Stop rooting for your team to lose to get better draft odds

[The Q]

Yeah football is WILDLY different than the NBA. If you spend a fair amount of research you can get a remarkably high number of picks right for an NBA draft. In the NFL, things go out the window usually by pick 10.



They are 4-13 without him and 14-17 with him. Sexton being good stats/bad team all-star doesn't make him a real all-star. No matter what, Sexton will always be defensively limited. Maybe he could become a consistent All-Star but it's hard to see him ever being more than that. I'm not saying this because I have dislike him or the Cavs. I honestly don't care about either that much. I don't see him ever being a top 2 player on a championship caliber team. But I could be wrong.




You are doing what you are saying other people shouldn't do. You are using hindsight to judge the pick. The problem with Garland isn't that he wasn't the BPA available. Maybe he was. But the Cavs drafted a short point guard the year before. Where was Garland going to get his minutes? You going to put one of these guys at the 2 and and have 2 6'1" guards in the backcourt?



FFS why do you keep arguing that the Sixers got lucky? They were one of the 3 worst teams in basketball for 5 straight years. They drafted ahead of slot one time when they were the 2nd worst team in basketball and got the No. 1 pick(Simmons).

As it stands the Cavs have a 10% chance of getting the No. 1 pick. THAT would be very lucky. Especially since the Cavs have already got No. 1 3 times in the last 10 years.

No, I don't think the Cavs will EVER be a good team with Garland and Sexton in the backcourt? Maybe they could sneak an 8 seed or something like that. But that team will never be able to stop anybody.
[/QUOTE]

And without Simmons the process is nothing less than a total train wreck.

if anything that supports tanking more and more

 

[dtgold88]

exactly

the NBA has set it up this way. And while there might not be a huge difference in one or two spots- the difference between 3 or 4 spots can make a huge difference- and there are a lot of teams bunched up.

Winning 6-7 out of 10 could take you from being in line for the 4th best lotto odds to 8th or 9th.

and it's not just the chances you get to be in top 4. The lower you are, the better chance to move way down outside the top 4.

 

[dtgold88]

Jesus you are thin skinned. Not sure why you are so obsessed with the Sixers either. Yeah they wound up with a 1st and 2 3rds and wound up trading up from the 3rd spot to first to get 2 1sts. It's downright weird that you constantly bring this up while ignoring that your team had 3 No. 1 overall picks in the space of 5 years and have shit to show for it.

What were all the top 5 picks the Warriors had? Or the Spurs? Or the Bucks?

Talk about moving the goal posts. Are you seriously arguing that Garland was the better pick over Hayes because they wound up getting Allen? If you're happy with the Cavs and where they are, bully for you. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion with you but as usual it devolves into you being bitchy and defensive.

I get this is your MO when someone disagrees with you, but this is just a conversation. If we all agreed what fun would these forums be? I lose no sleep and my skin wont shrink if you disagree. I make my points. You make yours. You seem to get more bent out of shape when I disagree...even when I can explain why I disagree with logic and facts. Like the irrational, you will deflect to the type of responses you offered here as opposed to just staying on topic.

Yes, I mention Philly...as well as LA and NY. Seems to be a reason as the cavs are only in year 3 of their rebuild and those teams took 6, 8 and 7 years to make the playoffs in their rebuilds (assuming NY gets in this year). And, yes, I do note the fact those teams (especially Philly) were afforded some better picks - much better - than the 5th, 5th and 8th the Cavs had. Never mind NY and LA are prime FA destinations.

Now your deflection to GS, Milwaukee and SA? Really all that does is make one wonder why Philly, NY and LA took so long with all their high picks.

I'm arguing Garland is better than Hayes because, as of now, he is better than Hayes. Having Allen certainly mitigates the need to have drafted Hayes.

That last comment of yours deserves an "oh, the irony" as I'm sure you must know.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah football is WILDLY different than the NBA. If you spend a fair amount of research you can get a remarkably high number of picks right for an NBA draft. In the NFL, things go out the window usually by pick 10.

Plus, adding 1 player doesn't have near the impact on a teams fortunes in the NFL that they do in the NBA. Adding 1 great player in the NBA can take a team from the lottery to the playoffs. Not so in the NFL. So it makes it even more glaring if the team doesn't get the pick right.

They are 4-13 without him and 14-17 with him. Sexton being good stats/bad team all-star doesn't make him a real all-star. No matter what, Sexton will always be defensively limited. Maybe he could become a consistent All-Star but it's hard to see him ever being more than that. I'm not saying this because I have dislike him or the Cavs. I honestly don't care about either that much. I don't see him ever being a top 2 player on a championship caliber team. But I could be wrong.

I think Sexton could possibly be part of a top 2 on a contender. Obviously we won't know for certain unless/until there is a contending roster around him. But if he can get to the point of being a consistent all star, he'll be able to be part of a contender. A .451 winning percentage with him from a .235 winning percentage without him is a pretty big jump. Plus, he has made some of the improvement you like to see.

You are doing what you are saying other people shouldn't do. You are using hindsight to judge the pick. The problem with Garland isn't that he wasn't the BPA available. Maybe he was. But the Cavs drafted a short point guard the year before. Where was Garland going to get his minutes? You going to put one of these guys at the 2 and and have 2 6'1" guards in the backcourt?

This is where I think the Cavs may have made a mistake. Looking at that draft, Garland probably was the BPA, so it's kind of hard to blame them for taking him. But maybe that's where you think outside the box a little and maybe consider trading down for more picks/players instead of drafting basically the same guy you just drafted the season before.

 

[dtgold88]

white haichimura or hayes?

you have got to be fucking kidding me. geezus.

I guess your skin must be thinning, as well. I'd ask why he thinks White is better but I cannot afford to have my skin shrink anymore. Maybe he likes less scoring and a higher % of missed shots? I could see preferring Hachimura but you don't pass on a guy you think is much better to take him just because the guy you like is short. Same with Hayes.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah football is WILDLY different than the NBA. If you spend a fair amount of research you can get a remarkably high number of picks right for an NBA draft. In the NFL, things go out the window usually by pick 10.



They are 4-13 without him and 14-17 with him. Sexton being good stats/bad team all-star doesn't make him a real all-star. No matter what, Sexton will always be defensively limited. Maybe he could become a consistent All-Star but it's hard to see him ever being more than that. I'm not saying this because I have dislike him or the Cavs. I honestly don't care about either that much. I don't see him ever being a top 2 player on a championship caliber team. But I could be wrong.




You are doing what you are saying other people shouldn't do. You are using hindsight to judge the pick. The problem with Garland isn't that he wasn't the BPA available. Maybe he was. But the Cavs drafted a short point guard the year before. Where was Garland going to get his minutes? You going to put one of these guys at the 2 and and have 2 6'1" guards in the backcourt?



FFS why do you keep arguing that the Sixers got lucky? They were one of the 3 worst teams in basketball for 5 straight years. They drafted ahead of slot one time when they were the 2nd worst team in basketball and got the No. 1 pick(Simmons).

As it stands the Cavs have a 10% chance of getting the No. 1 pick. THAT would be very lucky. Especially since the Cavs have already got No. 1 3 times in the last 10 years.

No, I don't think the Cavs will EVER be a good team with Garland and Sexton in the backcourt? Maybe they could sneak an 8 seed or something like that. But that team will never be able to stop anybody.

And without Simmons the process is nothing less than a total train wreck.

if anything that supports tanking more and more
[/QUOTE]
Not sure if all of that was yours or you just replied at the end. agree with what was said at the end.

as for Garland...if there was someone that was clearly the guy they should have taken at a different position I would blame the Cavs for it. But white, Hachimura and Hayes? That's kooky talk at this point.

 

[dtgold88]

Plus, adding 1 player doesn't have near the impact on a teams fortunes in the NFL that they do in the NBA. Adding 1 great player in the NBA can take a team from the lottery to the playoffs. Not so in the NFL. So it makes it even more glaring if the team doesn't get the pick right.



I think Sexton could possibly be part of a top 2 on a contender. Obviously we won't know for certain unless/until there is a contending roster around him. But if he can get to the point of being a consistent all star, he'll be able to be part of a contender. A .451 winning percentage with him from a .235 winning percentage without him is a pretty big jump. Plus, he has made some of the improvement you like to see.



This is where I think the Cavs may have made a mistake. Looking at that draft, Garland probably was the BPA, so it's kind of hard to blame them for taking him. But maybe that's where you think outside the box a little and maybe consider trading down for more picks/players instead of drafting basically the same guy you just drafted the season before.

Agree with first comment, but point is most teams draft based on the mocks we see in the NBA. Wildly different in the NFL.

Assuming you mean title contender I do think the #1 would really need to be an elite wing for Sexton to be the #2 on such a team. #3 would probably also need to be close to Sexton in talent. agree with the improvement and that is huge IMO. I mean, the guy came into the league with shooting as a major flaw and he's been an efficient shooter/scorer. Tremendous work ethic and 5 years from his best years.

as to your last comment that depends how much they like Garland and the options behind him. If there was a stud they could have had agree taking him was a mistake. Haven't gone far in playoffs yet, but Utah seems to be doing OK with short guards (and a short SF/PF). Allen is no Gobert but he should be able to help - along with nance and maybe Okoro as he gets older - with any defensive issues.

wont matter, though, unless they can find an elite wing which wont be easy without some lottery luck.

 

[trojanfan12]

Agree with first comment, but point is most teams draft based on the mocks we see in the NBA. Wildly different in the NFL.

Yeah, my main point was just that, an NBA team is going to catch a lot more heat from media and fans because of the difference 1 player makes. If , for example, the Browns mess up a pick, it doesn't have the impact and gets forgotten quicker than if the Cavs mess up on a pick.

Assuming you mean title contender I do think the #1 would really need to be an elite wing for Sexton to be the #2 on such a team. #3 would probably also need to be close to Sexton in talent. agree with the improvement and that is huge IMO. I mean, the guy came into the league with shooting as a major flaw and he's been an efficient shooter/scorer. Tremendous work ethic and 5 years from his best years.

Agree.

as to your last comment that depends how much they like Garland and the options behind him. If there was a stud they could have had agree taking him was a mistake. Haven't gone far in playoffs yet, but Utah seems to be doing OK with short guards (and a short SF/PF). Allen is no Gobert but he should be able to help - along with nance and maybe Okoro as he gets older - with any defensive issues.

I looked at a few of the mock drafts from that year. Most seemed to have Culver as the pick for the Cavs, saying that he would be a good fit alongside Sexton. But, most of them had Garland going within a pick or 2 of the Cavs #5. The only outlier was Sports Illustrated had Garland dropping to 12th. I think Bleacher Report was the only one that had the Cavs picking Garland.

From that perspective, the Cavs may have just decided to take BPA and deciding it was Garland certainly wasn't any kind of reach. For all I know, they may have explored the trade option I suggested and just didn't like any of the offers.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah, my main point was just that, an NBA team is going to catch a lot more heat from media and fans because of the difference 1 player makes. If , for example, the Browns mess up a pick, it doesn't have the impact and gets forgotten quicker than if the Cavs mess up on a pick.



Agree.



I looked at a few of the mock drafts from that year. Most seemed to have Culver as the pick for the Cavs, saying that he would be a good fit alongside Sexton. But, most of them had Garland going within a pick or 2 of the Cavs #5. The only outlier was Sports Illustrated had Garland dropping to 12th. I think Bleacher Report was the only one that had the Cavs picking Garland.

From that perspective, the Cavs may have just decided to take BPA and deciding it was Garland certainly wasn't any kind of reach. For all I know, they may have explored the trade option I suggested and just didn't like any of the offers.

I think many just confuse this regime and blame them for previous bad Cavs' picks (not you) but as of now I cannot blame them for any picks they've made. Sure, can say should have taken SGA but not like they instead took a bad player.

Really not many moves they made I would call a disaster or close. Resigning Love? Maybe...but over the cap if they paid him $100 mil or nothing. Drummond? Gave up nothing for him, got nothing for him and have since acquired their C of future for nothing. The move they could really end up regretting would be getting rid of KPJ too soon.

 

[flyerhawk]

And without Simmons the process is nothing less than a total train wreck.

if anything that supports tanking more and more

Honestly I would say without Embiid the process would have completely failed.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I guess your skin must be thinning, as well. I'd ask why he thinks White is better but I cannot afford to have my skin shrink anymore. Maybe he likes less scoring and a higher % of missed shots? I could see preferring Hachimura but you don't pass on a guy you think is much better to take him just because the guy you like is short. Same with Hayes.

there was not one mock draft where Garland went behind any of those guys. Not even close.

Garland was considered the 4th best talent in the draft generally.

the last time the Cavs had a similar situation- where they decided to pass on a player because he wasnt a "need" they drafted Dion WAiters instead of Damian Lillard.

Honestly- I think Garland could be better long term than Sexton.

I look at the guys after Garland and the only guy that i would even consider is Herro----- and thats like going back and saying- well i wouldve taken Giannis over Otto Porter even though every single person had Otto Porter Jr. rated higher.



Garland played 4 college games---- and then came into a young, bad Cavs team that had a shortened season.

This year he has really shown glimpses that he could become a damn good player at the age of 21.

 

[flyerhawk]

I get this is your MO when someone disagrees with you, but this is just a conversation. If we all agreed what fun would these forums be? I lose no sleep and my skin wont shrink if you disagree. I make my points. You make yours. You seem to get more bent out of shape when I disagree...even when I can explain why I disagree with logic and facts. Like the irrational, you will deflect to the type of responses you offered here as opposed to just staying on topic.

I don't care that you disagree with me. I get annoyed when you start saying "You have nothing but baseless opinions". Or claim I'm moving the goal posts right you A) Put words in my mouth by claiming I brought up elite and B) pick and choose when it is ok to use hindisght when my whole point was that it wasn't about the Cavs being clairvoyant but rather about them building an actual team.

Yes, I mention Philly...as well as LA and NY. Seems to be a reason as the cavs are only in year 3 of their rebuild and those teams took 6, 8 and 7 years to make the playoffs in their rebuilds (assuming NY gets in this year). And, yes, I do note the fact those teams (especially Philly) were afforded some better picks - much better - than the 5th, 5th and 8th the Cavs had. Never mind NY and LA are prime FA destinations.

If you think everything is hunky dory with the Cavs and that you are just a couple of years away from contention, more power to you. Just like you think that Kevin Love was going to bring in a huge haul for the Cavs. Just like you thought that teams would make a big move for Drummond. Nothing wrong with being a homer, but you also like to attack others when they don't agree with your homerdom.

Now your deflection to GS, Milwaukee and SA? Really all that does is make one wonder why Philly, NY and LA took so long with all their high picks.

I'm arguing Garland is better than Hayes because, as of now, he is better than Hayes. Having Allen certainly mitigates the need to have drafted Hayes.

That last comment of yours deserves an "oh, the irony" as I'm sure you must know.

How the fuck is that a deflection? You are whining about how the Cavs haven't been lucky in the draft which is why they haven't done better. Leaving aside the hilarity of a Cavs fan whining about not getting lucky in the draft, there are lots of teams that have succeeded WITHOUT having top 5 picks. We can talk about Philly or NY or LA if you like. Each had their own issues that were largely specific to their teams. Each of them have handled it differently.

Clearly you think it is perfectly reasonable to tell the other person that their opinions are baseless and thus have no merit. Nothing I can do to fix that.

 

[dtgold88]

there was not one mock draft where Garland went behind any of those guys. Not even close.

Garland was considered the 4th best talent in the draft generally.

the last time the Cavs had a similar situation- where they decided to pass on a player because he wasnt a "need" they drafted Dion WAiters instead of Damian Lillard.

Honestly- I think Garland could be better long term than Sexton.

I look at the guys after Garland and the only guy that i would even consider is Herro----- and thats like going back and saying- well i wouldve taken Giannis over Otto Porter even though every single person had Otto Porter Jr. rated higher.



Garland played 4 college games---- and then came into a young, bad Cavs team that had a shortened season.

This year he has really shown glimpses that he could become a damn good player at the age of 21.

Right and as most seem to agree in this discussion NBA teams generally follow the mocks. So no one was taking Herro at 5 (if he's even a better overall player). Similar to the angst of some with the Okoro pick. Forget it's way too early to know what the kid will become, but no one was taking Haliburton at 5.

Nice analogy with Lillard.

 

[flyerhawk]

I think Sexton could possibly be part of a top 2 on a contender. Obviously we won't know for certain unless/until there is a contending roster around him. But if he can get to the point of being a consistent all star, he'll be able to be part of a contender. A .451 winning percentage with him from a .235 winning percentage without him is a pretty big jump. Plus, he has made some of the improvement you like to see.

These were my comments. Q just broke the quoting. It's possible that Sexton could elevate to the next level. He's only in year 3 and you don't really know what kind of player you have until years 5 or 6.

This is where I think the Cavs may have made a mistake. Looking at that draft, Garland probably was the BPA, so it's kind of hard to blame them for taking him. But maybe that's where you think outside the box a little and maybe consider trading down for more picks/players instead of drafting basically the same guy you just drafted the season before.

This was my bigger point. It's hard to imagine the Cavs ever being a title contender with a backcourt of Garland and Sexton? Is it possible? Sure. But I wouldn't make any bets that it will happen.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Right and as most seem to agree in this discussion NBA teams generally follow the mocks. So no one was taking Herro at 5 (if he's even a better overall player). Similar to the angst of some with the Okoro pick. Forget it's way too early to know what the kid will become, but no one was taking Haliburton at 5.

Nice analogy with Lillard.

I really liked Halliburton though too- i was surprised he went where he went.

but no doubt he was more equipped to succeed in the NBa right off the bat than most.

Okoro is more of an athletic project than a finished project. When NBA teams are drafting high though- they are trying to go for potential and projection more than they are immediate help most of the time- becuase lets face it- most of the time if you are drafting very high your team isnt that good.

Like everyone ripped Charlotte for taking PJ Washington where they did- they thought he would go in the mid 20's. Not that he couldnt contribute immediately- he was a more polished, had a couple years in school stretch PF- its just that the ceiling isnt there.

 

[dtgold88]

I don't care that you disagree with me. I get annoyed when you start saying "You have nothing but baseless opinions". Or claim I'm moving the goal posts right you A) Put words in my mouth by claiming I brought up elite and B) pick and choose when it is ok to use hindisght when my whole point was that it wasn't about the Cavs being clairvoyant but rather about them building an actual team.



If you think everything is hunky dory with the Cavs and that you are just a couple of years away from contention, more power to you. Just like you think that Kevin Love was going to bring in a huge haul for the Cavs. Just like you thought that teams would make a big move for Drummond. Nothing wrong with being a homer, but you also like to attack others when they don't agree with your homerdom.



How the fuck is that a deflection? You are whining about how the Cavs haven't been lucky in the draft which is why they haven't done better. Leaving aside the hilarity of a Cavs fan whining about not getting lucky in the draft, there are lots of teams that have succeeded WITHOUT having top 5 picks. We can talk about Philly or NY or LA if you like. Each had their own issues that were largely specific to their teams. Each of them have handled it differently.

Clearly you think it is perfectly reasonable to tell the other person that their opinions are baseless and thus have no merit. Nothing I can do to fix that.

Cavs are building an actual team and, yes, still need that elite guy to finish it off. Our Embiid, if you will.

You could not be funnier if you tried, though. You cry I put words in your mouth then you put words in my mouth. When did I say Love "would bring in a HUGE haul" or teams would "make a big move for Drummond"? Also, who do I attack? Not sure I'd call it an attack just shoving your own comments back at you....and I did it again.

How is pointing out they have not been lucky (in fact, they've been unlucky) whining? It's factual. Now you need to try and stay focused on the now if you are able. I realize the Cavs benefitted from previous lottery luck and it played a huge role in them winning a title. without it there is no title. Read that as many times as it takes to sink in before you move on please. And sure there are teams who have succeeded without top 5 picks but many teams needed top 5 picks to succeed (yours included).

As for baseless opinions I only point that out when one offers baseless opinions. You know, like thinking Coby white is a better selection than garland and a failure not to take him instead. That was priceless.

I cannot wait for the comedy you will provide in your next deflection should you choose to reply.

 

[flyerhawk]

5. Cleveland Cavaliers: Darius Garland, G, Vanderbilt​

The Cavs have a very different approach to team-building than the Hawks. A year after taking Collin Sexton no. 8 overall, Cleveland pairs him with another undersized scoring guard in Garland. Garland is one of the mystery men in this draft—he played only five games in college, but he’s clearly a talented scorer with the ability to shoot 3s off the dribble. The questions with Garland are more about defense and playmaking, which make him an interesting fit next to Sexton. The two will be able to put up a lot of points, but they will struggle to match up on defense and could have some issues sharing the ball. Cleveland may end up having to choose between its last two lottery picks sometime in the next few seasons.


Grade: C
there was not one mock draft where Garland went behind any of those guys. Not even close.

Garland was considered the 4th best talent in the draft generally.

The first first link I got from doing NBA draft grades..

Grading the 2019 NBA Draft

Zion has officially landed. Here’s our assessment on each first-round pick of this year’s draft.

www.theringer.com

Some graded the pick well. Others not as well. Generally for the same reason.

the last time the Cavs had a similar situation- where they decided to pass on a player because he wasnt a "need" they drafted Dion WAiters instead of Damian Lillard.

So Dame Lillard and Kyrie Irving in the same backcourt? You don't think that would have posed any problems?

Honestly- I think Garland could be better long term than Sexton.

I look at the guys after Garland and the only guy that i would even consider is Herro----- and thats like going back and saying- well i wouldve taken Giannis over Otto Porter even though every single person had Otto Porter Jr. rated higher.



Garland played 4 college games---- and then came into a young, bad Cavs team that had a shortened season.

This year he has really shown glimpses that he could become a damn good player at the age of 21.

Maybe you're right. Time will tell.

 

[dtgold88]

These were my comments. Q just broke the quoting. It's possible that Sexton could elevate to the next level. He's only in year 3 and you don't really know what kind of player you have until years 5 or 6.




This was my bigger point. It's hard to imagine the Cavs ever being a title contender with a backcourt of Garland and Sexton? Is it possible? Sure. But I wouldn't make any bets that it will happen.

No disagreement there. To the first comment he's shown improvement in each of his first 3 seasons...including in areas he was thought that he would struggle and he has a tremendous work ethic. and, yes, 5-6 years from his best seasons in all likelihood.

I'm not sure Cavs will be a title contender anytime soon. I wouldn't really make bets that most teams who are not contenders now will be title contenders. For the Cavs? They need an elite wing to make it happen and in this market it will need to come in the draft.

 

[dtgold88]

The first first link I got from doing NBA draft grades..

Grading the 2019 NBA Draft

Zion has officially landed. Here’s our assessment on each first-round pick of this year’s draft.

www.theringer.com

Some graded the pick well. Others not as well. Generally for the same reason.




So Dame Lillard and Kyrie Irving in the same backcourt? You don't think that would have posed any problems?



Maybe you're right. Time will tell.

Hilarious you think a grade that said most considered a guy the 4th best talent in the draft taken 5th a big issue.

FYI, if you compare their 3rd seasons Sexton's has been better than Kyrie's. Can he continue on same trajectory? We'll see. I doubt we'll get the crazy from Sexton.

 

[flyerhawk]

Cavs are building an actual team and, yes, still need that elite guy to finish it off. Our Embiid, if you will.

You could not be funnier if you tried, though. You cry I put words in your mouth then you put words in my mouth. When did I say Love "would bring in a HUGE haul" or teams would "make a big move for Drummond"? Also, who do I attack? Not sure I'd call it an attack just shoving your own comments back at you....and I did it again.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to go searching for your posts about Love or Drummond. If you are going to suggest that you weren't saying that the Cavs could trade Love for a 1st plus other stuff then whatever. Can't make people be honest. Accusing others of having baseless opinions is an attack.

How is pointing out they have not been lucky (in fact, they've been unlucky) whining? It's factual. Now you need to try and stay focused on the now if you are able. I realize the Cavs benefitted from previous lottery luck and it played a huge role in them winning a title. without it there is no title. Read that as many times as it takes to sink in before you move on please. And sure there are teams who have succeeded without top 5 picks but many teams needed top 5 picks to succeed (yours included).

Because A) all teams deal with the same randomness. Talk to a Knicks fan about not being lucky. The Cavs won a title because their FIRST No. 1 pick came back. And your team went back to sucking once he left again.

As for baseless opinions I only point that out when one offers baseless opinions. You know, like thinking Coby white is a better selection than garland and a failure not to take him instead. That was priceless.

I cannot wait for the comedy you will provide in your next deflection should you choose to reply.

OK. So we're done with civil discussion. That's fine.

My point, homer, is that the Cavs aren't building a team that can compete for a title and they will eventually lose Garland and Sexton if they ever amount to anything of note. Whether Coby White turns out to be a better player than Garland was never my point because I'm not trying to judge whether a team does or does not draft well because drafting is more or less a crap shoot. All the teams have basically the same information. The only difference is whether the player fits into their team and whether they can develop that player into something more. Having 2 small shooting guards is redundant. That you can't even concede the obvious fit problem speaks to how much a blind homer.

The Cavs are going to be in the eternal loop of mediocrity for the foreseeable future unless they get really lucky, again, and draft a transcendent generational talent which they most likely will not do. Every year you will be cheerleading along for them as saying how next year will be the year they take it to the next level while they wind up winning 30 games.

I sometimes forget why I always regret talking about the irrelevan Cavs in this forum. Then I get reminded why.