Trade Ideas

[mcfly1204]

Standard MLE is ~$11 million next season, I think that's about right to retain Love for 2-3 years. Love only plays 20mpg, his percentages are down, we'll see what he brings in the Playoffs...

[jbk1234]

Yeah, everything depends on our tax situation, but there's certainly a case to be made to pay Kevin either because we want him to retire as a Cavalier and set an example for the younger players ... or to leverage his contract somewhere down the line as trade filler.

Alas, they are kind of opposing tactics and I doubt Kev is going to sign a deal that makes it easy for us to trade him.

And of course he's injured again. It's great he's trying to play through it; but he's not valuable to us if he's not knocking down 3's.

What do people think K. Love's market is going to be? He'll be 35 before next season starts and father time is definitely taking his toll. No one is signing him with the idea of him starting. I'm skeptical he's offered more than the MLE. Is he even willing to sign with a rebuilding team after having lived through the Beilein/Sexton experience?

Slightly above the MLE has always been the sweet spot, but whether Kevin's willing to accept that little when he's banked so much already in his career and got his ring is another matter. And of course he might choose to play for less in a more desirable location.

$20M/yr is what I'd ask for if I was Kevin ... and we're certainly free to part ways.

Bertans and Robinson are considered two of the worst contracts in the NBA at that number or less. I'll be shocked if he gets anywhere near that number. The NBA as a league is just getting a lot smarter about the money it hands out to guys who project as role players.

[JonFromVA]

What do people think K. Love's market is going to be? He'll be 35 before next season starts and father time is definitely taking his toll. No one is signing him with the idea of him starting. I'm skeptical he's offered more than the MLE. Is he even willing to sign with a rebuilding team after having lived through the Beilein/Sexton experience?

Slightly above the MLE has always been the sweet spot, but whether Kevin's willing to accept that little when he's banked so much already in his career and got his ring is another matter. And of course he might choose to play for less in a more desirable location.

$20M/yr is what I'd ask for if I was Kevin ... and we're certainly free to part ways.

Bertans and Robinson are considered two of the worst contracts in the NBA at that number or less. I'll be shocked if he gets anywhere near that number. The NBA as a league is just getting a lot smarter about the money it hands out to guys who project as role players.

You mean like Collin Sexton?

Like I've said, there are other factors at play here and unless Kevin just likes to hang out with this group of players, there are other things he can do with his life than nudge his net worth a little higher before hanging them up.

[jbk1234]

Slightly above the MLE has always been the sweet spot, but whether Kevin's willing to accept that little when he's banked so much already in his career and got his ring is another matter. And of course he might choose to play for less in a more desirable location.

$20M/yr is what I'd ask for if I was Kevin ... and we're certainly free to part ways.

Bertans and Robinson are considered two of the worst contracts in the NBA at that number or less. I'll be shocked if he gets anywhere near that number. The NBA as a league is just getting a lot smarter about the money it hands out to guys who project as role players.

You mean like Collin Sexton?

Like I've said, there are other factors at play here and unless Kevin just likes to hang out with this group of players, there are other things he can do with his life than nudge his net worth a little higher before hanging them up.

Yes, exactly like Sexton who had to wait until free agency ran its course and was saved by the fact that the Knicks foolishly extended Barrett. It remains to be seen whether the Jazz will ever be able to trade him for positive value on that contract, but he's five years into his career and he still can't beat out Clarkson for the starting job.

[JujitsuFlip]

No way I'm paying Love anywhere near $20M to come off the bench. That’s crazy talk. In fact, I wouldn't even worry about maintaining his Bird rights. The Cavs have been extraordinarily generous with Kevin. If he wants one last bag, we should let him get it elsewhere. If he's willing to take less than market, there's a conversation to be had.

What's the alternative? It's the Tristan Thompson/JR Smith fiasco all over again. Cavs can either give Love $15 to $25 million to have the asset of essentially an expiring deal or the can offer someone else a vet min. Unless you want to give LeVert that $15 to $25 million 1+1, which I don't want to do that.

The Cavs can't offer a big deal to a free agent because they have no cap space. Giving Love a large expiring is a no brianer to me.

So the cap will be $134M maybe a little higher. If we pick up Cedi's option, we'll be at $124M plus the minimum cap holds. If we decline Cedi's option, we'll be at $116M. I'd like spend right upto the line, make a trade that puts us a little over, and then use the MLE.

But it's better to have options, and cap space to offer in trades, then to not have those things. Once you start down the road of paying guys more than market, under the theory that you cannot lose their production for nothing, you're limited to swapping bad contracts for bad contracts. The reality is that we can replace most of what Love and Levert bring at a fraction of the cost.

I was just saying to Jon's point, how valuable a large expiring can be.

Cap space is cool but if it's only $10 million, offering that in trades doesn't mean much.

It's not the "can't lose their production", idc about that. It's the never having a large contract to move makes facilitating trades next to impossible. Cavs hands are already tied by having next to no draft capital to move. If the Cavs do not acquire a THJ, Hayward, or Harris type player/contract this deadline, then the next best thing is to give LeVert or Love a bloated expiring, not for their production but to have a large contract to move, as an asset.

[jbk1234]

What's the alternative? It's the Tristan Thompson/JR Smith fiasco all over again. Cavs can either give Love $15 to $25 million to have the asset of essentially an expiring deal or the can offer someone else a vet min. Unless you want to give LeVert that $15 to $25 million 1+1, which I don't want to do that.

The Cavs can't offer a big deal to a free agent because they have no cap space. Giving Love a large expiring is a no brianer to me.

So the cap will be $134M maybe a little higher. If we pick up Cedi's option, we'll be at $124M plus the minimum cap holds. If we decline Cedi's option, we'll be at $116M. I'd like spend right upto the line, make a trade that puts us a little over, and then use the MLE.

But it's better to have options, and cap space to offer in trades, then to not have those things. Once you start down the road of paying guys more than market, under the theory that you cannot lose their production for nothing, you're limited to swapping bad contracts for bad contracts. The reality is that we can replace most of what Love and Levert bring at a fraction of the cost.

I was just saying to Jon's point, how valuable a large expiring can be.

Cap space is cool but if it's only $10 million, offering that in trades doesn't mean much.

It's not the "can't lose their production", idc about that. It's the never having a large contract to move makes facilitating trades next to impossible. Cavs hands are already tied by having next to no draft capital to move. If the Cavs do not acquire a THJ, Hayward, or Harris type player/contract this deadline, then the next best thing is to give LeVert or Love a bloated expiring, not for their production but to have a large contract to move, as an asset.

You can always overpay guys on one year deals, but that needs to be the fall back position, not the starting one.

[toooskies]

If you give Love and LeVert MLE+ deals ($13m or so) to come back off the bench, you can package them with any of Okoro/Osman/Wade to match whatever salary you need to match outside of the veteran supermax.

[jbk1234]

If you give Love and LeVert MLE+ deals ($13m or so) to come back off the bench, you can package them with any of Okoro/Osman/Wade to match whatever salary you need to match outside of the veteran supermax.

I think $18M to LeVert and $12M to Love should work, but I'd really want to make a run at TJ Warren first.

[JujitsuFlip]

So the cap will be $134M maybe a little higher. If we pick up Cedi's option, we'll be at $124M plus the minimum cap holds. If we decline Cedi's option, we'll be at $116M. I'd like spend right upto the line, make a trade that puts us a little over, and then use the MLE.

But it's better to have options, and cap space to offer in trades, then to not have those things. Once you start down the road of paying guys more than market, under the theory that you cannot lose their production for nothing, you're limited to swapping bad contracts for bad contracts. The reality is that we can replace most of what Love and Levert bring at a fraction of the cost.

I was just saying to Jon's point, how valuable a large expiring can be.

Cap space is cool but if it's only $10 million, offering that in trades doesn't mean much.

It's not the "can't lose their production", idc about that. It's the never having a large contract to move makes facilitating trades next to impossible. Cavs hands are already tied by having next to no draft capital to move. If the Cavs do not acquire a THJ, Hayward, or Harris type player/contract this deadline, then the next best thing is to give LeVert or Love a bloated expiring, not for their production but to have a large contract to move, as an asset.

You can always overpay guys on one year deals, but that needs to be the fall back position, not the starting one.

And i think it is the fall back plan, if someone on a 2 year deal isn't acquired at the deadline next month.

Giving LeVert or Love an "overpay" in the summer is still going to be superior to whatever their cap holds will be, for example Love's cap hold is $45 million and LeVert's is cap hold is $28 million. Getting one of those dudes on a $20 million-ish 1+1 deal seems ideal to me, i fail to see the problem. I prefer it to be Love, if someone wants to argue for LeVert, fine.

The cap the Cavs would have by renouncing everyone is less than what the projected full MLE for next season is.

As I have said multiple times the Cavs best vehicle to upgrade the starting and back-up SF spot with 3&D wings is going to be the full MLE and the BAE, both of which will hard cap the team but if the team uses one, might as well use the other, i.e. the 76ers this past summer.

[JonFromVA]

Bertans and Robinson are considered two of the worst contracts in the NBA at that number or less. I'll be shocked if he gets anywhere near that number. The NBA as a league is just getting a lot smarter about the money it hands out to guys who project as role players.

You mean like Collin Sexton?

Like I've said, there are other factors at play here and unless Kevin just likes to hang out with this group of players, there are other things he can do with his life than nudge his net worth a little higher before hanging them up.

Yes, exactly like Sexton who had to wait until free agency ran its course and was saved by the fact that the Knicks foolishly extended Barrett. It remains to be seen whether the Jazz will ever be able to trade him for positive value on that contract, but he's five years into his career and he still can't beat out Clarkson for the starting job.

Getting "saved" was the plan because the Cavs controlled his rights and like I pointed out many times, teams are hesitant to go after a RFA when they understand his team doesn't want to let him go for nothing. I also suspect Collin is happy he hasn't beaten out Clarkson. Not just because Clarkson is playing better in Utah than Cleveland, but because like I've said Collin's path to becoming a starter and getting paid like one means he needs to play PG and show he can start at PG; and he has been playing more backup/starting PG in Utah.

Anyway, my point was and continues to be that what a player should/will get paid is more complex than what you can get (or have to give up) if you decide to turn around and trade the player.

[KuruptedCav]

I was just saying to Jon's point, how valuable a large expiring can be.

Cap space is cool but if it's only $10 million, offering that in trades doesn't mean much.

It's not the "can't lose their production", idc about that. It's the never having a large contract to move makes facilitating trades next to impossible. Cavs hands are already tied by having next to no draft capital to move. If the Cavs do not acquire a THJ, Hayward, or Harris type player/contract this deadline, then the next best thing is to give LeVert or Love a bloated expiring, not for their production but to have a large contract to move, as an asset.

You can always overpay guys on one year deals, but that needs to be the fall back position, not the starting one.

And i think it is the fall back plan, if someone on a 2 year deal isn't acquired at the deadline next month.

Giving LeVert or Love an "overpay" in the summer is still going to be superior to whatever their cap holds will be, for example Love's cap hold is $45 million and LeVert's is cap hold is $28 million. Getting one of those dudes on a $20 million-ish 1+1 deal seems ideal to me, i fail to see the problem. I prefer it to be Love, if someone wants to argue for LeVert, fine.

The cap the Cavs would have by renouncing everyone is less than what the projected full MLE for next season is.

As I have said multiple times the Cavs best vehicle to upgrade the starting and back-up SF spot with 3&D wings is going to be the full MLE and the BAE, both of which will hard cap the team but if the team uses one, might as well use the other, i.e. the 76ers this past summer.

I don’t see a scenario where hard capping is an issue in 2023/24. The distance between where they are, the free agents and options available and the Apron is significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jbk1234]

You mean like Collin Sexton?

Like I've said, there are other factors at play here and unless Kevin just likes to hang out with this group of players, there are other things he can do with his life than nudge his net worth a little higher before hanging them up.

Yes, exactly like Sexton who had to wait until free agency ran its course and was saved by the fact that the Knicks foolishly extended Barrett. It remains to be seen whether the Jazz will ever be able to trade him for positive value on that contract, but he's five years into his career and he still can't beat out Clarkson for the starting job.

Getting "saved" was the plan because the Cavs controlled his rights and like I pointed out many times, teams are hesitant to go after a RFA when they understand his team doesn't want to let him go for nothing. I also suspect Collin is happy he hasn't beaten out Clarkson. Not just because Clarkson is playing better in Utah than Cleveland, but because like I've said Collin's path to becoming a starter and getting paid like one means he needs to play PG and show he can start at PG; and he has been playing more backup/starting PG in Utah.

Anyway, my point was and continues to be that what a player should/will get paid is more complex than what you can get (or have to give up) if you decide to turn around and trade the player.

Setting Sexton aside, because we simply disagree, my point is that NBA teams get themselves into trouble when they start rationalizing paying guys more than their market value and somethings are only complicated when decision makers permit them to become overly complicated.

[JonFromVA]

Yes, exactly like Sexton who had to wait until free agency ran its course and was saved by the fact that the Knicks foolishly extended Barrett. It remains to be seen whether the Jazz will ever be able to trade him for positive value on that contract, but he's five years into his career and he still can't beat out Clarkson for the starting job.

Getting "saved" was the plan because the Cavs controlled his rights and like I pointed out many times, teams are hesitant to go after a RFA when they understand his team doesn't want to let him go for nothing. I also suspect Collin is happy he hasn't beaten out Clarkson. Not just because Clarkson is playing better in Utah than Cleveland, but because like I've said Collin's path to becoming a starter and getting paid like one means he needs to play PG and show he can start at PG; and he has been playing more backup/starting PG in Utah.

Anyway, my point was and continues to be that what a player should/will get paid is more complex than what you can get (or have to give up) if you decide to turn around and trade the player.

Setting Sexton aside, because we simply disagree, my point is that NBA teams get themselves into trouble when they start rationalizing paying guys more than their market value and somethings are only complicated when decision makers permit them to become overly complicated.

There's a lot of ways NBA teams get themselves in to trouble, including losing a player that could have helped on the floor, who's salary could have helped pull off a trade, or by harming their reputation by treating a player like a line on an expense report.

Once all that stuff has been taken in to account, you've got your answer.

[jbk1234]

Getting "saved" was the plan because the Cavs controlled his rights and like I pointed out many times, teams are hesitant to go after a RFA when they understand his team doesn't want to let him go for nothing. I also suspect Collin is happy he hasn't beaten out Clarkson. Not just because Clarkson is playing better in Utah than Cleveland, but because like I've said Collin's path to becoming a starter and getting paid like one means he needs to play PG and show he can start at PG; and he has been playing more backup/starting PG in Utah.

Anyway, my point was and continues to be that what a player should/will get paid is more complex than what you can get (or have to give up) if you decide to turn around and trade the player.

Setting Sexton aside, because we simply disagree, my point is that NBA teams get themselves into trouble when they start rationalizing paying guys more than their market value and somethings are only complicated when decision makers permit them to become overly complicated.

There's a lot of ways NBA teams get themselves in to trouble, including losing a player that could have helped on the floor, who's salary could have helped pull off a trade, or by harming their reputation by treating a player like a line on an expense report.

Once all that stuff has been taken in to account, you've got your answer.

We've paid K. Love somewhere between 200-300% of his market value over the last 4 years. If that doesn't buy us enough goodwill to be able to ask him to take his market value now, if not a little less, then you've agreed to play a very rigged game.

[JujitsuFlip]

You can always overpay guys on one year deals, but that needs to be the fall back position, not the starting one.

And i think it is the fall back plan, if someone on a 2 year deal isn't acquired at the deadline next month.

Giving LeVert or Love an "overpay" in the summer is still going to be superior to whatever their cap holds will be, for example Love's cap hold is $45 million and LeVert's is cap hold is $28 million. Getting one of those dudes on a $20 million-ish 1+1 deal seems ideal to me, i fail to see the problem. I prefer it to be Love, if someone wants to argue for LeVert, fine.

The cap the Cavs would have by renouncing everyone is less than what the projected full MLE for next season is.

As I have said multiple times the Cavs best vehicle to upgrade the starting and back-up SF spot with 3&D wings is going to be the full MLE and the BAE, both of which will hard cap the team but if the team uses one, might as well use the other, i.e. the 76ers this past summer.

I don’t see a scenario where hard capping is an issue in 2023/24. The distance between where they are, the free agents and options available and the Apron is significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, it'll be close and would be a fine time to start the tax clock.

$124 million for 9 guys, then $20 million to Love give or take, $11 million-ish to MLE, $4 million to BAE. That's 12 guys at $159 million, throw on a vet min, and a non guaranteed contract, that's the 14 guys, right under the $162 million hard cap.

[JonFromVA]

Setting Sexton aside, because we simply disagree, my point is that NBA teams get themselves into trouble when they start rationalizing paying guys more than their market value and somethings are only complicated when decision makers permit them to become overly complicated.

There's a lot of ways NBA teams get themselves in to trouble, including losing a player that could have helped on the floor, who's salary could have helped pull off a trade, or by harming their reputation by treating a player like a line on an expense report.

Once all that stuff has been taken in to account, you've got your answer.

We've paid K. Love somewhere between 200-300% of his market value over the last 4 years. If that doesn't buy us enough goodwill to be able to ask him to take his market value now, if not a little less, then you've agreed to play a very rigged game.

Of course the game is rigged, but Dan is willing to spend, so we might as well take advantage of that when it benefits the team.

Which remains the big question ... at some point Kevin's roster spot and minutes are more valuable going to another player. I'm just not sure we're there - at least not based on him playing with a fractured right thumb.

[jbk1234]

I'm glad to hear this. It's a seller's market, but we're the ones offering future cap relief in this scenario and Dallas is having a hard time finding a taker for THJ.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10061161-cavaliers-rumors-cle-hesitant-on-tim-hardaway-jr-trade-due-to-remaining-contract

[JonFromVA]

I'm glad to hear this. It's a seller's market, but we're the ones offering future cap relief in this scenario and Dallas is having a hard time finding a taker for THJ.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10061161-cavaliers-rumors-cle-hesitant-on-tim-hardaway-jr-trade-due-to-remaining-contract

For so many reasons, of course we'd like Dallas to throw in additional compensation in a THJ/LeVert swap.

1) Expiring contract for a negative asset;
2) Taller / more length for shorter / less length
3) Younger for older;
4) More versatile player for less versatile player.

Maybe THJ can help us?

We do need shooting and we finally have Ricky back, but he's even less of the long wing defender we need than Caris. Any asset we can get back may help us trade for the player we actually need.

[jbk1234]

I'm glad to hear this. It's a seller's market, but we're the ones offering future cap relief in this scenario and Dallas is having a hard time finding a taker for THJ.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10061161-cavaliers-rumors-cle-hesitant-on-tim-hardaway-jr-trade-due-to-remaining-contract

For so many reasons, of course we'd like Dallas to throw in additional compensation in a THJ/LeVert swap.

1) Expiring contract for a negative asset;
2) Taller / more length for shorter / less length
3) Younger for older;
4) More versatile player for less versatile player.

Maybe THJ can help us?

We do need shooting and we finally have Ricky back, but he's even less of the long wing defender we need than Caris. Any asset we can get back may help us trade for the player we actually need.

I don't know whether Gilbert would spend this much, but I like this iteration of it...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2256436

[ijspeelman]

I'm glad to hear this. It's a seller's market, but we're the ones offering future cap relief in this scenario and Dallas is having a hard time finding a taker for THJ.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10061161-cavaliers-rumors-cle-hesitant-on-tim-hardaway-jr-trade-due-to-remaining-contract

For so many reasons, of course we'd like Dallas to throw in additional compensation in a THJ/LeVert swap.

1) Expiring contract for a negative asset;
2) Taller / more length for shorter / less length
3) Younger for older;
4) More versatile player for less versatile player.

Maybe THJ can help us?

We do need shooting and we finally have Ricky back, but he's even less of the long wing defender we need than Caris. Any asset we can get back may help us trade for the player we actually need.

I don't know whether Gilbert would spend this much, but I like this iteration of it...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2256436

DFS and Kleber are like dream role players for the Cavs right now. I just don't see it for the Mavs as I personally think those are 2 of their current top 4 players on their team.