ImageImageImage

Trade Ideas (Part III)

Moderator: jbk1234

User avatar
substancej
Junior
Posts: 369
And1: 489
Joined: May 15, 2019
 

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1161 » by substancej » Tue Jul 9, 2019 4:09 pm

I think we have to come to terms with the fact that Sexton is both a great player and not a fit for the rebuild. In my opinion the front office should do him a favor and trade him to a team where he can be a starting point guard instead of a potential 6th man. I don't think it's fair to him or KPJ to keep both around. Of course this idea is completely negated if Garland ends up being a bust.
Kevin Love finna get traded
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1162 » by jbk1234 » Tue Jul 9, 2019 5:44 pm

substancej wrote:I think we have to come to terms with the fact that Sexton is both a great player and not a fit for the rebuild. In my opinion the front office should do him a favor and trade him to a team where he can be a starting point guard instead of a potential 6th man. I don't think it's fair to him or KPJ to keep both around. Of course this idea is completely negated if Garland ends up being a bust.


Yeah, it's way, way to early to make any moves like this. We don't know if any of the guys we drafted can play in the NBA. Also, Fox made a big jump his second year. We don't know whether Sexton will ultimately end up being the better player.

Finally, the Cavs shouldn't be trading anyone because of fairness. Having a really good sixth man on a rookie-scale contract is valuable. You only trade any of them because a team like Orlando wants to swap young front court help for young back court help.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1163 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:37 am

Some pretty serious on/off numbers for Love last year.

https://www.fearthesword.com/2019/7/11/20690250/kevin-love-possible-trade-cleveland-cavaliers

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1164 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:22 pm

There's a rumor that were trying to get Steven Adams. I'm pretty meh on the idea. I can live with we're only trading expiring contracts (not JR). But we better not be one of these dumb teams that sends picks to OKC for guys who looked like they were out of gas last year.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,933
And1: 2,544
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1165 » by Stillwater » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:09 pm

jbk1234 wrote:There's a rumor that were trying to get Steven Adams. I'm pretty meh on the idea. I can live with we're only trading expiring contracts (not JR). But we better not be one of these dumb teams that sends picks to OKC for guys who looked like they were out of gas last year.

I mean if all OKC wants is salary space than the only deal with CLE that makes sense is
Smith and Henson for Adams no picks involved.
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1166 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:27 pm

Stillwater wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:There's a rumor that were trying to get Steven Adams. I'm pretty meh on the idea. I can live with we're only trading expiring contracts (not JR). But we better not be one of these dumb teams that sends picks to OKC for guys who looked like they were out of gas last year.

I mean if all OKC wants is salary space than the only deal with CLE that makes sense is
Smith and Henson for Adams no picks involved.


Even giving up Smith is stupid IMO. We're going to be a repeater tax team so we can land an old school center coming off a bad year at $27M per? We're doing them a favor by getting them out of the second year of his deal. Also, OKC is rebuilding now. It's worth asking, if they don't want him, why not, and why should a rebuilding Cavs team want him? We're not four years into a rebuild here.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,933
And1: 2,544
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1167 » by Stillwater » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:35 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:There's a rumor that were trying to get Steven Adams. I'm pretty meh on the idea. I can live with we're only trading expiring contracts (not JR). But we better not be one of these dumb teams that sends picks to OKC for guys who looked like they were out of gas last year.

I mean if all OKC wants is salary space than the only deal with CLE that makes sense is
Smith and Henson for Adams no picks involved.


Even giving up Smith is stupid IMO. We're going to be a repeater tax team so we can land an old school center coming off a bad year at $27M per? We're doing them a favor by getting them out of the second year of his deal. Also, OKC is rebuilding now. It's worth asking, if they don't want him, why not, and why should a rebuilding Cavs team want him? We're not four years into a rebuild here.

Makes sense to me... I don't really know what all they plan to do to get back under the tax as the season goes on if they move Smith at this point, but it's pretty obvious they were not willing to eat bad contracts for meh picks.
Depends on what they think of Adams. Is he fast enough for the pace we will use? doubtful.
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
Richfield
Pro Prospect
Posts: 949
And1: 661
Joined: May 12, 2019

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1168 » by Richfield » Sat Aug 3, 2019 3:18 pm

Question:

Is Brandon Knight tradable?

Which type of teams would want him? Contenders with backup guard needs? Salary dumps? Other?

What could Cavs acquire in return?

Expiring contract 15.6M

2018-2019 Season:

23 mpg
45% 2pt
37% 3pt
50% eFG
78% ft
2 rpg
2.3 apg
0.7 spg
1 topg
8.5 ppg
Richfield
Pro Prospect
Posts: 949
And1: 661
Joined: May 12, 2019

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1169 » by Richfield » Sat Aug 3, 2019 3:24 pm

I think it will be an interesting trade deadline season for the Cavaliers.

Lots of expiring contracts. Many of which still have clear basketball value. Lots of teams trying to get an edge in a wide open playoff race. New contenders. Nobody sure what will happen in the West. No clear favorite in either conference.

Cavs with some vets with playoff experience, should be able to cash in a little bit, no?
Revenged25
Rookie
Posts: 1,210
And1: 357
Joined: Jun 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1170 » by Revenged25 » Sat Aug 3, 2019 5:05 pm

I think Knight could be used to take on a salary dump + asset. I think Clarkson will get moved to a contender to be a 6th man on their playoff run and we end up taking back a salary dump + better asset.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1171 » by jbk1234 » Sat Aug 3, 2019 5:54 pm

I think people are going to be disappointed in what, if anything, expiring contracts return this season. There are more expiring contracts available league-wide than good players heading for F.A. in 2020. The Knicks and Hornets are going to be looking to do the same thing. You're going to have to take on a really bad contract that runs through 2021 and I have mixed feelings about doing that to say the least.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Richfield
Pro Prospect
Posts: 949
And1: 661
Joined: May 12, 2019

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1172 » by Richfield » Sat Aug 3, 2019 7:13 pm

Revenged25 wrote:I think Knight could be used to take on a salary dump + asset. I think Clarkson will get moved to a contender to be a 6th man on their playoff run and we end up taking back a salary dump + better asset.


Lets call it a middle to late first rounder for Clarkson to the team that needs that microwave scoring bump (with defense).
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,933
And1: 2,544
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1173 » by Stillwater » Sat Aug 3, 2019 7:46 pm

Unless they think they will have to overpay to keep him next summer, I don't think CLE gets an offer they like for JC at the DL assuming his role is lessoned this season. I think they will try to retain him.
It's a crapshoot what Beilein focus' on I mean you cannot build up trade values of expiring's and still develop young talent all at the same time at least not while expecting to build any chemistry for the players considered part of any long term plan.

If they were going to move JC they could have done it this summer when his value was up and if those offers were bad they will be worse at the dl...
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1174 » by jbk1234 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:11 am

Richfield wrote:
Revenged25 wrote:I think Knight could be used to take on a salary dump + asset. I think Clarkson will get moved to a contender to be a 6th man on their playoff run and we end up taking back a salary dump + better asset.


Lets call it a middle to late first rounder for Clarkson to the team that needs that microwave scoring bump (with defense).
I think people are overrating what Clarkson and TT will bring back in a trade. If we get a good second round pick and an expiring contract, we need to take it. Nobody is looking for cap space next summer and I hope we don't take back deals that run into 2021 in order to get a late first.

TT and Clarkson are both solid, even good, role players who are making about 150-200% of their market value. No one is trading a good asset for the right to pay them next summer. If they weren't on expiring contracts, we'd probably have to attach an asset to move them.

If they could've been moved for cap space this summer, they probably would have been. Both the Knicks and Kings had cap space to take TT and they went in another direction. The Cavs cutting JR is likely related to how soft the market was for TT and Clarkson.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,933
And1: 2,544
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1175 » by Stillwater » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:40 pm

I'd like to think there is a good chance somebody will be calling for 1 or both of them due to their own rosters injuries or lack of depth ,and a late first might not be worth as much as a early 2nd for the team needing one of these players... depends on desire to get guaranteed contracts off their books too. So it's not entirely out of the question. I could also see scenarios where they take back a longer contract role player sf/pf defender as compensation attached to a expiring
but I agree the odds are not great the returns will be substantial to the point they may remain in the Cavs plans long term even though the odds either want to return are slim given the Klutch representation will try to get them more $ than CLE will or at least should dish out.
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,193
And1: 1,634
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1176 » by JonFromVA » Mon Nov 4, 2019 3:35 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Richfield wrote:
Revenged25 wrote:I think Knight could be used to take on a salary dump + asset. I think Clarkson will get moved to a contender to be a 6th man on their playoff run and we end up taking back a salary dump + better asset.


Lets call it a middle to late first rounder for Clarkson to the team that needs that microwave scoring bump (with defense).
I think people are overrating what Clarkson and TT will bring back in a trade. If we get a good second round pick and an expiring contract, we need to take it. Nobody is looking for cap space next summer and I hope we don't take back deals that run into 2021 in order to get a late first.

TT and Clarkson are both solid, even good, role players who are making about 150-200% of their market value. No one is trading a good asset for the right to pay them next summer. If they weren't on expiring contracts, we'd probably have to attach an asset to move them.

If they could've been moved for cap space this summer, they probably would have been. Both the Knicks and Kings had cap space to take TT and they went in another direction. The Cavs cutting JR is likely related to how soft the market was for TT and Clarkson.


If some team doesn't want to pay up something decent, we can just keep them. *shrugs*
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1177 » by jbk1234 » Mon Nov 4, 2019 4:11 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Richfield wrote:
Lets call it a middle to late first rounder for Clarkson to the team that needs that microwave scoring bump (with defense).
I think people are overrating what Clarkson and TT will bring back in a trade. If we get a good second round pick and an expiring contract, we need to take it. Nobody is looking for cap space next summer and I hope we don't take back deals that run into 2021 in order to get a late first.

TT and Clarkson are both solid, even good, role players who are making about 150-200% of their market value. No one is trading a good asset for the right to pay them next summer. If they weren't on expiring contracts, we'd probably have to attach an asset to move them.

If they could've been moved for cap space this summer, they probably would have been. Both the Knicks and Kings had cap space to take TT and they went in another direction. The Cavs cutting JR is likely related to how soft the market was for TT and Clarkson.


If some team doesn't want to pay up something decent, we can just keep them. *shrugs*


I'm fine not trading them early for a poor return, particularly TT, as he adds value to a young team in a multitude of ways. However, as the deadline approaches, I think the Cavs need to ask themselves whether they're interested in bringing these guys back, and if so, at what price tag and for how long. Cavs will have just over $30M in cap space this summer. Cap flexibility is one of the most important assets a rebuilding team can maintain. If these guys are willing to take a hair cut and do two-year deals with a team option in that second year, then it makes some sense.

But I'm skeptical either TT or Clarkson are looking for short-term and team-friendly deals (I'm skeptical Clarkson would return with Beilein as the head coach anyway). Klutch already got us twice. They got the Bucks with that Bledsoe extension last year and that KCP contract could prove really problematic for the Lakers. You lock yourself into a mediocre roster by paying high-end role players and you'll have a much harder time achieving escape velocity from your rebuild.

The only long-term contracts the Cavs should enter into are ones where that player will always be a trade asset because of how team-friendly the contract is. Nance will always be worth his contract. Cedi will always be worth his. There will always be a market for good role players who make less than 10% of the cap.

In sum, if a team offers expiring contracts and a couple quality seconds for either of these guys at the deadline, and that's all we can get, I'm probably taking it.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Revenged25
Rookie
Posts: 1,210
And1: 357
Joined: Jun 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1178 » by Revenged25 » Mon Nov 4, 2019 4:15 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I think people are overrating what Clarkson and TT will bring back in a trade. If we get a good second round pick and an expiring contract, we need to take it. Nobody is looking for cap space next summer and I hope we don't take back deals that run into 2021 in order to get a late first.

TT and Clarkson are both solid, even good, role players who are making about 150-200% of their market value. No one is trading a good asset for the right to pay them next summer. If they weren't on expiring contracts, we'd probably have to attach an asset to move them.

If they could've been moved for cap space this summer, they probably would have been. Both the Knicks and Kings had cap space to take TT and they went in another direction. The Cavs cutting JR is likely related to how soft the market was for TT and Clarkson.


If some team doesn't want to pay up something decent, we can just keep them. *shrugs*


I'm fine not trading them early for a poor return, particularly TT, as he adds value to a young team in a multitude of ways. However, as the deadline approaches, I think the Cavs need to ask themselves whether they're interested in bringing these guys back, and if so, at what price tag and for how long. Cavs will have just over $30M in cap space this summer. Cap flexibility is one of the most important assets a rebuilding team can maintain. If these guys are willing to take a hair cut and do two-year deals with a team option in that second year, then it makes some sense.

But I'm skeptical either TT or Clarkson are looking for short-term and team-friendly deals (I'm skeptical Clarkson would return with Beilein as the head coach anyway). Klutch already got us twice. They got the Bucks with that Bledsoe extension last year and that KCP contract could prove really problematic for the Lakers. You lock yourself into a mediocre roster by paying high-end role players and you'll have a much harder time achieving escape velocity from your rebuild.

The only long-term contracts the Cavs should enter into are ones where that player will always be a trade asset because of how team-friendly the contract is. Nance will always be worth his contract. Cedi will always be worth his. There will always be a market for good role players who make less than 10% of the cap.

In sum, if a team offers expiring contracts and a couple quality seconds for either of these guys at the deadline, and that's all we can get, I'm probably taking it.


Depending on who we draft, if we get Deni Avdija for example, I'd offer TT a 1 year 20 mil contract. Gives us a good big that we know our young guys work well with but also doesn't hamstring us for the future. If we get someone like Wiseman, I'd just let TT walk and toss Wiseman into the fire and see how he works with Love with Henson/Nance backing them up, possibly another big brought in.

I wouldn't want Clarkson back if he wanted vet for 4 years.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,193
And1: 1,634
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1179 » by JonFromVA » Mon Nov 4, 2019 8:28 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I think people are overrating what Clarkson and TT will bring back in a trade. If we get a good second round pick and an expiring contract, we need to take it. Nobody is looking for cap space next summer and I hope we don't take back deals that run into 2021 in order to get a late first.

TT and Clarkson are both solid, even good, role players who are making about 150-200% of their market value. No one is trading a good asset for the right to pay them next summer. If they weren't on expiring contracts, we'd probably have to attach an asset to move them.

If they could've been moved for cap space this summer, they probably would have been. Both the Knicks and Kings had cap space to take TT and they went in another direction. The Cavs cutting JR is likely related to how soft the market was for TT and Clarkson.


If some team doesn't want to pay up something decent, we can just keep them. *shrugs*


I'm fine not trading them early for a poor return, particularly TT, as he adds value to a young team in a multitude of ways. However, as the deadline approaches, I think the Cavs need to ask themselves whether they're interested in bringing these guys back, and if so, at what price tag and for how long. Cavs will have just over $30M in cap space this summer. Cap flexibility is one of the most important assets a rebuilding team can maintain. If these guys are willing to take a hair cut and do two-year deals with a team option in that second year, then it makes some sense.

But I'm skeptical either TT or Clarkson are looking for short-term and team-friendly deals (I'm skeptical Clarkson would return with Beilein as the head coach anyway). Klutch already got us twice. They got the Bucks with that Bledsoe extension last year and that KCP contract could prove really problematic for the Lakers. You lock yourself into a mediocre roster by paying high-end role players and you'll have a much harder time achieving escape velocity from your rebuild.

The only long-term contracts the Cavs should enter into are ones where that player will always be a trade asset because of how team-friendly the contract is. Nance will always be worth his contract. Cedi will always be worth his. There will always be a market for good role players who make less than 10% of the cap.

In sum, if a team offers expiring contracts and a couple quality seconds for either of these guys at the deadline, and that's all we can get, I'm probably taking it.


I guess it depends what you mean by quality 2's because a couple of picks expected to fall in the 31-36 range is basically equivalent to a late first; but easier said then done when you're dealing with playoff teams.

Anyway, this is all out of our control. We have some players with talent if anyone desperately needs that talent. We have expiring contracts that we can deal for future salary. And if we do nothing, we have cap space.

But I don't believe our only goal with cap space is to try to absorb bad contracts and turn it in to more picks. With a player development coach, we should be searching high and low for players we think will fit what Beilein wants and can grow with the team and if we find the right player - the length of commitment simply doesn't matter.

We can technically do all the above, but it all comes down to the opportunities we can discover or create.

I'm probably asking too much from Koby Altman even with Beilein's help, but we can hope ...
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,724
And1: 21,093
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Trade Ideas (Part III) 

Post#1180 » by jbk1234 » Mon Nov 4, 2019 9:18 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
If some team doesn't want to pay up something decent, we can just keep them. *shrugs*


I'm fine not trading them early for a poor return, particularly TT, as he adds value to a young team in a multitude of ways. However, as the deadline approaches, I think the Cavs need to ask themselves whether they're interested in bringing these guys back, and if so, at what price tag and for how long. Cavs will have just over $30M in cap space this summer. Cap flexibility is one of the most important assets a rebuilding team can maintain. If these guys are willing to take a hair cut and do two-year deals with a team option in that second year, then it makes some sense.

But I'm skeptical either TT or Clarkson are looking for short-term and team-friendly deals (I'm skeptical Clarkson would return with Beilein as the head coach anyway). Klutch already got us twice. They got the Bucks with that Bledsoe extension last year and that KCP contract could prove really problematic for the Lakers. You lock yourself into a mediocre roster by paying high-end role players and you'll have a much harder time achieving escape velocity from your rebuild.

The only long-term contracts the Cavs should enter into are ones where that player will always be a trade asset because of how team-friendly the contract is. Nance will always be worth his contract. Cedi will always be worth his. There will always be a market for good role players who make less than 10% of the cap.

In sum, if a team offers expiring contracts and a couple quality seconds for either of these guys at the deadline, and that's all we can get, I'm probably taking it.


I guess it depends what you mean by quality 2's because a couple of picks expected to fall in the 31-36 range is basically equivalent to a late first; but easier said then done when you're dealing with playoff teams.

Anyway, this is all out of our control. We have some players with talent if anyone desperately needs that talent. We have expiring contracts that we can deal for future salary. And if we do nothing, we have cap space.

But I don't believe our only goal with cap space is to try to absorb bad contracts and turn it in to more picks. With a player development coach, we should be searching high and low for players we think will fit what Beilein wants and can grow with the team and if we find the right player - the length of commitment simply doesn't matter.

We can technically do all the above, but it all comes down to the opportunities we can discover or create.

I'm probably asking too much from Koby Altman even with Beilein's help, but we can hope ...


See when it comes to replacement level starters, or good role players, I think the length of the commitment matters more than anything else. It's not just because you can trade away cap space for picks, although that's important, it's because your trade opportunities are heavily dependent upon whether the contracts you have on your books are deemed to be good or bad around the league. You're ability to steal a RFA is dependent upon your available cap space. With it, you have options, and without it, you don't.

I think the biggest mistake teams make is locking their rosters up, for years, when their ceilings are meh or questionable. The Hornets tried desperately to remake that roster around Kemba his last couple of years but no one wanted what they were offering. The Bucks are ride or die with that roster until Giannis is a F.A. and I don't like their chances. Same with Houston and Harden. The Pistons are very limited in what they can add to Blake. Minny fans spend 2/3 of their time on the T&T board trying desperately to convince everyone else that Wiggins and Deing aren't *that bad* because they know they're on the clock with Towns.
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers