Cleveland Cavaliers dream offseason

[Stillwater]

And Phoenix gave away T.J. Warren. It goes on and on. There are a lot of minefields building through the draft at all levels of the chain and one of the biggest mistakes is just a lack of patience.

Oladipo was 25 years old when he had his break-out season. If Garland takes just as long, he'll be in the second season of his second contract; and he won't be cheap because of the CBA rules regarding top picks. If I figured this right, his QO coming off his rookie deal would be $11.8M and that's just to make sure we can match any offer.

It's going to be hard to justify keeping a backup PG or 6th man on the roster at $11.8M +, yet, if we want to see what we've really got - we may have no choice but to take that risk.

Fun!

if your top bigs and wings are gone at 5 for example do you pick a guard again as the BPA esp if its one you had as a top 3 prospect and have a minutes war or do you overpick somebody else to avoid upsetting the apple cart? They already know Sexton and Garland will never play together so if they pick a guard in this draft one of them is going to be moved. I will keep Sexton since he already has proven more even if I regret it later when Garland becomes a decent rotation player. The reality is it is highly unlikely DG is ever going to be worth his $ and if your only reason for keeping him is so you dont get burned later when he turns into something like what you hoped when you drafted him it wont even matter if the return was an equally good player at another position of greater need etc.
I would not shop him because as is he probably isnt worth a mid first in this bad draft...but that also is because of how many guards are in this draft where noone will overpay for the chance to find out if DG will ever become anything. But if they do you have to consider it...
We need to take a big and if they are gone take the highest floor 2-4 defender , let the guards develop another year and if DG is better you can move him for real value later if the rotation is still terrible defensively

Any trade is contingent on the return, but presuming that return would be low for either Garland or Sexton - I'd be willing to overdraft the guard spot and let things play out.

Fortunately, all the guards at the top of the draft seem to be 6'5" or taller, so at least we'd be adding some lineup versatility.

Heck, it would probably even help the trade value of our prospects if we limited their minutes, hid their weaknesses, and teased their upside. Other teams seem to get away with it. I'd prefer we just find a way to develop all our talent, but by hook or crook we need to find a way to increase the value of our players not wreck it.

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

[JonFromVA]

if your top bigs and wings are gone at 5 for example do you pick a guard again as the BPA esp if its one you had as a top 3 prospect and have a minutes war or do you overpick somebody else to avoid upsetting the apple cart? They already know Sexton and Garland will never play together so if they pick a guard in this draft one of them is going to be moved. I will keep Sexton since he already has proven more even if I regret it later when Garland becomes a decent rotation player. The reality is it is highly unlikely DG is ever going to be worth his $ and if your only reason for keeping him is so you dont get burned later when he turns into something like what you hoped when you drafted him it wont even matter if the return was an equally good player at another position of greater need etc.
I would not shop him because as is he probably isnt worth a mid first in this bad draft...but that also is because of how many guards are in this draft where noone will overpay for the chance to find out if DG will ever become anything. But if they do you have to consider it...
We need to take a big and if they are gone take the highest floor 2-4 defender , let the guards develop another year and if DG is better you can move him for real value later if the rotation is still terrible defensively

Any trade is contingent on the return, but presuming that return would be low for either Garland or Sexton - I'd be willing to overdraft the guard spot and let things play out.

Fortunately, all the guards at the top of the draft seem to be 6'5" or taller, so at least we'd be adding some lineup versatility.

Heck, it would probably even help the trade value of our prospects if we limited their minutes, hid their weaknesses, and teased their upside. Other teams seem to get away with it. I'd prefer we just find a way to develop all our talent, but by hook or crook we need to find a way to increase the value of our players not wreck it.

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

We're pretty front-court heavy, even if we lose Tristan. For instance, I don't expect Wiseman/Okongwu would be our day 1 starting C/PF, and he might be asked to compete with Nance Jr and Jordan Bell for bench minutes.

Even at SF where everbody is ready to toss Cedi aside (who btw is just 25 and entering his prime) there's competition from Nance going small, Porter Jr going big, and hopefully Windler.

[gflem]

Personally would keep Garland 70% of the time to develop at least 1 more season even if he is a 6th man all season unless a late lottery pick became available in return with a highly ranked guard on Cavs board available example if Pels offer 12th and filler (Hart)for Garland and Cavs could get a big 3-4 like Williams or if Deni falls i think it would be possible to justify.

I don't think Deni falls to 12, and that is the guy I was thinking of. "Experts" here on realgm and on the mock drafts are all over the place on him, from calling him Doncic lite to barely a rotation player, but for me if we keep Sexton (and at this point I think we should) and have a shot at Edwards, then a facilitator like Deni would seem to be a good fit. Moving Garland to get Avdija, if possible, seems to solve several issues.
Not that drafting for fit is the best option, but his ceiling is high and if he can work out his 3pt shooting, he seems to have all the tools to be a core player for this team for the future.

[gflem]

if your top bigs and wings are gone at 5 for example do you pick a guard again as the BPA esp if its one you had as a top 3 prospect and have a minutes war or do you overpick somebody else to avoid upsetting the apple cart? They already know Sexton and Garland will never play together so if they pick a guard in this draft one of them is going to be moved. I will keep Sexton since he already has proven more even if I regret it later when Garland becomes a decent rotation player. The reality is it is highly unlikely DG is ever going to be worth his $ and if your only reason for keeping him is so you dont get burned later when he turns into something like what you hoped when you drafted him it wont even matter if the return was an equally good player at another position of greater need etc.
I would not shop him because as is he probably isnt worth a mid first in this bad draft...but that also is because of how many guards are in this draft where noone will overpay for the chance to find out if DG will ever become anything. But if they do you have to consider it...
We need to take a big and if they are gone take the highest floor 2-4 defender , let the guards develop another year and if DG is better you can move him for real value later if the rotation is still terrible defensively

Any trade is contingent on the return, but presuming that return would be low for either Garland or Sexton - I'd be willing to overdraft the guard spot and let things play out.

Fortunately, all the guards at the top of the draft seem to be 6'5" or taller, so at least we'd be adding some lineup versatility.

Heck, it would probably even help the trade value of our prospects if we limited their minutes, hid their weaknesses, and teased their upside. Other teams seem to get away with it. I'd prefer we just find a way to develop all our talent, but by hook or crook we need to find a way to increase the value of our players not wreck it.

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

I'm not going to trash the Cavs for playing Garland, there is a need to see what the player can do, especially in a rebuild situation. I do take issue with the thinking that two 6'1"ish small guards can defend in the NBA together and I think after watching what we saw last season hopefully they have figured that out. IF, they still think Garland can be a high level starter then moving Sexton would be the smart move as he is much more valuable, but I personally think that would be a mistake in how they value the two players.

[JonFromVA]

Any trade is contingent on the return, but presuming that return would be low for either Garland or Sexton - I'd be willing to overdraft the guard spot and let things play out.

Fortunately, all the guards at the top of the draft seem to be 6'5" or taller, so at least we'd be adding some lineup versatility.

Heck, it would probably even help the trade value of our prospects if we limited their minutes, hid their weaknesses, and teased their upside. Other teams seem to get away with it. I'd prefer we just find a way to develop all our talent, but by hook or crook we need to find a way to increase the value of our players not wreck it.

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

I'm not going to trash the Cavs for playing Garland, there is a need to see what the player can do, especially in a rebuild situation. I do take issue with the thinking that two 6'1"ish small guards can defend in the NBA together and I think after watching what we saw last season hopefully they have figured that out. IF, they still think Garland can be a high level starter then moving Sexton would be the smart move as he is much more valuable, but I personally think that would be a mistake in how they value the two players.

Poor guys, just a year ago at this time they were 6'2" guards.

IMO, it's a lot simpler than you're thinking. They were concerned Sexton would not be able to figure out how to run the team and drafted a player they hoped could. They played them together because ... why the heck not? On offense, they can both play on or off the ball and it was a way to get both players minutes they need to push along their development.

As I've said, I really don't think either player is valuable to other team's right now. So, if I'm right, why push all our money to the middle when we don't have to?

There's certainly reason to hope that given time that Sexton and Garland could work out as well as Dame and CJ, and yes, we can argue even that has limited upside. Aka, maybe we're not going to win championships if they are our best two players. But a rebuilding team has to start with something ...

... and crappy defense is a solid way to keep a tank rolling.

[gflem]

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

I'm not going to trash the Cavs for playing Garland, there is a need to see what the player can do, especially in a rebuild situation. I do take issue with the thinking that two 6'1"ish small guards can defend in the NBA together and I think after watching what we saw last season hopefully they have figured that out. IF, they still think Garland can be a high level starter then moving Sexton would be the smart move as he is much more valuable, but I personally think that would be a mistake in how they value the two players.

Poor guys, just a year ago at this time they were 6'2" guards.

IMO, it's a lot simpler than you're thinking. They were concerned Sexton would not be able to figure out how to run the team and drafted a player they hoped could. They played them together because ... why the heck not? On offense, they can both play on or off the ball and it was a way to get both players minutes they need to push along their development.

As I've said, I really don't think either player is valuable to other team's right now. So, if I'm right, why push all our money to the middle when we don't have to?

There's certainly reason to hope that given time that Sexton and Garland could work out as well as Dame and CJ, and yes, we can argue even that has limited upside. Aka, maybe we're not going to win championships if they are our best two players. But a rebuilding team has to start with something ...

... and crappy defense is a solid way to keep a tank rolling.

OK, 6'2" ish. Is that better? Still didn't work well did it?
As I said, I have no problem with playing them together, and if you think there will be a different result doing it again that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
If you don't think either player has value, I disagree. Sexton has proven over the course of his season and a half that:
he has elite speed
adequate handles
can shoot from distance
has an NBA work ethic
isn't a head case
and will at least work hard on the defensive end
is durable, which is especially important for a smaller player
All of which shows barring injury that he will be a quality rotation player at the least for quite some time.
Garland, hasn't. Not to fault him, he was injured in college, so much so that they didn't want/couldn't play him in summer league (which brings durability into question), his rookie season was cut short (again not his fault), but his shooting was well below what we were told by the team was his strength. His defense was below subpar, his attitude was good from all accounts and of course he was only 19 when the season started so the potential is there for him to improve in all areas of his game.
The point being that Sexton has imo much greater value to the Cavs and around the league. How many players his age averaged 19 plus ppg on anywhere near his efficiency? With his near 40% 3pt shooting? There is value there. Some Ny fans on this site are are really down on RJ Barrett in the same time frame as Sexton. Would you swap for Barrett straight up?
As for tanking, are we rebuilding or tanking? Not much difference I know, but to me trying to find players that can play and fit together is building a roster. Tanking is losing on purpose to improve draft position. Losing on purpose (tanking) is a one season endeavor, or should be, otherwise losing can become habit, or attitudes can be destroyed. I get that with 19 year old players it can take more that one season (or one shortened season) to determine how well they can develop and fit together but I am skeptical of the mini me back court working no matter how both players develop. I admit I could certainly be wrong here but I just don't see the two being able to play together long term.
Edit: Damn, you made me sound like Stillwater defending Sexton.

[Stillwater]

Any trade is contingent on the return, but presuming that return would be low for either Garland or Sexton - I'd be willing to overdraft the guard spot and let things play out.

Fortunately, all the guards at the top of the draft seem to be 6'5" or taller, so at least we'd be adding some lineup versatility.

Heck, it would probably even help the trade value of our prospects if we limited their minutes, hid their weaknesses, and teased their upside. Other teams seem to get away with it. I'd prefer we just find a way to develop all our talent, but by hook or crook we need to find a way to increase the value of our players not wreck it.

Yeah well this org already hitched its pride instead of confidence mantra to Garland despite his failures starting him pretty much all season.
I like we actually know better what we have because of it... But so does the league.
If Sexton hadnt continued to improve there would be no debate at all if they should take a ball dom guard again.

We're pretty front-court heavy, even if we lose Tristan. For instance, I don't expect Wiseman/Okongwu would be our day 1 starting C/PF, and he might be asked to compete with Nance Jr and Jordan Bell for bench minutes.

Even at SF where everbody is ready to toss Cedi aside (who btw is just 25 and entering his prime) there's competition from Nance going small, Porter Jr going big, and hopefully Windler.

Love,Dre and Larry would obviously get the brunt of the minutes over any rookie at least until the dl when Dre is sold off or who knows maybe they find a home for KLove but I think getting a Wiseman or big O should be the long term priority

[JonFromVA]

I'm not going to trash the Cavs for playing Garland, there is a need to see what the player can do, especially in a rebuild situation. I do take issue with the thinking that two 6'1"ish small guards can defend in the NBA together and I think after watching what we saw last season hopefully they have figured that out. IF, they still think Garland can be a high level starter then moving Sexton would be the smart move as he is much more valuable, but I personally think that would be a mistake in how they value the two players.

Poor guys, just a year ago at this time they were 6'2" guards.

IMO, it's a lot simpler than you're thinking. They were concerned Sexton would not be able to figure out how to run the team and drafted a player they hoped could. They played them together because ... why the heck not? On offense, they can both play on or off the ball and it was a way to get both players minutes they need to push along their development.

As I've said, I really don't think either player is valuable to other team's right now. So, if I'm right, why push all our money to the middle when we don't have to?

There's certainly reason to hope that given time that Sexton and Garland could work out as well as Dame and CJ, and yes, we can argue even that has limited upside. Aka, maybe we're not going to win championships if they are our best two players. But a rebuilding team has to start with something ...

... and crappy defense is a solid way to keep a tank rolling.

OK, 6'2" ish. Is that better? Still didn't work well did it?
As I said, I have no problem with playing them together, and if you think there will be a different result doing it again that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
If you don't think either player has value, I disagree. Sexton has proven over the course of his season and a half that:
he has elite speed
adequate handles
can shoot from distance
has an NBA work ethic
isn't a head case
and will at least work hard on the defensive end
is durable, which is especially important for a smaller player
All of which shows barring injury that he will be a quality rotation player at the least for quite some time.
Garland, hasn't. Not to fault him, he was injured in college, so much so that they didn't want/couldn't play him in summer league (which brings durability into question), his rookie season was cut short (again not his fault), but his shooting was well below what we were told by the team was his strength. His defense was below subpar, his attitude was good from all accounts and of course he was only 19 when the season started so the potential is there for him to improve in all areas of his game.
The point being that Sexton has imo much greater value to the Cavs and around the league. How many players his age averaged 19 plus ppg on anywhere near his efficiency? With his near 40% 3pt shooting? There is value there. Some Ny fans on this site are are really down on RJ Barrett in the same time frame as Sexton. Would you swap for Barrett straight up?
As for tanking, are we rebuilding or tanking? Not much difference I know, but to me trying to find players that can play and fit together is building a roster. Tanking is losing on purpose to improve draft position. Losing on purpose (tanking) is a one season endeavor, or should be, otherwise losing can become habit, or attitudes can be destroyed. I get that with 19 year old players it can take more that one season (or one shortened season) to determine how well they can develop and fit together but I am skeptical of the mini me back court working no matter how both players develop. I admit I could certainly be wrong here but I just don't see the two being able to play together long term.
Edit: Damn, you made me sound like Stillwater defending Sexton.

Let me put it this way ... what do you think you could get a fan of another team's board on RealGM to offer us in a trade for Sexton?

I'd be glad to test whatever you come up with (including a straight up for RJ Barrett), but from what I've gathered a 6'2" shooting guard who defends poorly and averages 3.0 assists and 2.4 steals is not highly valued around the league even with his scoring ability and solid efficiency.

And speaking of Barrett, in-spite of his lackluster rookie season; due to his size and skillset I suspect he's going to hold on hold to his value for a while.

What it comes down to, is I'm just not interested in selling low before we even know what we've got. I'd rather just keep Sexton/Garland/Porter Jr/Windler/etc.

Creating a roster that fits together better is important, but it's early in our rebuild, and we can easily afford to let things play out until the right deal comes along; or as we've done with Drummond - bring in players who let us try out concepts without having to give up significant assets.

[jbk1234]

I'm not going to trash the Cavs for playing Garland, there is a need to see what the player can do, especially in a rebuild situation. I do take issue with the thinking that two 6'1"ish small guards can defend in the NBA together and I think after watching what we saw last season hopefully they have figured that out. IF, they still think Garland can be a high level starter then moving Sexton would be the smart move as he is much more valuable, but I personally think that would be a mistake in how they value the two players.

Poor guys, just a year ago at this time they were 6'2" guards.

IMO, it's a lot simpler than you're thinking. They were concerned Sexton would not be able to figure out how to run the team and drafted a player they hoped could. They played them together because ... why the heck not? On offense, they can both play on or off the ball and it was a way to get both players minutes they need to push along their development.

As I've said, I really don't think either player is valuable to other team's right now. So, if I'm right, why push all our money to the middle when we don't have to?

There's certainly reason to hope that given time that Sexton and Garland could work out as well as Dame and CJ, and yes, we can argue even that has limited upside. Aka, maybe we're not going to win championships if they are our best two players. But a rebuilding team has to start with something ...

... and crappy defense is a solid way to keep a tank rolling.

OK, 6'2" ish. Is that better? Still didn't work well did it?
As I said, I have no problem with playing them together, and if you think there will be a different result doing it again that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
If you don't think either player has value, I disagree. Sexton has proven over the course of his season and a half that:
he has elite speed
adequate handles
can shoot from distance
has an NBA work ethic
isn't a head case
and will at least work hard on the defensive end
is durable, which is especially important for a smaller player
All of which shows barring injury that he will be a quality rotation player at the least for quite some time.
Garland, hasn't. Not to fault him, he was injured in college, so much so that they didn't want/couldn't play him in summer league (which brings durability into question), his rookie season was cut short (again not his fault), but his shooting was well below what we were told by the team was his strength. His defense was below subpar, his attitude was good from all accounts and of course he was only 19 when the season started so the potential is there for him to improve in all areas of his game.
The point being that Sexton has imo much greater value to the Cavs and around the league. How many players his age averaged 19 plus ppg on anywhere near his efficiency? With his near 40% 3pt shooting? There is value there. Some Ny fans on this site are are really down on RJ Barrett in the same time frame as Sexton. Would you swap for Barrett straight up?
As for tanking, are we rebuilding or tanking? Not much difference I know, but to me trying to find players that can play and fit together is building a roster. Tanking is losing on purpose to improve draft position. Losing on purpose (tanking) is a one season endeavor, or should be, otherwise losing can become habit, or attitudes can be destroyed. I get that with 19 year old players it can take more that one season (or one shortened season) to determine how well they can develop and fit together but I am skeptical of the mini me back court working no matter how both players develop. I admit I could certainly be wrong here but I just don't see the two being able to play together long term.
Edit: Damn, you made me sound like Stillwater defending Sexton.

Sexton hasn't proven anything. He' had a series of good games, in the second half of an NBA season, where it looked like he finally figured some things out. That happened after he was gifted 120 games worth of starters minutes that he hadn't earned. He could continue to improve, plateau, or even regress. What he has done is earned the right to be the presumptive starter. If who we saw in the last few weeks is who Sexton is now, that's great. But no one should be banking on that given the relative sample sizes.

[JonFromVA]

Poor guys, just a year ago at this time they were 6'2" guards.

IMO, it's a lot simpler than you're thinking. They were concerned Sexton would not be able to figure out how to run the team and drafted a player they hoped could. They played them together because ... why the heck not? On offense, they can both play on or off the ball and it was a way to get both players minutes they need to push along their development.

As I've said, I really don't think either player is valuable to other team's right now. So, if I'm right, why push all our money to the middle when we don't have to?

There's certainly reason to hope that given time that Sexton and Garland could work out as well as Dame and CJ, and yes, we can argue even that has limited upside. Aka, maybe we're not going to win championships if they are our best two players. But a rebuilding team has to start with something ...

... and crappy defense is a solid way to keep a tank rolling.

OK, 6'2" ish. Is that better? Still didn't work well did it?
As I said, I have no problem with playing them together, and if you think there will be a different result doing it again that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
If you don't think either player has value, I disagree. Sexton has proven over the course of his season and a half that:
he has elite speed
adequate handles
can shoot from distance
has an NBA work ethic
isn't a head case
and will at least work hard on the defensive end
is durable, which is especially important for a smaller player
All of which shows barring injury that he will be a quality rotation player at the least for quite some time.
Garland, hasn't. Not to fault him, he was injured in college, so much so that they didn't want/couldn't play him in summer league (which brings durability into question), his rookie season was cut short (again not his fault), but his shooting was well below what we were told by the team was his strength. His defense was below subpar, his attitude was good from all accounts and of course he was only 19 when the season started so the potential is there for him to improve in all areas of his game.
The point being that Sexton has imo much greater value to the Cavs and around the league. How many players his age averaged 19 plus ppg on anywhere near his efficiency? With his near 40% 3pt shooting? There is value there. Some Ny fans on this site are are really down on RJ Barrett in the same time frame as Sexton. Would you swap for Barrett straight up?
As for tanking, are we rebuilding or tanking? Not much difference I know, but to me trying to find players that can play and fit together is building a roster. Tanking is losing on purpose to improve draft position. Losing on purpose (tanking) is a one season endeavor, or should be, otherwise losing can become habit, or attitudes can be destroyed. I get that with 19 year old players it can take more that one season (or one shortened season) to determine how well they can develop and fit together but I am skeptical of the mini me back court working no matter how both players develop. I admit I could certainly be wrong here but I just don't see the two being able to play together long term.
Edit: Damn, you made me sound like Stillwater defending Sexton.

Sexton hasn't proven anything. He' had a series of good games, in the second half of an NBA season, where it looked like he finally figured some things out. That happened after he was gifted 120 games worth of starters minutes that he hadn't earned. He could continue to improve, plateau, or even regress. What he has done is earned the right to be the presumptive starter. If who we saw in the last few weeks is who Sexton is now, that's great. But no one should be banking on that given the relative sample sizes.

The one thing I expect from Collin is that he will continue to improve ... in what areas is the question. Super Sixth Man seems pretty likely, but hoping for a lot more.

[Stillwater]

OK, 6'2" ish. Is that better? Still didn't work well did it?
As I said, I have no problem with playing them together, and if you think there will be a different result doing it again that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
If you don't think either player has value, I disagree. Sexton has proven over the course of his season and a half that:
he has elite speed
adequate handles
can shoot from distance
has an NBA work ethic
isn't a head case
and will at least work hard on the defensive end
is durable, which is especially important for a smaller player
All of which shows barring injury that he will be a quality rotation player at the least for quite some time.
Garland, hasn't. Not to fault him, he was injured in college, so much so that they didn't want/couldn't play him in summer league (which brings durability into question), his rookie season was cut short (again not his fault), but his shooting was well below what we were told by the team was his strength. His defense was below subpar, his attitude was good from all accounts and of course he was only 19 when the season started so the potential is there for him to improve in all areas of his game.
The point being that Sexton has imo much greater value to the Cavs and around the league. How many players his age averaged 19 plus ppg on anywhere near his efficiency? With his near 40% 3pt shooting? There is value there. Some Ny fans on this site are are really down on RJ Barrett in the same time frame as Sexton. Would you swap for Barrett straight up?
As for tanking, are we rebuilding or tanking? Not much difference I know, but to me trying to find players that can play and fit together is building a roster. Tanking is losing on purpose to improve draft position. Losing on purpose (tanking) is a one season endeavor, or should be, otherwise losing can become habit, or attitudes can be destroyed. I get that with 19 year old players it can take more that one season (or one shortened season) to determine how well they can develop and fit together but I am skeptical of the mini me back court working no matter how both players develop. I admit I could certainly be wrong here but I just don't see the two being able to play together long term.
Edit: Damn, you made me sound like Stillwater defending Sexton.

Sexton hasn't proven anything. He' had a series of good games, in the second half of an NBA season, where it looked like he finally figured some things out. That happened after he was gifted 120 games worth of starters minutes that he hadn't earned. He could continue to improve, plateau, or even regress. What he has done is earned the right to be the presumptive starter. If who we saw in the last few weeks is who Sexton is now, that's great. But no one should be banking on that given the relative sample sizes.

The one thing I expect from Collin is that he will continue to improve ... in what areas is the question. Super Sixth Man seems pretty likely, but hoping for a lot more.

yeah I know Im sounding like a Sexton stan but the reality is he has shown plenty from day one on that at minimum suggests the odds are higher he continues to develop into a max player regardless of role, than not.

[JonFromVA]

Sexton hasn't proven anything. He' had a series of good games, in the second half of an NBA season, where it looked like he finally figured some things out. That happened after he was gifted 120 games worth of starters minutes that he hadn't earned. He could continue to improve, plateau, or even regress. What he has done is earned the right to be the presumptive starter. If who we saw in the last few weeks is who Sexton is now, that's great. But no one should be banking on that given the relative sample sizes.

The one thing I expect from Collin is that he will continue to improve ... in what areas is the question. Super Sixth Man seems pretty likely, but hoping for a lot more.

yeah I know Im sounding like a Sexton stan but the reality is he has shown plenty from day one on that at minimum suggests the odds are higher he continues to develop into a max player regardless of role, than not.

Its possible but he needs to take the steps to expand his game. For instance, not just shooting 3's when his man goes under screens; but creating that space and firing up. Seeing the double team and knowing exactly where his teammates will be. And if not those specific things, then other new abilities that'd be equally valuable.

He needs the right people in his ear because he can't do everything he needs to do late night solo in the gym.

Watching Luka dissect the Bucks tonight.... it's just another level his command of the floor.

[Stillwater]

The one thing I expect from Collin is that he will continue to improve ... in what areas is the question. Super Sixth Man seems pretty likely, but hoping for a lot more.

yeah I know Im sounding like a Sexton stan but the reality is he has shown plenty from day one on that at minimum suggests the odds are higher he continues to develop into a max player regardless of role, than not.

Its possible but he needs to take the steps to expand his game. For instance, not just shooting 3's when his man goes under screens; but creating that space and firing up. Seeing the double team and knowing exactly where his teammates will be. And if not those specific things, then other new abilities that'd be equally valuable.

He needs the right people in his ear because he can't do everything he needs to do late night solo in the gym.

Watching Luka dissect the Bucks tonight.... it's just another level his command of the floor.

Yeah obviously unlikely someone so far away from that level of bbiq like most one and done prospects will ever reach the ceiling of a sure fire supermax that will be a top 5 player and mvp candidate most of his career.
Sexton has a lot of work to do and i fully expect him to try if nothing else .