RealGM

The Cavs will looking to shed a little salary this offseason, and do so by moving off one of their starters.

Cavs Out: Garland, Okoro, Porter Jr
Cavs In: Poole, Smart, 18th pick, Richaun Holmes (unguaranteed)

Wiz in: Garland, Okoro, Porter Jr
Wiz Out: Poole, Smart, Holmes, 18th pick

Why for Cavs: Cut about 12 million in salary by downgrading a bit from Garland to Poole and Smart, an expiring defensive guard and a 17-20ppg off ball scorer, while picking up a 1st round pick to take a shot at a prospect like Coward or another player in mid 1st round. Waive Holmes 13 million dollar deal to 250k guaranteed to create the cap savings.

Why for Wiz: Get your PG of the future by giving up Poole, a first, and some future cap space

I would say downgrading from Garland to Poole/Smart is more than "a bit".

Poole doesn't solve any of the issues that Garland presents. I think the impetus of a Garland trade, for Cleveland, is to better build around Mitchell/Mobley, which means bolstering their defense and wing positions.

This trade doesn't solve this and looks more like a Cleveland trade of Garland to trade Garland rather than repurposing the roster.

I can't imagine the cavs would settle for that sort of a package. Lots of non-desirable contracts for at least two pieces I know have value.

Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

Cleveland wouldn’t do this.

Godaddycurse wrote:Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

I mean, Wizards are allowed to take back more salary no? They are not above the tier where they cannot right?

I'm trying to imagine Donovan Mitchell's reaction when the Cavs inform him that Jordan Poole will be his new running mate and I can't stop laughing.

Godaddycurse wrote:Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

Holmes’s value in the trade is that he has a 13/million dollar deal for next season that is only guaranteed for 250k. Okoro can be kept, but the idea was for Washington to take back about the same amount as the Cavs do, but the Cavs waive Holmes, to save 12-13 million for next year.

jbk1234 wrote:I'm trying to imagine Donovan Mitchell's reaction when the Cavs inform him that Jordan Poole will be his new running mate and I can't stop laughing.

no no, the Cavs will be informing Donovan that HE is Poole's new running mate. The Klay to his Curry.

GatherStepGuru wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

Holmes’s value in the trade is that he has a 13/million dollar deal for next season that is only guaranteed for 250k. Okoro can be kept, but the idea was for Washington to take back about the same amount as the Cavs do, but the Cavs waive Holmes, to save 12-13 million for next year.

what in the world are you talking about? deal is already illegal for Cavs if its poole + Smart for Garland + Okoro.

Poole = 31.5M
Smart = 21.5M

Garland = 39.5M
Okoro = 11M

this alone is already illegal since Cavs cant aggregate or take back more than 100% of outgoing salary

Holmes have zero role in OP and doesnt save them any money.

nykballa2k4 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

I mean, Wizards are allowed to take back more salary no? They are not above the tier where they cannot right?

yea but he has wizards sending out more money instead of taking back more money. it makes zero sense

yeah this deal doesn't feel like its really coming from the place the OP claimed. It looks a lot more like what a deal would look like if one talked themselves into Cleveland must dump money how can my team get a really good player while giving up basically nothing.

But I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt and assume he thinks Poole's bounce back season was legit and that teams will suddenly value him highly. I do not share this belief. But even with that, you need to be offering them the salary relief you claim, but you didn't do that either.

Do Poole/#6 for Garland/Okoro(Washington can take him back into an exception) and now Cleveland saves some money and can use #6 to go get a veteran who helps. Or maybe better yet send Smart/Holmes to a 3rd team with #6 for a win now piece to Cleveland with Okoro/Garland still ending up in Washington.

Ways to make this concept work perhaps, but Cleveland isn't going to take on extra salary and get worse on the court for one bad first.

Godaddycurse wrote:

GatherStepGuru wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Trade is closer if its 6th pick instead of 18th if idea is garland for Poole swap.

How did cavs cut salary in OP? Poole and Smart (>52M) makes more than okoro and garland (50.5M). OP makes zero sense financially or value wise for Cavs

Holmes’s value in the trade is that he has a 13/million dollar deal for next season that is only guaranteed for 250k. Okoro can be kept, but the idea was for Washington to take back about the same amount as the Cavs do, but the Cavs waive Holmes, to save 12-13 million for next year.

what in the world are you talking about? deal is already illegal for Cavs if its poole + Smart for Garland + Okoro.

Poole = 31.5M
Smart = 21.5M

Garland = 39.5M
Okoro = 11M

this alone is already illegal since Cavs cant aggregate or take back more than 100% of outgoing salary

Holmes have zero role in OP and doesnt save them any money.

If you have a suggestion on salary matching that makes sense, I’m open to hearing. But as I said, the purpose of the trade was to move pieces with Poole, which include Holmes non guaranteed contract, for Garland, with the purpose of waiving him to get cap/tax relief and a pick. The numbers may be off but that is the general purpose of the trade. The Cavs are pretty top heavy salary wise, so constucting a trade with non-essential role players is tough

GatherStepGuru wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

GatherStepGuru wrote:
Holmes’s value in the trade is that he has a 13/million dollar deal for next season that is only guaranteed for 250k. Okoro can be kept, but the idea was for Washington to take back about the same amount as the Cavs do, but the Cavs waive Holmes, to save 12-13 million for next year.

what in the world are you talking about? deal is already illegal for Cavs if its poole + Smart for Garland + Okoro.

Poole = 31.5M
Smart = 21.5M

Garland = 39.5M
Okoro = 11M

this alone is already illegal since Cavs cant aggregate or take back more than 100% of outgoing salary

Holmes have zero role in OP and doesnt save them any money.

If you have a suggestion on salary matching that makes sense, I’m open to hearing. But as I said, the purpose of the trade was to move pieces with Poole, which include Holmes non guaranteed contract, for Garland, with the purpose of waiving him to get cap/tax relief and a pick. The numbers may be off but that is the general purpose of the trade. The Cavs are pretty top heavy salary wise, so constucting a trade with non-essential role players is tough

Chuck gave an example already. Poole alone for Garland is legal. Cleveland cannot take back Smart. Adding holmes does nothing.

GatherStepGuru wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

GatherStepGuru wrote:
Holmes’s value in the trade is that he has a 13/million dollar deal for next season that is only guaranteed for 250k. Okoro can be kept, but the idea was for Washington to take back about the same amount as the Cavs do, but the Cavs waive Holmes, to save 12-13 million for next year.

what in the world are you talking about? deal is already illegal for Cavs if its poole + Smart for Garland + Okoro.

Poole = 31.5M
Smart = 21.5M

Garland = 39.5M
Okoro = 11M

this alone is already illegal since Cavs cant aggregate or take back more than 100% of outgoing salary

Holmes have zero role in OP and doesnt save them any money.

If you have a suggestion on salary matching that makes sense, I’m open to hearing. But as I said, the purpose of the trade was to move pieces with Poole, which include Holmes non guaranteed contract, for Garland, with the purpose of waiving him to get cap/tax relief and a pick. The numbers may be off but that is the general purpose of the trade. The Cavs are pretty top heavy salary wise, so constucting a trade with non-essential role players is tough

If Holmes is used in salary matching then the portion of his contract that matches gets guaranteed, which means he doesn't save the Cavs any money in that scenario.

More likely that Holmes is waived on the Washington side and Washington takes back more salary than they send.

I do not see a workable deal unless Washington is giving up picks/talent that they shouldn't trade.

Regardless of the legalities of the trade, this is a hard pass for me. Taking on not one, but two bad contracts for Garland, while receiving minimal compensation. This feels like another deal you might see if Garland demanded out, and Cleveland had to scramble to get something in return.

mcfly1204 wrote:Regardless of the legalities of the trade, this is a hard pass for me. Taking on not one, but two bad contracts for Garland, while receiving minimal compensation. This feels like another deal you might see if Garland demanded out, and Cleveland had to scramble to get something in return.

Oddly it does have that Kyrie -4- Thomas feel to it.

Thankfully it can't be done. If we slim it down to just the legal part, Garland @ $39.5M -4- Pool @ $31.5M its pretty tough to put something together that's tolerable for CLE. Would start at Pick #6 rather than #18, and CLE's choice of Carrington or George.

tidho wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:Regardless of the legalities of the trade, this is a hard pass for me. Taking on not one, but two bad contracts for Garland, while receiving minimal compensation. This feels like another deal you might see if Garland demanded out, and Cleveland had to scramble to get something in return.

Oddly it does have that Kyrie -4- Thomas feel to it.

Thankfully it can't be done. If we slim it down to just the legal part, Garland @ $39.5M -4- Pool @ $31.5M its pretty tough to put something together that's tolerable for CLE. Would start at Pick #6 rather than #18, and CLE's choice of Carrington or George.

The odds of Garland getting traded now that he's had that surgery are much lower. As is the case with Suggs, it's really unlikely that a trade partner is waiving the physical requirement given what they'll be asked to give up.

Regardless, the Cavs aren't trading for Poole. They don't share your objective of getting Mitchell to demand a trade.

toooskies wrote:

GatherStepGuru wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
what in the world are you talking about? deal is already illegal for Cavs if its poole + Smart for Garland + Okoro.

Poole = 31.5M
Smart = 21.5M

Garland = 39.5M
Okoro = 11M

this alone is already illegal since Cavs cant aggregate or take back more than 100% of outgoing salary

Holmes have zero role in OP and doesnt save them any money.

If you have a suggestion on salary matching that makes sense, I’m open to hearing. But as I said, the purpose of the trade was to move pieces with Poole, which include Holmes non guaranteed contract, for Garland, with the purpose of waiving him to get cap/tax relief and a pick. The numbers may be off but that is the general purpose of the trade. The Cavs are pretty top heavy salary wise, so constucting a trade with non-essential role players is tough

If Holmes is used in salary matching then the portion of his contract that matches gets guaranteed, which means he doesn't save the Cavs any money in that scenario.

More likely that Holmes is waived on the Washington side and Washington takes back more salary than they send.

I do not see a workable deal unless Washington is giving up picks/talent that they shouldn't trade.

Agreed. Washington would of course be interested in adding Garland if they could do it as cheaply as the OP's proposal, but they shouldn't be giving up serious assets (the kind Cleveland would/should expect) for him at this point in their rebuild.

jbk1234 wrote:

tidho wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:Regardless of the legalities of the trade, this is a hard pass for me. Taking on not one, but two bad contracts for Garland, while receiving minimal compensation. This feels like another deal you might see if Garland demanded out, and Cleveland had to scramble to get something in return.

Oddly it does have that Kyrie -4- Thomas feel to it.

Thankfully it can't be done. If we slim it down to just the legal part, Garland @ $39.5M -4- Pool @ $31.5M its pretty tough to put something together that's tolerable for CLE. Would start at Pick #6 rather than #18, and CLE's choice of Carrington or George.

The odds of Garland getting traded now that he's had that surgery are much lower. As is the case with Suggs, it's really unlikely that a trade partner is waiving the physical requirement given what they'll be asked to give up.

Regardless, the Cavs aren't trading for Poole. They don't share your objective of getting Mitchell to demand a trade.

Ha! No interest in making anyone ask for a trade (no matter what I think of the deal that got them here), that simply lowers their trade value. If i want Mitchell gone I want to do it preemptively - and that is an option because as long as one of the little guys is gone for fair value I'm happy.

Also of note, i said no to the OP deal and don't want to trade for Poole either. For the sake of discussion I offered up what I think is a fairer starting point to a potential Poole discussion. Garland -4- Poole, Pick #6, and Carrington/George. I didn't say I wanted to do that deal either, simply offered it as to where i think the teams would need to be to get something done.