LAL/CLE/NOP

[BK_2020]

I mean the implicit premise here is that the Cavs can't advance beyond the second round DUE to the Garland/Mitchell backcourt.

A lot of NBA analysts, media and many posters on this forum think this way, me included. The cavs simply look better with Mitchell running the point, and the defense with Mitchell/Garland is an issue. Whether it’s Ingram, Bridges, Wagner or whoever, trading Garland for a big shooting/creating wing makes a ton of sense.

Having said that, I don’t love the fit of Ingram on the cavs. He’s not a willing spot up shooter and I’m not sure the spacing works with Mobley/Allan. A Bridges or Franz Wagner might make more sense.

This season the Cavs are about 2.5 points better per 100 with Mitchell on and Garland off vs both, but Garland is really struggling this season so far. Last season, the Cavs were massively better with both of them vs. just Mitchell.

[jbk1234]

I mean the implicit premise here is that the Cavs can't advance beyond the second round DUE to the Garland/Mitchell backcourt.

A lot of NBA analysts, media and many posters on this forum think this way, me included. The cavs simply look better with Mitchell running the point, and the defense with Mitchell/Garland is an issue. Whether it’s Ingram, Bridges, Wagner or whoever, trading Garland for a big shooting/creating wing makes a ton of sense.

Having said that, I don’t love the fit of Ingram on the cavs. He’s not a willing spot up shooter and I’m not sure the spacing works with Mobley/Allan. A Bridges or Franz Wagner might make more sense.

This season the Cavs are about 2.5 points better per 100 with Mitchell on and Garland off vs both, but Garland is really struggling this season so far. Last season, the Cavs were massively better with both of them vs. just Mitchell.

You're talking about a very small sample size, and it's been trending in the right direction since Garland has come back.

[jbk1234]

I mean the implicit premise here is that the Cavs can't advance beyond the second round DUE to the Garland/Mitchell backcourt.

A lot of NBA analysts, media and many posters on this forum think this way, me included. The cavs simply look better with Mitchell running the point, and the defense with Mitchell/Garland is an issue. Whether it’s Ingram, Bridges, Wagner or whoever, trading Garland for a big shooting/creating wing makes a ton of sense.

Having said that, I don’t love the fit of Ingram on the cavs. He’s not a willing spot up shooter and I’m not sure the spacing works with Mobley/Allan. A Bridges or Franz Wagner might make more sense.

It looks better until the other team puts someone like White or OG on Mitchell, and/or has a good drop-coverage center, and/or starts to double Mitchell, but when those things happen (and all of them will in the playoffs), the Cavs need Garland out there with him.

[Euphonetiks]

I don’t see NOP not taking the 2025 first over the 2024 first, so LAL isn’t going to have the 2025 to offer.. they’re going to have a mid teens (if they make the playoffs) first in a not so exciting draft.

And NOP cuts LAL out anyways.

If Mitchell extends and Cleveland wants to retool, I’d say the deal is Murphy and Jones, with the LAL pick and whatever salary matching necessary.. Finger math says a Caris/CJM swap keeps it pretty even.. You could play Mitchell/CJM together for some minutes and it is a declining contract. though adding a third team probably.

Pels aren’t trading Herb, Trey, CJ and a 1st for Garland. Doesn’t make sense for our roster construction.

[jayjaysee]

I don’t see NOP not taking the 2025 first over the 2024 first, so LAL isn’t going to have the 2025 to offer.. they’re going to have a mid teens (if they make the playoffs) first in a not so exciting draft.

And NOP cuts LAL out anyways.

If Mitchell extends and Cleveland wants to retool, I’d say the deal is Murphy and Jones, with the LAL pick and whatever salary matching necessary.. Finger math says a Caris/CJM swap keeps it pretty even.. You could play Mitchell/CJM together for some minutes and it is a declining contract. though adding a third team probably.

Pels aren’t trading Herb, Trey, CJ and a 1st for Garland. Doesn’t make sense for our roster construction.

CJM isn’t really a sticking point. Just the needed contract. Probably something where CJM gets replaced by a Rui or other average wing and Cleveland gets a meh contract that makes it make sense.

Oh well.

[JeffFosters]

I mean the implicit premise here is that the Cavs can't advance beyond the second round DUE to the Garland/Mitchell backcourt.

A lot of NBA analysts, media and many posters on this forum think this way, me included. The cavs simply look better with Mitchell running the point, and the defense with Mitchell/Garland is an issue. Whether it’s Ingram, Bridges, Wagner or whoever, trading Garland for a big shooting/creating wing makes a ton of sense.

Having said that, I don’t love the fit of Ingram on the cavs. He’s not a willing spot up shooter and I’m not sure the spacing works with Mobley/Allan. A Bridges or Franz Wagner might make more sense.

It looks better until the other team puts someone like White or OG on Mitchell, and/or has a good drop-coverage center, and/or starts to double Mitchell, but when those things happen (and all of them will in the playoffs), the Cavs need Garland out there with him.

You know who else would help in those situations? A big playmaking wing. As a pacer fan I’d much prefer to face the cavs in a series with Garland over Bridges, Wagner or Ingram so I say keep him.

[KuruptedCav]

I get the Cavs/Pelicans rebalance. I don’t understand a Pelicans restart. I’d cut the Lakers out and see almost straight DG/BI in this scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcfly1204]

I mean the implicit premise here is that the Cavs can't advance beyond the second round DUE to the Garland/Mitchell backcourt.

A lot of NBA analysts, media and many posters on this forum think this way, me included. The cavs simply look better with Mitchell running the point, and the defense with Mitchell/Garland is an issue. Whether it’s Ingram, Bridges, Wagner or whoever, trading Garland for a big shooting/creating wing makes a ton of sense.

Having said that, I don’t love the fit of Ingram on the cavs. He’s not a willing spot up shooter and I’m not sure the spacing works with Mobley/Allan. A Bridges or Franz Wagner might make more sense.

It looks better until the other team puts someone like White or OG on Mitchell, and/or has a good drop-coverage center, and/or starts to double Mitchell, but when those things happen (and all of them will in the playoffs), the Cavs need Garland out there with him.

Whether we are talking about Mobley and Allen or Garland and Mitchell, it seems clear that staggering makes the most sense. 24 minutes with Garland playing the lead guard, 24 minutes with Mitchell, and 12 minutes of them playing together. It's really on JBB to make the adjustments when needed. If Garland + Mitchell are flowing, give them more burn together.