BKN - CLE - DAL - MIA - SAC (Garland to SAC)

[DowJones]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

[jbk1234]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

[bgrep14]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

I'd be fine with that trade but the Cavs would have to trade Okoro first in order to aggregate. Which is why I think Murray and 2 1st with them sending Monk to ATL or something would work better.

[bgrep14]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

[toooskies]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

If you remove Garland and Allen and replace them with Murray and Hunter your scoring gets less efficient, your passing gets worse, and your rebounding gets worse. Jarrett Allen led the league in TS%, why would I want to play him less?

[jbk1234]

Carter/Murray/2031 Minnesota first for Garland could work for me. DeRozan will be 36 before the season starts so he won’t hold much value for the Cavs. He is a nice player, but he cant be the centerpiece of a Darius Garland deal.

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

Murray shot 34% from 3 last season ( a tick under 36% the season before). Opposing defenses are going to let him shoot. This is his last year on a rookie contract. He'll be a RFA next summer and there will be tons of cap space out there. I don't think you can risk a rookie max offer sheet. You'd have to try to get him extended at 20% of the cap this summer. There's a reason he'd be made available.

[DowJones]

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

If you remove Garland and Allen and replace them with Murray and Hunter your scoring gets less efficient, your passing gets worse, and your rebounding gets worse. Jarrett Allen led the league in TS%, why would I want to play him less?

He is responding to what JBK said. JBK said a Mitchell-Strus-Murray-Mobley-Allen offense cannot be functional in the NBA.

[toooskies]

I really think the Mavs would be the only team remotely interested in trading for DDR on his current contract. If a pick turns DDR into PJ Washington, that at least has some logic to it. Murray has to get paid soon and hasn't shot league average from 3 since his rookie season. I feel like he's in that Herb Jones, Tari Eason category of players whose value will drop significantly on their next contract. It's going to be difficult to keep Allen at the 5 and run a functional offense making that kind of move.

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

Murray shot 34% from 3 last season ( a tick under 36% the season before). Opposing defenses are going to let him shoot. This is his last year on a rookie contract. He'll be a RFA next summer and there will be tons of cap space out there. I don't think you can risk a rookie max offer sheet. You'd have to try to get him extended at 20% of the cap this summer. There's a reason he'd be made available.

I don't think anyone's dedicating cap space to Keegan Murray, and I don't really like the free agent class next year. Particularly if Doncic and Young extend this summer.

[jbk1234]

Allen should get moved as a next tier move or come off the bench and start Hunter if your concern is floor spacing.

Mitchell, Strus, Murray, Hunter, and Mobley provides more than adequate floor spacing and athleticism.

Murray shot 34% from 3 last season ( a tick under 36% the season before). Opposing defenses are going to let him shoot. This is his last year on a rookie contract. He'll be a RFA next summer and there will be tons of cap space out there. I don't think you can risk a rookie max offer sheet. You'd have to try to get him extended at 20% of the cap this summer. There's a reason he'd be made available.

I don't think anyone's dedicating cap space to Keegan Murray, and I don't really like the free agent class next year. Particularly if Doncic and Young extend this summer.

So the Hornets, Wizards, Blazers, Heat or other struggling teams (who will be the ones with cap space) won't make a run at guys like Murray or Mathurin in 26?

I wouldn't make that bet with your money, let alone mine.

[toooskies]

Murray shot 34% from 3 last season ( a tick under 36% the season before). Opposing defenses are going to let him shoot. This is his last year on a rookie contract. He'll be a RFA next summer and there will be tons of cap space out there. I don't think you can risk a rookie max offer sheet. You'd have to try to get him extended at 20% of the cap this summer. There's a reason he'd be made available.

I don't think anyone's dedicating cap space to Keegan Murray, and I don't really like the free agent class next year. Particularly if Doncic and Young extend this summer.

So the Hornets, Wizards, Blazers, Heat or other struggling teams (who will be the ones with cap space) won't make a run at guys like Murray or Mathurin in 26?

I wouldn't make that bet with your money, let alone mine.

None of those teams would be a Keegan Murray signing away from being good.

[jbk1234]

I don't think anyone's dedicating cap space to Keegan Murray, and I don't really like the free agent class next year. Particularly if Doncic and Young extend this summer.

So the Hornets, Wizards, Blazers, Heat or other struggling teams (who will be the ones with cap space) won't make a run at guys like Murray or Mathurin in 26?

I wouldn't make that bet with your money, let alone mine.

None of those teams would be a Keegan Murray signing away from being good.

I'm pretty sure better is the goal and after you've spent a couple years eating bad money for picks, better starts looking pretty good. It was not that long ago that the Pacers offered Ayton a rookie max.

[bgrep14]

So the Hornets, Wizards, Blazers, Heat or other struggling teams (who will be the ones with cap space) won't make a run at guys like Murray or Mathurin in 26?

I wouldn't make that bet with your money, let alone mine.

None of those teams would be a Keegan Murray signing away from being good.

I'm pretty sure better is the goal and after you've spent a couple years eating bad money for picks, better starts looking pretty good. It was not that long ago that the Pacers offered Ayton a rookie max.

Murray would still be restricted so if he gets overpaid Cavs have the option to match or complete a S&T.

[jbk1234]

None of those teams would be a Keegan Murray signing away from being good.

I'm pretty sure better is the goal and after you've spent a couple years eating bad money for picks, better starts looking pretty good. It was not that long ago that the Pacers offered Ayton a rookie max.

Murray would still be restricted so if he gets overpaid Cavs have the option to match or complete a S&T.

You don't trade Garland for the opportunity to go begging for a S&T because you don't want to match the offer sheet on the centerpiece you got back. You'd either make the trade comfortable paying Murray, or you don't make the trade.

[bgrep14]

I'm pretty sure better is the goal and after you've spent a couple years eating bad money for picks, better starts looking pretty good. It was not that long ago that the Pacers offered Ayton a rookie max.

Murray would still be restricted so if he gets overpaid Cavs have the option to match or complete a S&T.

You don't trade Garland for the opportunity to go begging for a S&T because you don't want to match the offer sheet on the centerpiece you got back. You'd either make the trade comfortable paying Murray, or you don't make the trade.

You're being cynical, no one is begging for a sign and trade, and we'd expect the Cavs to match. I'm just pointing out that the option is there for whatever reason Cavs wouldn't want to match plus they'd had already gotten 2 1sts, plus whatever they would hypothetically get in a sign and trade for Murray. In reality if the Cavs didn't match but ended up saving what would likely be 100 million next year (taking into account taxes) and 3 1sts (2 of which are unprotected and likely at least 1 in the S&T) then it still wouldn't be a horrible scenario.

[jbk1234]

Murray would still be restricted so if he gets overpaid Cavs have the option to match or complete a S&T.

You don't trade Garland for the opportunity to go begging for a S&T because you don't want to match the offer sheet on the centerpiece you got back. You'd either make the trade comfortable paying Murray, or you don't make the trade.

You're being cynical, no one is begging for a sign and trade, and we'd expect the Cavs to match. I'm just pointing out that the option is there for whatever reason Cavs wouldn't want to match plus they'd had already gotten 2 1sts, plus whatever they would hypothetically get in a sign and trade for Murray. In reality if the Cavs didn't match but ended up saving what would likely be 100 million next year (taking into account taxes) and 3 1sts (2 of which are unprotected and likely at least 1 in the S&T) then it still wouldn't be a horrible scenario.

A one-year rental of Murray with nothing but future picks in place of Garland would be really, really bad. In fact, it would likely be accompanied by Mitchell informing you that he doesn't intend on extending.

[bgrep14]

You don't trade Garland for the opportunity to go begging for a S&T because you don't want to match the offer sheet on the centerpiece you got back. You'd either make the trade comfortable paying Murray, or you don't make the trade.

You're being cynical, no one is begging for a sign and trade, and we'd expect the Cavs to match. I'm just pointing out that the option is there for whatever reason Cavs wouldn't want to match plus they'd had already gotten 2 1sts, plus whatever they would hypothetically get in a sign and trade for Murray. In reality if the Cavs didn't match but ended up saving what would likely be 100 million next year (taking into account taxes) and 3 1sts (2 of which are unprotected and likely at least 1 in the S&T) then it still wouldn't be a horrible scenario.

A one-year rental of Murray with nothing but future picks in place of Garland would be really, really bad. In fact, it would likely be accompanied by Mitchell informing you that he doesn't intend on extending.

My guess is they’d likely get more than a first in S&T if someone is “overpaying” for Murray that they wouldn’t match. They could also get players back for 3 first round picks equaling someone equal Garland as teams aren’t lining up to pay that for him today. Regardless, your scenario of Cavs not matching almost under any circumstance is flawed in general.

[toooskies]

You're being cynical, no one is begging for a sign and trade, and we'd expect the Cavs to match. I'm just pointing out that the option is there for whatever reason Cavs wouldn't want to match plus they'd had already gotten 2 1sts, plus whatever they would hypothetically get in a sign and trade for Murray. In reality if the Cavs didn't match but ended up saving what would likely be 100 million next year (taking into account taxes) and 3 1sts (2 of which are unprotected and likely at least 1 in the S&T) then it still wouldn't be a horrible scenario.

A one-year rental of Murray with nothing but future picks in place of Garland would be really, really bad. In fact, it would likely be accompanied by Mitchell informing you that he doesn't intend on extending.

My guess is they’d likely get more than a first in S&T if someone is “overpaying” for Murray that they wouldn’t match. They could also get players back for 3 first round picks equaling someone equal Garland as teams aren’t lining up to pay that for him today. Regardless, your scenario of Cavs not matching almost under any circumstance is flawed in general.

To send out Murray in a S&T, the Cavs would need to plan to be under the 2nd apron, on top of BYC rules that were a total pain in the Sexton era. I wouldn’t count on that option.

[LightTheBeam]

Kings trading Keegan, Carter a 26 1st ++ for garland is simply a no go from sac. The only scenario I want us to go aftsr garland is a semi re-tool around garland-keon-keegan-sabonis where at least you justify a solid 1-3 of guys 25 who can play defense and fit around sabonis.

Adding garland to lavine and derozan while moving our only competent forward is a no go to me.

With that in mind based on the feedback from cavs fans, I dont see any deal that really makes sense. Cavs fans want to break garland into solid young pieces and picks, kings shouldn't be moving the only few young pieces we have. And we damn sure shouldn't be moving future kings 1st for a garland level player.

Maybe Orlando makes more sense as a garland destination?

[DowJones]

Kings trading Keegan, Carter a 26 1st ++ for garland is simply a no go from sac. The only scenario I want us to go aftsr garland is a semi re-tool around garland-keon-keegan-sabonis where at least you justify a solid 1-3 of guys 25 who can play defense and fit around sabonis.

Adding garland to lavine and derozan while moving our only competent forward is a no go to me.

With that in mind based on the feedback from cavs fans, I dont see any deal that really makes sense. Cavs fans want to break garland into solid young pieces and picks, kings shouldn't be moving the only few young pieces we have. And we damn sure shouldn't be moving future kings 1st for a garland level player.

Maybe Orlando makes more sense as a garland destination?

Yeah, I think the Kings should be thinking of rebuilding vs trading for a 25 year old. It is one thing if you can get him for a 36 year old DD, or even a 30 year old Zach Lavine, but obviously the Cavs wouldn’t want to go that route.

Orlando doesn’t have much that interests me since I am sure they won’t move off of Franz. With that being said, I am not overly high on Suggs. I would need significant draft compensation coming back from Orlando to swap out Garland for Suggs, and I doubt Orlando fans want to see their club attach a single pick in a deal like that.

[jbk1234]

Kings trading Keegan, Carter a 26 1st ++ for garland is simply a no go from sac. The only scenario I want us to go aftsr garland is a semi re-tool around garland-keon-keegan-sabonis where at least you justify a solid 1-3 of guys 25 who can play defense and fit around sabonis.

Adding garland to lavine and derozan while moving our only competent forward is a no go to me.

With that in mind based on the feedback from cavs fans, I dont see any deal that really makes sense. Cavs fans want to break garland into solid young pieces and picks, kings shouldn't be moving the only few young pieces we have. And we damn sure shouldn't be moving future kings 1st for a garland level player.

Maybe Orlando makes more sense as a garland destination?

Yeah, I think the Kings should be thinking of rebuilding vs trading for a 25 year old. It is one thing if you can get him for a 36 year old DD, or even a 30 year old Zach Lavine, but obviously the Cavs wouldn’t want to go that route.

Orlando doesn’t have much that interests me since I am sure they won’t move off of Franz. With that being said, I am not overly high on Suggs. I would need significant draft compensation coming back from Orlando to swap out Garland for Suggs, and I doubt Orlando fans want to see their club attach a single pick in a deal like that.

The Cavs are reportedly not interested in trading Garland to Orlando. As in not really engaging with them disinterested.