2021 NBA regular season thread

[bksballer89]

Now go find me something where a team lost their own player after his rookie deal who they wanted to keep under the current CBA.

Why would I when I never made this claim?

 

[WiggyRuss]

You are completely twisting this point.

I said that once their rookie deals expire, the Cavs control of those players becomes weaker. If they were to become elite players it would be easier because A) they can offer more than other teams and B) they would match whatever contracts they were offered.

But if they aren't elite players it becomes murkier. How much would the Cavs be willing to pay? Would another team be willing to pay more?

This doesn't apply just to the Cavs. It applies to every team. Most teams in the NBA are stuck in a mediocrity loop of constantly recycling good but not great players over and over again. The only way out is to get more bites at the apple or to lure elite players via FA. If free agency isn't a possible option, that means figuring out ways to get the most chances at drafting elite players.

So are the Cavs better off building with Sexton and Garland or are they better dealing those guys for more draft picks and new bites at the apple? I honestly don't know the answer to that but if I had to guess, dealing those guys now would probably give them a better chance at becoming a really good team again.

wtf?

Garland has 2 more years after this one before he is even an RFA. They are a long way from having to make a firm decision on him. and the worst that can happen after that is he is signed to an offer sheet that the Cavs dont want to match. No one will know more about Garland and have a better idea of what he can or cant become than the Cavs at that point.

The number of RFA's that actually leave a team with their own team wanting to keep them EXTREMELY small.

Sexton obviously looks like he is a keeper- but i certainly dont see any other team throwing him a max deal at this point do you? Not only that- but the Cavs still have all of this year and all of next year to continue to evaluate and see where they want to go with it and determine if Sexton is going to be a GUY.

so your question of if the CAvs are better off trading them or resigning them is certainly valid---- but its not a question they have to answer any time soon at all.

the plan is to develop Okoro and Allen and Garland and Sexton and see if they become WORTHY of extensions. Right now it sure as hell seems like Sexton is. There is plenty of time on Garland. I am sure they traded for Allen with the intent to sign him. And by then Love's deal will be up opening up a ton of cap space. Its not like there are other contracts on the roster they have to worry about.


and if you know one thing is that Dan Gilbert isnt going to blink at paying the luxury tax. The guy is the 2nd richest owner in the entire NBA after Ballmer.

 

[dtgold88]

You are completely twisting this point.

I said that once their rookie deals expire, the Cavs control of those players becomes weaker. If they were to become elite players it would be easier because A) they can offer more than other teams and B) they would match whatever contracts they were offered.

But if they aren't elite players it becomes murkier. How much would the Cavs be willing to pay? Would another team be willing to pay more?

This doesn't apply just to the Cavs. It applies to every team. Most teams in the NBA are stuck in a mediocrity loop of constantly recycling good but not great players over and over again. The only way out is to get more bites at the apple or to lure elite players via FA. If free agency isn't a possible option, that means figuring out ways to get the most chances at drafting elite players.

So are the Cavs better off building with Sexton and Garland or are they better dealing those guys for more draft picks and new bites at the apple? I honestly don't know the answer to that but if I had to guess, dealing those guys now would probably give them a better chance at becoming a really good team again.

I do believe dealing one of them is possible but only because they are both short guards who have similar skillsets. Cannot see them getting a draft pick from someone that is high enough to have much chance to be better than them (especially Sexton). My point stands in that the Cavs only lose them if they choose to lose 1, the other, or both. Is it wise to keep both? I'm not sure but that is still a couple years away for sexton and 3 for Garland. who knows what each player has become by that time?

The Cavs and teams like them are in this loop as they need serious lottery luck to get out of it with no elite FAs giving them the time of day (other than their own). In order to get out of it, one more year of tanking with some timely injuries might be the way to go. Otherwise, their ceiling is probably to be the Pacers for a decade and be a 4-5 seed with little to no chance at a title.

 

[bksballer89]

Malcolm Brogdon

Bogdan Bogdanović

 

[dtgold88]

Why would I when I never made this claim?

oh, the irony.

 

[WiggyRuss]

It isn't just about whether the ownership is being cheap or not. Cap space is an asset. You only get so much of it. The Bucks wanted to keep Brogdon but his injury history kept them away from matching the offer sheet. Which is exactly my point.

both his injury history and the fact they didnt believe he was worth it--- and they ended up being wrong.

I mean, i really dont understand where you are going with this.

not only that- but guys like Brogdon are very far and few between. Bogdonovic on the Hawks is another one i guess- the Kings certainly didnt want to pay to keep him--- but its not like he was some super special player either.

 

[dtgold88]

Bogdan Bogdanović

strike 2....if his team wants to keep him they only need to sign him or match any offer he receives. They CHOSE not to.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I don't think you do understand. sure RFA is one year IF the player signs a 1-year deal. What rookies signed 1-year deals in their only year as a RFA? Most sign 3-4 year deals. Can you name any who signed 1-year deals and then became UFAs?

the list of players that played on their RFA 1 year tender instead of taking the money is pretty much zero.

the list of players that signed an offer sheet and left is a little bigger--- but the team always had the right to match. I am sure the Cavs will do the same calculus every team does---- if they think the offer sheet is reasonable they take it. If they dont they let him go

the last thing you want to do is match a crazy offer sheet like the Heat did with that bum Tyler Johnson.

 

[WiggyRuss]

strike 2....if his team wants to keep him they only need to sign him or match any offer he receives. They CHOSE not to.

and if a team offers some crazy ass offer sheet then just let him go.

you dont want a Tyler Johnson situation that if for sure.

but i gotta think that Garland will be much better than Tyler Johnson. lol.

 

[dtgold88]

wtf?

Garland has 2 more years after this one before he is even an RFA. They are a long way from having to make a firm decision on him. and the worst that can happen after that is he is signed to an offer sheet that the Cavs dont want to match. No one will know more about Garland and have a better idea of what he can or cant become than the Cavs at that point.

The number of RFA's that actually leave a team with their own team wanting to keep them EXTREMELY small.

Sexton obviously looks like he is a keeper- but i certainly dont see any other team throwing him a max deal at this point do you? Not only that- but the Cavs still have all of this year and all of next year to continue to evaluate and see where they want to go with it and determine if Sexton is going to be a GUY.

so your question of if the CAvs are better off trading them or resigning them is certainly valid---- but its not a question they have to answer any time soon at all.

the plan is to develop Okoro and Allen and Garland and Sexton and see if they become WORTHY of extensions. Right now it sure as hell seems like Sexton is. There is plenty of time on Garland. I am sure they traded for Allen with the intent to sign him. And by then Love's deal will be up opening up a ton of cap space. Its not like there are other contracts on the roster they have to worry about.


and if you know one thing is that Dan Gilbert isnt going to blink at paying the luxury tax. The guy is the 2nd richest owner in the entire NBA after Ballmer.

Exactly.....and the names mentioned as players teams lost after rookie deals expired (like Brogdon) are because they chose not to pay them. They could have if they wanted. IF Gilbert thinks Garland and/or Sexton are needed nothing he's done would make anyone think he would have an issue playing them.

don't think sexton, Garland and Okoro would all be worth max deals by then but for the cavs that would be a good thing if they are.

 

[bksballer89]

strike 2....if his team wants to keep him they only need to sign him or match any offer he receives. They CHOSE not to.

Teams can sign a player to a poison pill contract to discourage the team from matching the offer

 

[dtgold88]

the list of players that played on their RFA 1 year tender instead of taking the money is pretty much zero.

the list of players that signed an offer sheet and left is a little bigger--- but the team always had the right to match. I am sure the Cavs will do the same calculus every team does---- if they think the offer sheet is reasonable they take it. If they dont they let him go

the last thing you want to do is match a crazy offer sheet like the Heat did with that bum Tyler Johnson.

Correct. and as mentioned numerous times the Cavs have plenty of time to determine what Garland and Okoro are and still more time on sexton as well.

would actually be a great thing if all commanded max deals. Would likely mean they are all studs. and if someone is just overpaying them you can let them walk. But in the end they get to choose to keep or not.

The next deal? That's another story.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Exactly.....and the names mentioned as players teams lost after rookie deals expired (like Brogdon) are because they chose not to pay them. They could have if they wanted. IF Gilbert thinks Garland and/or Sexton are needed nothing he's done would make anyone think he would have an issue playing them.

don't think sexton, Garland and Okoro would all be worth max deals by then but for the cavs that would be a good thing if they are.

and shit--- if they get lucky and win the lotto and draft Cunningham- then sure- trade Garland

but trading these guys you never get the kind of return you want to.

Just what kind of assets does he think that the Cavs can get right now for Darius Garland? You think is a team is going to give up a top 10 pick with how teams are hoarding draft picks?

thats really the huge fault in his argument.

look around the league.

how many times do you see NBA teams trade these guys and actually get a return that is worth anywhere near what the player is worth? It basically NEVER happens.

to suggest to trade Garland before he becomes an RFA because you are afraid that someone is going to offer him a huge offer sheet is insnaity. If someone is going to offer him a big time offer sheet that means he is a damn good player - Thats a good problem to have!

its not like we have Giannis and have to hoard a bunch of cap room and are in cap hell ---- and especially once those guys are up for extensions the books are as free and clear as any team in the NBA.

this whole idea is just nonsense.

 

[dtgold88]

Teams can sign a player to a poison pill contract to discourage the team from matching the offer

True and I do recall this being done in the past.....but not as easy in today's CBA with max deals.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Teams can sign a player to a poison pill contract to discourage the team from matching the offer

lol didnt discourage the Heat

and the Heat got "poisoned pilled" because of their cap situation and front loading the contract in a very unique situation with Johnson who had different rules applied to him because of how he was signed by the Heat.

Nets offer G Tyler Johnson 4-year, $50M deal

The Brooklyn Nets' offer to Tyler Johnson contains the "poison pill" provision, worth approximately $6 million in years 1 and 2 before rising to approximately $19 million in years 3 and 4.

www.espn.com

the Heat had signed a bunch of weird signings like James Johnson and Waiters, etc....and couldnt take the big cap hit in years 3 and 4.

that situation doesnt apply to the Cavs at all right now.

even though it put Miami's balls in a vice they STILL decided to re-sign him too.

 

[WiggyRuss]

True and I do recall this being done in the past.....but not as easy in today's CBA with max deals.

its not only that but because of how Tyler Johnson was not drafted the same rules did not apply to him.

they could screw with the money and not pro-rate it evenly.

thats not the case with players who are actually drafted.

plus- as i said- even if they could- which they cant---- its not like it really matters anyway with a team with books that are even relatively clean.

 

[Sparhawk]

Yeah. That was 100% a game we lose if Brett Brown was still the coach.

Check out Brock Landes on Twitter.
He does breakdowns of the Sixers games showing the sets they are running and sometimes how it compares to last season.

@LandesBrock

He's heavy with the homerism, but it's a pretty good technical breakdown with graphics en sech.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Teams can sign a player to a poison pill contract to discourage the team from matching the offer

Tyler Johnson got the poison pill deal because he was an undrafted UFA and their were different rules that applied. It gets complicated with that--- but its not the same rules that apply to an RFA that was drafted.

 

[dtgold88]

and shit--- if they get lucky and win the lotto and draft Cunningham- then sure- trade Garland

but trading these guys you never get the kind of return you want to.

Just what kind of assets does he think that the Cavs can get right now for Darius Garland? You think is a team is going to give up a top 10 pick with how teams are hoarding draft picks?

thats really the huge fault in his argument.

look around the league.

how many times do you see NBA teams trade these guys and actually get a return that is worth anywhere near what the player is worth? It basically NEVER happens.

to suggest to trade Garland before he becomes an RFA because you are afraid that someone is going to offer him a huge offer sheet is insnaity. If someone is going to offer him a big time offer sheet that means he is a damn good player - Thats a good problem to have!

its not like we have Giannis and have to hoard a bunch of cap room and are in cap hell ---- and especially once those guys are up for extensions the books are as free and clear as any team in the NBA.

this whole idea is just nonsense.

Initial idea they'd see a lot of losing and want to leave after rookie deals was kooky talk. when it comes to the Cavs not sure anything that was said makes any sense. Different story if we had an owner who was unwilling to spend and go over the tax if need be. It's not like we need to refrain from spending to clear the cap to lure an elite FA here.

totally agree, though, no need to spend wildly on any of the 3 if they are not worthy.

 

[dtgold88]

Tyler Johnson got the poison pill deal because he was an undrafted UFA and their were different rules that applied. It gets complicated with that--- but its not the same rules that apply to an RFA that was drafted.

Yep...couldn't even stop the Heat from making a foolish signing.