RealGM

Ill offer this draft night deal as Cavs look to re-tool around Garland/Mobley/Allen and Houston looks to add a legit All-star to young core

To Cleveland
-Jalen Green (1 year, $12.5 million plus Q.O.)
-Dillon Brooks (3 years, $63.3 million)
-#3 pick
-2026 Brooklyn 1st
-2028 Houston 1st

To Houston
-Donovan Mitchell (1 year, $35.4 million plus P.O.)

Why?
-Cavs get back a younger/controllable asset in Green and a starting calibre wing in Brooks. They can hypothetically draft a PG at #3 and frontcourt depth at #20.

Garland/#3/FA?
Green/Strus/Jerome
Brooks/LaVert/FA?
Mobley/Niang/Wade
Allen/FA?/#20

-Houston adds to its starting core as they look to double down on how they finished '23-24 and make a move for post season in '24-25

FVV/FA?/#44
Mitchell/Thompson/FA?
Whitmore/Tate/FA?
Smith/Green/Eason
Sengun/Adams/Marjanovic?

This is a competitive offer if Mitchell refuses to extend.

I think its close from Houston's perspective, may tweak here or there.

Are extend and trades legal? Alot of this is dependent on his willingness to be in Houston long term.

I think Houston uses whatever contracts they want and leaves out Brooks?

3rd and two more firsts feels like the winning bid. Cleveland can turn Houston’s expirings into whatever they want after this

I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

I am sure Cleveland would push for Eason or Whitmore instead of one of those 1st round picks. If that doesn't work, I would see if I could get the 2025 Houston first which has swap rights with Brooklyn I believe.

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

Well there is flexibility with excess long term 1sts in 2026 and 2028, along with Brooks and/or LaVert, for a greater asset in solving a 3rd team. I couldn't think of an immediate 3rd team but it gives Cavs that option with this deal.

If Cavs like Green and someone at #3, I think this is best option for Mitchell if he's not agreeing to an extension.

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

I think this is probably near the peak of what the packages will look like given his pending FA. I don't think Houston gives up more considering they don't know if Mitchell will want to stay with them if this trade even goes through and his recent injury history

Bentley1225 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

Well there is flexibility with excess long term 1sts in 2026 and 2028, along with Brooks and/or LaVert, for a greater asset in solving a 3rd team. I couldn't think of an immediate 3rd team but it gives Cavs that option with this deal.

If Cavs like Green and someone at #3, I think this is best option for Mitchell if he's not agreeing to an extension.

Maybe add NO here and trade Green, Brooks, and the 2 first rounders to New Orleans For Ingram. Cavs then take Castle at #3 to slot in next to Garland and Ingram.

DowJones wrote:

Bentley1225 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

Well there is flexibility with excess long term 1sts in 2026 and 2028, along with Brooks and/or LaVert, for a greater asset in solving a 3rd team. I couldn't think of an immediate 3rd team but it gives Cavs that option with this deal.

If Cavs like Green and someone at #3, I think this is best option for Mitchell if he's not agreeing to an extension.

Maybe add NO here and trade Green, Brooks, and the 2 first rounders to New Orleans For Ingram. Cavs then take Castle at #3 to slot in next to Garland and Ingram.

They'll take Green, but Brooks probably needs to go to a team like the Hornets that desperately needs defense.

UnbelievablyRAW wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't have Brooks as an asset and Green isn't any better a backcourt mate with Garland than Mitchell. If they can be re-routed, to a third team, there's something to talk about.

I think this is probably near the peak of what the packages will look like given his pending FA. I don't think Houston gives up more considering they don't know if Mitchell will want to stay with them if this trade even goes through and his recent injury history

Right, so if there are 2, or 3, good packages, one of which includes players the Cavs would actually desire, that's the one they're picking. The Cavs aren't starting at ground zero again.

If I'm the Cavs, I have Jabari, Whitmore, and Eason among the value I'd rather have back. I'm sitting on Mitchell till the deadline if this is the best offer Houston makes.

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs, I have Jabari, Whitmore, and Eason among the value I'd rather have back. I'm sitting on Mitchell till the deadline if this is the best offer Houston makes.

Deals get worse over time not better.

LarsV8 wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs, I have Jabari, Whitmore, and Eason among the value I'd rather have back. I'm sitting on Mitchell till the deadline if this is the best offer Houston makes.

Deals get worse over time not better.

For sure. Look at that horrible deal Ainge ended up with to unload Mitchell to the Cavs so late in the offseason.

LarsV8 wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs, I have Jabari, Whitmore, and Eason among the value I'd rather have back. I'm sitting on Mitchell till the deadline if this is the best offer Houston makes.

Deals get worse over time not better.

Mitchell could choose to extend mid-season.

I think this is a pick too much, and the Brooklyn pick is potentially too good. We're talking about an expiring player here. The days where teams could truly believe paying huge for these types of players seem past or almost past. It's just not a good bet

Here is a variant of a counter proposal:

Sengun, Green, Brooks, Tate and Landale, same 26 and 28 picks

for

Mitchell / Allen

FVV / (Reed)
Mitchell / Whitmore
Eason / Amen
Jabari / Green
Allen / Adams

Garland / Porter
Green / Strus
Brooks / Tate
Sengun / Niang / Wade
Mobley / Landale

Won’t the Rockets have the cap space to sign Mitchell outright next summer? Waiting seems prudent since he’s obviously not going to extend.

Mitchell is a massive flight risk, he is definitely worth a gamble, but I'd remove the Rockets 28 1st.

Feels like an overpay to me. Donovan Mitchell is great but Green + #3 + two FRPs is a lot. I would do this in a heartbeat for Cleveland and use those assets to improve with other trades.