RealGM

Cavs trade Darius Garland, Jarrett Allen, Bucks 2025 2nd, Nuggets 2027 2nd
Cavs receive Brook Lopez, D'Angelo Russell, Miles Bridges(S&T), Lakers 2029 1st, Lakers 2031 1st, Mavs 2027 1st(top-2)

Cavs get their wing in Miles Bridges and give Mobley a big veteran backup center who can wrestle with Embiid in the playoffs, if need be. I imagine Mobley will also play better with Lopez spacing out than he did with Allen clogging up the paint. They could probably find a way to sign Bridges outright, but including Allen in a S&T allows them to stay below the tax and collect a potentially valuable pick in a draft they don't otherwise pick in. D'lo gives them another ball handling guard that can really fill it up. This goes some of the way to replenishing the picks they gave away to get Mitchell.

Lakers trade Rui Hatchimura, D'Angelo Russell, Lakers 2026 1st swap(receives worse of Bucks/Pels), Lakers 2029 1st, Lakers 2031 1st
Lakers receive Darius Garland

Lakers get their playmaking/scoring guard to pilot them through the remainder of the Lebron and AD years. He's 24, exactly the sort of young star player they can sell in LA as a worthwhile use of Pelinka's treasure chest of picks. Big risk, big reward move. I think the Lakers need to take one more shot at building a winner before tearing it all down if it doesn't work. This is it.

Hornets trade Miles Bridges(S&T), Nick Richards, Mavs 2027 1st(top-2)
Hornets receive Jarrett Allen

Hornets S&T Miles Bridges to the Cavs to end their perpetual search for a center. Mark Williams was very good last year but can he stay healthy? Regardless, running a two-headed PnR game with the Ball boy sounds like a parade of dunks for top flight rim runner, Jarrett Allen. Parting with the Dallas pick is the price.

Bucks trade Brook Lopez
Bucks receive Rui Hachimura, Nick Richards, Lakers 2026 1st swap(receives worse of Pels, better of Lakers), Bucks 2025 2nd, Nuggets 2027 2nd

Bucks move on from their long time center to gain some younger depth. They also get the potentially very valuable swap rights with the Lakers in 2026 and their own 2nd back in 2025. The Bucks desperately need to start thinking about replenishing their spent draft stock and this is a start.

I guess this trade isn't legal because Lakers can't aggregate players as they're over the second apron.

GQ Hot Dog wrote:I guess this trade isn't legal because Lakers can't aggregate players as they're over the second apron.

They aren't over that apron till LeBron signs his contract.

If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

i'd hate to marginalize Mark Williams like this but we'd kind of have to do this on trade value. Miles Bridges probably doesn't have a lot of trade value as a UFA. If Mark proves he can stay healthy, then I'd just look to move Allen for more value in a year or two. Easy solution.

There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

I think that given his large contract Garland is slightly overvalued in this trade.

drchaos wrote:I think that given his large contract Garland is slightly overvalued in this trade.

Sounds like you should be calling the Bulls on LaVine.

jbk1234 wrote:

drchaos wrote:I think that given his large contract Garland is slightly overvalued in this trade.

Sounds like you should be calling the Bulls on LaVine.

He isn't in the trade.

drchaos wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

drchaos wrote:I think that given his large contract Garland is slightly overvalued in this trade.

Sounds like you should be calling the Bulls on LaVine.

He isn't in the trade.

I'm saying if you want to discount value due to the size of the contract, the Bulls are willing, the Cavs are not. The Cavs have been very clear they're not interested in selling low on Garland.

jbk1234 wrote:

drchaos wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Sounds like you should be calling the Bulls on LaVine.

He isn't in the trade.

I'm saying if you want to discount value due to the size of the contract, the Bulls are willing, the Cavs are not. The Cavs have been very clear they're not interested in selling low on Garland.

Garland doesn’t move the needle an inch for the lakers. The playmaking is through Lebron, so Lakers are better off keeping Dlo’s 3 point shooting and their picks.

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

You put a lot of thought into this which I commend, but this just doesn't make Cleveland better. It takes them two steps back.

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

Taking a step backwards with the hope of being able to take a step beyond where you currently are, interesting play...

Iwasawitness wrote:

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

You put a lot of thought into this which I commend, but this just doesn't make Cleveland better. It takes them two steps back.

I think Bridges is a better player for the Cavs than Allen. So that's a step forward.

As for Garland, what player or sort of player would you ideally target to trade him for? I'm honestly asking. Another star guard? One that makes more sense for Mitchell? Maybe a defensive oriented guard that is mostly going to space out looking for catch and shoot opportunities? A shooting/scoring big to pair with Mobley? An athletic wing?

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

They're looking to see how the team plays under Atkinson and go from there. If they can S&T Okoro for DFS, they'll probably do that. If they can attach a bunch of seconds to Niang for a bench player who can stay on the floor in the playoffs, they'll do that. But they didn't extend Mitchell to trade core guys for draft picks and cap space.

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:

GQ Hot Dog wrote:




With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

You put a lot of thought into this which I commend, but this just doesn't make Cleveland better. It takes them two steps back.

I think Bridges is a better player for the Cavs than Allen. So that's a step forward.

As for Garland, what player or sort of player would you ideally target to trade him for? I'm honestly asking. Another star guard? One that makes more sense for Mitchell? Maybe a defensive oriented guard that is mostly going to space out looking for catch and shoot opportunities? A shooting/scoring big to pair with Mobley? An athletic wing?

Bridges is another 6'5" wing. The Cavs have enough of those.

I would not trade Garland now unless I'm putting together himself and Allen together for a better player. Which means I'm unlikely to trade him while his trade value is low.

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:

GQ Hot Dog wrote:




With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

You put a lot of thought into this which I commend, but this just doesn't make Cleveland better. It takes them two steps back.

I think Bridges is a better player for the Cavs than Allen. So that's a step forward.

As for Garland, what player or sort of player would you ideally target to trade him for? I'm honestly asking. Another star guard? One that makes more sense for Mitchell? Maybe a defensive oriented guard that is mostly going to space out looking for catch and shoot opportunities? A shooting/scoring big to pair with Mobley? An athletic wing?

Bridges is not a better player for the Cavs than Allen. Better fit doesn’t mean much when the difference between two players is enormous. Allen is the better player and it’s not close.

I wouldn’t target anyone for Garland at this point. Mikal was the only one I really thought would be a good idea and he’s in NY now. There just aren’t any elite 3/D wings out there available to trade for using Garland.

Cavs wouldn't even trade one of Garland and Allen for the package presented. Lopez is finished at 36, Bridges just signed in Charlotte and isn't a catch and shoot outside player, and Russell is historically a terrible playoff performer and poor defender. Cavs aren't looking for draft picks...so this trade fills NONE of their needs and gives away 2 good players, one of whom is vastly underpaid.

mcfly1204 wrote:

GQ Hot Dog wrote:

toooskies wrote:If I'm the Cavs I'm not interested in going from four potential All-stars to two, here.

DowJones wrote:I don't like this at all for Cleveland. DLO and Brook aren't appealing. The draft capital is nice, but we are a Donovan Mitchell trade request from disaster here.

jbk1234 wrote:There's no chance from the Cavs end. They didn't extend Mitchell to turn around and downgrade multiple starters

With this trade the Cavs would have $63 mil coming off the books after this coming season, unless they trade some of those expiring contracts for an upgrade. That would leave the FO with all sorts of flexibility to change the roster.

One of the reasons I put this forward for the Cavs is that I don't know what direction the team should be going in to take the roster to the next level. Are they looking to add a star guard, wing, or big man to add to Mitchell/Mobley? Who is that player?

With this move, the Cavs add a starting wing and also gain a ton of flexibility going forward to find that last star player: picks they can move, expiring contracts or cap space in a year.

Taking a step backwards with the hope of being able to take a step beyond where you currently are, interesting play...

I wouldn't do this deal, but taking a step back to create a path forward is exactly what the team will eventually need to do. Appears much of the fanbase needs one more early out in the playoffs to be certain.

Need to end the 'four all-stars' talk too. Mobley hasn't earned it (yet?), and Garland will never be an all-star playing with Mitchell...never...ever.