]

Interesting trade value-wise, my sense is Miami would say no only because Butler has been so central to their culture and success. I also think Miami see themselves as being legit contenders in the east so they probably wouldn’t make a trade this big.

Both teams say no. If Cleveland is cashing in a premium asset, I'm not sure they target a 34 year old wing who is a low volume shooter from behind the arc.

[b]My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3).[/b] What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

I'm sure that would be hotly debated, but even if were true: Fair enough, someone else can pay that top 3 value... Less than ZERO interest in paying Garland to get Butler. I wouldn't even give Mitchell, who i like SIGNIFICANTLY less, for Butler in a 1v1 trade. If the Miami side says "that's ridiculous, NO DEAL!", then fine by me. He wouldn't even be in my top 10 targets for this team, I would think...

[axeman23]

My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3). What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

If a team values a player at a price higher than what other teams will pay, it just means there's no trade. I understand why Miami would value Jimmy highly the same way I understood why the Raptors valued OG and Siakam highly, but it doesn't follow that if you just hold out, you'll get the value you want.

I agree with you but that wasn’t my point

So maybe Indiana should cobble a deal together for him, since they're already further down the vet road. Turner/Siakam/Butler/Halli/Nembhard seems as strong as any complete starting 5 in the East, no?

[JeffFosters]

If a team values a player at a price higher than what other teams will pay, it just means there's no trade. I understand why Miami would value Jimmy highly the same way I understood why the Raptors valued OG and Siakam highly, but it doesn't follow that if you just hold out, you'll get the value you want.

I agree with you but that wasn’t my point

So maybe Indiana should cobble a deal together for him, since they're already further down the vet road. Turner/Siakam/Butler/Halli/Nembhard seems as strong as any complete starting 5 in the East, no?

If you carefully parse my comments you’ll note that I’ve said Butler is an attractive piece for teams that are *contending*. Indy isn’t that.

This is also pointless because Butler isn’t getting traded for any price.

[axeman23]

I agree with you but that wasn’t my point

So maybe Indiana should cobble a deal together for him, since they're already further down the vet road. Turner/Siakam/Butler/Halli/Nembhard seems as strong as any complete starting 5 in the East, no?

If you carefully parse my comments you’ll note that I’ve said Butler is an attractive piece for teams that are *contending*. Indy isn’t that.

This is also pointless because Butler isn’t getting traded for any price.

They're 4.5 games back from HCA, 5.5 back from the 3rd seed. On top of that, Lakers made the WCF from the play-in just last year, and the Heat made it from the play-in to the NBA Finals. You're telling me a team with Turner/Siakam/Butler/Halli couldn't make some noise in the East? Philly in particular, and Milwaukee are stumbling, Orlando is young, Miami if you got Butler off them would be much less of a problem, Cleveland and NY haven't proved MUCH in recent playoffs. Boston are looking good, sure. But anything can happen over a series, they might be knocked out before you even have to face them. So I just turned your logic around, from Cleveland should do it ("if they consider themselves ready" you said, to be fair), to ask why should the team who just made a deal for another valued vet, and is MORE experienced, not ALSO go for it? Now you've switched back to "Butler isn't available at any price...

And I get it: it's a trade board, and everyone does it. But it's much easier to spend someone else's money/assets then your own. And conversely, sometimes it can be hard to let go of your assets/cap-space...

[Hoppy1]

.

My biggest gripe with this board is we get too bogged down in contracts and age and forget what actually happens on the court. Butler probably has a top 3 trade value in the league (before you get upset I mean the value Miami would need to give him up would be top 3). What Butler has achieved in the playoffs counts for a lot and a team that views itself in the championship window would pay many premium assets to get him, even at 34.

Having said that, I don’t think Cleveland see themselves as contenders yet but *if* they did Garland would be a fair price to pay for Butler.

And that is the point many miss. I said it in another thread but the value of the player is not always equal value of the buying/selling team.
Butler is a stand alone mindset is equal to almost every player Miami could envision returning. What he has meant to the team is beyond what other top players are worth - to Miami.
However, if I were Miami I would cautiously trade Butler for Garland if I knew this season was over. For the future, Garland/Herro/Jaquez/Adebayo is a good team.