2021-22 regular season thread

[Harper4Ferry?]

I can’t imagine much savings on a Love buyout. Maybe like 5 million total. I think the savings would be on agreeing to not having certain offsets and whatever the payment schedule might be.

[Revenged25]

We're headed for the 4th year in a row where a rookie is going to start for this team and in terms of basketball ability it's clear that Sexton, Garland, and Okoro didn't deserve starting jobs. JR Smith knew that and blew up about it, and pretty much lost his livelihood (though what he had left in the tank is arguable). Drummond was actually playing good basketball for the Cavs until the Cavs traded for his young replacement-- destroyed his career and now he's trying to rehab his image on a minimum contract. Love isn't going to start over Mobley even if he's 100% and Mobley looks like Anthony Bennett. Cedi wasn't even old, despite his career being somewhat stagnant, before he was benched for a raw rookie playing out of position.

If you're a veteran and join Cleveland, at the very least you know you aren't the priority. Cleveland went into the offseason with a "core four" and a fifth added to it with Mobley. If you outplay one of those guys, are you getting a starting job? Nope. Is Windler gonna get minutes just to evaluate him over you? Probably. So why bother unless you're already transitioning to a future coaching career? Particularly if you've already had a lucrative multi-year contract before this offseason.

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

The Knicks are only prioritizing veterans since this past season and that's because it's Thibs. They were prioritizing rookies minutes, even if they weren't the starters, over vet minutes previously. You can't even use the Randle/Toppin as a potential comparison for the upcoming Love/Mobley situation because Love's not going to suddenly have a resurgence to his Minnesota days and Mobley is already better than what we saw of Love last year outside of a few flashes which Mobley will likely have of his own.

With the Lakers, they also prioritized their rookies, whether they deserved it or not, once Kobe was gone and they were bad. Ball, Ingram, Hart, Kuzma, DLo, etc, all got a lot more minutes over vets even when they didn't deserve it because the Lakers were rebuilding at the time. Now that they have a contender when they signed LeBron and traded for AD they'll give it to players that deserve it more than development because that's what you do with a contender.

Same with the Bucks. They gave tons of minutes to young players prior to becoming contenders so they could develop and it worked because they got Giannis. Pretty sure Kris Middleton wasn't worth all the minutes he got early on as well but developed into deserving them.

Almost all of the players that the Cavs might've wanted to sign but signed elsewhere fall into one or more of the following categories:
1) Re-signed with their original teams
2) Signed for more money than the MLE
3) Signed with a contender where they'll probably end up with less minutes than on the Cavs, but hey they might get a ring

There might be one or two that don't fall into those categories, I didn't pay close attention to all the contracts but I'm sure if I did I could find a good reason for going to those teams rather than the Cavs and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have a young core that will likely be our starters going forward. Most of the guys the Cavs were looking at had already realized they were bench role players and are happy to fill that role on a winning team, something the Cavs need to prove they can be before we'll get them to sign here.

[toooskies]

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

The Knicks are only prioritizing veterans since this past season and that's because it's Thibs. They were prioritizing rookies minutes, even if they weren't the starters, over vet minutes previously. You can't even use the Randle/Toppin as a potential comparison for the upcoming Love/Mobley situation because Love's not going to suddenly have a resurgence to his Minnesota days and Mobley is already better than what we saw of Love last year outside of a few flashes which Mobley will likely have of his own.

With the Lakers, they also prioritized their rookies, whether they deserved it or not, once Kobe was gone and they were bad. Ball, Ingram, Hart, Kuzma, DLo, etc, all got a lot more minutes over vets even when they didn't deserve it because the Lakers were rebuilding at the time. Now that they have a contender when they signed LeBron and traded for AD they'll give it to players that deserve it more than development because that's what you do with a contender.

Same with the Bucks. They gave tons of minutes to young players prior to becoming contenders so they could develop and it worked because they got Giannis. Pretty sure Kris Middleton wasn't worth all the minutes he got early on as well but developed into deserving them.

Almost all of the players that the Cavs might've wanted to sign but signed elsewhere fall into one or more of the following categories:
1) Re-signed with their original teams
2) Signed for more money than the MLE
3) Signed with a contender where they'll probably end up with less minutes than on the Cavs, but hey they might get a ring

There might be one or two that don't fall into those categories, I didn't pay close attention to all the contracts but I'm sure if I did I could find a good reason for going to those teams rather than the Cavs and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have a young core that will likely be our starters going forward. Most of the guys the Cavs were looking at had already realized they were bench role players and are happy to fill that role on a winning team, something the Cavs need to prove they can be before we'll get them to sign here.

Group 1 is a prime group where the Cavs could offer more money/guarantees/years. Danny Green, whatever you think of him, was a starter for the 76ers last year and will be again this year. He got one guaranteed year that looks like a contract matching the MLE, while the Cavs could definitely have given him 2-3. But in Cleveland he's trade bait/salary matching while in Philly he's their SF.

Group 2 does rule the Cavs out without another move, but if they wanted someone enough they could've stretched Love. Fournier or Oladipo could've been options if we were looking to actually bring in a starting-caliber free agent.

Group 3 is requires a generous definition of "contender". The Knicks (Bledsoe), Bulls (Caruso), Blazers (Snell), Mavs (Sterling Brown), Pacers (Craig) aren't really contenders with the Lakers/Bucks/76ers/Nets/Suns/Jazz, but they all got rotation guards/wings from other teams with value around or under the MLE. None of those guys are more likely to get rings on those teams without some major transformation. The Cavs should be "prioritizing winning" away from being in the Knicks/Bulls/Pacers class.

Instead, we've given starting spots to one of the worst statistical players in the league (at least bottom 10 in VORP, BPM, and WS/48) three years in a row (not that they're the worst players) and traded their veteran competition. Even if we really like our young guys, we need to run the team with some amount of accountability to quality of play. Otherwise Cedi takes bad shots and Sexton doesn't pass and Garland doesn't shoot open 3s and Allen takes plays off and no one on the roster has any accountability for their mistakes, because development > winning.

Until the Cavs start making decisions prioritizing winning, why would you choose them over the Pacers or Blazers or Bulls or Mavs or even the Wizards or Spurs?

[LivingLegend]

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

The Knicks are only prioritizing veterans since this past season and that's because it's Thibs. They were prioritizing rookies minutes, even if they weren't the starters, over vet minutes previously. You can't even use the Randle/Toppin as a potential comparison for the upcoming Love/Mobley situation because Love's not going to suddenly have a resurgence to his Minnesota days and Mobley is already better than what we saw of Love last year outside of a few flashes which Mobley will likely have of his own.

With the Lakers, they also prioritized their rookies, whether they deserved it or not, once Kobe was gone and they were bad. Ball, Ingram, Hart, Kuzma, DLo, etc, all got a lot more minutes over vets even when they didn't deserve it because the Lakers were rebuilding at the time. Now that they have a contender when they signed LeBron and traded for AD they'll give it to players that deserve it more than development because that's what you do with a contender.

Same with the Bucks. They gave tons of minutes to young players prior to becoming contenders so they could develop and it worked because they got Giannis. Pretty sure Kris Middleton wasn't worth all the minutes he got early on as well but developed into deserving them.

Almost all of the players that the Cavs might've wanted to sign but signed elsewhere fall into one or more of the following categories:
1) Re-signed with their original teams
2) Signed for more money than the MLE
3) Signed with a contender where they'll probably end up with less minutes than on the Cavs, but hey they might get a ring

There might be one or two that don't fall into those categories, I didn't pay close attention to all the contracts but I'm sure if I did I could find a good reason for going to those teams rather than the Cavs and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have a young core that will likely be our starters going forward. Most of the guys the Cavs were looking at had already realized they were bench role players and are happy to fill that role on a winning team, something the Cavs need to prove they can be before we'll get them to sign here.

Group 1 is a prime group where the Cavs could offer more money/guarantees/years. Danny Green, whatever you think of him, was a starter for the 76ers last year and will be again this year. He got one guaranteed year that looks like a contract matching the MLE, while the Cavs could definitely have given him 2-3. But in Cleveland he's trade bait/salary matching while in Philly he's their SF.

Group 2 does rule the Cavs out without another move, but if they wanted someone enough they could've stretched Love. Fournier or Oladipo could've been options if we were looking to actually bring in a starting-caliber free agent.

Group 3 is requires a generous definition of "contender". The Knicks (Bledsoe), Bulls (Caruso), Blazers (Snell), Mavs (Sterling Brown), Pacers (Craig) aren't really contenders with the Lakers/Bucks/76ers/Nets/Suns/Jazz, but they all got rotation guards/wings from other teams with value around or under the MLE. None of those guys are more likely to get rings on those teams without some major transformation. The Cavs should be "prioritizing winning" away from being in the Knicks/Bulls/Pacers class.

Instead, we've given starting spots to one of the worst statistical players in the league (at least bottom 10 in VORP, BPM, and WS/48) three years in a row (not that they're the worst players) and traded their veteran competition. Even if we really like our young guys, we need to run the team with some amount of accountability to quality of play. Otherwise Cedi takes bad shots and Sexton doesn't pass and Garland doesn't shoot open 3s and Allen takes plays off and no one on the roster has any accountability for their mistakes, because development > winning.

Until the Cavs start making decisions prioritizing winning, why would you choose them over the Pacers or Blazers or Bulls or Mavs or even the Wizards or Spurs?

I agree with 95% of this but I think the hidden thing your missing about the last part is that losing in contagious. It's hard to go through a rebuild. By not surrounding your 5-6 young guys with capable veterans to show them the way you are almost scarring them and breeding a whole group of losers.

These 5 young dudes can't get it done by themselves while they are all learning on the fly. It's a tight rope to walk between development and creating bad habits.

At some point we need capable veterans, however that's possible so these young guys can get a taste of winning by going on a win streak or winning 8/10. Once they start to win a but--thats when things start to click about 'ok I need to do it this way' and it gets rid of all of them going rogue like you mentioned. Even if its guys like George Hill, Danny Green, ect. Those are the type of guys this team needs to hold the younger guys accountable. Rubio should help---Love, better help---but I still think they need to do everything in their power to get one or two more. Even McGee last year seemed to help the younger guys out a TON....and then he was traded and the wheels fell off.

Even if its 2 more guys to come in and wave towels--they need more guys like McGee last year to play 10min and work with the young guys for 5-9m. You cant have 22 year olds who have never won leading other 20 year olds who have never won. There will be zero development.

[LivingLegend]

BTW thought this was hilariously spot on

Read on Twitter

[JonFromVA]

What are the odds that Mobley is the one playing some SF? He’s a bit leaner than when Kevin Garnett was drafted, and Garnett played the first few years at SF…

I've certainly got my eye on it, not that I'm going to get over-excited about practice videos and summer league, but early indications are that he should be in the mix. We can call it a big lineup or whatever, but guys like Allen, Nance, Mobley, Wade, and Windler all move their feet well and have length to late contest jumpers and shouldn't feel glued to the paint.

[JonFromVA]

We're headed for the 4th year in a row where a rookie is going to start for this team and in terms of basketball ability it's clear that Sexton, Garland, and Okoro didn't deserve starting jobs. JR Smith knew that and blew up about it, and pretty much lost his livelihood (though what he had left in the tank is arguable). Drummond was actually playing good basketball for the Cavs until the Cavs traded for his young replacement-- destroyed his career and now he's trying to rehab his image on a minimum contract. Love isn't going to start over Mobley even if he's 100% and Mobley looks like Anthony Bennett. Cedi wasn't even old, despite his career being somewhat stagnant, before he was benched for a raw rookie playing out of position.

If you're a veteran and join Cleveland, at the very least you know you aren't the priority. Cleveland went into the offseason with a "core four" and a fifth added to it with Mobley. If you outplay one of those guys, are you getting a starting job? Nope. Is Windler gonna get minutes just to evaluate him over you? Probably. So why bother unless you're already transitioning to a future coaching career? Particularly if you've already had a lucrative multi-year contract before this offseason.

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

There's one way for the Cavs to sign a free-agent and that's to have a wide open roster spot and an opportunity to play for an eventual bigger pay day. We may look at the roster and see an enormous hole at the SF spot, but a free-agent sees a crowd of younger players that will be competing for those minutes.

I'm not sure the churn is a problem per se because the Cavs often do work with vets to send them to a contender or whatever they want while they still get paid, but it's indicative that we value other players for those minutes.

Apparently Danny Green turned the Cavs down and is staying with Philly for $10M/yr for 2 years.

Everyone loves to come talk with the Cavs to hike up their contract with the team they actually want to sign with.

[Wisedude]

Mykhailiuk is now made an Unrestricted Free Agent as OKC pulled his qualifying offer. He is 6'8" supposedly and can shoot.
I could see the Cavs being interested on a small contract.

[LivingLegend]

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

There's one way for the Cavs to sign a free-agent and that's to have a wide open roster spot and an opportunity to play for an eventual bigger pay day. We may look at the roster and see an enormous hole at the SF spot, but a free-agent sees a crowd of younger players that will be competing for those minutes.

I'm not sure the churn is a problem per se because the Cavs often do work with vets to send them to a contender or whatever they want while they still get paid, but it's indicative that we value other players for those minutes.

Apparently Danny Green turned the Cavs down and is staying with Philly for $10M/yr for 2 years.

Everyone loves to come talk with the Cavs to hike up their contract with the team they actually want to sign with.

Can only cure that by winning. They need to become the 'cool' and up and coming team with a budding star player. Two things the Cavs need are

1) Either Garland, Sexton, Okoro or Mobley to turn into a All Star top 15-20 player in the league
2) Kevin Love to FINALLY earn his 30M per year and hold these guys' hands showing them how to win by playing 25+ MIN and averaging 18/10 and not being the grumpy old man who is going through a midlife crisis.

[LivingLegend]

Mykhailiuk is now made an Unrestricted Free Agent as OKC pulled his qualifying offer. He is 6'8" supposedly and can shoot.
I could see the Cavs being interested on a small contract.

He would be a solid fit. Loved him at Kansas. Is it possible to divide the MLE up to both Svi and Hart?

[JonFromVA]

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

There's one way for the Cavs to sign a free-agent and that's to have a wide open roster spot and an opportunity to play for an eventual bigger pay day. We may look at the roster and see an enormous hole at the SF spot, but a free-agent sees a crowd of younger players that will be competing for those minutes.

I'm not sure the churn is a problem per se because the Cavs often do work with vets to send them to a contender or whatever they want while they still get paid, but it's indicative that we value other players for those minutes.

Apparently Danny Green turned the Cavs down and is staying with Philly for $10M/yr for 2 years.

Everyone loves to come talk with the Cavs to hike up their contract with the team they actually want to sign with.

Can only cure that by winning. They need to become the 'cool' and up and coming team with a budding star player. Two things the Cavs need are

1) Either Garland, Sexton, Okoro or Mobley to turn into a All Star top 15-20 player in the league
2) Kevin Love to FINALLY earn his 30M per year and hold these guys' hands showing them how to win by playing 25+ MIN and averaging 18/10 and not being the grumpy old man who is going through a midlife crisis.

Cool and somehow also unselfish ... the Cavs were the center of the NBA universe when LeBron was young, but free-agents still decided they'd rather stay where they were, get paid a little more, and lose ... than end up in LeBron's shadow.

[toooskies]

There's one way for the Cavs to sign a free-agent and that's to have a wide open roster spot and an opportunity to play for an eventual bigger pay day. We may look at the roster and see an enormous hole at the SF spot, but a free-agent sees a crowd of younger players that will be competing for those minutes.

I'm not sure the churn is a problem per se because the Cavs often do work with vets to send them to a contender or whatever they want while they still get paid, but it's indicative that we value other players for those minutes.

Apparently Danny Green turned the Cavs down and is staying with Philly for $10M/yr for 2 years.

Everyone loves to come talk with the Cavs to hike up their contract with the team they actually want to sign with.

Can only cure that by winning. They need to become the 'cool' and up and coming team with a budding star player. Two things the Cavs need are

1) Either Garland, Sexton, Okoro or Mobley to turn into a All Star top 15-20 player in the league
2) Kevin Love to FINALLY earn his 30M per year and hold these guys' hands showing them how to win by playing 25+ MIN and averaging 18/10 and not being the grumpy old man who is going through a midlife crisis.

Cool and somehow also unselfish ... the Cavs were the center of the NBA universe when LeBron was young, but free-agents still decided they'd rather stay where they were, get paid a little more, and lose ... than end up in LeBron's shadow.

Players turned the Cavs down because Lebron was constantly a threat to leave (even as early as after his rookie deal) and he didn't commit to staying. Trevor Ariza turned the Cavs down because his contract would be longer than Lebron's and Lebron didn't know if he'd stay (and he didn't).

[jbk1234]

We're headed for the 4th year in a row where a rookie is going to start for this team and in terms of basketball ability it's clear that Sexton, Garland, and Okoro didn't deserve starting jobs. JR Smith knew that and blew up about it, and pretty much lost his livelihood (though what he had left in the tank is arguable). Drummond was actually playing good basketball for the Cavs until the Cavs traded for his young replacement-- destroyed his career and now he's trying to rehab his image on a minimum contract. Love isn't going to start over Mobley even if he's 100% and Mobley looks like Anthony Bennett. Cedi wasn't even old, despite his career being somewhat stagnant, before he was benched for a raw rookie playing out of position.

If you're a veteran and join Cleveland, at the very least you know you aren't the priority. Cleveland went into the offseason with a "core four" and a fifth added to it with Mobley. If you outplay one of those guys, are you getting a starting job? Nope. Is Windler gonna get minutes just to evaluate him over you? Probably. So why bother unless you're already transitioning to a future coaching career? Particularly if you've already had a lucrative multi-year contract before this offseason.

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

I mean I wouldn't trade places with the Knicks. Randle, Noel. and Fournier have minimal trade value on their new deals. Rose has none IMO. They're locked into a very mediocre roster for a long time.

[JonFromVA]

Can only cure that by winning. They need to become the 'cool' and up and coming team with a budding star player. Two things the Cavs need are

1) Either Garland, Sexton, Okoro or Mobley to turn into a All Star top 15-20 player in the league
2) Kevin Love to FINALLY earn his 30M per year and hold these guys' hands showing them how to win by playing 25+ MIN and averaging 18/10 and not being the grumpy old man who is going through a midlife crisis.

Cool and somehow also unselfish ... the Cavs were the center of the NBA universe when LeBron was young, but free-agents still decided they'd rather stay where they were, get paid a little more, and lose ... than end up in LeBron's shadow.

Players turned the Cavs down because Lebron was constantly a threat to leave (even as early as after his rookie deal) and he didn't commit to staying. Trevor Ariza turned the Cavs down because his contract would be longer than Lebron's and Lebron didn't know if he'd stay (and he didn't).

Certainly not the case for Ray Allen or Michael Redd, and we didn't wait to see what Joe Johnson would do because he was restricted.

[toooskies]

The Cavs resurrected JR's career. He was on his way to China before we traded for him.

Love is probably one of the highest paid players in NBA history if you go by games actually played.

Drummond is an idiot. See the prior post.

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

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

I mean I wouldn't trade places with the Knicks. Randle, Noel. and Fournier have minimal trade value on their new deals. Rose has none IMO. They're locked into a very mediocre roster for a long time.

Fournier's contract has a team option for the fourth year. Rose, Burks, and Noel have team options for the third year. Kemba is on a 2-year deal. They're pretty much only locked into Randle and will have a ton of effectively expiring contracts if things don't work out this year.

[jbk1234]

From a team perspective and fan perspective and an objective perspective, I agree with you. (Well, the Cavs didn't really want to resurrect JR Smith's career, that was Lebron's decision.) But from the perspective of an NBA veteran, or that veteran's agent? There's no reason to believe the Cavs are going to do the best thing for your career or next paycheck because there's been enough recent examples of them doing the opposite.

Whereas you know Leon Rose and Thibodeau in NY, are catering to veterans to the degree that their young guys (besides Barrett) are probably not getting enough run. The Knicks aren't giving Quickley minutes over Rose or Bledsoe. Knox is pretty much out of the rotation. Barrett is starting based on merit.

And you know the Lakers will play you based on performance, not based on whether THT needs more developmental minutes.

And you know the Bucks are invested in winning now-- they don't have the draft picks to even bring in guys to develop.

And you know the bottoming-out Spurs will play the best guys and stay committed to them, even if that's only going to be a .500 team. Positive culture even with middling results.

The Cavs? They have a core of five young guys this GM drafted/acquired that they're going to start and won't want to move. Those five and local guy Larry Nance are the only contracts you can be sure they want to keep around. They churn veterans through their roster like crazy (see: McGee, Prince, Exum, Clarkson, Knight, etc.), so even if you do agree to be "veteran leadership", you're probably still expendable and likely to be somewhere else in two years, particularly if the team doesn't do well (which they probably won't if they continue to make development-over-winning decisions).

I mean I wouldn't trade places with the Knicks. Randle, Noel. and Fournier have minimal trade value on their new deals. Rose has none IMO. They're locked into a very mediocre roster for a long time.

Fournier's contract has a team option for the fourth year. Rose, Burks, and Noel have team options for the third year. Kemba is on a 2-year deal. They're pretty much only locked into Randle and will have a ton of effectively expiring contracts if things don't work out this year.

I think that Rose could very well be a bad contract even as an expiring. There's going to be a good deal of expiring contracts ahead of the summer of 2023. Love, Gordon, Wall, and Westbrook all come off those deals.

The problem is the players they handed all that money to just aren't very good.

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

[toooskies]

I mean I wouldn't trade places with the Knicks. Randle, Noel. and Fournier have minimal trade value on their new deals. Rose has none IMO. They're locked into a very mediocre roster for a long time.

Fournier's contract has a team option for the fourth year. Rose, Burks, and Noel have team options for the third year. Kemba is on a 2-year deal. They're pretty much only locked into Randle and will have a ton of effectively expiring contracts if things don't work out this year.

I think that Rose could very well be a bad contract even as an expiring. There's going to be a good deal of expiring contracts ahead of the summer of 2023. Love, Gordon, Wall, and Westbrook all come off those deals.

The problem is the players they handed all that money to just aren't very good.

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

Amazing that all those not very good players still got a 4 seed! I wish we could sign some not very good players.

[jbk1234]

Fournier's contract has a team option for the fourth year. Rose, Burks, and Noel have team options for the third year. Kemba is on a 2-year deal. They're pretty much only locked into Randle and will have a ton of effectively expiring contracts if things don't work out this year.

I think that Rose could very well be a bad contract even as an expiring. There's going to be a good deal of expiring contracts ahead of the summer of 2023. Love, Gordon, Wall, and Westbrook all come off those deals.

The problem is the players they handed all that money to just aren't very good.

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

Amazing that all those not very good players still got a 4 seed! I wish we could sign some not very good players.

In a Covid year, when the Celtics, Pacers, Hornets, etc. all had injury issues to boot. And, Dallas stole Bullocks who started for them in the playoffs. I'm sorry, but the Knicks locked themselves into a 7th or 8th seed.

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

[toooskies]

I think that Rose could very well be a bad contract even as an expiring. There's going to be a good deal of expiring contracts ahead of the summer of 2023. Love, Gordon, Wall, and Westbrook all come off those deals.

The problem is the players they handed all that money to just aren't very good.

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

Amazing that all those not very good players still got a 4 seed! I wish we could sign some not very good players.

In a Covid year, when the Celtics, Pacers, Hornets, etc. all had injury issues to boot. And, Dallas stole Bullocks who started for them in the playoffs. I'm sorry, but the Knicks locked themselves into a 7th or 8th seed.

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

While a lot depends on Randle maintaining his level of play or Barrett developing, 7th or 8th looks like their floor to me.

[Revenged25]

I think that Rose could very well be a bad contract even as an expiring. There's going to be a good deal of expiring contracts ahead of the summer of 2023. Love, Gordon, Wall, and Westbrook all come off those deals.

The problem is the players they handed all that money to just aren't very good.

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

Amazing that all those not very good players still got a 4 seed! I wish we could sign some not very good players.

In a Covid year, when the Celtics, Pacers, Hornets, etc. all had injury issues to boot. And, Dallas stole Bullocks who started for them in the playoffs. I'm sorry, but the Knicks locked themselves into a 7th or 8th seed.

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

Don't forget Julius Randle having the best year of his entire career to-date, especially shooting from 3. I don't expect him to maintain that next year.