RealGM

Denver out: MPJ
Denver in: KCP, Niang, 2025 DEN 1st

Orlando out: KCP, Black, 2025 DEN 1st
Orlando in: Garland

Cleveland out: Garland, Niang
Cleveland in: MPJ, Black

Why for Denver: breakdown MPJ into smaller salaries (whom can still shoot the 3 well) and get back a pick. Have a bunch of young players who can play the 3.
Why for Orlando: consolidate for a star PG
Why for Cleveland: add an elite spacing SF and a future backcourt partner to Mitchell

Jokic
Gordon
Braun
KCP
Murray

WCJ
Banchero
Wagner
Suggs
Garland

Allen
Mobley
MPJ
Strus
Mitchell

Was debating if the 2025 1st should go to cleveland instead... depends how high or lowly you think of MPJ i guess?

I just don't think the Cavs feel like they need to move Garland. Garland has said publicly that he doesn't want be traded and the Cavs core four believe in this team. If they were going to panic after an injury-plagued season, it would've happened this summer before JBB got canned and Atkinson got hired. Also, there's the whole do they really want to fix the Magic question.

Cleveland would probably just cut Denver out of the deal. Either way, I don't see it for Cleveland. Why trade Garland leaving Mitchell as just about the only guy on the roster who can create off the dribble?

Godaddycurse wrote:Denver out: MPJ
Denver in: KCP, Niang, 2025 DEN 1st

Orlando out: KCP, Black, 2025 DEN 1st
Orlando in: Garland

Cleveland out: Garland, Niang
Cleveland in: MPJ, Black

Why for Denver: breakdown MPJ into smaller salaries (whom can still shoot the 3 well) and get back a pick. Have a bunch of young players who can play the 3.
Why for Orlando: consolidate for a star PG
Why for Cleveland: add an elite spacing SF and a future backcourt partner to Mitchell

Jokic
Gordon
Braun
KCP
Murray

WCJ
Banchero
Wagner
Suggs
Garland

Allen
Mobley
MPJ
Strus
Mitchell

Was debating if the 2025 1st should go to cleveland instead... depends how high or lowly you think of MPJ i guess?

how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

tiderulz wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Denver out: MPJ
Denver in: KCP, Niang, 2025 DEN 1st

Orlando out: KCP, Black, 2025 DEN 1st
Orlando in: Garland

Cleveland out: Garland, Niang
Cleveland in: MPJ, Black

Why for Denver: breakdown MPJ into smaller salaries (whom can still shoot the 3 well) and get back a pick. Have a bunch of young players who can play the 3.
Why for Orlando: consolidate for a star PG
Why for Cleveland: add an elite spacing SF and a future backcourt partner to Mitchell

Jokic
Gordon
Braun
KCP
Murray

WCJ
Banchero
Wagner
Suggs
Garland

Allen
Mobley
MPJ
Strus
Mitchell

Was debating if the 2025 1st should go to cleveland instead... depends how high or lowly you think of MPJ i guess?

how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

Orlando is KCP's 5th team? He gets paid either way (which is why he left Denver). I don't see this trade happening anyway, but that really shouldn't be a major concern.

jbk1234 wrote:

tiderulz wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Denver out: MPJ
Denver in: KCP, Niang, 2025 DEN 1st

Orlando out: KCP, Black, 2025 DEN 1st
Orlando in: Garland

Cleveland out: Garland, Niang
Cleveland in: MPJ, Black

Why for Denver: breakdown MPJ into smaller salaries (whom can still shoot the 3 well) and get back a pick. Have a bunch of young players who can play the 3.
Why for Orlando: consolidate for a star PG
Why for Cleveland: add an elite spacing SF and a future backcourt partner to Mitchell

Jokic
Gordon
Braun
KCP
Murray

WCJ
Banchero
Wagner
Suggs
Garland

Allen
Mobley
MPJ
Strus
Mitchell

Was debating if the 2025 1st should go to cleveland instead... depends how high or lowly you think of MPJ i guess?

how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

Orlando is KCP's 5th team? He gets paid either way (which is why he left Denver). I don't see this trade happening anyway, but that really shouldn't be a major concern.

how do future free agents consider you when you sign a player then trade them away? a player signs with a team when they want to play there, not then be moved somewhere else. I can see it be a future concern.

jbk1234 wrote:

tiderulz wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Denver out: MPJ
Denver in: KCP, Niang, 2025 DEN 1st

Orlando out: KCP, Black, 2025 DEN 1st
Orlando in: Garland

Cleveland out: Garland, Niang
Cleveland in: MPJ, Black

Why for Denver: breakdown MPJ into smaller salaries (whom can still shoot the 3 well) and get back a pick. Have a bunch of young players who can play the 3.
Why for Orlando: consolidate for a star PG
Why for Cleveland: add an elite spacing SF and a future backcourt partner to Mitchell

Jokic
Gordon
Braun
KCP
Murray

WCJ
Banchero
Wagner
Suggs
Garland

Allen
Mobley
MPJ
Strus
Mitchell

Was debating if the 2025 1st should go to cleveland instead... depends how high or lowly you think of MPJ i guess?

how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

Orlando is KCP's 5th team? He gets paid either way (which is why he left Denver). I don't see this trade happening anyway, but that really shouldn't be a major concern.

If they improve their team, I think they'd be looked at in a positive light. If they made a lateral move involving KCP, maybe not so much.

tiderulz wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

tiderulz wrote:how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

Orlando is KCP's 5th team? He gets paid either way (which is why he left Denver). I don't see this trade happening anyway, but that really shouldn't be a major concern.

how do future free agents consider you when you sign a player then trade them away? a player signs with a team when they want to play there, not then be moved somewhere else. I can see it be a future concern.

I mean it would be a concern if KCP signed with Orlando solely because he wanted to be part of that organization for 4 years, but if Denver could've afforded him, I don't think he ever leaves. The contract he signed has a P.O. in the 3rd year. Now if he's shipped off to the Pistons or Wizards he'll be unhappy, but that's not the case here.

Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

Orlando really cares about optics, continuity and relationships so it’s fun to imagine but this isn’t really realistic.

I hate to admit this, but the more likely scenario (I’m talking less than 10%) is Orlando’s FO can’t agree on terms with Suggs representation and they become sour and we look to move him to the highest bidder. Very very unlikely, but there is a storyline there.

I also see a world where Orlando targets a point guard and KCP happily accepting a bench role.

A nice try though; value and fit are interesting and could be excellent moves for all 3 teams but as the team fans say, the optics are bad for the front offices and no one needs to move. Yet.

tiderulz wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

tiderulz wrote:how is Orlando looked at, trading away KCP after just signing him?

Orlando is KCP's 5th team? He gets paid either way (which is why he left Denver). I don't see this trade happening anyway, but that really shouldn't be a major concern.

how do future free agents consider you when you sign a player then trade them away? a player signs with a team when they want to play there, not then be moved somewhere else. I can see it be a future concern.

That's definitely a dynamic to consider but I don't think it would be much of a factor here. Not trying to imply KCP didn't "want" to go to ORL, but this really seemed more of a highest bidder case than he specifically wanted ORL. It'd be different if it was a player who took less to go to ORL. By all accounts, KCP was in talks to return to DEN and then left when they couldn't match the number. I don't think it'd be viewed negatively if ORL traded him away, especially back to DEN. Maybe if they salary dumped him at the deadline to Washington or somewhere like that it'd be a concern, but this trade seems kosher on that front.

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't think the Cavs feel like they need to move Garland. Garland has said publicly that he doesn't want be traded and the Cavs core four believe in this team. If they were going to panic after an injury-plagued season, it would've happened this summer before JBB got canned and Atkinson got hired. Also, there's the whole do they really want to fix the Magic question.

FWIW, this trade wouldn't happen until December at the earliest. So whatever the vibes are now, it's not out of the question that things shift this year. It's not a completely crazy scenario to think that the core four proves to need a shakeup by the deadline this year, even though all intentions are now to work with it.

hugepatsfan wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I just don't think the Cavs feel like they need to move Garland. Garland has said publicly that he doesn't want be traded and the Cavs core four believe in this team. If they were going to panic after an injury-plagued season, it would've happened this summer before JBB got canned and Atkinson got hired. Also, there's the whole do they really want to fix the Magic question.

FWIW, this trade wouldn't happen until December at the earliest. So whatever the vibes are now, it's not out of the question that things shift this year. It's not a completely crazy scenario to think that the core four proves to need a shakeup by the deadline this year, even though all intentions are now to work with it.

It's not, but the parts are interconnected more than people realize. My opinion is that you have to move one of Allen or Mobley (it will be Allen) if you trade Garland. The Mitchell/Garland backcourt makes the Allen/Mobley frontcourt plausible and the same is true in reverse. I really think they want to see what the team looks like relatively healthy in the playoffs and under a better coach. I can't say that I blame them.

There's definitely a lot of basketball left play before the deadline, and I wouldn't rule out anything, but I'm really skeptical that the Cavs would be inclined to fill the Magic's biggest need after a 7 game series in the first round.

jbk1234 wrote:
Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

nomansland wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

The team executives dislike the apron rules because it creates more work and difficulties for them, but they don't make the decisions. All the cap rules exist to protect the owners' bottom line (with the assumptions of parity being good for revenue and owners happy to pay for trophies being a minority). The rules will certainly be re-adjusted in the next version of the CBA, but I don't believe it will make high payrolls easier to handle. The direction of change has been consistently towards more restrictive rules.

BigJimFinn wrote:

nomansland wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

The team executives dislike the apron rules because it creates more work and difficulties for them, but they don't make the decisions. All the cap rules exist to protect the owners' bottom line (with the assumptions of parity being good for revenue and owners happy to pay for trophies being a minority). The rules will certainly be re-adjusted in the next version of the CBA, but I don't believe it will make high payrolls easier to handle. The direction of change has been consistently towards more restrictive rules.

The GM's are an extension of the owners though. I have no doubt they're on the same page.

nomansland wrote:

BigJimFinn wrote:

nomansland wrote:
That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

The team executives dislike the apron rules because it creates more work and difficulties for them, but they don't make the decisions. All the cap rules exist to protect the owners' bottom line (with the assumptions of parity being good for revenue and owners happy to pay for trophies being a minority). The rules will certainly be re-adjusted in the next version of the CBA, but I don't believe it will make high payrolls easier to handle. The direction of change has been consistently towards more restrictive rules.

The GM's are an extension of the owners though. I have no doubt they're on the same page.

Replace owners with majority of owners. All 30 owners aren't on the same page. The majority of owners didn't want to compete with a handful of owners who were making a mockery of the CBA on an annual basis.

Even the survey didn't indicate a majority of GMs thought the aprons were the biggest issue. If you're a GM who works for an uber wealthy owner, for whom money is no object, sure get rid of the aprons altogether. Get rid of the luxury tax while you're at it. It gives you a competitive advantage.

nomansland wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

I dont think anybody was offering them cap relief + a 1st for MPJ

Godaddycurse wrote:

nomansland wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
Having said all of that, I suspect that if the Nuggets wanted to give away MPJ so they could pay KCP, that's what they would've done.

That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

I dont think anybody was offering them cap relief + a 1st for MPJ

I'm talking about just dumping his contract. If they really wanted out of it that badly they could have found a way. They seem to be committed to him though.

nomansland wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

nomansland wrote:
That's exactly right. They had to pick who to keep and they went with MPJ and Gordon. It's too bad, but that's how the league is going to work for a few years until they change the rules again. Which they will. On the GM survey people were already complaining about it.

I dont think anybody was offering them cap relief + a 1st for MPJ

I'm talking about just dumping his contract. If they really wanted out of it that badly they could have found a way. They seem to be committed to him though.

Who would have taken his deal though?

Don't think even Bulls would swap LaVine straight up for MPJ.