2021 NBA regular season thread

[dtgold88]

Let's quit acting like another team never signed a RFA who a team wanted to keep.....that just isn't true

I'm acting like if they want to sign him they can choose to match the offer. Because they can. Also acting like it's not a decision they need to make anytime soon. Because they don't.

 

[WiggyRuss]

You two just reflexively defend the Cavs against ANYTHING that they might perceive as a slight.

I literally said I don't know what the right course of action is for the Cavs.

Here's what I do know. Most teams in the NBA are perpetually stuck in a mediocrity loop where they are banished to the land of "mostly harmless". Maybe they are lottery picks. Maybe they are 5-8 seeds. And they are never a real threat to do more than win a single series in the playoffs.

As it stands the Cavs future is pretty much set to be indefinitely stuck in this loop. Maybe they strike gold and get the 1st pick and that player turns into a super star. Or maybe they do it 2022. But the odds aren't good.

IMO, tankapalooza no longer is a viable strategy given the current lottery odds. So the only way teams can really increase their chances of success is by getting more balls in the lottery. And the only way they will do that is by trading desirable players.

Does that mean that the Cavs should trade Sexton or Garland? Not necessarily. But to dismiss the idea as ludicrous is not great either. If I were the Cavs GM I would certainly want to get an idea of what interest other teams might have in any of those young guys.

FTR, there is no on-time schedule for rebuilding. Either you hit on your draft picks or you don't or you wind up somewhere in the middle. Until you hit on 1 or 2, you are always rebuilding.

i just dont know what a possible deal would be for a Garland or Sexton at this point

do you really think a team would give them something for one of those two that would be of real value? If you are going to suggest that trading them might be viable option id at least like to see what you think a reasonable trade looks like-- because i cannot remember a trade where something like that actually worked.

I really cant. I am thinking of a team trading a recent high draftee for more assets where they get back more than 50 cents on the dollar and i really cant think of anything- mostly because it practically never happens.


i am not opposed to the Cavs trading ANYONE -even Sexton if i think it makes them better----- but what would could you reasonably expect for Garland right now? A contender isnt going to want him- and even if they did they dont have the picks you would want.

Another rebuilding team might want him but they arent going to trade a top 8 pick in the draft for him.

 

[dtgold88]

You two just reflexively defend the Cavs against ANYTHING that they might perceive as a slight.

I literally said I don't know what the right course of action is for the Cavs.

Here's what I do know. Most teams in the NBA are perpetually stuck in a mediocrity loop where they are banished to the land of "mostly harmless". Maybe they are lottery picks. Maybe they are 5-8 seeds. And they are never a real threat to do more than win a single series in the playoffs.

As it stands the Cavs future is pretty much set to be indefinitely stuck in this loop. Maybe they strike gold and get the 1st pick and that player turns into a super star. Or maybe they do it 2022. But the odds aren't good.

IMO, tankapalooza no longer is a viable strategy given the current lottery odds. So the only way teams can really increase their chances of success is by getting more balls in the lottery. And the only way they will do that is by trading desirable players.

Does that mean that the Cavs should trade Sexton or Garland? Not necessarily. But to dismiss the idea as ludicrous is not great either. If I were the Cavs GM I would certainly want to get an idea of what interest other teams might have in any of those young guys.

FTR, there is no on-time schedule for rebuilding. Either you hit on your draft picks or you don't or you wind up somewhere in the middle. Until you hit on 1 or 2, you are always rebuilding.

you literally said a lot of things that were irrelevant and didn't apply to what the Cavs would do. You implied they needed to change course somehow as nearly impossible to rebuild around Sexton, Garland and Okoro.

 

[tlance]

correct...they saw a lot of losing and stayed. Know who else saw early losing and stayed? Giannis in Milwaukee.

do you really think because a player loses early in his career it means he'll walk? as a restricted FA? Ignoring, of course, he cannot walk unless his own team chooses to let him.

Losing early doesn’t matter if they rise to contender status later on. Most teams with elite prospects lose early because they really sucked before the player got there.

I wasn’t the one who posted the comment about Cleveland trading for win now vets today. I don’t think they should.

But the difference is that none of their current players project as game changing superstars like Giannis or Embiid. So the team’s ceiling isn’t as high with their young core.

And recent history suggests that star players from small market cities usually look to change teams first chance they get when their team isn’t a contender.

In other words, it is pretty much a lose lose situation for the small market unless you get that generational superstar. You can trade your young guys to win today or keep the core together and hopefully hit that 45-50 win upside in a couple years. And you probably don’t ever really contend.

 

[Wamu]

Watching NBAjump right now. They said Pop called Nikola Jokic the modern day Larry Bird. First time I saw the Joker play live he was a skinny rookie.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[dtgold88]

You're absolutely right. They can keep going full steam ahead without any concern for the future. Who knows? They might even be an 8 seed in a year or 2.

Philly went 5 full seasons in their last rebuild without being an 8 seed so that puts them ahead of their pace. So we've got that going for us.

 

[bksballer89]

Perk just destroyed Klay and Draymond....brought up when Tristan challenged Draymond and he didn't want the smoke lol

LMAO at the all the people who think Draymond is some tough guy

 

[dtgold88]

Will the Cavs finish with a better record this season than the Heat?

as long as Miami gets healthy no.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[dtgold88]

Losing early doesn’t matter if they rise to contender status later on. Most teams with elite prospects lose early because they really sucked before the player got there.

I wasn’t the one who posted the comment about Cleveland trading for win now vets today. I don’t think they should.

But the difference is that none of their current players project as game changing superstars like Giannis or Embiid. So the team’s ceiling isn’t as high with their young core.

And recent history suggests that star players from small market cities usually look to change teams first chance they get when their team isn’t a contender.

In other words, it is pretty much a lose lose situation for the small market unless you get that generational superstar. You can trade your young guys to win today or keep the core together and hopefully hit that 45-50 win upside in a couple years. And you probably don’t ever really contend.

No disagreement....but "first chance they get" is not often as a RFA. Unless their team CHOOSES not to keep them.

 

[Wamu]

as long as Miami gets healthy no.

All I gotta say about the season is if the Celtics don't win it all shit's definitely rigged. But I have no evidence to back my claim up.

 

[flyerhawk]

i just dont know what a possible deal would be for a Garland or Sexton at this point

Neither do I. There may be no market for them.

do you really think a team would give them something for one of those two that would be of real value? If you are going to suggest that trading them might be viable option id at least like to see what you think a reasonable trade looks like-- because i cannot remember a trade where something like that actually worked.

Again, I'm not arguing that the Cavs CAN trade either of them for anything worth trading for.

I really cant. I am thinking of a team trading a recent high draftee for more assets where they get back more than 50 cents on the dollar and i really cant think of anything- mostly because it practically never happens.


i am not opposed to the Cavs trading ANYONE -even Sexton if i think it makes them better----- but what would could you reasonably expect for Garland right now? A contender isnt going to want him- and even if they did they dont have the picks you would want.

Another rebuilding team might want him but they arent going to trade a top 8 pick in the draft for him.

My point isn't that there was something that could be done. My point, when this all started, was that the Cavs are at an all too familiar place in the NBA. A young team with a bunch of players that show promise but haven't really developed into anything beyond that.

I don't think that contenders would be looking for Garland or Sexton because they are still too raw to be contributors to winning a title. But maybe a team like the Mavs or the Blazers or some team at that level would see them as being players that could make them true contenders(I just used them as examples and I'm not saying they would specifically be looking to grab them).

And ultimately my point is that for the Cavs to return to being a top team, they are going to need to hit a home run in the draft. Neither Sexton or Garland are likely to be that level of player. So if the Cavs could get some decent picks back for either of them, they should consider it.

And just to get you to put your homer hammer down, I would say the same is true for at least half the league.

And, no, I don't think the Cavs, or any other team really, would seriously consider doing this.

 

[flyerhawk]

The Cavs need to move some of those young players so they can start winning games now. The problem with having all young guys is that you can never win with all young guys and then those guys get frustrated and leave when their contracts free up.

Not sure what market is for Garland or Sexton but hard to imagine the Cavs ever contending for a title with both of those guys on the roster.

Teams can keep whoever they want for 4 years past their rookie deal right?

Not necessarily. They have an advantage certainly but only if they are willing to give huge contracts to these young guys. Would the Cavs be willing to give a max or near max deal Garland?

No disagreement....but "first chance they get" is not often as a RFA. Unless their team CHOOSES not to keep them.

This is what you love to do. I never said anything about RFA. You brought that up. Thunder said that teams have control of players for 4 years after their rookie deal. That isn't true. A player becomes an RFA only if they have fewer than 3 seasons in the league or they served 4 years of a rookie scale contract and it only applies to that one year. So teams only have "control" of a player for the 1st 5 years of their career.

 

[dtgold88]

Neither do I. There may be no market for them.


Again, I'm not arguing that the Cavs CAN trade either of them for anything worth trading for.



My point isn't that there was something that could be done. My point, when this all started, was that the Cavs are at an all too familiar place in the NBA. A young team with a bunch of players that show promise but haven't really developed into anything beyond that.

I don't think that contenders would be looking for Garland or Sexton because they are still too raw to be contributors to winning a title. But maybe a team like the Mavs or the Blazers or some team at that level would see them as being players that could make them true contenders(I just used them as examples and I'm not saying they would specifically be looking to grab them).

And ultimately my point is that for the Cavs to return to being a top team, they are going to need to hit a home run in the draft. Neither Sexton or Garland are likely to be that level of player. So if the Cavs could get some decent picks back for either of them, they should consider it.

And just to get you to put your homer hammer down, I would say the same is true for at least half the league.

And, no, I don't think the Cavs, or any other team really, would seriously consider doing this.

No disagreement with this. Only disagreements I had was the idea they'd bolt because we were not good enough early or that Garland and Sexton cannot be part of a contending team.

it's true if they remain the best players they wont ever be a title contender, but agreed the cavs need some lottery luck to be a title contender again. A top 1-2 pick this year would do it (but it's not likely) if experts are right about the next draft.

They had luck to get Lebron and Kyrie and win a title. Even though I think they did well getting sexton/Garland, luck was not exactly on their side in those lotteries. Well, I guess they picked where they should have with Sexton, was just hoping could be higher before Dimwiddie went on a tear last few weeks of that season. Had a bottom 2 record so needed to get Morant or Zion to have a chance to really make a huge jump.

 

[flyerhawk]

Philly went 5 full seasons in their last rebuild without being an 8 seed so that puts them ahead of their pace. So we've got that going for us.

Well good luck! Hope that works out for you guys. Who knows? Maybe Sexton will become an All-NBA player this year!

Everything is just homer trash talking with you.

 

[WiggyRuss]

And recent history suggests that star players from small market cities usually look to change teams first chance they get when their team isn’t a contender.

RFA's that are offered sizeable extensions dont.

practically everyone stays through their RFA contract. You pretty much have someone for the first 6-8 years unless you dont want them.

the limiting criteria that you point out- both a small market team and not a contender really shrinks the pool though. It shrinks it so much that i cant even think of one guy who was on a small market team that wasnt a contender who actually left instead of resigning through his RFA.

Honestly cant think of one example.

people thought Fox might go look for greener pastures but he re-signed. Booker resigned obviously. Gordon resigned with the Magic. Beal resigned with the Wiz. Siakam resigned with the Raptors. Towns resigne with the Twolves.

This doesnt even count guys like Lillard, Brown, Embiid, Simmons, Kyrie, Thompson, Curry, Durant, RW, Harden, George, Mitchell, Gobert, etc. etc. etc.


care to give an a few examples of this "recent history" you suggest?

 

[Shanemansj13]

i just dont know what a possible deal would be for a Garland or Sexton at this point

do you really think a team would give them something for one of those two that would be of real value? If you are going to suggest that trading them might be viable option id at least like to see what you think a reasonable trade looks like-- because i cannot remember a trade where something like that actually worked.

I really cant. I am thinking of a team trading a recent high draftee for more assets where they get back more than 50 cents on the dollar and i really cant think of anything- mostly because it practically never happens.


i am not opposed to the Cavs trading ANYONE -even Sexton if i think it makes them better----- but what would could you reasonably expect for Garland right now? A contender isnt going to want him- and even if they did they dont have the picks you would want.

Another rebuilding team might want him but they arent going to trade a top 8 pick in the draft for him.

Agree, it would make no sense now just from a value standpoint and from a rebuild standpoint bc you didn’t give enough time for it to work. Now, if they threw an offer out there to get a star for multiple young players, I’m all for trading the young players...but that is a very low possibility. They probably wouldn’t even get a top pick for either as well.

 

[dtgold88]

This is what you love to do. I never said anything about RFA. You brought that up. Thunder said that teams have control of players for 4 years after their rookie deal. That isn't true. A player becomes an RFA only if they have fewer than 3 seasons in the league or they served 4 years of a rookie scale contract and it only applies to that one year. So teams only have "control" of a player for the 1st 5 years of their career.

what I love to do is what I did....explain what's going on for the situation we are discussing. and it's doubtful the first chance sexton or garland gets to go will not be as an RFA.

In this case what you love to do - and I really thought we were agreeing until your latest pearl of wisdom - is show you might not have a clue what's going on then blame me for your lack of knowledge. You keep saying they really only have control 5 years, but that's only if a guy signs a 1 year offer/deal after his rookie deal expires. How many guys (any?) have done this under the current CBA?

 

[logic]

i just dont know what a possible deal would be for a Garland or Sexton at this point

do you really think a team would give them something for one of those two that would be of real value? If you are going to suggest that trading them might be viable option id at least like to see what you think a reasonable trade looks like-- because i cannot remember a trade where something like that actually worked.

I really cant. I am thinking of a team trading a recent high draftee for more assets where they get back more than 50 cents on the dollar and i really cant think of anything- mostly because it practically never happens.


i am not opposed to the Cavs trading ANYONE -even Sexton if i think it makes them better----- but what would could you reasonably expect for Garland right now? A contender isnt going to want him- and even if they did they dont have the picks you would want.

Another rebuilding team might want him but they arent going to trade a top 8 pick in the draft for him.

Pistons will give you a former #1 overall pick, rookie of the year, 6 time all-star, and 5-time all NBA selection for either of them.