What should Cleveland do with their first round pick?

[TheLand13]

So I'm actually very excited by the fact that we got our first round pick back, simply because of the possibilities it leaves us with. I'm going to assume that, for the sake of argument, Cleveland will get the 14th overall pick in the draft. That will leave us with a couple options, which I'll lay out now...

1. They keep the pick and draft the best wing player available. Based on who has declared for the draft already, the best options seem to be the following: Dyson Daniels, Ochai Agbaji, Kendall Brown and maybe Malaki Branham.

I say maybe on Malaki because he's expected to go a little lower in the draft, but I think his shooting ability is the best fit for us apart from Ochai. Lower tier lottery picks are always tricky, because you're never going to find that wing who is capable of both defending and shooting... because obviously they'd be higher up on the board if that were the case. I guess it kind of just depends on what you think would be better for us right now. And obviously, a wing who can shoot is what's best. But the main thing to keep in mind is that we don't want a wing who can just shoot. Can they create their own offense, do they have good off ball instincts, can they attack the basket, etc. Stuff like this obviously matters as well.

Right now, Dyson Daniels is the player projected to be taken at number 14th overall. But honestly, I think the Cavaliers would be better off taking Ochai instead, who is projected to go after him at 15. I just think his style of play and scoring ability would benefit us a lot more than Daniels would. He's the better scorer who can create his own shot and I just think he'd be able to make a more immediate impact for us. I do like the potential of Daniels, but with where Cleveland is at right now, I'd rather we draft someone who can impact us more right off the bat in the scoring department and I think Ochai does just that.

2. They attempt to trade higher up in the draft for a better wing. In most cases, I would be all for a move like this. But honestly, I think the Cavaliers would be better off staying put. They don't need someone that can become their new number one option on offense, at least not yet. They just need someone who can keep that floor stretched out and is capable of scoring when needed to help balance the offense. One very interesting prospect who is coming straight out of high school is Shaedon Sharpe, who is expected to go seventh overall. Kings are a wildcard when it comes to trades. Lord only knows if they'd be willing to trade this pick for ours and another player and/or pick. The good news is that Cleveland has some tradeable assets that they can spare. Sexton, Levert, Lauri, you can definitely package something involving one of these guys with a pick to get higher draft positioning. But I don't really see the point in going for Sharpe. Again, Cleveland is looking to compete, and the players they already have that they want to develop are there. Taking someone right out of high school, even though Sharpe does have the skillset we would want, doesn't come without its risks. And being on a team where he would probably be the fourth option on offense if he's lucky? I just don't think it's worth going after.

3. They just use the pick to trade for a wing with another team. This one will almost definitely involve moving a player or two that is already on our team. At that point it just comes down to who would be the best option to trade away and who could give you the most bang for your buck. Well, I guess it depends on who you get. Obviously, you'd want someone who can spread the floor, is at least capable of creating their own shot, and can defend competently. I've gone on record many times stating that Gary Trent JR is about as perfect of a guard that you could ask for with this Cleveland team. But that's not going to happen, at least not without giving up a major piece on our team. I imagine Allen or Mobley would have to be included in that deal, and at that point it's just not worth it. So now you gotta think about what other options are out there. Harrison Barnes has been mentioned, but I'd rather go after an actual SG. Ideally, you want them to keep Lauri on the team if possible, because that three seven footer lineup is legit and can cause a lot of problems, unless what you are getting in return for a package involving Lauri is too good to pass up.

Honestly, based on the available options we have right now, I think Cleveland would be better off just keeping the pick and drafting a wing through the draft (and I hope to god they pick Ochai). I just think that would be the best lower risk move that we can attempt to try, see if it works out, and if it doesn't, we can look at potential moves that can be made with that player along with anyone else we'd be willing to throw into the mix. At least in that case, we can see what kind of developments our other players made through the offseason and what's working and what isn't.

Anyways though, what do you guys think? Should we keep the pick, and if so, who should be draft? Or if we should trade it, should it be used to get us higher up in the draft or get a player who can impact our teams ability to win now?

[jbk1234]

If the Bulls made a guy like Caruso available, I'd consider overpaying and trading whoever the Bulls want us to draft for him. Solid backup PG, really, really good contract, can defend and shoots the 3 at league average on his career (his variance is a little higher than ideal). But I fear it's going to be seller's market again with multiple buyers shipping out first round picks for journeymen and it's hard to get excited about participating in that type of trade market.

The last deadline was ugly. Boston shipped out two firsts for White, we overpaid for LeVert, and the Raptors just gave away a first for Thad Young. The fact that E. Gordon is still on the Rockets roster means they must've insisted on a first for a 33-year old overpaid combo guard coming off an injury. The only team that helped itself was the Pelicans and they paid a lot for CJ who remains a risky proposition given his age, injury history, and contract. I expect more of the same ahead of the draft.

The Hornets have two picks in the same range as the Cavs and are definitely going to try to make moves. The Kings will have a better pick, just traded for Sabonis, and are trying to win now regardless of how foolish it is. The Knicks are desperate to be relevant and poorly managed. The Bulls already mortgaged their future so they're pot committed. The Spurs have multiple firsts and cap space to offer. The Pelicans are win now. If you look at the T&T board, there's more than a handful of teams looking to *consolidate* and/or trade picks to get off of bad contracts and there aren't really teams eager to be on the other side of that transaction. The play-in changed the dynamic and it's a tough time to be a buyer in the trade market.

The only *disgruntled* player is DiVincenzo, he's really inconsistent from 3, and the Kings have Fox so I can't imagine them being interested in LeVert or Sexton.

Reddish for Sexton in a S&T with the Knicks sending out Noel to OKC to get around BYC might work. Maybe we get J. Rich back from the Spurs in a S&T for Sexton. I don't think there's much of a trade market for LeVert on his current contract so I hope that informs the Cavs F.O. in terms of any extension talk.

If the Cavs aren't patient on the trade front in this market, then they're likely to lose more trades. It's hard to see anything that moves the needle and you don't want to waste assets when an opportunity might present itself in the future.

[MasterIchiro]

If the Hornets are smart we will draft Agbaji 13 so you can't steal him before our next pick at 15. I guess the thought is you wouldn't take Williams 14 because you have your bigs all set. Spurs at 9 and OKC at 12 via LAC could take Duren and Williams off the board, which forces us to take Agbaji. Either way, I don't see Agbaji falling to 14.

[KuruptedCav]

Trade him for a cost controlled role player player.

Trade him as part of a bigger package for a needle mover.

Draft the player with the highest upside regardless of risk or position and take a swing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jbk1234]

If the Hornets are smart we will draft Agbaji 13 so you can't steal him before our next pick at 15. I guess the thought is you wouldn't take Williams 14 because you have your bigs all set. Spurs at 9 and OKC at 12 via LAC could take Duren and Williams off the board, which forces us to take Agbaji. Either way, I don't see Agbaji falling to 14.

The obvious risk is that the Cavs end up drafting for someone else in a trade scenario.

[MasterIchiro]

If the Hornets are smart we will draft Agbaji 13 so you can't steal him before our next pick at 15. I guess the thought is you wouldn't take Williams 14 because you have your bigs all set. Spurs at 9 and OKC at 12 via LAC could take Duren and Williams off the board, which forces us to take Agbaji. Either way, I don't see Agbaji falling to 14.

The obvious risk is that the Cavs end up drafting for someone else in a trade scenario.

We already mortgaged a pick for Kai Jones and developed him for one full year in Gleague where he put up 19/11 with 2 blocks. I don't think there is a center in this draft who starts next year. So for me, a center pick is a developmental pick. If Williams is off the board, go with Kessler.

[TheLand13]

The last deadline was ugly. Boston shipped out two firsts for White, we overpaid for LeVert, and the Raptors just gave away a first for Thad Young. The fact that E. Gordon is still on the Rockets roster means they must've insisted on a first for a 33-year old overpaid combo guard coming off an injury. The only team that helped itself was the Pelicans and they paid a lot for CJ who remains a risky proposition given his age, injury history, and contract. I expect more of the same ahead of the draft.

You know, this is a little off topic, but I didn't understand why so many people wanted the Cavaliers to make a move for Eric Gordon. I personally thought that would have been the worst possible option they could go for. Granted, his style of play fits the Cavaliers better than Levert, but Levert's a better defender and at least he's young and has some value as a playmaker. Gordon is inconsistent, already 33, and has no realistic chance of being an integeral part of Cleveland's long term plans. I can at least see Levert being of some help.

Reddish for Sexton in a S&T with the Knicks sending out Noel to OKC to get around BYC might work. Maybe we get J. Rich back from the Spurs in a S&T for Sexton. I don't think there's much of a trade market for LeVert on his current contract so I hope that informs the Cavs F.O. in terms of any extension talk.

If the Cavs aren't patient on the trade front in this market, then they're likely to lose more trades. It's hard to see anything that moves the needle and you don't want to waste assets when an opportunity might present itself in the future.

The reason why I'm confident that Cleveland can use that first rounder to make some moves is because they have a lot of valuable and very tradeable assets. You have guys like Sexton, Lauri and Okoro (although I really would prefer we hold on to Okoro and try to develop his shooting better as the defense is already there) that can be packaged together with the first round pick and any future picks Cleveland chooses to include.

Also, I think you're underrating Levert's trade value. Has he been a disappointment for us? Yes. Is his play style harmful to teams? Sure. And is he worth that contract? No. But it's an expiring one. Any team that's willing to shed some salary cap space and is willing to buy out his contract probably wouldn't have any issue with taking him to get rid of a contract they don't want for the sake of tanking and looking to score in the draft. Who might that team be? I don't know. But I'm just saying, a player in their final year on a contract that can be bought out will always have value in the trade market depending on what you're looking for in return.

[jbk1234]

The last deadline was ugly. Boston shipped out two firsts for White, we overpaid for LeVert, and the Raptors just gave away a first for Thad Young. The fact that E. Gordon is still on the Rockets roster means they must've insisted on a first for a 33-year old overpaid combo guard coming off an injury. The only team that helped itself was the Pelicans and they paid a lot for CJ who remains a risky proposition given his age, injury history, and contract. I expect more of the same ahead of the draft.

You know, this is a little off topic, but I didn't understand why so many people wanted the Cavaliers to make a move for Eric Gordon. I personally thought that would have been the worst possible option they could go for. Granted, his style of play fits the Cavaliers better than Levert, but Levert's a better defender and at least he's young and has some value as a playmaker. Gordon is inconsistent, already 33, and has no realistic chance of being an integeral part of Cleveland's long term plans. I can at least see Levert being of some help.

Reddish for Sexton in a S&T with the Knicks sending out Noel to OKC to get around BYC might work. Maybe we get J. Rich back from the Spurs in a S&T for Sexton. I don't think there's much of a trade market for LeVert on his current contract so I hope that informs the Cavs F.O. in terms of any extension talk.

If the Cavs aren't patient on the trade front in this market, then they're likely to lose more trades. It's hard to see anything that moves the needle and you don't want to waste assets when an opportunity might present itself in the future.

The reason why I'm confident that Cleveland can use that first rounder to make some moves is because they have a lot of valuable and very tradeable assets. You have guys like Sexton, Lauri and Okoro (although I really would prefer we hold on to Okoro and try to develop his shooting better as the defense is already there) that can be packaged together with the first round pick and any future picks Cleveland chooses to include.

Also, I think you're underrating Levert's trade value. Has he been a disappointment for us? Yes. Is his play style harmful to teams? Sure. And is he worth that contract? No. But it's an expiring one. Any team that's willing to shed some salary cap space and is willing to buy out his contract probably wouldn't have any issue with taking him to get rid of a contract they don't want for the sake of tanking and looking to score in the draft. Who might that team be? I don't know. But I'm just saying, a player in their final year on a contract that can be bought out will always have value in the trade market depending on what you're looking for in return.

As to your first point, I have Allen, Mobley and Garland as the three best players on the roster by a wide margin. I think players like Gordon make it easier for them to do what they do best by helping space the floor. If the opposing defenses leave the other players on the court unattended, you make it harder for your best players. All season long we've faced defenses crowding the paint, and at the end of the day you can't scheme against that if you cannot shoot over it.

At to your second point, the Cavs cannot afford to lose Lauri's spacing unless they're trading him for a guy like Joe Harris. The top three point shooters on the roster are Garland, Lauri, and Love (who is on an expiring contract the year). Garland cannot space the floor for himself and if he's relegated to catch and shoot duties half the time he's on the court, he's not running the offense.

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

The Sixers are starting Maxi and Thybulle in the playoffs and they're meaningfully contributing against the Raptors. That's one of the potential opportunity costs of trading just to trade.

[JonFromVA]

The way to avoid the treadmill is to evaluate talent and nail those trades and picks while sustaining enough flexibility to overcome a mistake or injury.

Everyone wants to rush to the end of the book, but we're just finishing up chapter 1 and things are going very well, with some big decisions to make at the start of chapter 2.

In reality GM's are idiots if they play things too conservative ... if they fail they're going to be on the streets and someone else is going to end up picking up the pieces.

[toooskies]

The last deadline was ugly. Boston shipped out two firsts for White, we overpaid for LeVert, and the Raptors just gave away a first for Thad Young. The fact that E. Gordon is still on the Rockets roster means they must've insisted on a first for a 33-year old overpaid combo guard coming off an injury. The only team that helped itself was the Pelicans and they paid a lot for CJ who remains a risky proposition given his age, injury history, and contract. I expect more of the same ahead of the draft.

You know, this is a little off topic, but I didn't understand why so many people wanted the Cavaliers to make a move for Eric Gordon. I personally thought that would have been the worst possible option they could go for. Granted, his style of play fits the Cavaliers better than Levert, but Levert's a better defender and at least he's young and has some value as a playmaker. Gordon is inconsistent, already 33, and has no realistic chance of being an integeral part of Cleveland's long term plans. I can at least see Levert being of some help.

Reddish for Sexton in a S&T with the Knicks sending out Noel to OKC to get around BYC might work. Maybe we get J. Rich back from the Spurs in a S&T for Sexton. I don't think there's much of a trade market for LeVert on his current contract so I hope that informs the Cavs F.O. in terms of any extension talk.

If the Cavs aren't patient on the trade front in this market, then they're likely to lose more trades. It's hard to see anything that moves the needle and you don't want to waste assets when an opportunity might present itself in the future.

The reason why I'm confident that Cleveland can use that first rounder to make some moves is because they have a lot of valuable and very tradeable assets. You have guys like Sexton, Lauri and Okoro (although I really would prefer we hold on to Okoro and try to develop his shooting better as the defense is already there) that can be packaged together with the first round pick and any future picks Cleveland chooses to include.

Also, I think you're underrating Levert's trade value. Has he been a disappointment for us? Yes. Is his play style harmful to teams? Sure. And is he worth that contract? No. But it's an expiring one. Any team that's willing to shed some salary cap space and is willing to buy out his contract probably wouldn't have any issue with taking him to get rid of a contract they don't want for the sake of tanking and looking to score in the draft. Who might that team be? I don't know. But I'm just saying, a player in their final year on a contract that can be bought out will always have value in the trade market depending on what you're looking for in return.

As to your first point, I have Allen, Mobley and Garland as the three best players on the roster by a wide margin. I think players like Gordon make it easier for them to do what they do best by helping space the floor. If the opposing defenses leave the other players on the court unattended, you make it harder for your best players. All season long we've faced defenses crowding the paint, and at the end of the day you can't scheme against that if you cannot shoot over it.

At to your second point, the Cavs cannot afford to lose Lauri's spacing unless they're trading him for a guy like Joe Harris. The top three point shooters on the roster are Garland, Lauri, and Love (who is on an expiring contract the year). Garland cannot space the floor for himself and if he's relegated to catch and shoot duties half the time he's on the court, he's not running the offense.

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

The Sixers are starting Maxi and Thybulle in the playoffs and they're meaningfully contributing against the Raptors. That's one of the potential opportunity costs of trading just to trade.

We can't scheme against a packed paint that we saw all season long, yet somehow we managed to get so many scoring opportunities to Jarrett Allen that he made the all-star game? Career bests in both attempts and efficiency for him. We totally scheme against a packed paint, and succeed. It's the defining feature of the offense.

You both say we have no spacing and then say Lauri is giving us spacing. Claiming we can't lose Lauri unless we get a truly elite spacer is ludicrous-- how about replacing Lauri with someone about the same as Lauri behind the arc, but better suited to play SF? That's not an unacceptable change.

DG playing off-ball in a Stephen Curry role would be great with a secondary facilitator, whether Collin Sexton can do more of that, or we re-sign Rubio, or we find some other guy to play that role effectively. Yes, we'd be crazy to expect a guy being Draymond Green out there, but we've seen it from Rubio and it has been effective for us. Plus, it's a sliding scale, and one that DG may benefit from instead of being the guy to have all the weight of running the offense all the time. December was great when we could do that and asking the team to pursue December's effectiveness would be great.

[jbk1234]

You know, this is a little off topic, but I didn't understand why so many people wanted the Cavaliers to make a move for Eric Gordon. I personally thought that would have been the worst possible option they could go for. Granted, his style of play fits the Cavaliers better than Levert, but Levert's a better defender and at least he's young and has some value as a playmaker. Gordon is inconsistent, already 33, and has no realistic chance of being an integeral part of Cleveland's long term plans. I can at least see Levert being of some help.



The reason why I'm confident that Cleveland can use that first rounder to make some moves is because they have a lot of valuable and very tradeable assets. You have guys like Sexton, Lauri and Okoro (although I really would prefer we hold on to Okoro and try to develop his shooting better as the defense is already there) that can be packaged together with the first round pick and any future picks Cleveland chooses to include.

Also, I think you're underrating Levert's trade value. Has he been a disappointment for us? Yes. Is his play style harmful to teams? Sure. And is he worth that contract? No. But it's an expiring one. Any team that's willing to shed some salary cap space and is willing to buy out his contract probably wouldn't have any issue with taking him to get rid of a contract they don't want for the sake of tanking and looking to score in the draft. Who might that team be? I don't know. But I'm just saying, a player in their final year on a contract that can be bought out will always have value in the trade market depending on what you're looking for in return.

As to your first point, I have Allen, Mobley and Garland as the three best players on the roster by a wide margin. I think players like Gordon make it easier for them to do what they do best by helping space the floor. If the opposing defenses leave the other players on the court unattended, you make it harder for your best players. All season long we've faced defenses crowding the paint, and at the end of the day you can't scheme against that if you cannot shoot over it.

At to your second point, the Cavs cannot afford to lose Lauri's spacing unless they're trading him for a guy like Joe Harris. The top three point shooters on the roster are Garland, Lauri, and Love (who is on an expiring contract the year). Garland cannot space the floor for himself and if he's relegated to catch and shoot duties half the time he's on the court, he's not running the offense.

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

The Sixers are starting Maxi and Thybulle in the playoffs and they're meaningfully contributing against the Raptors. That's one of the potential opportunity costs of trading just to trade.

We can't scheme against a packed paint that we saw all season long, yet somehow we managed to get so many scoring opportunities to Jarrett Allen that he made the all-star game? Career bests in both attempts and efficiency for him. We totally scheme against a packed paint, and succeed. It's the defining feature of the offense.

You both say we have no spacing and then say Lauri is giving us spacing. Claiming we can't lose Lauri unless we get a truly elite spacer is ludicrous-- how about replacing Lauri with someone about the same as Lauri behind the arc, but better suited to play SF? That's not an unacceptable change.

DG playing off-ball in a Stephen Curry role would be great with a secondary facilitator, whether Collin Sexton can do more of that, or we re-sign Rubio, or we find some other guy to play that role effectively. Yes, we'd be crazy to expect a guy being Draymond Green out there, but we've seen it from Rubio and it has been effective for us. Plus, it's a sliding scale, and one that DG may benefit from instead of being the guy to have all the weight of running the offense all the time. December was great when we could do that and asking the team to pursue December's effectiveness would be great.

Rubio worked because he's a gifted PG who not only got Garland the ball when teams helped off of him, but got Allen and Mobley the ball when they didn't. Although that sounds easy, it's something a small percentage of modern guards actually do well. We don't know that he's opening to coming back, when he'll be available if he does, or if he'll be the same player coming off the injury. But Lauri was out there with Garland, Rubio, Mobley and Allen most of the time.

It absolutely makes a tremendous difference whether teams have three points of attack on the court in terms of how the other team defends. It's how you get defenders rotating multiple times and forgetting folks around the basket. Sans Rubio, we were not a good offensive team. We were a good defensive team. That's not an opinion, that's reality based on the ratings and where we stacked up.

In terms of who'd you trade Lauri for *who is about the same behind the arc, but better suited to play SF,* name the player who fits that criteria and is gettable. In a year shooting below his career average, Lauri shot .358 on 6.2 attempts. So who's out there that replaces that?

[toooskies]

As to your first point, I have Allen, Mobley and Garland as the three best players on the roster by a wide margin. I think players like Gordon make it easier for them to do what they do best by helping space the floor. If the opposing defenses leave the other players on the court unattended, you make it harder for your best players. All season long we've faced defenses crowding the paint, and at the end of the day you can't scheme against that if you cannot shoot over it.

At to your second point, the Cavs cannot afford to lose Lauri's spacing unless they're trading him for a guy like Joe Harris. The top three point shooters on the roster are Garland, Lauri, and Love (who is on an expiring contract the year). Garland cannot space the floor for himself and if he's relegated to catch and shoot duties half the time he's on the court, he's not running the offense.

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

The Sixers are starting Maxi and Thybulle in the playoffs and they're meaningfully contributing against the Raptors. That's one of the potential opportunity costs of trading just to trade.

We can't scheme against a packed paint that we saw all season long, yet somehow we managed to get so many scoring opportunities to Jarrett Allen that he made the all-star game? Career bests in both attempts and efficiency for him. We totally scheme against a packed paint, and succeed. It's the defining feature of the offense.

You both say we have no spacing and then say Lauri is giving us spacing. Claiming we can't lose Lauri unless we get a truly elite spacer is ludicrous-- how about replacing Lauri with someone about the same as Lauri behind the arc, but better suited to play SF? That's not an unacceptable change.

DG playing off-ball in a Stephen Curry role would be great with a secondary facilitator, whether Collin Sexton can do more of that, or we re-sign Rubio, or we find some other guy to play that role effectively. Yes, we'd be crazy to expect a guy being Draymond Green out there, but we've seen it from Rubio and it has been effective for us. Plus, it's a sliding scale, and one that DG may benefit from instead of being the guy to have all the weight of running the offense all the time. December was great when we could do that and asking the team to pursue December's effectiveness would be great.

Rubio worked because he's a gifted PG who not only got Garland the ball when teams helped off of him, but got Allen and Mobley the ball when they didn't. Although that sounds easy, it's something a small percentage of modern guards actually do well. We don't know that he's opening to coming back, when he'll be available if he does, or if he'll be the same player coming off the injury. But Lauri was out there with Garland, Rubio, Mobley and Allen most of the time.

It absolutely makes a tremendous difference whether teams have three points of attack on the court in terms of how the other team defends. It's how you get defenders rotating multiple times and forgetting folks around the basket. Sans Rubio, we were not a good offensive team. We were a good defensive team. That's not an opinion, that's reality based on the ratings and where we stacked up.

In terms of who'd you trade Lauri for *who is about the same behind the arc, but better suited to play SF,* name the player who fits that criteria and is gettable. In a year shooting below his career average, Lauri shot .358 on 6.2 attempts. So who's out there that replaces that?

Fun fact: the Cavs' highest offensive rating by month was actually April, by a good margin. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/cleveland-cavaliers-offensive-rating-by-month.

While Lauri shot under his career average this year, they both round to 36%.

You don't have to take six threes a game to be worth guarding.

Gettable SF who make 2+ threes a game? Wiggins, Fournier, either Bogdanovic (watch to see if Utah retools/tears down), Joe Ingles, Justin Holiday, Max Strus, Duncan Robinson, Keldon Johnson. Harrison Barnes makes 1.8 a game, almost makes the list. If I searched per-36 numbers I'm sure I'd find more.

[jbk1234]

We can't scheme against a packed paint that we saw all season long, yet somehow we managed to get so many scoring opportunities to Jarrett Allen that he made the all-star game? Career bests in both attempts and efficiency for him. We totally scheme against a packed paint, and succeed. It's the defining feature of the offense.

You both say we have no spacing and then say Lauri is giving us spacing. Claiming we can't lose Lauri unless we get a truly elite spacer is ludicrous-- how about replacing Lauri with someone about the same as Lauri behind the arc, but better suited to play SF? That's not an unacceptable change.

DG playing off-ball in a Stephen Curry role would be great with a secondary facilitator, whether Collin Sexton can do more of that, or we re-sign Rubio, or we find some other guy to play that role effectively. Yes, we'd be crazy to expect a guy being Draymond Green out there, but we've seen it from Rubio and it has been effective for us. Plus, it's a sliding scale, and one that DG may benefit from instead of being the guy to have all the weight of running the offense all the time. December was great when we could do that and asking the team to pursue December's effectiveness would be great.

Rubio worked because he's a gifted PG who not only got Garland the ball when teams helped off of him, but got Allen and Mobley the ball when they didn't. Although that sounds easy, it's something a small percentage of modern guards actually do well. We don't know that he's opening to coming back, when he'll be available if he does, or if he'll be the same player coming off the injury. But Lauri was out there with Garland, Rubio, Mobley and Allen most of the time.

It absolutely makes a tremendous difference whether teams have three points of attack on the court in terms of how the other team defends. It's how you get defenders rotating multiple times and forgetting folks around the basket. Sans Rubio, we were not a good offensive team. We were a good defensive team. That's not an opinion, that's reality based on the ratings and where we stacked up.

In terms of who'd you trade Lauri for *who is about the same behind the arc, but better suited to play SF,* name the player who fits that criteria and is gettable. In a year shooting below his career average, Lauri shot .358 on 6.2 attempts. So who's out there that replaces that?

Fun fact: the Cavs' highest offensive rating by month was actually April, by a good margin. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/cleveland-cavaliers-offensive-rating-by-month.

While Lauri shot under his career average this year, they both round to 36%.

You don't have to take six threes a game to be worth guarding.

Gettable SF who make 2+ threes a game? Wiggins, Fournier, either Bogdanovic (watch to see if Utah retools/tears down), Joe Ingles, Justin Holiday, Max Strus, Duncan Robinson, Keldon Johnson. Harrison Barnes makes 1.8 a game, almost makes the list. If I searched per-36 numbers I'm sure I'd find more.

Wiggins and Barnes are the only two names on that list who are better than Lauri defensively (Fournier and Duncan are really bad defenders).

Three of those guys are Love's age or older. Bogdonavich is 33. Holiday is 33. Joe Ingles is 34.

Straus has half the number of attempts and is only 6'5". He's an undersized SF because he doesn't have the lateral quickness to guard the 2. I think Keldon Johnson is more of an undersized 4. He's not a good defender at SF either, plus I'm not sure how gettable he is. If he's gettable like D. White was gettable, I'm not trading two first for a guy that flawed.

Despite our injuries, we had a top 5 defensive rating last year. We were 20th in terms of offensive rating. People are trying to fix something that's not broken while failing to address what is.

[toooskies]

Rubio worked because he's a gifted PG who not only got Garland the ball when teams helped off of him, but got Allen and Mobley the ball when they didn't. Although that sounds easy, it's something a small percentage of modern guards actually do well. We don't know that he's opening to coming back, when he'll be available if he does, or if he'll be the same player coming off the injury. But Lauri was out there with Garland, Rubio, Mobley and Allen most of the time.

It absolutely makes a tremendous difference whether teams have three points of attack on the court in terms of how the other team defends. It's how you get defenders rotating multiple times and forgetting folks around the basket. Sans Rubio, we were not a good offensive team. We were a good defensive team. That's not an opinion, that's reality based on the ratings and where we stacked up.

In terms of who'd you trade Lauri for *who is about the same behind the arc, but better suited to play SF,* name the player who fits that criteria and is gettable. In a year shooting below his career average, Lauri shot .358 on 6.2 attempts. So who's out there that replaces that?

Fun fact: the Cavs' highest offensive rating by month was actually April, by a good margin. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/cleveland-cavaliers-offensive-rating-by-month.

While Lauri shot under his career average this year, they both round to 36%.

You don't have to take six threes a game to be worth guarding.

Gettable SF who make 2+ threes a game? Wiggins, Fournier, either Bogdanovic (watch to see if Utah retools/tears down), Joe Ingles, Justin Holiday, Max Strus, Duncan Robinson, Keldon Johnson. Harrison Barnes makes 1.8 a game, almost makes the list. If I searched per-36 numbers I'm sure I'd find more.

Wiggins and Barnes are the only two names on that list who are better than Lauri defensively (Fournier and Duncan are really bad defenders).

Three of those guys are Love's age or older. Bogdonavich is 33. Holiday is 33. Joe Ingles is 34.

Straus has half the number of attempts and is only 6'5". He's an undersized SF because he doesn't have the lateral quickness to guard the 2. I think Keldon Johnson is more of an undersized 4. He's not a good defender at SF either, plus I'm not sure how gettable he is. If he's gettable like D. White was gettable, I'm not trading two first for a guy that flawed.

Despite our injuries, we had a top 5 defensive rating last year. We were 20th in terms of offensive rating. People are trying to fix something that's not broken while failing to address what is.

You asked for gettable SF shooters, I gave you a list. Fournier and Robinson are significantly better shooters than Lauri, probably by more than enough to dismiss the defensive difference between them and out-of-position Lauri.

[jbk1234]

Fun fact: the Cavs' highest offensive rating by month was actually April, by a good margin. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/cleveland-cavaliers-offensive-rating-by-month.

While Lauri shot under his career average this year, they both round to 36%.

You don't have to take six threes a game to be worth guarding.

Gettable SF who make 2+ threes a game? Wiggins, Fournier, either Bogdanovic (watch to see if Utah retools/tears down), Joe Ingles, Justin Holiday, Max Strus, Duncan Robinson, Keldon Johnson. Harrison Barnes makes 1.8 a game, almost makes the list. If I searched per-36 numbers I'm sure I'd find more.

Wiggins and Barnes are the only two names on that list who are better than Lauri defensively (Fournier and Duncan are really bad defenders).

Three of those guys are Love's age or older. Bogdonavich is 33. Holiday is 33. Joe Ingles is 34.

Straus has half the number of attempts and is only 6'5". He's an undersized SF because he doesn't have the lateral quickness to guard the 2. I think Keldon Johnson is more of an undersized 4. He's not a good defender at SF either, plus I'm not sure how gettable he is. If he's gettable like D. White was gettable, I'm not trading two first for a guy that flawed.

Despite our injuries, we had a top 5 defensive rating last year. We were 20th in terms of offensive rating. People are trying to fix something that's not broken while failing to address what is.

You asked for gettable SF shooters, I gave you a list. Fournier and Robinson are significantly better shooters than Lauri, probably by more than enough to dismiss the defensive difference between them and out-of-position Lauri.

Your criteria was better suited to play SF (which in fairness I did assume meant on this roster) and I repeated it back to you.

[TheLand13]

DG playing off-ball in a Stephen Curry role would be great with a secondary facilitator, whether Collin Sexton can do more of that, or we re-sign Rubio, or we find some other guy to play that role effectively. Yes, we'd be crazy to expect a guy being Draymond Green out there, but we've seen it from Rubio and it has been effective for us. Plus, it's a sliding scale, and one that DG may benefit from instead of being the guy to have all the weight of running the offense all the time. December was great when we could do that and asking the team to pursue December's effectiveness would be great.

My big issue with this is that DG has proven himself to be a ridiculously good playmaking PG. Like, top 10 in the league, if not top 5. He is too good in that department to not have him be your main facilitator and the one initiating the offense. Having him in a Steph Curry role would be a waste of his talent.

[TheLand13]

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

So here's the thing...

How did we get Allen? How did we get Drummond? Hell, how did we get Rubio? If there's one thing Altman has proven himself to be very good at, it's pulling rabbits out of a hat with his trades. Who could have possibly thought that we'd get Jarrett Allen, while all we had to give up was Exum? I can't even remember who we gave up for Drummond. For Rubio, all we had to do was flip Prince. I don't know how, I don't know why, I don't have an answer for it. But if there's one thing I have full on faith in with Altman, it's that he can make a trade to bring in key assets to improve Cleveland's roster in the areas they need without giving up too much. They can't all be gems (the Levert trade), but I just don't think we should be going off of who is available and who do we have that makes the trade realistic. If you told me the guy could somehow get us Tatum without having to give up any of our three best players, I would believe it at this point. I have no idea how he'd do it, but I'm confident at this point that he'd find a way.

[jbk1234]

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

So here's the thing...

How did we get Allen? How did we get Drummond? Hell, how did we get Rubio? If there's one thing Altman has proven himself to be very good at, it's pulling rabbits out of a hat with his trades. Who could have possibly thought that we'd get Jarrett Allen, while all we had to give up was Exum? I can't even remember who we gave up for Drummond. For Rubio, all we had to do was flip Prince. I don't know how, I don't know why, I don't have an answer for it. But if there's one thing I have full on faith in with Altman, it's that he can make a trade to bring in key assets to improve Cleveland's roster in the areas they need without giving up too much. They can't all be gems (the Levert trade), but I just don't think we should be going off of who is available and who do we have that makes the trade realistic. If you told me the guy could somehow get us Tatum without having to give up any of our three best players, I would believe it at this point. I have no idea how he'd do it, but I'm confident at this point that he'd find a way.

Having cap space (Allen/Prince), expiring contracts (Drummond/Rubio/LeVert), or team-friendly contracts (Lauri) has been instrumental in all of the last four trades we made, which is why I'm less indifferent to guarding future cap until Mobley signs his extension and it's no longer a possibility.

[JonFromVA]

That aside, we're very close to the point where the trade value for guys like LeVert and Sexton is no longer a theoretical exercise. Can we trade LeVert to a team looking to shed salary, sure. Can we attach a first with the hopes of getting another player, sure. But who is that player, how does he help the best three players on the Cavs starting unit, and is he available now? What the Cavs don't want to do is trade LeVert's expiring and a first, after trading future cap space and a first to acquire LeVert, only to have to trade that player in his last year and a first because he wasn't the answer either. That's how treadmill teams end up looking back after three years of middling trades with no cap space, no picks, and the only avenue for improvement is trading a core piece.

So here's the thing...

How did we get Allen? How did we get Drummond? Hell, how did we get Rubio? If there's one thing Altman has proven himself to be very good at, it's pulling rabbits out of a hat with his trades. Who could have possibly thought that we'd get Jarrett Allen, while all we had to give up was Exum? I can't even remember who we gave up for Drummond. For Rubio, all we had to do was flip Prince. I don't know how, I don't know why, I don't have an answer for it. But if there's one thing I have full on faith in with Altman, it's that he can make a trade to bring in key assets to improve Cleveland's roster in the areas they need without giving up too much. They can't all be gems (the Levert trade), but I just don't think we should be going off of who is available and who do we have that makes the trade realistic. If you told me the guy could somehow get us Tatum without having to give up any of our three best players, I would believe it at this point. I have no idea how he'd do it, but I'm confident at this point that he'd find a way.

Having cap space (Allen/Prince), expiring contracts (Drummond/Rubio/LeVert), or team-friendly contracts (Lauri) has been instrumental in all of the last four trades we made, which is why I'm less indifferent to guarding future cap until Mobley signs his extension and it's no longer a possibility.

I don't see how cap space was key in any of those deals. It's useful to be ~ $5M below the luxury tax limit to absorb a little extra salary without triggering the luxury, for however long we plan to stay under it. Also the cap is expected to start rising again.

[toooskies]

Wiggins and Barnes are the only two names on that list who are better than Lauri defensively (Fournier and Duncan are really bad defenders).

Three of those guys are Love's age or older. Bogdonavich is 33. Holiday is 33. Joe Ingles is 34.

Straus has half the number of attempts and is only 6'5". He's an undersized SF because he doesn't have the lateral quickness to guard the 2. I think Keldon Johnson is more of an undersized 4. He's not a good defender at SF either, plus I'm not sure how gettable he is. If he's gettable like D. White was gettable, I'm not trading two first for a guy that flawed.

Despite our injuries, we had a top 5 defensive rating last year. We were 20th in terms of offensive rating. People are trying to fix something that's not broken while failing to address what is.

You asked for gettable SF shooters, I gave you a list. Fournier and Robinson are significantly better shooters than Lauri, probably by more than enough to dismiss the defensive difference between them and out-of-position Lauri.

Your criteria was better suited to play SF (which in fairness I did assume meant on this roster) and I repeated it back to you.

A guy who shoots more than Lauri at a better percentage is better suited to play SF for us by your criteria of needing to improve outside shooting in the starting lineup. He doesn't have to be as good a defender of the position, and while Lauri isn't awful there, he's also not a plus defender at the 3. He'd be a liability there in a playoff series when teams will develop a game plan to get more perimeter switches.

Fundamentally, though, the problems with the packed paint involve starting Allen, Mobley, and Okoro. We won't do that next year, whether it's Sexton or LeVert at the 2. Hopefully we play Okoro mostly in minutes where one of Mobley or Allen is sitting. There, much better spacing than we had on the court this year.

(Yeah, LeVert isn't a great outside shooter and can be ignored some out there, but he does have more to his offensive game than Okoro, who can't do much other than shoot from the right corner or cut when his man ignores him.)