Breaking Down the Cavs' Firesale Trade Options

[WiggyRuss]

I don't know if they got all the right picks. You think Irving > Kawhi. I'll disagree.

Lebron joined a team that drafted Kyrie, Wiggins, Crowder, Waiters, Tristan, Cunningham, Kasarev, and Bennett.

They left on the board... Kawhi, Embiid, Lilliard, Kemba, Draymond, Giannis, Gobert, and Jokic.

I wouldn't exactly be saying "look how good we did" when it came to making the right call with draft picks to rebuild. Without Lebron the Cavs have gotten the top pick in 3 of the last 4 drafts and seem trying to make it 4 of 5. Not going to say their moves are working or that they are doing well without Lebron and his influence.

wtf are you talking about?

 

[flyerhawk]

wtf are you talking about?

I think he is saying that crowing about how well the Cavs did with their draft picks when you had 3 No. 1 overall draft picks of which one turned into an all-star, one turned into an overpriced under-motivated wing, and one was flipping burgers with 4 years of being draft, seems a bit much.

The Cavs success was based because of Lebron James.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I think he is saying that crowing about how well the Cavs did with their draft picks when you had 3 No. 1 overall draft picks of which one turned into an all-star, one turned into an overpriced under-motivated wing, and one was flipping burgers with 4 years of being draft, seems a bit much.

The Cavs success was based because of Lebron James.

LeBron James never comes back to Cleveland if the Cavs do not have Kyrie Irving.

I am not saying ANY team should be expected to hit on all their picks, or even a MAJORITY of their picks.

I did an analysis awhile back and figured that about 2 out of every 5 players selected in the top 5 makes at least 1 all star team.

My point was, out of the Cavs opportunities and resources, they hit well enough to put a great team besides LeBron.

Like the Sixers- they had tons of top picks.....Simmons, Embiid, Noel, Fultz, Okafor, MCW, Saric.......they hit big on 2 of those (Simmons and Embiid), failed miserably on 3 of them it looks like (Noel, Okafor and Fultz), and got a useful players in MCW and Saric.

The Cavs drafted Irving, Waiters, TT, Wiggins, Bennett, Karasev, Crowder (but traded o ndraft night for Zeller), etc. They hit big on Kyrie, they failed miserably on Bennett, they found useful but by no means great players in TT and Waiters---- they used Wiggins to trade for Love which ended up being a solid deal.

My point was- by no means do i expect hte Lakers to be perfect- a PERFECT draft, instead of taking Randle, Russell, Ingram and Ball looks like taking Jokic, Porzingis, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum/Mitchell. I am absolutely 100% not expecting that AT ALL.

I was saying if they just hit big time on ONE of those 4 high lotto picks, and traded one of those high lotto picks for PG (which was offered- the Pacers asked for either Ingram or the #2 pick that became Ball), they would look like the Cavs and have say Tatum and PG to go with LeBron instead of Ingram and Ball and they would be sitting pretty.

Instead out of those 4 high lotto picks they didnt really hit big on any of them.

They did bail themselves out to a certain extent by defying the odds and hitting on Kuzma near the end of the first round.

Just like the Cavs? Failed big time on Bennett---- did not get the return you would like drafting in the top half of the lotto for TT and Waiters---- but they did get their star- Irving, and they did use a pick to get a big time player in Love.

You dont have to hit ALL the Time...no team can do that- the closest ever to do so was prob. the Thunder who just fucking NAILED it in that time period where they got Durant, RW, Harden, Ibaka--- but ya gotta bat better than .000.

That was my point.

 

[flyerhawk]

LeBron James never comes back to Cleveland if the Cavs do not have Kyrie Irving.

I am not saying ANY team should be expected to hit on all their picks, or even a MAJORITY of their picks.

I did an analysis awhile back and figured that about 2 out of every 5 players selected in the top 5 makes at least 1 all star team.

My point was, out of the Cavs opportunities and resources, they hit well enough to put a great team besides LeBron.

Like the Sixers- they had tons of top picks.....Simmons, Embiid, Noel, Fultz, Okafor, MCW, Saric.......they hit big on 2 of those (Simmons and Embiid), failed miserably on 3 of them it looks like (Noel, Okafor and Fultz), and got a useful players in MCW and Saric.

The Cavs drafted Irving, Waiters, TT, Wiggins, Bennett, Karasev, Crowder (but traded o ndraft night for Zeller), etc. They hit big on Kyrie, they failed miserably on Bennett, they found useful but by no means great players in TT and Waiters---- they used Wiggins to trade for Love which ended up being a solid deal.

My point was- by no means do i expect hte Lakers to be perfect- a PERFECT draft, instead of taking Randle, Russell, Ingram and Ball looks like taking Jokic, Porzingis, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum/Mitchell. I am absolutely 100% not expecting that AT ALL.

I was saying if they just hit big time on ONE of those 4 high lotto picks, and traded one of those high lotto picks for PG (which was offered- the Pacers asked for either Ingram or the #2 pick that became Ball), they would look like the Cavs and have say Tatum and PG to go with LeBron instead of Ingram and Ball and they would be sitting pretty.

Instead out of those 4 high lotto picks they didnt really hit big on any of them.

They did bail themselves out to a certain extent by defying the odds and hitting on Kuzma near the end of the first round.

Just like the Cavs? Failed big time on Bennett---- did not get the return you would like drafting in the top half of the lotto for TT and Waiters---- but they did get their star- Irving, and they did use a pick to get a big time player in Love.

You dont have to hit ALL the Time...no team can do that- the closest ever to do so was prob. the Thunder who just fucking NAILED it in that time period where they got Durant, RW, Harden, Ibaka--- but ya gotta bat better than .000.

That was my point.

Fair enough to an extent. The truth of the matter is the draft is a crap shoot and it gets crappier as you move down the line.

The hit rate for #1 overall draft picks is dramatically better than #5 picks.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

wtf are you talking about?

The guy making the statement that Cleveland was doing something better when they had a slew of all NBA players they passed up on in order to get the guys that led them to more 1st overall picks.

 

[msgkings322]

LeBron James never comes back to Cleveland if the Cavs do not have Kyrie Irving.

I am not saying ANY team should be expected to hit on all their picks, or even a MAJORITY of their picks.

I did an analysis awhile back and figured that about 2 out of every 5 players selected in the top 5 makes at least 1 all star team.

My point was, out of the Cavs opportunities and resources, they hit well enough to put a great team besides LeBron.

Like the Sixers- they had tons of top picks.....Simmons, Embiid, Noel, Fultz, Okafor, MCW, Saric.......they hit big on 2 of those (Simmons and Embiid), failed miserably on 3 of them it looks like (Noel, Okafor and Fultz), and got a useful players in MCW and Saric.

The Cavs drafted Irving, Waiters, TT, Wiggins, Bennett, Karasev, Crowder (but traded o ndraft night for Zeller), etc. They hit big on Kyrie, they failed miserably on Bennett, they found useful but by no means great players in TT and Waiters---- they used Wiggins to trade for Love which ended up being a solid deal.

My point was- by no means do i expect hte Lakers to be perfect- a PERFECT draft, instead of taking Randle, Russell, Ingram and Ball looks like taking Jokic, Porzingis, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum/Mitchell. I am absolutely 100% not expecting that AT ALL.

I was saying if they just hit big time on ONE of those 4 high lotto picks, and traded one of those high lotto picks for PG (which was offered- the Pacers asked for either Ingram or the #2 pick that became Ball), they would look like the Cavs and have say Tatum and PG to go with LeBron instead of Ingram and Ball and they would be sitting pretty.

Instead out of those 4 high lotto picks they didnt really hit big on any of them.

They did bail themselves out to a certain extent by defying the odds and hitting on Kuzma near the end of the first round.

Just like the Cavs? Failed big time on Bennett---- did not get the return you would like drafting in the top half of the lotto for TT and Waiters---- but they did get their star- Irving, and they did use a pick to get a big time player in Love.

You dont have to hit ALL the Time...no team can do that- the closest ever to do so was prob. the Thunder who just fucking NAILED it in that time period where they got Durant, RW, Harden, Ibaka--- but ya gotta bat better than .000.

That was my point.

Warriors nailed it too with Steph, Klay, and Dray. Even Barnes was a decent pick.

 

[flyerhawk]

Warriors nailed it too with Steph, Klay, and Dray. Even Barnes was a decent pick.

The Warriors had the best run of draft picks in a short window arguably of all time. Especially when you consider that none of them were top 5 picks.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

LeBron James never comes back to Cleveland if the Cavs do not have Kyrie Irving.

I am not saying ANY team should be expected to hit on all their picks, or even a MAJORITY of their picks.

I did an analysis awhile back and figured that about 2 out of every 5 players selected in the top 5 makes at least 1 all star team.

My point was, out of the Cavs opportunities and resources, they hit well enough to put a great team besides LeBron.

Like the Sixers- they had tons of top picks.....Simmons, Embiid, Noel, Fultz, Okafor, MCW, Saric.......they hit big on 2 of those (Simmons and Embiid), failed miserably on 3 of them it looks like (Noel, Okafor and Fultz), and got a useful players in MCW and Saric.

The Cavs drafted Irving, Waiters, TT, Wiggins, Bennett, Karasev, Crowder (but traded o ndraft night for Zeller), etc. They hit big on Kyrie, they failed miserably on Bennett, they found useful but by no means great players in TT and Waiters---- they used Wiggins to trade for Love which ended up being a solid deal.

My point was- by no means do i expect hte Lakers to be perfect- a PERFECT draft, instead of taking Randle, Russell, Ingram and Ball looks like taking Jokic, Porzingis, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum/Mitchell. I am absolutely 100% not expecting that AT ALL.

I was saying if they just hit big time on ONE of those 4 high lotto picks, and traded one of those high lotto picks for PG (which was offered- the Pacers asked for either Ingram or the #2 pick that became Ball), they would look like the Cavs and have say Tatum and PG to go with LeBron instead of Ingram and Ball and they would be sitting pretty.

Instead out of those 4 high lotto picks they didnt really hit big on any of them.

They did bail themselves out to a certain extent by defying the odds and hitting on Kuzma near the end of the first round.

Just like the Cavs? Failed big time on Bennett---- did not get the return you would like drafting in the top half of the lotto for TT and Waiters---- but they did get their star- Irving, and they did use a pick to get a big time player in Love.

You don't have to hit ALL the Time...no team can do that- the closest ever to do so was prob. the Thunder who just fucking NAILED it in that time period where they got Durant, RW, Harden, Ibaka--- but ya gotta bat better than .000.

That was my point.

I agree you need to hit the guy once... And I believe if the Cavs had hit the best available on one of their picks (I personally think Irving over Kawhi isn't the best choice in hindsight) they would be a lot better off. And with the Love trade, the Cavs are 3-18 with Love playing when Lebron isn't.

Lakers had 3 top 4 picks since their fall off. Cavs had 5 in that time without Lebron (Lakers last 5 top 4 picks includes Magic Johnson 40 years ago. That's how long it's been since they've had the kind of elite draft capital Cleveland had in a 4 year span).

Cavs had 3 first overall picks to the Lakers 0. In 4 years the Cavs had 3 top picks. No other team in the past 40 years can beat that.


With an Eastern Conference Strength of schedule....
1. The 4 years after Lebron left, the Cavs had the worst record in the league.
2. When he showed back up for 4 straight NBA finals appearances they had the worst record of any team when he didn't play (4-22, pace for a 12 win season when he sat).
3. The moment after losing in the Finals, they are a half game out of worst in the East, and 3rd worst in the NBA without him.

That's why I'm not saying they did better than anyone. No team arguably ever has had the kind of elite draft capital Cleveland had in such a short time. Yet outside of when Lebron was playing, no team has been worse. How's putting together the worst team without Lebron, when you've had the best draft capital (possibly ever) anything other than a disaster?

LA last year would have won 39 games in the East. I don't see the Cavs, with MORE top picks at their disposal doing that.

Even if you just take the 4 of them you like the most (Irving, Wiggins, TT, Dion). The other options for those 4 were Lillard, Embiid, Kawhi, and Klay (or Kemba). Doesn't hitting once or twice there look a LOT better at keeping him around and making a serious push at a real dynasty? They missed on best available on all 5 of those top 5 picks. You've got to bat better than .000.

The only reason it's not a failure is because Lebron DOMINATED every year and took that to another level in the post-season. Which is AWESOME that he did that and I've been a HUGE fan of him in Cleveland. But he bailed out arguably the most bumbled use of that much draft capital ever.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I think he is saying that crowing about how well the Cavs did with their draft picks when you had 3 No. 1 overall draft picks of which one turned into an all-star, one turned into an overpriced under-motivated wing, and one was flipping burgers with 4 years of being draft, seems a bit much.

The Cavs success was based because of Lebron James.

Exactly it. The largest crop of high level draft capital in a short period of time possibly ever in the NBA. And the last 8+ years, of all the teams without Lebron James, the Cavs are just always the worst.

I like the team alright, loved them with Lebron, liked a bunch of their role players. Like Sexton more and more. Was a huge fan of Love from his Minny days. Not hating. Just saying Lebron is why they win despite awful FO moves.

You can put a team right at the luxury tax (118 mil a year) with Love, Mozgov, Delladova, Thompson, JR Smith and Clarkson/Nance coming off the bench. I like and follow a lot of those guys. I'd put the over/under on that roster at 12-15 wins. But they all got paid because they were key parts to NBA finals rosters.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I agree you need to hit the guy once... And I believe if the Cavs had hit the best available on one of their picks (I personally think Irving over Kawhi isn't the best choice in hindsight) they would be a lot better off. And with the Love trade, the Cavs are 3-18 with Love playing when Lebron isn't.

Lakers had 3 top 4 picks since their fall off. Cavs had 5 in that time without Lebron (Lakers last 5 top 4 picks includes Magic Johnson 40 years ago. That's how long it's been since they've had the kind of elite draft capital Cleveland had in a 4 year span).

Cavs had 3 first overall picks to the Lakers 0. In 4 years the Cavs had 3 top picks. No other team in the past 40 years can beat that.


With an Eastern Conference Strength of schedule....
1. The 4 years after Lebron left, the Cavs had the worst record in the league.
2. When he showed back up for 4 straight NBA finals appearances they had the worst record of any team when he didn't play (4-22, pace for a 12 win season when he sat).
3. The moment after losing in the Finals, they are a half game out of worst in the East, and 3rd worst in the NBA without him.

That's why I'm not saying they did better than anyone. No team arguably ever has had the kind of elite draft capital Cleveland had in such a short time. Yet outside of when Lebron was playing, no team has been worse. How's putting together the worst team without Lebron, when you've had the best draft capital (possibly ever) anything other than a disaster?

LA last year would have won 39 games in the East. I don't see the Cavs, with MORE top picks at their disposal doing that.

Even if you just take the 4 of them you like the most (Irving, Wiggins, TT, Dion). The other options for those 4 were Lillard, Embiid, Kawhi, and Klay (or Kemba). Doesn't hitting once or twice there look a LOT better at keeping him around and making a serious push at a real dynasty? They missed on best available on all 5 of those top 5 picks. You've got to bat better than .000.

The only reason it's not a failure is because Lebron DOMINATED every year and took that to another level in the post-season. Which is AWESOME that he did that and I've been a HUGE fan of him in Cleveland. But he bailed out arguably the most bumbled use of that much draft capital ever.

First off, bringing a name like Kawhi into it just is ludicrous.

When I say- the Lakers should have taken Tatum instead of Ball- its because thats something that was actually a reasonable option. There were teams that had Tatum ranked higher than Ball. Of course- Mitchell would have been a better pick too- but no one in their right mind had Mitchell rated that highly- its simply not realistic---- just like Kawhi over Kyrie- not one GM, personnel guy, etc. would ahve made that move.

So when you say the Cavs should have taken Lillard or Drummond over Waiters--okay thats reasonable. Some might have had those guys more highly ranked

Not only that, but the Cavs had 4 years to rebuild in between--- the Lakers were what? bad for 5 years? But the Cavs had more picks, gave themselves more bullets in the gun--- while hte Lakers were still paying for trading first rounders for guys like Howard, Nash etc. Gotta give the Cavs credit for eating Baron Davis' contract to get the pick that became Kyrie, for eating Luke Waltons contract and getting a first rounder, for eating Ellington and Speights contract to get a first rounder.

LeBron CAME BACK because he saw Kyrie Irving and the assets to land Kevin Love, the cap flexibility, the extra first roudners etc.

 

[WiggyRuss]

You can put a team right at the luxury tax (118 mil a year) with Love, Mozgov, Delladova, Thompson, JR Smith and Clarkson/Nance coming off the bench. I like and follow a lot of those guys. I'd put the over/under on that roster at 12-15 wins. But they all got paid because they were key parts to NBA finals rosters.

plus, and maybe you dont realize this - but with LeBron its about putting guys with skill sets around him---- guys that on their own arent necessarily the most versatile or explosive guys- but guys that fit.

When you have maybe the best player in the history of the game in his prime at distributing, you build around him--- you dont have a bunch of extra ball handlers and creators that you dont need and would just take the ball out of his hands---- but if and when he leaves- you are not gonna be well suited to keep carrying

---well that- and the guy that could have done that- been the straw that stirred the drink once Bron left- KYrie- grew weary of playing with LeBron and getting "sonned" and skipped outta town. Plus Kyrie is obviously a lunatic.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

First off, bringing a name like Kawhi into it just is ludicrous.

When I say- the Lakers should have taken Tatum instead of Ball- its because thats something that was actually a reasonable option. There were teams that had Tatum ranked higher than Ball. Of course- Mitchell would have been a better pick too- but no one in their right mind had Mitchell rated that highly- its simply not realistic---- just like Kawhi over Kyrie- not one GM, personnel guy, etc. would ahve made that move.

So when you say the Cavs should have taken Lillard or Drummond over Waiters--okay thats reasonable. Some might have had those guys more highly ranked

Not only that, but the Cavs had 4 years to rebuild in between--- the Lakers were what? bad for 5 years? But the Cavs had more picks, gave themselves more bullets in the gun--- while hte Lakers were still paying for trading first rounders for guys like Howard, Nash etc. Gotta give the Cavs credit for eating Baron Davis' contract to get the pick that became Kyrie, for eating Luke Waltons contract and getting a first rounder, for eating Ellington and Speights contract to get a first rounder.

LeBron CAME BACK because he saw Kyrie Irving and the assets to land Kevin Love, the cap flexibility, the extra first roudners etc.

And in hindsight, the Cavs should have taken Kawhi. Lebron came back because it was Cleveland. That's it.

Great point on the Lakers being further behind the ball, not only with fewer great picks but also less cap space to do anything. And still came out well ahead of anywhere Cleveland was.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

plus, and maybe you dont realize this - but with LeBron its about putting guys with skill sets around him---- guys that on their own arent necessarily the most versatile or explosive guys- but guys that fit.

When you have maybe the best player in the history of the game in his prime at distributing, you build around him--- you dont have a bunch of extra ball handlers and creators that you dont need and would just take the ball out of his hands---- but if and when he leaves- you are not gonna be well suited to keep carrying

---well that- and the guy that could have done that- been the straw that stirred the drink once Bron left- KYrie- grew weary of playing with LeBron and getting "sonned" and skipped outta town. Plus Kyrie is obviously a lunatic.

Heat were able to win a lot more games without Lebron. And that's with Bosh's failing health, losing Chalmers and Allen, Wade always banged up. And of course without a pile of high value picks too.

Cleveland with 5 top 4 picks in 4 years (more than some teams get in 40 years) to prep for Lebron could only get as you say role players that couldn't win without him. You can put ball handlers like Wade and Bosh were 2nd and 12th in usage rate across the entire NBA and worked out.

Look, you can polish the turd all you want. Not once did they take the best player. 0 for 5 with those picks. When Lebron left the first time, with 5 top 4 picks, they couldn't win. When he came back they couldn't win without him, even with Kyrie or Love. When he left again they couldn't win.

In a 4 year span I can't find a single team to ever put together anything like what Cleveland had in draft capital. And they got role players?

It's just odd that on one post, Lebron shouldn't have these explosive ball control players, and then in the very next post, the only reason he went to Cleveland was because they have an explosive ball control player. Ummm...

 

[tlance]

The Warriors had the best run of draft picks in a short window arguably of all time. Especially when you consider that none of them were top 5 picks.

Honestly?

As good as the Warrior run was, OKC's was better.

Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden

3 different MVPs in 3 years. Then they drafted Ibaka, who was not to far off from making all star teams at his peak.

 

[flyerhawk]

Honestly?

As good as the Warrior run was, OKC's was better.

Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden

3 different MVPs in 3 years. Then they drafted Ibaka, who was not to far off from making all star teams at his peak.

That's fair. Although they were all top 5 picks except for Ibaka. But it was a hell of run for them for sure.

 

[WiggyRuss]

And in hindsight, the Cavs should have taken Kawhi. Lebron came back because it was Cleveland. That's it.

Great point on the Lakers being further behind the ball, not only with fewer great picks but also less cap space to do anything. And still came out well ahead of anywhere Cleveland was.

came out ahead? wtf are you smoking?

Ball and Ingram and Kuzma and Hart are LIGHT YEARS behind what the Cavs had when LEBron came back.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

came out ahead? wtf are you smoking?

Ball and Ingram and Kuzma and Hart are LIGHT YEARS behind what the Cavs had when LEBron came back.

Light years ahead of what? Shoe deals and Kardashian Fiance's?

LA with FEWER high quality picks was able to put together a team that was much better than the losing record before Lebron showed up and the 4-22 record those "light years ahead" guys had when Lebron didn't play the next few years.

Three #1 picks. Vs. LA having ZERO. And they got a 4-22 record when Lebron didn't play after getting their 3rd and now are vying for the worst record in the East.

Keep polishing that turd. I can't brag about 4-22.

So yes... when I'm talking about coming out ahead, it's winning games. You know, like LA winning a lot more games last year in the tougher conference than Cleveland has in any of the past 20 years when Lebron isn't suiting up for them.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Light years ahead of what? Shoe deals and Kardashian Fiance's?

LA with FEWER high quality picks was able to put together a team that was much better than the losing record before Lebron showed up and the 4-22 record those "light years ahead" guys had when Lebron didn't play the next few years.

Three #1 picks. Vs. LA having ZERO. And they got a 4-22 record when Lebron didn't play after getting their 3rd and now are vying for the worst record in the East.

Keep polishing that turd. I can't brag about 4-22.

So yes... when I'm talking about coming out ahead, it's winning games. You know, like LA winning a lot more games last year in the tougher conference than Cleveland has in any of the past 20 years when Lebron isn't suiting up for them.

dude..honestly i have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you really trying to say the team LeBron joined in Cleveland is worse than the team LeBron just joined in LA?

If we arent on the same page and there is some miscommunication- fine--- but if you are really trying to say that the Lakeres have a better team than the team that LeBron joined in Cleveland you are out of your gourd.

I mean, Kyrie and Love alone just seals the deal....any argument to the contrary is fucking hilarious.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Interesting idea by ESPN where the Cavs would get 2 more first round picks to try and expedite the rebuild:

The Cavs go hunting for picks
Pelicans get: Alec Burks and Rodney Hood

Cavaliers get: Solomon Hill and New Orleans' 2019 first-round pick (top-10 protected)

Combined with ...

Rockets get: JR Smith

Cavaliers get: Brandon Knight, Marquese Chriss and Houston's 2019 first-round pick (lottery protected)

Tim Bontemps: In tandem, these deals accomplish all that each team is looking to during the next couple of months.
Cleveland, which has already moved on from Kyle Korver and George Hill to the tune of a first- and two second-round picks, would take on an additional $28 million in 2019-20 salaries for two more first-rounders. This would have the added benefit of allowing Cleveland to enter next season with around $80 million in expiring deals, giving the Cavs maximum flexibility moving forward to either continue flipping contracts for dead-money picks or open up reams of cap space in 2020. One wrinkle: They'd have to find a way to get under the luxury tax before the 2020 trade deadline to avoid paying the penalty for a likely lottery team.

New Orleans, meanwhile, would get a pair of rotation players to plug into a thin wing rotation as the Pelicans try to convince Anthony Davis to stick around. It also would open up an additional chunk of cap space next summer by eliminating Hill's deal from the books.

Houston might be able to rehabilitate Smith, giving the Rockets another swing man who can shoot and guard a little, but this deal is mostly financially motivated. Not only would the Rockets save about $8.5 million in combined payroll and luxury tax payments, but if they chose to stretch the $3.7 million guarantee on Smith's contract for next season next summer, Houston would also potentially give itself a shot to not have to pay any luxury tax next season.

 

[trojanfan12]

dude..honestly i have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you really trying to say the team LeBron joined in Cleveland is worse than the team LeBron just joined in LA?

If we arent on the same page and there is some miscommunication- fine--- but if you are really trying to say that the Lakeres have a better team than the team that LeBron joined in Cleveland you are out of your gourd.

I mean, Kyrie and Love alone just seals the deal....any argument to the contrary is fucking hilarious.

I think that he might be forgetting the moves the Cavs made so that Lebron would come back.

The team that Lebron would have joined, had the Cavs not made moves like trading Wiggins for Love, wasn't light years better than the Lakers team he just joined.

That Cavs team had the best player in Kyrie, but as a collective, it wasn't necessarily a better team.

But, the team that they became in order for Lebron to return, was far better than what he joined when he came to the Lakers. That Cavs team had 2 all stars, the Lakers have some talented kids learning how to play.