Around the NBA - 2024-25 Season Continued

[knicks94]

iHart's offensive game looks a lot better than it did when he was a Knick.

[Iwasawitness]

Ok, so these were the posts:

It's a good summary. Their superior bench hurts, compared to ours. I think hypothetically Atkinson or a comparable coach could make the Knicks have a similar jump/improvement next season. But Cavs bench is much deeper and better constructed.

Hopefully they have apron problems looming soon?

You joke, but they're definitely going to run into that apron issue as early as next season. I don't think they can afford to pay Sam and Ty (those two may even walk) if I remember how they run their money because they'll be over 200 mil even without those 2.

Just to jump in for a moment, I’m not going to pretend that I fully understand how the salary cap and second aprons all work, but our owner is one of the rare few who is always willing to spend. He doesn’t mind having the most expensive team in the league.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I never really watched van Horn, but is Chet's game somewhat similar to his?

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

It's a good summary. Their superior bench hurts, compared to ours. I think hypothetically Atkinson or a comparable coach could make the Knicks have a similar jump/improvement next season. But Cavs bench is much deeper and better constructed.

Hopefully they have apron problems looming soon?

You joke, but they're definitely going to run into that apron issue as early as next season. I don't think they can afford to pay Sam and Ty (those two may even walk) if I remember how they run their money because they'll be over 200 mil even without those 2.

Just to jump in for a moment, I’m not going to pretend that I fully understand how the salary cap and second aprons all work, but our owner is one of the rare few who is always willing to spend. He doesn’t mind having the most expensive team in the league.

It looks for all the world that you are going to be over the second apron without some substantial re-conning of the roster.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cleveland-cavaliers/overview/_/year/2025/sort/cap_total2/dir/desc

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I rarely read the General Board, but I happened to come across a post (well, two posts) responding to someone who hadn't seen much of the Cavs genuinely asking for information on why they have such a good record. I thought the answer(s) was(were) extremely illuminating in the light of much of the conversation over Thibs (and - to promote my Thibs must go thread - my OP there).

Ok, so these were the posts:

This pretty much covers it.

To slightly expand I think it’s a few things that stick out

1. They are good to great at basically every team skill. Incredible ball handling, passing, shooting. They pressure the rim off the dribble, with cutters and rollers, and vertically with Mobley and Allen. They have a lot of shooting that works off catch and shoot as well as off dribble. Lots of good rebounders, defenders.

2. They are deep and can play big, small, fast, or slow.

3. Our best skill is movement. We rarely take bad looks or go in funks with bad shot quality

These are all things I agree with.

See also: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/the-grizzlies-magic-trick-how-an-offense-borrowed-from-a-diii-school-in-maine-has-memphis-moving-differently/

[Capn'O]

I never really watched van Horn, but is Chet's game somewhat similar to his?

I would say not at all. Complexion and shooting are the main similarities. If KVH came up today, he'd definitely be a massive three point threat. Chet is much quicker and a vastly better defender. KVH had a decent post game too. He was wider. A more traditional big.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I never really watched van Horn, but is Chet's game somewhat similar to his?

I would say not at all. Complexion and shooting are the main similarities. If KVH came up today, he'd definitely be a three point threat. Chet is much quicker and a vastly better defender. KVH had a decent post game too. He was wider. A more traditional big.

Yeah, I was trying to set aside the complexion and think more about the frame. Was van Horn really wider? Maybe Chet thickens out a bit up top. But, yeah, probably the skill-sets today's players train for aren't really comparable with, idk, 30 years ago or whenever van Horn was 22.

Hum, checking the stats, Chet is considerably taller and maybe lighter as well.

Anyway, ty, Capn'O.

[Capn'O]

I never really watched van Horn, but is Chet's game somewhat similar to his?

I would say not at all. Complexion and shooting are the main similarities. If KVH came up today, he'd definitely be a three point threat. Chet is much quicker and a vastly better defender. KVH had a decent post game too. He was wider. A more traditional big.

Yeah, I was trying to set aside the complexion and think more about the frame. Was van Horn really wider? Maybe Chet thickens out a bit up top. But, yeah, probably the skill-sets today's players train for aren't really comparable with, idk, 30 years ago or whenever van Horn was 22.

Hum, checking the stats, Chet is considerably taller and maybe lighter as well.

Anyway, ty, Capn'O.

I'd say so:





Van Horn also had those sloping shoulders so he played a bit smaller than he was. Chet is a long boi. And aggressive on both ends.

I was so distraught when we traded Spree for KVH. The 90s Knicks grave had already been dug but getting a big that really couldn't defend felt like the nail in the coffin.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I would say not at all. Complexion and shooting are the main similarities. If KVH came up today, he'd definitely be a three point threat. Chet is much quicker and a vastly better defender. KVH had a decent post game too. He was wider. A more traditional big.

Yeah, I was trying to set aside the complexion and think more about the frame. Was van Horn really wider? Maybe Chet thickens out a bit up top. But, yeah, probably the skill-sets today's players train for aren't really comparable with, idk, 30 years ago or whenever van Horn was 22.

Hum, checking the stats, Chet is considerably taller and maybe lighter as well.

Anyway, ty, Capn'O.

I'd say so:





Van Horn also had those sloping shoulders so he played a bit smaller than he was. Chet is a long boi. And aggressive on both ends.

I was so distraught when we traded Spree for KVH. The 90s Knicks grave had already been dug but getting a big that really couldn't defend felt like the nail in the coffin.

I definitely bow to your superior knowledge (and feel the pain ). But to me it just looks like van Horn hit the weights a bit more. Not that he was essentially wider. Obviously Chet and Wemby are both thin af at the moment, but I guess that's not inevitably forever. Though somewhere in the Kareem/KP/KD body-shape seems pretty likely for both.

[Orange Mamba]

Grimes with 35 7 and 6 tonight

[nykballa2k4]

Grimes with 35 7 and 6 tonight

Tank commander Grimes at your service

[knicks94]

The league wants Flagg in Philly, hence why the Lakers were told to lose to BK.

[Gravy]

Lakers with Doncic lost to the Nets...

[Capn'O]

Something I'd forgotten about KVH - he was played primarily at SF for a good portion of his career. In hindsight that was pretty dumb and also why Charles Smith struggled here. Both of those guys were much better suited at the 4.

[Roger Murdock]

Roger Murdock is a good poster but I can't read his posts without hearing Kareem's incredulous voice in Airplane.

Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

I’m sorry that you have me confused with someone else. I’m an airline pilot…

[Clyde_Style]

Grimes with 35 7 and 6 tonight

Tank commander Grimes at your service

[Capn'O]

Roger Murdock is a good poster but I can't read his posts without hearing Kareem's incredulous voice in Airplane.

Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

I’m sorry that you have me confused with someone else. I’m an airline pilot…

Roger!

[Clyde_Style]

Something I'd forgotten about KVH - he was played primarily at SF for a good portion of his career. In hindsight that was pretty dumb and also why Charles Smith struggled here. Both of those guys were much better suited at the 4.

Van Horn's game would translate well to today's league

[dakomish23]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DG7BDieN8pZ/?igsh=cnF5d2t0ZDliYmlj

Interesting

[Chanel Bomber]

the conversation really shouldn't be about randle and kat. it should be about what else we could have got for randle's expiring and the picks we used on mikal. i see people talk about trading kat for giannis or whoever but kat doesn't really have a ton of value. or the twolves would have gotten more for him than randle and some throw-ins. a player you all think kinda sucks. so what does that say about kat.

At worst, KAT's trade value is equal to Randle's expiring. Most likely, it is superior with him rejuvenating his career and being named an All-Star starter. He was arguably our best player and the best center in the Conference before he injured his hand.

The issue has always been the Mikal trade, because it was a massive overpay and therefore we can't recoup the value lost in the deal. We paid a superstar price for a role player. Not only that, a role player who stopped excelling at his bread and butter (3-point shooting and defense).

We didn't lose value in the KAT deal (or marginally at most of you're on the pessimistic side). His contract can possibly still be used as salary filler, as Randle's contract could have been (except Randle put a timer on making a trade).

Where we lost value was in the Mikal deal. We lost a ton of value that we'll never get again. A complete waste of assets at that level.

i don't know that a lot of teams want to spend 55 mill a year for the next 3 years on him. the new cba doesn't really allow you to overspend on the wrong guys anymore if you're looking to contend. he might be the very best of the group of guys like sabonis, trae, de'aaron fox, randle, ingram. but he's one of those guys to me. that's his tier. and there isn't a ton of interest in those guys around the league at the salaries they make.

That's possible.

Couple of these guys moved before the deadline so I think there's still an interest whereby their contracts are movable (or the prospect of extending them to a larger contract is appealing). KAT's on the expensive side, but he's also on the higher end of this class in terms of impact. I don't know.

Randle and Divo's contract were smaller so the Knicks would have more flexibility to make different trades, whereas KAT locks you into a superstar trade. How teams value him might vary. I don't know how the Bucks for instance would view him as the returning contract in a Giannis deal. So fair point in this regard.

What I know is this, you have a better chance getting Giannis by offering KAT (All-Star and All-NBA in all likelihood) plus 4 firsts and pick swaps, than you have by offering Randle, Divo and Mikal.

That I am pretty confident about and it speaks to the inequality between the two trades. I don't think they belong in the same basket.