Around The NBA

[JujitsuFlip]

Jazz still can't lose! Lauri 31 and 12 tn.

Lauri show don't stop!

[mcfly1204]

Jazz still can't lose! Lauri 31 and 12 tn.

Lauri show don't stop!

I am glad to see Lauri have early success. On a snarky note, it would be funny if Ainge ends up with zero lottery picks next year...

[ijspeelman]

Agbaji seems to be getting more minutes on the Jazz the last two games. Haven't watched either game, but watched Agbaji's attempts and he seems to be doing everything off-ball and in transition. No three pointers made yet on his 5 attempts, but the attempts themselves are good looks where he is either taking it as a stand-still C&S or a movement three off an off-ball screen.

[JujitsuFlip]

Agbaji seems to be getting more minutes on the Jazz the last two games. Haven't watched either game, but watched Agbaji's attempts and he seems to be doing everything off-ball and in transition. No three pointers made yet on his 5 attempts, but the attempts themselves are good looks where he is either taking it as a stand-still C&S or a movement three off an off-ball screen.

31 and 11 by Lauri tonight

[jbk1234]

Agbaji seems to be getting more minutes on the Jazz the last two games. Haven't watched either game, but watched Agbaji's attempts and he seems to be doing everything off-ball and in transition. No three pointers made yet on his 5 attempts, but the attempts themselves are good looks where he is either taking it as a stand-still C&S or a movement three off an off-ball screen.

31 and 11 by Lauri tonight

Chances are that I'm gonna *stay mad* about his inclusion in that trade.

[ijspeelman]

Agbaji seems to be getting more minutes on the Jazz the last two games. Haven't watched either game, but watched Agbaji's attempts and he seems to be doing everything off-ball and in transition. No three pointers made yet on his 5 attempts, but the attempts themselves are good looks where he is either taking it as a stand-still C&S or a movement three off an off-ball screen.

31 and 11 by Lauri tonight

Chances are that I'm gonna *stay mad* about his inclusion in that trade.

If it helps, just remember he would not be getting the same chances here. Though, I will never blame you for being mad about it.

I will say if the trade was Lauri or no trade, it looks like we made the right decision so far even if Lauri is balling out.

[JonFromVA]

Agbaji seems to be getting more minutes on the Jazz the last two games. Haven't watched either game, but watched Agbaji's attempts and he seems to be doing everything off-ball and in transition. No three pointers made yet on his 5 attempts, but the attempts themselves are good looks where he is either taking it as a stand-still C&S or a movement three off an off-ball screen.

31 and 11 by Lauri tonight

Chances are that I'm gonna *stay mad* about his inclusion in that trade.

Or you could be mad that Lauri wasn't seen as much more than salary filler on a movable contract in the trade to most people?

Maybe one of these years the Cavs will figure out how to sell high on a player, but opportunity knocked, Altman-Gansey got it done, and we're 4-1 rather than 0-5 right now thanks to it while the Knicks wait for the next star to hit the open market and will have their fingers crossed that all the various teams with more/better picks and better players don't jump in on the bidding this time.

[JujitsuFlip]

31 and 11 by Lauri tonight

Chances are that I'm gonna *stay mad* about his inclusion in that trade.

If it helps, just remember he would not be getting the same chances here. Though, I will never blame you for being mad about it.

I will say if the trade was Lauri or no trade, it looks like we made the right decision so far even if Lauri is balling out.

I mean there's a lot to go into a trade where 1 team gives up essentially 6 first rounders. The true value of the trade can't be judged for many many many years.

If the Cavs can go deep in the playoffs it probably ends up being worth it.

[JonFromVA]

Chances are that I'm gonna *stay mad* about his inclusion in that trade.

If it helps, just remember he would not be getting the same chances here. Though, I will never blame you for being mad about it.

I will say if the trade was Lauri or no trade, it looks like we made the right decision so far even if Lauri is balling out.

I mean there's a lot to go into a trade where 1 team gives up essentially 6 first rounders. The true value of the trade can't be judged for many many many years.

If the Cavs can go deep in the playoffs it probably ends up being worth it.

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

[gflem]

If it helps, just remember he would not be getting the same chances here. Though, I will never blame you for being mad about it.

I will say if the trade was Lauri or no trade, it looks like we made the right decision so far even if Lauri is balling out.

I mean there's a lot to go into a trade where 1 team gives up essentially 6 first rounders. The true value of the trade can't be judged for many many many years.

If the Cavs can go deep in the playoffs it probably ends up being worth it.

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

[JonFromVA]

I mean there's a lot to go into a trade where 1 team gives up essentially 6 first rounders. The true value of the trade can't be judged for many many many years.

If the Cavs can go deep in the playoffs it probably ends up being worth it.

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

Feel free to grave dig anything I wrote, I'm pretty confident in my cautiously optimistic approach.

[JujitsuFlip]

I mean there's a lot to go into a trade where 1 team gives up essentially 6 first rounders. The true value of the trade can't be judged for many many many years.

If the Cavs can go deep in the playoffs it probably ends up being worth it.

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

I don't think anyone should look at it as Sexton vs Mitchell or Lauri vs Mitchell. It's the entire package vs Mitchell, not one piece. The only guarantee is Mitchell is on the Cavs for 3 seasons, what he accomplishes in his tenure (however many seasons it ends up being) will be compared to what Lauri and Sexton become AND what the Cavs 2022 first round draft rights (Agbaji) becomes, what the Cavs 2025, 2027, and 2029 first round draft picks become, as well as if they convey the Cavs 2026 and 2028 first round draft picks become.

[JonFromVA]

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

I don't think anyone should look at it as Sexton vs Mitchell or Lauri vs Mitchell. It's the entire package vs Mitchell, not one piece. The only guarantee is Mitchell is on the Cavs for 3 seasons, what he accomplishes in his tenure (however many seasons it ends up being) will be compared to what Lauri and Sexton become AND what the Cavs 2022 first round draft rights (Agbaji) becomes, what the Cavs 2025, 2027, and 2029 first round draft picks become, as well as if they convey the Cavs 2026 and 2028 first round draft picks become.

Keep in mind one thing the Mitchell trade did was give us closure to the Sexton contract negotiations and consolidate contracts.

Lauri is playing great, but there's still a fair chance we get what we wanted out of him from Dean at a much lower number.

Bleeding contracts is pretty common if a rebuild goes on long enough, just can't pay everybody what they want and if we were planning to take a stab at 2023 free-agency if we didn't trade for Mitchell we'd have to clear out a number of them to get significant space.

In other words we can't be sure what our alternate future if we didn't trade for Mitchell would have been. It's probably not the 3 guys and 7 picks.

[JujitsuFlip]

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

I don't think anyone should look at it as Sexton vs Mitchell or Lauri vs Mitchell. It's the entire package vs Mitchell, not one piece. The only guarantee is Mitchell is on the Cavs for 3 seasons, what he accomplishes in his tenure (however many seasons it ends up being) will be compared to what Lauri and Sexton become AND what the Cavs 2022 first round draft rights (Agbaji) becomes, what the Cavs 2025, 2027, and 2029 first round draft picks become, as well as if they convey the Cavs 2026 and 2028 first round draft picks become.

Keep in mind one thing the Mitchell trade did was give us closure to the Sexton contract negotiations and consolidate contracts.

Lauri is playing great, but there's still a fair chance we get what we wanted out of him from Dean at a much lower number.

Bleeding contracts is pretty common if a rebuild goes on long enough, just can't pay everybody what they want and if we were planning to take a stab at 2023 free-agency if we didn't trade for Mitchell we'd have to clear out a number of them to get significant space.

In other words we can't be sure what our alternate future if we didn't trade for Mitchell would have been. It's probably not the 3 guys and 7 picks.

Yeah, probably not but the alternate reality talking point is rather moot in terms of judging the trade. All the assets mentioned are the reality of the package that was surrendered for Mitchell.

If Mitchell is here 10 to 12 seasons, whatever the Cavs accomplish, he's apart of and will be judged. If he leaves after year 3 and the Cavs suck for 4 or 5 years in a row, which they've did in the past, then the Jazz end up with 5 top 5 draft picks via the Cavs, that will be judged too.

[gflem]

Time will tell who was right or wrong in their judgement ... but judgement itself needs to happen in the moment. Those are the rules GM's are stuck with, after all.

Personally, I had high hopes for the team before the trade, but the trade was about establishing a core 4 that will grow together and become a true contender if/when everything falls in to place. To some that means Mobley has to ascend and we need to acquire a viable SF, but IMO, I think we just need good health and some things to break our way for a change.

And if anything I feel even better about that after seeing we can still win games without DG. I had hopes Collin would improve, but that didn't include any expectation he could take over at PG and keep the team rolling.

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

Feel free to grave dig anything I wrote, I'm pretty confident in my cautiously optimistic approach.

I wasn't specifically speaking to how you felt, just that the Lauri deal wasn't some slam dunk positive move in everyone's opinion. It turned out that he played better than expected, and like JBK I wasn't happy to hear he was included the deal but the early results of Mitchell being here are beyond what I expected. And, like you wrote clearing up the Sexton contract issue was a positive as well.

[JonFromVA]

I think we all know that Mitchell is a better player than Colin, but he is playing so far above what Colin's ceiling is as a playmaker, defender, rebounder, and scorer that the trade isn't close imo.
I remember that not many people were high on Lauri at the time we S&T'd for him, and possibly the Cavs were looking at him as more of a trade piece/salary match than as a core piece anyway, so it obviously wasn't a sticking point to include him in the trade. And fwiw, Levert has looked like a decent SF up to this point including his defense and creating for others. I guess we will see when we play the Nets, Lakers, and other teams with high end SF's how he looks on D, but so far so good. I can't wait for Darius and RR to get back to see how the team can play with all of our back court weapons.

Feel free to grave dig anything I wrote, I'm pretty confident in my cautiously optimistic approach.

I wasn't specifically speaking to how you felt, just that the Lauri deal wasn't some slam dunk positive move in everyone's opinion. It turned out that he played better than expected, and like JBK I wasn't happy to hear he was included the deal but the early results of Mitchell being here are beyond what I expected. And, like you wrote clearing up the Sexton contract issue was a positive as well.

No deal is, and in Lauri's case we didn't know that Larry Nance Jr had asked the team to trade him to a contender if they could.

I've been a big proponent of spacing and shooting, so I certainly saw a role for Lauri even if it was a smaller role replacing Nance rather than as our starting SF.

Anyway, at this point all those future picks and swaps we gave up are a sunk cost - it no longer matters to the Cavs what happens to them. What matters is what they do with the talent they have and their ability to continue to add/build around it without those picks.

They admittedly went "all in" ahead of schedule, but the opportunity to resolve the Sexton situation encouraged that as did the Mitchell situation itself. And while personally I like the idea of adding young players to a contender and constant development, fact is through all our years of contention with LeBron we've gotten next to nothing out of the first round of the draft. Either the players didn't amount to much or we traded them looking for immediate help.

So, what we need to come to terms with is whether the "all in" move and all the risks associated with it were worth it?

To me, the chance to lock in a "big 4" when most teams struggle to sustain a "big 3" is a huge opportunity granted us by how young our team is, the salary structure, the expected rising cap, and Dan's money. It may not work out for various reasons, but it sure doesn't look like it will be due attitude/chemistry. Fit is super important, but if somehow Mitchell doesn't work with Garland ... well ... his trade value likely just went up.

I will say, some of my optimism is because I've read some rumors/opinions about Mitchell that put his struggles in Utah in a different light. Maybe I'm a bit ahead of the curve in understanding the many criticism's leveled his way? By all means for you guys on the fence take some more time to understand what we gave up so much to get and come to your own conclusions and please try to stick with them. The Cavs FO has a lot more information than we do, but we can close that gap, and then we should be able to judge.

Not wait to see where things are down the line when for all we know both the Cavs and Jazz have turned over their roster and those picks could be on their way to some other team.

[toooskies]

Feel free to grave dig anything I wrote, I'm pretty confident in my cautiously optimistic approach.

I wasn't specifically speaking to how you felt, just that the Lauri deal wasn't some slam dunk positive move in everyone's opinion. It turned out that he played better than expected, and like JBK I wasn't happy to hear he was included the deal but the early results of Mitchell being here are beyond what I expected. And, like you wrote clearing up the Sexton contract issue was a positive as well.

No deal is, and in Lauri's case we didn't know that Larry Nance Jr had asked the team to trade him to a contender if they could.

I've been a big proponent of spacing and shooting, so I certainly saw a role for Lauri even if it was a smaller role replacing Nance rather than as our starting SF.

Anyway, at this point all those future picks and swaps we gave up are a sunk cost - it no longer matters to the Cavs what happens to them. What matters is what they do with the talent they have and their ability to continue to add/build around it without those picks.

They admittedly went "all in" ahead of schedule, but the opportunity to resolve the Sexton situation encouraged that as did the Mitchell situation itself. And while personally I like the idea of adding young players to a contender and constant development, fact is through all our years of contention with LeBron we've gotten next to nothing out of the first round of the draft. Either the players didn't amount to much or we traded them looking for immediate help.

So, what we need to come to terms with is whether the "all in" move and all the risks associated with it were worth it?

To me, the chance to lock in a "big 4" when most teams struggle to sustain a "big 3" is a huge opportunity granted us by how young our team is, the salary structure, the expected rising cap, and Dan's money. It may not work out for various reasons, but it sure doesn't look like it will be due attitude/chemistry. Fit is super important, but if somehow Mitchell doesn't work with Garland ... well ... his trade value likely just went up.

I will say, some of my optimism is because I've read some rumors/opinions about Mitchell that put his struggles in Utah in a different light. Maybe I'm a bit ahead of the curve in understanding the many criticism's leveled his way? By all means for you guys on the fence take some more time to understand what we gave up so much to get and come to your own conclusions and please try to stick with them. The Cavs FO has a lot more information than we do, but we can close that gap, and then we should be able to judge.

Not wait to see where things are down the line when for all we know both the Cavs and Jazz have turned over their roster and those picks could be on their way to some other team.

Any talk of Markkanen exceeding expectations in Utah isn't really fair without noting that Mitchell has also exceeded expectations. Mitchell's increase in WS/48 is nearly twice as large as Markkanen's, year-over-year. And the jump from all-star to all-NBA or MVP candidate is a bigger jump (and more valuable) than that from starter to borderline all-star.

We didn't trade for a fourth star. We traded for a guy who has come in as the team's best player and might be graduating to the superstar tier.

[JonFromVA]

I wasn't specifically speaking to how you felt, just that the Lauri deal wasn't some slam dunk positive move in everyone's opinion. It turned out that he played better than expected, and like JBK I wasn't happy to hear he was included the deal but the early results of Mitchell being here are beyond what I expected. And, like you wrote clearing up the Sexton contract issue was a positive as well.

No deal is, and in Lauri's case we didn't know that Larry Nance Jr had asked the team to trade him to a contender if they could.

I've been a big proponent of spacing and shooting, so I certainly saw a role for Lauri even if it was a smaller role replacing Nance rather than as our starting SF.

Anyway, at this point all those future picks and swaps we gave up are a sunk cost - it no longer matters to the Cavs what happens to them. What matters is what they do with the talent they have and their ability to continue to add/build around it without those picks.

They admittedly went "all in" ahead of schedule, but the opportunity to resolve the Sexton situation encouraged that as did the Mitchell situation itself. And while personally I like the idea of adding young players to a contender and constant development, fact is through all our years of contention with LeBron we've gotten next to nothing out of the first round of the draft. Either the players didn't amount to much or we traded them looking for immediate help.

So, what we need to come to terms with is whether the "all in" move and all the risks associated with it were worth it?

To me, the chance to lock in a "big 4" when most teams struggle to sustain a "big 3" is a huge opportunity granted us by how young our team is, the salary structure, the expected rising cap, and Dan's money. It may not work out for various reasons, but it sure doesn't look like it will be due attitude/chemistry. Fit is super important, but if somehow Mitchell doesn't work with Garland ... well ... his trade value likely just went up.

I will say, some of my optimism is because I've read some rumors/opinions about Mitchell that put his struggles in Utah in a different light. Maybe I'm a bit ahead of the curve in understanding the many criticism's leveled his way? By all means for you guys on the fence take some more time to understand what we gave up so much to get and come to your own conclusions and please try to stick with them. The Cavs FO has a lot more information than we do, but we can close that gap, and then we should be able to judge.

Not wait to see where things are down the line when for all we know both the Cavs and Jazz have turned over their roster and those picks could be on their way to some other team.

Any talk of Markkanen exceeding expectations in Utah isn't really fair without noting that Mitchell has also exceeded expectations. Mitchell's increase in WS/48 is nearly twice as large as Markkanen's, year-over-year. And the jump from all-star to all-NBA or MVP candidate is a bigger jump (and more valuable) than that from starter to borderline all-star.

We didn't trade for a fourth star. We traded for a guy who has come in as the team's best player and might be graduating to the superstar tier.

Heh, it's just greed. We unfortunately have to give up something to get something and if there's a problem it's that we couldn't somehow make Lauri (or Collin) look like more of a something before the trade because that's how we could have feasibly given up less.

[JujitsuFlip]

I wasn't specifically speaking to how you felt, just that the Lauri deal wasn't some slam dunk positive move in everyone's opinion. It turned out that he played better than expected, and like JBK I wasn't happy to hear he was included the deal but the early results of Mitchell being here are beyond what I expected. And, like you wrote clearing up the Sexton contract issue was a positive as well.

No deal is, and in Lauri's case we didn't know that Larry Nance Jr had asked the team to trade him to a contender if they could.

I've been a big proponent of spacing and shooting, so I certainly saw a role for Lauri even if it was a smaller role replacing Nance rather than as our starting SF.

Anyway, at this point all those future picks and swaps we gave up are a sunk cost - it no longer matters to the Cavs what happens to them. What matters is what they do with the talent they have and their ability to continue to add/build around it without those picks.

They admittedly went "all in" ahead of schedule, but the opportunity to resolve the Sexton situation encouraged that as did the Mitchell situation itself. And while personally I like the idea of adding young players to a contender and constant development, fact is through all our years of contention with LeBron we've gotten next to nothing out of the first round of the draft. Either the players didn't amount to much or we traded them looking for immediate help.

So, what we need to come to terms with is whether the "all in" move and all the risks associated with it were worth it?

To me, the chance to lock in a "big 4" when most teams struggle to sustain a "big 3" is a huge opportunity granted us by how young our team is, the salary structure, the expected rising cap, and Dan's money. It may not work out for various reasons, but it sure doesn't look like it will be due attitude/chemistry. Fit is super important, but if somehow Mitchell doesn't work with Garland ... well ... his trade value likely just went up.

I will say, some of my optimism is because I've read some rumors/opinions about Mitchell that put his struggles in Utah in a different light. Maybe I'm a bit ahead of the curve in understanding the many criticism's leveled his way? By all means for you guys on the fence take some more time to understand what we gave up so much to get and come to your own conclusions and please try to stick with them. The Cavs FO has a lot more information than we do, but we can close that gap, and then we should be able to judge.

Not wait to see where things are down the line when for all we know both the Cavs and Jazz have turned over their roster and those picks could be on their way to some other team.

Any talk of Markkanen exceeding expectations in Utah isn't really fair without noting that Mitchell has also exceeded expectations. Mitchell's increase in WS/48 is nearly twice as large as Markkanen's, year-over-year. And the jump from all-star to all-NBA or MVP candidate is a bigger jump (and more valuable) than that from starter to borderline all-star.

We didn't trade for a fourth star. We traded for a guy who has come in as the team's best player and might be graduating to the superstar tier.

Seems really odd to take like 12% of the return from one side of a trade and compare it to 100% of the return from the other side of the trade.

[toooskies]

No deal is, and in Lauri's case we didn't know that Larry Nance Jr had asked the team to trade him to a contender if they could.

I've been a big proponent of spacing and shooting, so I certainly saw a role for Lauri even if it was a smaller role replacing Nance rather than as our starting SF.

Anyway, at this point all those future picks and swaps we gave up are a sunk cost - it no longer matters to the Cavs what happens to them. What matters is what they do with the talent they have and their ability to continue to add/build around it without those picks.

They admittedly went "all in" ahead of schedule, but the opportunity to resolve the Sexton situation encouraged that as did the Mitchell situation itself. And while personally I like the idea of adding young players to a contender and constant development, fact is through all our years of contention with LeBron we've gotten next to nothing out of the first round of the draft. Either the players didn't amount to much or we traded them looking for immediate help.

So, what we need to come to terms with is whether the "all in" move and all the risks associated with it were worth it?

To me, the chance to lock in a "big 4" when most teams struggle to sustain a "big 3" is a huge opportunity granted us by how young our team is, the salary structure, the expected rising cap, and Dan's money. It may not work out for various reasons, but it sure doesn't look like it will be due attitude/chemistry. Fit is super important, but if somehow Mitchell doesn't work with Garland ... well ... his trade value likely just went up.

I will say, some of my optimism is because I've read some rumors/opinions about Mitchell that put his struggles in Utah in a different light. Maybe I'm a bit ahead of the curve in understanding the many criticism's leveled his way? By all means for you guys on the fence take some more time to understand what we gave up so much to get and come to your own conclusions and please try to stick with them. The Cavs FO has a lot more information than we do, but we can close that gap, and then we should be able to judge.

Not wait to see where things are down the line when for all we know both the Cavs and Jazz have turned over their roster and those picks could be on their way to some other team.

Any talk of Markkanen exceeding expectations in Utah isn't really fair without noting that Mitchell has also exceeded expectations. Mitchell's increase in WS/48 is nearly twice as large as Markkanen's, year-over-year. And the jump from all-star to all-NBA or MVP candidate is a bigger jump (and more valuable) than that from starter to borderline all-star.

We didn't trade for a fourth star. We traded for a guy who has come in as the team's best player and might be graduating to the superstar tier.

Seems really odd to take like 12% of the return from one side of a trade and compare it to 100% of the return from the other side of the trade.

Well, OK. Sexton is near his expected value, Agbaji is at or below his expected value, and the draft picks probably project to lower value. So the gap is wider if you include the change in value of the other assets.