RealGM

-Cavs get: Devin Vassell, Jabari Smith Jr, Tari Eason and 10th pick
-Spurs get: Donovan Mitchell
-Rockets get: Keldon Johnson and 2nd pick

Why?
-Cavs add size, depth and a draft pick.
-Spurs get a superstar in his prime.
-Rockets get the 2nd pick.

Spurs don't need to shorten their window by 10 years and enter cap hell instantly. Seems like yet another attempt at solving another team's problem at the Spurs' expense.

Man you really want to trade Spida Don't you?

Rockets aren't giving up anything warranting moving up to #2

If Cleveland is wanting good glue guys swap in NOP for SA.

Mitchell to Houston

Herb and Murphy to Cleveland

Houston pick package and Green to NOP.

Horrific for the Spurs.

[quote="LarsV8"]If Cleveland is wanting good glue guys swap in NOP for SA.

Mitchell to Houston

Herb and Murphy to Cleveland

Houston pick package and Green to NOP.[/quote]

That really balances Houston and Cleveland. I like it.

So the counters have Houston not only getting to dump Green, but get Spida on top of it, jus5 ludicrous

There is no reason for the Cavs to remotely entertain trading mitchell in my opinion.

Blame Rasho wrote:There is no reason for the Cavs to remotely entertain trading mitchell in my opinion.

their roster construction is flawed, that's why you entertain it

they have no reason to give him away, but if trading for fair value there are few untouchables in the league and Mitchell certainly isn't one of them

I don’t think the OP has a concept of how good Donovan Mitchell is. You don’t trade a first-team All-NBA player for three players who each have no chance of ever reaching that level of play and only one late-lottery draft pick.

Just way off over and over, OP.

Blame Rasho wrote:There is no reason for the Cavs to remotely entertain trading mitchell in my opinion.

Flawed reasoning still constitutes a reason.

This is really bad for Cleveland

LarsV8 wrote:If Cleveland is wanting good glue guys swap in NOP for SA.

Mitchell to Houston

Herb and Murphy to Cleveland

Houston pick package and Green to NOP.

You don’t trade a 1st team all-NBA guard for a pair of role players. Houston needs to add more and have that go to Cleveland.

I mean, at least start the OP with #2 or Castle to Cleveland. If you trade Mitchell you’re waiting for Mobley to go up a few levels, so you take the premium piece to continue to build around.

tidho wrote:

Blame Rasho wrote:There is no reason for the Cavs to remotely entertain trading mitchell in my opinion.

their roster construction is flawed, that's why you entertain it

they have no reason to give him away, but if trading for fair value there are few untouchables in the league and Mitchell certainly isn't one of them

I don't have the OP anywhere close to fair value for Mitchell. I'm not even sure if it is as much value as Memphis got for Desmond Bane, who is at least a tier below Mitchell.

CLE does have some issues. However, if I am going to address roster flaws, trading away a 1st team all-NBA player in his prime for 4 guys who probably fill the Cavs bench is one of the last ways to address issues.

oldncreaky wrote:

tidho wrote:

Blame Rasho wrote:There is no reason for the Cavs to remotely entertain trading mitchell in my opinion.

their roster construction is flawed, that's why you entertain it

they have no reason to give him away, but if trading for fair value there are few untouchables in the league and Mitchell certainly isn't one of them

I don't have the OP anywhere close to fair value for Mitchell. I'm not even sure if it is as much value as Memphis got for Desmond Bane, who is at least a tier below Mitchell.

CLE does have some issues. However, if I am going to address roster flaws, trading away a 1st team all-NBA player in his prime for 4 guys who probably fill the Cavs bench is one of the last ways to address issues.

Neither the statement i responded to, nor my response was specific to this deal.

As for the OP, I think it's pretty close on Mitchell. Yes he was 1st team nba, but that's because he's the very best version of the least valuable archetype (undersized volume scoring SG) of a player in the NBA. I don't think it's impossible that CLE could make that move and end the offseason as a better team than they are right now.

Cavs legit run on Mitchell. Focus on trading Garland.

tidho wrote:

oldncreaky wrote:

tidho wrote:their roster construction is flawed, that's why you entertain it

they have no reason to give him away, but if trading for fair value there are few untouchables in the league and Mitchell certainly isn't one of them

I don't have the OP anywhere close to fair value for Mitchell. I'm not even sure if it is as much value as Memphis got for Desmond Bane, who is at least a tier below Mitchell.

CLE does have some issues. However, if I am going to address roster flaws, trading away a 1st team all-NBA player in his prime for 4 guys who probably fill the Cavs bench is one of the last ways to address issues.

Neither the statement i responded to, nor my response was specific to this deal.

As for the OP, I think it's pretty close on Mitchell. Yes he was 1st team nba, but that's because he's the very best version of the least valuable archetype (undersized volume scoring SG) of a player in the NBA. I don't think it's impossible that CLE could make that move and end the offseason as a better team than they are right now.

All-NBA voters are under no obligation to select players from bad archetypes. Jokic is also a bad archetype-- C who doesn't really protect the rim. Giannis is a relatively bad archetype of PF who can't shoot 3s.

What separates Mitchell from those volume scoring SGs you find so low in value is that most of them are inefficient and/or can't play defense. This is not true of Mitchell.

bgrep14 wrote:Cavs legit run on Mitchell. Focus on trading Garland.

I still don’t understand why the Cavs have to trade the main reasons why they had such a successful season. Continuity is vastly undervalued.

toooskies wrote:...
What separates Mitchell from those volume scoring SGs you find so low in value is that most of them are inefficient and/or can't play defense. This is not true of Mitchell.

No, what separates him is higher level shot creation. Mitchell isn't overly efficient (for instance Sexton is more efficient, but wouldn't be considered a better scorer than Mitchell). Mitchell is certainly no prize on the defensive end either (hard to believe someone is even making that case if they just watched the finals). He's a volume scorer, arguably the best one in the league.