Cavs/Heat

[louc1970]

Finding value for both teams with a Mitchell re-signing.

Cavs send Garland and #20
Heat send Herro l, Martin and #15

Heat get the PG they need. They trade poor defense for poor defense so no loss there. Cost is same without having to release Martin or sign him to more money.
Cavs get a secondary ball handler with better size and shooting. Martin can either be packaged later or be a financial benefit.

[jbk1234]

I don't have Tyler Herro as an asset. He's a 6th man who makes $30M. Also, I don't believe Martin is under contract. Garland is under contract for 4 more years, so even if the Cavs are open to trading him, there's really no way for him to force the Cavs to accept a bad return like this.

[JJ_PR]

This is awful. The Cavs have no business giving up the 20th pick in that trade. They should also be receiving future firsts.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm lower on Garland than many, but I don't have his value as low as essentially a straight swap for Herro.

[louc1970]

Cavs fans are perhaps the most fickle bunch.
On one side they talk about how bad Garland is/was in the playoffs. Then turn around and wonder why someone wouldn’t trade him straight up for Jokic.
Garland is good, but not any better than the average PG in the game.
The team runs better when Mitchell controls the ball and he is not a great dribbler by any means.
Getting shooters is the concept.

[jbk1234]

Cavs fans are perhaps the most fickle bunch.
On one side they talk about how bad Garland is/was in the playoffs. Then turn around and wonder why someone wouldn’t trade him straight up for Jokic.
Garland is good, but not any better than the average PG in the game.
The team runs better when Mitchell controls the ball and he is not a great dribbler by any means.
Getting shooters is the concept.

Garland is a career 38% shooter from 3. He just does a lot of other things as well.

[VaDe255]

I don't have Darius Garland as an asset. He's a 6th man who makes $35M+, Garland is under contract for 4 more years on a terrible contract (also has a 15% trade kicker, not sure how exactly it impacts the trade, but if it adds more money to his contract then he is virtually untradable).

I rather have Herro and his contract, have him play off ball when he is on the court. He is bigger and a slightly better defender as well.

Heat say no, easily.

[Texas Chuck]

Cavs fans are perhaps the most fickle bunch.
On one side they talk about how bad Garland is/was in the playoffs. Then turn around and wonder why someone wouldn’t trade him straight up for Jokic.

Not one Cavs fan has said anything close to that. If you can't handle feedback on your trades, maybe stop posting them? But trashing a fanbase like that after they were kind enough to give you feedback is terrible.

[DowJones]

Cavs fans are perhaps the most fickle bunch.
On one side they talk about how bad Garland is/was in the playoffs. Then turn around and wonder why someone wouldn’t trade him straight up for Jokic.
Garland is good, but not any better than the average PG in the game.
The team runs better when Mitchell controls the ball and he is not a great dribbler by any means.
Getting shooters is the concept.

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

I think Garland can work well with Mitchell, but the new coach needs to demand more from him. Garland needs to play at a quicker pace next year, move the ball more, and actively seek his own shot. He had a terrible tendency to waste a significant portion of the shot clock with unproductive dribbling. I believe this is easily fixable, and I hope the new coach can correct it.

[DowJones]

As far as the trade goes, it is an easy no from me. I just think Garland has more upside than Herro.

[Euphonetiks]

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

[jbk1234]

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

[DowJones]

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

I don't ignore Garland's shortcomings. He played poorly during the regular season and even worse in the playoffs. While JBK thinks THE the world of Garland and some others see him as a lesser version of Colin Sexton, I find myself in the middle, leaning slightly towards JBK's view.

Regarding Herro, I like him and don't see him as having negative value, but I don't think swapping Garland for Herro is the right move for the Cavs.

[VaDe255]

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

I know you want to defend your guy, but Herro went from 6th man, to starter, to primary option (as Butler missed games, cruised in half of those he played and was also injured for the playoffs). If we're talking about who was asked to do more this season in a role he was not ready for and isn't ideal, it's easily Herro.

I don't like either contract, but these guys are young, haven't reached their physical peak and either can improve to justify their contract.

[jbk1234]

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

I know you want to defend your guy, but Herro went from 6th man, to starter, to primary option (as Butler missed games, cruised in half of those he played and was also injured for the playoffs). If we're talking about who was asked to do more this season in a role he was not ready for and isn't ideal, it's easily Herro.

I don't like either contract, but these guys are young, haven't reached their physical peak and either can improve to justify their contract.

I think Garland is the better play with a better handle, better at running an offense, and better passing ability. I think trading him for Herro makes the Cavs worse. You lose those skill sets and gain nothing.

[VaDe255]

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

I know you want to defend your guy, but Herro went from 6th man, to starter, to primary option (as Butler missed games, cruised in half of those he played and was also injured for the playoffs). If we're talking about who was asked to do more this season in a role he was not ready for and isn't ideal, it's easily Herro.

I don't like either contract, but these guys are young, haven't reached their physical peak and either can improve to justify their contract.

I think Garland is the better play with a better handle, better at running an offense, and better passing ability. I think trading him for Herro makes the Cavs worse. You lose those skill sets and gain nothing.

That's cool, both have their strengths. Garland has 163m left on his deal, while Herro only has 93m.
Garland is paid 24% more money anually for a year longer than Herro, while his production and impact this year wasn't really any different to Herro.

[louc1970]

I was very frustrated with Garland last year. However, in the two years prior, he averaged 22 points per game and 8 assists per game with shooting splits of 46-40-88. He achieved this at just 22 and 23 years old. I believe Garland is more representative of that player than the one we saw last year.Fans of opposing teams will likely focus on his down year when discussing trade value, but I don't think Cleveland will.

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

That is mostly my point. Garland showed out before Mitchell arrived. If you take Mitchell off the team, Garland mist likely puts up those numbers again.
But with Mitchell, being ball dominant, Garland’s stats are going to suffer.
For the Cavs, I think Mitchell-Herro > Mitchell-Garland.
At the same time, I think MiMi is better with Garland than they are with Herro.
It simply team makeup, not the individual talented player.

[jbk1234]

:nod:

When arguing how great Garland is based on his age 22 season, do you all realize Herro at age 22 put up 21 pts, 5 reb, and 4 assts with splits of 45-40-87?

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

That is mostly my point. Garland showed out before Mitchell arrived. If you take Mitchell off the team, Garland mist likely puts up those numbers again.
But with Mitchell, being ball dominant, Garland’s stats are going to suffer.
For the Cavs, I think Mitchell-Herro > Mitchell-Garland.
At the same time, I think MiMi is better with Garland than they are with Herro.
It simply team makeup, not the individual talented player.

If Herro could defend well, there would be an argument, but he can't, so there's not. This is just the Cavs losing all Garland's PG skills for nothing.

[louc1970]

:nod:

The reality is that Garland averaged 8.6 assist per game before Mitchell got here and that's not just good, it's special. Allen and Mobley benefit immensely when he runs the offense. The key difference between Garland at 22 and Herro at 22 is Herro hasn't been asked to adopt a new role. We'll see if a new coach can get some synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt as opposed to just turn taking.

That is mostly my point. Garland showed out before Mitchell arrived. If you take Mitchell off the team, Garland mist likely puts up those numbers again.
But with Mitchell, being ball dominant, Garland’s stats are going to suffer.
For the Cavs, I think Mitchell-Herro > Mitchell-Garland.
At the same time, I think MiMi is better with Garland than they are with Herro.
It simply team makeup, not the individual talented player.

If Herro could defend well, there would be an argument, but he can't, so there's not. This is just the Cavs losing all Garland's PG skills for nothing.

I get we don’t/won’t agree and that is fine. But if Mitchell is the primary ball handler for the Cavs, do you feel Garland or Herro is better at being the 2G?
I think it is Herro with $8mil less salary.

[jbk1234]

:nod:
That is mostly my point. Garland showed out before Mitchell arrived. If you take Mitchell off the team, Garland mist likely puts up those numbers again.
But with Mitchell, being ball dominant, Garland’s stats are going to suffer.
For the Cavs, I think Mitchell-Herro > Mitchell-Garland.
At the same time, I think MiMi is better with Garland than they are with Herro.
It simply team makeup, not the individual talented player.

If Herro could defend well, there would be an argument, but he can't, so there's not. This is just the Cavs losing all Garland's PG skills for nothing.

I get we don’t/won’t agree and that is fine. But if Mitchell is the primary ball handler for the Cavs, do you feel Garland or Herro is better at being the 2G?
I think it is Herro with $8mil less salary.

I think Garland is a better option than Herro. Also, if a new coach can't develop any synergy between Garland and Mitchell, there are other trade options besides Herro which is the primary problem for the Heat.