jbk1234 wrote:There is no point in trading for Simmons if you have to move Garland. There's no workable starting unit there.JonFromVA wrote:mg wrote:If you are trading for Simmons you would have to build the team around him.
Honestly I think it's just way too difficult to build a team around a non shooting lead playmaker. I'm assuming that Simmons and Klutch would demand that he be the engine. The Cavs would assumably be dealing a combination of Sexton/Garland, Okoro, filler(Love/Rubio) + a boatload of picks. They don't have the pieces to build around Simmons and would have no way to acquire those pieces if they are dealing away several young players + all their draft picks.
It just seems the much easier path would be to be patient, keep developing the young guys.. be opportunistic and acquire a big wing sometime between now and the start of next season. Simmons would be a shortcut to winning more games this coming season but at what cost in the long term if they are dealing away all assets incl all their draft picks? There is a ton of drama issues surrounding Simmons too. Also I can't see him playing another game in Philly any time soon even if he does get traded.
Philly might prefer Garland over Sexton, but Rich Paul isn't going to like it; and if we trade for Ben we are certainly back to doing whatever Rich (and in this case Ben) wants.
I also still think we have at least a few years before Mobley is going to start to be what we hope he will be and in the meantime there are going to be plenty of opportunities to address the SF spot and sort out what's best with Garland-Sexton-Okoro.
Neither Garland nor Sexton are helped by a wing standing in the dunker's spot ... and a non shooting player at any position is problematic. It's just easier to get away with at C due to the benefits of a 7 footer that rebounds, sets screens, and can finish well. But a non shooter grants the defense a degree of leverage over the offense. For instance if the Cavs best option was to have Mobley launching elbow jumpers, quite a few opposing coaches would be very happy to take their chances with that.
The interesting thing about adding Ben is how good our defense could be but smart teams will still find a way to pick on the weakest link.
But these are all concerns for a team that wants to reach the finals ... at this point we're just trying to field a competitive team and Ben would help us do that even if Garland was traded rather than Sexton.
Which gets to why I made this thread. At the right price I do think Ben makes us better so its sort of a no-brainer unless you don't want to see our team wrap itself around a prima-donna who can't handle criticism, or take responsibility.