RealGM

Cavs: Garland, Allen, Niang, Merrill, and the 20th pick
Cavs: Reid, McDaniels, Murphy, Jones, and Nance

Minnesota: Reid and McDaniels
Minnesota: Garland

Pelicans: Jones, Murphy, and Nance
Pelicans: Allen, Niang, Merrill, and 20th pick

Cavs: add more size and jersatility

Minnesota: Get a PG to grow with Ant

Pelicans: get a young rim protecting big to pair with Zion and Ingram

This is very much a CLE dream.

I'd be very surprised if the Pelicans did this. Look at what you're leaving them with.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wolves did this (although I don't think it's legal).

This is awful for New Orleans, bad for Minnesota, and amazing for the Cavs.

MIN is not going to make a deal to add a fourth max deal.

I think it’s unlikely Connelly trades Towns this summer with the team’s current success and likely request for public funding for a new arena, but if they do, part of that component will be driven by ownership demanding a better longterm financial structure. But even that would be to try to stay competitive.

Last year was a good season by MIN’s standards, and they still took in nearly $100 mil less than the average NBA team. Part of this is public wariness in a franchise who has disappointed for years, but that’s getting better. The other major component is having the second oldest arena in the NBA, behind only MSG. A new arena is a chance to print dollar bills, but right now they need to find the dimes to pay lux taxes. It’s possible new owners don’t have the dimes and will be forced to cut payroll, but a few years of lux tax, with a big $300 mil+ expansion check on the way, means to me that cutting payroll is not the wisest path.

This is just brutal for Minnesota and New Orleans.

DowJones wrote:This is awful for New Orleans, bad for Minnesota, and amazing for the Cavs.

This.

Just cut out Wolves.

Garland + Allen + Niang

FOR

Ingram + Herb + Daniels + maybe a 1st

Allen | LNJ
Zion | Niang
Murphy
McCollum | Hawkins
Garland | McCollum

Mobley | Vet
Herb | Wade
Ingram | LeVert
Mitchell | Strus
Daniels | Mitchell

Colbinii wrote:This is just brutal for Minnesota and New Orleans.

Cavs need like 5 first rounders to pull this off...

Wolveswin wrote:Just cut out Wolves.

Garland + Allen + Niang

FOR

Ingram + Herb + Daniels + maybe a 1st

Would be pretty pleased if CLE got this done (if they really felt trading Allen is a must).

tidho wrote:

Wolveswin wrote:Just cut out Wolves.

Garland + Allen + Niang

FOR

Ingram + Herb + Daniels + maybe a 1st

Would be pretty pleased if CLE got this done (if they really felt trading Allen is a must).

This is pretty awful for the Cavs if Ingram leaves in a year. And it's not particularly good if Ingram extends on a max.

toooskies wrote:

tidho wrote:

Wolveswin wrote:Just cut out Wolves.

Garland + Allen + Niang

FOR

Ingram + Herb + Daniels + maybe a 1st

Would be pretty pleased if CLE got this done (if they really felt trading Allen is a must).

This is pretty awful for the Cavs if Ingram leaves in a year. And it's not particularly good if Ingram extends on a max.

People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

jbk1234 wrote:

toooskies wrote:

tidho wrote:Would be pretty pleased if CLE got this done (if they really felt trading Allen is a must).

This is pretty awful for the Cavs if Ingram leaves in a year. And it's not particularly good if Ingram extends on a max.

People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

toooskies wrote:This is pretty awful for the Cavs if Ingram leaves in a year. And it's not particularly good if Ingram extends on a max.

People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Philly's looking for a wing, not a guard. (Although I'm sure I've heard at least one Mitchell rumor w/ Philly, back when it was assumed he wouldn't extend.)

toooskies wrote:

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Philly's looking for a wing, not a guard. (Although I'm sure I've heard at least one Mitchell rumor w/ Philly, back when it was assumed he wouldn't extend.)

As are most teams in the league. That’s the point. Cavs fans don’t like to acknowledge positional value in discussing trades involving their undersized guard and non-spacing center.

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

toooskies wrote:This is pretty awful for the Cavs if Ingram leaves in a year. And it's not particularly good if Ingram extends on a max.

People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Probably because they're going to max Maxey as soon as they use their cap space?

I don't know why you think that's funny.

jbk1234 wrote:

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
People aren't really factoring in the latter. Philly had PJ on a max as plan A and it now appears as though Butler has jumped ahead of Ingram as plan B. Both are good players, but both are also on the back 9 of their careers and injury prone. Yet, Philly would rather pay the two guys who turn 35 next season max money than Ingram.

And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Probably because they're going to max Maxey as soon as they use their cap space?

I don't know why you think that's funny.

Right, because Garland cannot play with Maxey, but Ingram can.

It's funny because you view Philly's interest in Ingram as a Plan C after PG/Butler as a negative indication of his value in a trade proposal involving Garland who is not in the Sixers plans at all because he's undersized and plays a less desirable position.

If it's a bad thing that the extreme win-now Sixers consider Ingram to be behind PG/Butler, then it's an even worse reflection on Garland's value that he is not even being considered. As Brian Windhorst noted to ESPN Cleveland this morning on Garland's value: "The problem is there's not that many teams in the NBA that are really in bad need of a point guard,"

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Euphonetiks wrote:
And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Probably because they're going to max Maxey as soon as they use their cap space?

I don't know why you think that's funny.

Right, because Garland cannot play with Maxey, but Ingram can.

It's funny because you view Philly's interest in Ingram as a Plan C after PG/Butler as a negative indication of his value in a trade proposal involving Garland who is not in the Sixers plans at all because he's undersized and plays a less desirable position.

If it's a bad thing that the extreme win-now Sixers consider Ingram to be behind PG/Butler, then it's an even worse reflection on Garland's value that he is not even being considered. As Brian Windhorst noted to ESPN Cleveland this morning on Garland's value: "The problem is there's not that many teams in the NBA that are really in bad need of a point guard,"

The Sixers don't need two PGs. They already have Maxey. The Sixers do need a wing. It's really not anymore complicated than that.

There don't need to be many teams that are badly in need of a PG. Two or three are fine. The Cavs also don't need to trade Garland this summer. He's under contract for four more years. Garland was +6.3 Mitchell's first year here when he was healthier. If now isn't the right time to trade him, he won't be traded.

Euphonetiks wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

Euphonetiks wrote:
And yet, Philly has Ingram as Plan C while Garland isn’t mentioned as a consideration for them.

Probably because they're going to max Maxey as soon as they use their cap space?

I don't know why you think that's funny.

Right, because Garland cannot play with Maxey, but Ingram can.

It's funny because you view Philly's interest in Ingram as a Plan C after PG/Butler as a negative indication of his value in a trade proposal involving Garland who is not in the Sixers plans at all because he's undersized and plays a less desirable position.

If it's a bad thing that the extreme win-now Sixers consider Ingram to be behind PG/Butler, then it's an even worse reflection on Garland's value that he is not even being considered. As Brian Windhorst noted to ESPN Cleveland this morning on Garland's value: "The problem is there's not that many teams in the NBA that are really in bad need of a point guard,"

Actually I'm not sure Ingram is a good third banana in any offense.