2021-22 regular season thread

[LivingLegend]

I don't think Sexton will ever destroy the league. I think he'll need a pretty precise roster constructed around him to approach anything AI accomplished. More importantly, I think he's going to take years to get to passable defense and I don't want to pay him anywhere near a max contract during that period, and sell off the rest of the roster at a discount, to see what the end result looks like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

To be fair, guys like Harden and Kyrie don't play passable defense either-- although both can get up to the passable level in the playoffs. (Yes, Sexton is light years away from both of them, but he might be close to Kyrie at the same age when the argument was whether Kyrie + Waiters fit together.)

True, defense isn't everything, but we'd better become a lot better on offense.

Also I think we may need to re-calibrate our expectations for what's really impactful in the league in this era.

Zach Lavine provided the Bulls 28/5/5 on 63.4 TS% and he barely pushed the needle. They made a big play for an offensive-oriented center (Vucevic) thinking it would open things up for them and it's been a dud (so far) ... and weirdly it wasn't because their defense was horrible. They finished 11th in the league in D-rtg. I don't want to over-analyze the Bulls because we've been seeing this elsewhere too ... incredible individual offensive seasons that simply aren't pushing the team as high as we would have historically expected.

I don't think scoring let alone scoring with efficiency has become useless, but it's by no means enough anymore.

Scoring with efficiency has become diluted because of the new pace in the NBA. The amount of shots a team can take has become more valuable, defense leading to quick offense. Unfortunately the Cavs feel like they run a extremely slow as molasses half court offense.

[Revenged25]

I don't think Sexton will ever destroy the league. I think he'll need a pretty precise roster constructed around him to approach anything AI accomplished. More importantly, I think he's going to take years to get to passable defense and I don't want to pay him anywhere near a max contract during that period, and sell off the rest of the roster at a discount, to see what the end result looks like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

To be fair, guys like Harden and Kyrie don't play passable defense either-- although both can get up to the passable level in the playoffs. (Yes, Sexton is light years away from both of them, but he might be close to Kyrie at the same age when the argument was whether Kyrie + Waiters fit together.)

True, defense isn't everything, but we'd better become a lot better on offense.

Also I think we may need to re-calibrate our expectations for what's really impactful in the league in this era.

Zach Lavine provided the Bulls 28/5/5 on 63.4 TS% and he barely pushed the needle. They made a big play for an offensive-oriented center (Vucevic) thinking it would open things up for them and it's been a dud (so far) ... and weirdly it wasn't because their defense was horrible. They finished 11th in the league in D-rtg. I don't want to over-analyze the Bulls because we've been seeing this elsewhere too ... incredible individual offensive seasons that simply aren't pushing the team as high as we would have historically expected.

I don't think scoring let alone scoring with efficiency has become useless, but it's by no means enough anymore.

It also involves coaching and the rest of the team. Using the Suns as an example even when comparing it to the Bulls since you can make a Booker = Lavine in production, especially this year. The difference is that Booker has a complete team around him while the Bulls were more or less Lavine & Vuc.

Even using the Suns last year vs Bulls this year. Rubio/Booker/Mikal/Oubre/Ayton with Cam Johnson/Saric off the bench is a much more complete roster, multiple people capable of scoring 10+ consistently, team minded defense, spacing with multiple 35+% 3pt shooting, and a defensive center. Looking at the Bulls you have ???/Lavine/Williams?Thad?/Lauri?Thad?/Vuc So maybe 3-4 pieces but not really any definitive resource there and then their bench is probably as bad as ours. The Suns have competent NBA players 1-8/9 on the roster while the Cavs and Bulls have them at 1-4/5. Those 3 additional competent players and then the fact that they were all coached and fitted into roles that let them excel is the biggest difference IMO. You put Sexton and Lavine into a team with more competent coaching and roles replacing a respective inefficient player, those teams would be much much better with Sexton or Lavine.

[jbk1234]

Thats fair, but as you know I would rather pay him than lose him and watch him destroy the league without us...but the worst case is that happens it doesnt work out and DG walks or whoever they draft in this one is a prima that demands a trade or pulls a KPJ
imo Sexton has been about as loyal to what they want from him even playing off ball etc which is as good as you can get and it is just stupid to not reward him unless somebody else steps up next season.

I don't think Sexton will ever destroy the league. I think he'll need a pretty precise roster constructed around him to approach anything AI accomplished. More importantly, I think he's going to take years to get to passable defense and I don't want to pay him anywhere near a max contract during that period, and sell off the rest of the roster at a discount, to see what the end result looks like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

To be fair, guys like Harden and Kyrie don't play passable defense either-- although both can get up to the passable level in the playoffs. (Yes, Sexton is light years away from both of them, but he might be close to Kyrie at the same age when the argument was whether Kyrie + Waiters fit together.)

It's not just that, but Kyrie didn't have much postseason success when he was *the guy* with Boston. Could Sexton look a lot better playing alongside of LBJ and/or Durant? Sure, that's a really big club.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

To be fair, guys like Harden and Kyrie don't play passable defense either-- although both can get up to the passable level in the playoffs. (Yes, Sexton is light years away from both of them, but he might be close to Kyrie at the same age when the argument was whether Kyrie + Waiters fit together.)

True, defense isn't everything, but we'd better become a lot better on offense.

Also I think we may need to re-calibrate our expectations for what's really impactful in the league in this era.

Zach Lavine provided the Bulls 28/5/5 on 63.4 TS% and he barely pushed the needle. They made a big play for an offensive-oriented center (Vucevic) thinking it would open things up for them and it's been a dud (so far) ... and weirdly it wasn't because their defense was horrible. They finished 11th in the league in D-rtg. I don't want to over-analyze the Bulls because we've been seeing this elsewhere too ... incredible individual offensive seasons that simply aren't pushing the team as high as we would have historically expected.

I don't think scoring let alone scoring with efficiency has become useless, but it's by no means enough anymore.

It also involves coaching and the rest of the team. Using the Suns as an example even when comparing it to the Bulls since you can make a Booker = Lavine in production, especially this year. The difference is that Booker has a complete team around him while the Bulls were more or less Lavine & Vuc.

Even using the Suns last year vs Bulls this year. Rubio/Booker/Mikal/Oubre/Ayton with Cam Johnson/Saric off the bench is a much more complete roster, multiple people capable of scoring 10+ consistently, team minded defense, spacing with multiple 35+% 3pt shooting, and a defensive center. Looking at the Bulls you have ???/Lavine/Williams?Thad?/Lauri?Thad?/Vuc So maybe 3-4 pieces but not really any definitive resource there and then their bench is probably as bad as ours. The Suns have competent NBA players 1-8/9 on the roster while the Cavs and Bulls have them at 1-4/5. Those 3 additional competent players and then the fact that they were all coached and fitted into roles that let them excel is the biggest difference IMO. You put Sexton and Lavine into a team with more competent coaching and roles replacing a respective inefficient player, those teams would be much much better with Sexton or Lavine.

We can't ignore that the Suns started turning things around when they stopped using Booker as their point and brought in Rubio, and after drafting Ayton stopped getting younger; but I think we agree an efficient scorer can be a terrific piece if everything else is in place. It was important to get Booker experience thinking like a point-guard, but not actually playing it.

Fit & chemistry has always been a strange thing in the NBA. Oubre is a good example of this having looked like a waste of a player on the Wizards and the Warriors, but seemingly like a young valuable player on the Suns. All the Knicks did was hire Thibs and bring in a bunch of his former players, got a career year from Randle a resurgence from Rose ... and suddenly they're an up & coming young team? Nobody is saying Barrett is a bust, anymore. Quickley is some kind of stud primarily because he wasn't Elfrid Payton?

I'm not sure what we've got with the Cavs and what needs to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure we're not going to know until we stop inserting 19 years who aren't ready to play at the NBA level in our starting lineup.

[toooskies]

True, defense isn't everything, but we'd better become a lot better on offense.

Also I think we may need to re-calibrate our expectations for what's really impactful in the league in this era.

Zach Lavine provided the Bulls 28/5/5 on 63.4 TS% and he barely pushed the needle. They made a big play for an offensive-oriented center (Vucevic) thinking it would open things up for them and it's been a dud (so far) ... and weirdly it wasn't because their defense was horrible. They finished 11th in the league in D-rtg. I don't want to over-analyze the Bulls because we've been seeing this elsewhere too ... incredible individual offensive seasons that simply aren't pushing the team as high as we would have historically expected.

I don't think scoring let alone scoring with efficiency has become useless, but it's by no means enough anymore.

It also involves coaching and the rest of the team. Using the Suns as an example even when comparing it to the Bulls since you can make a Booker = Lavine in production, especially this year. The difference is that Booker has a complete team around him while the Bulls were more or less Lavine & Vuc.

Even using the Suns last year vs Bulls this year. Rubio/Booker/Mikal/Oubre/Ayton with Cam Johnson/Saric off the bench is a much more complete roster, multiple people capable of scoring 10+ consistently, team minded defense, spacing with multiple 35+% 3pt shooting, and a defensive center. Looking at the Bulls you have ???/Lavine/Williams?Thad?/Lauri?Thad?/Vuc So maybe 3-4 pieces but not really any definitive resource there and then their bench is probably as bad as ours. The Suns have competent NBA players 1-8/9 on the roster while the Cavs and Bulls have them at 1-4/5. Those 3 additional competent players and then the fact that they were all coached and fitted into roles that let them excel is the biggest difference IMO. You put Sexton and Lavine into a team with more competent coaching and roles replacing a respective inefficient player, those teams would be much much better with Sexton or Lavine.

We can't ignore that the Suns started turning things around when they stopped using Booker as their point and brought in Rubio, and after drafting Ayton stopped getting younger; but I think we agree an efficient scorer can be a terrific piece if everything else is in place. It was important to get Booker experience thinking like a point-guard, but not actually playing it.

Fit & chemistry has always been a strange thing in the NBA. Oubre is a good example of this having looked like a waste of a player on the Wizards and the Warriors, but seemingly like a young valuable player on the Suns. All the Knicks did was hire Thibs and bring in a bunch of his former players, got a career year from Randle a resurgence from Rose ... and suddenly they're an up & coming young team? Nobody is saying Barrett is a bust, anymore. Quickley is some kind of stud primarily because he wasn't Elfrid Payton?

I'm not sure what we've got with the Cavs and what needs to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure we're not going to know until we stop inserting 19 years who aren't ready to play at the NBA level in our starting lineup.

Yep. Toss in all the things that went wrong last year (Drummond/Porter/Love drama, injuries, COVID hurting practice time on a young team (and no summer league), roster churn, starting Okoro for no reason, end-season tanking, etc.) and it's hard to evaluate how well the team would have done if things went right and the organization tried its best to win as much as possible.

[jbk1234]

This article from Fedor is no bueno on Love.

https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2021/07/kevin-love-cleveland-cavaliers-left-with-countless-questions-after-love-withdraws-from-olympics.html

I'd put the chances of a medical retirement this summer at between 10-20%, and if he doesn't do it this summer, I'm not sure it will matter. He's definitely reconciled with coming off the bench. But it sounds like he's going to hang around just long enough to hamstring us. A buyout is probably still in the cards but any trade will be viewed as a straight salary dump.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Harper4Ferry?]

if he's going to medically retire, doesn't it need to happen ASAFP? Like next offseason will surely start earlier so opening up his salary a year after he retires won't even really do anything for next summer's free agent crop.

[cavsfanatic]

I'm not sure he has one issue that he would medically retire from...his entire body is breaking down from his calf to his knees to his back,,,he's just a complete mess. Don't you have to have one major issue to be considered a medical retirement.
I wish they would have given him a 3 year contract with a team option for the 4th year..that contract was bad from the word go.

[jbk1234]

if he's going to medically retire, doesn't it need to happen ASAFP? Like next offseason will surely start earlier so opening up his salary a year after he retires won't even really do anything for next summer's free agent crop.

That's the issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[jbk1234]

I'm not sure he has one issue that he would medically retire from...his entire body is breaking down from his calf to his knees to his back,,,he's just a complete mess. Don't you have to have one major issue to be considered a medical retirement.
I wish they would have given him a 3 year contract with a team option for the 4th year..that contract was bad from the word go.

If a guy says he's done playing through pain and he's hanging it up, I'd be surprised if the league fights him on it. The union probably gets involved if they do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Wisedude]

if Cunningham and Green go 1 & 2, then I have come around that Evan Mobley would be the best player for the Cavs to select even though he is only about 200lbs. From what I have seen, imo he is only about 6'10" in socks and not 7 feet tall. But he is tall enough. I like the way he plays the game, his BBall IQ and his overall skill set. He can definitely play the PF position next to Jarret Allen.

If Sexton had better players to play with who could make shots, he would have many more assists. Instead he has had to shoot more shots and he cannot carry a team by himself. But he is darn good. So the Cavs just need better players around him.

[jbk1234]

if Cunningham and Green go 1 & 2, then I have come around that Evan Mobley would be the best player for the Cavs to select even though he is only about 200lbs. From what I have seen, imo he is only about 6'10" in socks and not 7 feet tall. But he is tall enough. I like the way he plays the game, his BBall IQ and his overall skill set. He can definitely play the PF position next to Jarret Allen.

If Sexton had better players to play with who could make shots, he would have many more assists. Instead he has had to shoot more shots and he cannot carry a team by himself. But he is darn good. So the Cavs just need better players around him.

I think they should take Mobley but fans need to adjust their expectations when it comes to how quickly 19-year old big men can contribute as starters. Ideally, you're bringing him off the bench behind Nance for at least half a season. Guys like AD and Zion who can walk in and start are really, really rare.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Revenged25]

If Sexton continued to play 32+ mpg, putting up an efficient 25+ ppg/5+ apg/1+ spg/.580+ TS%, but was coming off the bench, would you pay him a max? I think I would. His current production is what gets maxed in the NBA and if he could still do it without complaining about coming off the bench, why not? It lets them stagger Garland & Sexton minutes easier for defensive purposes, Cleveland's worse bench in the NBA will be vastly improved. The only issue is we would still need a starter/additional bench player that can actually help score since it's really just Sexton and occasionally Garland that can.

[jbk1234]

If Sexton continued to play 32+ mpg, putting up an efficient 25+ ppg/5+ apg/1+ spg/.580+ TS%, but was coming off the bench, would you pay him a max? I think I would. His current production is what gets maxed in the NBA and if he could still do it without complaining about coming off the bench, why not? It lets them stagger Garland & Sexton minutes easier for defensive purposes, Cleveland's worse bench in the NBA will be vastly improved. The only issue is we would still need a starter/additional bench player that can actually help score since it's really just Sexton and occasionally Garland that can.

No. Absolutely not. You still have to pay two starting guards and a SF after you hand him a max.

[Revenged25]

If Sexton continued to play 32+ mpg, putting up an efficient 25+ ppg/5+ apg/1+ spg/.580+ TS%, but was coming off the bench, would you pay him a max? I think I would. His current production is what gets maxed in the NBA and if he could still do it without complaining about coming off the bench, why not? It lets them stagger Garland & Sexton minutes easier for defensive purposes, Cleveland's worse bench in the NBA will be vastly improved. The only issue is we would still need a starter/additional bench player that can actually help score since it's really just Sexton and occasionally Garland that can.

No. Absolutely not. You still have to pay two starting guards and a SF after you hand him a max.

I mean depends on your definition of pay and starter. I mean every team has to pay 2 starting guards, a SF, PF, and heck center, not to mention their bench. It just how you then decides to spend and allocate the resources.

For example paying Sexton as one of your starting guards, that means you need 1 more guard and SF paid. Technically that's Garland/Okoro filling 2 of those 3 slots currently and potentially into the future. So with still needing to pay your bench, you get a guy that can fit into the starter line-up that will be able to provide the staggering with SexLand, while being paid 6th man/bench value. A guy like Huerter that you like seems to fit into that role ideally and would likely need a contract similar to Seth Curry 4/32. Which is a good price for a bench player that can sit in the starting line-up to get the stagger started.

So the Cavs pay their bench player and their starting guard values, but they just start the game in different roles than the money would typically dictate and the team is better as a whole for it.

[jbk1234]

If Sexton continued to play 32+ mpg, putting up an efficient 25+ ppg/5+ apg/1+ spg/.580+ TS%, but was coming off the bench, would you pay him a max? I think I would. His current production is what gets maxed in the NBA and if he could still do it without complaining about coming off the bench, why not? It lets them stagger Garland & Sexton minutes easier for defensive purposes, Cleveland's worse bench in the NBA will be vastly improved. The only issue is we would still need a starter/additional bench player that can actually help score since it's really just Sexton and occasionally Garland that can.

No. Absolutely not. You still have to pay two starting guards and a SF after you hand him a max.

I mean depends on your definition of pay and starter. I mean every team has to pay 2 starting guards, a SF, PF, and heck center, not to mention their bench. It just how you then decides to spend and allocate the resources.

For example paying Sexton as one of your starting guards, that means you need 1 more guard and SF paid. Technically that's Garland/Okoro filling 2 of those 3 slots currently and potentially into the future. So with still needing to pay your bench, you get a guy that can fit into the starter line-up that will be able to provide the staggering with SexLand, while being paid 6th man/bench value. A guy like Huerter that you like seems to fit into that role ideally and would likely need a contract similar to Seth Curry 4/32. Which is a good price for a bench player that can sit in the starting line-up to get the stagger started.

So the Cavs pay their bench player and their starting guard values, but they just start the game in different roles than the money would typically dictate and the team is better as a whole for it.

Clarkson won 6th man of the year last year. He makes $13M and the Jazz are still a luxury tax team.

[Revenged25]

No. Absolutely not. You still have to pay two starting guards and a SF after you hand him a max.

I mean depends on your definition of pay and starter. I mean every team has to pay 2 starting guards, a SF, PF, and heck center, not to mention their bench. It just how you then decides to spend and allocate the resources.

For example paying Sexton as one of your starting guards, that means you need 1 more guard and SF paid. Technically that's Garland/Okoro filling 2 of those 3 slots currently and potentially into the future. So with still needing to pay your bench, you get a guy that can fit into the starter line-up that will be able to provide the staggering with SexLand, while being paid 6th man/bench value. A guy like Huerter that you like seems to fit into that role ideally and would likely need a contract similar to Seth Curry 4/32. Which is a good price for a bench player that can sit in the starting line-up to get the stagger started.

So the Cavs pay their bench player and their starting guard values, but they just start the game in different roles than the money would typically dictate and the team is better as a whole for it.

Clarkson won 6th man of the year last year. He makes $13M and the Jazz are still a luxury tax team.

Clarkson did less across the board, outside of number of 3pa, on worse efficiency. Although a "6th man" Sexton would be playing minutes closer to Mitchell while Huerter would be playing closer to Clarkson's. You really are hard stuck on labeling things and things having to fit into their own little boxes without looking at how things can be done differently.

I mean just like people want to constantly pigeon-hole specific "positions" when people are constantly talking about how the NBA is becoming more position-less at the very same time.

[jbk1234]

I mean depends on your definition of pay and starter. I mean every team has to pay 2 starting guards, a SF, PF, and heck center, not to mention their bench. It just how you then decides to spend and allocate the resources.

For example paying Sexton as one of your starting guards, that means you need 1 more guard and SF paid. Technically that's Garland/Okoro filling 2 of those 3 slots currently and potentially into the future. So with still needing to pay your bench, you get a guy that can fit into the starter line-up that will be able to provide the staggering with SexLand, while being paid 6th man/bench value. A guy like Huerter that you like seems to fit into that role ideally and would likely need a contract similar to Seth Curry 4/32. Which is a good price for a bench player that can sit in the starting line-up to get the stagger started.

So the Cavs pay their bench player and their starting guard values, but they just start the game in different roles than the money would typically dictate and the team is better as a whole for it.

Clarkson won 6th man of the year last year. He makes $13M and the Jazz are still a luxury tax team.

Clarkson did less across the board, outside of number of 3pa, on worse efficiency. Although a "6th man" Sexton would be playing minutes closer to Mitchell while Huerter would be playing closer to Clarkson's. You really are hard stuck on labeling things and things having to fit into their own little boxes without looking at how things can be done differently.

I mean just like people want to constantly pigeon-hole specific "positions" when people are constantly talking about how the NBA is becoming more position-less at the very same time.

Anyone on the court for 32 minutes is going to have to defend other team's starters. Sexton was 20th in the league in terms of FGAs per game last season. The bench-player-in-name-only role you're envisioning for him still presents very similar issues to him starting. If you decide you have to cut back those minutes and/or attempts either for defensive reasons and/or for offensive continuity amongst the starters, you can, but you're still paying him not only starter money, but max money.

[Revenged25]

Clarkson won 6th man of the year last year. He makes $13M and the Jazz are still a luxury tax team.

Clarkson did less across the board, outside of number of 3pa, on worse efficiency. Although a "6th man" Sexton would be playing minutes closer to Mitchell while Huerter would be playing closer to Clarkson's. You really are hard stuck on labeling things and things having to fit into their own little boxes without looking at how things can be done differently.

I mean just like people want to constantly pigeon-hole specific "positions" when people are constantly talking about how the NBA is becoming more position-less at the very same time.

Anyone on the court for 32 minutes is going to have to defend other team's starters. Sexton was 20th in the league in terms of FGAs per game last season. The bench-player-in-name-only role you're envisioning for him still presents very similar issues to him starting. If you decide you have to cut back those minutes and/or attempts either for defensive reasons and/or for offensive continuity amongst the starters, you can, but you're still paying him not only starter money, but max money.

I mean he is the only player on the roster so far who has produced at the level of a max player. I mean my preferred method is to let RFA market dictate his cost, whether it's a max or not, but considering what he's done compared to others in the past, he's getting a max somewhere.

[JonFromVA]

If Sexton continued to play 32+ mpg, putting up an efficient 25+ ppg/5+ apg/1+ spg/.580+ TS%, but was coming off the bench, would you pay him a max? I think I would. His current production is what gets maxed in the NBA and if he could still do it without complaining about coming off the bench, why not? It lets them stagger Garland & Sexton minutes easier for defensive purposes, Cleveland's worse bench in the NBA will be vastly improved. The only issue is we would still need a starter/additional bench player that can actually help score since it's really just Sexton and occasionally Garland that can.

Like I keep saying, it all comes down to projection. I wouldn't max him based on his current production, but his current production is also linked to the current roster.

His 57 TS% is technically league average, his play-making and vision isn't good enough to use him a as PG, and his defense is problematic.

By entertaining trading him now, though, we're saying we don't even care to see how he's progressed as just a 22/23 year old.

So perhaps the Cavs don't see that progress happening, or they see him as a roadblock for other players making progress, or they're starting to worry about fit and wondering how the roster might look if we go one way in the draft and trade Collin, or go another way and keep him?