RealGM

Vassell has shown some flashes as a wing scorer and is still young, but has struggled to help win games due to very poor decision making. He's also good at making bad shots and seems to struggle to get good shots. Despite these issues, he is getting consistently better it seems and would fit an area of need for Cleveland in terms of wings and in terms of secondary scoring (if they move Garland, of course). How far away is the value between these two right now?

HadAnEffectHere wrote:Vassell has shown some flashes as a wing scorer and is still young, but has struggled to help win games due to very poor decision making. He's also good at making bad shots and seems to struggle to get good shots.

There's 2 players:
a) 19.5 PPG (on 47.2 / 37.2 / 80.1 splits, with 6.6 3PA)
b) 18 PPG (on 44.6 / 37.1 / 83.4 splits, with 6.2 3PA)
which one is struggling with his shooting?

wemby wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:Vassell has shown some flashes as a wing scorer and is still young, but has struggled to help win games due to very poor decision making. He's also good at making bad shots and seems to struggle to get good shots.

There's 2 players:
a) 19.5 PPG (on 47.2 / 37.2 / 80.1 splits, with 6.6 3PA)
b) 18 PPG (on 44.6 / 37.1 / 83.4 splits, with 6.2 3PA)
which one is struggling with his shooting?

???????????????????????????????????????

The post says that Vassell is a good shooter, but struggles to create good shots so he's mostly a guy who makes bad shots.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

wemby wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:Vassell has shown some flashes as a wing scorer and is still young, but has struggled to help win games due to very poor decision making. He's also good at making bad shots and seems to struggle to get good shots.

There's 2 players:
a) 19.5 PPG (on 47.2 / 37.2 / 80.1 splits, with 6.6 3PA)
b) 18 PPG (on 44.6 / 37.1 / 83.4 splits, with 6.2 3PA)
which one is struggling with his shooting?

???????????????????????????????????????

The post says that Vassell is a good shooter, but struggles to create good shots so he's mostly a guy who makes bad shots.

Shots are good or bad depending on who takes them, an open corner 3 would be bad for Shaq but a walk in the park for Steph.
If Vassell is efficient at the shots he takes, are they bad shots for him?

wemby wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

wemby wrote:There's 2 players:
a) 19.5 PPG (on 47.2 / 37.2 / 80.1 splits, with 6.6 3PA)
b) 18 PPG (on 44.6 / 37.1 / 83.4 splits, with 6.2 3PA)
which one is struggling with his shooting?

???????????????????????????????????????

The post says that Vassell is a good shooter, but struggles to create good shots so he's mostly a guy who makes bad shots.

Shots are good or bad depending on who takes them, an open corner 3 would be bad for Shaq but a walk in the park for Steph.
If Vassell is efficient at the shots he takes, are they bad shots for him?

Bro, you know that Vassell has like a 100 TS+ right.

If he was at around 105 or 106, then I would just say he's a star and he doesn't need to get to the line because he's so elite at shooting... But he's at exactly league average efficiency wise.

I don’t think the Spurs’ fans have any interest in trading Vassell for Garland. Based on what I have seen posted here, they don’t have much interest in Garland at all. Johnson and the 8th pick seems about it, which is woefully short for Cleveland.

I think if the Spurs thought Garland was their solution at PG, they would try and get him a different way. Might require a 3rd team or maybe its just sending the assets and letting Cleveland convert them to win now.

Insisting that a deal include a player you know they'd rather not trade is forcing something.

But to answer the question. Maybe one protected first? For all the negative narrative making on Vassell in the OP, Garland doesn't have a sterling track record himself. And talk about efficiency, I wouldn't be focusing on that while demanding a premium for Garland.

If Garland gets traded, and I still think it's an if, and if he's traded to the Spurs, then this is the only conceivable framework.

Texas Chuck wrote:I think if the Spurs thought Garland was their solution at PG, they would try and get him a different way. Might require a 3rd team or maybe its just sending the assets and letting Cleveland convert them to win now.

Insisting that a deal include a player you know they'd rather not trade is forcing something.

But to answer the question. Maybe one protected first? For all the negative narrative making on Vassell in the OP, Garland doesn't have a sterling track record himself. And talk about efficiency, I wouldn't be focusing on that while demanding a premium for Garland.

The major issue with a lot of these "Oh, just find a third team" is that the third team probably doesn't exist.

Teams that want to dump players for picks this offseason

Wizards
Blazers

.... That's pretty much it.

Like, could the Spurs trade picks for Kuzma or Jerami Grant and trade those guys to the Cavs? In theory yes, but Kuzma and Jerami Grant are such a step down compared to Garland that I would be very doubtful.

The cleanest way to trade for a very good player this offseason is with another very good player. Finding a third team is very hard as there's no sellers outside of Portland and Washington. Vassell and Garland are very flawed, but have shown potential to be pretty high level starters at their position. Kuzma and Grant haven't shown that potential and Grant could decline heavily over the next few years.

jbk1234 wrote:If Garland gets traded, and I still think it's an if, and if he's traded to the Spurs, then this is the only conceivable framework.

Agree. This is the only way I see a SA deal happening, and it would be one protected 1st. Top ten protection maybe.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I think if the Spurs thought Garland was their solution at PG, they would try and get him a different way. Might require a 3rd team or maybe its just sending the assets and letting Cleveland convert them to win now.

Insisting that a deal include a player you know they'd rather not trade is forcing something.

But to answer the question. Maybe one protected first? For all the negative narrative making on Vassell in the OP, Garland doesn't have a sterling track record himself. And talk about efficiency, I wouldn't be focusing on that while demanding a premium for Garland.

The major issue with a lot of these "Oh, just find a third team" is that the third team probably doesn't exist.

Teams that want to dump players for picks this offseason

Wizards
Blazers

.... That's pretty much it.

Like, could the Spurs trade picks for Kuzma or Jerami Grant and trade those guys to the Cavs? In theory yes, but Kuzma and Jerami Grant are such a step down compared to Garland that I would be very doubtful.

The cleanest way to trade for a very good player this offseason is with another very good player. Finding a third team is very hard as there's no sellers outside of Portland and Washington. Vassell and Garland are very flawed, but have shown potential to be pretty high level starters at their position. Kuzma and Grant haven't shown that potential and Grant could decline heavily over the next few years.

Atlanta should be a seller. Particularly if their remaining picks from SA can be returned.

Brooklyn could be a seller if they sell Bridges to Houston first.

Utah has the option of selling or buying.

Chicago should be a seller and may have to be if DeRozan walks. They at least have to do something with LaVine.

Charlotte might sell on LaMelo, or he may ask out. They also may be involved in facilitating a Bridges move.

Golden State may get out of the tax and decide it's time to get their next generation rolling in earnest and sell Draymond for picks.

Any of those teams may decide not to sell or instead go players for players, but I think any of them could be open to a good deal.

toooskies wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I think if the Spurs thought Garland was their solution at PG, they would try and get him a different way. Might require a 3rd team or maybe its just sending the assets and letting Cleveland convert them to win now.

Insisting that a deal include a player you know they'd rather not trade is forcing something.

But to answer the question. Maybe one protected first? For all the negative narrative making on Vassell in the OP, Garland doesn't have a sterling track record himself. And talk about efficiency, I wouldn't be focusing on that while demanding a premium for Garland.

The major issue with a lot of these "Oh, just find a third team" is that the third team probably doesn't exist.

Teams that want to dump players for picks this offseason

Wizards
Blazers

.... That's pretty much it.

Like, could the Spurs trade picks for Kuzma or Jerami Grant and trade those guys to the Cavs? In theory yes, but Kuzma and Jerami Grant are such a step down compared to Garland that I would be very doubtful.

The cleanest way to trade for a very good player this offseason is with another very good player. Finding a third team is very hard as there's no sellers outside of Portland and Washington. Vassell and Garland are very flawed, but have shown potential to be pretty high level starters at their position. Kuzma and Grant haven't shown that potential and Grant could decline heavily over the next few years.

Atlanta should be a seller. Particularly if their remaining picks from SA can be returned.

Brooklyn could be a seller if they sell Bridges to Houston first.

Utah has the option of selling or buying.

Chicago should be a seller and may have to be if DeRozan walks. They at least have to do something with LaVine.

Charlotte might sell on LaMelo, or he may ask out. They also may be involved in facilitating a Bridges move.

Golden State may get out of the tax and decide it's time to get their next generation rolling in earnest and sell Draymond for picks.

Any of those teams may decide not to sell or instead go players for players, but I think any of them could be open to a good deal.

Utah and Brooklyn could sell if nothing goes right, but that is not their plan currently I would say.

Golden State has one vet with trade value (Curry) and they're not trading him.

The Hornets will get nothing back for LaMelo and thus can't trade him.

Atlanta and Chicago will not sell.

tidho wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:If Garland gets traded, and I still think it's an if, and if he's traded to the Spurs, then this is the only conceivable framework.

Agree. This is the only way I see a SA deal happening, and it would be one protected 1st. Top ten protection maybe.

It's the only two-team construction.

I could see a third team like Atlanta take picks from San Antonio and send player value back. Depending on what happens with Allen/Mobley, we could do something like Garland to SA, pick value to ATL, Murray and a big to CLE.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I think if the Spurs thought Garland was their solution at PG, they would try and get him a different way. Might require a 3rd team or maybe its just sending the assets and letting Cleveland convert them to win now.

Insisting that a deal include a player you know they'd rather not trade is forcing something.

But to answer the question. Maybe one protected first? For all the negative narrative making on Vassell in the OP, Garland doesn't have a sterling track record himself. And talk about efficiency, I wouldn't be focusing on that while demanding a premium for Garland.

The major issue with a lot of these "Oh, just find a third team" is that the third team probably doesn't exist.

Teams that want to dump players for picks this offseason

Wizards
Blazers

.... That's pretty much it.

You are way too quick to say only 2 teams are sellers.

But also you seemed to have not read my post all the way through. Note where I say the Spurs just send the assets to Cleveland as opposed to finding a 3rd team.

toooskies wrote:

tidho wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:If Garland gets traded, and I still think it's an if, and if he's traded to the Spurs, then this is the only conceivable framework.

Agree. This is the only way I see a SA deal happening, and it would be one protected 1st. Top ten protection maybe.

It's the only two-team construction.

I could see a third team like Atlanta take picks from San Antonio and send player value back. Depending on what happens with Allen/Mobley, we could do something like Garland to SA, pick value to ATL, Murray and a big to CLE.

Murray is a much worse fit next to Mitchell than Garland. We'll see what the Cavs do, but I wouldn't trade Garland if the result is downgrading the starting unit while improving the bench.

To Spurs: Garland

To Wizards: LeVert or other Cavs Filler + Spurs Picks to tune of Avdija

To Cavs: Keldon Johnson + Avdija +
Maybe a Spurs 1st if value left over from paying for Avdija

Spurs keep Vassell to pair with Garland.

Wiz get more assets.

Cavs get two wings added to the mix.

I'm not sure about the Spurs' interest in guards who are negative on defense, even if they are super talented, they don't fit me with Pop...
I don't think they want to speed up the rebuilding process either (I understand that Pop is old and VW is great) At least as long as the core cannot win games consistently, especially at the expense of an important member of the future core..
They have 2 high lottery picks and salary space..to advance considerably

Wolveswin wrote:To Spurs: Garland

To Wizards: LeVert or other Cavs Filler + Spurs Picks to tune of Avdija

To Cavs: Keldon Johnson + Avdija +
Maybe a Spurs 1st if value left over from paying for Avdija

Spurs keep Vassell to pair with Garland.

Wiz get more assets.

Cavs get two wings added to the mix.

You trade for Garland to pair him with Wemby. That's the value add here. But really, I see no way for the Spurs to get Garland if they take Vassell off the table. Keldon Johnson isn't an asset and just because it would take a lot to get the Wizards to part with Avdija doesn't mean the other team should pay a lot.

Also, why don't the Wizards try to cut the Spurs out here and take Garland for themselves?

jbk1234 wrote:

Wolveswin wrote:To Spurs: Garland

To Wizards: LeVert or other Cavs Filler + Spurs Picks to tune of Avdija

To Cavs: Keldon Johnson + Avdija +
Maybe a Spurs 1st if value left over from paying for Avdija

Spurs keep Vassell to pair with Garland.

Wiz get more assets.

Cavs get two wings added to the mix.

You trade for Garland to pair him with Wemby. That's the value add here. But really, I see no way for the Spurs to get Garland if they take Vassell off the table. Keldon Johnson isn't an asset and just because it would take a lot to get the Wizards to part with Avdija doesn't mean the other team should pay a lot.

Also, why don't the Wizards try to cut the Spurs out here and take Garland for themselves?

Come on, Wizards are in full tank and zero position to acquire Garland. Lol

Wolveswin wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Wolveswin wrote:To Spurs: Garland

To Wizards: LeVert or other Cavs Filler + Spurs Picks to tune of Avdija

To Cavs: Keldon Johnson + Avdija +
Maybe a Spurs 1st if value left over from paying for Avdija

Spurs keep Vassell to pair with Garland.

Wiz get more assets.

Cavs get two wings added to the mix.

You trade for Garland to pair him with Wemby. That's the value add here. But really, I see no way for the Spurs to get Garland if they take Vassell off the table. Keldon Johnson isn't an asset and just because it would take a lot to get the Wizards to part with Avdija doesn't mean the other team should pay a lot.

Also, why don't the Wizards try to cut the Spurs out here and take Garland for themselves?

Come on, Wizards are in full tank and zero position to acquire Garland. Lol

If Johnson and Avdija can return Garland (they can't), then why not Kuzma (who is better than Johnson) and Avdija?