RealGM

We are sending NO a center they need. NO is returning a SF Cleveland needs.

Cleveland sends Allen/Strus
NO sends Ingram, #17

Pick is conveyed because Cleveland is sending 2 salary controlled players. Cleveland will have to pay Ingram in a year or get a sign and trade worked out.

LeVert, who will be on an expiring deal, makes more sense for both parties. I personally hate this but if you buy into the idea that the Cavs have to move Allen so that Mobley can blossom at the 5, this makes sense.

This is reasonable value.

I'm not particularly inclined to split Mobley/Allen, but if the team decides to, this isn't crazy.

From Mike Scotto's chat with Pels beat Will Guillory: "Cleveland with Jarrett Allen is interesting, as you pointed out, but I don’t think Allen on the surface for Ingram is enough."

From a Pels perspective, I know that we have been linked to Allen, but building a team around Zion, I really do not have much interest in using assets to acquire a rim-protector/rim-runner type of center. It's too difficult to get up enough 3PA with 2 starters that do not even shoot 3's. Strus doesn't do much for me. And we won't have #17, we will defer Lakers pick until next year.

How about Garland/Allen for Ingram/Daniels/Hawkins/Nance and a 2025 first--the lower of the 2 between LA and NO?

I am trying to think about the lowest return I could talk myself into for Garland/Allen---and this is about it. I don't know that the Cavs would do this, but this trade gives Cleveland the wing they need, a backup 5, a draft pick they could trade at next year's trade deadline for another 3 and D player, plus a pair of young guys the Cavs could develop.

DowJones wrote:How about Garland/Allen for Ingram/Daniels/Hawkins/Nance and a 2025 first--the lower of the 2 between LA and NO?

I am trying to think about the lowest return I could talk myself into for Garland/Allen---and this is about it. I don't know that the Cavs would do this, but this trade gives Cleveland the wing they need, a backup 5, a draft pick they could trade at next year's trade deadline for another 3 and D player, plus a pair of young guys the Cavs could develop.

Huge overpay by the Pels. Daniels and Hawkins getting valued as little more than throw-ins is not right. If this your minimum expectation for Garland/Allen you should plan on keeping them.

Texas Chuck wrote:

DowJones wrote:How about Garland/Allen for Ingram/Daniels/Hawkins/Nance and a 2025 first--the lower of the 2 between LA and NO?

I am trying to think about the lowest return I could talk myself into for Garland/Allen---and this is about it. I don't know that the Cavs would do this, but this trade gives Cleveland the wing they need, a backup 5, a draft pick they could trade at next year's trade deadline for another 3 and D player, plus a pair of young guys the Cavs could develop.

Huge overpay by the Pels. Daniels and Hawkins getting valued as little more than throw-ins is not right. If this your minimum expectation for Garland/Allen you should plan on keeping them.

I think it would be me undervaluing Ingram more than me undervaluing Hawkins and Daniels. If the price tag for Ingram is even close to Garland AND Allen, the Cavs would have absolutely no interest. I am very comfortable with cutting the Daniels/Hawkins/1st for Allen part of out out.

Ingram's value might be all over the place. Remember, he has 1 year left and he will want a $50+ million/year extension from any team that trades for him. That is--high.

DowJones wrote:I think it would be me undervaluing Ingram more than me undervaluing Hawkins and Daniels. If the price tag for Ingram is even close to Garland AND Allen, the Cavs would have absolutely no interest. I am very comfortable with cutting the Daniels/Hawkins/1st for Allen part of out out.

I think BI's value is on par with either of the Cavs duo for sure. Maybe slightly higher than either even with the contract. Allen isn't a huge difference maker and Garland's had one good year in a role not ideally for him and is on a max deal. Not as high as both, but the difference isn't Nance, Daniels, Hawkins, and a 1st.

This in part is why this board is better when we don't try and make these huge deals. Decide if the Pels want Garland or Allen as the centerpiece for your targeting of Ingram and then fine tune value from there. Prevents just stacking good assets up and saying well these are guys maybe Cleveland can develop. Daniels can defend in this league right now. He's at least Okoro levels only with more potential. And Hawkins is already a bucket and a shooter. And both have upside from here. They aren't some low-level prospect.

Texas Chuck wrote:

DowJones wrote:I think it would be me undervaluing Ingram more than me undervaluing Hawkins and Daniels. If the price tag for Ingram is even close to Garland AND Allen, the Cavs would have absolutely no interest. I am very comfortable with cutting the Daniels/Hawkins/1st for Allen part of out out.

I think BI's value is on par with either of the Cavs duo for sure. Maybe slightly higher than either even with the contract. Allen isn't a huge difference maker and Garland's had one good year in a role not ideally for him and is on a max deal. Not as high as both, but the difference isn't Nance, Daniels, Hawkins, and a 1st.

This in part is why this board is better when we don't try and make these huge deals. Decide if the Pels want Garland or Allen as the centerpiece for your targeting of Ingram and then fine tune value from there. Prevents just stacking good assets up and saying well these are guys maybe Cleveland can develop. Daniels can defend in this league right now. He's at least Okoro levels only with more potential. And Hawkins is already a bucket and a shooter. And both have upside from here. They aren't some low-level prospect.

Allen isn't a huge difference maker is why they shouldn’t trade him. He's been a huge difference maker for the Cavs. It's easy to scheme to get one big out of the paint. It's a lot harder when there are two rim protectors. People like the fact that the floor is a little more opened up on offense when one of them is off, but ignore the fact that with both of them on the floor in the playoffs, they essentially turn the other team into jump shooters.

louc1970 wrote:We are sending NO a center they need. NO is returning a SF Cleveland needs.

Cleveland sends Allen/Strus
NO sends Ingram, #17

Pick is conveyed because Cleveland is sending 2 salary controlled players. Cleveland will have to pay Ingram in a year or get a sign and trade worked out.

Take away pick #17 and it still works for me. Paying Ingram $50 million+ a year is tough, but this would free the Cavs up to make a Garland trade and focus on the best value they can get.

I would much rather put in LeVert. I like Strus more. If Strus doesn't do anything for the Pelican's. keep him in Cleveland.

jbk1234 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

DowJones wrote:I think it would be me undervaluing Ingram more than me undervaluing Hawkins and Daniels. If the price tag for Ingram is even close to Garland AND Allen, the Cavs would have absolutely no interest. I am very comfortable with cutting the Daniels/Hawkins/1st for Allen part of out out.

I think BI's value is on par with either of the Cavs duo for sure. Maybe slightly higher than either even with the contract. Allen isn't a huge difference maker and Garland's had one good year in a role not ideally for him and is on a max deal. Not as high as both, but the difference isn't Nance, Daniels, Hawkins, and a 1st.

This in part is why this board is better when we don't try and make these huge deals. Decide if the Pels want Garland or Allen as the centerpiece for your targeting of Ingram and then fine tune value from there. Prevents just stacking good assets up and saying well these are guys maybe Cleveland can develop. Daniels can defend in this league right now. He's at least Okoro levels only with more potential. And Hawkins is already a bucket and a shooter. And both have upside from here. They aren't some low-level prospect.

Allen isn't a huge difference maker is why they shouldn’t trade him. He's been a huge difference maker for the Cavs. It's easy to scheme to get one big out of the paint. It's a lot harder when there are two rim protectors. People like the fact that the floor is a little more opened up on offense when one of them is off, but ignore the fact that with both of them on the floor in the playoffs, they essentially turn the other team into jump shooters.

Yeah, I just ignored that one lol. Allen is a very good basketball player.

Featuring Ingram as the 3rd centerpiece between Mitchell and Mobley isn't appealing to me, at all. Poor defender, poor rebounder, mediocre shooter, high usage volume scorer. Averages under 60 games played and plays soft.

I'd rather the Cavs move Garland/Allen for more specialized, but potentially 'worse' players than Ingram who can defend and shoot.

The Cavs are going to need to forcefeed Mobley in the coming years to foster his development as an offensive hub, and that is not happening with Ingram/Mitchell.

Texas Chuck wrote:

DowJones wrote:I think it would be me undervaluing Ingram more than me undervaluing Hawkins and Daniels. If the price tag for Ingram is even close to Garland AND Allen, the Cavs would have absolutely no interest. I am very comfortable with cutting the Daniels/Hawkins/1st for Allen part of out out.

I think BI's value is on par with either of the Cavs duo for sure. Maybe slightly higher than either even with the contract. Allen isn't a huge difference maker and Garland's had one good year in a role not ideally for him and is on a max deal. Not as high as both, but the difference isn't Nance, Daniels, Hawkins, and a 1st.

This in part is why this board is better when we don't try and make these huge deals. Decide if the Pels want Garland or Allen as the centerpiece for your targeting of Ingram and then fine tune value from there. Prevents just stacking good assets up and saying well these are guys maybe Cleveland can develop. Daniels can defend in this league right now. He's at least Okoro levels only with more potential. And Hawkins is already a bucket and a shooter. And both have upside from here. They aren't some low-level prospect.

They're not high-level prospects either.

Daniels can't shoot and won't be anything other than an Okoro-level defender until he can-- even then, you just have a 3-and-D guy who can bring the ball up the court.

Hawkins can shoot but not much else. He might get shots off but has always been brutal inside the arc, going back to college. For every time someone like this becomes Desmond Bane, a bunch of them become Sam Merrill or AJ Griffin or Garrison Mathews or Reggie Bullock or Danny Green... guys who just aren't positive players until they figure out how to not be a liability in the other aspects of the game.

I have the Cavs losing that trade most of the time, and if they win it they're not winning by very much and not for a long time. The very good case on Dyson Daniels' development is Jaden McDaniels. Hawkins' positive comp is Buddy Hield I guess, but Hield was a better player across the board his rookie year. Both guys have non-rotation downsides.

I mean if prospects didn't come with some risk, you could never trade for them....they are on bargain contracts and come with restricted rights.

If we are going to value players coming to our team at their lowest possible outcome we can, but that's not how we would value prospects leaving our team for sure.

jbk1234 wrote:LeVert, who will be on an expiring deal, makes more sense for both parties. I personally hate this but if you buy into the idea that the Cavs have to move Allen so that Mobley can blossom at the 5, this makes sense.

For Cleveland the inclusion of Strus is reduce the extra 2 years of his salary. When LeVert comes off the payroll, Cleveland frees up more cap room. Like the cap room more than paying Strus.
NO would probably prefer LeVert.
Strus and LeVert also take playing time from Okoro.

louc1970 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:LeVert, who will be on an expiring deal, makes more sense for both parties. I personally hate this but if you buy into the idea that the Cavs have to move Allen so that Mobley can blossom at the 5, this makes sense.

For Cleveland the inclusion of Strus is reduce the extra 2 years of his salary. When LeVert comes off the payroll, Cleveland frees up more cap room. Like the cap room more than paying Strus.
NO would probably prefer LeVert.
Strus and LeVert also take playing time from Okoro.

Either way, it's not like Cleveland would be freeing up money to sign any sort of decent free agent.

mrmsix6 wrote:Featuring Ingram as the 3rd centerpiece between Mitchell and Mobley isn't appealing to me, at all. Poor defender, poor rebounder, mediocre shooter, high usage volume scorer. Averages under 60 games played and plays soft.

I'd rather the Cavs move Garland/Allen for more specialized, but potentially 'worse' players than Ingram who can defend and shoot.

The Cavs are going to need to forcefeed Mobley in the coming years to foster his development as an offensive hub, and that is not happening with Ingram/Mitchell.

A secondary option is to include the Hornets.

Cavs send Allen, Strus
Cavs receive Bridges, Bertans, Richards

Pelican send Ingram
Pelicans receive Allen, Strus

Hornets send Bridges, Bertans, Richards
Hornets receive Ingram

Cavs cut Bertans (costs $5M), Bridges cones in at about $15-20m, Richards suffices until a better option comes along.
Pelicans get their center and rid of Ingram’s next contract.
Hornets bring home a NC player who can score and not mess up the rotation.

louc1970 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:LeVert, who will be on an expiring deal, makes more sense for both parties. I personally hate this but if you buy into the idea that the Cavs have to move Allen so that Mobley can blossom at the 5, this makes sense.

For Cleveland the inclusion of Strus is reduce the extra 2 years of his salary. When LeVert comes off the payroll, Cleveland frees up more cap room. Like the cap room more than paying Strus.
NO would probably prefer LeVert.
Strus and LeVert also take playing time from Okoro.

Strus is well worth his money. Mitchell personally recruited him. Okoro isn't a starer on a playoff team.

Allen + Strus
for
Ingram + Alvarado

Fair rebalancing trade for me. Not sure I Griffin would settle for this, given the premium of wing-creators, even with BI's flaws and contract. I've been including Jose Alvarado in all Ingram trades because he and Ingram are like BFFs, it boosts BI's value a bit, and it clears a path for D. Daniels to develop in a backup playmaking role.

Strus seems like a keeper for Cavs, but yea, Pels would welcome him as a 6th man or spot starter. Cavs would have to trade Garland for a lower contract with Mitchell, Ingram, and Mobley starting big new extensions.

Allen/
Zion/
Murphy/ Strus
Herb/ Hawkins
CJ / Dyson

YayBasketball wrote:Allen + Strus
for
Ingram + Alvarado

Fair rebalancing trade for me. Not sure I Griffin would settle for this, given the premium of wing-creators, even with BI's flaws and contract. I've been including Jose Alvarado in all Ingram trades because he and Ingram are like BFFs, it boosts BI's value a bit, and it clears a path for D. Daniels to develop in a backup playmaking role.

Strus seems like a keeper for Cavs, but yea, Pels would welcome him as a 6th man or spot starter. Cavs would have to trade Garland for a lower contract with Mitchell, Ingram, and Mobley starting big new extensions.

Allen/
Zion/
Murphy/ Strus
Herb/ Hawkins
CJ / Dyson

.

The Cavs aren't going to consider Strus a throw-in and the Pelicans aren't going to want to take back long-term matching salary. They want to extend Murphy this summer. A big part of why they're trading Ingram is they don't want to pay him.