The 2019-20 Cleveland Cavaliers: Exhibit A for HS Players Not to Enter the NBA Draft

[dtgold88]

I will not.

Because every great team I have ever seen could BOTH play offense and defense at a very high level. Every single one.

There have been some very good teams, even championship caliber teams who were great on one side and average on the other. That is what the Cavs were.

But when you start talking about historically great, elite teams, they do BOTH extremely well.

The ‘96 Bulls were maybe the best defense ever and also perhaps the best offensive team in the league. The ‘17 Warriors were arguably the best offense ever AND a top 2 defensive unit.

The best Heat teams were top 5 in both offense and defensive efficiency.

Your claim implies that the Cavs were a great team. And they weren’t.

Did I call them historically great? I said this millenium....and said the Bulls and GS were better. Probably Lakers too. I think Cavs were better than Miami but wont go extreme on you and say it's not close or that it's crazy to think Miami was better.

 

[tlance]

Did I call them historically great? I said this millenium....and said the Bulls and GS were better. Probably Lakers too. I think Cavs were better than Miami but wont go extreme on you and say it's not close or that it's crazy to think Miami was better.

You called them among the best teams of the millennium. That is 20 years. Now you have 1 team that was definitely better and 1 that was “possibly better” in that span. And we are talking about a 51 win regular season team that beat nobody on the way to the playoffs. NOT the 2016 championship version.

When you try to rank a team in the top 2 or 3 of the past 20 years, yeah. That sounds like you are saying, or at least comparing them to historically great teams. And ranking them above many who achieved a hell of a lot more.

 

[dtgold88]

You called them among the best teams of the millennium. That is 20 years. Now you have 1 team that was definitely better and 1 that was “possibly better” in that span. And we are talking about a 51 win regular season team that beat nobody on the way to the playoffs. NOT the 2016 championship version.

When you try to rank a team in the top 2 or 3 of the past 20 years, yeah. That sounds like you are saying, or at least comparing them to historically great teams. And ranking them above many who achieved a hell of a lot more.

Yes...no worse than 4th best in my book....which makes them "among the best teams of the millennium".

Here we go again with the 51 wins......who cares? seems we both agree they were better than the 66 win Cavs, right?

 

[tlance]

Yes...no worse than 4th best in my book....which makes them "among the best teams of the millennium".

Here we go again with the 51 wins......who cares? seems we both agree they were better than the 66 win Cavs, right?

No. I don’t agree with that.

Not sure why you would think I would.

 

[dtgold88]

No. I don’t agree with that.

Not sure why you would think I would.

Because they were.

 

[tlance]

Because they were.

LOL.

If you say so.

Only you think that. Literally no logical reason to suggest the ‘17 Cavs were better than the ‘16 Cavs or really any other team that actually accomplished something meaningful.

 

[dtgold88]

LOL.

If you say so.

Only you think that. Literally no logical reason to suggest the ‘17 Cavs were better than the ‘16 Cavs or really any other team that actually accomplished something meaningful.

Of course there isn't. What is illogical is saying I made that suggestion.

The 66 win team was the 2008-09 Cavs. and since you seem to think wins matter so much you must believe they were better than the 2016-17 team with 15 less wins.

 

[tlance]

Of course there isn't. What is illogical is saying I made that suggestion.

The 66 win team was the 2008-09 Cavs. and since you seem to think wins matter so much you must believe they were better than the 2016-17 team with 15 less wins.

You are repeating yourself now. And I have already answered that.

 

[dtgold88]

You are repeating yourself now. And I have already answered that.

Yes but you keep going around in circles.....once again you tried to lessen the accomplishent of a team who "only" won 51 games in reg. season. If you think that matters, stands to reason you think a team who won 66 games did more and was better/more accomplished.

Never mind you couldn't follow simple logic back there and wont admit you messed up (as my comment had nothing to do with the 16 Cavs).

 

[tlance]

Yes but you keep going around in circles.....once again you tried to lessen the accomplishent of a team who "only" won 51 games in reg. season. If you think that matters, stands to reason you think a team who won 66 games did more and was better/more accomplished.

Never mind you couldn't follow simple logic back there and wont admit you messed up (as my comment had nothing to do with the 16 Cavs).

No it doesn’t.

I look at the total resume. You are singling out 1 stat that illustrates your point.

Here are the factors I look at in determining how good a team was relative to other historical teams they didn’t play:

1) Did they win the title?
2) Quality of series wins in the playoffs- how strong were the teams they beat?
3) Margin of victory- did they squeak by? Or blow it out?
4) Regular season record
5) Quality playoff losses- did they lose in a competitive way to a great team?
6) Team Offensive and defensive ratings
7) Eye Test

You can’t just reduce it to 1 or 2 things. The ‘17 Cavs passed the eye test and they cruised through the East, but then they got blown out by the Warriors (no shame there).

But once you factor in a bad regular season, that they ranked 24th in defensive efficiency and that they had maybe the easiest path to the Finals I have ever seen, they just don’t stack up well on paper.

Bottom line, the ‘17 Cavs just weren’t quite right. They weren’t as hungry as the ‘16 version (repeat teams almost never are) and their chemistry might not have been as strong. Kyrie demanding a trade in the offseason is evidence that maybe his heart wasn’t in it.

So speak with your heart if you want, but when you do people will continue to think you are a homer.

 

[dtgold88]

No it doesn’t.

I look at the total resume. You are singling out 1 stat that illustrates your point.

Here are the factors I look at in determining how good a team was relative to other historical teams they didn’t play:

1) Did they win the title?
2) Quality of series wins in the playoffs- how strong were the teams they beat?
3) Margin of victory- did they squeak by? Or blow it out?
4) Regular season record
5) Quality playoff losses- did they lose in a competitive way to a great team?
6) Team Offensive and defensive ratings
7) Eye Test

You can’t just reduce it to 1 or 2 things. The ‘17 Cavs passed the eye test and they cruised through the East, but then they got blown out by the Warriors (no shame there).

But once you factor in a bad regular season, that they ranked 24th in defensive efficiency and that they had maybe the easiest path to the Finals I have ever seen, they just don’t stack up well on paper.

Bottom line, the ‘17 Cavs just weren’t quite right. They weren’t as hungry as the ‘16 version (repeat teams almost never are) and their chemistry might not have been as strong. Kyrie demanding a trade in the offseason is evidence that maybe his heart wasn’t in it.

So speak with your heart if you want, but when you do people will continue to think you are a homer.

But I was going by talent. You want to put the 2016 cavs ahead of 2017 version because of hunger I guess I wouldn't disagree. Either way, both teams were better than the 66 win team and for whatever reason you got lost on that one. No shame in that. and IMO both were among the top teams of the millennium. The top? Nope. That team was put together and added Durant to beat the Cavs.

FYI always easy to speak with my head...why it's not hard to say I've never liked Lebron and said as much when we still had him.

Most comical was you say I speak with my heart thinking Love/Kyrie better teammates for Lebron....then also saying they are better fits to play with Lebron (than Kyrie/Bosh)

 

[tlance]

But I was going by talent. You want to put the 2016 cavs ahead of 2017 version because of hunger I guess I wouldn't disagree. Either way, both teams were better than the 66 win team and for whatever reason you got lost on that one. No shame in that. and IMO both were among the top teams of the millennium. The top? Nope. That team was put together and added Durant to beat the Cavs.

FYI always easy to speak with my head...why it's not hard to say I've never liked Lebron and said as much when we still had him.

Most comical was you say I speak with my heart thinking Love/Kyrie better teammates for Lebron....then also saying they are better fits to play with Lebron (than Kyrie/Bosh)

Ok, but a lot of teams have unrealized talent/potential.

If you want to say they one of the most talented teams of the millennium, I disagree with that too, but it would be a much more reasonable opinion.

The ‘17 Cavs underperformed. That is pretty much fact.

 

[dtgold88]

Ok, but a lot of teams have unrealized talent/potential.

If you want to say they one of the most talented teams of the millennium, I disagree with that too, but it would be a much more reasonable opinion.

The ‘17 Cavs underperformed. That is pretty much fact.

They underperformed because they failed to beat a team no one else could beat who was heavily favored to beat them? and this is factual? Even for you.....

The Cavs of that time also went to 4 Finals, winning one. Losing each time to the team most consider the best of the millenium (possibly best ever in their last 2 seasons).

 

[tlance]

They underperformed because they failed to beat a team no one else could beat who was heavily favored to beat them? and this is factual? Even for you.....

The Cavs of that time also went to 4 Finals, winning one. Losing each time to the team most consider the best of the millenium (possibly best ever in their last 2 seasons).

No.

They won 51 games and they didn’t really put up a fight against the Warriors.

They beat nobody in the playoffs so they basically accomplished very little.

Like I have said about 15 times.

That is not the resume of one of the top teams of the millennium. Just isn’t.

Had they pushed the Warriors to a semi competitive series, then you might have a case. They got their doors blown off though.

 

[dtgold88]

No.

They won 51 games and they didn’t really put up a fight against the Warriors.

They beat nobody in the playoffs so they basically accomplished very little.

Like I have said about 15 times.

That is not the resume of one of the top teams of the millennium. Just isn’t.

Had they pushed the Warriors to a semi competitive series, then you might have a case. They got their doors blown off though.

They blew GS doors off in Game 4 and had a lead very late in Game 3. Game 5 also close heading into the 4th....against arguably the best team ever. Yeah, for whatever reason you keep mentioning the 51 wins and ignore a lesser cavs team win 66. Know why? The lesser team cared about seeding and the 2017 team didn't. Cannot pick your playoff opponent, but despite the "only" 51 wins the Cavs coasted to the Finals.

Getting to 4 straight Finals...all against arguably the top team of the millennium - and beating them once - seems like a top team of the millennium to me. 19 seasons and can only think of maybe 3 I'd say are better. Miami debatable. One more title, but easier comp. in Finals (and never played a series without wade and Bosh).

 

[Shanemansj13]

Early 2000 Lakers
Spurs
Heat
Lakers again

Cavs are in top 5 without a doubt. Could of had 2 titles. I would rank them 5 for the fact they had to comeback 3-1 to win just one and a great one...the greatest comeback ever but all the other teams won more than one title. Were they playing possibly the best team ever? Yeah but in the grand scheme of things, nobody looks at the loser. Just the winner. Getting to the Finals and getting swept even if you only had one guy basically carrying the team isn't doing anything. Those Kyrie/Lebron/Love years where they played in the Finals were historic but still probably at 5 OVERALL since 2000. The title was sweet so not really arguing they were better than those Lakers, Heat, Spurs or even Big 3 Celtic teams.

 

[tlance]

Early 2000 Lakers
Spurs
Heat
Lakers again

Cavs are in top 5 without a doubt. Could of had 2 titles. I would rank them 5 for the fact they had to comeback 3-1 to win just one and a great one...the greatest comeback ever but all the other teams won more than one title. Were they playing possibly the best team ever? Yeah but in the grand scheme of things, nobody looks at the loser. Just the winner. Getting to the Finals and getting swept even if you only had one guy basically carrying the team isn't doing anything. Those Kyrie/Lebron/Love years where they played in the Finals were historic but still probably at 5 OVERALL since 2000. The title was sweet so not really arguing they were better than those Lakers, Heat, Spurs or even Big 3 Celtic teams.

I don’t disagree with any of that.

He is saying that specifically the 2017 team was behind only the KD Warriors and MAYBE the Shaq Kobe Lakers.

 

[dtgold88]

Early 2000 Lakers
Spurs
Heat
Lakers again

Cavs are in top 5 without a doubt. Could of had 2 titles. I would rank them 5 for the fact they had to comeback 3-1 to win just one and a great one...the greatest comeback ever but all the other teams won more than one title. Were they playing possibly the best team ever? Yeah but in the grand scheme of things, nobody looks at the loser. Just the winner. Getting to the Finals and getting swept even if you only had one guy basically carrying the team isn't doing anything. Those Kyrie/Lebron/Love years where they played in the Finals were historic but still probably at 5 OVERALL since 2000. The title was sweet so not really arguing they were better than those Lakers, Heat, Spurs or even Big 3 Celtic teams.

what about GS....the only team to beat them?

 

[dtgold88]

I don’t disagree with any of that.

He is saying that specifically the 2017 team was behind only the KD Warriors and MAYBE the Shaq Kobe Lakers.

yep. I am.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

That was a lot of words to not make any real point about players going straight from HS to the pros. Yes, for the majority of players it is the wrong choice, and the majority of players never went straight from HS to the pros. Yet for some it is a good choice. Zion could have easily done it and not risked a career ending injury while not being paid while everyone knew he was one and done. I believe it should still be an option and it is the teams' responsibility to make the right decision.

And this is a lot of words to say "I disagree and simply glossed over the main premise of the post". The point is, and in large part because of LeBron's impact, is that we as fans give ourselves too much false hope that these teens to come in and turn a franchise around the way he did however long ago it was.

While Zion may be the one exception to that, even he has yet to prove he can shake the injury bug from this his rookie campaign as well as his one season at Duke.

If you're a projected top 15-20 pick then you should always enter the draft out of HS if/when the NBA bring that back.

i dont agree.

Zion is prob case #1 for that.

How would you enforce this, though? Because if the said player falls into the second round, he instantly becomes of limited priority to the team that drafted him, and his career would be essentially wasted and unjustifiably so...