RealGM

I am of the opinion that SA and OKC should do some repositioning using some but not all of their draft capital. Who says no in this deal: https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/8785173

SA - Out - Jones/Johnson/Pick 8/Future first
In - Garland

Gives Wemby a running mate in garland without sacrificing all of their future picks. Retain pick 4

Utah - Out - Laurie
In - Jones/Johnson/3 firsts

3 firsts and a couple young players is nice return for Laurie. They also now have 2 picks in the top 10 this year

Clv - Out - Garland/Allen
In - Laurie/Dort

Shakes things up. Mobley next to Laurie is high potential. Dort is a solid role player next to mitchell

OKC - Out - Dort/Future First
In - Allen

Fortifies their post. Lineup looks that much scarier.

I don't like it for OKC. They have more than enough assets to add a player of Allen's caliber without giving up a core piece,

Seems great for Utah, though the exact picks do matter.

jdzimme3 wrote:I am of the opinion that SA and OKC should do some repositioning using some but not all of their draft capital. Who says no in this deal: https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/8785173

SA - Out - Jones/Johnson/Pick 8/Future first
In - Garland

Gives Wemby a running mate in garland without sacrificing all of their future picks. Retain pick 4

Utah - Out - Laurie
In - Jones/Johnson/3 firsts

3 firsts and a couple young players is nice return for Laurie. They also now have 2 picks in the top 10 this year

Clv - Out - Garland/Allen
In - Laurie/Dort

Shakes things up. Mobley next to Laurie is high potential. Dort is a solid role player next to mitchell

OKC - Out - Dort/Future First
In - Allen

Fortifies their post. Lineup looks that much scarier.

The Cavs definitely say no. They can't give up value for Lauri given they traded him at a much lower value, and the Cavs don't need Dort if they retain Okoro.

toooskies wrote:The Cavs definitely say no. They can't give up value for Lauri given they traded him at a much lower value, a

Well that would be silly. They probably shouldn't have re-signed Lebron once they made the bold and public claim they didn't want anyway and would never have him back.....

Boston shouldn't have Al Horford back right now playing a key role on their championship team. After all they chose Kemba Walker instead....

I'd much rather my team learn and make the best decisions they can moving forward rather than trying to pretend they might have traded a player too low by never acquiring that player again--if it made sense.

If Johnson can be traded for a first in a subsequent trade then, yes, depending on the picks I think it is fine.

Yeah, I don’t do this for Cleveland because Mitchell supposedly loves playing with Allen and I don’t want to risk Lauri’s UFA. But it’s really interesting and sets up a really great starting line up.

I’m just scary.

I’d rather just deal directly with SAS. Draft whichever of Castle/Holland/Dalton is there at 8th and get more value back. Use the extra value (and 20th) to go get win now help and keep 8th developing.

Or just cut out OKC and start Allen/Mobley/Lauri and only have them play together limited minutes.

toooskies wrote:The Cavs definitely say no. They can't give up value for Lauri given they traded him at a much lower value, and the Cavs don't need Dort if they retain Okoro.

I agree on the Dort/Okoro part. Optimally Dort (among others) would be moved elsewhere.

As for reacquiring Lauri, this is just about the worst reason not to do it. Koby won't do it, probably for this reason. It's not a good reason not to though.

jayjaysee wrote:Or just cut out OKC and start Allen/Mobley/Lauri and only have them play together limited minutes.

...and the fact this this pretty much works in this scenario proves there's a valuation problem with the trade.

Allen’s not a starter for OKC. Would rather not trade a starter and picks for a backup center.

The Cavs are not going to take Dort back. If OKC wants Allen, they have cap space, we don't need to match salary. If the Cavs are moving Garland, it would require Wallace as we can't have Mitchell as the only player with a decent handle on the roster.

As far as Garland for Lauri, I think that's tough due to Lauri's contract status and the Cavs cap situation. If we could do what the Pacers did with Turner, I'd be all for it, but we can't and we're just so far away from being able to do so, it's not worth the risk. The only reason for the Jazz, who have plenty of cap space, not to renegotiate Lauri's contract so he's on an extendable deal is Lauri won't do it.

cjmcallist wrote:Allen’s not a starter for OKC. Would rather not trade a starter and picks for a backup center.

Allen's an all star. If OKC doesn't want to trade for a good center, just say so, but don't pretend Allen's a backup because of how OKC wants to play.

jbk1234 wrote:

cjmcallist wrote:Allen’s not a starter for OKC. Would rather not trade a starter and picks for a backup center.

Allen's an all star. If OKC doesn't want to trade for a good center, just say so, but don't pretend Allen's a backup because of how OKC wants to play.

(yeah, I'm thinking I'm back)

Agreed. Allen is good. It's not like you're talking a guy who is a clear-cut non-fit with the starters; it would change the way they play, but they could do it.

I'm not here for the "is Chet a 4/5" discussions, everybody already knows what they think about that and no one's moving. But Allen's not a backup, and if OKC would only play him as one (and I don't think they would), they shouldn't trade for him.

Texas Chuck wrote:

toooskies wrote:The Cavs definitely say no. They can't give up value for Lauri given they traded him at a much lower value, a

Well that would be silly. They probably shouldn't have re-signed Lebron once they made the bold and public claim they didn't want anyway and would never have him back.....

Boston shouldn't have Al Horford back right now playing a key role on their championship team. After all they chose Kemba Walker instead....

I'd much rather my team learn and make the best decisions they can moving forward rather than trying to pretend they might have traded a player too low by never acquiring that player again--if it made sense.

The Cavs changed GMs twice between LeBron leaving and LeBron coming back.

Boston switched from Ainge to Stevens as decision-maker while Horford was gone.

It's not just about learning. It's a tough ask to have an executive own the fact that they made a mistake. Particularly tough when that executive is still sending out draft picks involved in that decision. It's demonstrable evidence that he did a bad job and the first thing that would get brought up when he gets fired.

It's a tough ask to have a player come back to work for the same guy that sent him away. Especially when that player has gotten much better away from the team that traded him. Particularly if that player was expecting a renegotiated contract and instead gets traded. "Yeah, you were going to get a raise but then we made an offer your team couldn't pass up. Sorry we upended your professional life in September 2022, and then traded back for you and cost you millions of dollars. How do you feel about playing some backup 5?"

Markkanen's gone as soon as he can be a free agent. And that's in 2024-25.

I mean, it works in 2k but it doesn't work in real life. You burned a bridge, everyone's better off now, don't revisit it.

One of the things I have loved about Donnie Nelson and now Harrison is that Dallas FO has never been scared to admit they made a mistake and acting quickly to rectify it. I would hate to employ a GM scared to acknowledge they ever got anything wrong and refusing to make smart moves to save face.

This is a fan concern. it should never ever be a team concern.

toooskies wrote:Markkanen's gone as soon as he can be a free agent. And that's in 2024-25. .

Lots of people made this same prediction about Mitchell and the Cavs, but as long as you have your crystal ball out, please PM the winning numbers for the powerball. Thanks

jbk1234 wrote: The only reason for the Jazz, who have plenty of cap space, not to renegotiate Lauri's contract so he's on an extendable deal is Lauri won't do it.

Cappy_Smurf wrote:

toooskies wrote:Markkanen's gone as soon as he can be a free agent. And that's in 2024-25. .

Lots of people made this same prediction about Mitchell and the Cavs, but as long as you have your crystal ball out, please PM the winning numbers for the powerball. Thanks

jbk1234 wrote: The only reason for the Jazz, who have plenty of cap space, not to renegotiate Lauri's contract so he's on an extendable deal is Lauri won't do it.

I did not say Lauri would leave Utah. I said if he got traded to Cleveland this offseason as in the OP, he would definitely leave Cleveland because of history (and because the trade would prevent the renegotiation).

I assume Lauri is plenty happy in Utah as long as they keep him and pay him.

Andre Roberstan wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

cjmcallist wrote:Allen’s not a starter for OKC. Would rather not trade a starter and picks for a backup center.

Allen's an all star. If OKC doesn't want to trade for a good center, just say so, but don't pretend Allen's a backup because of how OKC wants to play.

(yeah, I'm thinking I'm back)

Agreed. Allen is good. It's not like you're talking a guy who is a clear-cut non-fit with the starters; it would change the way they play, but they could do it.

I'm not here for the "is Chet a 4/5" discussions, everybody already knows what they think about that and no one's moving. But Allen's not a backup, and if OKC would only play him as one (and I don't think they would), they shouldn't trade for him.

This is what I meant.

Not intending to say Allen is a “backup quality player”. Was intending to say “Chet is our starting center so we shouldn’t trade for Allen”.