Cavs Off-season Plan?

[nykballa2k4]

The Cavs aren't presently looking to move Garland. That's something fans of other teams are telling themselves, and no, all stars under the age of 25 aren't hard to move regardless of position.

There are two ways to look at the matchup issue: The first is how can the Cavs matchup against teams with good SFs (the answer against most teams is assign Mobley to him). The second way to look at it is how do opposing teams handle the Cavs lineup, and this season anyway, the answer had been not particularly well.

We'll see what happens in the playoffs, but the Cavs have won ten in a row, are currently the 2 seed, and I doubt anyone in the organization is sitting around and wondering how they're going to break up the core.

They are absolutely rolling, no doubt. But there are structural issues long term. I’m just curious if there is a prevailing theory on how they adjust moving forward. Winning a title with two small guards taking up half the cap is not precedented.

Garland would at first look seem to be the odd man out but look around the league and see how big his market is. Kings went through this a couple seasons ago with Fox, the market is narrow and that hurts leverage and thus return value.

Whats Okoro go for this summer? Where’s that put them when Mobley is due?

The Pelicans haven't had a starting caliber PG since they traded Jrue. The Magic have a platoon of backups and have needed an offensive upgrade forever. Those are just the young playoff teams that have players I, personally, might be interested in, but that assumes the organization agrees with you as soon as next summer, and I'm deeply skeptical about that outcome.

If another team makes a dumb offer to Okoro, then I suspect the Cavs shake his hand and wish him well. He's not super cheap for a rookie given where he was drafted. Thybulle got $11M per as a RFA. That's $2M more than what Okoro is getting already.

I suspect next year is LeVert's last year with the Cavs. That's $16M falling off the year they have to pay Mobley. They have their first this summer, Emoni Bates in the G League, a bunch of seconds they've retained rather than use in lateral moves, and two guys overseas whose rookie contract clocks haven't even started. The Cavs are very much managing the roster in a way that suggests they're well aware they'll be under financial restrictions for the foreseeable future.

If Spida wants to go to the coasts (BKN, NYK, LAC, LAL) and says "I won't resign" does a return of Cam Johnson and Dejonte Murray do it for you? Assuming you can send out whatever salary you like.

[DowJones]

They are absolutely rolling, no doubt. But there are structural issues long term. I’m just curious if there is a prevailing theory on how they adjust moving forward. Winning a title with two small guards taking up half the cap is not precedented.

Garland would at first look seem to be the odd man out but look around the league and see how big his market is. Kings went through this a couple seasons ago with Fox, the market is narrow and that hurts leverage and thus return value.

Whats Okoro go for this summer? Where’s that put them when Mobley is due?

The Pelicans haven't had a starting caliber PG since they traded Jrue. The Magic have a platoon of backups and have needed an offensive upgrade forever. Those are just the young playoff teams that have players I, personally, might be interested in, but that assumes the organization agrees with you as soon as next summer, and I'm deeply skeptical about that outcome.

If another team makes a dumb offer to Okoro, then I suspect the Cavs shake his hand and wish him well. He's not super cheap for a rookie given where he was drafted. Thybulle got $11M per as a RFA. That's $2M more than what Okoro is getting already.

I suspect next year is LeVert's last year with the Cavs. That's $16M falling off the year they have to pay Mobley. They have their first this summer, Emoni Bates in the G League, a bunch of seconds they've retained rather than use in lateral moves, and two guys overseas whose rookie contract clocks haven't even started. The Cavs are very much managing the roster in a way that suggests they're well aware they'll be under financial restrictions for the foreseeable future.

If Spida wants to go to the coasts (BKN, NYK, LAC, LAL) and says "I won't resign" does a return of Cam Johnson and Dejonte Murray do it for you? Assuming you can send out whatever salary you like.

Not for me. I would want Cam, Clowney, and a handful of those Phoenix first round picks plus (maybe) the Dallas 1st that Brooklyn has. I am not a fan of Murray.

[DowJones]

I think Franz for Garland makes sense for both teams, and the value is about equal, but trading talented early 20's players drafted by the franchise sending them out just doesn't happen much. My guess is that Cleveland would be too attached to Garland and Orlando would be too attached to Franz.

[Jadoogar]

Doesn't it all depend on Mitchell? If he signs an extension, don't care about cost and go for title.
If he doesn't extend, then its a bigger question. its hard to sell on him but you cant lose him for nothing.

[Residual-Heat]

I think Franz for Garland makes sense for both teams, and the value is about equal, but trading talented early 20's players drafted by the franchise sending them out just doesn't happen much. My guess is that Cleveland would be too attached to Garland and Orlando would be too attached to Franz.

The Magic would be making a big mistake to break up the Franz-Paolo duo. You just dont trade two young 6'10 young players with their skillsets... unless theyre trading one of them in a package for a legit top 5-10 player.

IF the Cavs choose to trade Garland, I like the Pelicans as a trade destination someone mentioned earlier, but TBH i doubt it'd be for Ingram. Pelicans have some good assets to put together a nice trade package for the Cavs even without Ingram IMO.

[TimeisIllmatic]

See what type of offers you can get for Allen and LeVert. I'd imagine they wouldn't get much for LeVert but his production can be replaced at a cheaper cost. You want to get as much defense as possible around Garland and Mitchell.

[DowJones]

I think Franz for Garland makes sense for both teams, and the value is about equal, but trading talented early 20's players drafted by the franchise sending them out just doesn't happen much. My guess is that Cleveland would be too attached to Garland and Orlando would be too attached to Franz.

The Magic would be making a big mistake to break up the Franz-Paolo duo. You just dont trade two young 6'10 young players with their skillsets... unless theyre trading one of them in a package for a legit top 5-10 player.

IF the Cavs choose to trade Garland, I like the Pelicans as a trade destination someone mentioned earlier, but TBH i doubt it'd be for Ingram. Pelicans have some good assets to put together a nice trade package for the Cavs even without Ingram IMO.

Ingram is also a flight risk, so that makes it even more unlikely the Cavs trade for him. On paper Garland for Ingram makes sense.

Pelicans fans are really high on their current core so I'm not sure what traction you could get there. If New Orleans isn't willing to give up Zion or Ingram then it would have to be Murphy/Jones/a pick or two. I don't think Cleveland would go for that.

The issue with Cleveland trading Garland comes back to the Cavs not being willing to trade him for the "future first round picks" package. It would have to be a "core piece for a core piece" deal and not many teams are willing to engage on that end. The same goes for Mobley.

[SNPA]

I think Franz for Garland makes sense for both teams, and the value is about equal, but trading talented early 20's players drafted by the franchise sending them out just doesn't happen much. My guess is that Cleveland would be too attached to Garland and Orlando would be too attached to Franz.

The Magic would be making a big mistake to break up the Franz-Paolo duo. You just dont trade two young 6'10 young players with their skillsets... unless theyre trading one of them in a package for a legit top 5-10 player.

IF the Cavs choose to trade Garland, I like the Pelicans as a trade destination someone mentioned earlier, but TBH i doubt it'd be for Ingram. Pelicans have some good assets to put together a nice trade package for the Cavs even without Ingram IMO.

Ingram is also a flight risk, so that makes it even more unlikely the Cavs trade for him. On paper Garland for Ingram makes sense.

Pelicans fans are really high on their current core so I'm not sure what traction you could get there. If New Orleans isn't willing to give up Zion or Ingram then it would have to be Murphy/Jones/a pick or two. I don't think Cleveland would go for that.

The issue with Cleveland trading Garland comes back to the Cavs not being willing to trade him for the "future first round picks" package. It would have to be a "core piece for a core piece" deal and not many teams are willing to engage on that end. The same goes for Mobley.

Adding Murphy and Jones to Mitchell/Mobley/Allen seems like a path worth seriously considering IMO. I can see an argument it’s better than adding Ingram. Especially if a pick or two can be backfilled through the deal, which will be important for cap as the team ages.

[BK_2020]

See what type of offers you can get for Allen and LeVert. I'd imagine they wouldn't get much for LeVert but his production can be replaced at a cheaper cost. You want to get as much defense as possible around Garland and Mitchell.

It doesn't hurt to get more defense but I don't understand this anxiety people have about the Cavs defense around Garland and Mitchell. They have the 2nd best defense in the league right now and had the best defense in the league last year. I don't think the Cavs are hurting for defense.

[toooskies]

The Magic would be making a big mistake to break up the Franz-Paolo duo. You just dont trade two young 6'10 young players with their skillsets... unless theyre trading one of them in a package for a legit top 5-10 player.

IF the Cavs choose to trade Garland, I like the Pelicans as a trade destination someone mentioned earlier, but TBH i doubt it'd be for Ingram. Pelicans have some good assets to put together a nice trade package for the Cavs even without Ingram IMO.

Ingram is also a flight risk, so that makes it even more unlikely the Cavs trade for him. On paper Garland for Ingram makes sense.

Pelicans fans are really high on their current core so I'm not sure what traction you could get there. If New Orleans isn't willing to give up Zion or Ingram then it would have to be Murphy/Jones/a pick or two. I don't think Cleveland would go for that.

The issue with Cleveland trading Garland comes back to the Cavs not being willing to trade him for the "future first round picks" package. It would have to be a "core piece for a core piece" deal and not many teams are willing to engage on that end. The same goes for Mobley.

Adding Murphy and Jones to Mitchell/Mobley/Allen seems like a path worth seriously considering IMO. I can see an argument it’s better than adding Ingram. Especially if a pick or two can be backfilled through the deal, which will be important for cap as the team ages.

Garland/McCollum for NOP doesn't work any better than Garland/Mitchell for CLE, so the salary structure of this deal has to be McCollum+ for Garland(+).

[Skybox]

I think Franz for Garland makes sense for both teams, and the value is about equal, but trading talented early 20's players drafted by the franchise sending them out just doesn't happen much. My guess is that Cleveland would be too attached to Garland and Orlando would be too attached to Franz.

Both are awesome talents. Both young. One is tiny...I wouldn't move Franz for Garland. No knock on Garland....Franz is a pretty uniquely versatile combo of skill and size. Personally, I'd like to see him playing more PG for ORL.

I'd take my chances on trying to find another 6'1 guy that can really play...there's just more of them on the planet.

[TimeisIllmatic]

See what type of offers you can get for Allen and LeVert. I'd imagine they wouldn't get much for LeVert but his production can be replaced at a cheaper cost. You want to get as much defense as possible around Garland and Mitchell.

It doesn't hurt to get more defense but I don't understand this anxiety people have about the Cavs defense around Garland and Mitchell. They have the 2nd best defense in the league right now and had the best defense in the league last year. I don't think the Cavs are hurting for defense.

Definitely all valid points. I just mean during the playoffs if they want to get far. I remember Allen had defensive issues against the Knicks.

I think the other issues people have concerning Mitchell/Garland are the fact they are 6'1 and 6'3 backcourt.

[BK_2020]

See what type of offers you can get for Allen and LeVert. I'd imagine they wouldn't get much for LeVert but his production can be replaced at a cheaper cost. You want to get as much defense as possible around Garland and Mitchell.

It doesn't hurt to get more defense but I don't understand this anxiety people have about the Cavs defense around Garland and Mitchell. They have the 2nd best defense in the league right now and had the best defense in the league last year. I don't think the Cavs are hurting for defense.

Definitely all valid points. I just mean during the playoffs if they want to get far. I remember Allen had defensive issues against the Knicks.

I think the other issues people have concerning Mitchell/Garland are the fact they are 6'1 and 6'3 backcourt.

The Knicks scored under 100 points per game and shot 43% from the field. The Cavs didn't lose that series because of their defense. As for the Cavs backcourt being small, sure, theoretically that might be a problem on defense but we don't have to go on speculation and guesswork when we have 1.5 seasons of actual games.

[brackdan70]

Obviously, the Cavs will have to see how the playoffs go and whether Mitchell extends, but they have another year of Mobley on a rookie contract and LeVert will be expiring next season so money isn't any type of immediate concern. Having two players on rookie max deals gives you a lot more leeway than having 70-80% of your cap tied up on two older vets. Gilbert isn't afraid of the tax. The core won't be broken up solely due to financial reasons.

What is the core though? They have two small guards on big contracts and two bigs that will be expensive soon. Those four won’t leave much meat on the bone to fill out a roster, especially in a wing dominated league.

Garland on that deal is tough to move because the PG spot is saturated.

They have a severe lack of picks too.

They continue to employ the guys on the roster, with the likely exception of LeVert when his deal is up.

Garland is on a 25% max, Mitchell can't make over 30%, Mobley may not get a max (or only get a 25% max) and Allen is well below a max. They have more room than, say the Clippers if their guys are on 35% maxes.

They count on Craig Porter Jr, Emoni Bates, Isaiah Mobley, Luke Travers, Pete Nance, and other recent 2nds/UDFAs to pan out into two or three rotation guys on cheap salary.

Isn’t Mitchel eligible for a super max?

[BK_2020]

What is the core though? They have two small guards on big contracts and two bigs that will be expensive soon. Those four won’t leave much meat on the bone to fill out a roster, especially in a wing dominated league.

Garland on that deal is tough to move because the PG spot is saturated.

They have a severe lack of picks too.

They continue to employ the guys on the roster, with the likely exception of LeVert when his deal is up.

Garland is on a 25% max, Mitchell can't make over 30%, Mobley may not get a max (or only get a 25% max) and Allen is well below a max. They have more room than, say the Clippers if their guys are on 35% maxes.

They count on Craig Porter Jr, Emoni Bates, Isaiah Mobley, Luke Travers, Pete Nance, and other recent 2nds/UDFAs to pan out into two or three rotation guys on cheap salary.

Isn’t Mitchel eligible for a super max?

He was traded from the team that drafted him so no.

[jbk1234]

What is the core though? They have two small guards on big contracts and two bigs that will be expensive soon. Those four won’t leave much meat on the bone to fill out a roster, especially in a wing dominated league.

Garland on that deal is tough to move because the PG spot is saturated.

They have a severe lack of picks too.

They continue to employ the guys on the roster, with the likely exception of LeVert when his deal is up.

Garland is on a 25% max, Mitchell can't make over 30%, Mobley may not get a max (or only get a 25% max) and Allen is well below a max. They have more room than, say the Clippers if their guys are on 35% maxes.

They count on Craig Porter Jr, Emoni Bates, Isaiah Mobley, Luke Travers, Pete Nance, and other recent 2nds/UDFAs to pan out into two or three rotation guys on cheap salary.

Isn’t Mitchel eligible for a super max?

No. He was traded.

[brackdan70]

They continue to employ the guys on the roster, with the likely exception of LeVert when his deal is up.

Garland is on a 25% max, Mitchell can't make over 30%, Mobley may not get a max (or only get a 25% max) and Allen is well below a max. They have more room than, say the Clippers if their guys are on 35% maxes.

They count on Craig Porter Jr, Emoni Bates, Isaiah Mobley, Luke Travers, Pete Nance, and other recent 2nds/UDFAs to pan out into two or three rotation guys on cheap salary.

Isn’t Mitchel eligible for a super max?

No. He was traded.

Oh yes of course. Thanks.

[toooskies]

Isn’t Mitchel eligible for a super max?

No. He was traded.

Oh yes of course. Thanks.

I believe Mitchell's fastest path to a super max is becoming a free agent and signing a two year contract, but he can only do that with the team that has his Bird rights unless he wants to doom his team to needing cap space again in his next free agency.