Trade Ideas

[LivingLegend]

Except is that really that much cheaper? Also you can't find what Sexton provides at his level of efficiency easily. Those that are get paid, those that aren't don't.

I mean Sexton is reportedly asking for 100-120M and he now has Rich Paul..I doubt that number is going to come down much.

so yeah, a guy like Brogdan for 65M would be significantly cheaper.

EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET A GUY LIKE BROGDAN FOR 65M. BROGDAN HIMSELF SIGNED FOR 85M A FEW YEARS AGO!

Okay how about a guy like Josh Richardson, Bogey, Kennard, LeVert Rozier, Clarkson. There are plenty of guys in the NBA that share similarities to Sexton that are not asking for 100-120M Million

[KuruptedCav]

We're going to be over the salary cap next season and we gave up our Bird rights on Ricky, so, the most we can offer Ricky would be an MLE contract and that may turn out to be the tax payer MLE because of our cap holds.

So, re-calibrate your thinking around Ricky getting something like 3/19, and we can't sign Brogdon (not a free agent and will make too much), but we could trade for him.

If Rubio signs for three years on the NTMLE, he's crazy. He won't know how long it will take to come all the way back from his knee, but by the 2023 offseason he should be nearing full health and wanting at least a full MLE paycheck.

Much more likely to take a 1-year deal on the TP MLE, or a 2-year deal with a PO on the second year, so he can get a raise when he's fully back from the ACL tear. Lots of teams have cap room in 2023 so he'll have options. Also makes sense from the Cavs' perspective to mitigate long-term risk that he never comes back fully from injury. The Cavs can retain Goodwin in the Pangos "third PG" role, even though he'll probably get minutes throughout the year (depending on LeVert and Sexton).

Rubio will take a three year deal because:

"When my son starts school, the NBA will not be worth it," Rubio said. "I will have to go back [to Spain]. I don't want to make him dizzy moving around when he's six-years old, at the age of starting to make friends.”


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

The idea that the Cavs will extend LeVert this summer, no matter what, regardless of how well he plays or fits on this roster, suggests a level of incompetence that I just don't believe the Cavs F.O. is handicapped by. If the results are good, he'll get extended. If the results are bad, he won't. If the results are mixed, they'll have a decision to make.

You have been adamant about this. The Caris Levert hate strongggg

I could care less either way, they are going to retain talent one way or another--im just reading the writing on the wall.

Lauri Markenen constantly hampered by injures too in Chicago and had major questions with his defense (among other things)? The Cavs still locked him up before he even played a game with us lol

I remember you loving the LM trade (i think that was you), whats so different about LeVerts situation?

I did not love the Lauri trade. Even know I'm just okay with it. But the obvious difference between the two situations is that the Cavs had no choice but to offer Lauri at least three years as he was a RFA and he had to agree to the numbers. LeVert is going to be under contract for the remainder of this season and the next regardless of whether the Cavs offer him an extension this summer. I'll be happy to be proven wrong about how well LeVert works out on this roster, and if I am, he'll get an extension this summer.

Fortunately unless LeVert pulls a Bogut and gets hurt in his first 5 minutes as a Cavalier, you and the team will have a good long look at him before we/they have to consider whether he's worth an extension; however I've got to keep pointing out you're falling prey to a fan fallacy that just because you haven't seen what you'd like to see to make an informed decision, doesn't mean the team has not.

Like I keep saying, it's their job to make the right choices. When they commit draft picks and future salary to a player, it's no longer just some cheap experiment or short-term patch job. They like LeVert. They've liked LeVert. Their inclination will be to commit to him.

They made a commitment to Collin four years ago too and clearly both sides would like to continue that relationship - there's just a major difference in contract terms that they may not be able to resolve.

[toooskies]

We're going to be over the salary cap next season and we gave up our Bird rights on Ricky, so, the most we can offer Ricky would be an MLE contract and that may turn out to be the tax payer MLE because of our cap holds.

So, re-calibrate your thinking around Ricky getting something like 3/19, and we can't sign Brogdon (not a free agent and will make too much), but we could trade for him.

If Rubio signs for three years on the NTMLE, he's crazy. He won't know how long it will take to come all the way back from his knee, but by the 2023 offseason he should be nearing full health and wanting at least a full MLE paycheck.

Much more likely to take a 1-year deal on the TP MLE, or a 2-year deal with a PO on the second year, so he can get a raise when he's fully back from the ACL tear. Lots of teams have cap room in 2023 so he'll have options. Also makes sense from the Cavs' perspective to mitigate long-term risk that he never comes back fully from injury. The Cavs can retain Goodwin in the Pangos "third PG" role, even though he'll probably get minutes throughout the year (depending on LeVert and Sexton).

Rubio will take a three year deal because:

"When my son starts school, the NBA will not be worth it," Rubio said. "I will have to go back [to Spain]. I don't want to make him dizzy moving around when he's six-years old, at the age of starting to make friends.”


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

That doesn't prohibit him taking a one-year deal for next year and then getting a two-year deal once healthy.

[JonFromVA]

If Rubio signs for three years on the NTMLE, he's crazy. He won't know how long it will take to come all the way back from his knee, but by the 2023 offseason he should be nearing full health and wanting at least a full MLE paycheck.

Much more likely to take a 1-year deal on the TP MLE, or a 2-year deal with a PO on the second year, so he can get a raise when he's fully back from the ACL tear. Lots of teams have cap room in 2023 so he'll have options. Also makes sense from the Cavs' perspective to mitigate long-term risk that he never comes back fully from injury. The Cavs can retain Goodwin in the Pangos "third PG" role, even though he'll probably get minutes throughout the year (depending on LeVert and Sexton).

Rubio will take a three year deal because:

"When my son starts school, the NBA will not be worth it," Rubio said. "I will have to go back [to Spain]. I don't want to make him dizzy moving around when he's six-years old, at the age of starting to make friends.”

That doesn't prohibit him taking a one-year deal for next year and then getting a two-year deal once healthy.

And nothing prohibits the Cavs from spending their TP MLE on someone else that's willing to sign for more than a year and has no health question marks ...

[Revenged25]

I mean Sexton is reportedly asking for 100-120M and he now has Rich Paul..I doubt that number is going to come down much.

so yeah, a guy like Brogdan for 65M would be significantly cheaper.

EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET A GUY LIKE BROGDAN FOR 65M. BROGDAN HIMSELF SIGNED FOR 85M A FEW YEARS AGO!

Okay how about a guy like Josh Richardson, Bogey, Kennard, LeVert Rozier, Clarkson. There are plenty of guys in the NBA that share similarities to Sexton that are not asking for 100-120M Million

Clarkson has never averaged more than 18.4 ppg in his career and has typically been less efficient, still signed 4/52 with the Jazz before his best year of his career averaging the 18.4 ppg, so his previous was 16.8 ppg while being inefficient/barely average.
Rozier literally just signed 4/97 mil.
LeVert signed signed a 3/53 mil contract having never averaged over 13 ppg and being injury prone simply on projections. Most expect him to look for a much bigger contract/extension.
Kennard signed 4/64 mil while literally only being a bench 3pt specialist that hasn't played a full season or scored more than 15.8 ppg in a season.
Richardson is not as good or efficient of a scorer, signed a 4/42 extension like 5 years ago when he was only averaging like 12 pts with the Heat, about to be looking for a new contract, though once again not as good/efficient of a scorer considering he hasn't started for Boston this year and putting up less than 10 ppg.
Bogey is 32, but is a good/efficient scorer though not much of a self creator IIRC, and signed a 4/73 contract in 2019, which would be more expensive nowadays.

So yeah, people that can score well/efficiently get paid. It's just a fact in the NBA.

[jbk1234]

You have been adamant about this. The Caris Levert hate strongggg

I could care less either way, they are going to retain talent one way or another--im just reading the writing on the wall.

Lauri Markenen constantly hampered by injures too in Chicago and had major questions with his defense (among other things)? The Cavs still locked him up before he even played a game with us lol

I remember you loving the LM trade (i think that was you), whats so different about LeVerts situation?

I did not love the Lauri trade. Even know I'm just okay with it. But the obvious difference between the two situations is that the Cavs had no choice but to offer Lauri at least three years as he was a RFA and he had to agree to the numbers. LeVert is going to be under contract for the remainder of this season and the next regardless of whether the Cavs offer him an extension this summer. I'll be happy to be proven wrong about how well LeVert works out on this roster, and if I am, he'll get an extension this summer.

Fortunately unless LeVert pulls a Bogut and gets hurt in his first 5 minutes as a Cavalier, you and the team will have a good long look at him before we/they have to consider whether he's worth an extension; however I've got to keep pointing out you're falling prey to a fan fallacy that just because you haven't seen what you'd like to see to make an informed decision, doesn't mean the team has not.

Like I keep saying, it's their job to make the right choices. When they commit draft picks and future salary to a player, it's no longer just some cheap experiment or short-term patch job. They like LeVert. They've liked LeVert. Their inclination will be to commit to him.

They made a commitment to Collin four years ago too and clearly both sides would like to continue that relationship - there's just a major difference in contract terms that they may not be able to resolve.

Presumably, they liked Crowder and Wade as well when they traded for and/or signed them as well. But it became obvious by the deadline that whatever they liked about them, was outweighed by the team's underwhelming performance with those two getting heaving minutes in the rotation. If you're telling me that the Cavs starting place is they're high on what LeVert can do on this roster, and that they're presently inclined to give him an extension this summer, I have no reason to disagree with you.

If you're telling me it's a fate accompli regardless of on-the-court performance, or that they're going to get caught up in a sunken cost fallacy, well then the Cavs probably need a new front office. I mean the Nets thought they'd be a juggernaut when they traded for Harden. The Lakers thought they could make it work with Westbrook. Teams have surrendered far more for far more talented players and decided to move on rather than double down.

[toooskies]

Rubio will take a three year deal because:

"When my son starts school, the NBA will not be worth it," Rubio said. "I will have to go back [to Spain]. I don't want to make him dizzy moving around when he's six-years old, at the age of starting to make friends.”

That doesn't prohibit him taking a one-year deal for next year and then getting a two-year deal once healthy.

And nothing prohibits the Cavs from spending their TP MLE on someone else that's willing to sign for more than a year and has no health question marks ...

Sure, those are the negotiating terms. But I don't really see anybody who's got a better chance of making a difference next year. The Cavs burned some Rubio goodwill by trading his contract, so the 3y/$45m he probably could've gotten from the Cavs is gone. (He might get that offer from Indiana though!) So if the Cavs offer him the TPMLE, he's getting it for however many years he wants.

[JonFromVA]

I did not love the Lauri trade. Even know I'm just okay with it. But the obvious difference between the two situations is that the Cavs had no choice but to offer Lauri at least three years as he was a RFA and he had to agree to the numbers. LeVert is going to be under contract for the remainder of this season and the next regardless of whether the Cavs offer him an extension this summer. I'll be happy to be proven wrong about how well LeVert works out on this roster, and if I am, he'll get an extension this summer.

Fortunately unless LeVert pulls a Bogut and gets hurt in his first 5 minutes as a Cavalier, you and the team will have a good long look at him before we/they have to consider whether he's worth an extension; however I've got to keep pointing out you're falling prey to a fan fallacy that just because you haven't seen what you'd like to see to make an informed decision, doesn't mean the team has not.

Like I keep saying, it's their job to make the right choices. When they commit draft picks and future salary to a player, it's no longer just some cheap experiment or short-term patch job. They like LeVert. They've liked LeVert. Their inclination will be to commit to him.

They made a commitment to Collin four years ago too and clearly both sides would like to continue that relationship - there's just a major difference in contract terms that they may not be able to resolve.

Presumably, they liked Crowder and Wade as well when they traded for and/or signed them as well. But it became obvious by the deadline that whatever they liked about them, was outweighed by the team's underwhelming performance with those two getting heaving minutes in the rotation. If you're telling me that the Cavs starting place is they're high on what LeVert can do on this roster, and that they're presently inclined to give him an extension this summer, I have no reason to disagree with you.

If you're telling me it's a fate accompli regardless of on-the-court performance, or that they're going to get caught up in a sunken cost fallacy, well then the Cavs probably need a new front office. I mean the Nets thought they'd be a juggernaut when they traded for Harden. The Lakers thought they could make it work with Westbrook. Teams have surrender far more for far more talented players and decided to move on rather than double down.

Of course, nothing is fait accompli ... wouldn't that be a breach of the CBA?

But your counter examples suck ... we traded for the Nets unprotected #1 pick, not specifically Jae Crowder or even Isaiah Thomas. Wade was a player we picked up because James wanted to play with him again.

I would have gone with Timofey Mozgov as an example ... and fortunately we had no interest in matching the Lakers offer for him, but we really did like him a lot before and after trading for him. If not for his knee problems he should have been the rim protector we needed to play next to Kevin. Alas, the Warriors decision to go small on us in 2015 changed a lot of thinking around the NBA.

Oh, and btw, the Nets are a juggernaut when Harden and Durant are healthy and Kyrie feels like playing; but I can't think of who thought Westbrook was going to work other than perhaps LeBron who probably figured worst case, at least he wouldn't have to work so hard creating offense.

In summary, bad things can always happen, relationships can turn sour, etc, but in terms of commitment - trading for LeVert is more like a couple moving in together than going on their first date. They're going to work through any road bumps and potentially ignore some lingering ones. We've sure seen a lot of players crumble under the pressure of coming in and contributing in the LeBron days, but JBB isn't just giving LeVert lip service when he says he wants him to play like himself.

[Revenged25]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

[JonFromVA]

That doesn't prohibit him taking a one-year deal for next year and then getting a two-year deal once healthy.

And nothing prohibits the Cavs from spending their TP MLE on someone else that's willing to sign for more than a year and has no health question marks ...

Sure, those are the negotiating terms. But I don't really see anybody who's got a better chance of making a difference next year. The Cavs burned some Rubio goodwill by trading his contract, so the 3y/$45m he probably could've gotten from the Cavs is gone. (He might get that offer from Indiana though!) So if the Cavs offer him the TPMLE, he's getting it for however many years he wants.

If the Cavs really felt like they owed Ricky some lost money for trading his contract, they could pay him to consult with the team post-retirement via zoom calls.

If we're going to commit to Ricky this Summer, I would want more than 1 year. If he's adamant about that, then I'd just let him continue with his recovery and re-visit when he's actually ready to play when we may be able to carve out the vet min for him.

There's unfortunately some serious risks with a player coming off a second ACL surgery on the same knee.

[jbk1234]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

From my perspective, you're on the clock to put together the best team you can before Mobley extends, because once he comes off his rookie deal, it gets a whole lot harder to make moves. I don't mind them surrendering a late first to give a guy a test drive (not a fan of the target or added value surrendered, but whatever). I wouldn't mind them signing Sexton to a team-friendly deal. But they need to be very, very careful not to make moves that remove the possibility of better, unknown options between now and when Mobley comes off his rookie deal.

[Revenged25]

And nothing prohibits the Cavs from spending their TP MLE on someone else that's willing to sign for more than a year and has no health question marks ...

Sure, those are the negotiating terms. But I don't really see anybody who's got a better chance of making a difference next year. The Cavs burned some Rubio goodwill by trading his contract, so the 3y/$45m he probably could've gotten from the Cavs is gone. (He might get that offer from Indiana though!) So if the Cavs offer him the TPMLE, he's getting it for however many years he wants.

If the Cavs really felt like they owed Ricky some lost money for trading his contract, they could pay him to consult with the team post-retirement via zoom calls.

If we're going to commit to Ricky this Summer, I would want more than 1 year. If he's adamant about that, then I'd just let him continue with his recovery and re-visit when he's actually ready to play when we may be able to carve out the vet min for him.

There's unfortunately some serious risks with a player coming off a second ACL surgery on the same knee.

If he's willing to take the TPMLE I don't care if it's 1 or multiple years, I'll take it. His leadership and primary ballhandling skills will be a boon to the team regardless. I mean who would you rather give the TPMLE to over Rubio if he's willing to take it just because they're willing to take it on a multi-year deal. I mean someone actually willing to play on it.

[Revenged25]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

From my perspective, you're on the clock to put together the best team you can before Mobley extends, because once he comes off his rookie deal, it gets a whole lot harder to make moves. I don't mind them surrendering a late first to give a guy a test drive (not a fan of the target or added value surrendered, but whatever). I wouldn't mind them signing Sexton to a team-friendly deal. But they need to be very, very careful not to make moves that remove the possibility of better, unknown options between now and when Mobley comes off his rookie deal.

I mean to keep the most options open the Cavs will 100% either extend Sexton or have him part of a S&T where they can bring back salary that can immediately or soon to be used as an expiring contract in a future trade. Honestly the Cavs are going to be capped out going forward no matter what so they need to keep a certain amount of contracts on the books to facilitate trades. I think that's also part of why they went after LeVert over someone like Powell. Powell has multiple years on his deal that are increasing year after year, so if he ends up regressing in a different role for the Cavs or they realize he's not performing as well as they hoped, then his value will tank and with all the years left on his deal it'll be harder to move. With LeVert even if he doesn't work out as hoped, he'll still end up an expiring contract that they can flip in a trade for a more established player to a team ready to hit the reset button.

[JonFromVA]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

IMO ...

Drummond was an experiment, we gave up next to nothing for him to get a look at how our team would look with a big man. As long as he stuck to his unreasonable salary demands he had no future with the team, and fortunately that's what he did.

Allen kind of flopped, a whole lot of fans thought his contract was an overpay. This was actually a case where the Cavs stayed committed to what they saw in Allen inspite of what was going on, on the floor.

LeVert is exactly like Allen.

The problem with Sexton is that even if he returns that he won't be happy about his role or his pay, and Klutch is not the agency to give him a reality check. He may very well take the QO as a chance to prove himself or hold out for a trade if he's afraid he won't get the opportunity to prove himself. I'd love to see a sign this wasn't the case. Hopefully he at least returns to the team post-LeVert trade.

Our core of Allen-Mobley-Garland is set and we simply don't need any hassle from anyone else on the roster.

[Revenged25]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

IMO ...

Drummond was an experiment, we gave up next to nothing for him to get a look at how our team would look with a big man.

Allen kind of flopped, a whole lot of fans thought his contract was an overpay. This was actually a case where the Cavs stayed committed to what they saw in Allen inspite of what was going on, on the floor.

LeVert is exactly like Allen.

The problem with Sexton is that even if he returns that he won't be happy about his role or his pay, and Klutch is not the agency to give him a reality check. He may very well take the QO as a chance to prove himself or hold out for a trade if he's afraid he won't get the opportunity to prove himself. I'd love to see a sign this wasn't the case. Hopefully he at least returns to the team post-LeVert trade.

Our core of Allen-Mobley-Garland is set and we simply don't need any hassle from anyone else on the roster.

If Sexton was really the type to complain about his role, I think it'll be bigger than you think, then he wouldn't have been willing to take a smaller role to start this year after not agreeing to an extension that could cause him to have a reduced market even before his injury. I think Sexton will want fair market value for his skills, which I can't blame him, but I think he'll accept whatever role the team needs from him if it means winning.

[jbk1234]

The Cavs traded from Drummond and didn't extend him.
They had to sign Lauri to an "extension" because it was a S&T. It was basically like signing a FA, which you sort of have to pay before seeing what they can do.
Allen they still got to see what he could do for half a year before deciding, yeah I want to invest in him.
LeVert was brought in because he filled a skillset that we were missing due to injury. This will be a trial period this year to see if they decide to extend him with a year still on his deal or if they'll want to wait another year/possibly use him as an expiring deal in a trade next year.
Sexton will be paid/not paid based on the contract he wants, what other teams might offer, and more.

From my perspective, you're on the clock to put together the best team you can before Mobley extends, because once he comes off his rookie deal, it gets a whole lot harder to make moves. I don't mind them surrendering a late first to give a guy a test drive (not a fan of the target or added value surrendered, but whatever). I wouldn't mind them signing Sexton to a team-friendly deal. But they need to be very, very careful not to make moves that remove the possibility of better, unknown options between now and when Mobley comes off his rookie deal.

I mean to keep the most options open the Cavs will 100% either extend Sexton or have him part of a S&T where they can bring back salary that can immediately or soon to be used as an expiring contract in a future trade. Honestly the Cavs are going to be capped out going forward no matter what so they need to keep a certain amount of contracts on the books to facilitate trades. I think that's also part of why they went after LeVert over someone like Powell. Powell has multiple years on his deal that are increasing year after year, so if he ends up regressing in a different role for the Cavs or they realize he's not performing as well as they hoped, then his value will tank and with all the years left on his deal it'll be harder to move. With LeVert even if he doesn't work out as hoped, he'll still end up an expiring contract that they can flip in a trade for a more established player to a team ready to hit the reset button.

The Cavs $38M coming off the books in the summer of 2023, and if they're good enough, they'll have options. The only thing they can't do is go full Knicks and sign a bunch of team-friendly deals that turn out to be untradeable because the other 29 teams have a very different definition of *team-friendly.* This is also why I'm convinced former agents don't make the best GMs.

[Revenged25]

From my perspective, you're on the clock to put together the best team you can before Mobley extends, because once he comes off his rookie deal, it gets a whole lot harder to make moves. I don't mind them surrendering a late first to give a guy a test drive (not a fan of the target or added value surrendered, but whatever). I wouldn't mind them signing Sexton to a team-friendly deal. But they need to be very, very careful not to make moves that remove the possibility of better, unknown options between now and when Mobley comes off his rookie deal.

I mean to keep the most options open the Cavs will 100% either extend Sexton or have him part of a S&T where they can bring back salary that can immediately or soon to be used as an expiring contract in a future trade. Honestly the Cavs are going to be capped out going forward no matter what so they need to keep a certain amount of contracts on the books to facilitate trades. I think that's also part of why they went after LeVert over someone like Powell. Powell has multiple years on his deal that are increasing year after year, so if he ends up regressing in a different role for the Cavs or they realize he's not performing as well as they hoped, then his value will tank and with all the years left on his deal it'll be harder to move. With LeVert even if he doesn't work out as hoped, he'll still end up an expiring contract that they can flip in a trade for a more established player to a team ready to hit the reset button.

The Cavs $38M coming off the books in the summer of 2023, and if they're good enough, they'll have options. The only thing they can't do is go full Knicks and sign a bunch of team-friendly deals that turn out to be untradeable because the other 29 teams have a very different definition of *team-friendly.* This is also why I'm convinced former agents don't make the best GMs.

That $38M coming off the books in summer of 2023 is already allocated for Garland if he ends up getting the max. His cap hold alone is going to be 22 mil at least. I think Sexton will get around 18-22 AAV and it'll be viewed as movable. Also LeVert would be in play for a similar deal. If the Cavs renounce and sign no one this off-season and renounce everyone except Garland who will get a max contract, they'll only have 16 mil in in cap space after Garland's extension, 25 mil prior. They won't have capspace to make a meaningful move.

[JonFromVA]

Sure, those are the negotiating terms. But I don't really see anybody who's got a better chance of making a difference next year. The Cavs burned some Rubio goodwill by trading his contract, so the 3y/$45m he probably could've gotten from the Cavs is gone. (He might get that offer from Indiana though!) So if the Cavs offer him the TPMLE, he's getting it for however many years he wants.

If the Cavs really felt like they owed Ricky some lost money for trading his contract, they could pay him to consult with the team post-retirement via zoom calls.

If we're going to commit to Ricky this Summer, I would want more than 1 year. If he's adamant about that, then I'd just let him continue with his recovery and re-visit when he's actually ready to play when we may be able to carve out the vet min for him.

There's unfortunately some serious risks with a player coming off a second ACL surgery on the same knee.

If he's willing to take the TPMLE I don't care if it's 1 or multiple years, I'll take it. His leadership and primary ballhandling skills will be a boon to the team regardless. I mean who would you rather give the TPMLE to over Rubio if he's willing to take it just because they're willing to take it on a multi-year deal. I mean someone actually willing to play on it.

Depending how this post season goes, the Cavs may actually draw some interest from a subset of the ring chaser crowd.

Next season could be truly awful for Ricky, he may miss half of it in rehab then struggle to get back to whatever his new 100% is for the rest of the season. If he's going to be any good again (and that's a big if), it's far more likely to happen in year 2 and 3 then 1.

I mean who do you think we're bidding against, here?

[Revenged25]

If the Cavs really felt like they owed Ricky some lost money for trading his contract, they could pay him to consult with the team post-retirement via zoom calls.

If we're going to commit to Ricky this Summer, I would want more than 1 year. If he's adamant about that, then I'd just let him continue with his recovery and re-visit when he's actually ready to play when we may be able to carve out the vet min for him.

There's unfortunately some serious risks with a player coming off a second ACL surgery on the same knee.

If he's willing to take the TPMLE I don't care if it's 1 or multiple years, I'll take it. His leadership and primary ballhandling skills will be a boon to the team regardless. I mean who would you rather give the TPMLE to over Rubio if he's willing to take it just because they're willing to take it on a multi-year deal. I mean someone actually willing to play on it.

Depending how this post season goes, the Cavs may actually draw some interest from a subset of the ring chaser crowd.

Next season could be truly awful for Ricky, he may miss half of it in rehab then struggle to get back to whatever his new 100% is for the rest of the season. If he's going to be any good again (and that's a big if), it's far more likely to happen in year 2 and 3 then 1.

I mean who do you think we're bidding against, here?

Warriors, Bulls, Knicks, Bucks, Miami, 76ers, Dallas, basically any team that is a contender and could use a competent veteran back-up PG for the TPMLE.