Is a Big 3 even feasible anymore?

[guest81]

I agree that he wouldn't pay the repeater tax. I'm just arguing that if he decided to pay it that somehow it would make him bankrupt or anything

[HeatFanSince87]

I know that a lot of people are in favor of gutting our roster, dispensing with any idea of a bench, and trading the house for Kevin Love to create a Big 3 with Irving and James. I've said 1000 times that I hate the idea with a passion.

Regardless of whether people are against it from a pure talent/fit/injury status standpoint, as I am, is a Big 3 even feasible after the new CBA?

If we create a Big 3, all on max contracts as they would be, we'd have 90-100% of the cap tied up in 3 guys. Any guys who survive the trade the house for Love purge will then be heading toward the end of their rookie contracts. Whether that be Thompson, Waiters, whomever, I can't believe we are going to match large RFA offers for these guys when the luxury tax is staring us in the face.

Accordingly, in my mind, a love trade means we lose not only the guys we actually trade, but everybody in that position, thus leaving us with our Big 3 and a bunch of vet minimums.

I know that Gilbert is willing to spend but I think we are underestimating the penalties built into the new cba. If we go for a big 3 and then re-sign any of our other guys, we are into the luxury tax and, worse, the repeater penalties. I think it's unrealistic to think any owner, even Gilbert, will pay those kinds of penalties year after year. The CBA was designed to prevent exactly what we are talking about trying to do.

So I think it's an awful risk. I know a lot of people respond by pointing out that Miami won 2 trophies playing this way, but I have 2 responses to that: (1) those wheels were in motion before the new cba and even Miami realized it couldn't compete; and (2) Miami was completely injury free during its two year run. In order for this gamble to work, we'd have to count on both Irving and love (and an aging Lebron) to play full seasons. Otherwise, it's a big 2, a bunch of vet minimums, and a 2nd round exit.

This whole situation has me anxious a bit because I think we are on the verge of making a big mistake. Right now, we are set up perfectly, not only from a talent standpoint, but financially. We don't have too much of our cap tied up in a couple of players, we have some depth, and we have key players (like wiggins) on manageable contracts for a long time.

Trading wiggins for love essentially gives us a 2 year window before we have to gut the team to 3 men and some vet minimums. My personal view is that we need to stop being so damn impatient, realize what we have, and enjoy the ride. This "we have to win this year at all costs!" Mentality is exactly what killed us the first time James was here. We do not have to win a championship this year. Just let it grow for once.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I agree it's much harder now, and the lack of depth really takes a toll. However, one thing I want to touch on is Miami was not injury free during the two titles. Bosh missed the second round and Conference Finals basically in 2012, and he didnt even start game 1 of the Finals and Mike Miller was injured most of the season. Wade started having his knee issues(remember his blow up with Spo in game 3 of the second round against the Pacers, 3 points). In 2013, Wade could barely move in the playoffs, was having his knee drained every game.

I hate the new CBA. Even with Lebron gone, I think the tax is stupid. Because even if you "build your team from the draft", like many give credit to OKC doing, you cant even keep your own guys(Harden). What happens if Waiter, Thompson, and Wiggins all became very good? A team like the old 80s Lakers. Now, the CBA is in place that destroys you for drafting well? I hate it...

[guest81]

I know that a lot of people are in favor of gutting our roster, dispensing with any idea of a bench, and trading the house for Kevin Love to create a Big 3 with Irving and James. I've said 1000 times that I hate the idea with a passion.

Regardless of whether people are against it from a pure talent/fit/injury status standpoint, as I am, is a Big 3 even feasible after the new CBA?

If we create a Big 3, all on max contracts as they would be, we'd have 90-100% of the cap tied up in 3 guys. Any guys who survive the trade the house for Love purge will then be heading toward the end of their rookie contracts. Whether that be Thompson, Waiters, whomever, I can't believe we are going to match large RFA offers for these guys when the luxury tax is staring us in the face.

Accordingly, in my mind, a love trade means we lose not only the guys we actually trade, but everybody in that position, thus leaving us with our Big 3 and a bunch of vet minimums.

I know that Gilbert is willing to spend but I think we are underestimating the penalties built into the new cba. If we go for a big 3 and then re-sign any of our other guys, we are into the luxury tax and, worse, the repeater penalties. I think it's unrealistic to think any owner, even Gilbert, will pay those kinds of penalties year after year. The CBA was designed to prevent exactly what we are talking about trying to do.

So I think it's an awful risk. I know a lot of people respond by pointing out that Miami won 2 trophies playing this way, but I have 2 responses to that: (1) those wheels were in motion before the new cba and even Miami realized it couldn't compete; and (2) Miami was completely injury free during its two year run. In order for this gamble to work, we'd have to count on both Irving and love (and an aging Lebron) to play full seasons. Otherwise, it's a big 2, a bunch of vet minimums, and a 2nd round exit.

This whole situation has me anxious a bit because I think we are on the verge of making a big mistake. Right now, we are set up perfectly, not only from a talent standpoint, but financially. We don't have too much of our cap tied up in a couple of players, we have some depth, and we have key players (like wiggins) on manageable contracts for a long time.

Trading wiggins for love essentially gives us a 2 year window before we have to gut the team to 3 men and some vet minimums. My personal view is that we need to stop being so damn impatient, realize what we have, and enjoy the ride. This "we have to win this year at all costs!" Mentality is exactly what killed us the first time James was here. We do not have to win a championship this year. Just let it grow for once.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I agree it's much harder now, and the lack of depth really takes a toll. However, one thing I want to touch on is Miami was not injury free during the two titles. Bosh missed the second round and Conference Finals basically in 2012, and he didnt even start game 1 of the Finals and Mike Miller was injured most of the season. Wade started having his knee issues(remember his blow up with Spo in game 3 of the second round against the Pacers, 3 points). In 2013, Wade could barely move in the playoffs, was having his knee drained every game.

I hate the new CBA. Even with Lebron gone, I think the tax is stupid. Because even if you "build your team from the draft", like many give credit to OKC doing, you cant even keep your own guys(Harden). What happens if Waiter, Thompson, and Wiggins all became very good? A team like the old 80s Lakers. Now, the CBA is in place that destroys you for drafting well? I hate it...

I can see why the tax is in place. Otherwise teams like the Lakers will be able to buy all the stars. But a team like the Lakers are a big market is because Dr Buss ran his business very well for a long time. Meanwhile the Wolves are a small market because Glen Taylor has ran his team the complete opposite. Kevin Love isn't going to leave Minnesota because its cold, he's leaving because Taylor has made blunder after blunder

[mup]

We might of got off track here. Going back to the main point I was trying to make....

People were not wanting the Love deal for the reason of the Cavs being in the luxury tax. As far as the luxury tax vs being over the cap doesn't really affect on who you can bring in. The only real difference is you get a mid level for being over the cap, and a mini mid level being over the tax. So in theory, they could bring in Ray Allen for the vet min if they were over the cap or if they were in the luxury tax.

The only person who it affects is Dan Gilbert. A billionaire. A guy who just saw his team valued jump up by some outrageous percent because of Lebron returning. If we want to talk about anybody sacrificing to win a championship, it should be him. Lebron or any player for that matter, shouldn't have to take a pay cut to help the team so that a muti billionaire has to pay a few extra million

I hear you but it's not the luxury tax that's the issue, it's the repeater tax and it's more than a "few" million. I think Gilbert is prepared to pay and pay well but that repeater tax is there for a reason. Nobody can pay that for more than a season or 2.

Why, would Gilbert go bankrupt? That's not even considering with the new TV deal, which will give the owners plenty of money
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Sir, you need to separate the owner from the team. I never said Gilbert would go bankrupt, I said the Cavs would be insolvent. Gilbert and the Cavs are 2 different things. Gilbert does not owe any players any money, the Cavs do.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[mup]

I agree that he wouldn't pay the repeater tax. I'm just arguing that if he decided to pay it that somehow it would make him bankrupt or anything

Never said it would. I said it would make the Cavs insolvent.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[mup]

I'm saying he doesn't have to worry about paying Cole's contract, because it means pennies to his worth

Im sorry but I'm just not following you.

It might mean pennies to his personal paper net worth. But that paper worth is illusory because it relies on the values of stock and real estate holdings. His liquid net worth is all that matters and that is far less than what forbes or fortune consider his actual net worth to be.

He doesn't just have stacks of cash laying around unless he starts selling unsellable assets for pennies on the dollar, which is something nobody would ever do just to give that money away to employees. The only cash relevant here is the cash that is generated by the team. If an owner gets to the point where he has to dip into his own pocket and sell his businesses, yachts, whatever, to make payroll, it's time to put the team into bankruptcy because it's insolvent.

The team pays its players, not the owner.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think your confused on a billionaires money compared to a normal person,

Say your a guy who makes 60 thousand a year, a car, a house, some other stuff. You own a dog, you bought him for 500 bucks. Dog gets sick, cost a couple thousand dollars to get him back to normal. You got to get rid of this dog cause you don't have want to have to sell your car or your house to fix this dog. You have no other revenue streams besides your salaries.

Compared to a guy like Arison. A guy who still had the salaries, car, house, things that you have. But Arison has other revenue streams that you cannot. He owns 100 million shares of Carnival stock. He could at any point sell off a couple of million of those stocks for cash for that dog and still have plently of shares left to tinker with. He could raise ticket prices, sell off shares of the Heat among other things.

Arison could get a billion in cash in hand and still be worth billions. His quality of life will never be jeopardy. You could sell off your 300 thousand house and get a 100 thousand house and have that extra cash, but your quality of life will change

Im not confused at all. I also believe in efficient economic markets. What that means is if raising ticket prices increased revenue, then surely he already would have done it. Raising ticket prices means fewer fans means the same revenue.

It's not about whether dipping into his own pocket affects his quality of life but that's viewed from your world perspective anyway. Perhaps in arison's view, a bigger yacht = a better quality of life and a smaller yacht = failure. It's not our place to make that determination for him. But the point is nobody gives away money just because it doesn't change their quality of life. People don't voluntarily lose money.

There must be some corresponding value. For Gilbert, corresponding value may be that winning a championship in Cleveland names him a hero, increases revenue for his casino, whatever the case may be. He has to make that determination and figure out how deep he'd be willing to go into his own pocket to have a huge salary structure not covered by team revenue. I don't know where that line is, but it is somewhere--- there is a line that it doesn't make sense for him to cross.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MrBojangelz71]

Very good post OP.

Its an interesting debate, whether going top heavy with a big 3 or 4, is better than allocating money to depth. We have seen the effects of going top heavy have on teams like Boston, and now Miami. It allows you a small window of opportunity to truly compete, but eventually kills your ability to add depth.

With the new CBA and repeater tax, and seeing a deep team such as the Spurs, winning it all, I believe the new trend in the NBA will be to create depth and flexibility within your organization that allows you to add key pieces through value trades and signings. Not hitching your ride to 3 max players, then hope you can fill the rest of your roster out with vet min.

I am a Raps fan, but am following the Cavs closely because of all our Canadian players. I would hate to see them ship out Wigs and Benett out for a win now situation with Love. In a couple years time when Wiggens is blowing up in Minni and still on his rookie contract, the Cavs will be overpaying for Love and probably getting less results than what Wiggins would have provided.

[dre4bobcats]

absolutely, if you guys still have lebron's background dancers "allen, miller, jones" signing for cheap