RealGM

Rockets receives Darius Garland, Dean Wade
Cavs receive #3, Brandon Ingram
Pels receive Fred VanVleet

Houston adds a younger, comparable floor leader with more upside and a stretch big.

Cavs add Ingram and a great asset to flip for another upgrade or draft another PG of the future.

Pels swap contracts for a better fit. Rather have control of VV for one or two years than max Ingram. I kind of want to add a pick coming back to NOLA but VV is the more impactful player. He makes them better.

big win, team-wise, for NOLA, but not necessarily unfair value

I'd (maybe) argue that FVV is actually better than Garland today...because he's a much better defender, but youth and contract status favor Garland...point being #3 is a BIG chip to add. CLE needs to be sending pick #20 (and maybe more) back to HOU, imo. CLE doesn't have picks.

Not to get into too deep water, but if trade were to expand to include Jarrett Allen to NOLA. NOLA could add picks and/or players to CLE & HOU. NOLA dream summer.

I like Garland, but not the fit with Green and Sengun. Too limited defensively and not enough size.

So, if I can get Ingram for VanVleet, I just cut the Cavs out of the deal.

VanVleet is really good and helped the Rockets quite a bit, but he doesn't fit the timeline long term. I see Ingram as a good fit with all of the projected long-term starters of the Rockets roster. Thompson-Green-Ingram-Smith-Sengun would be a nice mix of 1on1 skill, playmaking, shooting, defense, etc.

Rockets cut Cavs out and take Ingram. Cavs say yes to this deal if it's available.

I feel like the Rockets have shopped No. 3 pretty hard and are having difficulty turning it into win-now talent so the team trading for that pick should probably be prepared to use it. Maybe they have contingent deals set up in the event a guy is still on the board, but right now, you better know who your target is if that's the major value add you're accepting.

FVV has been living primarily of off his prior reputation for two years nows on defense. Like Murray, he looked significantly better when he was drawing the easier defensive assignment.

What contract is Ingram agreeing to in this scenario?

Long-winded way of saying that I'm good cutting the Cavs out as well.

Houston just takes Ingram here. Even if they just trade Ingram+?? for an Atlanta point guard. But they could just get paid by whoever wants Clingan the most to trade back a few spots (or just stay at 3rd and reach) and draft Reed or Castle and keep Ingram.

This is a lot of value going to Cleveland.

I do like this template with Trae or Murray though.

And think NOP really needs some value here though.

Houston trades the #3 to downgrade from FVV to Garland??

No thanks.

[quote="jayjaysee"]Houston just takes Ingram here. Even if they just trade Ingram+?? for an Atlanta point guard. But they could just get paid by whoever wants Clingan the most to trade back a few spots (or just stay at 3rd and reach) and draft Reed or Castle and keep Ingram.

This is a lot of value going to Cleveland.

I do like this template with Trae or Murray though.

And think NOP really needs some value here though.[/quote]

So,
Atl gets Ingram, ddaniels and/or Hawkins and 3, 21
No gets Vleet and 2026 bkn first
Hou gets Trae

jbk1234 wrote:I feel like the Rockets have shopped No. 3 pretty hard and are having difficulty turning it into win-now talent so the team trading for that pick should probably be prepared to use it. Maybe they have contingent deals set up in the event a guy is still on the board, but right now, you better know who your target is if that's the major value add you're accepting.

FVV has been living primarily of off his prior reputation for two years nows on defense. Like Murray, he looked significantly better when he was drawing the easier defensive assignment.

What contract is Ingram agreeing to in this scenario?

Long-winded way of saying that I'm good cutting the Cavs out as well.

If you won’t accept Ingram and #3 for Garland then there is no reasonable trade for Garland that you will ever accept. This is an overpay for DG even if DG bounces back in 2025 like I expect him to.

Xman wrote:

jayjaysee wrote:Houston just takes Ingram here. Even if they just trade Ingram+?? for an Atlanta point guard. But they could just get paid by whoever wants Clingan the most to trade back a few spots (or just stay at 3rd and reach) and draft Reed or Castle and keep Ingram.

This is a lot of value going to Cleveland.

I do like this template with Trae or Murray though.

And think NOP really needs some value here though.

So,
Atl gets Ingram, ddaniels and/or Hawkins and 3, 21
No gets Vleet and 2026 bkn first
Hou gets Trae

Yeah though I’m sure Houston and Atlanta would both prefer to give NOP a different asset than that?

Okongwu and FVV to NOP
Trae and Nance to Houston
Ingram, Jock, 3rd, 2025 LAL first, 2026 Brooklyn first to Atlanta

Atlanta can draft two of Sarr, Zacc, Clingan, Castle, Reed, while picking up two nice projected future firsts. And a steady wing to help kill the pick debt clock. Keep Capela/Ingram/Bogdan/Murray around Sarr/Jalen/Reed and see what happens for a year or two.

But I seem to be much higher on Ingram than others, or lower on FVV’s actual trade value. I’m not sure.

[quote="jayjaysee"][quote="Xman"][quote="jayjaysee"]Houston just takes Ingram here. Even if they just trade Ingram+?? for an Atlanta point guard. But they could just get paid by whoever wants Clingan the most to trade back a few spots (or just stay at 3rd and reach) and draft Reed or Castle and keep Ingram.

This is a lot of value going to Cleveland.

I do like this template with Trae or Murray though.

And think NOP really needs some value here though.[/quote]

So,
Atl gets Ingram, ddaniels and/or Hawkins and 3, 21
No gets Vleet and 2026 bkn first
Hou gets Trae[/quote]

Yeah though I’m sure Houston and Atlanta would both prefer to give NOP a different asset than that?

Okongwu and FVV to NOP
Trae and Nance to Houston
Ingram, Jock, 3rd, 2025 LAL first, 2026 Brooklyn first to Atlanta

Atlanta can draft two of Sarr, Zacc, Clingan, Castle, Reed, while picking up two nice projected future firsts. And a steady wing to help kill the pick debt clock. Keep Capela/Ingram/Bogdan/Murray around Sarr/Jalen/Reed and see what happens for a year or two.

But I seem to be much higher on Ingram than others, or lower on FVV’s actual trade value. I’m not sure.[/quote]

I like it.

DowJones wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I feel like the Rockets have shopped No. 3 pretty hard and are having difficulty turning it into win-now talent so the team trading for that pick should probably be prepared to use it. Maybe they have contingent deals set up in the event a guy is still on the board, but right now, you better know who your target is if that's the major value add you're accepting.

FVV has been living primarily of off his prior reputation for two years nows on defense. Like Murray, he looked significantly better when he was drawing the easier defensive assignment.

What contract is Ingram agreeing to in this scenario?

Long-winded way of saying that I'm good cutting the Cavs out as well.

If you won’t accept Ingram and #3 for Garland then there is no reasonable trade for Garland that you will ever accept. This is an overpay for DG even if DG bounces back in 2025 like I expect him to.

What are we doing with No. 3 and what are we paying Ingram?

I'd take less *value* in a vacuum provided that the trade doesn't leave us with more issues than just keeping Garland.

Look at the Knicks and O.G. right now. Do you want to leverage yourself into giving Ingram $52 M per because you can't *lose him for nothing* with Mobley coming off his rookie contract? I would not trade Garland for Ingram without an extend-and-trade deal in place.

jbk1234 wrote:

DowJones wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I feel like the Rockets have shopped No. 3 pretty hard and are having difficulty turning it into win-now talent so the team trading for that pick should probably be prepared to use it. Maybe they have contingent deals set up in the event a guy is still on the board, but right now, you better know who your target is if that's the major value add you're accepting.

FVV has been living primarily of off his prior reputation for two years nows on defense. Like Murray, he looked significantly better when he was drawing the easier defensive assignment.

What contract is Ingram agreeing to in this scenario?

Long-winded way of saying that I'm good cutting the Cavs out as well.

If you won’t accept Ingram and #3 for Garland then there is no reasonable trade for Garland that you will ever accept. This is an overpay for DG even if DG bounces back in 2025 like I expect him to.

What are we doing with No. 3 and what are we paying Ingram?

I'd take less *value* in a vacuum provided that the trade doesn't leave us with more issues than just keeping Garland.

Look at the Knicks and O.G. right now. Do you want to leverage yourself into giving Ingram $52 M per because you can't *lose him for nothing* with Mobley coming off his rookie contract? I would not trade Garland for Ingram without an extend-and-trade deal in place.

-We sign Ingram to a 4 year/$200 million extension
-We draft the BPA at #3

Garland is going to be paid $127 million in 25/26, 26/27, and 27/28. Why would I worry that much about paying Ingram $150 million during that stretch instead? $24 or $23 million more over 3 years isn't much and it is offset by the fact that we should be getting a rotation player (at least) on a rookie contract for that duration. I also am not worried about paying a 31 year old Brandon Ingram $50 million in that final year.

You are really overthinking things if you would turn that deal down as a Cavs fan. Either that or you need to just be upfront with the fact that you don't want to trade Garland for anything reasonable. It's ok to say that. Everyone falls in love with their own players.

DowJones wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

DowJones wrote:
If you won’t accept Ingram and #3 for Garland then there is no reasonable trade for Garland that you will ever accept. This is an overpay for DG even if DG bounces back in 2025 like I expect him to.

What are we doing with No. 3 and what are we paying Ingram?

I'd take less *value* in a vacuum provided that the trade doesn't leave us with more issues than just keeping Garland.

Look at the Knicks and O.G. right now. Do you want to leverage yourself into giving Ingram $52 M per because you can't *lose him for nothing* with Mobley coming off his rookie contract? I would not trade Garland for Ingram without an extend-and-trade deal in place.

-We sign Ingram to a 4 year/$200 million extension
-We draft the BPA at #3

Garland is going to be paid $127 million in 25/26, 26/27, and 27/28. Why would I worry that much about paying Ingram $150 million during that stretch instead? $24 or $23 million more over 3 years isn't much and it is offset by the fact that we should be getting a rotation player (at least) on a rookie contract for that duration. I also am not worried about paying a 31 year old Brandon Ingram $50 million in that final year.

You are really overthinking things if you would turn that deal down as a Cavs fan. Either that or you need to just be upfront with the fact that you don't want to trade Garland for anything reasonable. It's ok to say that. Everyone falls in love with their own players.

First off, you can't just proclaim that Ingram will accept that contract and have it be done. Second, the 1st and 2nd aprons have real teeth now. It's no longer a matter of having Gilbert just write checks. There's a substantial difference between two guys making 25% of the cap plus Mitchell and one guy making 25% of the cap and two players making 30% in terms of team building. Let Ingram's agent do his job and figure out his market before volunteering as tribute.

Second, Mitchell hasn't signed anything and won't before the draft. Value filling with a 19-year old prospect who's two years away, assuming said prospect ever gets there, is likely to piss him off. That's not a risk I would take. Even if he extends anyway, you could end up like the Warriors with none of those guys starting during Curry's prime.

Third, if picks are going to value fill, then can we get some future firsts we can use later if the need or opportunity arises? Are we attempting to become the Clippers who keep trading their own future firsts to obtain past-their-prime players who they have to overpay to keep?

Finally, there are reasonable trades I'd make for Garland, but none of them involve draft capital from this draft as the Cavs will be forced to use those picks in a week and they'll be gone. Trading Garland is a franchise altering decision. There should be no rush on the Cavs part. They should allow potential trade partners the opportunity to explore other options and circle back.

One item worth noting, the inclusion of Wade potentially forces Cleveland to overpay Okoro if other teams show interest. If Cleveland were to lose both Wade and Okoro, that leaves LeVert as the best, and essentially only, perimeter defender on the roster.

CLE probably wouldn't get a better offer than this. HOU probably cuts them out of this deal though.

If you cand trade Garland for Ingram and Castle, you say yes.

jbk1234 wrote:

DowJones wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
What are we doing with No. 3 and what are we paying Ingram?

I'd take less *value* in a vacuum provided that the trade doesn't leave us with more issues than just keeping Garland.

Look at the Knicks and O.G. right now. Do you want to leverage yourself into giving Ingram $52 M per because you can't *lose him for nothing* with Mobley coming off his rookie contract? I would not trade Garland for Ingram without an extend-and-trade deal in place.

-We sign Ingram to a 4 year/$200 million extension
-We draft the BPA at #3

Garland is going to be paid $127 million in 25/26, 26/27, and 27/28. Why would I worry that much about paying Ingram $150 million during that stretch instead? $24 or $23 million more over 3 years isn't much and it is offset by the fact that we should be getting a rotation player (at least) on a rookie contract for that duration. I also am not worried about paying a 31 year old Brandon Ingram $50 million in that final year.

You are really overthinking things if you would turn that deal down as a Cavs fan. Either that or you need to just be upfront with the fact that you don't want to trade Garland for anything reasonable. It's ok to say that. Everyone falls in love with their own players.

First off, you can't just proclaim that Ingram will accept that contract and have it be done. Second, the 1st and 2nd aprons have real teeth now. It's no longer a matter of having Gilbert just write checks. There's a substantial difference between two guys making 25% of the cap plus Mitchell and one guy making 25% of the cap and two players making 30% in terms of team building. Let Ingram's agent do his job and figure out his market before volunteering as tribute.

Second, Mitchell hasn't signed anything and won't before the draft. Value filling with a 19-year old prospect who's two years away, assuming said prospect ever gets there, is likely to piss him off. That's not a risk I would take. Even if he extends anyway, you could end up like the Warriors with none of those guys starting during Curry's prime.

Third, if picks are going to value fill, then can we get some future firsts we can use later if the need or opportunity arises? Are we attempting to become the Clippers who keep trading their own future firsts to obtain past-their-prime players who they have to overpay to keep?

Finally, there are reasonable trades I'd make for Garland, but none of them involve draft capital from this draft as the Cavs will be forced to use those picks in a week and they'll be gone. Trading Garland a franchise altering decision. There should be no rush on the Cavs part. They should allow potential trade partners the opportunity to explore other options and circle back.

A few things...

1. Ingram's max extension is 4/$208 million. I suggested 4 years/$200 million. If push comes to shove, I don't let the extra $8 million over 4 years keep me from making this deal.

2. It sounds like you are really hung up on that extra $23 million over 3 years. Again, I would gladly make that swap if it means getting a rotation player at #3 that will be on a rookie contract for the next 4 seasons. $23 million over 3 years isn't something the organization can't work around.

3. I don't think there is much "value fill" between Garland and Ingram and I don't think Mitchell will be ticked off that we swapped Garland for BI. They are similar players. Garland is a few years younger, but BI balances out the roster better. I think you are projecting anger from Mitchell where there isn't.

4. While I would personally rather have pick #3 than a few future first rounders with lower upside, I am not against the organization using that 3rd pick in a trade. I think this is you overthinking things again. The organization can do what they want with the asset once they get it.

5. I would present this deal to Mitchell. If he signs off on it, and commits to signing an extension, I will take him at his word. I wouldn't pass up on a deal this good because I don't trust Donovan to keep his word. I might need him to "leak" the deal publicly like Siakim and the Pacers just did.

6. Maybe there are reasonable Garland deals you would like, I have just seen no evidence of that on this forum. Whenever a Garland deal comes up, you present a list of reasons why Cleveland should say no. Again, that is ok. Fans grow to love their guys. To your credit, you have come out and said you are the biggest Garland supporter on here. I just think Ingram and #3 is too good for the Cavs to pass on.

mcfly1204 wrote:One item worth noting, the inclusion of Wade potentially forces Cleveland to overpay Okoro if other teams show interest. If Cleveland were to lose both Wade and Okoro, that leaves LeVert as the best, and essentially only, perimeter defender on the roster.

I would really try to keep Wade as I doubt any team that gets him would value him the way Cleveland does.

No thanks as a Pels fan.

DowJones wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

DowJones wrote:
-We sign Ingram to a 4 year/$200 million extension
-We draft the BPA at #3

Garland is going to be paid $127 million in 25/26, 26/27, and 27/28. Why would I worry that much about paying Ingram $150 million during that stretch instead? $24 or $23 million more over 3 years isn't much and it is offset by the fact that we should be getting a rotation player (at least) on a rookie contract for that duration. I also am not worried about paying a 31 year old Brandon Ingram $50 million in that final year.

You are really overthinking things if you would turn that deal down as a Cavs fan. Either that or you need to just be upfront with the fact that you don't want to trade Garland for anything reasonable. It's ok to say that. Everyone falls in love with their own players.

First off, you can't just proclaim that Ingram will accept that contract and have it be done. Second, the 1st and 2nd aprons have real teeth now. It's no longer a matter of having Gilbert just write checks. There's a substantial difference between two guys making 25% of the cap plus Mitchell and one guy making 25% of the cap and two players making 30% in terms of team building. Let Ingram's agent do his job and figure out his market before volunteering as tribute.

Second, Mitchell hasn't signed anything and won't before the draft. Value filling with a 19-year old prospect who's two years away, assuming said prospect ever gets there, is likely to piss him off. That's not a risk I would take. Even if he extends anyway, you could end up like the Warriors with none of those guys starting during Curry's prime.

Third, if picks are going to value fill, then can we get some future firsts we can use later if the need or opportunity arises? Are we attempting to become the Clippers who keep trading their own future firsts to obtain past-their-prime players who they have to overpay to keep?

Finally, there are reasonable trades I'd make for Garland, but none of them involve draft capital from this draft as the Cavs will be forced to use those picks in a week and they'll be gone. Trading Garland a franchise altering decision. There should be no rush on the Cavs part. They should allow potential trade partners the opportunity to explore other options and circle back.

A few things...

1. Ingram's max extension is 4/$208 million. I suggested 4 years/$200 million. If push comes to shove, I don't let the extra $8 million over 4 years keep me from making this deal.

2. It sounds like you are really hung up on that extra $23 million over 3 years. Again, I would gladly make that swap if it means getting a rotation player at #3 that will be on a rookie contract for the next 4 seasons. $23 million over 3 years isn't something the organization can't work around.

3. I don't think there is much "value fill" between Garland and Ingram and I don't think Mitchell will be ticked off that we swapped Garland for BI. They are similar players. Garland is a few years younger, but BI balances out the roster better. I think you are projecting anger from Mitchell where there isn't.

4. While I would personally rather have pick #3 than a few future first rounders with lower upside, I am not against the organization using that 3rd pick in a trade. I think this is you overthinking things again. The organization can do what they want with the asset once they get it.

5. I would present this deal to Mitchell. If he signs off on it, and commits to signing an extension, I will take him at his word. I wouldn't pass up on a deal this good because I don't trust Donovan to keep his word. I might need him to "leak" the deal publicly like Siakim and the Pacers just did.

6. Maybe there are reasonable Garland deals you would like, I have just seen no evidence of that on this forum. Whenever a Garland deal comes up, you present a list of reasons why Cleveland should say no. Again, that is ok. Fans grow to love their guys. To your credit, you have come out and said you are the biggest Garland supporter on here. I just think Ingram and #3 is too good for the Cavs to pass on.

As to 1, your math is fuzzy, but that $8-10M per will likely be the difference between the Cavs being an apron team going forward, or not. I'm in no rush to hand out the next Tobias Harris contract when that doesn't seem to be his market. He misses a lot of games due to injuries and Dort just disappeared the guy in the playoffs. There isn't going to be any internal growth. He's played 8 seasons and is going to be 27 before the season starts.

As to 2, name that SF we can plug in as a starter from this draft. Heck, name the SF we're going to draft who will outperform Wade his rookie year. This is not a theoretical exercise. The draft is in a week.

No. 3. See Nos. 1 & 2.

No. 4. See No.2.

No. 5. The rumors are that Mitchell prefers to run it back.

No. 6. I think Garland for Vassell is more than fair for the Spurs and just because they won't make him available now, doesn't mean that will remain the case over the course of the summer or into the season.

I like DFS, or Cam, Schroeder, and the Suns picks over Ingram and 3.

I prefer Ingram on a 25% deal and the Lakers pick for Garland.

I prefer CJ, Herb Jones, and a first for Garland.

I could go on but the bottom line is that there's no reason to rush to sell Garland before this draft for what trade partners want to offer for him. Reasonable, or fair trades, involve teams parting with players or picks they'd rather hold onto.

Let the Hawks move Murray or Trae first. Let the Pelicans see what *good* deals are out there for Ingram and CJ. I'm assuming they get Murphy to extend at the number they want, but maybe they don't. See if the Nets are truly prepared to rebuild without their firsts going forward. Let the Spurs spend the first two months of the season racking up Ls in Wemby's second year.