gflem wrote:jbk1234 wrote:gflem wrote:Wayne Embry had a saying back in the day, "never fall in love with a player". Trying to suggest that trading Garland or Allen on this board usually brings out negative/slightly condescending responses. I was of the mind to move Garland last season, and I really don't think he improved his value much if at all this season. To me, he just reinforced that he is fragile and not to be counted on in the playoffs when the game gets more physical.
In watching what is going on around the league I think there is a less than 50% chance that this team improves its chances to make the finals by sitting on their hands once again this offseason. Just because Boston is deconstructing to avoid the 2nd apron and Hali tore his achilles doesn't mean the Cavs should stand pat. This team still needs athleticism and size on the wing, and a playable back up big with some bulk who isn't afraid to be physical when he plays.
Without making a move or two there isn't a way to acquire players that fit those needs. Just saying that year two with Kenny as coach will fix these issues is being naive to me.
Garland aggravated the toe injury on a non-contact play against the Heat so I'm struggling to see the causal link between the physical nature of the playoffs and Garland's putative fragility.
The Cavs lost the two games against the Pacers Garland didn't play so I really struggle to see addition by subtraction argument. The Cavs aren't going to score enough to win without a healthy Garland unless they can trade him for another player who is also a triple threat. If that type of player is offered, and they can make it work as a second apron team, they should consider it. It sounds like they did when the Suns called and offered Durant +.
There's little to no cap space to trade into this summer. There will be plenty next summer. As a second apron team, that matters. I also think there's a non-zero chance Mitchell asks out next summer, and if that happens, I'd much rather have Garland on the roster. Trading Garland only to fall short again and have Mitchell make a trade request would be disaster pants.
I think that once you get away from the hypothetical trade to the actual offers, it gets a lot easier to see why Garland and Allen haven't been moved. The end result is that we're likely further away from contention.
To point one: He played against the Knicks, re-injured it and was not available for round two in any viably effective capacity. The casual link would be he was not healthy enough to be effective, imo.
To point two: He played in two of the four losses against the Pacers, again not healthy enough to be effective. It's not addition by subtraction if he isn't even playing, or able to be effective. The replacement/traded for player would be the addition part, there would be no subtraction. And yes, the whole point of looking to move Garland (or any player) would be to find a suitable player(s) to trade him for. I stated before that I am not saying to trade him for just anything.
To point three: I agree, that is a very good point about Mitchell. Again finding a suitable player (or players) in a trade would, by intent, mitigate that risk.
Point four: Yes there is little cap space this summer, and no, I don't know what type of deals were/are actually available, but that is why we come here to discuss these things. For example, I would not have done the hypothetical Magic trade for Suggs, he is injured as much or more than Garland. A deal for Cam Johnson + and salary relief would be more like what I would think the team should be looking at. Something with the Rockets before the Durant trade would also have interested me. But, I agree there isn't much out there, and we never really know exactly what was/wasn't offered, we are left to believe or not the reports after the fact.
I think that where our opinions diverge is that imo standing pat is moving backwards. We will be further into the 2nd apron when Allen's extension kicks in and we can only hope that our team somehow stays healthy enough to make the finals, and the other contenders don't. It's true that sometimes the best deals are the ones a team doesn't make, but as I see this team constructed, even if healthy there are still some serious limitations that have been dicussed here over and over.
it was Mitchell and Allen who had to tap out last postseason. To varing degrees, it was Garland, Hunter, and Mobley, and eventually Mitchell again in Game 4 against the Pacers. Mitchell going to locker room, numbing up his ankle, and coming back out in the 4th quater of Game 5 was incredibly foolish. Were very lucky we aren't joining the Pacers and Celtics on that front.
In any event, I'm not seeing a simple through line on injuries that points directly towards Garland. I do see some evidence that Mitchell struggles to stay healthy when he repeatedly overexerts himself by trying to do it all over the course of a long series. Also, our playoff record with Mitchell taking 30+ FGAs isn't great so I question the value to him playing that way in terms of outcomes. It is why I'm concerned with trading Garland for a guy like Cam Johnson who can't go get his own shot and isn't know for his passing.
The most disconcerting aspect of the Pacers series to me was just how awful Ty was until the final minutes of Game 5 (with Atkinson failing to anticipate what the Pacers would do being a close second). He was supposed to be our injury insurance. Now, maybe Ty can take his game to the next level, develop counters, alternative strategies, etc., but maybe he can't and that makes trading Garland really, really risky. Maybe the only primary ball handler on the roster who can handle playoff caliber ball pressure after a Garland trade is Mitchell. I don't see that ending well.
Now, none of this means the Cavs should just run it back without changing anything. They should probably let one or both of Ty or Merrill go. Strus should come off the bench so that you're rotating in a better defender instead of more of the same when one of Garland or Mitchell rest. Maybe Wade, Okoro and/or Tyson get more regular season run so you can see how much offense you can sacrifice for defense and still win.
Maybe you switch up the Mitchell/Mobley and Garland/Allen second units so that when Mitchell does YOLO in the playoffs, he doesn't disappear Mobley from the offense. The Cavs have needed a playable backup center since the Mitchell trade. Even with only the vet minimum, Altman should be to upgrade TT. All is not lost if we run it back. Yes, we'd still be reliant on health, but that's no different than an top-heavy contender.
