Cleveland: Find a new home for Darius Garland

[LightTheBeam]

It really is a challenge because who needs a pg right now?

Miami - Herro would need to be included, does Miami add Jaime to make this happen?

I think PHX could make the most sense if they struggle this year. Durant likely going to want out, and Garland could be a good long term running mate with Booker. Cleveland with Durant instead of Garland is a serious contender.

I thought about something like Garland/Niang for for Durant if Atkinson can't find any synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt, but honestly his on again/off again availability for Team USA is making me pretty nervous.

Not sure Id take that into account. But without a doubt Durant is aging and the fall off will be coming. Not many are like Lebron and father time is undefeated. Would be crazy to see Cleveland run out 3 (close to) 7fters with Donovan lol.

[cgf]

Brunson is special. The Knicks (and I grew up a Knicks fan in the days of Frasier, Reed, DD and Bradley) are very fortunate he turned out the way that he has.

There is nothing about Garland today that screams Brunson.

The simple fact is that the Magic will live and die in the future on an improved efficiency of Wagner and Paolo. This is the road they are going down. If it happens, then they will have a championship or 2 for their patience. If not, then they go back to the treadmill.

Garland sends them back to the treadmill. Not bad enough to get a star in the draft. Not good enough to compete for a championship.

I think we see a few things differently. Both what your team needs to really unlock the offense, and Garland himself.

I'm certainly not going to argue that he's a Brunson or Mitchell level scoring threat...kid's a great shooter when fit (both off & on the ball), and runs a means PnR, but he's not as physical as either in the paint. What he does have on both of them is his passing and vision, which are extremely impressive.

With someone who could shoot & pass like Garland running your offense for Paolo, his efficiency would skyrocket even before any further development on his part improved it, and DG would make better use of your long athletic cutters that you'd still have in abundance to make sure your defense was still terrifying.

Similarly if Cleveland could turn him into Wagner, they'd be a lot scarier because they're just not making the most of Garland next to Spida. He needs to be the PG for a #1 forward...like Paolo...but what the cavs still need is that bigger wing. They've got some scrappers and some shooters, but they lack size on the perimeter and Franz would address that in a big way if he and/or Mobley ever started shooting well.

Garland would be perfect for the Magic, which is why it's very unlikely the Cavs would ever trade him to Orlando. Not really looking to create a young juggernaut in the East.

That’s why I think it would cost Franz, you would be turning them into a monster but you would also be really beefing the team up around Spida…even if you eventually do decide to move JAfro & slide Mobley to the 5.

[tidho]

The suboptimal fit is costing you value as well.

Is it?

Yes. We should be well beyond even questioning it at this point.

It really is a challenge because who needs a pg right now?

Miami - Herro would need to be included, does Miami add Jaime to make this happen?

I think PHX could make the most sense if they struggle this year. Durant likely going to want out, and Garland could be a good long term running mate with Booker. Cleveland with Durant instead of Garland is a serious contender.

I thought about something like Garland/Niang for for Durant if Atkinson can't find any synergy out of a Mitchell/Garland backcourt, but honestly his on again/off again availability for Team USA is making me pretty nervous.

Not sure Id take that into account. But without a doubt Durant is aging and the fall off will be coming. Not many are like Lebron and father time is undefeated. Would be crazy to see Cleveland run out 3 (close to) 7fters with Donovan lol.

If you can somehow turn Garland into Durant, you do it. You don't worry about team USA or his age, you do it. That deal would make the team legitimate contenders.

MIA is a potential Garland destination, but as mentioned it's likely Herro coming back and that doesn't help the team. Herro, like Garland (and Mitchell) is an undersized combo guard that doesn't defend. He's going to have the same issues playing with Mitchell that Garland does.

[toooskies]

The suboptimal fit is costing you value as well.

Is it?

Yes. We should be well beyond even questioning it at this point.

Explain it to me then.

The Cavs have won 99 regular season games the past two years. We don't have a regular season problem.

There's uncountable reasons we lost to the Knicks in 2023 and fit among the core wasn't on the list. (If there was a fit issue, it was due to a lack of a healthy, decent PF in the second unit.) Ultimately it was about youth, coaching, and bench shooting before it was about fit among the starters.

Orlando played Cleveland pretty tough too, but I think they were an underrated team and their best player got on a ridiculous heater from outside compared to his usual shooting.

We lost to the Celtics because a) they were a step above the rest of the league all season, b) one of our core guys didn't play at all, and c) our best player got hurt and didn't finish the series. But the Allen + Mobley lineup would've worked really well against them given how little rim protection they have on their roster. Garland and Mitchell aren't particularly height-deficient against Holiday and White.

We've played plenty of minutes with only one of Mitchell/Garland and only one of Allen/Mobley and those lineups were not significantly better than having both of them out there. At best with the guards you get ambiguous data that mostly points to Garland just having a really bad year last year independent of fit with Mitchell. In terms of pairings, the data generally says Mitchell + Mobley has been a worse combination among the core four than any other pairing.

So I ask you-- why should it be well beyond questioning?

[HadAnEffectHere]

Is it?

Yes. We should be well beyond even questioning it at this point.

Explain it to me then.

The Cavs have won 99 regular season games the past two years. We don't have a regular season problem.

There's uncountable reasons we lost to the Knicks in 2023 and fit among the core wasn't on the list. (If there was a fit issue, it was due to a lack of a healthy, decent PF in the second unit.) Ultimately it was about youth, coaching, and bench shooting before it was about fit among the starters.

Orlando played Cleveland pretty tough too, but I think they were an underrated team and their best player got on a ridiculous heater from outside compared to his usual shooting.

We lost to the Celtics because a) they were a step above the rest of the league all season, b) one of our core guys didn't play at all, and c) our best player got hurt and didn't finish the series. But the Allen + Mobley lineup would've worked really well against them given how little rim protection they have on their roster. Garland and Mitchell aren't particularly height-deficient against Holiday and White.

We've played plenty of minutes with only one of Mitchell/Garland and only one of Allen/Mobley and those lineups were not significantly better than having both of them out there. At best with the guards you get ambiguous data that mostly points to Garland just having a really bad year last year independent of fit with Mitchell. In terms of pairings, the data generally says Mitchell + Mobley has been a worse combination among the core four than any other pairing.

So I ask you-- why should it be well beyond questioning?

So

The Cavs were bad in the postseason both years

And their archetype has failed basically every time for all 29 other teams.

But we still don't have enough evidence?

[toooskies]

Yes. We should be well beyond even questioning it at this point.

Explain it to me then.

The Cavs have won 99 regular season games the past two years. We don't have a regular season problem.

There's uncountable reasons we lost to the Knicks in 2023 and fit among the core wasn't on the list. (If there was a fit issue, it was due to a lack of a healthy, decent PF in the second unit.) Ultimately it was about youth, coaching, and bench shooting before it was about fit among the starters.

Orlando played Cleveland pretty tough too, but I think they were an underrated team and their best player got on a ridiculous heater from outside compared to his usual shooting.

We lost to the Celtics because a) they were a step above the rest of the league all season, b) one of our core guys didn't play at all, and c) our best player got hurt and didn't finish the series. But the Allen + Mobley lineup would've worked really well against them given how little rim protection they have on their roster. Garland and Mitchell aren't particularly height-deficient against Holiday and White.

We've played plenty of minutes with only one of Mitchell/Garland and only one of Allen/Mobley and those lineups were not significantly better than having both of them out there. At best with the guards you get ambiguous data that mostly points to Garland just having a really bad year last year independent of fit with Mitchell. In terms of pairings, the data generally says Mitchell + Mobley has been a worse combination among the core four than any other pairing.

So I ask you-- why should it be well beyond questioning?

So

The Cavs were bad in the postseason both years

And their archetype has failed basically every time for all 29 other teams.

But we still don't have enough evidence?

What is "their archetype"?

As far as two small guards go, we know that in a good year they can make the conference finals (i.e. Dame/McCollum) with a mediocre roster around them. Also, while Mitchell is short, he's also long-- his wingspan makes it so his effective height on contests is similar to that of someone a few inches taller. Pretty much the effective height of, say, Derrick White. He's also got a powerful lower body and isn't easy to post up.

As far as bigs-- while Mobley and Allen have the strengths of traditional Cs in that they can roll and rim protect, they aren't only traditional Cs. Both guys can guard down at least a few positions and are happy to play a switching defense. Both guys are willing passers, averaging 5.9 assists per game between them and both improving. Neither is a liability late in games at the free throw line. Mobley's outside shooting is developing and Allen has shown reasonable midrange touch on occasion, hovering around 50% from 10-16 feet the past three seasons. Both routinely catch the ball in traffic and get up efficient shots-- Allen among the most efficient in the league, and Mobley is getting there now that his 3-point shooting isn't a huge albatross.

So no, I don't think "their archetype" has been tried all that often.

[jbk1234]

Yes. We should be well beyond even questioning it at this point.

Explain it to me then.

The Cavs have won 99 regular season games the past two years. We don't have a regular season problem.

There's uncountable reasons we lost to the Knicks in 2023 and fit among the core wasn't on the list. (If there was a fit issue, it was due to a lack of a healthy, decent PF in the second unit.) Ultimately it was about youth, coaching, and bench shooting before it was about fit among the starters.

Orlando played Cleveland pretty tough too, but I think they were an underrated team and their best player got on a ridiculous heater from outside compared to his usual shooting.

We lost to the Celtics because a) they were a step above the rest of the league all season, b) one of our core guys didn't play at all, and c) our best player got hurt and didn't finish the series. But the Allen + Mobley lineup would've worked really well against them given how little rim protection they have on their roster. Garland and Mitchell aren't particularly height-deficient against Holiday and White.

We've played plenty of minutes with only one of Mitchell/Garland and only one of Allen/Mobley and those lineups were not significantly better than having both of them out there. At best with the guards you get ambiguous data that mostly points to Garland just having a really bad year last year independent of fit with Mitchell. In terms of pairings, the data generally says Mitchell + Mobley has been a worse combination among the core four than any other pairing.

So I ask you-- why should it be well beyond questioning?

So

The Cavs were bad in the postseason both years

And their archetype has failed basically every time for all 29 other teams.

But we still don't have enough evidence?

We weren't bad in the playoffs last year. We made it to the second round and lost to Champs with two starters out. Even missing two starters, I believe we had the best point differential of any team that played them. They blew out most of their opponents.

[tidho]

What is "their archetype"?

As far as two small guards go, we know that in a good year they can make the conference finals (i.e. Dame/McCollum) with a mediocre roster around them. Also, while Mitchell is short, he's also long-- his wingspan makes it so his effective height on contests is similar to that of someone a few inches taller. Pretty much the effective height of, say, Derrick White. He's also got a powerful lower body and isn't easy to post up.

...

So no, I don't think "their archetype" has been tried all that often.

This is a Garland thread, no one is talking about the bigs. The issue is obviously the guards, that's what we're talking about. Two small guards.

Yes Mitchell is long, but lots of guys are long. Collectively they're small and they can't defend their positions - which creates problems.

Yes we've seen the single anomaly of Dame and CJ getting to the WCF. How that accomplishment is held up as some reason to attempt to mirror that success is beyond me.

It hasn't been tried very often because most people know giving away size comes back to bite you.

[mademan]

If youre not getting great offers for Garland, then it is what it is, but its pretty clear that Garland/Mitchell dont really have synergy in that they cant amplify eachother. I know Garland walked it back, but if he has another season where he doesnt look like a star and gets lapped by other young guards with more opportunities....he has to to start thinking about whats best for his career and money, no?

[DowJones]

Explain it to me then.

The Cavs have won 99 regular season games the past two years. We don't have a regular season problem.

There's uncountable reasons we lost to the Knicks in 2023 and fit among the core wasn't on the list. (If there was a fit issue, it was due to a lack of a healthy, decent PF in the second unit.) Ultimately it was about youth, coaching, and bench shooting before it was about fit among the starters.

Orlando played Cleveland pretty tough too, but I think they were an underrated team and their best player got on a ridiculous heater from outside compared to his usual shooting.

We lost to the Celtics because a) they were a step above the rest of the league all season, b) one of our core guys didn't play at all, and c) our best player got hurt and didn't finish the series. But the Allen + Mobley lineup would've worked really well against them given how little rim protection they have on their roster. Garland and Mitchell aren't particularly height-deficient against Holiday and White.

We've played plenty of minutes with only one of Mitchell/Garland and only one of Allen/Mobley and those lineups were not significantly better than having both of them out there. At best with the guards you get ambiguous data that mostly points to Garland just having a really bad year last year independent of fit with Mitchell. In terms of pairings, the data generally says Mitchell + Mobley has been a worse combination among the core four than any other pairing.

So I ask you-- why should it be well beyond questioning?

So

The Cavs were bad in the postseason both years

And their archetype has failed basically every time for all 29 other teams.

But we still don't have enough evidence?

What is "their archetype"?

As far as two small guards go, we know that in a good year they can make the conference finals (i.e. Dame/McCollum) with a mediocre roster around them. Also, while Mitchell is short, he's also long-- his wingspan makes it so his effective height on contests is similar to that of someone a few inches taller. Pretty much the effective height of, say, Derrick White. He's also got a powerful lower body and isn't easy to post up.

As far as bigs-- while Mobley and Allen have the strengths of traditional Cs in that they can roll and rim protect, they aren't only traditional Cs. Both guys can guard down at least a few positions and are happy to play a switching defense. Both guys are willing passers, averaging 5.9 assists per game between them and both improving. Neither is a liability late in games at the free throw line. Mobley's outside shooting is developing and Allen has shown reasonable midrange touch on occasion, hovering around 50% from 10-16 feet the past three seasons. Both routinely catch the ball in traffic and get up efficient shots-- Allen among the most efficient in the league, and Mobley is getting there now that his 3-point shooting isn't a huge albatross.

So no, I don't think "their archetype" has been tried all that often.

We are way too limited on offense with the 2 bigs. Mobley cannot handle the ball on the perimeter. He cannot create his own shot. He might be able to become a mediocre 3 point shooter on volume, which makes him nothing more than a great defensive stretch 4. That can work on a reasonable contract, but we just gave him the max.

It is what it is. We are stuck running it back. I think we will make a move next summer and that move will be to trade Allen for a protected first and maybe a rotation wing.

[Shock Defeat]

CLE fans are in denial I guess. Garland and Mitchell don't work. They are looking at a 1st round exit this year cause they are not better than the top 4 in the east. It's debatable whether they are better than the Magic

[JonFromVA]

Not directly related to the trade talk, but surely there's a GM out there who realizes Darius Garland has never played on a team that actually gave him space to work? He hasn't even had a big he could pick & pop with since Kevin Love was on the team.

When healthy he's made the most of the klunky lineups Bickerstaff assembled. His inability to stay healthy (starting with only playing 5 games in College) is going to be a deterrent, but surely at some point someone will want to see if they can build a team around him like the Warriors did with Steph (who also seemed like he'd always be on the IL early in his career too).

I suspect any thoughts of Garland wanting to move on are rooted in this, but it looks like Atkinson will have his chance to show he can build a more complimentary offense.

[bgrep14]

Garland, Niang, Merrill, and Jerome for Johnson, DFS, Schroeder, Sharpe, and 2 Knicks firsts.

[toooskies]

What is "their archetype"?

As far as two small guards go, we know that in a good year they can make the conference finals (i.e. Dame/McCollum) with a mediocre roster around them. Also, while Mitchell is short, he's also long-- his wingspan makes it so his effective height on contests is similar to that of someone a few inches taller. Pretty much the effective height of, say, Derrick White. He's also got a powerful lower body and isn't easy to post up.

...

So no, I don't think "their archetype" has been tried all that often.

This is a Garland thread, no one is talking about the bigs. The issue is obviously the guards, that's what we're talking about. Two small guards.

Yes Mitchell is long, but lots of guys are long. Collectively they're small and they can't defend their positions - which creates problems.

Yes we've seen the single anomaly of Dame and CJ getting to the WCF. How that accomplishment is held up as some reason to attempt to mirror that success is beyond me.

It hasn't been tried very often because most people know giving away size comes back to bite you.

Show me the evidence that they can't guard their position. They have at least one year being the starting guards on the #1 defense in the league.

[Wisedude]

Garland, Niang and rights to Travers for Johnson, DFS, Sharpe, and 2 Knicks firsts.

[NYG]

Could Cade play off of Garland?

Garland to Detroit
Ingram to Cleveland
Stewart/Ivey to NOP

[mcfly1204]

Could Cade play off of Garland?

Garland to Detroit
Ingram to Cleveland
Stewart/Ivey to NOP

Nobody is interested in trading for Ingram with the assumption that he wants a max deal.

[gflem]

Rui, Reaves, Knecht, Vincent, and Wood for Garland, Niang, and Jerome

Garland and Niang for Dlo (expiring), Knecht, Wood (expiring), and Rui. Not sure either team would do it.
Solves the Cavs depth problem in the front court. Not a fan of either Wood or Dlo, but they are expiring.
I know most Cavs fans will hate this, but I just don't value Garland as much as most Cavs fans.